Lead by Example, Mr. Obama

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:37:32 GMT <== RKBA ==>

Larken Rose invites the president-elect to walk his talk by commanding the Secret Service to disarm when he takes office. Another in Mr. Rose's TMDS series of essays. The Most Dangerous Superstition: the belief in imposed authority.

Well, since he is so principled on this issue, I have no doubt in my mind that, as soon as he takes office, he will do the right thing, and lead by example, by disarming the Secret Service. After all, guns CAUSE crime, don't you know? Even using violence is self-defense is--according to the President Elect--a bad thing. So I'm sure his first act as President will be to completely disarm those whose job it is to protect him. The Secret Service folk can all still carry cell phones, instead of guns, so they can call 911 if someone tries to kill Mr. Obama. But since using force is always evil, even in self-defense--or so Mr. Obama apparently believes--then I'm sure he will be happy and proud to leave himself defenseless, just as he wants to leave the rest of us defenseless.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (7):

Larken Rose is working on

Submitted by WEDIDIT on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:11:46 GMT

Larken Rose is working on being an idiot. Surely no one would would want to kill the POTUS. Oh yeah some killed JFK and tried to kill GH Bush and also Reagen but yeah Larken , Obama is not in danger. you are another anti- Obama guy who cant get over that he is the President

Edit comment

I don't know how I got to

Submitted by seriously? on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:03:25 GMT

I don't know how I got to this site, but this is the dumbest thing i've ever read. I mean talk about hyperbole! I mean....wow. Definitely the most retarded attempt at sarcasm I've ever seen. This is like the political equivalent of "if you like it so much why don't you marry it?!" It's almost like your proud we have one of the top gun violence rates in the world.

Edit comment

I think WEDIDIT is missing

Submitted by Everygirl on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:05:41 GMT

I think WEDIDIT is missing the point. Larken Rose isn't questioning (or even overtly discussing) whether or not Obama may be at risk. S/he only seems to be asking whether he has the courage and integrity to live by what he professes to believe. This is an entirely different topic. Though the question may be posed in a sarcastic manner, this does not render it 'idiotic'. Do YOU consider yourself a person of integrity (e.g., stand by your convictions and live in a manner that is consistent with them)? Wouldn't you like to believe the person who represents us to the world and commands our armed forces would do the same? Is it not fair to question his intent to do so? To wit... if he professes anti-gun ideas through espousing his belief they cause violence, is it not an intelligent question to ask if he is willing to live by this belief and set an example by disarming his staff? If he is not willing to do this, it begs the question: just how deeply do his convictions on this subject run? If he hesitates to set such a public example of congruency between his beliefs and his behaviors, shouldn't he (as well as we) ask himself why? If he is an honest man, how could he ask his fellow citizens to disarm if he is not also willing to do the same? You may argue that he is in a uniquely dangerous position that makes him a more likely target of violence, but he is more protected and, I argue, much safer than the average urbanite, or ghetto-resident. These citizens face danger often and aren't monitored by someone 24/7 who would promptly rush to their aid...how do those who haven't got the eyes of the world watching defend themselves against the random violence they are sometimes subjected to? If Obama would ask that level of risk and vulnerability be taken by his fellow citizens, why would he not offer the same? Too long a comment, I know, but I got on a roll...

Edit comment

I think a majority of

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:30:01 GMT

I think a majority of pro-Obama citizens are becoming anti-Obama .Well, the ones that actually follow politics are. Obama is proving that he is just another politician. Politicians tell outright lies to get votes. He preached "change", then kept Gates as his sec. of defense. He preached anti-war to get more votes, it worked and now he's flip-flopping (to no surprise). The powers that be want everything to stay the same, and Obama was "chosen", not by voters or any citizen for that matter. There should be a law that requires voters to name at least one policy that is their favorite of the candidate they are voting for, in order to vote. That would teach people to just vote for who they thought would win. Research the Commission on Presidential Debates. http://www.newser.com/story/36715/paul-delegates-to-convention-go-uncounted.html

Edit comment

I think WEDIDIT is right on

Submitted by G. Williams on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:39:39 GMT

I think WEDIDIT is right on Everygirl. Your point might be valid IF Obama was packing a fully automatic pistol everywhere he went. At no point have I heard him espouse the disarming of law enforcement. The original premise would be possible, and desirable, if not for the fact that morons make it possible for other morons to buy AK-47's with armor piercing bullets. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but who needs an assault rifle to hunt animals? Who needs one for home protection? I submit that the only people that need those outside of the military are those who intend to take on the police and the military, i.e domestic terrorists. Do you NRA fanatics out there really think the 2nd Amendment was put in to preserve the right and ability for people to violently overthrow the government if they wanted to? There is such a thing as a responsible gun law that doesn't disarm the average citizen, and we need more of them.

Edit comment

2A isn't about duck hunting

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:29:32 GMT

G. Williams, that is precisely the reason the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution. It's not about hunting. It's only peripherally about self defense. The reason that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is so that we the people will always have the ability to defeat our own military, should that become necessary. Hence it protects current military weapons, including fully automatic rifles, hand grenades, and shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles. There is disagreement in the 2A community over whether it also protects crew-served weapons. I think it should. Many don't.

Edit comment

Well, G Williams what obama

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:43:00 GMT

Well, G Williams what obama really wants is for government to have a monopoly on force. If you can't see the danger in that then I am sure I can't convince you otherwise.

If you are all for the 2nd Amendment then you should also be able to understand why the 2nd amendment is second in the BOR.

The American revolution was conducted by "domestic terrorists" by your definition. I believe they conducted a "violent overthrow" of the government.

Perhaps a reading of the Declaration of Independence might be useful in understanding why there was a revolution in the first place.

I am not quite sure what you mean by morons selling other morons AK 47s with armor piercing bullets. It is my understanding that the AK 47 isn't used by criminals. And if you mean you disapprove of and are afraid of them because of your perception, then you should say so.

And your judgement that a rifle of a certain type isn't useful for deer hunting or home defense is just that... your opinion. I hope you don't get the opportunity to impose your personal fears, prejudices, and opinions on other people.

Edit comment

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Free Market Recycling
Cell Phones That Never Need To Be Charged? Sound Wave-powered Devices Possible
U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law
Quote
50 Ways to Beat Deflation
Property, Defined
Quote
How Dean Kamen's Magical Water Machine Could Save the World
Free Lakota Bank
Broadcast Digital TV

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair