Oh, Come Off It

I understand that the rhetorical point here is that American conservatives are all horrid racists, but this is nonsense.
Seven years into the Obama presidency the right feels the same way about President Obama as I would if I woke up tomorrow and a talking horse were president. I'd be like, "Seriously? This horse is the president? Well, that just doesn't make any sense. Lemme see that horse's papers. I know I saw them before, but I just want to see them one more time."

The big difference between me and the right is that after seven years of the Mr. Ed presidency I think I would start to settle in and believe it was true. But to the loudest members of the GOP, something still doesn't feel right about this Obama character being President. So they can't trust anything that comes out of his mouth.
You know what else the President said? He said that if you liked your plan, you could keep it.

The President also said that he did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

The President also said "Read my lips, no new taxes."

Treating Barack Obama's word as suspect isn't to treat Obama as a suspicious figure somehow holding the noble office of the Presidency. It's to treat him exactly as Presidents have shown for decades that they ought to be treated. To question whether he's lying to you is to treat him exactly as you would treat a President if you are a free citizen and want to remain one.
And let me be clear about something else, gun owners. I want President Obama to want to take your guns away. I don't trust you with your guns.
Duly noted.


E Hines said...

And let me be clear about something else, gun owners. I want President Obama to want to take your guns away. I don't trust you with your guns.

Μολών λαβέ

Regarding the "lies" of Bush the Elder, Clinton, and Obama, I wouldn't put them in the same category. Bush's was a foolish promise that he couldn't keep. Clinton's and Obama's remarks were deliberate lies, made with no pretense of truth, with in Obama's case, no foolish optimism of their keepability: he had no intention of keeping that claim, nor any others that he made. He knew full well the impossibility of his promises at the time he made them. Every single one of them.

Eric Hines

raven said...

We can assume the writer has no intention of taking away guns himself- but thinks others will take guns away at his request.
He thinks this will ensure he is out of the line of fire. His understanding of history in general, and fourth generational warfare in particular, is poor.

As a child, I once saw a man burn a large brush pile with gas. He climbed on top, and poured the contents of a five gallon can on the pile. Summer heat made the fumes shimmer in the air. He climbed back on again and poured a second five gallons on. Satisfied with his efforts he threw on a match. Satisfaction came to a rapid reconsideration. People should be careful when lighting fires.

Grim said...

That works better with diesel fuel.

You're right, though. Had the President followed his imaginary path, the result would not have been what he imagines.

MikeD said...

I love that we keep being bombarded with claims "no one wants to take away your guns", except for the fact that the New York Times and this CNN Opinion blog where they explicitly tell us they want to take away our guns.

And I seriously do not believe that they understand what will happen the day they get their wish, and a President (or Congress) attempts to confiscate firearms. My wife and I had this discussion over the weekend where she said (while we were talking about the makeup of the SCOTUS) "I'm not really concerned if the Heller decision is overturned." I pointed out that the instant Heller is overturned, some State, somewhere (likely New York or perhaps California) or even the Federal Government will take the opportunity to ban firearms for private use, and that will absolutely spur a revolution. She seemed doubtful about that, but I am positive that the armed citizenry will not accept such a move as anything other than a tyrannical abuse of their inalienable rights. And all the liberal wishcasting in the world that "guns don't mean a thing against tanks and planes" to the contrary, it will end in only one way, and that is an overthrow of the government by the citizens who will not be quite so understanding of liberal niceties at that point. So if someone is worried that a changed SCOTUS makeup will mean the curtailing of their personal policy preferences, they probably want to make sure the Heller decision stands.

And I understand that to some, that may sound like a threat. It is no such thing. It is a warning. The armed citizenry of this nation are primed to expect such a move, and will absolutely take such a move as nothing short of a complete validation of their worst fears. The will not sit passively and allow themselves to be disarmed, they will fight, and that fight will 100% drag in federal troops at some point. And that will both cause a mass mutiny among the armed forces AND a simultaneous national uprising.

Now, my wife seemed to think I was worried too much because "who's going to go door to door to collect the guns?" As if the whole point is moot because law enforcement will either refuse to obey the law, or just no one will volunteer to try and confiscate the guns. But to me, if local law enforcement fails to do so (which I somewhat doubt, but will ultimately split along jurisdictions as to which sheriffs or police chiefs will try to enforce it), then that guarantees federal involvement (because an administration that puts a Supreme Court Justice on the bench to overturn Heller would absolutely send in troops in the event that law enforcement cannot or will not enforce their policy preferences), which makes the worst case scenario inevitable in my mind.

I truly dread that those in favor of confiscation really do not understand this. They truly believe that once passed as a law, gun confiscation will just proceed with police taking away guns and everyone will just accept it (because "guns are no match for tanks and planes"). And that is a fatal misconception.

Grim said...

I would think that a Presidential order would spark a mutiny on the order of ~50% of the armed forces (more than 40% are recruited from the American South, where guns are a celebrated aspect of the culture), and a majority of sheriffs (as they are mostly in rural areas). Urban PDs and Federal agencies might not mutiny, so you'd get some confiscation activity going on in urban centers, but hundreds of millions of guns would be in areas where nobody was willing to confiscated them.

If the President didn't back off of an explicitly unconstitutional order that resulted in a widescale mutiny, he or she would have to be a fool of gigantic proportions. Backing down, though, would damage the credibility of the institution tremendously. It's still the best case scenario, of course, since the President would deserve to have his or her effective power crippled by such a move.

Should the government manage to round up enough people to try to go house to house, though, I think you're right -- we'd have a shooting war right away. It would be necessary, because if you surrender your arms to a government that is willing to explicitly ignore its Constitution, you're accepting whatever else they decide to do in the same motion. There would be no choice but to fight.

Texan99 said...

Don't forget "I am not a crook."

Grim said...


raven said...

The left fails to understand the ramifications of their hallowed slogan, "Think globally, act locally", and what it would mean if used against them with fervor. Because of an ingrained, almost genetic belief in top down decision making, they just can't grasp that it will not be "patriots" against tanks and A10's. It will be fought the same way Carlos Escobar was brought down, by continuously chopping away at the roots and limbs till the tree is bare in the wind, a defenseless trunk with no way to feed itself.
At this point every interest group in the country will be in an armed struggle to secure their own turf, points going big time to those who secure the missile fields in the west.
It is dangerous and reckless to incite revolts, and the end state is always a mystery.

Anonymous said...

This is from CNN, the "news" outlet that allowed one of its VPs to run around for TWO YEARS telling foreigners that US troops were targeting journalists, and only let him go when somebody caught him dead to rights and demanded disclosure of the video from a conference.

They never released the video of Eason Jordan's remarks, and I do not watch them.

Eason Jordan is also the guy who said CNN failed to report factual matters they knew about Saddam Hussein.

They have made no effort to clean up their act.


raven said...

^^ I meant to say "Pablo" not Carlos.

Ymar Sakar said...

Whatever gets the people ready to fight and hate their enemies, is fine with me. It's not like the enemies of humanity is going to have an agreement to wait and do nothing while the rest prepare.

At a certain point in time, things are out of circulation and events take on their own inevitable rolling call of fate.

Ymar Sakar said...

The idea that the Regime will depend on military or police forces for confiscation, is by now way paste the obsolete date. That's what the civilian security forces are for. That's what the jihadists are for. Certainly, some might belong to similar organizations such as New Orlean's gun confiscation units.

But they don't need the military to confiscate ranches from ranchers after shooting up the place. They don't need the federal military to land on top of the Tea Party or patriots in Wisconsin. That is not their SOP. It's the counter insurgency SOP of an American patriotic faction in the occupation slot, but it's not the SOP of the Leftist alliance when they are the occupiers.

Anonymous said...

I believe MikeD is correct. A further point, we have a large (relatively) number of veterans that have been forced out of the military due to drawdowns. These are veterans that have fought almost entirely in urban environments against outgunned insurgents. In fighting that enemy, they learned how that enemy fights, and it is that experience they can turn against any Federal or LEO force that does attempt confiscation.

Your average LEO ticket-writer has nothing to bring to the fight against veterans with multiple combat tours against such an enemy. Hopefully that will factor into your average cop's decision-making should the order come to take away private firearms.


Ymar Sakar said...

Hopefully that will factor into your average cop's decision-making should the order come to take away private firearms.

The average cop has about as much authority to make his own decisions as the average teacher, which may actually be lower than that of a "Colonel" in the Arabic military.

And let me be clear about something else, gun owners. I want President Obama to want to take your guns away. I don't trust you with your guns.

Only a fool would think an enemy of humanity would trust humans with anything. Those who expected mercy from the Left when they deployed their power and forces... well that speaks for itself.