Obama arrogantly played the same gun control propaganda card liberals have been using for years.  He pleaded, “maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence”.  But in the efforts to stop that “one act of evil”, how many other’s do we allow because people weren’t able to protect themselves?  How many women will we accept being raped?  How many senior citizens will we tolerate being assaulted?  How many families will we endure be victimized?  How many defenseless people will we stand by and allow to be murdered?

     Maybe we could try to stop one act of evil by arming a few well-trained teachers and administrators.  Maybe we could try to stop one act of violence by allowing military personnel to carry on base.  Maybe, to protect the children, we could keep it affordable for single mothers to obtain a firearm to protect her kids.

     If Obama was honestly concerned about gun control and preventing just one violent act, then why won’t he call radical Islamic terrorism for what it is?  Why are all Muslim attacks reduced to workplace violence or an isolated incident?  We are forbidden to even mention their Islamic faith.  Liberals fall over themselves running to the microphone to blame the gun for the massacre, calling for the prosecution of the NRA.  In contrast, white gunmen prove all white people as racist, bring condemnation and blame on the Confederate flag, and exemplify white privilege.

     We are seeing a disturbing rise in Muslim attacks.  (see COEXIST and I Am Garland)  Just a week ago, Philadelphia officer Jesse Hartnett was ambushed and shot by a suspect dressed in Muslim attire.  During his interrogation, he confessed he did it in the name of Islam.  His motivation was believing cops enforce laws against Allah.  Democrat Mayor Jim Kenney, who was just sworn in a few days before, stated that was not the reason, claiming Islam is a religion of peace.  This is a complete denial of the “acts of evil” we are facing with no real solutions being explored.

     In response to another question, Obama commented, “the laws of supply and demand mean that if something's harder to get and it's a little more expensive to get, then fewer people get them.”  This contradicts his response to the rape victim of, “there really is nothing we're proposing that prevents you or makes it harder for you to purchase a firearm if you need one.”  Thinking he's supporting his statements of only hindering criminals, he actually exposes a crucial lie to the rape victim and confirms the belief he is going after lawful gun owners.  His supposed attempt to handicap criminals will actually restrain law-abiding citizens more.  Those on fixed or low incomes and living in rougher neighborhoods may not be able to afford a firearm.  They are now left more vulnerable and defenseless than ever to acts of evil and violence.

     Criminals, on the other hand, will not really be affected.  Police officers will tell you that when they find a gun on a suspect, often times it is a stolen one.  So it doesn’t matter how many background checks are required, criminals will get guns through crime.  The recent Philadelphia shooter’s gun had been stolen from the police department.  Just this week a Brown County, Ohio, officer was assaulted.  He was found unconscious by fellow officers with face and head wounds and his gun was missing.  Now another criminal has a gun.  No background check or increase in price would have prevented that.  In fact, it will only intensify attacks like this on police.

     In a press conference, Obama announced, “We’re also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals who try to buy some of the most dangerous firearms by hiding behind trusts and corporations and various cutouts.”  Who are these violent criminals who have trusts and corporations?  Is this a reference to the mob?  Do the terrorists have corporations?  Do gang members set up trusts with their government checks and drug money?  Again, all it does is restrain law-abiding citizens.  It will do NOTHING against “violent criminals”.

     Though Obama says, “I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms,” it’s the remarks he surrounds that statement with that reveal his honest opinion.


     - “You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership.”  2008 Democrat Debate

     - “We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.” 2012 Democrat Debate

     - “I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen.” Press Conference Jan. 2013  

     - “although we have a strong tradition of gun ownership in this country,” Press Conference Jan. 2016

     Here’s a little interesting fact for the Constitutional scholar, the 2nd Amendment is not part of the Bill of Traditions.  It is a RIGHT!  It has nothing to do with hunting, either.  A Georgia state representative, who just proposed a gun confiscation bill, stated, “Assault weapons are not necessary for deer hunting.”  Ok.  But according to the 2nd Amendment, that’s not the reason or right for having them.  It is specifically to ensure “the security of a free State” from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.

     There's only one way to truly limit acts of evil and violence.  You put guns in the hands of good people.   Detroit, one of the most violent cities in the country, has seen a dramatic change in their criminal activity because one man has stood up and faced the problem head on.  When Chief James Craig arrived in the city, one of his first directives to the citizens was to arm themselves.  This, along with Craig supporting his cops and helping them do their jobs instead of handcuffing them, has made a world of difference.  As a result, not only did crime decrease by double-digit percentages, so did homicides, from 55 per 100,000 in 2012 to 43 per 100,000 in 2015.  Last year’s homicide rate was they lowest they’ve seen since 1967.

     To know how Obama really views this, look at his own words.  He knows the only way to combat an attacker is to have a better weapon.  During the 2008 campaign, in response to a question about Republican attacks, Obama responded, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”  Is it no wonder he wants to take yours now?

     The fact is violence did not enter the world when the gun was invented.  History proves that.  Gun control just takes away the innocence people's means of defense, from individuals and the government.  

     Liberty, you have a God-given right to protect and defend yourself.  Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.  Because once you give up that right, all your others evaporate over night.

     That’s my 2 cents.



January 15, 2016

Dear Liberty,

     "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

     I appreciate those who reject violence in all forms, as that would result in a wonderful world.  Unfortunately, the fact is there are those who are evil on this earth.  Most just inflict pain in their immediate surroundings.  Others, if allowed, will ascend to power and take all freedom away from others and rule them through the very force and violence many abhor.  Below are a few examples from history where the government, for the "good of the people", removed firearms from their citizens. 

     "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.  The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." Mao Tse-tung.  In 1935, China implemented gun control.  After taking office in 1945, Mao rounded up and eliminated 20 million political objectors from 1949 to 1952.


     "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms." Adolf Hitler.  Germany started gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were annihilated by the Nazi Party.

     “In any country there must be people who have to die. They are the sacrifices any nation has to make to achieve law and order.”  Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979.  Gun control was started in 1970 and during Amin’s reign 300,000 people were butchered.

     - In 1911, Turkey established gun control.  From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were gathered and wiped out by the government.  (see Red Sunday)

     - In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.  From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were collected and slaughtered by the government. (see Communism's Rise)

     - Cambodia, in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977, 1 million educated people were assassinated.

     - Guatemala, in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were executed.

     Estimates say that as high as 56 million people have been exterminated by their own government in the 20th century alone because gun control left them defenseless.  Before guns, governments used swords, knives, and other torturous means. So guns are not the problem, evil people are.  (see It's Not What's In Your Hand, It's What's In Your Heart)

     Today in America we are being told gun control is an urgent necessity to curb the violence in our country.  Cries of action for “the good of the people,” are being heralded by politicians and media alike.  The only cries I hear, though, are those of the millions of people slaughtered by their government.  When the guns were gone and the people had no way to fight back, that’s when the rest of their rights were irradicated.  This is exactly why the Founders insisted on the 2nd Amendment as “being necessary to the security of a free State.”  These facts and history haven’t stopped Democrats from going down the dangerous “gun control” road, though.

     To kick off Obama’s last year in office, he signed several unconstitutional executive orders on gun control.  Knowing they were very unpopular, he tried to justify his actions in a town hall meeting.  His arguments were not only weak, they revealed how out of touch and dangerous this liberal viewpoint is.

     A mother and rape victim expressed her concern that Obama’s actions would hinder her parental responsibility to keep her family safe.  Obama confessed, “There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence.”  He continued, “what is also true is there's always the possibility that that firearm in a home leads to a tragic accident,” and “you have to be pretty well trained in order to fire a weapon against somebody who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise”.  These remarks insinuate Obama believes law-abiding citizens are too stupid and incompetent to handle and secure a gun, and are more dangerous with a gun than a criminal.

     It’s not that the gun has to be used for it to be valuable. It's the fact that the gun and other tools are there, period.  That’s why the first viable handgun was called the Colt PEACEMAKER.  Just the known presence of a firearm is a major deterrent.  Why do so many massacres happen on gun-free campuses?  (see t's Not What's In Your Hand, It's What's In Your Heart)  It's because they know no one there has a gun or any other means of protection.  Same goes for work places.  The gun is the means of keeping the peace, not an automatic result of violence.  If I think someone is in our house, one pump of my shotgun will make them think twice about what they are doing.  I won’t even have to fire before they’re heading out the door.  Why do liberals what to deny America citizens that protection?