Did You Know...

   

Obama advocating concealed handguns? Only rhetorically

Share
By See-Dubya  •  June 14, 2008 10:48 PM

I would be remiss not to mention Fightin’ Jacksonian Colonel Obama’s rhetorical venture to the armaments cabinet. And I wouldn’t want to be remiss. (Not really sure what “remiss” means, now that I think about it, but I think it’s bad.)

Here’s what he said:

He warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’” he said. A donor yelled out a deep accented “Don’t give in!”

“I won’t but that sounded pretty scary. You’re a tough guy,” Obama said.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Okay, three things. No, make that four.

I. If I were a liberal Democrat I would squeal in fright that Obama was advocating violence against his political opponents and ushering in a police state. I am, instead, a rational adult capable of assessing context, so I know it was just meaningless rhetoric.

II. Obama was infamously quoted as wanting to roll back concealed carry laws. Apparently he sees some utility in them after all, at least when you’re under knife attack.

III.
The point of that speech in The Untouchables he’s citing is a very, very, very interesting one. It was from an old Irish cop asserting that to beat Al Capone, Elliot Ness would have to bend the rules, and color outside the lines a bit–because Capone was an enemy who would use your own rules against you.

I’ve always thought that speech applied very well to the war on terror. I would expect Obama to disagree with me there–but it’s interesting that he does seem to think that “the Chicago Way” applies to domestic politics. I suppose a pupil of Tony Rezko’s would have to think like that.

It makes sense, if you think Republicans are the real enemy, and that the terrorists are just a distraction from the progressive agenda.

IV. The essence of Malone’s speech in The Untouchables is a negation of the doctrine of proportionality. It’s not an eye for an eye, to which there is a kind of symmetric justice. It’s two eyes for an eye. The idea being that the disproportionate cost incurred will deter mobsters like Capone from attacking cops and breaking the law.

There’s something to that idea.

Does Obama understand this as it applies to international politics, or is it just a figure of speech? I suspect that this was a telling slip of the tongue. Intuitively, Obama understands along with the rest of us that “massive retaliation” is a winning strategy and that our national defense should be geared to dispensing the unthinkable to those who attempt the unthinkable toward us.

Therein lies our security. America is a bunch of hair-trigger badass gunslinging cowboys and you do not want to be on our bad side. That’s why we have those ten-megaton warheads riding in those silos in North Dakota and on those submarines deep down in the ocean somewhere. An attack on the United States or its interests will deliver catastrophic consequences. That’s the Chicago way. That’s what keeps us safe.

Intuitively, because that’s the metaphor he grabbed when he was on the spot, I think Obama understands this. But politically, he’s saying something else. Which is why Obama is, as Capone jeered at Ness later in that same film, “nothing but a lot of talk and a badge”. Will he do what it takes–whatever it takes–to keep America safe?

Can we afford to take that chance? What if he’s…remiss?

Time for one more? Good.
______________________
V. The guy who wrote that speech Obama lifted from–in the screenplay for The Untouchables–was David Mamet, who recently and famously underwent a conversion to a sort of idiosyncratic conservatism, or at least he is no longer a “brain-dead liberal“.

______________________

{Post by See-Dubya}

blog comments powered by Disqus
Posted in: Barack Obama,Guns

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook