Obama Bullies His Nation of Criminals For Rejecting ‘Gun-Control’

<> on October 1, 2015 in Washington, DC.

President Obama’s shameful, and frankly nauseating, rush to politicize the Oregon shootings — he actually used the word “politicize!” — is easy to understand.

It is all part of the left-wing power-grab strategy of collective guilt.

Normal people think coercive government power should be primarily directed at criminals, so the Left is constantly trying to make the entire population see themselves as criminals.  The more collectively guilty we all feel, the more prepared we are to submit to the power of a self-appointed “enlightened” ruling class.

Gun control is not a goal — it is really a means to an end, a vehicle the Left would drive to gain even greater power.

In the short term, it’s an issue that helps them raise money, and to attack an important element of their political opposition. Note how foaming-at-the-mouth liberals rush to accuse the law-abiding National Rifle Association of being accessories to murder, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with any of the politicized crimes.

It is also a means for the Left to express it’s emotional and psychological discomfort about the citizen independence symbolized and promoted by the Second Amendment — from the ability of responsible citizens to defend themselves and their families, to the principle that an armed population should be a check against elite tyranny.  It’s not so much that totalitarian liberals fear their quest for power will end with armed citizens rising up in revolt; it’s that they hate it when free people think that way.  We’re supposed to be submissive, indeed reverent of authority.  We’re supposed to be dependent children, helpless in a vast “gun-free zone” where our very lives are a gift from the benevolent State, placing our trust in a volume of laws that grows far beyond its demonstrated ability to actually prevent crime.

That emotional displacement was in full view on Friday, when Obama directed his bitter anger at the American people during his nasty little press-conference performance.  There was probably some residual tension from his days of getting slapped around and humiliated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Syria.  A classic bully, Obama needed some weaker people to take out his frustrations on, and law-abiding American citizens always look like a good punching bag to him.

Even Obama’s diehard fans over at CNN were willing to say, out loud, that the President was “embarrassed of the United States in front of the world.”  If only Obama and his fans would emigrate to some other country that they feel more proud to live in!  If you’re thinking about heading for Europe, progressive children, you’d better hurry – it’s filling up fast.

One useful feature of the Left’s collective-guilt strategy is that every deranged and criminal act can be slotted into it, even the actions of people who are declared enemies of American society.  The Oregon shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, appears to be an admirer of Vester Flanagan, the man who recently murdered a reporter and cameraman in Virginia.  Flanagan’s politics – how shall we put this delicately? – were not aligned with the NRA or constitutional conservatives.  Mercer reportedly singled out Christians for execution during his gun rampage, so it seems fair to say he was not a supporter of the “Religious Right.”

And yet, his bloody lunacy will be mixed into the barrel of collective-guilt toxic waste Obama wants to drown innocent Americans in.  It would not have mattered if Mercer had been wearing a T-shirt with Obama’s narcissistic logo and screaming his hatred for the NRA as he opened fire.  Obama’s worshipers would still be blaming the NRA for his crimes, and Obama would have given much the same statement last night.

Obama spoke before anything was known about the killer or his motives.  He wailed about the need for more gun laws, without specifying any, or how he thought any given new law could have prevented the crime he knew nothing about.  This know-nothing attitude is a huge part of the gun-control movement.  Ignorance of firearms and existing gun laws is a point of pride for the true believer.  He demonstrates his religious fervor by screaming that he doesn’t care what the existing laws say, he just believes – with every fiery atom of his soul — that more laws are needed.  That’s the pure essence of left-wing Nation of Criminals ideology: the masochistic conviction that every problem is caused by insufficient federal control of the unruly, uncooperative populace.

Not the actual criminals, mind you — there’s no power to be gained by yelling “shame!” at hard-cases, because they don’t have any. The game is all about shaming good and decent people into submission.

And Obama knows his media allies will happily shame their readers with imaginary collective guilt. Thus Obama’s order to his loyal media to produce straw-man charts comparing the number of Americans killed by terrorists with those killed by “gun violence.”

Naturally, his lickspittles in the media complied with North Korean speed, but every last one of them did it wrong.  Wouldn’t a tally of “gun violence” deaths include shootings conducted properly by law-enforcement officers?  If someone tries to assassinate Obama and the Secret Service shoots him, that’s “gun violence.”  So is a woman shooting her would-be rapist.  The jihadis in Garland, Texas were taken down by good guys with guns before they could hurt any innocent people — that’s two “gun deaths” to add to the chart.  The sheer idiocy of this talking point is easily exposed by defining the terms, but that’s exactly what demagogues don’t want their audience to do.

How about a chart comparing terrorist deaths to people killed by illegal aliens in sanctuary cities — deaths Barack Obama says not a single damned word about?  Or let’s compare terrorist deaths to the number of viable human lives ended in Planned Parenthood clinics.  Too uncomfortable for you, Obama-worshipers?  Okay, let’s compare terrorist deaths to people killed in car accidents, and outlaw cars if the comparison tilts too far in their direction.  Better yet, let’s compare terrorist deaths to the number of people killed by the automobile efficiency standards Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency support (hint: the terrorists will lose that comparison, badly) and outlaw the EPA.

Or let’s prepare the most relevant chart of all: a comparison between mass shootings and “gun-free zones.”  The Obama-bots are so nervous about this comparison that they actually tried denying the Oregon crime scene was a gun-free zone.  There’s nothing counter-intuitive about the overlap between mass shootings and gun-free zones — it’s the most obvious cause-and-effect relationship imaginable, arguably one of the few coldly rational calculations made by these crazed psychopaths.  That’s why the White House will never be a “gun-free zone,” no matter how badly the once-vaunted Secret Service misbehaves.

Obama obliquely referenced an idea liberals usually take pains to insist they’re not considering, outright gun confiscation, when he praised the gun laws of nations such as Australia.  (The eagerness of the American Left to declare other nations superior to their own is amazing, isn’t it?)  As it happens, there was a deadly shooting in Obama’s gun-free paradise of Australia within hours of his speech.  That won’t bother the President or any of his followers, of course.  He never has anything to say about the weekly death toll in the gun-free paradise of Chicago he hails from, and the body count in Oregon would be considered a blessed miracle of peace by the standards of a typical Chicago Saturday night.

No, liberals, you can’t confiscate the guns of the American people you hate so very much.  An ideologue like Obama knows that — curse that pesky Second Amendment! — but he brings it up anyway, because he wants to feed the emotional appetites of his followers, and he knows the non-starter of gun confiscation can be used as an opening bid to capture some lesser prize.  If you resist total capitulation to the Left’s power grab, then surely you’ll be “reasonable” and agree to some partial capitulation, right?  You wouldn’t want to be called an “extremist,” would you?

“The notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon — it doesn’t make sense,” Obama claimed.  No, what doesn’t make sense is that any adult in the United States would claim there isn’t already “modest regulation” — and then some! — of gun ownership.  Obama is playing his listeners for fools with a statement like that, but it fits into the strategy outlined above — he and his Party will demagogue the hell out of the issue for a few weeks, then drop some silly lesser measure on the table and declare anyone who opposes it must be a gun nut who can’t handle “modest regulations.”

None of what liberals say about gun control makes a lick of sense unless you can force yourself to think in terms of collective guilt and its cure, collectivist power.

Individuality is difficult, but collectivism is easy – it requires nothing but expressions of faith and devotion to the State and its Ruling Class.  Just keep giving them more power, and eventually they’ll solve every problem.

Out here in America’s reality, we know that even the most dedicated police force can’t be everywhere all the time, and we do take core responsibility for our own defense.  Next, we should ridicule the self-indulgent madness of the “gun-free zone” and give would-be spree killers a few armed guards and armed citizens to think about.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.