It’s no shocker that Obama wants more “gun control”. Of course he does! It’s also no surprise that he blames gun owners for the problems, without actually putting it into those words.

Everyone know he’d be making some dumbass announcement about “gun control” after Congress-woman Gabrielle Giffords was shot along with dozens of others.  It was only a matter of time.

Well, that time has come, and with luck, so has the downfall of the most moronic president to sit in the Oval Office.  Or at least we can hope and pray that’s the case.

In an opinion piece published in the Arizona Daily Star titled “We must seek agreement on gun reforms“, President Obama made it clear there was only one thing that must be agreed upon… what he wants…

I’m willing to bet they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas – that we should check someone’s criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to buy a gun so easily; that there’s room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.

He gets it wrong in the very first line of that paragraph… actually I shouldn’t say it that way… what he does is word his thoughts in a way specifically designed to make gun owners look like the ones who are at fault for gun crime.

He puts it on us that we’re the ones lacking in common sense… IF we don’t agree with him.

Then he says we gun owners must agree with him that “reasonable laws” (I hate that bloody phrase!) are all that are required.

Therein lies the problem, doesn’t it.

Common sense.  Reasonable laws.

Folks like Obama can’t comprehend what every honest gun owner knows instinctively and can back up with literally a ton of research:

Guns Save Lives.

A question folks like Obama never want to answer is this:

How come “reasonable laws” always move the bar toward restricting my rights, not protecting them?

How come “common sense” is always whatever laws the gun banners want, and completely ignores all the research on the issue?

How come gun owners are the ones who are always branded “unreasonable” when they refuse to be blamed for the crimes of stupid criminals and insane people?

It annoys the crap out of me, as you’ve probably figured out.  🙂

In his three-point plan for solving the problem, he naturally wants to “begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books.”

That would be okay if the laws already on the books weren’t horribly wrong and aimed (pardon the pun) at the wrong people.

Existing gun laws on both sides of the border, for the most part, have no effect on criminals.  They’re written to affect the law-abiding only.  Hardly an effective first step then, is it?

Then he gets into bribing state governments to do his bidding.

Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data – and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

He won’t come right out and say it, of course, because he knows he will get run out of town on a rail if he did, but what he wants is the licensing of gun owners and the registration of all firearms.

What else does “provide the best data” mean?

It’s a neat trick or turn of phrase, actually.

He tells the states what he wants, while making them pay the political price for implementing it.  Brilliant, at least in the minds of a liberal who thinks that anyone who doesn’t want what they want must be too stupid to see through his abuse of language.

Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can’t escape it.

Again, calling for a national registry of every citizen, regardless of whether they’ve actually been convicted of a crime or not.  That’s what the word “comprehensive” stands for.

Now, a liberal-minded person (wow, that was polite, wasn’t it!) will tell me I’m full of crap, paranoid, and seeing bogeymen where they don’t exist.

Really.

I guarantee you this:  The only people who will be affected by Obama’s three-point-plan will be honest gun owners. The actual violent criminals will, as always, be left completely unaffected by this latest round of political antics.

What we’ll see in coming weeks and months is more gun store owners being raided by over-zealous BATF agents, and honest gun owners being arrested for non-existent crimes because of stupid enforcement of “laws already on the books”.

Is it really paranoia when you’re right?

He ends off his diatribe with this:

We owe the victims of the tragedy in Tucson and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best efforts – to seek consensus, to prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children’s futures.

There’s that lovely word again… consensus.

There’s only one problem with consensus.

There can be no consensus on this issue for the simple reason that gun banners and gun owners have two completely different solutions to the problem of gun violence.

Folks like Obama don’t want consensus… they want capitulation, but are too “gun-shy” to say what they really mean.

Pardon the pun.  Again.