Over 16,544,021 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
In an interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters, President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama joked about the President’s second term being a ploy to continue having their children protected by having “men with guns around at all times.”
In the highly personal interview, the President and first lady discussed their marriage and family life in the White House. When the conversation moved on to the Obama’s two daughters, the President discussed his dismay at the prospect of 14-year-old Malia becoming interested in dating boys.
The President joked, “One of the main incentives of running was continued Secret Service protection so we can have men with guns around at all times.”
The interview was reportedly taped on Dec.11 and was originally scheduled to air on Dec. 14, the same day of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, before being postponed.
The President’s men with guns remark has drawn criticisms of hypocrisy from 2nd Amendment advocates, as Obama has renewed calls for harsher gun-control laws in the wake of the tragedy earlier in the month.
Though many liberals balked at suggestions from the National Rifle Association and some lawmakers about arming teachers or providing armed guards for schools throughout the Nation, no less than 11 armed guards protect Sidwell Friends— the Washington, D.C. area private school attended by the Obama daughters— according to news reports.
Most conservatives believe that the re-election of President Barack Obama is going to bring dire economic circumstances over the next four years, which could possibly drive the Nation into total collapse.
The belief is likely not far-fetched considering the current state of affairs in American economics as the United States hurls toward a “fiscal cliff” which will combine rising tax rates and government shutdowns, the government prepares to raise its debt limit again to the tune of $2.4 trillion and the number of Americans out of work continues to trend at dismal levels.
All of the ominous headlines about the shape of the overall economy are driving up some key markets, most of which pertain to businesses patronized by American preppers.
In the immediate aftermath of the election, it became clear that those investing in gold and other precious metals will likely enjoy a profitable four years, just as they did during the President’s first term.
“With the fiscal cliff approaching fast, an entire new group of investors will be pouring into the precious metals in anticipation of the grim fact that the U.S. is going to try and print itself out of debt,” said David Morgan, publisher of “The Morgan Report,” told Market Watch.
Another sector of the economy that is preforming well at the moment is the firearm industry as fears of an Obama gun ban encourage purchases of extra magazines, ammo and firearms.
After the election last week, Smith & Wesson’s stock rose 9.62 percent and Sturm Ruger & Co. was up 6.81 percent in last Wednesday’s trading.
“We expect that with President Obama’s reelection these sales could continue well into his second term,” Mike Greene, an analyst at Benchmark Co., wrote in a research note.
Second Amendment supporter fears are likely compounded by the fact that the National Rifle Association — despite having 22 of the politicians it supported elected and five it opposed not — lost out on several of the most important Senate races. This has drawn claims from some NRA detractors that the power of the gun lobby in Washington is waning.
“It’s for the children.” That, in essence, is the crux of the new impetus to institute stricter gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last week.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Chuck Schumer, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Senator Diane Feinstein — even pro-gun Senators Harry Reid and Mark Warner — are now turning to more gun laws as the answer.
It’s all about the children. That’s what they say. And looking at the faces of the children taken from us, it’s emotionally easy to agree with them. After all, who can understand such a heinous act as taking a rifle into a school and gunning down a bunch of 6-year-olds?
But who are Bloomberg, Schumer, Emanuel, Feinstein, Reid and Warner? They are statist totalitarians. They’re playing on emotions — the emotions of a grieving populace — to advance their agenda. They don’t care about children. They’re disingenuous.
How do I know? If they cared about children, they’d be weeping over the thousands of children that President Barack Obama has killed with drone strikes and air raids in Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Africa. If they cared about children, they’d be outraged that 2,000 babies are aborted every day in America, many on the verge of being born. If they cared about children, they would oppose corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards that have made automobiles lighter — and, therefore, deadlier — and mandated air bags that have caused the deaths of thousands of children and adults in car crashes.
Politicians don’t care about children. All they care about is stealing liberty and acquiring more power. If a few kids die along the way, well… never let a crisis go to waste; eh, Rahm?
Bob Livingston of Personal Leberty Digest says:
Dear Flashy,
Two days ago I posed a question to you. It was as follows:
“Given the fact that it is one’s inalienable right to own guns, and given that the Founders agreed that the Constitution should specifically ensure that that right could not be taken away by government, and given the fact that there are about 310 million non-military guns in the U.S., and given the fact that, according to Gallup, nearly half of all U.S. households own at least one gun, and given the fact that at least half of all those polled believed upholding the right to own guns was important, and given the fact that Connecticut has the fifth most stringent gun laws in the U.S. (according to the Brady Center), and given the fact that the most recent school shooter broke no fewer than six laws before he began shooting school children (including laws against being under 21 in possession of a handgun and in possession of a gun specifically banned under Conn. law), how do propose to realistically “get the guns off the streets and allow people to be safe?”
You have yet to answer it. I read the long missive you wrote in response, and the gist of it was:
1) Make it more difficult for the bad guys to get a gun. (No explanation of how this will be done.)
2) Keep them in the home for defense, but disassembled. (No explanation of how they’ll be available for self-defense in a disassembled condition.)
3) Require “national” concealed weapons permits. (Concealed carry permits already required in most states.)
4) Require mandatory classroom instruction, live fire and situational awareness training. (Already required in some states.)
You may or may not be aware that all gun crimes are committed by people who are breaking already established laws. To wit: Using a gun to commit a robbery breaks at least two laws. (The law against robbery and using a firearm to commit a felony.) Using a gun to kill someone breaks at least two laws (The law against murder and using a firearm to commit a felony.) I could go on. Lawbreakers, by definition, disobey laws. Gangbangers in Chicago mostly obtain their guns on the black market or by theft. In doing so, they are breaking several Illinois laws. (Illinois’ laws prohibiting gun possession remain in place.) Instructing them to obtain a permit and undergo training is a fool’s errand. Requiring registration and background checks before they can purchase is silly and inconsequential. As I pointed out, Adam Lanza (if he was indeed the shooter), broke several laws before he ever shot the first child. It is as yet unclear if he received any formal training in handling the weapons. We know his mother at least practiced using them. There is no evidence that requiring him to undergo mandatory classroom instruction, live and situational awareness training would have prevented his murderous (likely prescription drug-fueled) rampage. In some cases, guns used in the commission of recent mass murders were legally obtained.
So, I will ask the question again, phrasing it slightly different. What law(s), short of an outright ban and confiscation of weapons (which you say you don’t support), do you propose be enacted that the criminal element will obey that will in turn make everyone safer or prevent any future attacks? Before you answer that one; answer this one: What weapon was used in the deadliest school attack in U.S. history?
Best wishes,
Bob
