A lot of people are complaining about Obama, these days.  From Obamacare, which makes it impossible for many people to get insurance where they may have had it in the past (while encouraging employers to cut employee's hours from full to part-time), to Gun Control, to whether he was even born in the USA to begin with (there are good arguments out there), there's no shortage of complaints.

Actually, this helps to demonstrate a symptom of our President's personality.  Obamacare is the biggest demonstrator of all.  He's narcissistic, and has a complete lack of empathy for the people he's supposed to represent.  He also has no respect for the Constitution he's supposed to defend.

That's a big accusation, you might say.  I'll agree with you, it is a big accusation.  It is, however, an accusation that's true.  President Obama assumes that everyone has the same financial, political, and popular means that he has.  What this means is that when he writes a bill or has one written, the bill is written for him, and not for the citizens of his country, and not following the dictates of his country's Constitution.  Obamacare being the first example at hand, we'll take a quick look at how it fits the example.

Obamacare is written for Obama: The bill assumes that everyone in the USA has identical health care needs, and has identical health care providers and insurance.  If someone's health insurance fails to meet the standards of Obamacare, it's no longer permitted.  Period.  Obamacare assumes that everyone in the United States has a full time (40 hours per week) job - and the bill is written so that all medium to large employers of full-time employees are required to provide top-quality health insurance - no matter if that employer can afford to do so, or not.  Obviously, this leads to more jobs, and less hours per job.  You cannot expect a small Burger King franchise to provide top-notch health insurance to it's employees and still keep burger prices within range of the general public.  This leads to Obamacare's next trap - the un- and under-insured.  If you don't carry Obamacare insurance, then you're liable to be fined.  While it's still legal (barely) to pay cash at a doctor's office, you still better have a fully capable insurance policy according to Obama.  If not, then be prepared to be fined.

I'm sure we've only just scratched the surface, here, but the basic truth that's revealed by this is: President Barack Obama has no empathy for the people.  He doesn't understand what it's like to be less than rich.  He doesn't understand what it's like to not have political influence.  He doesn't understand that the majority of Americans don't go without insurance because they, or their employers, don't want them to have insurance - it's because insurance is expensive, so they take what they can get.

Along with that lack of empathy that allows our President to blithely go through his day writing bills that require most Americans to bankrupt themselves is the narcissism that what he wants and believes is the only right way to want or believe anything.  Because of this narcissistic tendency, he's perfectly willing to break the American Constitution into shards.  The very founders of this country put into it's Constitution the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  This doesn't mean just the weapons that a politician decides are ok for him to possess.  This doesn't mean that all United States citizens must get permission to buy a gun, or get a permit to carry it.

The right to keep arms means that anyone in the USA has the right to buy and possess any weapon that he can use himself.  This obviously leaves cannon and tanks out of the picture, as those require multiple men to move and use, but definitely includes any other easily man-portable weapon, whether it be knife, sword, pistol, or AR-15.  Whether any individual person needs a fully automatic weapon shouldn't even be a question - firing a weapon on full-auto is simply wasteful of ammunition, while being very unlikely to ever hit a target.  WMDs - Weapons of Mass Destruction - such as nuclear devices and truckloads of C4 also definitely do not fall under "arms."  Arms are simply hand-held and controlled weapons for protection and combat that can be used with precision, rather than blunt broad-area destructive forces.

The Right to Bear Arms is... simply the right to carry said weapons, be it knife, sword, pistol or rifle.  Certainly some businesses might feel it best if their patrons not have such weapons on their persons while on the premises, such as at bars, but since most bars need to have someone checking IDs at the door to keep minors out, they can also have patrons check their weapons at the door.  It worked pretty well in the Old West - with modern technology, it can work even better.

The founders of the United States didn't intend for the people to run about in an anarchic state, but to be a self-governing people.  Many of the intents and even stated purposes of the Constitution have been bent, or even broken, but the more this continues on, the less relevant that Constitution becomes.  Once a country no longer has any relevance to the Constitution on which it was built, it no longer has any relevance to the people who live within it's borders.  When that happens, revolutions happen.  Those who came before us had some words to say on the topic:

  To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
         ---Alexander Hamilton

  [W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
         ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
(Note that he speaks not of a political party, but of the Republic itself)

 [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
         ---George Mason

 Today it is our own government which attempts to weaken it's citizens, and when our government falters in that goal, the United Nations attempts to push laws to weaken the United States' citizens through our own Congress, and if not that, to force it upon us all though artfully crafted treaties.   Today, those artfully crafted bits of Constitution Breakage are aimed at our right to keep and bear arms.  Tomorrow... who knows what they'll be aiming for?