Obama figured out the problem: Guns!
With everything going on around the world the President of the United States and his team have spend countless hours figuring out that Jared Loughner should not have been able to buy a gun. The President went so far as to publish an Op-Ed in of all places the Arizona Daily Star. In his opinion piece he does what he always does tell us people will disagree but we should not listen to them we should listen to him. He is the only one looking out for us. The gun lobby does not care about you and the anti-gun lobby wants nobody to own guns. Here is a link to his Op-Ed. It is too long to post here.
This must be a good thing because the Huffington Post wasted no time trumpeting the announcement of the conversation the President wants about guns. But the very first paragraph has to be false. Here is how the HuffPo article starts.
The Obama administration has conducted informal discussions with groups from both ends of the gun-policy spectrum, including law enforcement and gun-rights organizations, and is set to hold formal meetings as early as this week in an effort to chart out a set of new firearms policies, administration officials say.
Both sides? When asked if he was going to meet with the Presidents team to discuss this issue the head of the NRA Wayne LaPierre had this to sayto the New York Times.
“Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?”
Obama talks the middle road but the reality is he wants more gun control. Jared Laughner was never diagnosed as mentally disturbed. He would have been able to buy a gun under anyt current gun laws. So the question that needs to be answered is "What is Obama up to?"
Here are some reports on his record
In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.
Wait he wanted to prosecute people who defended themselves?
April 11th produced "Bittergate." The Huffington Post website posted an explanation Obama gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. "It's not surprising they get bitter," he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I wonder if he knows many of the people in Central Pennsylvania where immigrants. Oh wait. We are all in one way or another immigrants. So in one statement Barack (claiming to be a faithful Christian) attacks religion, guns and people's perceptions based on race. Who voted for him again?
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
The DC handgun ban did not address the issue of illegal hand guns. Those laws are already on the books and poorly enforced at all levels. The DC hand gun ban was a broad attempt to take guns out of law-abiding citizens hands. It was so misguided the Courts overturned it. And a while later the Washington Post published an editorial that started like this.
The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind today as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.
HUH? The ban on handguns gets overturned and the murder rate plummets? Do you think maybe the criminals thought the real Americans were armed? We should be.
I could go on about how misguided this arrogant foolish man is about guns. This man can not be trusted on the gun issue. I will end with the most common sense statement on gun control laws I have ever heard.
If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.