Previous Post
Next Post


In brief remarks to the press this afternoon regarding this morning’s Baton Rouge police shootings, President Obama looked appropriately somber in expressing outrage at three more dead police officers only ten days after five LEOs were killed in Dallas. He called for Americans to focus on words and actions that will unite us rather than divide us.

This statement was notable in that, unlike previous statements in the wake of other shootings, he refrained from commenting on any of the facts of the case. Nor — against all odds — did he take the opportunity to decry the fact that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

The closest he came to mentioning firearms was when he noted that a bullet only has to be right once, but we need to be reminded of peace over and over again. Or something to that effect. It was surely one of the least inflammatory post-tragedy addresses he’s made during his presidency.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Tomorrow? I think we’re going to be in for a very long week ahead. My prediction is more attacks on police, maybe even multiple attacks each day this week leading up to the Trump Main Event at the RNC this Thursday where the riots will be… intense.

      EDIT: and we may not even have to wait for tomorrow. It’s very possible we will see copycat attacks on police elsewhere in the nation before dawn tomorrow.

      • And these attacks are largely because of a) Obama constantly creating a “racist” crisis, and b) his pet media sensationalizing every little incident that involves a black man being shot by a cop.

  1. I thought that Obama dug cop killers? Didn’t he get political aid from Ayers, Dohrn, and others who, in Joe Biden-speak, “literally” attacked police officers and police headquarters? Doesn’t Obama (and his cronies) still speak the language of the New Left?

  2. Credit where it is due. I haven’t read or heard the entirety of his remarks, but off the parts that I’ve read, this is one of the most appropriate responses Obama has given to this kind of atrocity.

    • That’s largely because of all the negative PR he got after his Dallas speech, so his advisers told him to change his message. It has nothing to do with how he actually feels, just the usual political spin.

    • i thought his speech was good and appropriate – work within the law, dont bring violence upon others, criminals will be brought to justice, and respect LEO’s doing their best in shitty situations. i wish criminals and bad people did not possess guns to do evil, but such is not the case.

    • Too vad he didn’t say these things when he attended the memorial service for the 5 slain Dallas officers. Instead, he kept up his race baiting and white guilt trip. He’s to blame for these three deaths. I can’t wait for him to move his sorry ass out of the White House.

      • Don’t forget the opening joke. Race baiting and other general politicking, and joking at a funeral.

        Classy guy. And many in the Left worship him.

    • Appropriate, if not for his well-known record of immediately blaming police for what later turn out to have been good shoots, and general race baiting and politicizing freaking funerals.

  3. I think our affirmative-action POTUS has been taken aside by his advisors and told that his previous remarks, while popular with the BLM and their left-wing sycophants in the press, have gone over poorly with the public.

    • That, or Obama just couldn’t be bothered with a full-tilt race-baiting rant today because he had an important golf game to get to…

    • Maybe. Could also have something to do with one officer being named “Montrel Jackson” this time, and Obama being a racist shithead. Or, that the American ‘Nation of “Islam”‘ is starting to get a LITTLE too close to this unrest right after an ISIS attack in France and ISIS revolution in Turkey, right before the big event in Cleveland.

    • The public tend to rally around their public safety employees like police and firefighters when they are the victims of disasters or mass violence. Consider the outpouring of support for FDNY & NYPD after 9/11, for example. I think we are going to see more and more of that kind of public support now, especially if this trend of violence against cops continues. I am already seeing a noticeable uptick in the number of cars in my area with law enforcement support stickers or flags of some kind on them.

      With the election approaching, the DNC does not want Hillary tied to the wrong side of the issue by her association with Obama, so he is likely being told to watch what he says.

  4. Um no. The cops have regarded themselves as a class unto themselves for decades.

  5. Anyone care to guess how bad it will need to get before someone on the inside takes the president out?

    • Heh, you really think the Imperial Schutzstaffel will turn on their lord and master? Good one.

  6. He’ll get no credit from me Chip. And yeah just wait ’til the morrow…how come American presidents don’t resign like the British PM when things don’t as they prefer?!?

  7. This is rich, and so typical. This dirt bag creates the crisis and then tries to come out as the voice of moderation and togetherness. Such a slime bag.

  8. Horrible act, but I can’t stop getting angry at the medias anti-gun agenda during all this by calling the shooters gun an Assault Rifle. The must know by now the difference between a fully automatic rifle (Assault rifle) and a semiautomatic rifle (Assault Weapon).. don’t they?
    I’m just waiting for the media to report a machine gun was used.

    • No shit, by a ‘Nation of “Islam”‘ guy no less, days after the France attack & Islamist defeat of the Turkish coup (supported by Obama), and days before critically important national political meetings of our own, which NOI will be protesting with the Panthers. Last thing the American political Islamists need is a half-assed putsch getting stomped in the nuts in Cleveland that pulls the mask off this bigoted ugliness; still too early for such overt tactics.

  9. Yes, this was an attack against us all. So why isn’t president clown shoes clearing the way for armed citizens to step in and protect schools, stadiums, police………

    • Chris. You’re very vocal about closing the border and deporting folks. How is the .gov employee supposed to do that unarmed?

  10. You know if I had a son, he would look just like the Dallas and Baton Rouge shooters.

  11. The fact that anyone can give Obama an “attaboy” for not going all gun-stupid in his statement is clear evidence of our ultra-low expectations.

    He’s a slimeball, period. Nothing that he says can change what he is.

  12. Question for the PoTG:

    What pros does open carry have for the 2A cause in any protest or political gathering where there is average to heavy police presence and the risk of violence is greater than average?

    I’m curious of opinions from the civilian, LE, and armed citizen point of view.

    Personally, if I see or know there will be substantial LE presence at a rally, I would not choose to OC because I think it would put me at the mercy of police training and I would be a target / person of interest immediately when SHTF.


    • I open carry just about everywhere I go. It wouldn’t be any different at the charlie foxtrot on the lake except that I wouldn’t be there without a rifle. Normally it’s handguns with the occasional long gun. For that event, it would be less handgun and definately a rifle 100% of the time.

      As far as how the cops would perceive that during an emergency… I really don’t give a shit.

    • “What pros does open carry have for the 2A cause in any protest or political gathering”

      Realistically, what cons does it have?

      How can the visibility of a firearm matter?

      “the risk of violence is greater than average?”

      Why is the visibility of firearms carried by citizens a factor in this risk assessment?

      Does it not make sense that the firearms seen are known elements that can be planned for and assessed, and that the unseen arms are unknowns that can’t?

      “Personally, if I see or know there will be substantial LE presence at a rally,”

      I’m really curious as to why this matters so much in your mind.

      “I would not choose to OC because I think it would put me at the mercy of police training and I would be a target / person of interest immediately when SHTF.”

      Oh. So it’s personal fear, then.

      I don’t mean that to insult you, but that’s what it boils down to.

      I’m guessing you don’t OC now and thus see OC as something “out of the ordinary.” It’s not in a lot of places and it certainly does not have to be anywhere.

      In my town, we see people OC-ing often enough. We see it in stores, in restaurants and even in “quaint little coffee shops” (not Starbucks…I wouldn’t know – I don’t go there).

      So, it seems to me that your perception of the safety and, if I may, the “wisdom” of OC is flavored by lack of experience and / or lack of ‘exposure.’

      But, let’s put this into perspective, as I alluded above: what is it about the VISIBILITY of the firearm(s) that changes the calculus of the situation?

      Please don’t buy into the narratives that OC is somehow “more dangerous” (for the carrier or anyone else), as they simply are not supported by facts.

      There are a lot of negative opinions about OC. If one chooses to be a rational, thinking person (rather than driven by emotional sophistry), it’s easy to say those opinions are factually wrong.

      There have been many ‘armed’ protests in history for which OC was both normal and acceptable. It is only within the current cultural lens of “gun demonization” that OC is for some reason thought of as “a big bad thing” to do.

      You asked for thoughts…the above offered as food for.

      • Disclaimer on my OP assertions about OC:

        I have nothing against OC and just bought my first AR this past month, so I don’t have a personal fear of OCing in general, much less a rifle.

        Then again, following the old saying of the best gunfight is the one I’m not in, I wouldn’t go to any gathering where there is a likely chance of violence because:

        1) It’s not my job to protect citizens.
        2) I don’t want to put myself in a situation where a gunfight is a possibility if I’m not protecting someone or there is no possible way to avoid an area.

        I have no desire to be a hero nor do I look for fights. I practice avoidance. But I will protect myself and others if I am attacked. Simple as that.

  13. “When we chum for monsters we shouldn’t be surprised when they rise from the deep” Michael Bane

  14. No Dude. It’s not. An attack by a shooter on a police officer, is not an attack on some mythical “us” by some equal mythical “them” or some “forces of evil.” It’s an attack on officer A by dude B. Just as 9/11 was not an attack by “the moooselems” on “America.” It was an attack by a bunch of dudes from Saudi, on a few buildings in New York and DC. It doesn’t “take a village.” Never did, never will. People, individually, makes decisions. Not some collective Hivemind in the sky. And people, individually, suffer consequences. Not “us.”

    There are no “we”, for whom you conveniently have been granted some God given right to speak simply on account of winning at some childish game involving voting booths, sleaze and corruption.

    Perhaps the biggest loser in the wholesale switch to newspeak as the official language of the West, is the loss of precision and logic. Instead replaced by petty platitudes, where every word is nothing but another one of those “living documents.” Open to arbitrary redefinition by whomever happens to hold a state sanctioned microphone in front f a Camera.

    • 9/11 is a bad example, as the explicitly stated target of the terrorists was the United States, and not just some buildings. The economic damage was, as the attackers intended, widespread for the nation. Not to mention the erosion of liberty and privacy that the resulting expansion of the government security apparatus brought on. There was, and continues to be, a cost for that attack that impacts nearly all Americans.

  15. It is interesting that Indiana allows citizens in certain instances to defend themselves in their homes ( or vehicles ) from unlawful entry by public servants and not be held liable. I don’t see why we couldn’t expand this federally but not just to homes and cars but also to our person. The 2nd amendment did not state that we have to surrender our rights to suspected wrong doing. I believe an officer should have to offer evidence besides just his/her say so.

Comments are closed.