“THE epidemic of gun violence in our country is a crisis.” That’s the first line of President Obama’s New York Times editorial Guns Are Our Shared Responsibility. Obama starts as he means to finish: with a lie. If “gun violence” was “epidemic” it would be “rife, rampant, widespread, wide-ranging, extensive, pervasive.” It is none of these things, and the President knows it. Equally, the word “epidemic” implies that “gun violence” is a growing, spreading threat to our society. It is not; violent crime is down, and the President knows it. No surprise, then, that the President doubles down and proceeds with what’s called The Big Lie . . .
Gun deaths and injuries constitute one of the greatest threats to public health and to the safety of the American people. Every year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Suicides. Domestic violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. We’re the only advanced nation on earth that sees this kind of mass violence with this frequency.
The Commander-in-Chief has repeatedly declared that “we’re the only advanced nation on earth that sees this kind of mass violence.” It’s a trick! There are plenty of nations that see more “mass violence” than the United States. (Mexico springs to mind.) There’s only one way to put America at the top of the “mass violence” chart: declare that those countries with more “mass violence” than us aren’t advanced – because they have more “mass violence.” See how that works?
The President made this statement after the San Bernardino terrorist attack, a few days before the Paris terrorist attacks. The French slaughter made a mockery of the idea that America alone is prone to “mass violence.” (As if the 2011 Norway spree killing wasn’t enough.) So now Mr. Obama’s added the qualifier “with this frequency” – another claim that relies on cherry-picking the data sample – to maintain the fiction that America is in the middle of a “gun violence” crisis! An epidemic!
Notice that the President’s changed the definition of “mass violence.” Before, Mr. Obama used to term to refer to spree killing of one sort of another. Now he uses the term to describe the combined total of all “gun violence”: firearms-related suicide, domestic violence, gang gun battles and accidents. By lumping them all together the President purposefully ignores the different causes and potential remedies for each category. Why? Because crisis! Because gun control!
A national crisis like this demands a national response. Reducing gun violence will be hard. It’s clear that common-sense gun reform won’t happen during this Congress. It won’t happen during my presidency. Still, there are steps we can take now to save lives. And all of us — at every level of government, in the private sector and as citizens — have to do our part.
We all have a responsibility.
Translation: I’ve failed. It’s your turn. Actually, that’s not a bad way to look at it. There is a lot Americans can do to reduce the number of people injured or killed by gunfire. Some two-thirds of firearms-related deaths are suicides. There’s no reason we can’t address mental health challenges on the personal, community and corporate level. OK, government policy too. Yes, well, that’s not where Mr. Obama’s going . . .
On Tuesday, I announced new steps I am taking within my legal authority to protect the American people and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. They include making sure that anybody engaged in the business of selling firearms conducts background checks, expanding access to mental health treatment and improving gun safety technology. These actions won’t prevent every act of violence, or save every life — but if even one life is spared, they will be well worth the effort.
Funny how the President calls for our help to reduce “gun violence” and then tells us about his executive make-that-unilateral actions to “protect the American people.” I find it strange that Mr. Obama doesn’t see the disconnect between his faux inclusiveness and paternalistic authoritarianism (to put it charitably).
Also odd: Mr. Obama fails to mention that his $500m request to Congress to “expand access to mental health treatment” was accompanied by a change in the law allowing doctors to violate HIPPA and advise the FBI to ban patients from purchasing firearms. Which would discourage mentally ill people — especially veterans — from seeking treatment. Which would increase the possibility of them being involved in “gun violence.”
Not surprisingly, the President ends this brief, non-comprehensive description of his executive actions by lowering Americans’ expectations of their potential positive impact to just above zero. This rhetorical ruse assumes there’s no cost associated with this singular (as in one) benefit. As anyone who knows how government works, there’s always a cost to any new law: expanded government power. And, thus, reduced liberty. But hey, this time it’s personal . . .
Even as I continue to take every action possible as president, I will also take every action I can as a citizen. I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform. And if the 90 percent of Americans who do support common-sense gun reforms join me, we will elect the leadership we deserve.
What is this “common-sense gun reform” of which the President speaks? Not specified. Suffice to say, support for expanded background checks does not constitute support for this package of unspecified “common-sense gun reforms” that the President and gun control advocates seek. The President’s advocacy of an “assault weapons” or “weapons of war” ban, for example, would not achieve a 90 percent public approval rating.
All of us have a role to play — including gun owners. We need the vast majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us after every mass shooting, who support common-sense gun safety and who feel that their views are not being properly represented, to stand with us and demand that leaders heed the voices of the people they are supposed to represent.
So now we know what the President was asking for in his earlier appeal to all Americans to help curb “mass violence”: support for his gun control agenda. In his own words, “All of us — at every level of government, in the private sector and as citizens” should “stand with us and demand that leaders” enact “common-sense gun reforms.” Whatever those are.
The gun industry also needs to do its part. And that starts with manufacturers.
As Americans, we hold consumer goods to high standards to keep our families and communities safe. Cars have to meet safety and emissions requirements. Food has to be clean and safe. We will not end the cycle of gun violence until we demand that the gun industry take simple actions to make its products safer as well. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should also make sure she can’t pull the trigger of a gun.
You can substitute the word “force” for “demand” when the President says we must “demand that the gun industry take simple actions to make its products safer.” Mr. Obama justifies this demand for the public’s demand by equating firearms’ safety features (or lack thereof) with that of automobiles and aspirin bottles. It’s a patently ridiculous comparison. More than that, we’re back to presidential paternalism. We have to force the firearms industry to change their products to protect Americans from themselves! For the children!
Mr. Obama contends that “we will not end the cycle of gun violence” until government forces the firearms industry to do its bidding, safety-wise. The obverse of this statement is absurd. Will firearms safety devices stop suicides, domestic violence and gang shootouts? I don’t think so.
So-called “smart guns” might prevent some firearms-related accidents, but firearms accidents are statistically irrelevant. Yes but — if it saves one child! And again, there’s a cost to the insignificant benefit (expense, slower emergency access to a firearm, reduced reliability and the possibility of government interference with the gun’s operation).
Yet today, the gun industry is almost entirely unaccountable. Thanks to the gun lobby’s decades of efforts, Congress has blocked our consumer products safety experts from being able to require that firearms have even the most basic safety measures. They’ve made it harder for the government’s public health experts to conduct research on gun violence. They’ve guaranteed that manufacturers enjoy virtual immunity from lawsuits, which means that they can sell lethal products and rarely face consequences. As parents, we wouldn’t put up with this if we were talking about faulty car seats. Why should we tolerate it for products — guns — that kill so many children each year?
At a time when manufacturers are enjoying soaring profits, they should invest in research to make guns smarter and safer, like developing microstamping for ammunition, which can help trace bullets found at crime scenes to specific guns. And like all industries, gun manufacturers owe it to their customers to be better corporate citizens by selling weapons only to responsible actors.
The gun industry is “almost entirely” unaccountable? They enjoy “virtual immunity” from lawsuits? Talk about weasel words. The firearms industry is only shielded from lawsuits that try to make them liable for the illegal use of their legal products – provided industry types sell their legal products legally. To “responsible actors.” It’s the same common-sense protection that shields the automobile, liquor and pharmaceutical industries. As well it should, lest these industries be sued out of existence.
Yes, there is that. The President knows full well that removing the firearms industry’s legal protection against lawsuits for the criminal use of their products would destroy the industry. By arguing for “holding the firearms industry” accountable – for the children! – Mr. Obama is signaling that his anti-gun animus goes well beyond confiscating Americans’ firearms, or particular examples thereof. He wants to stop firearms production for civilians entirely. (Except for police and military, of course.)
As for “making it harder for the government’s public health experts to conduct research on gun violence,” the industry didn’t do that. Congress did. And even if you ascribe to the belief that the firearms industry control the politicians who control the CDC’s budget, the only caveat “preventing” firearms-related research is that it must not advocate gun control. It must be objective. Which is not a word I’d apply to Mr Obama’s editorial.
Ultimately, this is about all of us. We are not asked to perform the heroism of 15-year-old Zaevion Dobson from Tennessee, who was killed before Christmas while shielding his friends from gunfire. We are not asked to display the grace of the countless victims’ families who have dedicated themselves to ending this senseless violence. But we must find the courage and the will to mobilize, organize and do what a strong, sensible country does in response to a crisis like this one.
All of us need to demand leaders brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies. All of us need to stand up and protect our fellow citizens. All of us need to demand that governors, mayors and our representatives in Congress do their part.
You know we’re heading down the home stretch; the President is trying to tug on heart strings while reminding readers there’s a crisis! As he flies down the final anti-firearms furlong, the President reverts to type by identifying, personalizing and smearing the “gun lobby” as “the enemy.” The lobby that consists of American citizens who legally make, sell, buy, keep, bear and/or use firearms, protected against government infringement on their right to do so by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As I’ve pointed out before, this president is incapable of unifying Americans who hold disparate views. If Ronald Reagan was “The Great Communicator” President Obama is “The Great Divider.” He sees no value in the “gun lobby” (created by Americans for Americans) — except as the target of condescending derision and scorn. Not to put too fine a point on it, he wants to destroy “the gun lobby” and all that it stands for (i.e.. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
Change will be hard. It won’t happen overnight. But securing a woman’s right to vote didn’t happen overnight. The liberation of African-Americans didn’t happen overnight. Advancing the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans has taken decades’ worth of work.
Those moments represent American democracy, and the American people, at our best. Meeting this crisis of gun violence will require the same relentless focus, over many years, at every level. If we can meet this moment with that same audacity, we will achieve the change we seek. And we will leave a stronger, safer country to our children.
The President is asking New York Times readers to place the campaign to degrade and destroy Americans’ their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms on the same moral high ground as the campaign to ensure the Constitutional rights of women and African-Americans. Only in the Orwellian mind of Progressives – where tyranny is liberty and rights denied are rights protected – would such an idea find fertile soil.
The President’s evocation of “American democracy” in the final paragraph of his polemic is equally warped and misleading. Lest we forget — as the former “Constitutional scholar” seems to have done — the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right. As such it is not subject to the democratic process (a.k.a., mob rule). The President’s contention that democratically enacted gun control will leave America a stronger, safer country reveals that no words are safe from the deprivation of intentional distortion.
One more thing: the President’s call for anti-gun audacity — for the children! — is the most audacious part of this otherwise by-the-numbers anti-gun rights screed. The President’s executive orders were timid at best. Thank God for that but — I wish the President and gun control advocates would come out and tell the truth about their civilian disarmament agenda. It would make for a far a more entertaining – and enlightening – editorial.
If “gun violence” in our country is an epidemic today, what was it 20 years ago, when the rate was twice as high?
But we banned assault weapons then! Because we had to Do Something!
Hey I guess the AWB must have worked. Crime is down. LOL
For the sake of the children, for the safety of this nations future … BAN OBAMA .. .BAN OBAMA .. BAN OBAMA ..
I had the same question. If it is a health care crisis now, what was in in 1993? No one back then seemed to care all that much until Reagan was shot.
“If it saves even one life”….Why doesn’t this concept apply to our armed forces, who suffer and die under ridiculous rules of engagement in hellholes all over the world? This guy cares only about his agenda.
Why doesn’t this concept apply to me as a gun owner? Why can’t the just one life saved be mine. And why can’t I use a gun to save my life?
Because you are part of the Gun Lobby ™ and the Gun Lobby ™ must die. For the children ™.
You forgot the ‘®’ with that ‘™’…
🙂
Armaments used in lawful self defense saves lives everyday.
Liar in Chief (documented hundred of times) sermons citizens into submission. Happily I refuse to sit or listen to dogma.
Why doesn’t it apply to the military’s policy of bombing civilians and shooting up hospitals full of innocent doctors / patients?
“If it saves even one life”…
We have to have legalized abortion, because if a girl can’t pay a real doctor to kill her fing kid (there by her invite) then she might have to pay a fake doctor [on the black market] to kill her kid (again, there by her invitation) and that doctor might do a bad job killing her kid, and also kill her. BUT WE GOTTA CLOSE THE GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE BECAUSE SOMEONE MAY BUY A GUN FROM THEIR NEIGHBOR AND USE IT TO GO F_CKING DOVE HUNTING.
THE PURPOSE
M U ST B E
THEN, THE SAME AS FOR ALL THE OTHER FING DICTATORS OF HISTORY, AND THAT IS TYRRANY.
barry is lying? Again? Still? Always? Let’s make it easy. Tell me the number of times he’s told the truth. That’s a much more manageble number.
…and a much shorter article.
“The President’s evocation of “American democracy” in the final paragraph of his polemic is equally warped and misleading. Lest we forget […] the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right. As such it is not subject to the democratic process (a.k.a., mob rule).”
It’s also warped and misleading, because this same truth applies to his other examples as well. Most of those changed not due to the democratic process but due to the fact that the laws in place were found to be in violation of the Constitution no matter what the majority of the population desired. Given the opportunity to vote on issues like slavery, gay marriage, etc, the majority of the population may be against change but the court determines existing law violated the constitution and the change is implemented anyway. Just like what happened in California on gay marriage. If the population of the state had its way, gay marriage would be illegal in CA since that’s what the majority of voters voted for. But it was overturned on constitutional grounds. Now gay marriage is legal Federally, and that’s because of the court system, not the ballot box.
It’s entirely disingenuous on many levels to use the examples he did to suggest that the majority should have its rule on gun control law. It shouldn’t, this Republic was designed very specifically so as to avoid majority rule, and his examples don’t fit the “democracy works” assertion in the first place. In fact, some very nicely prove exactly the opposite.
BTW it was the Democrats who were against women’s suffrage. Big shocker there.
He can start by sending in his legions to take down ghetto gangs. That would cut our murder rate to what it was in about 1910
Yes. Why doesn’t he use his phone and pen to establish joint FBI/BATF/DEA field offices in the heart of those gang-infested neighborhoods?
It seems the President missed one major “advanced nation” by his own definition – Japan. If suicides count as “mass violence”, Japan’s suicide rate (18.5 per 100,000 is the lowest I’ve seen reported) is greater than the US’s combined suicide (12.1 per 100,000) and homicide (between 4 and 5, let’s go with 5 per 100,000). So even ignoring Japan’s homicide rate, Japan has a minimum “mass violence” rate of 18.5 per 100,000 compared to the US’s maximum “mass violence” rate of 17.1 per 100,000.
When will Japan address its mass violence frequency?
Not only that, but Japanese law enforcement are notorious for underreporting homicides and suicides as accidental deaths when there is no obvious suspect or evidence in order to make their clearance rate look better.
Recording those deaths as accidental is also done as a kindness to the family so they may collect the life insurance payout, if suicide is a disqualifier…
Could be misinformed but I believe that in Japan when a man murders his family and kills himself they are all counted as suicides rather than murder/suicide.
This is why the gun-control weasels usually use the nonsense term “gun violence”. That way, the comparison you made can be ignored, since it’s a sure thing that almost none of those Japanese suicides were committed using a gun.
Because everyone knows, when you’re killed with a gun, it’s way worse than if you’re killed with a car, or poison, or a knife, etc…
I would have respect if he said he was sending his own secret service agents to work in the inner city of DC to stop gang bangers. . . . or if they would all be issued smart guns because they are so gee-whiz-bang cool to own. . . . but as I am sure would happen after I were successful in hooking up with Shannon, I was disappointed.
You missed one. Name any gun manufacturer that sells directly to individuals in the US. Pretty sure the FFLs they sell to are “responsible actors”, at least in the eyes of the ATF.
“And like all industries, gun manufacturers owe it to their customers to be better corporate citizens by selling weapons only to responsible actors.”
“You missed one. Name any gun manufacturer that sells directly to individuals in the US.”
Cap & ball can be sold direct.
This is a 5-shot .22 derringer:
“The NAA Companion is available for sale without going through an FFL Dealer in the United States because it is a black powder firearm.”
http://northamericanarms.com/index.php/firearms/cb/lr-cb.html
When our president slips on his PJ’s at night, does he understand and appreciate that an overworked, underpaid and likely, abused Chinese child manufactured those clothes? Thanks for contributing to the degradation of an entire generation of children, Mr. President.
See how that works?
The President’s PJs are probably not made by Chinese children. He’s a millionaire and probably doesn’t shop at Walmart.
I would disagree a bit with your last two sentences, RF. In recent weeks, many controllers have dropped their false claims of respect for the 2A and proudly revealed their true goals. Not the Prez, of course.
With due respect – Barry don’t know diddly squat about ANYTHING
An “epidemic” is a disease not a behavior.
Behaviors can be epidemic. Ask anyone who was around in 1978 about disco.
Although, in that example, the term “disease” might also be appropriate.
This drivel coming from a commander in chief with more drone strikes than any other CIC.
I wonder how many innocents he has caused the death of?
Note to Fudds; Including suicides as part of the ‘epidemic of gun violence’ is code for we’re coming for your shotgun too.
Shotguns are already a popular implement for suicide since if you really want to be sure you don’t wake up in a vegetative state the gun of choice would be the good old 12 ga. Now, once they take away everyone’s handguns, everyone who would have shot themselves with a handgun will turn to a shotgun instead. Then comes the ‘epidemic of shotgun violence’ for which they will insist ‘something must be done’, ‘if it will save just one life’, etc. These elitists liberals love hunting about as much as they love NASCAR. So yes, suicide ‘gun violence’ is code for ‘we don’t like your shotgun either’.
Maybe he should apply to same logic as DC did for smoking.
Let’s have the surgeon general require warning labels on guns!
I think he has about as much chance of lessening gun violence as he does winning the war on drugs.
Just to be sure I checked my SR9c and sure enough, there is a warning label:
“Before using gun read warnings in instruction manual – available free.”
Not sure if that’s a lawyer thing or a requirement, but there it is.
It’s a lawyer thing. While they’re not the only ones who do it, Ruger is probably one of the most aggressive manufacturers about billboarding their guns with that “READ INSTRUCTION MANUAL” crap.
Someone likely won a big lawsuit payout against Ruger.
The same mindset that has warning labels on lawnmowers like “Do not put hands or fingers under a running mower”
Some dumbass somewhere did just that.
It is impossible to prove a negative. It is ridiculously impossible to prove a negative that inconsequential. Just imagine, 10 years from now, attempting to prove that not even one single life was saved by his actions. I am absolutely certain that will be the truth, but there will be no way to prove it.
Easiest editorial he has or ever will write. Just cut and pasted from his scripted speeches and submited to the NYT, who no doubt slobbered all over their keyboards reading his groundbreaking assertations.
I think it’s a stretch to call this an editorial. It IS a speech.
we will elect the leadership we deserve
We already have the leadership that we deserve. We’ve struggled in every way for seven years under the worst President the nation has known since the smiling goober farmer was retired from office. It’s time that we deserve better and get better.
Putin-2016
Nah. When Putin comes for our guns, he’ll send tanks.
I’ll trade a 38 izzie for a new tank. Sounds like a bargain to me.
Assuming he can find and pay competent soldiers to crew those tanks, much less fight a large-scale war.
STOP THE BLUE CITY VIOLENCE
BAN BLUE (D) CITIES
STOP THE EVIL BLUE (D)
President Obama’s New York Times editorial “Guns Are Our Shared Responsibility” is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Oh, it signifies something alright, JugEar™’s insatiable lust for power and his inability to tell the truth, even when simply breathing.
He’s one of those rare politicians that lies even when his lips aren’t moving.
He may continue to lie but even my local very anti gun newspaper occasionally writes the truth. Like today. The Greensboro News and Record lead story was a favorable article on the 20x increase in concealed carry permits over 20 years. In NC. Regrettably it is only 1 in 20 of the total population but exclude kids, feeble elderly, legally ineligible, etc. it is probably more like 1 in 15. On a further positive note, the instructor who was interviewed said 40% of his classes were female.
The government ought not be allowed to spend time and money trying to “sell” wildly unpopular viewpoints.
Where did the last of the true believers go?
The comment section of the NYT..
Meanwhile, 47,000 people died from drug overdose. Up 6.5 percent from 2013 alone. Deaths from opioid drugs are up 14 percent. A lot of those are heroin deaths, which have quadrupled since 2002. Where does all they heroin come from? Well, according to the same paper that published this drivel, it comes across the border from Mexico. You know, the border President Obama refuses to secure.
And in other relevant statistics, I have it on good authority (a poster in the Nevada DMV office) that in America one person is killed every hour (8,760 per year) in an intersection. I do not recall ever seeing POTUS address that issue, for the children.
Thousands of people die every year from prescription drugs like Oxy and Perc. Shouldn’t their families be allowed to sue Big Pharma?
No?
Why not?
If someone can sue Smith & Wesson for making a gun, why can’t they sue Purdue Pharma or Endo Pharmaceuticals for making a pill?
The President is asking New York Times readers to place the campaign to degrade and destroy Americans’ their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms on the same moral high ground as the campaign to ensure the Constitutional rights of women and African-Americans. Only in the Orwellian mind of Progressives – where tyranny is liberty and rights denied are rights protected – would such an idea find fertile soil.
…or the readers of the New York Times who are his little bitch audience.
Joseph Goebbels once said, “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
He tried his message on a variety of stages to see how much resistance there would be. Resistance was huge and he backed away. He probably had a much larger plan that had there been less push back he would have signed. So, as we know from everything he has done, he is a dillitant without the courage of his convictions.
I’m relieved he’s resorting to stammering speeches and rambling letters and has pulled back from concrete action.
My concern was what impact such unconstitutional overreach, if carried out, would have had on the country.
His concern may have been what impact such unconstitutional overreach, if carried out, might have had on himself.
The NY Slimes makes me sad that I don’t own a parrot.
You could get a puppy.
Interesting, isn’t it, that puppies outgrow the NY Slimes but New Yorkers don’t.
Here’s the truth, Barry. My give-a-damn is broken. Simply refuses to function no matter how many bloody shirts you wave. I’m thinking its time you have the goons bring it or simply go play some golf.
Welcome to those lurkers and new gun owners who come to TTAG for information- you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t already know that the NYT is leftist claptrap, and so you are seeking alternative sources of facts:
Majority of Americans Support The NRA, and Rising. (WSJ and NBC July 2015 poll -h/t Mike Krieger)
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/01/08/the-american-publics-positive-perception-of-the-nra-soars-in-the-face-of-obamas-gun-control-agenda/
and
Obama Has Been For Gun Control Since Day One:
http://www.endofinnocence.com/2010/06/obama-wants-your-guns.html
Gotta love how he refers to three civil rights, women’s suffrage, abolition, homosexual marriage, while trying to eliminate another civil right. Maybe he would have people in less of a panic if we didn’t have to defend ourselves against terrorist in the streets. We can’t call the police, he disarmed them too. This is treasonous.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
People are killed “with” guns, not “by” guns. Meaning that the people who pull the trigger use the gun as a tool.
Also the “gun industry” is not responsible for “gun violence” for which I mean “violence done *with* guns.” The people who do the violence are responsible.
The one thing correct, if unstated (Accident? I think not.) in President’s NYT anti-guy screed is that guns are, in the main, tools for doing violence. Indeed. Because there are bad people out there who do bad things, unless they are stopped, maybe good people should have the means to stop the bad stuff. Meaning guns.
The palmed card is, as always, that people are too defective, ill-intentioned, unreasonable, and, yes, irresponsible to wield that sort of responsibility.
President “You’re a red-shirt.” doesn’t seem to mind this. He’s OK with letting good people minding their own business suck up the consequences for his preferred model of the world. People in coal country come to mind. “So, what?” if a few folks have their jobs destroyed … we need to sell more compact fluorescent bulbs. He seems likewise OK with the non-gang-bangers killed in violence-infested cities.
As usual, President Obama’s presentation on this issue doesn’t showcase his monumental indifference to the collateral damage of his preferred policy. The ACA comes to mind. To straighten-out health care (The underlying agenda IMO – orchestrate it in a way that appeals to technocrats in oversight, not users, experiencing the service.) what do the “independent” plans driven out of business; some people’s preferred mix of services made illegal; the people tossed off their terminated plans, the spikes in costs, deductables, copays; what does any of that matter.
As usual, President Obama’s public rhetoric appeals to desire to believe in unicorns. So, no, Virginia, making it harder by law for people who follow the law to get guns won’t make it safer in the free-fire zones populated by people who don’t follow the law.
So, a land without guns land without guns isn’t what you’ve been so slyly led to believe, meaning a lad without the uncomfortable, coupled realities that bad people do bad things; that sometimes the only way to stop a bad person is to do something bad to them; that we don’t know yet know how to do precrime (that was a movie), so “stopping” the bad stuff before it starts is hard; that sometimes it’s all up to you, just you.
This is the world. I’ll consider discussions of restricting guns for citizens after you show me my first actual unicorn.
You know, this is his whole position on guns, consistently:
– People are too defective, ill-intentioned, unreasonable, and, yes, irresponsible to wield that sort of responsibility.
– You’re a red-shirt. You & yours are expendable for the greater good.
– Unicorn land is real, if we only believe.
Candidate Clinton (the current one)’s position is the same, with one addition:
– And embracing this will help me get elected, at last.
Everything else is window dressing.
“The palmed card is, as always, that people are too defective, ill-intentioned, unreasonable, and, yes, irresponsible to wield that sort of responsibility.”
Yet, these same people believe that Government is the proper, appropriate and effective vehicle for controlling all aspects of people’s lives. They’re completely oblivious to the fact that Government consists of defective, ill intentioned, unreasonable, and irresponsible people, too.
Or not. Throughout history, we’ve seen people regard themselves as distinct from the common man and assume their position as his rightful ruler.
The biggest problem is gang violence and he is doing nothing about it.
Is Mr. President still pushing for accepting Syrian refugees? If so, isn’t it irresponsible to lure innocent victims of violence to a country in the middle of a gun violence epidemic?
I will catch a rash of crap when I say this, but I have long suspected that when folks say no other civilized country has this level of violence I think they mean no other “white country” whether they admit it or not. That seems to be how they gerrymander their list. I don’t think it has anything to do with white or even how civilized or western you are exactly. If you want to know the correlation, look at income disparity. Violence tracks pretty we’ll based on income disparity. The US is right there clustered with Mexico Russia and South America on both metrics. Obama can pat himself on the back about putting so many people back to work even though that had more to do with the republican congress. Of course what we did is put ex automotive machinist to work serving French fries. From middle class to minimum wage working poor. Ok now Dems want to raise minimum wage. That will result in business having the fries cooked offshore and reheated here. Less people needed here. Less jobs. Now what. Also when Obama says that we aren’t more violent, the only difference is guns, that is easy to prove wrong. We lead those other civilized countries on infanticide as well. You don’t need a gun to kill a newborn or a toddler.
It seems like he is trying to make gun control virtuous, or righteous alongside making womens, African American’s and the LGBT community’s rights to equality, and equating 2A rights as being in opposition to these rights, as if they were linked. Gun rights are not the same. Last time I checked, there are many liberated women, African Americans and LGBT people who also exercise their 2A rights.
He makes it sound as if he is saying that after all of the efforts to get rid of the oppression afflicting these groups of Americans, gun rights continue to oppress them. LOL. Sorry, but the opposite is true. Restricting their 2A rights sounds like oppression to me.
“Gun deaths and injuries constitute one of the greatest threats to public health and to the safety of the American people.”
Umm…pretty sure drunk drivers are worse. Why don’t they make drunk driving illegal? Oh wait….
On a side note, this gun epidemic they’re talking about is real. I think I’m catching it. Earlier today, I coughed up a 9mm round. I didn’t think much of it until later, when I blew my nose and filled the kleenex with a whole bunch of .17hmr. I don’t even want to talk about what I did in the bathroom.
“I don’t even want to talk about what I did in the bathroom.”
If it had to do with .22lr, buy some laxative and make yourself a fortune… 🙂
I’ve said it before and will say it again. Barry’s handlers are yanking his strings harder than ever now that he’s almost out. All those “donations” are coming due. I’m waiting for “the storys” to come out if the $$$ backers don’t get their way. He’s been stalling for the last 7 years cause it’s a fight he can’t win and he knows it. I can’t wait for Barry’s hindenberg day.
Personally, I do support common-sense gun reform. Like how it’s common sense that a rifle with a 12-inch barrel is no more dangerous than one with a 16-inch barrel. Or how it’s common sense that a suppressed gun is safer for the shooter’s hearing and less of a nuisance to neighbors.
That’s what he means, right?
“The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight”
Funny, that is the second time he has referenced events that caused domestic warfare in as many weeks. So you are really willing to go to war for gun control, Mr. President? Better hurry up and purge your military of dissenters some more; I don’t think you’ll get very far as it stands.
As a citizen and gun owner, my responsibility starts with fighting the rampant ignorance of guns and hoplophobia. Rational discourse cannot happen in the presence of irrational fear.
The 4 rules should be ubiquitous–even people who hate guns can make everyone safer by recognizing unsafe gun handling practices. The 4 rules are the true embodiment of “common-sense gun safety.” The politicized misuse of that label to mean “gun control policies” is actually a pretty helpful reference point to introduce the 4 rules and steer conversations toward an objective discussion of guns.
To aid in shutting down hoplophobia and other emotional baggage, I remind those I converse with that guns are (in my words) merely “mechanical devices that expel bits of metal at high velocity by means of controlled chemical explosions.” Using such a dry, technical definition of firearms has helped me to ground many a conversation outside the scope of emotional bias and phobias, which I’ve found necessary in order to engage in any kind of meaningful exchange. Maybe it’s something about waking up the left brain and encouraging some critical thinking; it seems to shut down the auto-parroting of everything “bad” or “sad” or “scary” about guns. Or at least I’ve been able to agree that guns may be used for bad, sad and scary purposes as well as noble, selfless and heroic ones.
Wow, that’s what I was looking for, what a material!
existing here at this web site, thanks admin of this website.
Comments are closed.