Yes, Obama fits under the “write in” category for Gun Restrictions

by Skip

Gun control StupidityIf anything were to prove Obama’s deep ideological bias and hatred towards the American right to self-defense via the Second Amendment, it was last night when he tried conflating Islamic Jihad terrorist (and the risible lessening of such there of) by a citizen’s decreased right to own and bear arms by the use of a purely Administrative tool (the No Fly list).

Perhaps for folks like US Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), maybe Choice E fits.  For her, I cannot think of any other reason other than the perception, that many in law enforcement share, that citizens are not up to having such in this “modern age”.

No, Obama needs a category all his own: F.  A fitting letter, that, but trouble for us all, as it fits for “The State, and only The State, should posses the means of violence“.  Which means, in hard and horrible terms, that His State no longer needs the consent of the govern.  For you see, they are no longer the “consenters”, we’d be the subjects.  There is much to be said, if you think about it, that a law abiding citizen IS a Citizen (aka, The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen).

Obama only sees The Collective and its component sub-groups.  Think back over the last 7 years – when has he really said anything that truly mattered (i.e., not mere lip service) concerning the Individual?  The Individual was the primary focus of the Founders – Liberty, Freedom, Choice – a radical idea that we each were sovereign and answerable to God our Creator.  I don’t believe that Obama believes in that at all – instead, his god is The Collective, the State, and he is the High Priest of it.

Thus his petulance last nite and the last few months as he realized that we aren’t just no longer listening but actively rebelling (that would be his Capital Sin in his Bible).  He lectured us more last night than he did about the terrorists or Islamic Jihad as if WE are the problem.  I guess, that, in his mind, we are – why WON’T we be persuaded that we are lower than earthworms and not accepting His Decrees as Gospel (but then I circle back to that “bitter clingers to religion and guns” shtick he foists upon us).

This from Charles Cook over at The Corner fits well in here:

Tonight, President Obama argued that America should not respond to ISIS by “abandoning our values or giving in to fear.” And then he suggested that we gut the Fifth Amendment and cast those who disagree with him as zealots interested only in making sure that everyone is armed.

The Constitution IS our foundational public value – but gaslighting he does.  A slight of truth, and then the Apple of Progressivism: sure, go ahead and take a bit – you’ll LOVE what will happen next (just don’t look at the history of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, Commie China before they started to adopt a form of capitalism, or the absolute poverty of Cuba and now Venezuela).  The mask slips down over these foreign ideas in the attempt to Americanize them.

Make no mistake: He knows exactly what he’s doing here. As Ramesh points out, he:

was demagogic on what he called, misleadingly, the “no fly list,” suggesting that there is no argument for letting suspected terrorists buy guns. In truth, the terrorist-watch list that congressional Democrats want to use to restrict gun rights is much broader than the no-fly list; there is no due process for the people on it; and the people on it are in no serious sense “suspected terrorists,” and the administration has no plans to treat them as such for purposes beyond restricting gun rights.

I expect this from Harry Reid. I expect this from Chuck Schumer. But from the president, who is supposed to be everybody’s leader? Outrageous. The president likes to say that we are attacked because we’re tolerant and free, and then he suggests that we indulge intolerance and make ourselves less free. This proposal had no place in his speech tonight. That he included it was a disgrace.

It proves that everything is political for him and his ilk – and that any event should and will be used for any part of The Agenda at any time.  The personal is political and the political is the personal – why else has each and every holiday been overtaken by the Left’s constant whining “Talk about this issue at YOUR holiday table and here’s the talking points to take on crazy Uncle Sam when he objects”.

Why else use a speech (insipid, boring, and pendantic it was) that would take what most people wanted to know about (what is Obama going to do about THIS TERRORIST ATTACK ON OUR SOIL when he just said “don’t worry, be happy – Government has this”) and flip-turn it to his pet domestic agenda item (civilian disarmament) and his favorite activity (lecturing that WE should think, feel, and believe just like him – freedom to be ourselves be damned!).

(Image H/T: Liberal Logic 101)


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: