Who Is Going to Believe Him?

So stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Obama goes to a fundraiser…

OK, that’s not really a punchline, but rather more like a habit with this president! But I digress.

At this particular fundraiser Obama tells a bunch of Hollywood celebutards that “It is easier to buy a gun than buy a book.”

My face when the President says, “It is easier to buy a gun than buy a book.”

My face when the President says, “It is easier to buy a gun than buy a book.”

When was the last time you had to provide an ID with a valid address, undergo a criminal background check, and prove you’re 21 years or older in order to purchase a book?

When was the last time you were prohibited from buying a book from out of state?

When was the last time you had to pay an extra tax for an extra big book?

Come on, now! What kind of retard believes this shit?

Yeah, he probably would believe that.

Yeah, he probably would believe that.

Well, at the very least actor Jamie Foxx who headlined a DNC concert in Pacific Palisades last Saturday. Of course this is the same guy who condemned Hollywood for contributing to violence in this country, while making millions in such violence-filled films as “Django Unchained,” “Law Abiding Citizen,” “White House Down,” and “Collateral,” so those condemnations ring kind of hollow. That said, I enjoy his movies (Except for Annie, because that was a cinematic dumpster fire), but I certainly don’t enjoy being lectured by Hollyweird degenerates about how our gun laws need to change.

Now, the Hollywood Reporter claims that the President was referring to the ostensible lack of bookstores in low-income areas, because after all, in a country where two-thirds of the population has a smartphone and where 74.4 percent of households in 2013 reported having access to the Internet, apparently is a tough URL to master.

And considering guns are all but banned in the President’s hometown of Chicago, I’d venture to say that there are more bookstores in that city than there are gun stores.

So who is going to believe the President when he outright makes stuff up to push his gun control agenda?

Well… this imbecile probably will.

And, of course, the media.


I suppose when you have a ton of black market guns and a low literacy rate in some poor areas, the President’s pronouncement becomes more true than we’d like it to be. But that says more about the shoddy state of our education, and confirms the fact that more gun laws will do nothing to reduce the presence of firearms.

I’m fairly sure, however, that the President doesn’t want to go there.


8 responses

  1. Nicki,
    I hate to have to admit this, after all this time, but I really can’t for the life of me understand what the liberals hope to achieve by banning guns. I mean, I get it, how they want to control us, and all. But in the end, what is in it for them?

    I have seen people say that it makes them feel better about themselves and all that. Maybe a few other arguments. But really, all I can think right now is, Why? It doesn’t hurt them. If they are intellectually honest with themselves, it has no affect on them one way or another. Just like gay marriage has no affect on my marriage one way or another.

    Can you enlighten me?


  2. Pigpen, if we have no guns it becomes much easier to force us to do what they want us to do. And of course to kill off the troublemakers.

    “I’d venture to say that there are more bookstores in that city than there are gun stores.”
    Dead right, there are no gun shops in Chicago proper, and only 18 in the surrounding area. There are 256 listings for book shops in Chicago proper.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I am more and more convinced that all Teh Won ever was is a puppet who says what he’s told to say, no matter how stupid it makes him look. This is just another example of his lack of connection with reality. Anyone else would likely be locked up and any sharp things like paper and envelopes – you know, paper cuts – taken away from him.
    Shit for brains is too weak to describe him.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Honestly, outside of a few hardcore hoplophobes, I think it’s more signalling to the ingroup than an actual political stance. I see no way for any gun ban to be implemented politically anytime soon. Just trying to get something like old ‘assault weapons ban’ passed again would be incredibly ugly. Any sort of actual confiscation would likely result in a second American Civil War. ACW2 would be very, very bloody and unless the progressives can keep the military together to enforce such a confiscation they lose.


  5. The people doing the most killing don’t even read books. Hell, most of them are functionally illiterate. That is why they are killing each other over street corners to sell dope from in the first place.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Vonzorch,
    you are just restating what I had already said. About the libs wanting to control us. I get that. The part I just don’t get is what is in it for them?

    I agree with some of the statements that it would be nearly impossible to confiscate all of the firearms in America. That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t try. Back to my original question, what is in it for them? It really is not a simple question. And not one that I can answer myself at this time. All I can do is speculate, which is why the reason for the original question.

    I certainly didn’t mean to start some type of flame war. I am really struggling with this question, and so I ask your thoughts.


    1. Well, I would submit that the politicians are likely seeking power and authority.

      As for the tards who advocate gun control in the general population… they’re just deluded.


  7. It’s easier to get a gun than a book, especially once Amazon has deferred to a third party seller, which takes about a year. Basically, you order the book from the seller and hope they’re not trying to scam you and you hope it’s not lost in the mail.


%d bloggers like this: