Obama Attempts To Change Public Opinion On Gun

Alas, public opinion is of no consequence, Barry, when the Right to own a weapon is enshrined in that pesky constitution thing. But, yapping is what Obama does best

(Washington Post) The White House is working with its allies on a well-financed campaign in Washington and around the country to shift public opinion toward stricter gun laws and provide political cover to lawmakers who end up voting for an assault-weapons ban or other restrictions on firearms.

With President Obama preparing to push a legislative agenda aimed at curbing the nation’s gun violence, pillars of his political network, along with independent groups, are raising millions of dollars and mapping out strategies in an attempt to shepherd new regulations through Congress.

I do find it interesting that Obama has railed against outside groups and their influence on government. And what these groups, and Obama, will attempt to do will be to come up with all sorts of scary stories as well as methods for demonizing anyone who stands in the way of what they deem “sensible gun control measures”.

Along the way, there will be all sorts of fundraisers and “spreading awareness” campaigns, along with attempts to intimidate legal gun owners, like the way the Journal News and Gawker attempted with their release of information about legal gun owners (which really put criminals in the drivers seat).

Then you have the possibility of Obama using executive orders to ram through his people-control, er, gun control agenda

Biden’s comments sparked an immediate and sharp backlash from Republicans. “The Founding Fathers never envisioned Executive Orders being used to restrict our Constitutional rights,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (S.C.) said in a statement. “We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.”

Not in Obama and Liberal World. Progressives are fascists, and love that Big Government dictatorial style.

Some of the groups plan to use television and newspaper advertisements to paint laws restricting guns as a mainstream, common-sense idea. Some advocates have also stopped calling their efforts “gun control,” preferring “gun-violence prevention” instead.

Yet, the majority of the proposed ideas and legislation is really aimed at law abiding citizens. Some lefties ask “why do you need a 19 round clip for your handgun? 10 should be enough” to which I’d reply “why do you need a 50 inch TV? Wouldn’t a 37 be fine?” Alternatively, I could go with “why? What’s it to you? Mind your own business.”

If Democrats were serious, they would be looking at solutions to protect people from criminals, and go after criminals. Make punishments harsh. Corporal punishment and hard labor would help. Instead, they want to make it harder for good citizens to have a gun for protection.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Obama Attempts To Change Public Opinion On Gun”

  1. john says:

    The right to own a weapon has always had restrictions. Teach do you believe that there should be zero restrictions on gun ownership?

  2. gitarcarver says:

    The right to own a weapon has always had restrictions. Teach do you believe that there should be zero restrictions on gun ownership?

    No John, the right to own a weapon has not always had restrictions. That is a lie. In fact, during and following the American Revolution and past the point when the Bill of Rights was passed, individuals owned cannons.

    Let me repeat that for you to sink into your little mind:


    The is no doubt that cannons make lousy weapons for hunting deer, so one cannot say “we should only allow weapons for hunting.”

    We have restrictions on weapons now John but you and people of your ilk want to ban all weapons and limit a person’s ability to defend themselves. This is not about “restrictions,” this is about banning all weapons.

    What right do you have to demand that I not legally own a weapon?

    Start there, troll.

  3. Anne says:

    Pssst, John doesn’t bother to read replys.
    He comes in, takes a dump and then leaves.
    An effective response is to ignore him.

  4. gitarcarver says:


    My responses are not for John, but to others who would come in and read his silliness and perhaps think it is true.

    While most of the time the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them, when that troll is putting forth wrong information, his lies need to be countered.

  5. Anne says:

    He is a caricature of a Democrat, which leads me to wonder if he is a cartoon character created by William Tell, a sock puppet if you will.

    He certanly isn’t a troll. Trolls are savvy and well informed on the issues. They see those issues from a different perspective. But they’re rational, and you can reason with them, and they will concede that they were wrong if you can prove it to them, and the best ones are very funny, also.

    “John” doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you say (or think). He just wants to get a reaction out of you. And he succeeds.

    BTW, he doesn’t influence anyone, well, except to show that Democrats suffer from a mental illness indigenous to retards.

  6. Anne says:


    I’ve deliberately made a few subtle misstatements, which a savvy troll or even the most ignorant Democrat would have picked up on in a flash, if only to show that he is smarter than the average bear.

    But “John” didn’t realize that they were misstatements, which tells me that he is oblivious, and perhaps even indifferent to what is being said here.

    I reiterate; “he” doesn’t come here to influence anyone or to engage in discourse. “He” gets a cheap kinky thrill out of being bratty …, such a dull and one-trick-pony, too, that it isn’t even fun to play with “him”.

    Until he can engage me in a rational dialog, I, for one, am going to ignore him. (Rational is the buzz word there.)

  7. Anne says:

    An afterthought: Who would be surprised to learn that “John” is an inmate in a prison in a Blue State, which filters news allowed to its inmates, allowing only MSNBC? That would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?

    Maybe you could get “John” to tell you all that you’ve ever wanted to know about life in prison with no parole.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8037 access attempts in the last 7 days.