Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
 
Backwoods Home Magazine, self-reliance, homesteading, off-grid

Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Newsletter
 Letters
 Humor
 Free Stuff
 Recipes
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 ePublications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Behind The Scenes
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 Where We Live
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 Energy Questions
 Bramblestitches

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Meet The Staff
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy


Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Links
 Feedback
 Radio Show


Link to BHM

Living Freedom by Claire Wolfe. Musings about personal freedom and finding it within ourselves.

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Claire Wolfe

Obama and his disarmament wishlist

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

Everybody — everyblogger — is supposed to make some comment on Obama’s anti-gun announcement today. I’ve been thinking about it and here’s mine: I don’t care.

It doesn’t matter whether he called for outright confication (he didn’t; not yet) or whether he actually wussed out under “conservative” pressure. (H/T D for the link even if I don’t buy its nice, hopeful content.)

Yeah, it kinda ticks me off that the Washington Post, which surely knows better, calls some of Obama’s most facile propaganda (page two of this Post artitorial) a “Constitutional argument.” Constitutional argument my Aunt Fanny; Obama’s remarks about the Second Amendment interfering with the First show not even a high school level of understanding about the purpose of the Bill of Rights. And I’m sure the WaPo editors know that.

Yes, it’s sickening to see Our Glorious Leader, just like Stalin, surrounding himself with little tot-lets to demonstrate his pretend benevolence. Sickening to hear the media endorsing the idea that eight year olds should write U.S. law.

It pains me, as I’m sure it pains you, to hear the constant misuse of terminology and the constant lies and misunderstandings about firearms that have been dragged out by the media (again!) since the Newtown murders.

But what Obama said? I. Don’t. Care.

First, the actions he took and recommendations he made are pretty wussy compared with what some people feared. No doubt there are hidden time bombs in them. But a renewal of the ugly-gun ban and the elimination of private sales still have a long and really iffy way to go before they become law. And if that private-sale ban does take us by force, the civil disobedience — the creative disregard — are going to be fascinating.

But the real reason I don’t care — and the real reason people who stand up for their rights shouldn’t care — is that no matter what Obama says or does, no matter what soggy rot the media produces, no matter how many adorable children are trotted out for propaganda purposes — WE WILL NOT YIELD.

We have yielded enough. It stops here. We are free people. And no gangs of political thugs, no cowering hoplophobes using police and soldiers as their “beards,” and no compromising lobbying groups or “acts of bipartisanship” are going to take anything more away from us.

So, Mr. Obama, go ahead and posture all you like. Say whatever you want. You are not the boss of me. You are not the boss of any free person. You are an irrelevancy.

One day you will be remembered as we now remember the multitudes of corrupt, controlled minor emperors of the falling Roman empire — with derision, if at all.

24 Responses to “Obama and his disarmament wishlist”

  1. lelnet Says:

    Some folks were raving about how he was going to somehow confiscate all the guns by Executive Order or some such nonsense. Didn’t happen. Ain’t gonna happen.

    So he issues a few toothless and pointless directives to federal agencies, and then narratively asks Congress to step up to the plate and ban all the guns. Which even Obama’s staunchest allies in Congress have flatly said they can’t do and won’t do. And hell, right now you couldn’t get both houses of Congress to agree on a nonbinding resolution in praise of baseball, motherhood, and apple pie — let alone an actual law against guns.

    It’s all theater. Nothing is going to happen, because they don’t _want_ anything to happen. But the Democrats will go back to their constituents next election and cry “we tried…we tried SO HARD to ban all the guns, but those damned Republicans are too powerful…you’ve got to send even more of us, this time around, if you want us to get rid of the guns”. And the Republicans will go back to their constituents next election and cry “those damned Democrats tried SO HARD to ban all the guns! But we fought ‘em back! It was a pretty near thing, though, and they’re bound to try again, so unless you want the government to come for your guns, you’d best send even more of us back this time around!”.

    Seriously. Who didn’t see this coming? Find a political scenario that can play out in a way where Democrat politicians win, Republican politicians win, and ordinary citizens get bamboozled…well, that’ll be a story you can pretty safely bet on seeing come to pass.

  2. David Says:

    I was all ready to say I didn’t care, but then you said it better.

    FWIW I also don’t care because I don’t think the people living within the notional borders of the US really changed their minds much at all on the subject. I suspect the suddenly-noisy gun-grabbers are shooting themselves in the foot all over the place. Which is okay with me.

  3. Laird Says:

    I love that last sentence. Perfect!

    As to our laws being written by eight-year-olds, perhaps that’s just as it should be. Certainly that’s about the emotional and intellectual maturity level of far too many of our national “leaders”. But more than that, we’re becoming an entire nation of children, increasingly infantilized by decades of nanny-stateism, generations of welfareism, an increasingly dumbed-down education system, and public media (news as well as entertainment) targeted to the lowest among us. The level of our public discourse is reflects this trend.

    In the end, as a people we get the government we deserve. We’ve earned Obama.

  4. Matt, another Says:

    Well said. I didn’t listen to the actual speech, my meds can only do so much afterall, but I did read the list of telling the various federal agencies to do their jobs, but better this time. He punted. I would say someone mumbled in his ear that he had pushed his “party” far enough and needed to back off if he wants anything else done. He will now continue to grandstand and let everyone know that he didn’t cave into the NRA, or to congress etc. The NRA and congress can claim they held the president to impotent administrative instructions.

    Now maybe they can take care of serious problems facing our nation;.

  5. Claire Says:

    “Now maybe they can take care of serious problems facing our nation.”

    Glad you put the smiley on that. :-)

  6. Joel Says:

    So…no “conversation,” then?

    I’m very sad. I was looking forward to a good confab. But here’s my side of the discussion anyway: No.

  7. Kent McManigal Says:

    If writing “laws” were a legitimate human activity- which it is NOT- then I’d trust 8 year-olds before I’d trust Congress- but only as long as they had been unschooled.

    Here’s my entry: Blame not the tyrant, blame the people who obey him

  8. Kent McManigal Says:

    “…as a people we get the government we deserve. We’ve earned Obama.

    Ummmm. No. “We” didn’t. At least not this part of “we”… I can’t speak for everyone else.

  9. jed Says:

    Some people were asking me early this AM if I was going to listen to Obama. I had the same reaction. I have no interest at all in listenting to that narcissistic, marxist, pompous, ignorant, bloviating, fascist gasbag. I don’t care about his undisguised manipulative theatrics. Of course, I expect nothing else from him, nor from any of the other politicos on Capitol Hill — they’ve been engaging in theatrics for decades. It’s just gotten more brazen, particularly with the new mass media fawning over them like groupies. Why should I care what they say or think? Well, unfortunately, I’m stuck with the tax burden, and at some point they might declare me an enemy of the state for quoting James Madison at them. But other than that, I prefer to pay them as much regard as I do to my intestinal fauna (less, actually).

    And Laird, while I can think of some people who richly deserve to be governed by a bunch of elitist progressives, I ain’t one of them, and I certainly didn’t earn it. Nor do I consent. (Gosh, I’m feeling all Spoonerist now.)

  10. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit Says:

    Claire, have you ever READ some of the laws that get passed? I’m up for giving some eight year olds a shot at it. ;-)

    Oh, and tickled Jim Bovard’s fancy with this one today:

    “Any person that unequivocally requires me to be a potential victim, because of his personal phobias and prejudices, has lost all credibility to be any part of a serious discussion on resolving a problem.”

    Anonymous local attorney

    Though his current thinking on a state level is pretty apt:

    http://jimbovard.com/blog/2013/01/16/new-york-gun-control-law-restricts-everything-except/

  11. Steve Says:

    Molon Labe

  12. Bonnie Says:

    I haven’t read all the president’s suggestions yet – I’ve been having too much fun reading the responses. But a person mentioned that he wants doctors to ask patients how many guns they have at home. Anyone with common sense would answer zero. Some years ago I had to fill out a form at the doctor’s office. Two questions I remember were: Does you spouse beat you (or words to that effect) and Do you have guns in the home. I said no. What business was it of their’s?

  13. naturegirl Says:

    If it accomplished anything, that would be to push the ones over the line or off the fence….gun & ammo sales boomed, yes, but the hidden part of that is all the people who woke up and had to actually think about how quickly their freedoms are disappearing – to make a decision to say no more often….to really think about what’s going on now a days…it was a lot of noise that couldn’t be ignored…

  14. furrydoc Says:

    Clap, clap, clap….if you could see me you would know I am standing. enough said.

  15. WolfSong Says:

    The thing that irks me is the whining about Obama’s kids being off limits, and people shouldn’t mention them and the special treatment they get, but at the very same time, the tyrannical douche(and the bag he came in) that Obama is, surrounds himself with other people’s kids, and exploits the hell out of them.
    Of course, as a Canadian the t.d’s orders aren’t aimed at me, but still, blatant hypocrisy annoys the crap out of me.

  16. Mike James Says:

    Fast and Furious. He is responsible for it, and he has yet to pay any sort of price, or be held to account at all. He’s nominating a new Secretary of Defense, but not a new Attorney General. He likes the one that’s there now. We have a ways to go.

    Please forgive my pointing this out. Sammy blinkin’ Sunshine, that’s me.

  17. A.G. Says:

    As the others have pointed out…well done.

  18. wrm Says:

    It’s not that you won’t yield, it’s that you _can’t_ yield.

    You see, you’re making the point that it’s not about hunting — it’s about protecting yourselves from a tyrannical government, right?

    So, this is it. You either have to protect yourself against this tyrannical government, or you have to yield.

    If you yield, it’s endgame, and you will, eventually, not in your lifetime, end up like Britain-the-formerly-Great.

    I’m reminded of a text adventure game I played, where the (female) player has, close to the start of the game, the option to get in a car with a stranger. From that point on, you are dead. The game carries on for a long time, but once you get in that car, there are no other eventualities. You end up dead. This… is pretty much the same thing.

  19. Bustednuckles Says:

    The one thing that gives me pause for concern is the mental health aspect he throws in, everyone kind of overlooks just how easily those parameters can be changed.
    What “condition” can be included in those parameters?
    Damn near any behavior these days can have an acronym thrown at it and it suddenly becomes a “syndrome” or such shite.

    I think you see what I am getting at here……..

  20. MamaLiberty Says:

    If you are concerned about where this “mental health” thing is going – and yes, it is a real threat – the best place to start is with an honest evalutation of the “mental health” field and its practitioners.

    Dr. Thomas Szasz was a pioneer in challenging the established wisdom of establishment psychiatry – including the indiscriminate drug use. Fight fear with information.

    From the New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/12839-the-passing-of-dr-thomas-szasz

    “His first book, The Myth of Mental Illness (the first of 36 published during his lifetime, along with hundreds of articles), was seminal. It laid the groundwork — some would say charted the battleground — for the rest of his life’s work: the exposure of psychiatry as chicanery and a fraud, calling it “in the company of alchemy and astrology.””

  21. Mic Says:

    The issue of not complying is fine IF you have everything you want to purchase I.e mags, rifles, etc. If you don’t have this stuff then you are forced to go to the black market and pay 6 times more for everything, which is where the real nastiness of any action they take which is what infuriates me. They essentially cut the supply off for us.

  22. LarryA Says:

    [What “condition” can be included in those parameters?]
    “If you want a gun, you’re too crazy to be trusted with one.”

    Ref: Dear Leader,
    I do think some of the flyover state Democrats took him aside and said, “Look, Son, this ain’t Chicago. You’re about to get in a cowpie-kicking contest, and you ain’t got no boots.”

    And if I worked in mental health, and I was watching how the media and government treats “sex offenders,” pot smokers, people on pain meds, and now gun owners, I’d be really scared of the government getting more involved with my clients.

  23. winston Says:

    I really don’t care anymore either…people ALWAYS choose false security and less freedoms for “those people” over liberty and justice for all. Every time. We’ve gone from a constitutional republic to a democracy full of poorly raised children voting to eat Oreos and Dr. Pepper for dinner.

  24. puptent Says:

    I don’t think that Beloved Leader is smart enough to engineer an escape from a wet paper bag. The puppet masters behind him, now, they seem to have some smarts. First, this national assault on guns could be a smoke screen/bargaining chip in the coming immigration tussle (AKA: Democrat Voter Registration Drive) that the rinos have already signaled they will willingly collapse on (along with anything else The Beloved Leader’s team wants- he won the election, after all). Second, if the long range goal of the Beloved Leader’s Team is to disassemble, or radically change the Constitution, it is the 2nd Amendment that worries them the most. Those bitter clingers just might shoot back! If they come, it will be door to door, with the registration list in one hand, and a true assault rifle in the other. Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR there’s a lot of models to follow. Third, the politburo can argue about black guns and magazine capacity all they want, but when they realize that they really want to disarm the people, they’ll tax ammo just like they tax cigarettes, 500% or so of the original cost.

 
 


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.