Obama sets stage for ending gun lobby's con game

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Let's get the STUPID CRAP out of the way first

Accusing a president of undermining liberty is a nice way of encouraging those who see him as a dictator.

Really? It is? Maybe I'm mistaken but I recall a few instances of a Democrat or three saying disparaging things about some Republicans. And really? Is there a "nice way" of accusing a sitting President of being a dictator? What's that? The article didn't say that??? Oh you're right! And neither did the Speaker. "Tyrant" and accusations of such accusations are just sensationalist journalism, otherwise known as being the class clown. As George Carlin has adeptly articulated, the job of the class clown is ATTRACTING ATTENTION TO YOURSELF.

An often repeated and rejected lie:
>> the NRA and its congressional enablers impede gun research
The truth:
>> Congressional RKBA advocates got a law passed against publicly funding gun control advocacy.
Being fair about allowing public money to be spent advancing gun-control would amount to also giving public funds to advance ideas that the NRA, SAF and other organizations support. I'm personally against giving tax money to either side.

The same NRA put up a frightening online video declaring that Obama is "our biggest threat to national security."

OTOH maybe that's just another instance of sensationalist journalism, first amendment and all they get to say stuff back when you take a swipe at them on national TV. I'd be surprised if they said nothing.


Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, I'll move on to my attempt at sensationalism. Here's an excerpt from the article linked in the OP:

This is an old trick on the part of those who will not budge, no matter how many Americans are killed by firearms. Their favorite ploy is to say that because there are already so many guns out there -- some estimates run to over 300 million -- no particular practical measure will do much of anything to stem the violence.

One point which may be inferred from this excerpt is that for some reason, there is some magic number of dead Americans that makes it okay to abandon protecting a right. Let me make this clear: the rights as expressed in the Bill of Rights derive from natural human rights. Those rights are eternal. Those rights are not subject to edicts from powerful politicians nor to the popular whims of a well meaning legislature. For those of you that think tons of restrictions, Constitutional or not, should be part of the Democratic agenda, I don't want to hear about gun nuts and the NRA when Republicans win elections.

Some pro-control folks will ask questions like 'How many more Americans will have to die before we're allowed to confiscate all your bullet spitting {penis reference} toys.' You control happy folks that imply with that question that we pro-RKBA types think rights can be negotiated using specious reasoning about tools used by law enforcement and criminals, by hunters and gang bangers, by rapists and by those who object to being raped and/or killed, I'm going to give my answer right now; all of them.