Obama on Guns: Review his history, not what he “says”

Posted: March 15, 2011 in Uncategorized

Whose hand is Obama tying now? Remember more government involvement does not improve laws, does not improve safety, does not improve anything. More government involvement and restrictions ONLY binds the hands of those who follow the laws. Our government continues to fail to realize criminals do not follow laws. Check this out from Katie Pavlich as she responds to an editorial Obama published in the Tucson Arizona Daily Star.

She includes where Obama gives praise for how Americans held back from blame/politics after the January 8th shooting (6 dead, 11 wounded) in Tucson. Yet the mass (liberal) media immediately framed conservative talk-show hosts, and Sarah Palin, before the police released any info about the suspect.

In Obama’s article he points to the gunman and blames” poor” gun laws. Ms Pavlich points out the problem…

What Obama fails to mention is that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who by the way also blamed the entire shooting on “vitriolic rhetoric” and called Arizona the Mecca of hatred and bigotry at the time, had multiple encounters with Loughner for issuing death threats to a radio host among other things before the shooting on January 8, meaning Dupnik allowed him to slip through the cracks of law enforcement more than once.

He expects law-abiding gun-owners to back him on this?? Really?? Again Ms Pavlich shows where the problem is…

But here comes the ironic part. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was recently busted for allowing Mexican drug cartels to supply themselves with thousands of weapons used to kill tens of thousands of innocents in Mexico and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Southern Arizona. ATF approved the sales of these weapons after gun shop owners, who were following the current laws, reported the mass sales of weapons such as the AK-47, and ATF gave them the green light. That’s right, ATF was literally watching murderers purchase the weapons they needed to kill people. It is pretty difficult to keep guns out of the hands of criminals when the government gives them the go-ahead.

Obama like many anti-gun folks, tries to twist statistics to “prove” his point. Sadly obedient folk, who believe as they are told will take that information and believe every ounce of it, or fail to verify anything for their own selves.

I also liked Ms Pavlich’s point…

The president has a habit of opining on topics before having the facts, so let’s present him, and other anti-gun advocates, with a few:

  • -Murder rates decline when more men and women carry concealed handguns, reducing the rate of murder of a woman by 3 to 4 times
  • -States that do not allow citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits have higher crime rates than states that do allow concealed weapons permits
  • -The District of Columbia’s murder rate dropped by 25 percent after the 2008 Supreme Court struck down the DC hand gun ban
  • -Since the 1982 implementation of the hand gun ban in Chicago, the murder rate has gone up 32 percent by 1992 and was up 68 percent by 2002

The National Rifle Association and law-abiding gun owners have never advocated for mentally ill individuals and criminals to get guns, and infringing on law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms is not the way to prevent crime. The NRA has been behind the instant criminal background check from the beginning and advocates for law enforcement to take bad guys off the streets to prevent crime.

I find it interesting how Obama praised “no blame” with the Tucson incident, yet there was blame, but because it was an attack on conservatives apparently that does not matter? Plus what did he do, he blamed.. he blamed everyone except the nut-job with the gun who did these shootings, and he fails to recognize who armed the person.. the sheriff who let this dim-wit slide when he should be locked him up. But this is par for the course with Obama, he does not listen, he does not review facts before shooting off his mouth, he has an agenda and is sticking to it. He has been against guns, he has a history of being against guns.. just like he had a history of being pro-abortion, and has proven that in the white house. No matter what comes out of his mouth, follow the trail he has left, that is where his future actions will fall in line with. If he speaks in front of a bunch of gun-owners, he will string words together that make appear to have some sense, but it is nothing more than manipulation, nothing more that well contrived wording.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s