Ex Obama Secret Service Exposes Gun Control Agenda

Anthony Gucciardi
by
May 31st, 2013
Updated 05/31/2013 at 12:23 am

I recently spoke with former Obama Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who actually left his career to inform the public on the reality behind the gun control debate and campaign for office.

You may know Bongino from his inspiring speech on the subject of how gun control is really not centered around the control of guns, but in fact the control of the individuals who own and carry them. Quite simply, ‘gun control’ is really about people control. A reality that very few talking heads within the gun debate who push for gun control truly understand (or are willing to admit).

Sociopathic control freaks inside government, many of which Bongino is certainly familiar with working deep within Secret Service for Obama, are simply utilizing gun control legislation and regulation to exercise yet more control over the individual with the ultimate goal of eroding the very checks and balances provided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at large. But why?

Well, without the rights legally granted by the Constitution, which are actually being illegally bypassed through legislation like the Patriot Act and the NDAA (two pieces of legislation that Obama has signed off on despite voicing opposition to Bush-era creations like the Patriot Act), then bloated government can do virtually anything it pleases. And those at the top of this bloated government system would ultimately stand to gain. We see this throughout history as certain forms of ‘equal’ government are pushed by those at the top who in fact hog the resources for themselves under the guise of government duty and use phony patriotism (or worse)┬áto silence the opposition.

Second Amendment’s Demise Signifies Constitution Collapse

Today, legislation is being written that ignores the Constitution. From gun control and spy bills to internet censorship and tax hikes that fund the mega bankers, we are seeing the Constitution thrown into the fire over and over. But if we truly lose the Second Amendment through a major gun ban, or perhaps the Supreme Court decides it is ‘outdated’, then we are truly setting ourselves up to lose the entire Bill of Rights at large. And until we understand this, the ‘gun debate’ will rage on.

Like Dan, I was never really into firearms until I realized the importance of the Second Amendment when it comes to our rights granted by God and the Constitution. At the end of the day, it’s not really even about the firearm to a large extent.

Share Button

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Second Amendment

Anthony Gucciardi

About the Author ()

Google Plus Profile Anthony Gucciardi is the creator of Storyleak, accomplished writer, producer, and seeker of truth. His articles have been read by millions worldwide and are routinely featured on major alternative news websites like Drudge Report, Infowars, NaturalNews, G Edward Griffin's Reality Zone, and many others. He is also a founding member of the third largest alternative health site in the world, NaturalSociety.com.

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. David Watson says:

    You had me all the way up until “God.” Why is “God” necessary?

    • Jon says:

      This country was inspired by the principals of the Bible that man has been endowed with certain rights by his creator God which includes self defense. Martin Luther King wrote in his speech from Alabama jail, to address with clergy men who sided with societies laws at the time of segregation to say that there is a law that transcends laws of men, and that man's laws are only justified according to God's law which the founding fathers knew. If God isn't necessary for a foundation of moral justice than we can't justly say that the nazi's did was wrong or what pol pot did was wrong it's only wrong to us…but for them it's right…you can't live in such non-sense.

      • Joe S says:

        To be fair, Nazi leadership was entirely Catholic, and believed their right were “granted by god.”

        • Rey Jaso says:

          Joe, you're absolutely correct. Many catholics do not have a clue. All the footage shown on tv about Hitler, not one time has it been mentioned the Vatican was the force behind WW2.

  2. jackson says:

    Thank you for your work Anthony.

  3. Linked9 says:

    Dan Bongino is spot on, I love his speech in his Youtube video also. Thanks Anthony.

  4. Guest says:

    I believe the Constitution does not "grant" any rights because whatever is granted can also be taken away. Those are not rights but privileges as our overlords love to reminds us.

    • Strider55 says:

      Exactly. The Bill of Rights grants nothing. It secures and protects the natural rights that God endowed us with.

      • I agree with this as well, the Constitution is essentially a document of common understanding — our basic birth rights granted by God rights placed on paper as competently as possible. In fact, Dan and I receive a lot of flak for this.

        • Guest says:

          Think of the US Constitution as a *restraining order* issued by the people on the federal government. The role of the central (federal) government is to obey the Constitution which alone will secure the inherent rights of the individual.

      • BravoDeltaKilo says:

        But what if there is no God?

  5. what is with these statements?

    "without the rights legally granted by the Constitution"

    "until I realized the importance of the Second Amendment when it comes to our rights granted by God and the Constitution."

    love the information in the article, but someone needs to explain to the writer that our rights don't come FROM nor are they granted BY the constitution…. the Constitution was written to set up and limit the federal government and protect our rights – not establish them….we have them whether the document exists or not.

    • Michelle, I actually agree with you 100%. As I mentioned in the other comment, God determines our rights and the Constitution protects them. Sadly many people fail to see this to the full extent, so from a purely legal point of view we're talking about the Constitution being the source of these rights for some.

      That said, you're spot on — thanks for the great comment.

  6. LibertyBill says:

    Be sure to understand the difference between "Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights"

    See: &lt ;http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm>

    Defined: UNALIENABLE.
    The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

    You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights. …All individual's have unalienable rights.

    Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

    See: &lt ;http://grammarist.com/usage/inalienable-unalienable> Reader's (see @:12centuries) comment: Cheers!

    LibertyBill

  7. Gail Combs says:

    Stomping on the Constitution seems to be common place now. We have the right to Petition the government with our grievances but only when and where the government allows it despite the Bill of Rights saying there should be no laws to abridge this right.

    There is another "Right" granted by Constitutional Amendment that deserves much wider press and never receives it. That is our right to a trial by jury as granted by the 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 in civil and criminal matters.

    Most Americans think anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial. This is simply not the case and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order to specifically reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial.

    As Thomas Jefferson said in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial.

    <quote>
    The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …

    The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.

    In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendment
    <unquote>

    Trial by jury is very important because the jury has the RIGHT and DUTY to judge not only the person but the law. Jurorists CAN set aside laws passed by Congress. This is the ultimate power of the people over the government and the powerful want to keep it well buried. This is why we now have to deal with ‘Regulations’ instead of ‘Laws’. It is a way of getting around the power given to the people by the Constitution and Amendments. The Constitution gives us the right to a trial by jury but the Supreme Court has limited that right.

    Our right to a jury trial in civil and criminal cases has been removed and replaced by determination by a bureaucrat or police officer. Regulations are written by bureaucrats and are NOT voted on by our representatives and those regulations are then enforced by bureaucrats without trial. We are now a country run by bureaucrats with no control over those who write and enfore the 'laws'

    Civil Asset Forfeiture is a prime example of this twisting of our Constitutional right to trial.
    <quote> "Innocent owners who are never charged with a crime still must prove their innocence in complex proceedings. .  Under civil asset forfeiture laws, the simple possession of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity." <unquote>

    See:
    FEAR, Civil Asset Forfeiture: http://www.fear.org

    Drug Enforcement's Double-Edged Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs: http://www.fear.org/chron/study.txt

    Fully Informed Jury Association: http://fija.org/

  8. The Roman Catholic Church will forever carry the shame of being soft headed and stupid about the Nazi's, but, as a Protestant myself, I must confess the dereliction of Christian duty exhibited by my fellow Protestants who were around also at the time. It was all part and parcel of the total moral collapse. Only a few individuals of various stripes resisted properly as far as I can tell. Most of the masses went along.

  9. Shady says:

    My question to the Anti-Gunners is this who is going to stop criminals from getting and using guns to commit crimes. Who is going to go take away guns from them. With guns we would be a third world country at best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *