Drudge compares Obama to Hitler, Stalin for considering new gun regs

If anyone wonders why people like this guy think President Obama is secretly planning to tear up the Constitution and declare martial law, and that’s why they don’t just need their guns, but they need to threaten to “start killing people” if the President does anything in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, all you have to do is read this guy, below.

And Republicans do.  A lot.

There’s a reason we’re a violent country that fetishizes guns.  Because the Republican elite like to manipulate their ignorant base as it’s a lot easier, and sadly far more effective, than telling them the truth.

drudge-hitler-obama-stalin gun

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

45 Responses to “Drudge compares Obama to Hitler, Stalin for considering new gun regs”

  1. Mr Andcrew says:

    Yet Holder would not disavow Presidential power to use drones on US soil to kill Americans the President deems as terrorist threats…….Like the Jews were to Hitler…..So scary and so similar.

  2. Daiseymae says:

    Go follow Obamamao. Typically libtard a sshole.

  3. Daiseymae says:

    Obamanation is not Hitler, but I loathe his methods and policies.

  4. shattered says:

    Obama has surrounded himself with yes people and a yes media and is issuing executive directives to rob the people of their liberty exactly like Hitler did.

  5. You morons are hilarious, just because you’re dumb enough to fall for any old bullshit doesn’t make it true. You gullible frightened fool.

  6. volkancab says:


  7. Moderator3 says:

    You really don’t need to point it out. The way the moderation pages work results in us seeing the spam as we see your post. No matter how many times you point out spam, I’m still not going to let you put more than five words in capital letters.

  8. karmanot says:

    Sigh, crazed Uncle has another political cocktail

  9. karmanot says:

    Taking a cue from Limpbaugh who failed after a few semesters of college.

  10. karmanot says:

    Spam alert

  11. karmanot says:

    You are on a losing streak Mr. omoeba if you think for one moment insulting Becca is advancing your ideas.

  12. karmanot says:

    Eloquent JamesR, but if you drew stick figures PM might get it.

  13. karmanot says:

    You would know Uncle Teabagger.

  14. karmanot says:

    Rolls eyes at crazy uncle

  15. karmanot says:


  16. eahopp says:

    “Hitler and Stalin were both totalitarians, much like Obama.” Those are your words. You have implied that President Obama is the same as Hitler and Stalin. I am just your criteria of “spin the country into a debt cycle that will require increasing government intervention, executive fiat, ignoring the rule of law,” and comparing that criteria to George W. Bush.

    Second, I could care less what Oliver Stone thinks about President Obama, and whether he is better or worst than Bush. I could care less about Oliver Stone, period. I don’t follow whatever Oliver Stone tells me, let alone even watch his movies anymore. If Oliver Stone wants to stand on his soap box and tell us how awful President Obama is, compared to Bush–Senior or Junior–then he can scream, cuss, and shout all he wants. I am not going to listen to him.

    Third, this is not about President Obama taking your guns away. This post is about a high-traffic conservative website, Drudge Report, hyping up fear and hatred to its readers by calling some mythical “executive order” of taking away guns to Hitler and Stalin. You do not know what this “executive order” is, anymore than I do. No executive order has been issued. No guns are going to be banned. If there is any regulation, it will probably be on background checks at gun shows, banning high-capacity magazines, or even increased training on gun safety–even those regulations I doubt will implemented into law, or as an executive order.

    Finally, you have been the most insulting, condescending commentator here. You have insulted just about everyone with your responses, yet fail to include any sort of rational discussion into this thread. You have responded to my comment, “Guess what that makes you? It begins with a T and ends with Shill.” You said that BeccaM should “go to your grave licking the balls of the biggest fraud “liberal” in the history of the country,” while also saying she is “trying to control the dialogue like the totalitarian you are.” You have likened TheOriginalLiz as a “dumb frump.” You have referenced HollyMolly as an “ilk” who thinks “the Second Amendment is for hunting, and even if it was, you
    can’t hunt with an ICBM. One of the dumbest arguments that the
    totalitarians constantly throw around.” These are your words. If there is anyone who is a “dumb frump,” it is you for trying to control the dialog on this website with fear-mongering, hyperbole, and derogatory insults. As you can not contribute anything meaningful to this discussion, I suggest that you return to the slime pit that is Drudge. At least you’ll be among your own kind there.

  17. Peter Marcus says:

    I could, but I don’t want to, most awesomely because here you are once again trying to control the dialogue like the totalitarian you are.

  18. Peter Marcus says:

    You’re implying you didn’t already?

    Also, actual-liberal Oliver Stone has said Obama is worse than Bush in that respect.

  19. BeccaM says:

    You mean the guy I refused to support or vote for?

    And y’know, you could make your point without the crudely obscene imagery. And without the endless personal insults and attacks.

  20. HolyMoly says:

    My POINT was that the government DOES put limits on what types of arms civilians can own. My other point is that NO ONE is suggesting that guns be taken away from those who own them. Sorry that you fail to understand those basic statements.

    As for my “ilk,” when did I ever say that the 2nd Amendment was about hunting or, worse still, hunting with an ICBM? You’ve stuffed so much straw in that man that I’m practically convinced that you’re being facetious. You’re trying to classify me when you obviously know nothing about where I stand or what I believe with regard to the 2nd Amendment.

    As for Sandy Hook…if there were limitations on what TYPES of weapons a person could own, there would have been no AR-15 involved in the shooting, which is the reason behind such an extremely high casualty rate. It’s a little harder to kill nearly 30 people in short order with a revolver or a standard hunting rifle, and a little easier to put a stop to it when the guy needs to reload.

    Take, for example, the school shooting in Taft, California, JUST YESTERDAY. A shotgun was used. Only one person was shot before it was stopped. If the kid had an AR-15, that number could likely have been much higher. So, yes, putting limitations on the types of guns a person can own apparently did make a difference at Taft High and likely could have at Sandy Hook.

    As for a mandatory waiting period….if someone wants to buy a gun and needs it RIGHT NOW, I’m more than a little suspicious. This gives the seller time to ensure that the guy doesn’t have a criminal history, and gives the buyer himself time to cool off (could be in a “passion of the moment” state of mind over something for all I know).

    As for required licensing and training, who could object to that? Anything that is potentially deadly, whether by intention or through carelessness, should require that. You can’t get a driver’s license without first demonstrating to the state that you are sufficiently knowledgeable about the safe use of an automobile. That offers reasonable protection for the person seeking the license as well as others who are on the road or on the side of the road when he goes driving past. Most accidents and fatalities DO involve licensed drivers, which is true. But I would never argue that licensing eliminates car-related fatalities. But I’m pretty sure that it REDUCES them significantly, just as sensible gun regulations would reduce the number of incidents and the number of those killed when it DOES happen. Which is a far cry better than doing nothing at all.

  21. Brian2234 says:

    Familiarity may breed contempt in some areas of
    human behavior, but in the field of social ideas it is the touchstone of

  22. eahopp says:

    If that is your argument, then we should also include George W. Bush as a totalitarian, since he increased the debt with his tax cuts to the rich, and unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, I also believe Georgie Bush Jr. introduced torture, waterboarding, indefinite detention without trial, and warrant-less wiretapping. Guess we should compare Georgie Bush Jr. to Hitler and Stalin as well?

  23. J.P. Melle says:

    Honestly, just let them talk themselves out of this argument. I’m betting the crazier they sound, the more people will favor reasonable, effective solutions.

  24. Rob says:

    John defy the liberal stereotype and state the facts that support the truth I am missing.

  25. Peter Marcus says:

    1. The Sandy Hook shooter was a mentally defective kid.

    2. If you want to throw race around: Overwhelmingly the gun violence is committed by blacks and hispanics.

    3. The people you describe are characterized by minding their own business and wanting others to stay out of theirs.

    Get a better comment you dumb frump.

  26. JamesR says:

    Not a whole lot of Obama ball licking on the Blog as a whole, if you read more of it.

    (And I would be more inclined to do the ball licking than Becca, truth be told.)

    But frauds aren’t attractive to me. Nor, I would posit, to BecaM, though she can reply as she will – I just wanted to disabuse new contributors to these threads, before the morning rush, of the notion that this is an Obama fanboy/girl site. Far from it!

  27. Peter Marcus says:

    Hitler and Stalin were both totalitarians, much like Obama. Obama just hasn’t killed American citizens yet- oh wait he has.

    Spin the country into a debt cycle that will require increasing government intervention, executive fiat, ignoring the rule of law.


  28. Peter Marcus says:

    And yet the left is constantly on the cutting edge of regulating what can be said on the internet.

    You will go to your grave licking the balls of the biggest fraud “liberal” in the history of the country.

  29. Peter Marcus says:

    Yet Oliver Stone calls the US an Orwellian State, and he’s an actual liberal, not a fraud like you.

  30. Peter Marcus says:

    How do you defend your family with an ICBM? One of the dumbest arguments that the totalitarians constantly throw around.

    Also, none of what you mention would have prevented Sandy Hook, the second most deadly school shooting, not the first, yet these sweeping new proposals come now, not before.

    Your entire position is fraudulent.

  31. Peter Marcus says:

    The Unorganized Militia, which is the People, and part of DoD documentation. You fail.

  32. Peter Marcus says:

    Most police organisations are anti-second amendment. You fail.

  33. HolyMoly says:

    So which is it? Is Obama like Stalin or Hitler? Communist or fascist? He can’t be both.

    I suspect Drudge, like so many other Republican nut jobs, never paid much attention in history class.

  34. HolyMoly says:

    Nobody’s going to ban guns. Let’s leave that straw man by the wayside once and for all.

    What is being discussed is REGULATION of firearms: Required training, required license (which would need to be renewed every so many years), waiting periods (not required in all circumstances now). Certain types of guns SHOULD be kept out of civilian hands (you can’t own an M-60, a fully functional tank, or an ICBM, so obviously there CAN be limits placed on what civilians can or cannot own). These regulations are a very good thing, and you still get to play with your toys.

  35. JamesR says:

    I could be Zod from Krypton and my points would stand on their own merits exactly as written, which is all a blog comment should do.

    But thank you for politely snarking and for not calling me a pedophile.

  36. Tor says:

    So to which well ordered militia group do you belong?

  37. Seriously, what a drudge.

    And what else rhymes with sludge?

  38. JamesR says:

    The fact Obama has been wiping his ass with the Constitution just as much if not more than Bush, is the point and is the reason these people should be scared. And why we should be scared.

    End-running or abnegating a Constitutional Right we may not particularly like is the exact same as banning speech or a religion we may not particilarly like – Rights were not enumerated concerning things we like!

    Constitutional Rights, whether one believes we should have a particular one or not, are Rights – it begins with the taking away of rights we don’t like, or rights of those we don’t like first. Then come the rest. Historically.

    The correct procedure for debating the Second amendment is to do so directly, and in discrete bits defining ‘regulation’ in reasonable and currently relevant specific ways.

    Doing an NDAA Act “National Security” or Lynne Cheney ‘Executive Privilege’ https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/lynne-cheney-2/executive-privilege-3/ end run around a Right with precedent is THE WRONG WAY.

    Yet it IS the Obama way.

    Sure the Romney Way would have been the same to way worse, but that doesn’t mean the Nation and Constitution will be FUCKED on the corpses of innocent children.

    In addition to the corpses of innocent children (one of whom was a US citizen) that stain our Nation’s soul permanently, from our drone attacks. (Not to mention torture rendition Guantanimo and DU.) ((Etc..))

  39. Randy Riddle says:

    I assume this was accompanied the usual dreary “Drudge sirens”?

    All these right-winger pundits are in a pissing contest to see who can look more insane and get the most clicks. I expect Limbaugh to up the ante tomorrow calling Obama a plant by the Chinese communists.

  40. BeccaM says:

    If the previous president could find a way around the law to make torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial ostensibly legal, and the current one can assassinate anyone, anywhere in the world not just for being a suspected terrorist, but merely standing next to one, I’d say there’s a good chance some leeway can be found somewhere for some kind of Executive Order.

    All it takes is a team of clever lawyers.

    You may not like it. There is a chance what he might choose to order could be, on its face, unconstitutional. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, and it also doesn’t mean there’ll be any particular consequences to Obama’s presidency if he does.

  41. BeccaM says:

    If Obama was anything like Hitler or Stalin, Mr. Drudge would already be in prison or dead.

  42. TheOriginalLiz says:

    All this mayhem is caused by scared white men who are terrified because the world is changing. They are cowards and bullies, nothing in the least to be respected or admired.

  43. RepubAnon says:

    Which is why the proposed executive orders won’t be a flat ban on guns… Remember, the executive order would be carried out by police – and many of them are NRA members.

  44. RepubAnon says:

    Isn’t it funny how the “no fly” list is good clean fun, but proposing limits on firearm sales to keep them out of the hands of criminals makes one as bad as Hitler?

  45. guest1 says:

    Obama has no right to ban guns by executive order, doesn’t matter how many died.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS