Orwellian Double Speak: How the Left Lies to Your Face while Claiming the Moral High Ground

Orwellian Double Speak: How the Left Lies to Your Face while Claiming the Moral High Ground
–Joe Bakanovic, July 26, 2012

In his first comment about gun control since the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, President Obama claimed that he supported the 2nd Amendment, then called for stricter measures to control gun violence:

Obama Talks Gun Control: ‘AK-47s Belong In The Hands Of Soldiers, Not In The Hands Of Criminals’

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation…. but I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

“I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons,” he continued, “and that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller, that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.”

“These steps shouldn’t be controversial,” he concluded, “they should be commonsense.”

Well, they are common sense, and no one is disagreeing with the notion that criminals should not be allowed to own firearms. But the President is deliberately playing on the emotional sentiments attached to this tragedy to deceive people as to his true intentions. Let me explain by asking you to first consider these words, from the same speech, said before the quotation I cited above:

“The background checks conducted on those looking to purchase firearms are now more thorough and more complete. Instead of just throwing more money at the problem of violence, the federal government is now in the trenches with communities and schools and law enforcement and faith-based institutions.”

Given Obama’s own assertion that the federal govt. is doing a better job of checking the background of people buying firearms and at coordinating its efforts with the local communities and the fact that the Colorado shooter had no criminal record, how could anyone have prevented this tragedy through gun control measures other than taking away you right to own a gun? This guy was a “model citizen” before he did this, so no amount of screening would have possibly caught him. In fact, this incident proves the objection to gun control advocates is valid: people who are going to break the law will not follow the law.

This means that there are only two reasonable possibilities that someone would exploit this shooting to call for more gun control: they want to prevent private citizens from owning a weapon, or they are insane. I submit to you that Obama is not insane because, if you will go to the video in this story and watch from the 2:20 mark, you will note something that I think betrays the man’s true intentions (it is yet another “you didn’t build that” moment). Right before he talks about the background checks being more thorough and complete, he infers that the reason there isn’t more gun control already is due to politics and lobbying. Then he boasts that he and his Administration has “done things on our own,” and blames Congress for not doing whatever he asks them to do. This is not the attitude of a President of free people who understands and supports the 2nd Amendment: this is the attitude of a would-be dictator who is upset because his will can still be thwarted by the People’s representatives. Make no mistake, Obama is lying when he says he supports the 2nd Amendment; he wants to take your weapons.

But the average American will say that I am being unfair; that the President did not say he wants to take our weapons. To that, I say you are correct: he did not say it – because he does not have to. That is the role of the mouthpieces in his Party and on the American Left: to advocate for gun control and, in the words of Van Jones, “Force this President to do what’s right: what he knows he must do.” You see, Obama wants your guns taken away, but he knows he cannot get elected if he says that. So he stirs the public emotion, implies that more gun control will stop future shootings, then steps back and waits for the rest of the people in his Party to say things like this:

“All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars.”
– Charles Shumer

[“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements …. They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
– Benito Mussolini

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”
– Adolf Hitler ]

“We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

Stopping Crime Before It Starts

Predictive policing helps police protect citizens. It could also be used to oppress them.

“I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers…No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”
— Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”
— Rahm Emmanuel, senior advisor to Bill Clinton (later, to Obama)

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/CA) speaking of her authorship of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on “60 Minutes” 2/5/95

“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

“We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!”
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer (D/NY) on NBC 12/8/93

“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
— U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.”
– Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.) — Now a possible 2012 Presidential Candidiate

Furthermore, while indirectly putting the notion in the public ear, Obama knows that others will tell the blatant lie about why the founders included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Hint: it was not for hunting or sports shooting. They told us in the most clear and certain of terms that the second amendment was to insure the People would always have the means to resist the government when it became tyrannical. And yes, the founders did not say if the government became tyrannical, they said when it did so. The 2nd Amendment is as important today as it was in the time of the Revolution because it is the last resort against tyranny. But Obama knows that hi accomplices in his Party and co-conspirators in the media will be given the air time to push outrageous lies such as this:

Michael Moore: Guns Today ‘Not Really’ What Founding Fathers Meant When They Said ‘Right to Bear Arms’

Moore said:

… when [the Founding Fathers] said, the right to bear arms…you know, the “arm” back then was you could — you could only fire one shot at a time. You had a little — a little ball bearing-like bullet. You had to stuff it in the thing and then you had to do this, and the gun powder, and, you know, took 15 minutes before you could fire one shot.

Now, if the Founding Fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen AK-47s and Glock semiautomatic pistols, I got a feeling they wouldn’t — I think they’d want to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that’s not really what we mean when we say “bear arms.”
…I wish we would just live in this century. I think they’d want us to do that.

And this is how they lie to you, and how they get away with it: because they know the media will not correct them and you will not do the research necessary to prove them wrong on your own. I wrote about how this works earlier this week.

So, if you will allow me, I will just end this piece with a few thoughts about the 2nd Amendment from the men who really knew what it means:

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
— From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
— Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

“The great object is, that every man be armed. […] Every one who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

“To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
— George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…
— Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.
— Noah Webster

This list of quotes from the founders could go on and on, but – if you really want to have some fun – look up what the founders understood the word “arms” to mean and you’ll see that they would have likely used them on Moore for suggesting they would have ever agreed with him.

5 thoughts on “Orwellian Double Speak: How the Left Lies to Your Face while Claiming the Moral High Ground

  1. Let us see, as the United States was engaged in the cold war with the communist countries during the time before 1989, the only way for a civilian to legally “posess” an AK-47 would be if he were a “class III dealer” authorized by the federal government to sell fully automatic arms to other dealers and law enforcement and military organizations. All of the other AK-47’s are in Governmental USE or illegally possessed by Criminals who illegally imported them.

    So a law banning AK-47’s would affect ZERO law abiding citizens…..hmmmmm

    The claim to ban AK-47’s is just like the claim to provide healthcare to America. Just like the international small arms treaty proposed by the U.N. isn’t about international transfer of firearms.

    It is a lie.

  2. It’s irrational behavior by irrational people. You ever read the reviews to the books these liberals write? Even the reviewers sometimes ask what the h*ll did he put that in there for?

    Irrationality even confuses the irrationals.

    • Yes, I have also noticed they charge many times more than what the supposed “evil, greedy” right-wingers charge. On top of that, they never seem to sell, either. Go figure, right? 😉

  3. You’re right Texas about AK-47’s and M-16’s or other automatic rifles or machine guns made or imported before May 19, 1986, I think. If your state allows one to own a machine gun or auto-rifle, you have to pay the tax and fill out a bunch of paperwork as well as undergo a strenuous background check. It takes many months to complete. Also, the Ak’s you can buy over the counter at the local gun shop are what’s known as AKM-47’s And the American AR-15, of course, neither one of which can be made into a fully auto rifle, unless you’re a gunsmith and are willing to break the law. You probably know a whole lot more about it than I do, though. 😉

    • Why would anyone want to make an AR-15 full auto? That’s a waste of ammo. Besides, if you are good with it, you can put 30 rounds on a 12 inch square target at 276 yrds in under 20 seconds. At full auto, you’d be lucky to hit that target 2-3 times and – for the average person – still not do any better with time because you’d have to change mags. Better to learn the true value of “ONE ROUND; ONE KILL” 😉

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.