The Washington Times reported on President Obama’s reaction to the San Bernardino terrorist attack in “White House says stricter gun laws can prevent terrorist attacks”.
Oh, please. That contemptible s.o.b. is exploiting the deaths of 14 people to try to advance his ridiculous gun-control agenda.
“Despite mounting evidence that Islamist terrorists were responsible for the mass slayings in California, the White House said Thursday that stricter gun control could have prevented the attack and vowed to keep “scrubbing” the nation’s laws for ways that President Obama can take executive action to restrict gun ownership.”
Gun control is President Obama’s solution to every problem.
Got global warming? Cure it with more gun control.
Falling leaves clogging your gutters? Cure it with more gun control.
Unseasonably warm, cold or moderate weather choking the economy? Gun control will solve your problems.
Hemorrhoids, bunions, or dandruff? Get Dr. Obama’s patented “Gun Control Elixir”.
Gun control—it’s the panacea the world’s been waiting for.
At least, that’s what President Obama would have you believe.
In fact, Barack Hussein Obama is a shameless, tin-horn, lying Kenyan who can’t even produce a birth certificate to prove he’s eligible to work as a White House butler.
In fact, there’s no way that “stricter gun control” would’ve prevented the 14 deaths and 21 injuries caused by the shooters in San Bernardino. To claim otherwise is a blatant, bold-faced and shameless lie.
• How ‘bout we have stricter candidate control for the Presidency? How ‘bout we criminalize running for the Presidency if you’re not born in one of the States of the Union? How ‘bout we make the political parties civilly liable for, say, $20 million, if they nominate an unconstitutional candidate for the White House—and $40 million if they manage to elect another one?
The American people would get more protection and greater safety out of “stricter candidate control” than they ever will out of “stricter gun control”.
Stricter gun control laws won’t work any better than stricter drug control laws. Drugs are here in abundance and the government can’t or won’t do anything to stop it. There’s no reason to suppose that stricter gun control laws will work any better to defeat criminal activity.
In fact, no one seriously believes that stricter gun control laws would have stopped the Jihadists from acquiring guns to kill 14 and wound 21. True, stricter gun control might have caused the Jihadists to spend two months acquiring their guns rather than two weeks—but they were Muslims and motivated by their faith to launch an attack. They were profoundly patient, persistent and unperturbed by gun control. They could not have been stopped by more gun control laws. If they had to smuggle guns in from Saudi Arabia, they would’ve got their guns.
Some elements of government are tasked with trying to detect and stop the import of nuclear weapons into this country by ISIS or similar “terrorist” organization. I guarantee that if it’s even conceivable that nuclear weapons can be smuggled into this country, it’s a snap for terrorists to smuggle in sniper rifles and full–automatic rifles. Increased gun control will not stop terrorists from acquiring guns in this country.
However, increasing restrictions on access to guns helped render the 14 who were shot and killed defenseless. Increased gun control regulations made owning and carrying a firearm inconvenient and difficult for law-abiding people. Therefore, existing gun control laws in California–one of the nation’s most draconian, anti-gun states–left the 21 who were wounded, defenseless. The 35 victims died or were wounded largely because they obeyed California’s existing and rigorous gun control laws. Their resulting inability to defend themselves got them killed.
What if the Jihadists had known that 2, 3 or 10 of the people who they planned to kill were packing heat? What if they’d known that even if they showed up with two AK-47s, they’d have to face off against ten people packing 9mm pistols or .45 caliber semi-automatics?
More gun control would not have saved the San Bernardino victims. It’s gun control that got them killed.
• That opinion is not radical hyperbole.
In fact, the English magazine The Economist implicitly agrees with that opinion and has published evidence to support that agreement.
Here are excerpts from an article published by The Economist several months ago that were more recently described by The Washington Examiner (“The Economist Speaks on U.S. gun control”):
“Gun sales have doubled under President Obama while the gun murder rate has been cut in half since 1993, making America “a much safer place,” according to a new Economist analysis. . . . Over 16 million new guns entered the U.S. marketplace in 2013, up from about 7 million [per year] when Obama was elected in 2008.
“America has become a much safer place over the past two decades, but public sentiment has yet to catch on to the fact. In 1993, near the peak of America’s crime wave, seven out of every 100,000 people aged 12 and up were gunned down. That number has since halved,” it said.
The obvious lesson in The Economist’s report is that more guns in the hands of more people actually make people safer.
The 14 who died and the 21 who were wounded in San Bernardino weren’t the victims of gun control laws that were too weak—they were the victims of gun control laws that were too strong. If half a dozen of those 38 victims had had their own guns with them, the death and injury toll would’ve been smaller and the terrorists would probably died on the spot.. It’s even possible that, if the Jihadists had known they were bringing their weapons into a venue where their intended targets were also armed, those Jihadists might not have dared to attack.
The 14 people who died in San Bernardino didn’t die simply because the Jihadists had guns. The victims died because they didn’t have guns.
If Barack Hussein Obama really wanted to protect the American people from gun violence he’d help pass laws that mandated people to own fire arms and also allowed and encouraged people to carry those firearms in public.
It may be counter-intuitive for many to suppose that more guns result in fewer gun deaths, but that’s only because we’ve been conditioned by government propaganda to believe gun control is a rational agenda that serves the public interest.
Despite government’s propaganda, the evidence is clear. Over the last 22 years—and especially during the Obama administration—the number of guns sold annually in this country has at least doubled and the number of killing attributed to guns had fallen by half. I’d like to see that treasonous whore Obama talk his way around those facts.
Gun control advocates are, at best, ignorant—at worst, treasonous. Whether they know it or not, the “gun control nuts” are working to make this nation and its people less safe.
Yahoo! Finance reports in “Gunmaker Smith & Wesson up almost 100% in 2015,” that:
“One stock that continued to rise through much of Thursday and throughout gun-related violence headlines this year? Gunmaker Smith & Wesson—which clocked in over $500 million in sales last year—up 93% since January.”
So, was ObamaCare the “signature achievement” of President Obama’s administration?
Obama’s “signature achievement” has been to almost single-handedly double the annual sale of firearms—and thereby reduce the number of gun-related murders.
Congratulations, President Obama! Maybe that Nobel Peace Prize you received for being black wasn’t quite as stupid as it seemed. By inadvertently causing an increase in gun sales, you’ve played a big role in diminishing gun deaths and increasing public safety. Maybe increasing public safety is one of the criteria for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. You might not want to take credit for that result, but it must still be your true, “signature achievement”.
Makes me laugh.
God, guns and gold. Is this still a great country, or what?
• Here’s a video of Billy Joel singing the Gun Control Song. It’s extremely well done. Makes you laugh. Makes people see that “gun control” is for buffoons and treasonous whores
It’s not only true that Obama is a buffoon; it’s true that more and more Americans are agreeing with that opinion.
During your administration, President Obama, your gun control propaganda precipitated the additional sales of about 40 million firearms. Couldn’t’ve have sold all those extra firearms without you, Barack. Couldn’t have made millions of Americans safer without your anti-gun propaganda.
Thank you, Obama, for your . . . “signature achievement”.
Heh, heh, heh.