President Sees Perk in Having “Men With Guns” Protect His Daughters

In a TV interview with Barbara Walters, President Obama joked that one of the incentives for running for president again was that there would be men with guns around his daughters at all times.

Now we will note that apparently the interview was taped on December 14–prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. However, we find it unacceptable that Obama believes it is ok for his daughters to be protected by men with guns…but not anyone else’s.

Guns are a tool. And it is every law abiding American’s right to own one in order to protect themselves if they want to. This is a classic definition of a right. Nobody is required to own a gun. Nobody is required to provide a gun to anyone else. But it is the government’s duty, it is Obama’s duty, to defend an individual’s freedom to own a weapon, not destroy it.

In the United States all citizens have equal rights and are entitled to equal protection under the country’s laws. Not equal outcomes, not equal incomes, not equal consumption levels. If guns are acceptable to protect the president and his daughters, then they’re also acceptable for individual citizens to own and use to protect themselves.

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to President Sees Perk in Having “Men With Guns” Protect His Daughters

  1. Personally, I’m glad I live in Australia where we have restrictions on gun ownership and, as a result, have not had any more of the mass killings we had when guns were more easily available. Gun owners aren’t the only ones with rights. Innocent unarmed people, including children, have a right not be shot, and experience of those countries which have restricted gun ownership is that this is less likely to happen.

    But even if new gun ownership laws are not brought in, the issue of how guns are marketed needs looking at. The following article gives disturbing evidence that guns are specifically being marketed to men who have a mental illness, that mental illness being insecurity in their manhood :

    There is a pernicious myth that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun. Guns are used to oppress people and take away their freedom more often than they are used to liberate or protect. And easy gun ownership creates a climate of fear which oppresses everybody. A compromise has to be made somewhere.

    • Freedom doesn’t come from the barrel of a gun. But protecting the freedom that other people can take away by the barrel of a gun is an absolute necessity. Imagine the Taliban going to the house of a woman in Afghanistan to snatch and stone her, and being met by her husband, father, and brothers, mother and sisters armed with assault weapons, grenades and a hundred U.S. Marines. Bet you the Taliban would back off real quick then. Now, we don’t live in Afghanistan, and we don’t have to have a hundred Marines or grenades, and our enemies probably aren’t Taliban. But, in the middle of the night ANYONE who invades our homes might as well be Taliban because you can be just as dead from a knife or hammer. It’s up to us to protect ourselves and our families, and the bigger the fire power, the better.

      • As I understand it most people who are killed in a home invasion are killed with their own guns. And the mother of the killer at Sandy Hook would almost certainly be alive today if she had not been a gun owner.

        • You misunderstand. People killed in home invasions are not often killed with their own guns. And the Sandy Hook killer was obviously was a man on a mission. If he had not killed his mother with a gun, he would have strangulated her, sliced n’ diced her, blown her up with an IED, poisoned her, bludgeoned her with a baseball bat or a book-end for that matter, etc. Ask any cop and he will tell you, if someone really wants you dead, you will be dead. Go ahead, call the police department and ask them how best to protect yourself. They will say, “harden the target” (alarm systems, awareness, prudent behavior, etc.), but a loaded weapon, proper training, and a will to defend yourself is what protects you the best. Think rationally about this, not idealistically. If all that it took to make society non-violent was not having guns around, it would have already been done. Violent people will always have access to something with which to kill. Shall we cut off people’s hands too?

          • We can’t know what he would have done if he didn’t have a gun. He certainly could have killed his mother without one, but not all of those children. And he might not have killed anyone, as strangling one’s mother doesn’t have the “glamour” of being a “big man” with a gun.

            Nobody is saying that removing guns from society will make society non-violent. It won’t. But it would most likely reduce the number of people killed. In Australia we used to have lax gun laws like your own. At that time we had a number of big massacres. So we tightened up the laws and took away people’s access to high powered assault rifles. Most massacres are not carried out with a simple handgun or a conventional rifle. Why does anyone need such guns? And the result has not been a society free of violence, but it has been a society free of mass killings.

            If an armed person broke into my house I would just let them take whatever they want. They would probably have no motive to harm me. But if I were carrying a gun they would probably get scared and shoot me.

            I’m not saying the law should be changed so that everyone has to go unarmed as I do. I’m just suggesting that weapons which have no purpose other than military attack or mass killings be taken out of the hands of the public and that tighter restrictions be placed on who can buy a gun – no criminal record plus some kind of psychological evaluation to make sure they don’t have an anger management problem or feelings of hostility towards society.

  2. You assume the Sandy Hook killer was interested in being thought a “Big Man” and interested in “glamour” but this assumption has absolutely no basis in fact. We’ll never know why this guy snapped, nor can we ever predict which person will snap no matter how many psychological tests we administer. There are many people who have hostility towards society (think about the Occupy nutsies!) and never snap, and then there are people who have no hostility toward society and suddenly go berserk.

    Moreover, you assume someone breaking into your home is there simply to rob you. Ever hear of rape? Random killing, thrill killings, crimes of opportinity? The right-think of logic based on peoples’ own niceness goes like this: since I wouldn’t harm anyone, why would anyone want to harm me? If we just understand, read the signs, pay attention to the flags, get people help, teach people to be kind—yes, they may kill their spouse, but never kill LOTS of people at one time….especially if they don’t have powerful weapons. Explain why and how a Russian armed only with a knife got into a maternity ward and shredded 12 infants.

    There was a nine year old girl in our neighborhood who ran the streets at night, and was generally unsupervised. The other mothers fretted over her safety and the Child Protective Services were called many times. One time, in particular, gave us concern because it was reported that a child predator had been spotted near the elementary school. The cop who responded to our call told us this: It’s not usually the kids who are street smart that get snatched. Usually, it is the kid playing inside a fenced yard, the nice kid with great parents, the kid who trusts, and wants to help the man find his puppy… Naivete can be lethal.

    Geographically, Australia is separate from the rest of the developed world, and enjoys a luxury America does not: secure borders, limited borders, a more benign and more restrictive culture, and a smaller population. You are fortunate you can remain innocent; we cannot.

  3. It seems to me fairly clear that a large part of the appeal of killing people with a gun is that you can do it from a distance or you can splatter them around. It’s a power trip. Guns give people a feeling of power. That’s why so many of us (myself included) love to watch movies where people blow each other away with guns. We may not know what makes someone snap, but it is very easy to see why they chose a gun as their weapon.

    I don’t see the Occupy protesters as being hostile towards society, merely individuals refusing to be oppressed by authority. I believe in freedom and that includes the freedom to sit in the streets peacefully and protest against the concentration of wealth which led to the Great Depression of 1929 and the recent economic crisis and will lead to the next, most likely bigger, crisis. An economy is like the human body and money is like blood. If too much blood is concentrated in one part of the body, the body has trouble functioning. Put simply, if the poor get too poor they can no longer afford to buy the products and services the provision of which is what maintains the income of wealthy. Unless the United States learns to practice smart capitalism, i.e. capitalism which builds in a certain amount of redistribution of wealth, then its economic fortunes will continue to decline. The occupy “nutsies” from my point of view include a lot of the more intelligent and well-informed members of the United States who were trying to oppose the real nutters, e.g. people like the Tea Party whose retarded concept of economics is potentially a bigger danger to the United States than anything else.

    I would agree with what you say about children who are most at danger. I don’t believe that children should be taught to obey authority. They should be encouraged to expect their parents or teachers to give clear rational reasons why they should or should not do something. Teach a child to obey authority and the authority they obey may be a predator. And, after all, we have to remember that those who abuse children are sometimes their own parents or their teachers.

    I grant you that Australia is probably a safer place to live all around than the United States. Another factor is our decent welfare system. Poverty often exacerbates the growth of crime, including violent crime. We do have violent crime. We have our biker wars and our Asian drug lords killing each other. But that is criminals killing each other. And we used to have mass killings until we took away the high powered assault rifles. You still never answered my question about that. If I grant you that the United States is a dangerous country were frightened people cower in their homes with their fingers on the triggers of their guns, then why not just have regular guns? Why not get rid of the military-style weapons which are not needed to protect a residential property?

    • What you’re missing here is that Americans who own/are trained with fire arms are NOT cowering in their homes. That’s the point. They don’t have to, especially in conceal/carry states where crime rates plunge precisely because the criminals know people are ready, able, and willing to protect themselves and their property. Don’t equate Americans in cesspool inner cities with Americans in Red “fly-over” states who get to stand their ground and protect their castles and don’t cower to anybody. Forget the racial aspects of the KKK– a neighborhood in Springfield, Missouri, displays signs that say “This Neighborhood Protected by the KKK” . It not only has a low violent crime rate, it is particularly free of litter. The message is, don’t screw with people here.

      Connecticut, Colorado (that has seen its share of mass killings), Virginia, etc, are dominated by the Uber-Liberals who nourish this kumbyah approach to self-defense. Chicago, now “governed” by Rohm Immanuel, an Obama operachik, had its 500th killing this week. His idea of fighting crime is asking gang members to shoot each other but spare the children. When you have imbeciles like that in charge, you can bet people cower in their homes. They are not only unarmed, they are designated victims by the very people elected to keep the peace. Compare Immanuel to Arizona Sheriff Arpaio who is deputizing civilians to guard the perimeters of Phoenix schools. This sends a strong message that people intent on harming Arizona kids will be stopped–killed if necessary with real weapons not .22 caliber pop-guns. But I digress.

      Our Constitution was written with limiting the power of government to oppress people in mind. Along with economic freedom, freedom from government was and is a high priority in the American values hierarchy. Assault weapons are powerful, but certainly not so powerful when compared to the arsenal of the American government/military. However, short of sending in the U.S. military, no government body is going to oppress a citizen or his family, neighborhood, etc. any more than the looters in L.A., New Orleans, etc, were going to loot the business owners who possessed assault weapons; they allow people to protect themselves from multiple assailants. In national catastrophes–riots, natural disasters, etc–mobs form quite quickly, especially in these filthy cities, and first responders cannot protect people and property adequately. The businesses in Watts that were not torched, for example, were those of the Korean business people who sat on their roofs with their automatic weapons in full view.

      Consider the young Indian woman who was gang raped on a public bus and died in a Singapore hospital yesterday. Ask he if she would have liked someone to have had an automatic pistol and shot all 10-12 men that attacked her. How many people were ready, willing and able to prevent this atrocity? None, obviously. What could one person have done? Nothing…unless that one person was armed with a great equalizer. Fire power counts.

      As for the Occupy folks—defecating/urinating in public, raping women, littering a park so that it became a public health threat, public intoxication, selling and using narcotics, refusing offers of employment—yeah, these people were/are nutsies.They were a public nuisance pretending to be relevant. Whatever you may think of the Tea Party agenda, at least those folks cleaned up their own garbage, and used the latrines. i know who I’d rather have in charge of things….

  4. ericthered says:

    How did gun control work for the 77 people who were butchered in Norway?

    It would also appear that not all from Australia view their country’s gun control measures as being fully successful:

  5. ericthered says:

    In the US we have a Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. One of the rights granted citizens is that they may keep and bear arms for their protection and for the protection of the state. That’s really the end of the discussion as far as I’m concerned.

    As a law-abiding citizen, I don’t need to justify which type of weapons that the free market provides to anyone. Not to another individual, not to a government bureaucrat, not to anybody. I don’t need to be “cowering in a corner” under some belief that I’m in immediate danger to justify the purchase of a weapon. The point is, I’m allowed to own a weapon. Period.

    The misnomer of “military style weapons” is progressive speak to try to demonize a particular style of weapon. I assure you that the political left is salivating at the opportunity to exploit a human tragedy to expand the control of the state over its people and to disarm the public.

    But the progressive statists will use the obscurity of the law or regulatory framework to have a fluid definition of an “assault weapon” which will include any pistol or rifle that accepts magazines of a capacity not to their liking. Never mind the fact that a killer intent on doing harm will simply buy more magazines… They’ll include things like “one trigger squeeze one shot” which describes nearly every modern firearm. They’ll want a federal registry of weapons so they’ll know who has what–possibly even require fingerprinting as if owning a firearm is a criminal offense. They’ll define an “assault weapon” as one that can attach a bayonet to it…never mind that is more of a “scary appearance” characteristic than a functional one. They’ll add weapons of a certain barrel length, again on the “appearance” factor than any functional rationale.

    Take an AR-15 style weapon as an example. This weapon the left calls an “assault weapon,” a “weapon of war.” or a “military-style weapon.” But it’s not an automatic weapon. It’s military equivalent (the M-16) is not even widely the weapon of choice by the US military anymore, having been replaced by an M-4 carbine. The M-16 (and AR-15 civilian counterpart) is more than 50 years old. Technology tends to advance. So do the weapons that a free people may choose to use for protecting themselves.

    So if I chose this weapon as the one I want for sport shooting, hunting, home defense, who is anyone in the government to tell me that I can’t?

    The US 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, it is about allowing people to defend themselves from a) predatory bad people and b) a tyrannical government.

    I assure you that for people who own an “assault rifle”, ownership is not about wanting to feel like a big man with a big gun. There isn’t anything pleasant about the thought of having to use it.

    • “The US 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, it is about allowing people to defend themselves from a) predatory bad people and b) a tyrannical government.

      I assure you that for people who own an “assault rifle”, ownership is not about wanting to feel like a big man with a big gun. There isn’t anything pleasant about the thought of having to use it.”

      Well said, ericthered! And the info on the AR-15 was instructive. I think it’s very difficult for non-Americans to understand just how seriously we take the Constitution and ALL the amendments—some of our own “leaders” don’t really understand what our freedoms mean to us. Unfortunately for them.

  6. All I can say is that I’m glad it is not me living in that insane asylum. As society continues to break down it’s going to be a bloodbath. You have my sympathy.

What do you think?