March 29th, 2103 - Rebuttal to Presidents Emotionalism
Snippets from the President's speech and my rebuttal:
Obama: “I want to make sure every American is listening today,”
Rebutt: This is an interesting line. It says a couple of things all at once. One thing it says is that it assumes we are a united front, that we believe in the change he wishes to force on us. This is patently false, as all of what he wishes to accomplish is in fact unconstitutional, illegal, and outside his authority to do. It is so illegal in fact, that it is outside the ability of congress to do. If "every American is listening..." then perhaps a Constitutional amendment should be passed around, then we'd have a legal approach to what the government is attempting instead of hijacking human rights and throwing out the Constitution.
This statement is also a warning, it stands like "Dad Obama" telling us we had better be careful, that we had better listen up. We better listen while the King tells us whom we are and what are about and how we are going to live our lives and what should be expected of us. He could have easily started his speech with the next line, but he chose to include this warning against individualism.
Obama: “Less than 100 days ago ...and the entire country was shocked. And the entire country pledged we would do something about it and that this time would be different. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten. I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”
Rebutt: The pledge to do something about it still stands! We The People have a different view of the world than you do Mr. President! These are our children, that you are forcing us to hand over to you for so many hours a day, we have no say in their safety, no guarantees of it, nothing, but the hope of them returning to us at night. You and the agencies that force us to give you our children are fully, wholly, responsible for them while they are in your care. If you fail them, it's your fault! I would protect my children with arms, arms in the sense of knives and fists and yes...guns. Why shouldn't I expect you to do the same? After all, if I had the right to not send my children to you and keep them close to me, I would use what ever was necessary to protect them. You and your agencies refuse to protect them! You refuse to help them by actually surrounding them with shields and spears! Instead you punish me for your agencies incompetence. You punish all of mankind, because your agencies can't do their job and protect the kids. Shame on you! If shame is the word you must use, then the full weight of that shame falls not on We The People, but on you, whom force us to relinquish control of our lives to you and your agencies. These mass shootings are more your fault than they would ever be We The People's. You're thought process is no better than a bad high school teacher whom punishes the whole class because of one child's outburst, illogical, stupid, and plainly un-enlightened.
Obama: "We’ve known enough heartbreak. What we’re proposing is not radical"
Rebutt: Not radical? It's not radical to you perhaps, because your agencies have been trampling on the Constitution for the last hundred years. The Espionage act. The Sedition act. The Mccarran act. The banning of firearms based on function. The banning of firearms based on caliber. The banning of firearms based on capacity. The banning of firearms based on features. The banning of firearms based on appearance. The list goes on and on of a government that has no respect or authority to the Constitution. So yes, it is not radical, to you. But any violation of the Constitution, especially where it says specifically, "Shall NOT be infringed" is a clear violation of the oath of office and the respect of this country. The mere thought of destroying or trampling on Life, Liberty, and Property under the Constitution is, possibly, the most radical of all thoughts.
And yes, we've had 'enough heartbreak', perhaps you need re-examine the NRAs idea of putting a police officer in every school. More swords, more shields. Not less freedom.
Obama: "...it’s not taking away anybody’s gun rights."
Rebutt: perhaps you need a refresher, the 2nd Amendment reads: "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." There is no room for interpretation there. It says, shall not be infringed. It does not indicate at all, any exception. No where does it even suggest that the government has this authority.
Also, it goes against the very fundamental right of life, liberty, and property. As, it seems I must explain to you again. Your physical body is the most important property one owns, it allows for the function of work, and by working, allows for the ability to gain more property in the form of things like shelter and food, thus increasing my expectations of life and liberty. Any action that decides the value of my work, by restricting the property I can own, is an act of slavery enforced on my person. The government has no right to know what I own. No authority to regulate it. No purpose to do so. It's criminal as much as it would be if I were to take from my neighbors those things I feel they should not own. It's just plain ridiculous, the whole argument.
The right of life is the object of self preservation. The object by which I preserve my life is the best tool that I can get my hands on. If the enemy has a stone, I want a stick with a stone attached. If the enemy has a knife, I want a sword. If the enemy has a pistol, I want a long gun, with twice as much ammo. This is not a matter of debate, this is simply, human rights. By limiting the tools that individuals may use, you do two things: make the idea of individualism go away because it takes the authority out of the hands of the individual and consolidate power away from people to a central position, which would probably be your office. Perhaps that's the whole point.
I am against ALL further gun restrictions.
Obama: “I want to make sure every American is listening today,”
Rebutt: This is an interesting line. It says a couple of things all at once. One thing it says is that it assumes we are a united front, that we believe in the change he wishes to force on us. This is patently false, as all of what he wishes to accomplish is in fact unconstitutional, illegal, and outside his authority to do. It is so illegal in fact, that it is outside the ability of congress to do. If "every American is listening..." then perhaps a Constitutional amendment should be passed around, then we'd have a legal approach to what the government is attempting instead of hijacking human rights and throwing out the Constitution.
This statement is also a warning, it stands like "Dad Obama" telling us we had better be careful, that we had better listen up. We better listen while the King tells us whom we are and what are about and how we are going to live our lives and what should be expected of us. He could have easily started his speech with the next line, but he chose to include this warning against individualism.
Obama: “Less than 100 days ago ...and the entire country was shocked. And the entire country pledged we would do something about it and that this time would be different. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten. I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”
Rebutt: The pledge to do something about it still stands! We The People have a different view of the world than you do Mr. President! These are our children, that you are forcing us to hand over to you for so many hours a day, we have no say in their safety, no guarantees of it, nothing, but the hope of them returning to us at night. You and the agencies that force us to give you our children are fully, wholly, responsible for them while they are in your care. If you fail them, it's your fault! I would protect my children with arms, arms in the sense of knives and fists and yes...guns. Why shouldn't I expect you to do the same? After all, if I had the right to not send my children to you and keep them close to me, I would use what ever was necessary to protect them. You and your agencies refuse to protect them! You refuse to help them by actually surrounding them with shields and spears! Instead you punish me for your agencies incompetence. You punish all of mankind, because your agencies can't do their job and protect the kids. Shame on you! If shame is the word you must use, then the full weight of that shame falls not on We The People, but on you, whom force us to relinquish control of our lives to you and your agencies. These mass shootings are more your fault than they would ever be We The People's. You're thought process is no better than a bad high school teacher whom punishes the whole class because of one child's outburst, illogical, stupid, and plainly un-enlightened.
Obama: "We’ve known enough heartbreak. What we’re proposing is not radical"
Rebutt: Not radical? It's not radical to you perhaps, because your agencies have been trampling on the Constitution for the last hundred years. The Espionage act. The Sedition act. The Mccarran act. The banning of firearms based on function. The banning of firearms based on caliber. The banning of firearms based on capacity. The banning of firearms based on features. The banning of firearms based on appearance. The list goes on and on of a government that has no respect or authority to the Constitution. So yes, it is not radical, to you. But any violation of the Constitution, especially where it says specifically, "Shall NOT be infringed" is a clear violation of the oath of office and the respect of this country. The mere thought of destroying or trampling on Life, Liberty, and Property under the Constitution is, possibly, the most radical of all thoughts.
And yes, we've had 'enough heartbreak', perhaps you need re-examine the NRAs idea of putting a police officer in every school. More swords, more shields. Not less freedom.
Obama: "...it’s not taking away anybody’s gun rights."
Rebutt: perhaps you need a refresher, the 2nd Amendment reads: "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." There is no room for interpretation there. It says, shall not be infringed. It does not indicate at all, any exception. No where does it even suggest that the government has this authority.
Also, it goes against the very fundamental right of life, liberty, and property. As, it seems I must explain to you again. Your physical body is the most important property one owns, it allows for the function of work, and by working, allows for the ability to gain more property in the form of things like shelter and food, thus increasing my expectations of life and liberty. Any action that decides the value of my work, by restricting the property I can own, is an act of slavery enforced on my person. The government has no right to know what I own. No authority to regulate it. No purpose to do so. It's criminal as much as it would be if I were to take from my neighbors those things I feel they should not own. It's just plain ridiculous, the whole argument.
The right of life is the object of self preservation. The object by which I preserve my life is the best tool that I can get my hands on. If the enemy has a stone, I want a stick with a stone attached. If the enemy has a knife, I want a sword. If the enemy has a pistol, I want a long gun, with twice as much ammo. This is not a matter of debate, this is simply, human rights. By limiting the tools that individuals may use, you do two things: make the idea of individualism go away because it takes the authority out of the hands of the individual and consolidate power away from people to a central position, which would probably be your office. Perhaps that's the whole point.
I am against ALL further gun restrictions.
Comments
Post a Comment