With that said, we'll take the small outrage first. Obama's earmarks in the latest $410 billion spending bill. No, I'm not talking about the Cracker-Barrel sized portions of pork in general. Here, I am specifically referring to his own personal piece of the pie. Despite having sworn off pork more fervently than an Orthodox Jew, the great Magic O has a $7.7 million dollar earmark with his name literally on it as a cosponsor. Now, in his defense, this one earmark is not his alone, and it makes up roughly .002% of the total bill. At the same time, it is a bit shameful that he cannot even go to the trouble to make sure he remains at least somewhat consistent on the pork. It's kind of like he's had his way with us, and he didn't even say he'd call us later. If he did, we'd all know it was a lie, but at least he would've made an effort. He loses 2% for this slap in our collective faces.
And now to the big one. Obama's administration has stated a goal of reinstating the assault weapons ban. Take a moment and clean the blood and/or vomit from your screens. Ready? Let's continue. His attorney general Eric Holder, according to ABC news, told reporters yesterday that "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."
Where to even begin? Perhaps with the fact that gun control does not work. It only takes a lazy second to find evidence for this. Great Britain, for example, has banned nearly all guns in their tiny country. Even the vast majority of their police do not carry guns. Yet, even a quick google search of "drive by shooting London" reveals page upon page of incidents where criminals used their weaponry against an unarmed populace.
Not good enough for you? Ask yourself this, then. What possible reason could they have for wanting us not to own assault rifles? As opposed to a handgun, they are difficult to conceal. You aren't going to sneak around with a M-4 in your back pocket. If you want to be generous, you could say they simply don't trust us to use our weapons responsibly. You could take them at their word when the Attorney General says that they are trying to have a "positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."
I don't think you ought to be generous, and I don't think you should take their word. I'll tell you real reason why why: When it comes to resisting your local tyrant, handguns and shotguns just don't cut it. No tyrant has ever liked his subjects to be armed. By systematically removing our ability to resist with force, they can then cut down our ability to resist with words, until our ability to resist at all is gone like a passing dream. Say what you will. You will never convince me that there is any reason a free government, intending to rule a free people, would have to restrict the reasonable armament of their populace. The Left believes they can rule your life better than you can. You aren't bright enough to see that, so it's in your best interest to remove your ability to resist, so that they can rule your life, for your own good.
Are Obama's plans for the future for tyranny and oppression? Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is, though, that moves like this are paving the way for him, or another like him, to institute that very thing. For this egregious assault on our liberties, he loses a full 10% of his rating. I'll scale this back if Obama comes out and says his AG was out of line, or increase it further if he actually goes through with it.
UPDATE: Pelosi has said that she has not been approached regarding any gun ban in the works. Her reaction does make it less likely that such a thing is close to churning out. The rating hit still stands until Obama comes out against it, primarily because Pelosi is an elected official whereas the AG is appointed by the President (then confirmed by the Senate, of course.)
Want my guns? Come and take them. Sic Semper Tyrannis!
No comments:
Post a Comment