PDA

View Full Version : Fear the Government That Fears Your Gun


Annie Oakley
08-20-2008, 11:46 AM
Can we sticky this through November ?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28077&s=rcme

In West Texas, it was not uncommon to see the bumper sticker “fear the government that fears your gun” on a lot of pick-up trucks during both terms of the Clinton administration. Like the rest of the South and much of the Midwest, we were hypersensitive to the thought of having our right to keep and bear arms infringed upon in any way. Moreover, common sense and annual FBI crime statistics taught us that 99.9% of the population only used their guns for defensive reasons, thus we were particularly leery of an administration that sought to take away our instruments of self-defense. Yet as bad as Clinton was, his push to disarm the American people would pale in comparison to what we’d see from a President Barack Obama, a man who not only wants to disarm the American people, but America’s allies as well.

In the 1990s, my fellow West Texans and I were especially bothered by the way Clinton turned every crime -- from Columbine to gang activity -- into an opportunity to pass incremental legislation which made it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase and carry guns, and therefore harder to be free. And if Obama’s past is any indication, this is the same course he would take in his attempt to get guns out of our hands.

As an Illinois State Senator in 1999, Obama’s solution to gun crime in Chicago was not to push for stricter enforcement of laws already on the books but to support legislation limiting gun purchases to one a month. In other words, his “solution” to gang-related home invasions was to limit the homeowner’s access to firearms.

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg with this guy. During the 109th U.S. Congress, he voted against Senate bill 397, which outlawed frivolous lawsuits against gun companies. And while campaigning for the presidency in Pennsylvania earlier this year, he voiced his support for reinstating the assault weapons ban and spoke openly about his opposition to laws which allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns on or about their persons.

I always wondered what plans Clinton had for us if he could ever take away our guns, and now I wonder why Obama has been such a vocal critic of private gun ownership in the years leading up to his run for the presidency. What type of “change” does he have in store for the American people if he can succeed in disarming us?

Obama’s reasoning -- and what his election would portend for the Second Amendment -- are a part of a larger “unilateral disarmament” ideology that is one of his core values.
Obama wants to disarm America nationally by defunding the missile defense initiatives of which Ronald Reagan dreamed and which President George W. Bush has begun implementing. In a video message to his supporters in 2007, Obama promised that, if elected, he would not “weaponize space” and that he would cut investments in the “unproven” missile defense systems Bush already has in place (add to this his additional promises to “slow our development of future combat systems” and pursue a “world without nuclear weapons” by reducing our own supply first, of course -- it’s almost as if you can hear John Lennon asking us to “imagine there’s no heaven”).

Obama’s opposition to self-defense through missile defense equates to the disarmament of our allies around the globe (if there is no missile defense shield to deploy at home, there will be no shield to deploy abroad). This belief will not be lost on former Soviet satellites, which can see what Russia has done to Georgia in the past weeks and ascertain the kind of “change” Obama has in mind for them if he succeeds in denying them their best means of self-defense.

Even before Russia invaded Georgia, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski indicated that he feared for Poland’s ability to defend herself should Obama win the presidency. In an interview with Desmond Butler, which ran in the Boston Globe on July 8, 2008, Sikorski said John McCain assured him that he would go forward with Bush’s plans to provide Poland with a missile defense system if elected president, but that Obama had provided “no such assurance.”

As the article continued, Butler summed up Sikorski’s sentiments on an Obama Presidency succinctly: “The Polish government is nervous that any deal it reaches with the Bush administration to allow the United States to install interceptors on Polish soil could be abandoned by the next administration.”

Yet on August 14, 2008, Poland did accept Bush’s plan to provide them with a missile defense shield, and Moscow immediately went on record citing this as an offensive move which will require military retaliation against Poland. Maybe I missed something -- is this why Russia recently attacked Georgia? Does Georgia have a missile defense shield too?

No. Georgia doesn’t have such a shield but Vladimir Putin’s Russia has ambitions, lofty ambitions like those of Josef Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. All Putin needs to accomplish these ambitions is an enabler -- someone who will deny Poles the instruments they need for self-defense and thereby open the door for an armed aggressor to do as he wishes. Obama promises to be Putin’s Johnny on the spot.

On the other hand, McCain supports the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense on both the individual and national level. He knows that refusing to provide Poland access to the tools she needs to defend herself is wrong and would expose her to attack in the same way that denying law-abiding U.S. citizens the right to possess firearms would expose them to attack by gangs of armed thugs and shameless perpetrators.

When McCain talks, gun owners and freedom-loving nations like Poland hear a man they can trust, while rogue nations and communist regimes hear a man they cannot control. But when Obama talks, even his friends hear weakness, while rogue nations and communist regimes hear a man they can manipulate. As for me, every time Obama talks, a little voice inside my head reminds me to “fear the government that fears your gun.”

Foghlai
08-20-2008, 11:59 AM
While I appreciate that this is your opinion, and one shared by many CalGunners, I don't believe this would be an appropriate sticky seeing as some CalGunners do not support McCain.

In my opinion, this is more of a partisan/opinion article than it is informative. We know Obama has it in for our guns, however I do not find McCain to be a man I can trust.

yellowfin
08-20-2008, 12:02 PM
^ Be that as it may, to ignore it or shove it into the back just because some people have a (D) next to their usual voting preference is foolish and costly. If the matter had been properly emphasized 30 or 40 years ago we wouldn't be facing this problem--inviting it to get worse because of fear of "offending" people is a mistake we should guard ourselves against at all costs. Efforts to put aside partisanship dilute or completely destroys effectiveness on issues.

We didn't speak up and didn't stand fast and look what it got us. Stand up and stop bowing to the simple censorship of "Oh, you can't say that, it's controversial."

Zhukov
08-20-2008, 12:03 PM
While I am a McCain supporter, I would have to agree with Foghlai. It is a very partisan article that doesn't really belong as a sticky.

Foghlai
08-20-2008, 12:08 PM
^ Be that as it may, to ignore it or shove it into the back just because some people have a (D) next to their usual voting preference is foolish and costly.

I have no problems with us discussing this article as normal, however I seen nothing about it that diserves a sticky. Feel free to bump this till November, but I personally would like the 2nd Amendment politics and laws forum to reserve stickies for 2nd amendment related news.

Annie Oakley
08-20-2008, 12:10 PM
OK, I just thought that I would ask.

JALLEN
08-20-2008, 12:12 PM
While I appreciate that this is your opinion, and one shared by many CalGunners, I don't believe this would be an appropriate sticky seeing as some CalGunners do not support McCain.

In my opinion, this is more of a partisan/opinion article than it is informative. We know Obama has it in for our guns, however I do not find McCain to be a man I can trust.

That's true of just about every word that is or will be written or spoken from now until the Election, and beyond. The "stickiness" shouldn't depend on whether some or all Calgunners do or do not support McCain. This is Second Amendment Politics and Laws, man! Opinions are important in refining one's thinking, shaping the issues, understanding the ramifications, of various proposals, and can be quite informative. By putting all opinions out there in the marketplace of ideas, the best and truest and most appropriate will rise to the top, or so the theory goes. Everyone agrees with this concept, except when ideas you hate start to rise to the top.

We have so many stickies now that it is hard to find the new stuff.

sorensen440
08-20-2008, 12:15 PM
Nice article
I would be for making it a sticky but to be honest I don't pay very much attention to the stickies so it may actually get more attention not being a sticky

Foghlai
08-20-2008, 12:15 PM
OK, I just thought that I would ask.

:D Don't be discouraged. I can see the merits of having this available to read for all voters. I absolutely hate Obama's stance on guns.

But since I have no real weight here and it's just my opinion I figured I would voice it. But thank you for posting anyway. I am not a McCain supporter, obviously, but I do appreciate the contribution.

GenLee
08-20-2008, 12:51 PM
Annie Oakley, Thank you for your post, it was a great read. Of course the Obama supporters are gonna whine about it, but thats what lib's do. Again, great post and you've got my vote for a sticky.

truthseeker
08-20-2008, 1:08 PM
I still cannot believe that there are people that care about their "right to bear arms", yet they are still going to vote for Obama.

GuyW
08-20-2008, 1:11 PM
I still cannot believe that there are people that care about their "right to bear arms", yet they are still going to vote for Obama.

Someone once said, "Liberalism is a mental disorder"....

I'm just sayin'...

BillCA
08-20-2008, 1:17 PM
As for me, every time Obama talks, a little voice inside my head reminds me to “fear the government that fears your gun.”

As a family friend of ours - a decorated WW-II veteran - recently remarked, we heard another national leader call for change too. He said society needed to change and if they followed him, in 10 years they wouldn't recognize their cities. He was right. At the end of the war, Hitler's cities were virtually unrecognizeable ruins.

Change is not always good.
Change is not always for the better.
Change is not always what we expect it to be.

As for Obama, I have never heard him articulate his core beliefs, values and principles. Well, strike that last. I don't know many politicians who have many principles.

katphood
08-20-2008, 1:56 PM
Don't you realize that those that favor more gun control laugh whenever they hear the "their gonna take away our guns" argument, because it sounds...well...paranoid, which is either funny or very frightening: you know, paranoids with guns.

And it is exaggerated. We all know that politicians of whatever party say what they need to (A) appease their base, (B) get more votes, and primarily (C) get funding from those influential individuals and organizations that donate money to a campaign.

The right pays lip service about abortion, gay marriage, or gun control while the left does the same about gun control, war, what have you. The primary interest for either is in getting elected, not actually doing anything.

The Dem. party won't take away anyone's guns any time soon, because then where would they get all that money? For the same reason, the Rep. party isn't really going to do much about issue x because if they did, where would all those $$$ come from? Each side says whatever they need to to get more campaign cash.

See how this all works?

yellowfin
08-20-2008, 2:14 PM
^ Ok then, so why does all the anti gun legislation keep gushing forth from the Donkey party in this state and several others if they have no interest in doing it??? If they have no interest in doing it soon, they sure as heck don't act like it.

easy
08-20-2008, 2:30 PM
... however I do not find McCain to be a man I can trust.


Do you trust Obama? I think that would be seriously foolish. We can get far, far worse than McCain.

Foghlai
08-20-2008, 2:55 PM
Annie Oakley, Thank you for your post, it was a great read. Of course the Obamanation supporters are gonna whine about it, but thats what lib's do. Again, great post and you've got my vote for a sticky.
Im sorry, did my post come off as whiney? I thought that it was a rational request to keep our forum from degenerating into some place more fitting for post such as yours.

Foghlai
08-20-2008, 2:56 PM
Do you trust Obama? I think that would be seriously foolish. We can get far, far worse than McCain.
Of course we could, I would have voted for McCain over Bush anyday. But my trust, or lack thereof, in Obama has nothing to do with my distrust of McCain.

katphood
08-20-2008, 3:02 PM
I guess *I* exaggerated by saying they would do *nothing*. But it will be a far cry from "taking our guns away". It would be accurate to say "further infringe on our rights, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights."

The phrase "take our guns away" is just fodder for late night talk show and water cooler jokes about "gun nuts."

bulgron
08-20-2008, 3:12 PM
I guess *I* exaggerated by saying they would do *nothing*. But it will be a far cry from "taking our guns away". It would be accurate to say "further infringe on our rights, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights."

The phrase "take our guns away" is just fodder for late night talk show and water cooler jokes about "gun nuts."

I consider Clinton's Assault Weapon Ban an example of the government taking our guns away. Obama has gone on record saying he wants to bring it back, and McCain has voted against the federal AW ban every time he had the chance.

Pick your poison.

katphood
08-20-2008, 3:38 PM
The AWB restricted only sales of certain guns. The anti-gun lobby itself felt it was too watered down and too easy for manufacturers to make small tweaks that made some guns legal. You can get CA legal AKs. All you need do is attach the mag., add a stock w/o pistol grip, etc. Those design tweaks must have taken all of half a week.

Hence my point. They passed an AWB with enough loop holes, one could argue, didn't really have much teeth in it.

My point is that "take our guns away" is an exaggeration and makes us look silly, perhaps weird. Perhaps we could make more headway by going back to the basics like:

The only way to ensure a free society is not stomped flat by the state is to empower the people with arms.

GuyW
08-20-2008, 4:04 PM
My point is that "take our guns away" is an exaggeration...

Not according to Sen. Fineswine

katphood
08-20-2008, 4:21 PM
So you don't think "take our guns away" makes us sound like loonies?

I can guarantee you, that phrase generates a lot of laughs and leads many to question whether we're dealing from a full deck.

My two cents is that its better to push the responsible armed citizenry angle than sound like that.

bohoki
08-20-2008, 5:58 PM
gee i kinda think that i would fear a government that doesn't fear our guns