A visibly-annoyed President Obama addressed the country shortly after the Senate rejected the Toomey-Manchin Amendment that called for an increase in background checks. In his short, testy speech, Obama raged against the vile, evil Republicans who worked against the Amendment that “respected the rights of gun owners.”

There’s a German word, Schadenfreude, which describes the pleasure one feels when seeing another displeased. I’ll admit, the palpable rage the President spewed out with his televised hissy-fit gave me a good chuckle. In this zero-sum game for gun rights, the victory for those who respect the Second Amendment came at the expense of those who seek to destroy it.

Continuing the shameful campaign of dragging around bereaved human props, Obama spoke to America about his disappointment while surrounded by family members of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting and former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

As Obama discussed the efforts of Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin, he noted,

“As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.”

I can honestly claim that even a smaller infringement is still an infringement. When we look at the Second Amendment, I will happily oblige infringements of our right to bear arms if any gun-grabber can point to the part in the phrasing that claims, “…But some infringements are okay.”

I honestly don’t understand what is so difficult about the 27 words that make up the Second Amendment. We’re not having this debate; Gun owners are not obliged to accept what Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein or anybody else feels is a “reasonable” infringement on the already-guaranteed right.

Obama continued with his rant:

“In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of ‘big brother’ gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter”

As a rule of thumb, if any gun-grabber insists that they were just instituting a small, harmless provision, that’s when one ought to be on high-alert.

It’s galling to see a man lie and, with his very next breath, accuse his opponent of lying. Obama has been sounding the alarm, pressuring everyone who will listen with his “90%” myth that amounts to political peer pressure. Not only is 90% a fabrication based around manipulative partisan polling practices, but even if 90% supported universal background checks, the fact remains that we are a Republic governed by laws and a process to amend those laws. If 90% said the First Amendment was outdated and irrelevant, until an amendment passed repealing it, we would still abide by the First Amendment protections.

That’s what makes a Republic different from a Democracy. 90% can say something. It’s the law that makes it legitimate.

Finally, Obama addressed his exploitation of victims, saying,

“I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. ‘A prop,’ somebody called them. ‘Emotional blackmail,’ some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.”

Now that’s a politician. Obama has used and exploited these poor people for months and after being dealt a humiliating blow, he now has tried to assume the moral high-ground. Addressing the victims’ families would have have been one thing, but this sorry excuse for a human being has been dragging these people around the country for months and protecting himself from political fallout with bereaved human shields. And after all that, he concludes that this was a shameful day for Washington?

This war for the defense of our liberties if far from over; but let’s take a moment and remember that we won a victory yesterday.


Leave a reply


<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>