Obama plans to disarm America

[I Am Blessed 24]

From one of the blogs on that page:

This is absolutely shocking reprehensible. He plans to universally disarm our nation.

The question is for what, and more specifically “for whom”.


CLICK HERE TO SEE THE VIDEO

 

[hillclimber1]

The sad thing is that rhetoric won't prevent his chances.....We're in trouble in America.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

He scares ME!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It sounds like he is talking about nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

However, this video does show his shocking naivete which disqualifies him from the White House

 

[J.Wayne]

The global community desired by the AC?

 

[LadyEagle]

It sounds like he is talking about nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

However, this video does show his shocking naivete which disqualifies him from the White House

Goodness, Roger, maybe this is just another scare tactic with video clipped out of context. [/sarcasm]

 

[KenH]

I disagree with such a radical downsizing of the United States military. However, I think that even JSM III as president would have to be prudent in defense expenditures as all areas of the federal budget will have to shoulder a share of spending restraint if we are to bring the budget into balance without increasing taxes and stop the financial hemorrhaging that we as a nation are suffering.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Goodness, Roger, maybe this is just another scare tactic with video clipped out of context. [/sarcasm]

I have no problem with substance, you know that. I won't allow you to drag me off track into a comparison of these two videos.

 

[dragonfly]

I watched the video, and I agree with it completely!

 

[donnA]

No weapons for us means we are left without defense. What in the world make shim think he is going to have the power as the president of this country that he can disarm other countries, make them do anything. Sounds like he is quite a bit mixed up.
Sounds like his plans for ruling go beyond the USA.
I'm with Sue, this man is scary.

 

[Don]

I watched the video, and I agree with it completely!

Where I'm currently at, I can't get streaming video, so haven't seen what this one says.

Based on the replies, I can only make an assumption, and provide a fictional story, based on historical events.

There were once two tribes. One tribe used bows and arrows, and clubs, to kill their food. The second tribe decided to swear off of such things, and only farmed. One season, the first tribe was unable to kill as much as they needed; they saw that the second tribe had an abundant harvest. The second tribe's leader sat with the first tribe's leader, and offered to share some of their food, but with the provision that they would still have plenty for themselves. The first tribe's leader looked at the other leader, looked at the abundance of food, raised his club, and killed the other leader. The first tribe then took all the harvest, killing anyone who tried to stop them.

Idealism is great. Reality is, human nature often resorts to "I need, you have, I'll get it."

 

[JustChristian]

No weapons for us means we are left without defense. What in the world make shim think he is going to have the power as the president of this country that he can disarm other countries, make them do anything. Sounds like he is quite a bit mixed up.
Sounds like his plans for ruling go beyond the USA.
I'm with Sue, this man is scary.

Reducing the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons was an objective for some time before the Neocons took over with their stated objective of world conquest. I'd like to see the US back down into a powerful and defensible position but one that does not insist on us being "Master's of the World." I'd like to see us rely more on on our allies rather than unilaterally invading other nations. I'm tired of us focusing on war most of the time.

 

[just-want-peace]

Reducing the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons was an objective for some time before the Neocons took over with their stated objective of world conquest. I'd like to see the US back down into a powerful and defensible position but one that does not insist on us being "Master's of the World." I'd like to see us rely more on on our allies rather than unilaterally invading other nations. I'm tired of us focusing on war most of the time.

1-

----before the Neocons took over with their stated objective of world conquest.

I'd love to see the printed version of this accusation. (incidentally, I still do not really know what "neocon" entails.)

2-

----but one that does not insist on us being "Master's of the World.

Ditto!

3-

I'd like to see us rely more on on our allies rather than unilaterally invading other nations.

Sorry, I don't see these as the only two options. Perhaps you can be more specific?

I have no problem with the US being the strongest (as opposed to your "master of-" ) in the world.

This is a far better negotiating position than any other option for us.

But then perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position, and if so please clarify.