Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Michelle Obama’s Children Protected by “Good Guys With Guns”

“I will never forget that winter morning as I watched our girls, just seven and ten years old, pile into those black SUVs with all those big men with guns. And I saw their little faces pressed up against the window, and the only thing I could think was, ‘What have we done?.’”

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

comments

  1. avatar Alex Peterson says:

    “What is problems of the 1%, Alex?”

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      We have a winner.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      +1

      And…it didn’t seem to bother them enough to pack it up and remove their children in ’12, did it?

  2. avatar Turd Ferguson says:

    …then drive the kids to school yourself lady, without the Secret Service

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      Lady? Where?

  3. avatar Bob363 says:

    My fantasy is one day we will pull their Secret Service protection, and Mr. Obama will have to convince us to issue him and/or his staff CCWs.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Perhaps you did not hear, but Obama signed a bill to extend secret service protection for him and his family for life. No BS, do a search. You will pay for his protection ill he dies.

      1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        Indeed he did. Not only that but they are upgrading the fence around the presidential castle.

        http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/politics/white-house-fence-height-step-forward/

        A moat and alligators is no doubt planned for next.

        Fences for thee and none for me huh. Yep.

      2. avatar Bob363 says:

        Obama did pioneer the unrestrained use of presidential orders and usher in a new era of a country of men not laws. Why can’t a Trump unilaterally pull Secret Service protection? That is no worse than a Obama selectively ignoring laws. Also, if Hillary is elected, there will not be a US to honor Obama’s presidential order. Just saying…. 🙂

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      And build his presidential library of BS in Gitmo.

  4. avatar Brianflys says:

    First B!tch is a pompous hypocrite. Rights for me but not for thee. Stuff that starts revolutions.

  5. avatar Pascal says:

    Democrats Erase the Second Amendment From Their Platform

    The omission is consistent with Hillary Clinton’s disdain for the right to armed self-defense

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/26/democrats-erase-the-second-amendment-fro

    1. Remember when they erased God?
      Their true enemy is the bitter clingers of Bibles and guns.
      The lines are drawn. Let’s fight. I know what side I am on, and I’m a freakin’ Agnostic!

      1. avatar James69 says:

        it’s still on the fiat money though, how did that happen??

      2. avatar anonymoose says:

        Anything is better than worshipping Allah or the Great Bleeding Vagina in the Sky that Hillary’s feminists and “Atheism+” followers worship.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I’m an atheist, and “Atheism+” both infuriates and sickens me. Social Justice Warriors trying to hijack a movement not known for conforming “just because” into their Stalinist doublethink.

  6. avatar Brianflys says:

    Obama will have plenty of armed guards…when he goes to federal prison for high crimes…

  7. avatar Swilson says:

    Doesn’t this make you want to puke in your soup? Talk about putting on an act for their public. You can’t really tell me the First Lady of the US is that concerned that her children are guarded by SS. She can’t honestly say that she is more upset over big guys with guns protecting her children, than the possibility of her children being kidnapped. “Oh God, what have we done? Protecting our children and all.”

  8. avatar DaveL says:

    Obama’s Children Protected by “Good Guys With Guns”

    Well, minions with guns, in any case.

    1. avatar C.S. says:

      They’re good guys with guns, until they’re not…

  9. avatar SteveInCO says:

    It must suck to be on the protective detail, protecting such worthless people. I can imagine it was (and is) even worse being on Hillary’s detail both when Slick was president and now.

    You have to *really believe* that having the president be assassinated is worse for the country than letting even a bad one live and serve out their term, to hold that job. (People might be surprised to hear that I agree…not that I would have minded if the current occupant had died of purely natural causes.)

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Hillary isn’t just evil, she’s vicious and hateful. Nobody wants to be near her when she isn’t wearing her fake camera-friendly facade.

      Being assigned to her personal protection detail is one of the highest punishments in the SS, sort of like sending a military officer to the arctic for a year.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      Apparently, Hillary would berate and physically assault Secret Service Agents and Bill just because she felt like it. Not the kind of person we need in any position of power, especially when she wants to take away our means of self-defense.

  10. avatar Jim says:

    I’m as pro gun as anyone here, but this “Obama is a hypocrite because his kids have armed guards” argument is stupid.
    The Obama childeren are obviously at much higher risk of having harm done to them then your kids. It makes sense for them to have more protection than ours.
    Also you are ignoring the democrat’s argument that guns should only be in the hands of people who have special professional training – None are publicly saying absolutely no guns at all. I don’t agree with this but that is what most are saying and we tend to ignore it, just saying they are contradicting themselves by having any armed guards. It makes us look ignorant when we make this straw man argument.

    1. Yeah, that’s why my kids don’t go to school in an armored vehicle. The argument we make that you take exception to, is not an original pro 2A argument. It is in direct response to those that want to disarm us…”for the children”. It is a completely valid argument and might not point out the degree of hypocrisy you think worthy, but it does expose hypocrisy.
      We aren’t asking for secret service, just the right to bear arms, which is something we shouldn’t have to do.

    2. Also, it is not a straw man argument. And you used the “then” rather then “than”. And you said “but” which means anything you say after that is irrelevant.
      Here’s an idea Jimbo, you formulate your argument however you see fit and let the pro gun rights guys who have no need for the word “but” make our point however we see fit. Guys like you will thank guys like me in the future.
      “I’m for the right to bear arms but, but, but, I don’t think it is worth going to jail or dying for that right.” Then kiss your rights goodbye because many people have given their life for our rights. Think about that.

      1. avatar Jimbo says:

        I’ll try to be more clear. Here is the straw man argument we make:
        “If guns are bad and make you less safe, why do you have armed security”

        I haven’t seen one mainstream anti-gun voice saying all guns are bad in all contexts. They just want guns out of the hands of average joe. They have always been okay with professional security and police with guns.

        They aren’t being inconsistent in this case, just stupid and ignorant of the 2nd amendment. We need to address what they are actually saying.

        Also the only “but” I provided was to say I am pro gun as everyone here BUT we cant make fallacious arguments in defense of it look foolish.

        1. Well I still think you aren’t using the straw man analogy correctly. My friend Chip Bennet could explain it better but I’ll give it a shot. The straw man would be saying that leftists want to disarm us when they do not. But we know it will eventually lead to disarmament and Obama himself lauded the Australian example. So don’t tell me that is a straw man.
          You may not like the analogy of the armed service vs. my right to carry guns while taking my child to school. But I can’t fathom why.

      2. avatar Jimbo says:

        I’ll try to be more clear. Here is the straw man argument we make:
        “If guns are bad and make you less safe, why do you have armed security”

        I haven’t seen one mainstream anti-gun voice saying all guns are bad in all contexts. They just want guns out of the hands of average joe. They have always been okay with professional security and police with guns.

        They aren’t being inconsistent in this case, just stupid and ignorant of the 2nd amendment. We need to address what they are actually saying.

        Also the only “but” I provided was to say I am pro gun as anyone here BUT we cant make fallacious arguments in defense of it or we look foolish.

        1. avatar The Next 8 Years says:

          Okay, I’ll cut through the crap. Just stop whining Jim.

    3. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      “The Obama childeren are obviously at much higher risk of having harm done to them then your kids. It makes sense for them to have more protection than ours.”
      You’re likely right about relative risks. But what does not make sense (at least outside of totalitarian dystopias), is that the risk assessment is done not by Obama for his children and me for mine, but by a bunch of apparatchiks on Obama’s payroll for both of us.

      “Also you are ignoring the democrat’s argument that guns should only be in the hands of people who have special professional training”
      NOT have special professional training. Plenty of gun guys could outperform the lowest ordained swordslinger in Federal employ in any test of gun proficiency. What the Dems are arguing, is that only those in their direct employ, should be allowed to exercise basic rights. Skills, imagined or otherwise, be damned. What counts, is the motivation for carrying guns. Protect the kids of a More Equal, OK. Protect your own, Not So. What’s worse, even the guys who are allowed, as in having passed whatever trumped up test is out there, to carry to protect Obama’s and Bloomberg’s kids, are still not allowed to do so to protect their own.

      “None are publicly saying absolutely no guns at all.”
      Of course they’re not. That would require some capacity for logical consistency. Those with such exalted aptitude, are already on our side.

      “I don’t agree with this but that is what most are saying and we tend to ignore it, just saying they are contradicting themselves by having any armed guards.”
      The are contradicting “all men are created equal” and a whole slew of other edicts most Americans like to pretend their country is ahead of ISIS in observing. Rights given men by their Creator, is not subject to relative risk analysis. Heck, if risk analysis were to play a consistent part in who were allowed to carry or not, gangbangers should rank right up there with Obama himself on the list of people deserving of access to any piece of military kit available.

      “It makes us look ignorant when we make this straw man argument.”
      Only if you insist on playing by their rules. Per the rule of free people in nature, what I own, bear or carry, is simply not any business of anyone but myself, period. And all and any government that doesn’t respect that, sorts well below all and any that does. No matter what.

  11. If you have white girl’s hair…you didn’t grow that!

    1. avatar Karl says:

      Blatant cultural appropriation!

      Shame!

  12. avatar DerryM says:

    Michelle O. is as delusional as any other Democrat. But then she IS the idiot who thought posing for a pix for Twitter with the pathetic “#Bring Back Our Girls” sign as a response to Boko Haram’s abduction of 200 young women in Nigeria would somehow resolve that issue.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Hashtag – the solution for the abducted, raped and murdered girls in Africa. It’s all you get.

      If your a murdering dictator and contribute to the Clinton Foundation to grease mineral rights contracts….well that’s ok.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Because HiLIARy wouldn’t know the truth if if bit her in her fat ugly butt? She’s fighting for women’s rights with the $25 million she got from the Saudis who are the World Class misogynists of all time.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Remember 2012 when she was all about helping vets with her “Joining Forces” initiative. Must have solved it all. Bimbo.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Was that before or after Michelle moved on to making school children eat food they hated? Can’t remember, so much failure is confusing after 7 Years and 7 months of Obumble lunacy.

  13. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘What have we done?’

    Yea, that’s what the rest of the county was thinking too. Well, we wrecked our economy, set race relations back to the 1960s, set fire to the middle-east and ran up a $10,000,000,000,000 bill we still have to pay. Yea, that’s what we have done.

    1. avatar James69 says:

      The Debit – If YOU spent one dollar a second it would take 31,000 years to equal the debit we have now………. just think about that. That’s how far behind we are on the mortgage. At least it’s just fiat money not “real” money.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Wrong. You’re way low. 19 trillion seconds (at a dollar per second, equals our national debt) is 602,000 years or so (the number you gave was approximately right for one trillion).

    2. avatar Omer Baker says:

      When people say that the country is broke, I like to respond with something like “I wish!”.

      If the US Gov were broke, it wouldn’t have any money. THE US GOV IS IN DEBT BEYOND THE ABILITY TO REPAY. Which situation would you rather be in: Having no money, or having no money AND owing $50k AND promised another $600k?

      I’d rather just be broke.

    3. avatar Sad88 says:

      Uh, I think some of that belongs to George and Dick.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Dubya inherited a debt of around $5 trillion and upped the ante to $10 trillion. Now we’re fast approaching $20 trillion. So no, BO did (or at least will soon have done) $10 trillion all on his lonesome.

        Dubya did have a war to pay for.

  14. avatar James69 says:

    Yeah, I was watching this BS. I liked all the “Trump” digs, that she didn’t do. HA!
    Was she going for a Mrs. Trump look? Looked more like Patrick Ewing in a dress. Also noticed the word “black” kept showing up. It was good exercise yelling at the TV for me and my wife.

    1. And thank God she reminded us that the U.S. used to have slaves. I keep fucking forgetting that.

      1. avatar Mk10108 says:

        And it’s racists to be born white.

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        And thank God she reminded us that the U.S. used to have slaves.
        We had more Irish Soldiers Of The State than African slaves.

  15. Question, slightly off topic, why didn’t John Kasich give a speech at the DNC convention? Maybe he will stand in for Hillary at one of the debates.

  16. avatar Karl says:

    I thought the Secret Service had gone through an extensive modernization program and we’re now mostly small genderqueer, androgynous, intersex persons of color equipped with iPhone 6’s to # you into checking your privilege so you will immediately comprehend your unfair advantages in life and repent by joining them in their mission to protect the world from those yet unenlightened souls, like you were moments before.

  17. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Well what do you expect? Speaking of guns-Moo-chelles seem to have shrunk in her old age.

  18. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

    >Imperial Schutzstaffel
    >good guys

    Pick one.

  19. avatar AR says:

    Limo (Up armored Suburban) Liberals.

  20. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Her children are protected by government employees with guns. Not sure I would call them “good guys”.

  21. avatar John White says:

    Hillary represents the new party of national socialism, just like another asshole whose name began with an h she is protected by the SS, just like Hitler and the national socialists in the 1930s.

  22. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Guns for me, but none for thee. Silly peons and serfs. Here Piss Boy! Ahhhh…. its good to be the Queen!

  23. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Ok, it’s OK if the scary big men with guns are part of some system, some bureaucracy. They don’t have agency, they are agents of the institutional will. Mrs. Obama is perfectly comfortable with that.

    What’s scary is individual people having agency. You might have to convince them, one by one, in their own terms, vs. hijacking the institutions to have them coerced.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Michelle Obama’s Children Protected by “Good Guys With Guns” http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/robert-farago/blue-force-gear-quote-day-3-8/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email