While Obama is protected by dozens of men with guns, he can't understand why Americans would want to protect themselves with those same guns
by: J. D. Heyes
Have you ever noticed that some of the most vehement anti-gun people are the very same ones who are surrounded and protected by them? That would be just about everyone in the Obama administration (and most Democrats in Congress).
In recent days we've been forced to endure another round of indignation from President Obama and other government anti-gunners following the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif. We've come to expect that from a president who, from the beginning of his first term, set in motion scheme after anti-gun scheme, all with the aim of hollowing out the meaning and importance of the Second Amendment.
Even an act of terrorism did not dissuade this president or those who represent him from politicizing their agenda.
As reported by Breitbart News and the Washington Times, White House spokesman Josh Earnest complained that too many Americans were flocking to gun stores in the wake of the California terrorist attack, in a nation already "awash in guns," describing the record gun purchases as "tragic."
"The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more people go out and buy guns. That is both ironic and tragic," he said, as if he had the moral authority to even make such a claim.
Men protected by men with guns complaining about YOU protecting YOURSELF with guns
"In some cases these are individuals who believe that they need to buy a gun so that they can better protect themselves," he continued. "In some cases because it's Black Friday, they probably are going and purchasing a gift for a friend or a loved one who is a gun enthusiast. I'm just pointing out that there are already an astonishing number of guns on the streets of America and far too many innocent Americans who are being killed by them."
Earnest also said that he did not understand Americans' attraction to guns (maybe he should read some history on the founding of our nation?), or why they felt the need to buy so many.
And he lamented what he described as easy access to guns (maybe he should read the Constitution?).
"Ready access to guns and [the] proliferation of violent weapons of war has not led to fewer gun deaths," Earnest said. "It's tragic that even in the situation where we have lots of guns on the streets that lead to lots of innocent Americans being killed, that the response to that is that a whole lot more guns end up on the streets."
There is, of course, no evidence of that. In fact, based on the federal government's own statistics, guns (mostly handguns) are used two-to-one in suicides versus homicides. In fact, when you compare gun-related homicides to vehicular deaths, there are four times more fatalities from cars and trucks than firearm-caused homicides (about 32,000 vs about 8,500).
Our founders had Obama in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment
And yet, when is the last time you heard Josh Earnest or his boss call for a ban on cars and trucks?
Granted, any time someone is shot and killed that is a tragedy for someone – but so is losing a loved one to a car crash; or knifing; or a blunt instrument; or a beating. And yet any calls to ban these things would of course be met with derision.
So what makes guns different? Why do objects that are responsible for the deaths of only about 8,500 people a year, out of a population of 310 million, so exercise Obama and his minions? Why are objects whose ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution so problematic to Left-wing extremist politicians?
The answer should be obvious: You can't rule like a tyrant over an armed people, and our founders knew this.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052398_Secret_Service_protection_Second_Amendment_hypocrisy.html#ixzz3v3E01h8K