President Obama in Colorado pushing civilian disarmament

Standing in front of a gaggle o’ police, President Obama renewed his pitch for civilian disarmament. The Prez took a more conciliatory tone than his previous attempt, where waving the bloody shirt got his condescension on. Although Mr. Obama made a stab at calling for a federal high cap mag and modern sporting rifle ban (weapons from the theater of war don’t belong in a movie theater), he focused his rhetorical energy on universal background checks. Even then there was a distinct whiff of defeatism (combined with the usual petulance); the CIC said expanding the background check system wouldn’t be a magic bullet solution to crime and plaintively declared Americans “just want to see some progress.” Obama also poo-pooed the black helicopter crowd. Gun owners have nothing to fear from the government because “the government are us.” Speak for yourself boyo. Oh wait. Anyway, not gonna move the needle.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

56 COMMENTS

      • “Wait until I’m PRESIDENT-FOR-LIFE Barack Obama!“…

        You know I can’t help but wonder if that what this whole dog & pony show is with the Nork Doofus…

    • I just wish this sonofabitch had not just been re-elected so many of the morons who actually took him at his word about not coming for our liberty (guns) and voted for him, would have voted against him.
      Oh well, at least we can make other gov officials pay in 14′.
      Remember boyz, no more effing voting for libtards (democrats) EVER.

      • Sorry – I was one of the dufuses. Emailed and sent this via US Mail to the President.

        Wednesday, March 06, 2013

        Dear Mr. President Barack Obama:
        PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME AND EMAIL FROM YOUR LISTS OF SUPPORTERS. I NO LONGER SUPPORT YOU MR. PRESIDENT. I am deeply disappointed with your 180 degree change in direction on gun control: I voted for you and donated to your reelection campaign. My hard earned wages.
        In your campaign for reelection, you promised that gun control (more a gun grab from law abiding citizens who have committed no crime) was not on your agenda. You promised to focus on the economy and to reform and reduce the size of federal bureaucracies and conflicting regulations from the departments you control to get the economy going after failing to do so in your first term. Instead you come out with an ill thought out, counterproductive proposals for taking away law abiding citizens source of self defense against the criminals who would prey on us. All this in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States.
        I am not the problem. I am a law-abiding citizen who has lawfully purchased (and inherited) firearms under the strict laws of California. I will not be made into a criminal by emotional, factually challenged gun grabbers the likes of yourself, Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg. These so called “common-sense steps” are neither common nor sensible. The measures you put forward would have “zero impact” on gun violence, but would disarm and make law abiding citizens defenseless against the very criminals we seek to protect ourselves. None of them would have stopped Sandy Hook Elementary, that was committed by a deranged individual whose mother had reporting him to authorities trying to get help.
        The majority of the proposals presented a few weeks ago do nothing to curb gun violence or increase the safety of law abiding citizens. In fact they will decrease citizen safety by letting criminals know that people do not have the means to defend themselves. I support stricter background checks that include keeping the mentally ill, terrorists and criminal felons from acquiring firearms.
        Two recent murders highlight your policy’s inanity. The one case involves the murder of a 9 year old girl who sang at your inaugural, Hadiya Pendleton, who was gunned down according to Chicago news reports by two street gang members (already on parole and not allowed to own guns or other weapons). The other in a Las Vegas strip shooting a couple of weeks ago, a 26-year-old ex-convict was arrested in the shooting killing an aspiring rapper. Ex-convicts on parole cannot legally own firearms. It is common knowledge Rap Music is tied to inner city gangs and violence. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous. How about a 99% tax on Rap Music instead? That would do more to reduce gun violence than your proposed gun grab from law abiding citizens.
        Reducing gun crime means policing the inner cities, enforcing parole, rounding up and incarcerating the gangbangers/drug dealers for parole violation and for the new drug and weapons crimes they are committing. That will do more to decrease gun violence than confiscating my lawfully purchased firearms or levying a prohibitively expensive ammunition tax on law abiding citizens.
        With all this lawlessness (including the LAPD cop gone bad), I need my firearms to protect my family, my house and my property. It is a God given right recognized by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. I support efforts that will reduce gun crime, but not efforts to remove my ability to lawfully protect myself and family. I urge you to use common sense and pursue real, effective, proven means to reduce gun violence rather than this unconstitutional confiscation of my means of protection.

        • Good for you Tim. THIS is what I am hoping for in 14′ midterms. We will need this conversion because the next mass shooting could be the death blow for gun rights.

  2. When people tell me that the government would never seize our guns, I just remind them of Katrina, when the government did exactly that.

  4. Yeah, we want to see progress. We want to see the dems voted out so common sense can return to the country.

  5. Kind of creepy screen cap. I think I have seen a similiar picture someplace else (diferent face, same gesture). Just saying.

  6. There is a reason native Americans distrust and despise US government officials.

    Ye all speketh with forked tongues.

  7. Yes we want to see progress where the idiot politicians quit trying to stomp all over the Constitution and quit trying to pass laws that infringe upon our rights.

  8. Even right now, over at the Huffington Post, authors and readers insist that no one has been in the recent or distant past or current time trying to take our gun rights away. Trying to dialogue with those people is like trying to have a discussion with the insane.

  11. SO he throws DiFI a one sentence bone and then plays for Schumer’s bill AKA AWB in Obama’s mind is DOA. Agree Ralph??

    • Maybe. We’ll see. One thing we all know about Obama is that he has the willpower to try to do whatever he wants to do, no matter the consequences. He’s very sure of his omniscience. It ain’t over yet.

      • True but the AWB is no longer his main aim its gun registration. Keep calling and make sure he is a failure here like he fails to make America secure.

  12. Funny how he needs all thoes cops behind him every time he talks about what America “wants.” For once he is right though, I do want progress. I want someone in the White House who represents the people, not rules them. I didnt vote for him either time and this past election I voted for someone who didnt have a chance. People can flame on and say I may have well just voted for Obama, at least I can say I had the balls and integrity to stand by my beliefs. I do want progress but untill the majority of voters get their heads out of their @&&es it wont happen.

  13. Of course BHO just wants to see a little progress…toward the eventual suppression of all Second Amendment protections and the extinction of gun ownership among law abiding citizens.

    Of course then the only people left armed with guns will be the government and violent criminals. Interesting pairing, I say.

  14. Obama is exactly right. Americans do just want to see some progress.

    For instance, right now I’d like to see some progress that involves Obama leaving office (or at least keeping his mouth shut) and the prohibitionists leaving us alone. And while we’re wishing for things that will never happen, I’d like to win the lottery and have a viable third party to vote for. Is that so much to ask?

  15. Progress for progress’ sake is an incredibly dumb concept. The old “well we have to do something” trope. Funny how those “somethings” always end up depriving us gun folk of our rights.

    Any “reasonable” gun control is just another side-channel attack on us. Ratchet up the restrictions, make it harder for people to buy guns, less people buy guns, less gun owners to protest the next round of BS. (Great TTAG post on this subject: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/robert-farago/gun-rights-under-side-channel-attack/ )

    Bottom line: the Obama and his merry band of graboids simply don’t trust Americans with semi-auto rifles, (or any firearm for that matter.) How sick is that? How wrong is that?

    As for the President himself and his desire for “progress”, there’s a saying about rolling doughnuts and the moon…

  17. Funny how a word can have so many meanings. Progress used to mean something good, generally. Very different in the leftist lexicon. Examples:

    Equality For All – Preferential treatment for those I like.

    Intolerant – One who doesn’t agree with me.

    Common Sense – What I feel despite all reasoning.

    Justice For All – Justice for those I agree with.

    President – King

    Government – Overlords

    And, of course:

    Progress – Steps taken away from the pesky Constitution.

    So, no thank you, Tyrant in Chief. We’ve had enough “progress.” American subjects may want more, but American citizens want you to FOAD.

  18. so we have gone from an AWB to “something, please, anything.”

    well, the gun grabbers got a heck of a lot in maryland, NY, and other places. Let them be satisfied with that while we beat the pulp out of them for the next two years.

  20. I agree, I just want to see some progress on nationwide constitutional carry and the repeal of the NFA.

  22. So is he spending time in CO in front of all the cops to hang on to the coat tails of the successful anti-gunners there since he is a failure on the Federal level? Or is he taking the Nations attention away from all the real problems we have? It is interesting to contemplate because every thing he does is planned and has a purpose. I guess we will find out sooner or later but I have a feeling whatever it is it will not make us happy.

  23. He does want to take our guns. All of them. His career has been dedicated to doing that. The universal background check, AWBII, and magazine cap is just a first step in establishing that there is a way to do it. Just wedge that ban in there, wait a decade and ban some more. Once precedence is set, it becomes the legal equivalent of MadLibs -(insert gun type)- to ban anything they can convince the press to allow.

    -If he really wanted background checks, he would open the NICS hotline to everyone. Done. Then the conversation would be about making it an internet form instead of a phonecall.

    -If he really wanted to reduce gun crimes he wouldn’t even consider rifles. Rifles wouldn’t be on the radar. We would be talking about handguns – if anything. Biden would be touting AR-15’s to replace pistols instead of shotguns over AR’s.

    -If he really wanted to reduce violent crimes he would also be spending more time in the blue cities with high crime and shouting at his own voters, “stop letting your neighbors kill each other – you only have yourselves to blame!”

    -If magazine capacity truly mattered they would be aiming more for 100 rnd magazines. Stuff so obscure we probably wouldn’t give a damn. (Then they can do their MadLibs game later if they liked, and we wouldn’t have a chance to dial a senator before it was too late.)

    Instead we get him trying to label our guns with scary names like: High-capacity, weapons of war. And his arguments are labeled with soft titles like: Sensible, reasonable, deserving. He sees that he may be able to slide a ban under everyone’s nose while they sit there convinced by his charade that it truly is weaponry too deadly, too advanced, too powerful for civilian consumption, and too easy to acquire.

    He is dangerous because the press never questions him. They never challenge him. He can have as much screen time as he likes. He’s a marketing expert with a love for convincing the people to give up on the Constitution.

    That’s where we suck. We are terrible at marketing. Just when we start gaining ground a madman set us back. Never mind that violent crime has been on a steady decline. Never mind that the rise of conceal carry and the AWB sunset did not result in a sudden national mass murder-fest. We have the facts supporting our cause but the press isn’t interested. We have a Constitutional amendment that declares such bans are off limits! Doesn’t matter to the press. They are not taking Obama to task and asking how his plan is going to work or if it’s even legal. We really need to work on our marketing skills. This should be an easy debate for us to win, but we can’t get the mass media to listen.

  24. I don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorists, or part of the black helicopter crowd, but I defiantly think there’s a fishy smell resonating from DHS HQ, and nothing BHO or any other government official says is going to make me feel comfortable with whatever they’re up to.

    • +1

      DHS is a now a de facto paramilitary federal entity with a 25 billion a year budget, and immune to the posse comitatus act.

  28. I didn’t think hitlers skin was that dark. He will probably want to lay in a supply of bleach because he sure thinks he knows whats best for everybody, just like goosestep boy. Sometimes I wonder if he isn’t 3 fries short of a happy meal, Randy

  29. I didn’t think hitlers skin was that dark. He will probably want to lay in a supply of bleach because he sure thinks he knows whats best for everybody, just like goosestep boy. Sometimes I wonder if he isn’t 3 fries short of a happy meal, Randy

  32. Hmm, OK. Not bending over and giving up rights whenever something bad happens would be progress, wouldn’t it? Yeah, I’d like to see us do that.

  34. If the Government were us, what would it look like?

    1. balanced budget
    2. Total Border Security
    3. lying politicians would be tarred and feathered in front of the Capital.
    4. Schools would only teach reading, writing, arithmetic for the primary grades.
    5. what else?

  35. Gun owners have nothing to fear from the government because “the government are us.”

    Then why is it OK for government to have “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” but not, you know, us?

  36. “the government is us” now excuse me while I go piss on the Constitution with the consent of the entire Federal apparatus, including SCOTUS.

Comments are closed.