ev-er-y . frik-kin’ . dayyyyyy !

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
The Arizona Daily Star Arizona Daily Star, Sunday, March 13, 2011

It’s been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation.

Murder isn’t a “tragedy.” It’s a capital crime

It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack’s turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people’s pain.

WTF? What the heck news sources are you readin’?
Oh, you mean “you.” So this means you’re not “refraining” any more?
What … the murderer acted stupidly?

But one clear and terrible fact remains. 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.

Because he was never adjudicated to be mental.

He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse.

If any of the bystanders had been anything other than a Democrat, they may have been carrying concealed so the outcome would have been a whole lot better. Or if the Sheriff hadn’t been an old Democrat hack, he might have actually done his job and had enough deputies there.

But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.

Mainly, these are the acts of criminals who obtain and use guns illegally in places where guns are forbidden and in cities with strict gun-control laws. Strangely enough, the only violent shootings done by law-abiding citizens carrying concealed are shooting of one of the above criminals.

Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.

See: concealed carry, above.
Strange, you don’t think this line of reasoning applies to your fiscal policy.

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land.

Buuuut …?

In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage.

Only good shooting, though, right?
Wait … where’s the militia part? You know, where arms are a right, because they are needed to defend life and liberty?

And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners – it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

You mean you didn’t veto that, because you were concentrating on your larger agenda, and it could wait until now?
Besides, that didn’t “expand rights,” it reduced unconstitutional Federal restrictions on our rights.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They’re our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection.

And resisting domestic tyranny. Don’t forget the tyranny part.

And that’s something that gun-safety advocates need to accept.

Wait … it’s the gun owners who are “gun-safety advocates.” You ever take an NRA course? No, stupid question. The other guys are “gun-control advocates.” It’s not the same thing. Don’t twist the meaning of words, here, you old Marxist propagandist. And don’t try to pretend you’re doing some kind of win-win trade, here, jackass.

Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.

Why the sam hill do you think we carry firearms, you blithering jackass!
Chicago? Chicago has strict gun control and an astronomical violent crime rate. You’re using data from places where your view doesn’t work as evidence that we should adopt your view. Why do you insult our intelligence?
Again, stupid question, sorry.

I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides.

Could it be because your side lies through its teeth?

People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen.

One-way shouting ain’t our fault, you disingenuous dweeb. You encourage that kind of intimidation and street action. We only ended up shouting when it became obvious that everything we believed in was about to be trashed in a coup.

We mire ourselves in stalemate, …

If by “stalemate” you mean we won’t surrender our rights, then yeah.

[W]hich makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

Careful who you call “we.” You and your peasant-despising elitists don’t have the right to tell us “where we need to go as a country.” We, the people, tell you! (see: republic) I’m perfectly willing to tell you where to go.

However, I believe that if common sense prevails, …

You mean if we’ll just swallow your crap and shut up?

[W]e can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates …

Yep, he meant “shut up,” alright.

[T]o find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.

Meaning, gun advocates are irrational, stupid people. Oh, smooth one, jackass. You just can’t help but patronize us “enemies,” can you?

I’m willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners …

So, anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be irresponsible and criminal. See? Again with the insults.

[A]gree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few – dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example – from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

You mean like we do now? You ever look at the paperwork needed to buy a gun?

I’m willing to bet they …

Again, not us. Okay, that was more subtle.

[D]on’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas …

Brilliant! Why didn’t we think of that?

[T]hat 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 …

Yeahhhh … how’s that different than what we do now? Oh, sorry, you’re trying to imply that gun owners don’t think there should be any restriction on ownership due to social irresponsibility, is that it?

[T]hat there’s room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.

Yeah, that’s what the Second Amendment means. It’s also what concealed-carry laws mean. You’re disingenuous implication is that we don’t do that and don’t want that. Who writes your drivel?

That’s why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

Huh? It’s like you’re the first one to ever address the question of what kind of anti-social behavior is disqualifying. You ever read up on the history of law? Oh, right, forgot, you don’t have your license to practice law anymore.

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books.

Like illegal immigration? Voter intimidation? Stuff like that?

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that’s supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.

Yeah, it ought’a be at least as comprehensive as the background checks for somebody running for the White House.

Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn’t been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states – but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

Wait, the States need Federal babysitting? I smell a rat.

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

Bribe States to enact stricter gun control and, oh by the way, perhaps contribute stuff that has nothing to do with gun-ownership qualification to a Federal database? Yep, a big rat.

• 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.

Like they’re doin’ now?

Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves.

Never thought of that.

If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill,

Wait, when did “made up his mind to kill” enter the criteria? If anyone knew how to determine that, we wouldn’t have a friggin’ murder problem.

[T]hen we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.

Does that happen? I mean, besides those cases where an honest dealer turns a crook down, so the crook illegally buys a gun from another crook.

Clearly, there’s more we can do to prevent gun violence.

Yep, carry.

But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.

Geeze, nothing counts until you say “go,” does it? Why “new?” So you can take credit for it? People who actually “do” stuff have been working on that problem for centuries. Hey, I have an idea: why don’t you enforce the border laws? That might help reduce crime a lot more than “discussion.”

I know some aren’t interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby.

Like your supporters, staff, advisors, party, self? It ain’t hyperbolic, if it’s actually the baseline view.

Others will predictably …

Wipe the spittle off your chin.

[C]ast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns.

Using “wild-eyed” and “everybody’s” is a cheap and unworthy attempt to portray knowledge that confiscation is exactly what’s happened throughout history as, somehow, hyperbolic.

And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

Beware! NRA! Oh, yeah, and maybe the nice anti-gunners, but it’s okay to contribute to them, since they’re not “overheated” if we agree with them.

But I have more faith in the American people than that.

You lyin’ jackass! “Faith in” and “enemy” are not compatible.

Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens.

That’s not what they say, however.

Most gun owners know that the word “commonsense” isn’t a code word for “confiscation.”

No, when Progs use it, it’s a codeword for “registration,” which is a codeword for “confiscation.”

And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

Uhm, exactly what part of “concealed-carry’ is giving you the most trouble, here?

As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don’t get to look away and move on, neither can we.

Yeah, but unlike you, gun owners want to defend themselves and demand that the criminals be punished, not the law-abiding. We actually value freedom and personal responsibility.

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 …

No! To act … in the real world. To defend ourselves and others. To protect our constitutional right to do so. To avoid trading our freedom for the promise of security. To avoid the age-old lie which you’re peddlin’ again.

[T]o prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children’s futures.

A lot you care about The Children’s™ future.

21 Comments!

  1. Posted March 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm |

    Swimming pools kill more kids than guns. When we all agree to ban those, I’ll be willing to talk about banning any gun.

    But, as with all gun bans, police and federal agents first, then citizens.

  2. SherryM
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 9:04 pm |

    “In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage.

    Anytime someone uses the word hunting and the 2thA in the same breath they do not have a clue as to what they are talking about.

  3. Claire, Ideologically Stubborn Heatist Ruralite
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 9:08 pm |

    DougM – 10++++++++++++++++++++++++++++!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [can't.... help.....self ....must......comment...]

    “WTF? What the heck news sources are you readin’?”
    Hey – easy on him: he was on the links.

    “It has awful consequences for our society.”
    Ya wanna substantiate that?

    Yep — a big smelly lying rat.

    Let’s make a deal: when you can keep cell fones and drugs out of top-security prisons, you can put this drivel back on the table. Where we’ll shout it down for the crappola it is. Again.

    Let’s see Eric Holder go deep into Harlem or Detroit with a large group of heavily-armed officers and take every one of the illegal, unregistered guns out of there. Then we’ll believe your concern troll rant. C’mon. Get to it. For The Chiiiiiildren™

    Life is NOT SAFE, you Utopianist Unicorn-lovin’ Ungulent. Some of us are growed up enough to accept that; and cope with it. Others *cough* dissolve into tears. …or go golfing.

  4. SondraK, Lympian Slayer
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 9:26 pm |

    Get the HAMMAH!!!!!!!
    - some goddess

  5. Kristopher
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 11:43 pm |

    Of course armed Republicans scare him. He’s the enemy, and probably not a citizen of the US.

    Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

    He doesn’t have a big enough or motivated enough army to disarm the 48% that voted against him.

  6. Andouille
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 1:55 am |

    More “I’m the gubmint and I’m here to help myself” stuff from Mr. Cult of (my own) Personality. But for once I agree with him. Absolutely we need better accountablilty, starting with BATF who allowed several thousands weapons to “walk” across the Mexican border and got a few AMERICAN agents killed, and FBI who have lost quite a few hundred, if not thousands, of weapons themselves.

    Then come talk to me about civilian problems, you incompetent asshole. Country going down the $hitter and he’s doing community organizing again. The fact that he spent more than fifteen seconds thinking about this issue proves he is more against the country, than for it.

  7. Yatalli
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 4:26 am |

    Be afraid. Anytime The One uses phrases like “reasonable” or “I have faith” you know he’s lying.

    Nicely fisked, by the way.

  8. Yatalli
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 4:26 am |

    Yea! My avatar is back.

  9. Snuffy Smith
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 4:36 am |

    “from my cold, dead hands.”

    That’s the only way the leftist bastards will get them.

  10. Melissa In Texas
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 4:58 am |

    • First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books.
    Oh really?
    What is this we shit, half white man?
    How about enforcing some of the cotton pickin’ immigration laws and ridding ourselves of some of the human debris that has floated in and attributed to this violent society before we talk about regulating and registering our guns you dimwitted jackass?

    Indeed, Snuffy, indeed.

  11. rickn8or
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 5:03 am |

    Molon labe.

  12. geezerette
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 6:43 am |

    He/they have ’till Jan.2013– to get it all in– ev–er-y frik-kin day is right— we ain’t seen nothin’ yet–he /they know he won’t get reelected so he/they have to get er done — you think Bush left this country in a mess? HUH–

  13. DoubleU
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 7:26 am |

    My “Every Freaking Day” graphic

  14. DoubleU
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 7:31 am |

    And Obama uses the phrase “common sense” a lot. The dolts with no common sense will eat it up when he uses it because it sounds good. Common sense in one area of this great country is not the same as common sense in another area of this country. The common sense on the streets of NY city and the common sense in the backwoods of West Virgina are two different things.

  15. 1911Man
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 7:49 am |

    Doug,

    You nailed it! They will never figure out it’s not the inanimate object that’s the problem. It’s the person. Until that person commits a crime, he/she is not a criminal.

    Our justice system must be reactive by nature. There’s no Dept. of Pre-Crime. If the democrat sheriff had done his job, maybe the evil little slimeball wouldn’t have been on the street to commit the crime in the first place.

  16. DougM
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 7:53 am |

    Andouille,
    Thanks, I forgot to include that.
    RCOB moment.

    MsMelissa,
    I was gonna use your “Whaddaya mean ‘we’ …” phrase, word for word, but I chickened out.

  17. Claire, Ideologically Stubborn Heatist Ruralite
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 8:01 am |

    “Common Sense”… Isn’t that Glenn Beck’s phrase?
    *cough*

  18. Alan outback bacon czar
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 9:37 am |

    Guns? Guns? I don’t have any guns. Nope, not even one.

  19. Alan outback bacon czar
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 9:37 am |

    Yea! My avatar is back.

  20. mojo
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 10:07 am |

    Chicago can kiss my ass, I don’t give a good crap what they like or dislike. I’m in good company there, as the Mayor and the Aldermen obviously don’t care either.

    As for Bambi, when I want his opinion I’ll slap it out of him.

  21. LLoyd
    Posted March 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm |

    Eat dung Barry and all you dung regime.