because he wants to disarm his opposition in the white middle class who oppose his politics. he fears these whites will oppose his forcible imposition of the same policies, through their recourse to force of arms, if necessary.
in short, he wishes to disarms those who would oppose him by recourse to their arms, in order to protect their freedoms, privileges and heritage. he thinks (as do i, by the way) that such people will fight him, by the use of those arms.
these are conclusions.
please follow with me as i now work towards this conclusion by reason and observation, and seek to persuade you that i am correct in my views.--
it is a politics thing, as obama is a radical leftist, but mostly it is a race thing.
it is a religious thing, as obama is a muslim, but mostly it is a race thing. (and, no, there is no contradiction anywhere in this, ... , reverend wright and obama's religion is "black separatist," and the two regard louis farrakhan of the black muslims as friend, and a great leader. and, bill moyers, the socialist, is a member of the same church, and friend to all.)
obama regards the presidency as a bully pulpit from which to do his race baiting. so, when trayvon martin was killed in an altercation with george zimmerman in florida, obama pulled out all the stops, comparing the thug martin to the boy he never had, and most outrageously, comparing himself to martin when he was that age. (well, maybe not so "outrageous," in a sense. we know obama was a doper when young, ... , perhaps he was a burglar and dope dealer as well. who knows.)
obama cares when whites kill blacks.
obama does not care at all, does not mention it at all, when blacks kill whites. when two black youths beat a man to death in spokane, washington recently, obama was silent. when black youths killed an australian exchange student in oklahoma recently, apparently for doing nothing more than walking by the stoop where they were sitting, obama was silent.
and, so it goes. when blacks kill whites, obama says nothing.
and, oddly enough, when blacks kill blacks, it is not a subject of comment, let alone discourse, for the loquacious teleprompter man.
this last matter is hardly without significance, both as a matter of sociology, and as something very important within the context of "gun control." as noted in previous articles at this blog on gun control, in the united states it is very dangerous to be in a demographic of young black males, say ages 12 to 25, as they suffer an inordinate number of homicides, to include murder.
and, who kills the most blacks?
why, it is other blacks within the same demographic.
as stated previously at this blog, and many other places, if you take the cities of new york, new york; chicago, illinois; washington, district of columbia; and, detroit, michigan out of the statistics on murder and gun violence in the united states, then the united states has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and a very low crime rate involving the use of firearms.
which is another way of saying, that if you remove the demographic of young black males from the equation, from the analysis of gun crime & murder in the united states, then the rest of america simply doesn't commit very many murders, or much violent crime, involving firearms.
which is another way of saying, that whites in america do not commit very many murders with firearms, the figures being very consonant with murder rates in other countries in the world. i don't think the above assertions can be controverted in any meaningful sense. i'll repeat the challenge, and if you think that you can refute these assertions with valid statistics, let's see you do it. i don't think you can.
now, in my previous articles on henry porter, i noted that what the proponents of gun control in america are left with is wanting to disarm those who obey the law, and who don't use guns very much in the commission of crime. in this piece, i am going to amplify that assertion, by making this following assertion.
what obama and the gun control zealots want to do is to disarm white america, which doesn't abuse its gun rights and privileges, while leaving the white citizenry at the "tender mercies" of that black demographic which commits the crimes and the murders, for the most part, in america.
how can i say that?
well, pretty damned easily, as a matter of fact. let's look at the matter with a modicum of logic, and the application of a little sweet reason to be applied to the resultant conclusions.--
black violence upon other blacks is a fight over turf, influence and illicit drug traffic. armed gangs fight for control of drug traffic, and of neighborhoods, and as noted in these pages before, as a kind of warrior class for an asymmetrical warfare on the rest of society as conducted by the great race baiters like jesse jackson, al sharpton and barak obama.
do you think that those persons who are willing to commit murder by the use of firearms to further their aims, are going to see those aims curtailed and frustrated by willingly participating in and submitting to gun confiscation?
that they would do so, strikes me as being highly implausible. if not even a little surreal. black drug thugs are not going to turn in their "nines." it just ain't gonna happen. to the extent that anyone complies with gun registration and/or confiscation in this country, it will be the white citizenry.
how can i make such a bald assertion? well, it is supported by simple observation, fact and history. all of that can be summed up with a very short statement, and that is, that whites have for the most part complied with the gun laws imposed upon them in this country, at least to this point. (i do not think that whites will accept confiscation, ... , i think attempting to impose and enforce such law will lead to outright civil war, and that it will have vicious racial overtones. thank you, mr. obama.)
and, the other observation is, that blacks simply have not obeyed gun laws (or any other criminal law, for that matter), at least not the demographic of young black males who are the focus of discussion here.
how can i make that observation? again, it is by observation. the simple fact is, the harshest "gun laws" in the united states obtain precisely in those cities where black on black gun crimes is at its greatest; where more blacks kill more blacks than any where else in the country, and where blacks are involved in the commission of the highest rates of gun crime. within this context, there can hardly be any cogent contention that blacks obey gun laws, nor that they ever will. why should they, when gun confiscation would leave white and other groups defenseless, and leave blacks the exclusive province of civilian gun ownership and possession?
(and, this leads to another discussion, in a little bit, outside the parameters of this post. think about it, in the context of "obama's civilian army." just who in the hell do you think it is going to be?)
whites obey gun laws.
blacks do not obey gun laws.
yet, it is obama, his ilk and his minions, who decry those relatively few instances (by gross comparison) in which whites kill blacks with guns, who condemn the use of guns by whites even when legal process determines that such use was justified under the law. such as in the case of george zimmerman.
nope. barak "the one and true hussein" obama doesn't give a shit about you being killed by a black if you are white, he cares only about you if you are a black who is killed by a white. as to the former, he remains silent, as to the latter he calls for gun control.
let's consider this one last time, keeping strictly in view the reality that as a community, whites in this country tend to obey the law, and that as a demographic, young black males in a certain demographic, roughly ages 12 to 25 do not tend to obey the law, and are heavily involved in crime in which guns are used in the most violent ways in order to dominate in such activities.
in short, whites are far more likely to obey gun laws than young black males.
when whites have guns by which they can protect themselves, they are still preyed upon by blacks. simple fact.
now, what makes you think that young blacks are not going to increase preying upon whites (as well as their fellow blacks, as has been the case) when they are the only ones to have retained their firearms. again, do you think murderers, rapists, drug dealers and general miscreant thugs are going to obey the gun laws that obama seeks to pass?
oh, you are a gentle soul, aren't you? and, something of an idiot in my estimation, because you turn your back on fact, experience and observation of the conduct of this black demographic. as a matter of fact, i would think that this demographic we talk about, this well spring of black thugs and criminals, will simply view "gun control" as widened business opportunity. tell me how i am wrong.
the white community needs to keep its guns in order to protect itself from this young black male demographic.
and, as noted above, the white community needs to keep its guns in order to protect itself from a federal government that would disarm white america to impose its political agenda, and which would exploit the resultant disparity of arms between young black thugs and whites in order to promote its social agenda.
john jay @ 10.02.2013
p.s. this is my advice, and my prayer.
if laws are passed to register and confiscate your weapons, do not obey them
do not turn in your guns.
if any federal or state agent comes to your door to take your guns, kill those agents on your front porch.
if this comes to pass, wage aggressive war upon those who would subjegate you.
buy guns. buy ammo. become as proficient as you can with all sorts of weapons, including your guns.
"Bill Moyers"???
You mean, Bill Ayers???
Duh.
Proofread??
Posted by: Rex | October 03, 2013 at 05:13 AM
my very dear sir, aka, rex:
nope, i meant bill moyers, the myopic little twerp with the big glasses who just oozes sincerity when he appears on pbs, and the like.
bill moyers, as from "bill moyers journal." (write him, please, and complain about the missing apostrophe.)
that bill moyers.
moyers does not belong to rev. wright's congregation. he is a member, however, of the same denomination/church, which holds similar views w/ rev. wright.
duh, indeed.
john jay
p.s. bill ayers is a shit head as well. did you know his dad is a rich liberal shit head, too? eh?
Posted by: john jay | October 03, 2013 at 10:30 AM