don’t stock up on guns

bhussein-smoking.jpgb. Hussein through his ‘office of the president elect‘, transition team and others who wish to arm criminals
sez;’ don’t stock up on guns!/? 


WTF?  [“what the fa..” < -insert fav expletive here]  


As I said in the Blessing of Liberty, the US Constitution guarantees the right of US citizens to buy and keep guns. Much obfuscation is underway regarding this sacrosanct right.


Meanwhile b. Hussein’s anti self-protection record is well documented, let’s recap just  the highlights: as both a state and U.S. Senator he voted for some of the most repressive forms of gun control including:  

  1. supporting a state ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, is consistently on record as opposing concealed carry  laws
  2. voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting (United States Senate, vote no. 217, S. 397, July 29, 2005)
  3. Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.  (Illinois Senate, SB 2165, vote 20, March 25, 2004)
  4. Voted against confirming Supreme Court Justices who have affirmed individual rights to keep and bear arms.


 B. Hussein went on to say; “I believe in common-sense gun safety laws and I believe in the second amendment” – Parse this carefully!!!! -Common-sense by whose standards?


Irrespective of what the “office of the president elect” says his actions indicate that he does NOT support individual rights to bear arms and also believes that the “State” has the authority and duty to impose regulations on that right for the “safety of the community”. . . .


Sweet Mother of Pearl, I can see where this is going – a disarmed population and the revocation of Posse Comitatus  but I digress!


Anecdotally, evidence is up that sales are booming for gun shop owners all across the nation – many are reporting the best year ever!! While ‘spinners’ for the “office of the president elect” suggest that this increase in sales are not new gun owners but instead are previous owners who already have enough guns to protect themselves and family. . . . Absent the question of who is the arbiter of “enough” I must say 

au contraire mon ami


I personally know several people who – until know – never in their wildest imaginations would feel the need to own and KNOW HOW TO OPERATE a firearm for personal protection.


My, my, lookalready :  Change we can believe in


(*) Moreover, I can only surmise that anyone wishing to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding, FBI background checked, severely scrutinized and often vilified citizens can only wish to arm criminals – in that they send a signal to those law breaking criminals, “Come and GET’em”’cause they can’t protect themselves.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Look, man, you talking about “sacrocanct” rights. The Constitution was written by dead white slave-owners 200 years ago. It’s history, man, and it’s supposed to be reinterpreted as time goes on my the Supreme Court to reflect the times. That’s why they legalized abortion, y’know? That’s why you can put anything you want on the internet where anyone can see it. That’s why we took God out of the schools, because it put one person’s ideas on another and interfered with their right free speech. Now you write about a “sacrosanct” right to have a gun. Are you crazy, man? Don’t you know guns kill people? 200 years ago people were living on the frontier, defending themselves from the justifiably indignant native Americans whose land they stole, not to mention bears and wolves. The world has changed, man. That’s what my man Obama’s all about: change! We don’t need no guns now. We got police forces with swat teams to protect us, and we got the best army in the world to protect us. Not only that, we’re the biggest baddest dude on the block, and next thing you know there ain’t even gonna be countries. We’re gonna be one big country run by the United Nations, man. So you say, what about crime? I say crime’s gonna be a thing of the past. Obama’s gonna take care of our mortgages and car payments and medical bills so there won’t be no need for people to commit crimes. So don’t go on about “sacrosanct” rights. If they was sacrosanct they’d be in the Bible, and they ain’t.

  2. Rick Richbourg

    advocatus diaboli,
    I often play cards – rummy – with my young nephew with rules that are “reinterpreted” as the game goes on. These “living and breathing” rules often make the game arbitrary and capricious – to the benefit of the rule changer. Thank goodness it’s not ‘Texas Hold’em’ 😉
    Such a scheme when applied to any contract; but especially to the US Constitution (which is or government’s contract with the people) make the fulfillment of rules impossible except to the benefit of the rule changer. Thence, under the guise of the law – er rules – we have nothing less than sanctioned cheating or legalized plunder.
    It certainly is difficult to retroactively apply today’s standards to accepted social mores from 200 years ago. Regrettably slaving continues today; but, not here, thankfully not in this land.
    The nature of mankind is much the same today as 4000 years ago. That pettiness and selfishness may yet keep the “one world” UN solution at bay.
    As for the utopian dream of no crime, no work for existence; well “and pigs might fly” . . .

  3. Pingback: Molon Labe -

Comments are closed