Who wants to reduce all citizens' liberty? Is it Obama or the NRA?

President Obama (see article, link at bottom) said that gun lobbyists' "grip" on Congress is, in effect, to blame for mass murders with guns. So, simply, crazy killers are the blame of the NRA, or any other firearms education and civil rights organization with millions of members. And, I imagine, we can include all the gun manufacturers in that list of evil lobbyists, too. But Obama doesn't cite them, specifically, because then he'll have cops and the military on his ass, as he does the NRA, gun owners and hunters. That LEOs and the armed services aren't already chastising him in unison is a matter of THEIR patience and respect for order, I'd gather. It has little to do with Obama. 

The  has a grip, indeed, though it is on the clear purpose of the Second Amendment, not the bent one the nanny state left promotes. Unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to have a very loose grip on the Constitutional idea of a citizenry free from government tyranny.

Criminals will NOT bring in their guns to the nearest police station because you ask them to, Mr. President. It is beyond buffoonery to continue to propel the myth that restricting public's gun ownership would have prevented  or other mass murders, with guns or without. 

What a shame that a group which insists upon upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns and not have to register them is bashed by the people who lead us, and entire PARTY system that wants to lead us exclusively.

Too bad that the POTUS of a once free country promotes the idea that the lack of freedom for all will improve the odds of horrible crimes from happening. That will assure only one thing: only police, military and criminals (true criminals and renegade gun owners, which could be grandmas in Harlem or cowboys in Texas) will then have firearms. Which is how citizens plummet into the serfdom of democratic socialism and other forms of soft tyranny. 

I think we should and can trust the government, but only insofar as they are willing to trust law abiding citizens, and respect their right to join any civil rights groups they choose, such as the noble -- and totally, completely and undeniably anti-crime -- NRA. If you're not a member, if you don't read their publications, then you know nothing about them, except what statist haters want to tell you (inaccurately) about the NRA. It's members are all about gun safety. 

Obama, meanwhile, seems to be for government expansion -- of debt, deficit and tyrannical potential. The Second Amendment isn't about "lax" gun laws, it is about superior gun rights, and so is the NRA.  


Obama blames the NRA for 'lax gun laws' and gun violence (at IBT.com)


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Obama: 'this kind of mass violence does not happen' in other countries

Obama was once again vacant of actionable, realistic ideas, but big on ideological, statist and big government, nanny state vision for safety, in his comments after the Charleston AME church murders by a lone 21-year-old with a gifted handgun.

"We do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," Obama said at the White House. "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."

Other advanced countries rely on us and our stellar economy, military and international influence to keep them safe, strong and bustling right along with us. The idea of individual liberty is lacking in those places as well. So, as usual, the unimaginative POTUS says the wrong thing at the wrong time. He might have said something about mental health, taking responsibility for one's family members, and using SENSE when gifting guns. Instead, he promoted a losing battle against the NRA and responsible gun owners of the US, by batching them in with lone homicidal nut jobs.

If this Root fellow didn't have a gun, he could have built a bomb. Or used a knife. Or STOLEN a gun and used that. Or a baseball bat. Or a bow and arrow. Since the gun was a gift, he might have been exactly the wrong kind of person to be gifted a gun. It is obvious now, but maybe it was not so obvious always.

No matter, blaming guns for violence, and not looking to determinants of violence such as mental problems, is a crass way to address a problem in a free country. Blaming the inherently anti-tyrant amendment to the Constitution for mass murder is not the way to prove you are in favor of liberty. Suggesting that America is failing its people because the government cannot refuse gun ownership to whomever it chooses is NOT American. Obama is a wannabe post-America leader. The America he knows only existing since about his birth date. It appears that he simply does not believe in the Constitution, this being another example of that. He is all about government control, about elites reigning over useful idiots and a weak opposition. Government control is the progressive answer to all problems. Obama is not really a Democrat, he is a statist progressive.

Obama: 'Senseless murders' in church shooting - CNNPolitics.com

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

GUN CONTROL PATROL: so now it's only about "expanded background checks"?

Obama says it's all about "expanded background checks" now. (Facebook post)

GUN CONTROL PATROL - Suddenly it's all about "expanded background checks"?

This started as nothing short of a call for complete gun registration, a ban (or, witch hunt, mostly by Democrat nitwits) on rifles only because they LOOKED like military guns, and a severe limit on magazine capacity of 7 rounds in a handgun. (Here's one hilariously obvious thing non gun owners, and blissfully uninformed "leaders" in Congress, might not know: most non-revolver handguns today hold 8 or more rounds, so this was either a clown posse from the start (idiot kings trying look responsive after a tragedy), or it was an attempt by snakes leading doleful mice to the nest (cynical attempt to ban virtually all handguns, or require customization of virtually every gun, or magazine, out there).

A retired police chief wrote an op/ed, just after Sandy Hook occurred, saying the FIRST THING we should do in response to Sandy Hook is repeal the 2nd Amendment (#2A on Twitter). The first thing! An anti-Constitutionalist sissy with a law enforcement badge (must've sucked working for him, unless you thought as simply as him). Of course, he is not alone, as a search of the Internet would show. Didn't hear anyone from the White House reacting to that insanity. So what? Well, this self-interested, blame-gaming, absent-minded professor in the White House had a beer summit after a minor misunderstanding in Cambridge, Mass. But Obama can't react to an op/ed, or other rants, insisting we repeal the 2nd Amendment? His, and the Justice Department's, silence on these few calls to end 2A is deafening. The clowns are running the circus. They are not in charge of it all, thankfully, as shown by this fall back from demanding gun registration and gun and magazine bans, to a call for broader background checks. The typical, supportive DailyKos readers of the world are not controlling the rest of us (their numbers are far too small).

This change in priorities by the anti-gun brigade in August shows the regrouping, behind their lines, of the cynical power ploy that's standard by the nastily control- and power-hungry Democratic leadership today. They will grab for it all in moments of upset or advantage - as they did with ObamaCare - and retreat if they must, as they had to with gun control. But they are going to instead slowly work their way back to that big goal, which is centralized control of anything possible to wrench control of, weakening states and creating a stronger federation run from DC, all the while insisting it isn't about control, but doing what's better for every individual.

So to them and their supporters it makes sense that a massive federal bureaucracy can offer more attention to individuals than individuals can on their own? Or that a centralized, Soviet-like state can care better for everyone than several somewhat sovereign states? That's what the Democratic Party political idea is today. Not democratic at all, but socialistic. Like, the Borg, from Star Trek, if the term Soviet makes you think of Stalin and Lenin too much and hurts your feelings. No matter, is that such a good idea?

I'll take my government in SMALL DOSES, just as the US Constitution demands, thanks.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Guns vs. severe mental problems: Ideologies don't make people right, and guns don't make them killers

From "Gun Ban Won't Stop Another Sandy Hook Massacre: Let's Have the Hard Conversation":

Does anybody really think the guns Nancy Lanza kept in their Newtown, Conn., house all on their own attracted her son to launch a murderous rampage that claimed the lives of 20 small children and seven adults? Such simplistic nonsense.
What if the answers aren't that simple?
Consider that last year in Norway, a nation with a tight gun-control and licensing program, Anders Breivik methodically gunned down 69 people, mostly teenagers, on the island of Utoya. Again, this didn't happen in the United States of America, where 311 million people own an estimated 200 million guns. It happened in orderly, gun-sparse Norway, where living by the rules is the modern-day path to Valhalla.
What if gun control is the wrong conversation for us to be having?
What if we dealt instead with the harder-to-comprehend realities that affected Adam Lanza's life -- the fact that he lived virtually locked up in a basement room playing violent video games over and over, hypnotized by war. Or that he kept to himself, couldn't look others in the eye, reacted without emotion. Or that he had cut his father out of his life, refused to see him after his parents divorced, when his father began dating another woman. Or that he was consumed with anger because his mother was going to have him committed for treatment.
Instead of more gun control, shouldn't we be talking about where to set the bar when it comes to forcing an individual into treatment –- and whether those caring for people with mental-health issues have enough resources available to head off potential crises? The state of Connecticut didn't do much to help Nancy Lanza. It's a state that makes involuntary treatment difficult because it leans strongly toward supporting the civil liberties of individuals. Let's talk a little more about that.
In his address in Newtown [the Sunday after,] President Obama promised a grieving community "meaningful action ... regardless of the politics."But if enacting more restrictive gun laws is the action he has in mind, it leaves a mountain to climb in light of the Second Amendment and its principle. And more important than that, more gun laws aren't going to prevent another Sandy Hook massacre.

That is from "Gun Ban Won't Stop Another Sandy Hook Massacre: Let's Have the Hard Conversation," by Nancy Smith. See more at: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/gun-ban-wont-stop-another-sandy-hook-m...? Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859. via sunshinestatenews.com

The problem is not guns, while there are some things to be addressed where guns are concerned. There are too many guns too easily available to the dangerous, it could be argued. But worse are such things as loopholes in the ability to sell and buy guns between private individuals with pretty much no oversight or checking. That is unseemly, but also quite easy to fix (does not require a gun control act, for goodness sake).
No, the problem is not one that requires further gun legislation. We can see from such despicable efforts like the government's own Fast and Furious disaster that regulations are only so good as the people we have enforcing them. And fools who are encouraging such a route as Fast and Furious gunrunning program included the President of the United States. Shameful.
It's proof that he may be the victor in a popular vote, but is far from being a man above a most unattractive, elitist deception that guns are a threat, not sick or criminal people. The last thing elitists who desire power want are an armed population. No matter how comfortable and apathetic citizens are, we should not let anyone forget that tyranny is potentially never more than a generation away.
I don't want to be a part of the generation who lays the carpet out for tyranny here in America by moving farther toward a no-guns population. Stiff gun controls work in comparably powerless and rather homogenous and passive Sweden, Finland and elsewhere. It won't work for us.
The problem is, as Nancy Smith argues, and I've felt and argued for some time: some people are very, very broken, as Adam Lanza was, as best as can be seen, and cannot be allowed around guns. The problem, too, those who are too preoccupied to face those things that afflict broken people, including the current "false prophet" of the downtrodden, the President of the United States with his anti-gun rhetoric that completely avoids the issue of severe mental illness. In my view that is crass, cynical political gamesmanship and nothing about the rights or benefits of men. Until those with the second problem can be adult enough to address the first problem, this will be a discussion that will give me deep, deep dismay at the ignorance and shallowness of the many.

- jR
(revised for clarity, Oct 6, 2013)

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

A Killer's Obsession: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot

The "Tucson shooter," Jared Loughner, is not alone in thinking that rules of grammar are part of a ploy to push us around, I learned from a NY Times blog post. Many of his (Loughner's) online rants were quoted, the Saturday afternoon he'd tried to kill a Congresswoman and did kill six others, by at least one news channel -- Fox News. The readings were an effort to try to gain some insight into the mind of the killer in the hours just after his horrific assault.

There was broad acknowledgement a few weeks after the shootings that Loughner was a deeply troubled person for some time. The day of the shootings, though, I found his complaints about grammar to be writings coming from an obviously disturbed mind. He was struggling with much in life, and somehow, grammar rules were an assault on his freedom. 

While some tried to connect far-right influences, radio and TV show hosts, and other people to this lone wolf with a gun, listening to the guy's rants about (among other subjects) grammar offered a glimpse into a very disjointed thinking process, and a poor writer. He was not obsessed with writing well, however, only with grammar as a control mechanism.

The NEW YORK TIMES piece reflects on the wider idea of grammar as a means of social control. The related links below include a few pieces on the troubled killer's obsessions. 

NYC: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot
(The New York Times)

"Even before the Tucson shootings, Jared L. Loughner acted weirdly and darkly in many ways. Nonetheless, for bizarreness, his rants about grammar stand out": http://nyti.ms/hhyNu5

- jR

Related articles

• Why Is Jared Loughner Obsessed With Grammar? [Video] (gawker.com)
• Occult Altar Found in Tucson Shooter's Backyard (womenofgrace.com)
• Loughner's ties to conspiracy theory (politico.com)
• MSNBC: Jared Loughner Wrote A "Threatening" Note To Gabrielle Giffords (mediaite.com)
• Accused Tucson Shooter Asked Fellow Gamers If They Had 'Aggression 24/7' [Video] (kotaku.com)