Man Surrounded By Lots Of Folks With Guns Trots Out Worthless Gun Control

Let’s remember, Mr. Obama is constantly surrounded by armed men and women, many of whom are carrying weapons that the average citizen is not legally allowed to own without a super deluxe permit from the US Government, and most people who want that permit will be denied (automatic weapons). Yet, he wants to deny you protection…..oh, heck, really, right now, it’s all about the optics, because nothing he’s proposing will alleviate “gun violence” in the least. It will, though, make those who sell firearms jumping for joy happy, because there’s sure to be a spike in gun sales once again. Has anyone checked Obama’s stocks or see if he owns a firearms store?

(Politico)  President Barack Obama launches an aggressive rollout strategy this week meant to contain the political fallout from upcoming executive actions on gun control and to cast himself as the voice of common sense in a raging culture war.

The imagery could not be better for the White House. His Monday afternoon meeting with his top law enforcement officials could split-screen with images illustrating some of the problems caused by the proliferation of guns as the president sees it: Texans strapped with AK-47s at a deli counter and armed ranchers occupying a federal refuge in Oregon.

Of course, there’s no picture of a Texan carrying a semi-automatic AK-47 in the article…seriously, what self respecting Texan would buy and carry a Ruski designed weapon? You know what would be great optics? Pictures of gang bangers running around Chicago shooting the place up. You know, that Democratic Party run city with draconian gun control measures. Or, we can show San Bernardino, in a state with all the gun control measures liberals have been advocating for.

The rest is all about the politics and optics, which, really, is all that Obama has.

(AP) At the top of the list is an effort to expand background checks on gun sales by forcing more sellers to register as federally licensed gun dealers. The changes would be aimed at some unregistered sellers who skirt the background check laws by selling at gun shows, online or informal settings. Other moves being considered include improving reporting of lost and stolen weapons and beefing up inspections of licensed dealers, according to a person familiar with the plans who would not be named discussing proposals before they are finalized.

None of this will do anything to stop all the massive gun-play mostly occurring in Democratic Party run cities. Hence, it is simply a Doing Something measure. It would only affect a tiny portion of private and gun show sales. The question is, what kinds of orders will they be? Because, much like with his “amnesty” type orders, these could quickly create federal lawsuits. Like the kind he lost over his amnesty orders.

If guns are so dangerous, why is Obama surrounded by them? Especially ones which are automatic, have suppressors, are high caliber (there are .50cal on the roof of the White House and snipers who protect him when he travels use them), have large capacity magazines, and are those evil “assault weapon” looking types that only the military is supposed to have.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Man Surrounded By Lots Of Folks With Guns Trots Out Worthless Gun Control”

  1. Jeffery says:

    It’s a sad truth that a US President and his family being murdered in a hail of gunfire has a greater impact on the nation and world than a scientist or a car phone salesman getting shot.

    Your argument that if US Presidents are protected by armed guards, then US residents should have access to military weaponry is lazy and silly.

    It’s equally sad that far-right blogs advocate removing the protective detail from a particular US President unless he kowtows to their bizarre demands.

    Why do 2nd Amendment fetishists worshipers adherents avoid being specific? Rather than political opportunist (and a damned good one) Donald Trump telling us that Obama wants to take all your guns, shouldn’t he advocate for what he does want? According to the “adherents” 50 caliber machine guns, RPGs and grenades should be available. Shouldn’t the right explain the limits on personal firepower, if any?

    Actually, with the right-wing terrorist occupation in Oregon, it’s all become clear. The far right mistakenly thinks they can use their guns and gear to play army. Should the state and US governments enforce the laws and remove the toy soldiers from the wildlife refuge?

  2. jl says:

    “right wing terrorist occupation in Oregon..” My. As I saw elsewhere: So J, when union protesters occupied a government building in Madison several years ago you called them terrorists, right? The left’s hypocrisy is astounding.

  3. Jeffery says:


    My bad, I assumed your “protesters” in Oregon were heavily armed and said they were prepared to die, and wanted to start a revolution.

  4. Jeffery says:

    A rebellion or insurrection from far-right white men?

  5. […] Oh and isn’t it ironic how he’s so hell bent on keeping us from protecting ourselves while he is surrounded by armed guards? […]

  6. The Neon Madman says:

    Jeffery: you say “Your argument that if US Presidents are protected by armed guards, then US residents should have access to military weaponry is lazy and silly.”

    OK, then, how about this one:

    The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Now “arms” can be reasonably defined to be those weapons which can be carried and used by an individual soldier (a man at arms) up to, say, the platoon level. So my argument is that it is in fact perfectly rational to believe that the people have a right to have access to military weaponry in that range.

  7. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    It’s a sad truth that a US President and his family being murdered in a hail of gunfire has a greater impact on the nation and world than a scientist or a car phone salesman getting shot.

    And that should matter because? Is a murdered President somehow deader than a killed car phone salesman?

  8. Jl says:

    No, my bad. The terrorists in Madison shut down the government for a few days and trashed the building. Remember when government shut-downs were a bad thing?

  9. Jeffery says:

    The difference between a protest/sit-in and an armed insurrection just may be high-powered weapons. Why the firepower?

    If four local police officers tell the rebels they are trespassing and have to leave and the soldiers of fortune refuse, and the officers start to cuff and carry them out, what do you think will happen next?

    Did the protesters in Madison assault any officers?

    There is a difference between a protest and an armed insurrection. In a protest, real men (and women) take their medicine. The rebels in Oregon appear to waiting for the chance to shoot someone – otherwise, why the firepower?

    Cowards that they are, they have more gumption than most conservative whiners. I’m not surprised that William and his ilk defend them.

  10. jl says:

    Why the firepower..?” The result is what counts, and the thousands of protestors shut down Wi. government for several days. What shutdown in Oregon? They were mostly government employees taking days off on the taxpayers dime, and trashing the capitol to the tune of about 1 million dollars. But back to libs, and J, deflecting from the point. If government shutdowns are so bad, where was the liberal outcry over Madison? Could it be because they’re monumental hypocrites?

  11. Jeffery says:

    deflecting from the point


Pirate's Cove