Sunday, March 13, 2011

Obama's Op/Ed on guns and common sense

What next? His op/ed on bibles and religion?
Writing in the Arizona Daily Star more than two months after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, six of whom died, Obama said he's "willing to bet" that responsible gun owners would support laws to "keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on" guns.
"Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation," he wrote. 
"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," the president wrote.
Predictably, on the heels of every major shooting incident in this country over the last forty years, there have been calls by the anti gun lobby and their favored liberal politicians for more gun controls. Our lack of gun control is what is leading to these senseless shootings if we are to believe those who oppose gun ownership on all levels in America.

Yet is is somewhat out of the ordinary for the president of the Untied States to be writing op/ed' s on any topic, much less on gun control.

The choice of words and phrasing by Obama are less than original in my opinion, and the same dog eared argument is used once again. If we could only "take the guns out of the hands of criminals, these senseless shootings (like recently in Tucson) would stop.

Here is a clue mr. president.....The low life who shot the congresswoman and killed six people and wounded twelve more? Well he wasn't a criminal before he bought the gun and went on his shooting spree. Therefore, all the gun laws in the land wouldn't have stopped Jared Loughner from committing his crimes.

"A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun,"
So riddle me this mr. president. If Jared Loughner was such a threat to society prior to his rampage? How come the police in his own home town never followed through or tagged him as a potential mentally disturbed person prone to violence.

It's relatively apparent what happened with Jared Loughner. His mother was a connected county employee, therefore, even the low level crimes that Loughner may have been involved in, were never followed up on and no one ever identified Jared Loughner as a certifiable nut case, because they were apparently afraid of offending his mother or not being able to justify their reasonable fears of him.

On the one hand, there is one point that the president has made that is absolutely correct. The abject lack of common sense in this country is what is propelling the majority of the violence in this country. Yet it isn't the lack of common sense on the part of the criminals where the failure lies.

It is with those we charge with protecting us. Those who allow criminality and idiocy in the name of egalitarian fairness and the fear of offending those who should be offended. There in lies the real crime.

1 comment:

XtnYoda said...

These people need to be forced to take whatever medications they need in order to be placated ... or they need to be locked down if they won't.

He was an obvious threat to humanity ... over and over.

.... and then the only solution progressives can come up with is to blame "guns?" ....