Dear Leader is Upset

By
eric
-
13
4101
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

He doesn’t like the NRA’s new ad pointing out that his kids have armed protection:

Guns are only bad when they’re in our hands, you see.

 

Related posts:
  1. Obama Supporter Chimps on Romney Sign
  2. Dear Elisabeth…

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

13 COMMENTS

  2. Anyone remember when “we” did this?

    WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

    to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
    AND FOR THESE ENDS

    to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

    HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
    Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

    Yeah me neither. National Sovereignty & Individual Sovereignty are quaint anachronisms to the likes of “Dear Leader” and company.

    http://www.un-charter.com/

    NEW UN CHARTER – 2000 – FULL CITIZEN DISARMAMENT
    This requires the cessation of the production of all weapons and the machineries of war with their subsequent indiscriminate distribution world wide. a general disarmament of all populations and nations without exception, in such a thorough fashion that no person, group or nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor anywhere in the world. War must be brought to its final consummation and expression with a view to its final discarding as a means of arriving at desired ends.

    • Dear Tor,

      A fellow gun enthusiast in the US sent me this.

      It’s very long, but definitely worth reading.

      WAKE UP AMERICA!

      You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

      At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

      With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

      You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

      In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

      One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

      When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

      The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

      One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

      As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

      In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless…

      Yours was never registered.

      Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

      They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

      When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plead the case down to manslaughter.

      “What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

      “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.

      “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

      The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

      Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

      Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them.

      Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.

      But the next day’s headline says it all:

      “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

      The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

      As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

      The national media picks it up, then the international media.

      The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

      Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you and he’ll probably win.

      The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

      After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

      The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

      A few months later, you go to trial.

      The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

      When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.

      Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

      It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

      The judge sentences you to life in prison.

      This case really happened.

      On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Enmesh, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

      In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

      How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

      It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

      This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

      The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

      Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

      Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

      Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

      When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

      The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.

      (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

      Nine years later, at Dubliner, Scotland , and Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

      For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals.

      Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

      Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

      The Dubliner Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

      During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

      Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

      Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

      Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

      All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times,
      and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.

      Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

      When the Dubliner Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns
      were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

      Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

      Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

      How did the authorities know who had handguns?

      The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

      WAKE UP AMERICA!

      THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

      “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”
      –Samuel Adams

      If you think this is important. please it forward to everyone you know.

      You had better wake up, because Obama is doing the very same thing over here.

      And there are stupid people in congress and on the street who will go right along with him.

        • Dear Tor,

          We’ve already been pitifully disarmed. Not legal to use a cheap private form of defense like a knife, but only a loud and expensive gun. We’re fighting over crumbs as this point.

          Right.

          The underlying principle is even more important, as it transcends the issue of which means of self defense are “legitimate.”

          So-called “gun control” is really “victim disarmament.”

          Is it any surprise that guns are merely their first target? As I mentioned before, nunchucks, Chinese martial arts weapons that are nothing more than two sticks joined with a rope or chain are already “illegitimate” in Kaleefonia.

          • Dear Tor,

            Sure thing.

            Here’s another letter my friend sent me.

            None of the recent shooters who stole guns then murdered moviegoers and children in school were conservative gun owners.

            Ft Hood Shooter: registered Democrat

            Columbine Shooters: too Too young to vote. Both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals

            Virginia Tech Shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and his staff. Registered Democrat

            Colorado Theater Shooter: registered Democrat, staff worker for the Obama campaign, Occupy Wall Street participant, progressive liberal

            Connecticut School Shooter: registered Democrat

            Common thread: All of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats

            I don’t share his relatively more favorable opinion of conservative Republicans.

            But the fact that all the shooters were liberal Democrats is, or at least ought to be embarrassing to liberal Democrat victim disarmament advocates.

  3. The NRA must being getting an earful from their members because I seriously doubt they’ve the cajones to do anything proactively. The only reason this gets traction is because Obama is making a move and he’s despised by so many.

    • My thoughts also. In fact, that ad caused me to think about sending them a contribution. If they grow a pair and – better yet – kick the Dear Leader in his pair – then I’m in!

      • Dear Eric,

        I was a member for many, many years, until I wasn’t.

        I didn’t stop supporting gun rights organizations. I merely stop sending checks to some, while continuing to send checks to others.

        I sent a lot of money over the years to GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, to name a few, in addition to the NRA.

        This latest ad goes a long way to redeeming them. I’m still taking a wait and see posture too.

  5. “Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,”

    After all, most Americans don’t have their children used as pawns in a political fight, unless they’re dead of course.

    I seem to recall a recent statement by “dear leader” about, “If Trayvon had been my son….”

    Saying something like, “If that had been my children’s school…” it would be have to be followed up by, “…the shooter would have not gotten a foot in the door before being cut down in a hail of submachine gun fire.” That, of course, wouldn’t fit the agenda.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here