It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again

CommissarObama copyYou’ve really got to hand it to Commissar Obama. When it comes to going all in on his socialist agenda, he’s certainly wasting no time at all now that he never has to face the electorate again.

The latest example is the hysteria over the tragic shootings at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. There are several illustrative elements I think are worth considering. First, how is this incident any different from the one that took place in Aurora, Colorado in a movie theater during the premiere of the latest “Batman” movie (and of which I wrote a few essays ago)? Why didn’t that massacre, with a much higher body count, lead to these panicked Chicken Little gun control efforts from our socialist brethren?

I’ll tell you exactly why: that shooting took place only a month or two before the next national election, and the socialists know that gun control is an election-killer for them, whereas this event happened as absolutely far as possible from the next election, so they’re banking on the electorate’s short attention span in making this the most opportune time possible for them to try to realize their dream of imposing Draconian gun restrictions.

Then there’s the added benefit to Comrade Obama of using this event, and its headline-grabbing nature, to distract everyone from the very real and immediate problem that is facing this country, and his arrogance and ineptitude in dealing with it, namely our looming fiscal insolvency. It’s a classic case of presidential sleight-of-hand: “Hey, look! We need to save the kids and ban guns! Don’t pay any attention to what my other hand’s doing!”

It’s pure, sheer political cynicism, chicanery and hypocrisy of the first order.

Speaking of hypocrisy and chicanery, whatever happened to the investigation into “Operation Fast And Furious”, in which Eric Holder and the BATF ran thousands of full-auto assault weapons into Mexico in an effort to gin up a fraudulent case that American gun laws were too lax, resulting in the deaths of over 300 Mexican citizens and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?

Anyway, here are some points to consider. The Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings both took place in venues which are already under stringent gun restrictions. In fact, Connecticut already has an “assault weapon” ban in place ( Link ), as does Denver ( Link ), of which Aurora is a suburb and under its jurisdiction, under Municipal Code 38-130. So, in light of that, how would any new federal laws have prevented these killings? They wouldn’t have, plain and simple, as both shooters were already violating “assault weapon” bans.

I hear a lot blather about how the Second Amendment was written in the 18th Century and therefore only covers the technology of the time, i.e. flintlocks. Using that rationale, I guess the First Amendment right of free speech only covers hand-operated movable-type printing presses, then, and not the internet, TV, radio, movies, computers, automated printing presses, or telephones of any kind.

The blather continues with the usual nonsense that the Amendment only covers members of the active duty military and National Guard because it mentions a “well-regulated militia”. Here’s the complete text:

“Amendment II

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

MinutemanAnd what is the “militia”? It is the body of the whole populace of able-bodied law-abiding citizens, as defined by the Founders in their contemporary writings and encoded by Title 10 US Code, Section 311. And, as mentioned in the Amendment, this is an issue of “a free state”; it doesn’t mention deer hunting anywhere. It’s about freedom from government tyranny, a condition assured by an armed populace capable of resisting oppression.

This is a country founded on the principle of equality, with no “privileged classes”, and the cops and soldiers are just citizens like everybody else. EVERY citizen has an equal right to equal weaponry. If the cops and soldiers can have them, so can any other law-abiding citizen.

Otherwise, we don’t have an “equal society”; we have a ruling class – the “privileged” – and a subject class – all the rest of us.

Thanks, but I think I’ll pass. I’m not anyone’s “subject”. I’m a free man, and citizen with full rights.

© Brian Baker 2013

53 comments on “It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again

  1. says:

    You’re right. The arrogance of some law enforcement wouldn’t have been tolerated in the 19th Century. I’m pretty sure that folks were quite a bit more mannerly back then, too.
    I don’t know how you reach Rush’s “low information voters” about the true intent of the Second Amendment. Every time a politician is asked if he supports the Second he immediately starts talking about duck hunting or target shooting. Just like…Cuomo, wasn’t it…who was screaming, “You don’t need 10 bullets to kill a deer!”
    No, sir. but you might need 10 or more to stop an out of control tyrannical government and its minions, Governor.

    • BrianR says:

      Yep, Buck it was Cuomo, right along with every other socialist gun-hating moron who seems to think that the Second Amendment has something to do with hunting game — ducks, deer, whatever — and not self-defense against bad people, both the criminals and the tyrants.

      I gotta tell you, the older I get, and the more and more often I see this same old Bravo Sierra issue keep coming up, with the same old Bravo Sierra nonsense the socialists keep spouting, the less and less patience I have.

  2. says:

    And I still want to know why you need permission from the state to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

    • BrianR says:

      Well, technically, since the McDonald v. Chicago case, you don’t. That case incorporated the Heller decision to the states.

      Now it’s a matter of fine-tuning Heller as to its application, which is a work in progress. It took over 60 years for our rights to be whittled away, and now it’s going to take some time to get them back.

  3. gunnyginalaska says:

    Good essay amigo. Good point on the fight going on and the more Americans wake up to it, the better it’ll be for our side.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Gunny.

      IMO, this is a huge tactical and strategic error for the socialists. They’re always MUCH better off when they leave guns alone. It’s an absolute loser for them, and a very polarizing topic. It’s one people can easily understand, as opposed to the mind-numbing subject of economics.

  4. says:

    Yep. And FDR’s FFA was textbook liberal gun grab. Because the ’30’s criminals were using automatic weapons he bans them from the honest folk. Like that stopped the criminals. They just didn’t buy them at the hardware store any more. They stole them from the National Guard armories. Dumb shits, dumb shits…
    “They” say you don’t NEED this or that. Well, who t/f are they to say what I need and don’t need?

    • BrianR says:

      Yep. Whenever I hear the socialists say that, I always respond: “You don’t NEED more than one pair of shoes, either. After all, you only have one pair of feet.”

      They can never respond to that one…

  5. thedrpete says:

    Love your logic, BrianR. Having read “Dreams FROM my Father”, I really think the better term is “communist” rather than socialist”. The former encompasses both socialism and fascism.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, DrP. I actually agree with you re: terminology, but in the past when I’ve used the term “communist”, people who don’t understand the distinction — which is, I think most people — get hung up on the word and the message itself gets lost in the resulting debate about semantics.

  6. says:

    Damn good comeback. I gotta remember it.

  7. clyde says:

    Good essay,and an EXCELLENT point about Aurora. One of the other LARGE issues we face is the utter LACK of Constitutional education at ANY level. It is inexcusable for ANY political hack to PURPOSELY lie about the words AND meaning of what the Constituion ACTUALLY says.And yet they do it with seeming impunity. It is precisely this ignorance that asshats like Obama,Cuomo,et al seek to exploit,with the help of an equally corrupt media,also ignorant of THEIR proper role. These fools I think believe THEY are now a PART of the government,as opposed to be the “peoples’ watchdog” over it.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Clyde.

      Great points all.

      Y’know, as to the “education” aspect, I was in Ventura a few years back doing some business at City Hall, and happened to stumble across a teaching guide on the Bill of Rights. Lo and behold, right in the guide was a bunch of blather about the right being linked to the military and National Guard.

      Needless to say, I was NOT a happy camper. But what can we do? Go running around to every single school district and fight to correct their teaching guides?

      Hopefully, someone who actually lives in the district took some action, but I wouldn’t say my considence level in that idea is very high…

  8. says:

    Dr Pete, Brian.
    Years ago an old Bircher told me there is absoutely no difference in the goals of the socialists and the communists. The only difference is the philosophy in achieving those goals.
    While socialists (also called progressives) believe total control can be attained through legislative actions the communists believe the control can only be achived through violent revolution and purging of opponents.
    Although the philosophies only attain to the methods of gaining control, both will, in the end, be ruthless tyrants when they have gained control.

    • BrianR says:

      Actually, I think the strict definition has to do with whether the government “owns” the means of production, or simply “controls” them.

      In communism, the government owns outright, and “private” companies don’t exist. In socialism, the government controls what private companies can do, even though actual legal ownership may still be retained by private entities. Think of the Nazis and Krupp Industries, or Obama and GM. That’s socialism.

  9. says:

    Robert Welch (creator of Sugar Daddy all day suckers and Milk Duds) is pretty much credited with founding the John Birch Society. In a conversation back in the ’50’s he said he thought President Eisenhower was either a fellow traveller or a dupe. When asked to explain he wrote a book, “The Politician”. Interesting reading.

    • BrianR says:

      I didn’t know that. I’ll have to look into it. If nothing else, Ike had the opportunity to try to start rolling back FDR’s mess, and didn’t do anything at all about it. Very much a caretaker president.

  10. says:

    I belive your definition of socialism is more akin to facism. Think Mussolini. The private ownership of industry that made wat the government told them to make.

    • BrianR says:

      Well, the word “Nazi” is an acronym for “National Socialism”, the official name of the party. But, yeah, that’s the essence of it.

  11. says:

    Okay then the government takeover of GM makes the current regime communist and not socialist?

    • BrianR says:

      No, because officially GM is owned by the stockholders. “Communism” is like the USSR, wherein all industry was owned outright by the government itself. Government “collectives” and such.

      This is a great example of why I try to avoid the word. Even WE are getting sidetracked by the semantic discussion. True communism is even more radical than socialism, though philosophically “communism” is more akin to Obozo’s ideology. It could more accurately be summed up as “Marxism”; the redistribution of wealth to achieve a communal Utopia, with government as the Big Arbiter In The Sky as to who gets what.

  12. says:

    Reminds me of the story of the guy who toured a midwest factory and asked one of the employees who owned the company. He said the boss. He asked whose cars were filling the parking lot. He said the workers.
    Same guy goes to Russia and asks a worker who owned the factory and he said the workers. He asked who owned the car in the parking lot. He said the supervisor….

  13. Gray Ghost (Mississippi) says:

    As Snoopy once wrote on his dog house, “The plot thickened.”

    Are the conspiracy types correct? Are Obama’s 23 edicts (I refuse to call them executive orders) the start of the federal government’s War on America? Or are they nothing more than the Liberal “girly men’s” fear of rednecks, pickups, and guns? I see no possible third option. Even the Liberals know the truth by now, more civilian guns equals less crime.

    And if the real reason is my first option (i.e., the War on America), what do we do?

    In my case, I am still a Boy Scout. My wife just passed her “Enhanced Concealed Weapons Permit” course. And I bought her a new light-weight handgun to carry in her purse. My oldest grandson is learning how to shoot a handgun (using his new Christmas present, a .44 caliber cap and ball revolver). I have started my search for a 5.56 x 45 mm AK-47 (hopefully with a chromed barrel). I will also start making sure that my whole family, everyone 15 years old or older, knows how to shoot in a combat situation and that we have an emergency plan for any contingency.

    I can see no other options for my actions.

    • BrianR says:

      LOL, Gray! Good ole Snoopy.

      I don’t think the socislists DO know that more guns = less crime. You can’t be a leftist and let logic rule. It’s simply impossible. Logic and common sense are antithetical to being a leftist. The ONLY way you can subscribe to leftism is to ignore history and inconvenient facts, because otherwise you end up being a conservative. So, they simply refuse to accept or acknowledge simple facts that conflict with their ideology.

      How else can you explain throwing literally TRILLIONS of dollars at “education” and then, decades later, ending up with a system worse and less successful than the mess you started out trying to “fix”?

      How else to explain that even though the planet has been going through radical climate change throughout its entire existence, it’s only been in the last 20 or so years since AlBore The Whale wrote his idiotic book that we’ve “discovered” that SUVs are “destroying the planet”.

      How else to explain that even though socialism has never been a successful form of governance, and that the economics and numbers can’t possibly work, somehow or another THIS time it’s going to succeed simply if WE do it.

      In short, you have to be brain-dead to subscribe to leftist ideology.

  14. Nee says:

    I agree that this is a loser for the dems. The problem as someone said is that more Americans need to wake up! I found out that a cousin of mine was in the Sandy Hook shooting. Do you think those parents are telling their children that an assault weapons ban, which CT already had, is anything they can understand? Or what Der Commissar did using children to promote that agenda actually resonates with anyone other than the “feel good” BS of the left looking like it cares as opposed to making a real difference. NO.
    The ignorance of people and the belief that semi-automatic weapons can fire themselves is astounding and worse, the bans stop nothing. If those against the 2nd amendment learned anything at all it would be that the damage say from a .223 vs. a 9mm, vs. .45 gets progressively “worse” in hand guns. I don’t know much, but I understand the difference of semi-automatic and fully automatic and have fired a few. I don’t own any guns but am a member of the NRA. We are being infringed!! A smidgeon of education would go a long way…who the f*^^ ever taught someone that the 2nd Amendment was about protecting slavery? This is why people don’t care about that Big Gulp, no smoking in restaurants, Nazi lunch patrols, etc…it won’t matter until they actually wake up in a communist country. And as they defend the liberal ideology in it’s abject failure, so the crow flies and snuffs out freedom.

    • BrianR says:

      “If those against the 2nd amendment learned anything at all…”

      Which they never do! That’s why they’re socialists! LOL

  15. CW says:

    Great post, Brian!

    Sandy Hook should go down in history as a text-book case on the way the Left operates. It has all of the classic elements from the leftwing playbook:

    1. Hide your real agenda until you’ve got a firm hold on power;
    2. Take away the rights of many to punish the sins of a few;
    3. Undermine your opposition by appealing to emotion;
    4. Distract the masses so they won’t notice that you’re burning the country to the ground while you pretend to be their savior;
    5. Remain oblivious to your own hypocrisy (such concerns are for the plebs, anyway);
    6. Ignore the Constitution (we don’t need no stinkin’ rules!).

    Love the visual too.

  16. clyde says:

    I see Obama has turned his campaign apparatus into a “non-profit”. Can you spell m-o-n-e-y l-a-u-n-d-e-r-i-n-g ???

  17. jevica says:


    “I have never, ever seen such an open and admitted-to association between a political party and a so-called news media that exists for one reason, and that is to eliminate, wipe out, and pulverize everything I believe in. That’s never happened, at least not in my lifetime.”

    “The Republican Party and whatever conservative wing it has is sitting by in a passive way, and they are watching themselves and what they believe in be targeted for elimination, and they’re not doing anything about it.” That’s the PSP in action.

    “Republicans are Scared to Death of Obama Because He Wins by Demonizing Opponents” and these fools just think that if they reach “across the asile” the Dems will love them and all will bee ok. What a bunch of fools these mortals be.

    Remember it’s all for the children. Remember the Second makes no mention about hunting it’s to protect us from an opressive government.

    • BrianR says:

      Hey, Jev! Long time, no see.

      GOPers are constantly deluding themselves that they’ll ever do anything that will get the NY Times and Washington Post to love them. Maybe someday they’ll stop worrying about such impossibilities.

  18. jevica says:


    “Democrats: We’re Not Done Raising Taxes” hold on to your money Brian [esp. in CA]

    We have to bend over and grab our ankles. They want us to ask the goverment for everything. Remember the government uses OPM for everthing, just tax the producers to death.

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, Jev. What happened to Obozo’s promise that taxes wouldn’t go up on the “middle class”?

      And I wonder if anyone in the MSM is gonna call him on it?

      Naaaaah… What am I thinking…?

  19. jevica says:


    Have you been talking to him?

    “Jindal: We need to stop being the stupid party”

    “It’s all about brand-building right now for the 2016 field: Rubio’s aiming to show he can solve the GOP’s demographic problems by brokering a deal on immigration; Rand Paul’s trying to prove to mainstream conservatives that he can be trusted on foreign policy; Christie’s wooing the center by lashing out at Republicans and key conservative interest groups like the NRA. And now here’s Jindal, who tore Romney apart after the election for his “47 percent” comments, planting his flag on middle-class economic opportunity and federalism.”

    “The Examiner has a transcript. The “stupid party” comment comes late in the speech and seems to be aimed at Akin and Mourdock babbling about rape, but he thinks the party’s big-picture priorities are pretty stupid too”

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, Jev, when I read his comments yesterday, I had to laugh because I had the same thought. He’s been reading my blog.

  20. jevica says:


    “. . . banning all semiautomatics won’t fly politically, at least right now, because most Americans believe in the right to own a gun and semiautomatic pistols are by far the most common type of gun that they own. So he’s forced to push this phony distinction between rifles and pistols to keep up the “reasonable regulations” facade and reassure fencesitters that he only wants to eliminate a few really dangerous guns, not the sort of guns found in many American homes that are … almost precisely as dangerous as the “really dangerous” ones he wants to ban.”

    ” . . . point about the gun-control slippery slope. You can’t trust Morgan et al. to ban one class of weapons but no other; the logic of their position ultimately won’t allow it. And the failure of their polices will only be used as an argument that they haven’t gone far enough. That’s why he’s emphasizing Chicago. But never mind all that. Per WaPo, it sounds like Obama might have some of the Sandy Hook families in attendance at the SOTU, so unless you want to be a hateful bastard who doesn’t care that children were murdered, it’s time to stand aside.”

    You can call it the slippery slope, or the camel’s nose under the tent, or whatever you want, they will wait as long as it takes and little at a time till they are all banned.

  21. jevica says:


    Bend over, “Bipartisan Senate group nearing agreement on comprehensive immigration proposal”

    Now what could go wrong?

    “. . . Now is the time to show some goodwill by legalizing millions of illegal immigrants and adding them, eventually, to the voter rolls. Maybe then we’ll only lose 60/40.”

    What a crew, who’s in the group? Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez, Marco Rubio and, er, Lindsey Graham and McCain.

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, I just read a similar article at Townhall.

      Why does “immigration” have to be addressed on a “comprehensive” basis at all? How about a piece at a time? First, secure the border. THEN look at everything else.

      But again, the GOP is just too stoooopid to do that.

  22. jevica says:


    What do you think of this idea in VA?

    Remember back to Bush 43, how they wanted to eliminate the college?

    “Virginia’s Ill-Considered Electoral College Idea”

    That’s the authors idea about [ill-considered] I have to think on it some more.

    • BrianR says:

      Well, the article isn’t about eliminating the EC; it’s about delegate apportionment, i.e. winner-take-all versus district-by-district apppointment.

      Actually, I’m for apportioned representation. The ONLY reason Commiefornia, with its 55 delegates, always goes Dem is that the cities have so much of the population and are liberal strongholds, so they completely overwhelm the suburban and rural areas in sheer numbers. But surprisingly enough, this state’s still about 40% GOP, and if we had apportioned delegates, we’d actually end up electing about 20+ GOPers. That would have made the difference in the last few elections.

      I HATE winner-take-all because it effectively disenfranchises everyone in the state who didn’t vote for the statewide winner.

  23. jevica says:


    I was just thinking back to Bush v Gore, I don’t think that elimination of the College is a good idea.

    The same might take effect in NY, upstate is eliminated by the Dem vote in NYC.

    Might get more voters to come out in states with big Dem urban votes and PSP rural areas.

    • BrianR says:

      Certainly. I know for a fact that a lot of GOPers here in Greeceifornia don’t even vote because they figure “why bother? My vote’s meaningless”. I know several personally, my Mom being one of them.

      Interestingly, this phenomenon illustrated in Cali and NY clearly highlights exactly what the Founders were trying to avoid: direct democracy, which they considered legalized mob rule. They wanted to give the less-populated areas a way to be effectively represented in the application of the power structure. Hence the EC, and the appointment of US Senators by the state legislatures.

      But the Constitution was amended to directly elect Senators — a huge mistake because it threw elective power to the urban (liberal, as it turns out now) areas, and winner-take-all electoral appointments do the same thing.

  24. jevica says:


    Good article.

    “Women and ‘Appropriate’ Combat Standards”

    The downgrading of the US military now really starts.

    • BrianR says:

      This is an unmitigated disaster in the making, on many levels.

      The military has one job: killing people and blowing things up. That’s NEVER been a job for which most women are suited throughout the history of mankind.

      I’m waiting for the legislation demanding that men be given “equal opportunity” to give birth to babies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s