First of all, the crying bastard President Obama does not represent my views—he is not “my” president. I say bastard of him for two reasons, he is obnoxiously disagreeable toward traditional American views, and he was born to unmarried parents as there is a lot of questions regarding his father. So he fulfills the appropriate definition of a bastard by most accepted definitions—so it’s not a derogatory term. Regarding the crying, I said the same thing about John Boehner. In spite of what modern feminists and other progressives say, it’s not alright for a man to cry over stupid things. Gun violence and mass shootings are nearly exclusively the result of mismanagement by the government. Government in most cases has created the violent communities that shootings occur in, like Chicago. Or they have let terrorists fester within our borders without acting before terror activities have occurred. Americans have given up a lot of freedoms supposedly for the sake of security and that has turned out to be a stupid thing to do. Government has failed to do its job and now they want more power to do an even worse job—and to get it, the president resorted to crying like a child and that is pathetic.
The video above is a warning from Canada where their gun laws are pacing themselves to the rest of the so-called developed world—the kind of world the crying Obama referred to. It is the direction America is heading so pay attention to it. In it a gun rights supporter was condemned by the government every way they legally could for defending his property from some assailants launching firebombs at him. The Canadian government did not want him to defend his property especially with a firearm, so they did worse to him personally than the fire bombers. It is a very sad case and is the direction that gun laws in America by cry baby politicians want to take our society. It’s the wrong direction and should be reversed immediately.
The attack on that individual gun owner has the very subtle inclination that property rights are not the value of any individual possession, so there should never be an instance where an individual should have to defend themselves or their possessions. To the progressive descendant of communism individuals should surrender themselves to criminal intent for the benefit of the greater good. If a criminal wants something you have, they should have the right to it under the umbrella of wealth redistribution and no individual should feel compelled to take a life for the protection of a possession. The same mentality resides within the realm of a spouse—this is why progressives seek to demean family value with gay rights and welfare programs—to weaken individual input. Therefore, guns should not be allowed to protect an individual from criminal intent because to their view as a mass society of collectivism, collateral damage is perfectly acceptable—if the greater good is placed as a value over individuals and their possessions.
But that is clearly not the type of society that we have in the United States. Our politicians do not currently represent the type of people who currently make up most of the American population between city areas. Most of those politicians manipulated their way by default into positions of power only to turn their eyes toward Europe for guidance and that’s not acceptable—especially when people like Obama standing in our White House cry to the world about how he wants to stop gun violence on a mass scale but fails to shed a tear when a white woman is gunned down by an illegal alien in San Francisco for no reason at all—but mass government mismanagement. The tears are only shed for the collective entity of our global population, not the rights of one woman, or her father when a cold-blooded killer took away from them the love they shared as a possession of emotion.
That is just how sick progressives are in their views of the world. They will support the mass extinction of babies through abortion, and support the terrorism in the Middle East but will take a hard stand against the rancher who wants to protect their grazing rights or an individual gunman who protects their wife or home from an assailant. Their broken philosophy is always an emphasis on mass collectivism as opposed to individual integrity. That is why so many progressives have mental illnesses—where their values are not reflected in their daily actions—because they associate behavior by the values of the collective as opposed to their own private behavior. So if everyone is acting poorly, whether they are drunken losers or a mob rioting in the streets they can justify the morality of bad behavior by the measurement of the group association. If everyone is doing wrong, then it’s OK to also do so—so long as a majority is in agreement.
That in essence is the largest problem that there is in regard to Obama’s executive orders against personal firearms issued on January 5th 2016—because it gives those same masses the ability to define sanity. On the surface the proposals sound reasonable, background checks strengthening, gun show restrictions, and attempting to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deficient. The trouble is that the door is now open for the government to determine that every person on some sort of pain medication or depression illness is subject to the interpretation of being mentally unstable to purchase or own a firearm. Additionally, the slippery slope of judgment for sanity will be interpreted by government with the same rationalization that we see among the current masses—the depraved lunatics of urban riots, public schools, and open socialists—the Bernie Sanders type of supporters. Mental acuity will then be determined by the victor of whatever political party holds the White House at any particular time which would be bad for both sides. With that additional interpretation the same government that decided that it was alright for the IRS to use a tax status to badger Tea Party groups will determine what constitutes mental health.
For the family that believes that a housewife should watch over the children at home in a very traditional way, and has a personal history of protesting Smart Meters—a progressive run federal government would likely view that behavior as insane and would prohibit those citizens from owning firearms. A similar family that has a Twitter history showing strong conservative views would likely put those citizens on a watch list banning further purchases of guns. It would be as simple as that. The pattern around the world from Canada to Australia is already in place, we have the fortune in America to see what our current politicians are up to, because they are copying those fools from Europe and other places on removing firearms from their society to make way for some strategy that certainly works against individual liberty. If allowed to feaster, Obama’s path would certainly lead to a similar letter as those proposed in Canada—be prepared to surrender firearms of a certain make and model until they are all gone from society and confiscated by the government. They never do things in swift strokes, but over a long period of time gradually wearing down resistance to their diabolical utterances.
I’ve had a Federal Firearms License before, so I know what it’s like for them to demand to see your paperwork in the middle of dinner, or on a Friday afternoon while you’re sitting naked in your hot tub with your wife just enjoying the day in your own backyard. When given the right for some pin headed bureaucrat to harass an individual, they nearly always do. Because their value system is not based on individual integrity, but mass approval—so if their peers approve of their behavior of harassment, then they feel validated to do so—they use government coercion to exert force on individuals so to preserve the collective masses and their whims of necessity.
Guns were always meant to protect the individual against mass tyranny and to guarantee that private property would remain valuable in the course of American history. Confiscation is the path to losing all freedoms and giving the drooling mouths of bureaucrats all the power they need to exact tyranny upon individuals and their possessions. Hidden behind the government and their global backers is the long diabolical yearnings of communism which fuels their effort, the Karl Marx war against individuality and personal property. So it is behind that premise that governments are at war with firearms and what drives Obama to cry in front of the world because deep down inside his essential being, he has a lot more in common with Karl Marx than he does Thomas Jefferson. It is because of menaces like Barack Obama and all his progressive friends that Jefferson uttered……………“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” You can’t very well do that if they are armed, and you’re not. Hence, the reason for gun control around the world.
Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.