Unsurprisingly, Obama, Democrats Use Dallas To Push “Gun Control”

They just can’t help themselves, and want the same type of gun control Democrats have enabled in peaceful places like Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, and California

(Fox News) President Obama renewed his push for gun control measures Friday as he condemned the “senseless murders” of five Dallas police officers in a coordinated sniper attack overnight. (snip)

But before wrapping his remarks, the president once again returned to the issue of gun laws.

“We also know that when people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately it makes attacks like these more deadly and more tragic, and in the days ahead we’re going to have to consider those realities as well,” Obama said.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, especially from a guy surrounded by armed security, including weapons that are illegal to sell and illegal to own.

House Democrats are likely to ramp up their calls for gun restrictions following the Dallas murders as well. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, at a previously scheduled press conference Friday morning, continued to urge legislation on the issue.

“We need legislative action now,” CBC Chairman G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., said, while mourning the victims of both the Dallas tragedy and two recent deadly shootings by police.

Other Democrats were quick to call for gun control, taking advantage of the crisis. Consider that this CNN article was published at 221pm Friday, not that long after the shootings, and as other Black people were murdering police officers around the country

Black lawmakers delivered an emotional and sometimes searing plea for gun control Friday in response to the Dallas killings, calling the suspected gunman a “terrorist” and openly weeping at times as they railed against gun violence.

Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon who led a sit-in for gun control measures on the House floor just two weeks ago, as well as Rep. Robyn Kelley, wept during the news conference called by the Congressional Black Caucus on Friday. Rep. Cedric Richmond, a Louisiana Democrat, accused Republicans of “the devaluation” of minorities by not taking up gun control legislation.

It’s not white people killing white people in huge numbers in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, D.C., and so many other Democratic Party run cities. Once again, let’s note that 50% of the murders in this country are committed by Blacks, a sector of the population that accounts for less than 14% overall. Gun control hasn’t worked among their population.

Members of the caucus — including many involved in the House sit-in seeking gun control — said Friday the answer to the Dallas shootings must be new limits on gun sales, increased money for police training, and meetings between local leaders and Justice Department officials.

“We are continuing our fight to remove guns from the hands of would-be terrorists and criminals and require background checks for those seeking to purchase firearms. We need legislative action now!” said CBC chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield. The morning news conference was delayed after the Capitol was briefly placed on lockdown.

Except, Democrats are pushing measures that would mostly negatively affect law abiding citizens and their ability to be armed, not criminals. Their plans would violate our 2nd Amendment Rights, as well as our Due Process rights.

Furthermore, by disarming regular citizens, they leave them to be prey for the criminals who, surprise, do not follow the law. Double the furthermore, Democrats have supported the groups who smear and defame police offers, who accuse all law enforcement of being “racist” and evil. People who seem to hate white people and cops and use inflammatory and violent discourse towards them. Democrat support for these groups enable the violence. Don’t blame the gun. blame the people who use the gun.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

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

32 Responses to “Unsurprisingly, Obama, Democrats Use Dallas To Push “Gun Control””

  1. Jeffery says:

    The gun of choice for mass murder is the AR-15 style carbine. Lightweight, short, easy to handle, pistol grip, flash suppressor so you don’t blind yourself at night, air cooled, large magazine, just point and shoot! Spray and pray!

    Why do mass murderers prefer these to, let’s say, the cheaper but more reliable Remington Model 7 bolt action game rifle? Anyone? According to Teach, the rifles are identical except one is “scary”. Why do mass murderers to a man (and occasional woman) prefer the “scary” gun? Anyone?

    I like my Model 7s, but they sure heat up if you try to shoot a bunch of people or deer at once, although they have killed many deer. Of course deer, just like people, start running away if you shoot at a group of them, making my tired old bolt actions ineffective for gunning down an entire herd. I guess if I wanted to shoot a bunch of deer at once I should try an AR-15, the Preferred Rifle of Mass Murderers For a Reason!

  2. Hoagie says:

    After the communists in charge ban the AR-15 and a different weapon is used by a deranged psycho what then

  3. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    In 1934 American communists in Congress effectively banned machine guns. Do you agree that all the Congressional members who voted for the National Firearms Act and President Roosevelt were communists? Anyway, as a result the mobsters and gangsters didn’t kill as many other gangsters and importantly, didn’t kill as many innocent bystanders. Do you think the registration and taxing of machine guns and the ban on new production was in error and a violation of the Americans’ god given 2nd Amendment rights? If not, why not?

    How would mass murderers adjust to the communistic oppression that registering assault weapons would cause? I don’t know. Is that the question we should be asking though? How to help mass murderers more effectively mass murder?

  4. Hoagie says:

    Other than an outright gun ban nothing can stop a nut job. Even then if you want to kill a lot of people just build a bomb. I am always amused by folks who trust only government with guns. Like Adolf, Stalin, Mao or Jeffery.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D4FBRfFIxCU/V3-hExOu1PI/AAAAAAAA_-o/rHY7wlHYxKco2j-8FgeYHySVFb0c9aeZQCLcB/s640/1%2Bninetymiles%2B9yczuAHO01rzull5o1_500.jpg

  5. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    Why does the military use assault rifles – lightweight, easy to handle, pistol grip, flash suppressors, large easily exchanged magazines, air cooled, etc – of course the military versions are select fire, from auto to semi-auto? Why are these carbines preferred for killing mobile humans in the military?

    Are those characteristics, so valuable for the military, also valuable for civilian use? How so?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    I assume you refuse to answer direct and reasonable questions because to do so honestly does not support your ideology.

    Do you support or not support the current laws for machine guns?

  7. Hoagie says:

    Do you agree that all the Congressional members who voted for the National Firearms Act and President Roosevelt were communists?

    No. Do you believe that none of them were communists?

    Do you think the registration and taxing of machine guns and the ban on new production was in error and a violation of the Americans’ god given 2nd Amendment rights? If not, why not?

    There was no ban on new production. There still isn’t. And if taxing and regulating the rest of our Constitutional rights is legal then so is the same for firearms. I’m not against reasonable requirements for firearm ownership. What are you for?

    How would mass murderers adjust to the communistic oppression that registering assault weapons would cause? I don’t know. Is that the question we should be asking though? How to help mass murderers more effectively mass murder?

    Assault weapons are already registered. What’s your beef?? I don’t think you want to stop what you call “mass murderers” at all. Nothing can do that not even a total gun ban would do that and you say you’re against that. And the real mass murderers are the Hitler’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s all of whom were gun confiscators.

  8. Jeffery says:

    if taxing and regulating the rest of our Constitutional rights is legal then so is the same for firearms. I’m not against reasonable requirements for firearm ownership.

    OK. Solid answer. So why do you consider it a communist act to even consider restrictions on the access to semi-automatic assault weapons? It sounds like it is a mere difference of opinion.

    How are semi-auto assault weapons registered?

    Who in the US manufactures machine guns for civilian use?

  9. Hoagie says:

    Jeffery, I don’t refuse to answer direct reasonable questions. How many times are you going around and around? AR-15 is not a military assault weapon. If you’re too stupid to understand that then perhaps it’s you should be banned from owning firearms.

    Why does the military use assault rifles – lightweight, easy to handle, pistol grip, flash suppressors, large easily exchanged magazines, air cooled, etc – of course the military versions are select fire, from auto to semi-auto? Why are these carbines preferred for killing mobile humans in the military?

    Because that’s what they’re made for? It’s the military’s job? I don’t know what answer you’re looking for.

    Are those characteristics, so valuable for the military, also valuable for civilian use? How so?

    Some are, some aren’t. Some are just for looks with civilian weapons. Like flash suppressors or bipods or the gun being black. The pistol grip and easily exchanged magazines are convenient and good especially for weaker or female users. Women and weaker guys have a right to a weapon easily used for self defense too, Jeffry not just big tough guys like us.

  10. Hoagie says:

    OK. Solid answer. So why do you consider it a communist act to even consider restrictions on the access to semi-automatic assault weapons?

    What are you talking about? I’m not against restrictions on access to any firearm. However, if you continue to misname semi-auto carbines as assault weapons when they are not, they are just made to look like assault weapons I have to believe you have an ulterior agenda and are lying to me. After all, if you can’t be honest about what an actual assault weapon is then what can you be honest about? It’s not like you’re Cher or Matt Damon and just don’t know the difference out of ignorance. You do know the difference but choose to lie about it. Why do you do that?

    It sounds like it is a mere difference of opinion.

    It can’t be a difference of opinion if you’re not being honest about which guns you’re talking about; semi-auto carbines or military assault weapons?

    How are semi-auto assault weapons registered?

    Depends on the state, but all legal firearms are registered through a FFL dealer.

    Who in the US manufactures machine guns for civilian use?

    Nobody and you know that. All machine guns and assault weapons are government. Why ask such an obviously silly question?

  11. Jeffery says:

    So it’s an argument about semantics. You know exactly what one means by semi-auto assault weapon – stop playing dumb. I’ve described the exact carbines several times.

    I thought you wanted to have a discussion. My mistake.

    Buh-bye.

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    If you are black, you run no greater risk of being killed while arrested than if you were white.

  13. Hoagie says:

    It’s not about semantics, Jeffery, it’s about nomenclature. Calling an item by it’s actual name. There is no such thing as a semi-auto assault weapon. There was a time when one could argue a musket was the assault weapon of the day. Today though, 2016, a musket is not and neither is a semi-auto carbine.

    You are insisting that because a semi-auto carbine “looks” like an assault weapon somehow it becomes one. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. By that definition a water gun could be an assault weapon.

    I do understand you running away from a discussion. I would too if I wanted to change the meaning of words and you wouldn’t let me.

    You’re not the first radical leftist to run away and you won’t be the last.

  14. Hoagie says:

    drowningpuppies, if you’re black you stand a better chance of being killed by another black than if you were white. So what?

  15. Hoagie says:

    The real answer to blacks being shot by cops is to stop sending cops on patrol in black areas.

  16. John says:

    Probably you think that we shouldn’t have any laws against bank robbery because criminals will jus ignore them anyway
    Teach many murders are committed by people who were law abiding right up until they decided to kill someone

  17. drowningpuppies says:

    So what?

    Hoagie,

    If you watch the news, much less listen to activists, it sounds like there is a police war against blacks, and they speak as though it must be silently conceded that police kill black suspects at a higher rate than other races.

    It would be a great point if it were true.

  18. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    It’s been my experience that when one (such as you) can’t make a logical argument, they resort to semantic arguments, disingenuousness and ridicule.

    It is common to refer to these semi-automatic, light-weight, short, easy to handle, with large and easily exchanged magazines, with muzzle flash suppressors, pistol grips and air-cooled barrels, very similar to military assault rifles (which have select auto vs semi-auto) as assault weapons. Everyone but you seems to understand this distinction.

    “Woe is me! I have no idea what y’all are talking about with this ‘assault weapons’ stuff.” Really? You don’t know what’s being referenced? You prefer a full paragraph description each time? Are you really that dense?

    Why do mass murderers prefer these guns over the panoply they have to chose from? Is it because they are semi-automatic, light-weight, short, easy to handle, with large and easily exchanged magazines, with muzzle flash suppressors, pistol grips and air-cooled barrels, and are very similar to military assault rifles (which have select auto vs semi-auto)?

    What advantages do these features offer the common citizen who has no interest in mass murder?

    Why do you insist on depriving your fellow citizens of the selective automatic function? Wouldn’t that make the guns even more effective for day to day self defense?

  19. drowningpuppies says:

    What advantages do these features offer the common citizen who has no interest in mass murder?

    –that confused little guy who exaggerates often

    Ergo, if one owns an AR15 or it’s variant, they’re a mass murderer?

    Lefty logic.

  20. Jeffery says:

    What advantages do these features offer the common citizen who has no interest in mass murder?

    Not one answer from the Covians?

  21. Hoagie says:

    Jeffery,

    It’s been my experience that when one (such as you) can’t make a logical argument, they resort to semantic arguments, disingenuousness and ridicule.

    This is precisely what you’re doing and you can add misdirection. I’m glad you realize it. I am not resorting to semantics by requiring the correct name for the item in question. Again, assault weapons are full auto. You want to ban semi auto carbines simply because they LOOK like assault weapons. You leftists have a wholly uncanny ability to constantly project your own attributes on to you opponents without ever realizing you’re doing it. Must be in your DNA. For example, the only one being disingenuous here is you by falsely labeling a semi auto carbine an assault weapon. Now THAT, Jeffery, is disingenuous!

    Then you do the silly :

    It is common to refer to these semi-automatic, light-weight, short, easy to handle, with large and easily exchanged magazines, with muzzle flash suppressors, pistol grips and air-cooled barrels, very similar to military assault rifles (which have select auto vs semi-auto) as assault weapons. Everyone but you seems to understand this distinction.

    Well, it’s “common” to refer to a tissue as a Kleenexâ„¢ but if it’s a Puffâ„¢ you’d be incorrect, wouldn’t you? And “everyone” neither knows nor understands the difference between a semi auto carbine and an assault weapon. And as you can see, using the correct term, semi auto carbine, is not “You prefer a full paragraph description each time?”. So once again I suggest it is you who are “dense”. (more leftist projection??)

    What advantages do these features offer the common citizen who has no interest in mass murder?

    As I previously mentioned, yet you continue to ignore, some of these characteristics are strictly for looks but others make the weapon more manageable for potential victims of crime who are weaker or dare I say, women.

    Why do you insist on depriving your fellow citizens of the selective automatic function? Wouldn’t that make the guns even more effective for day to day self defense?

    When did I say that I “insist” on depriving my fellow citizens of anything? You’re the one who wants to “deprive” people of their rights, not me. There goes that leftist projection thing again. You gotta get that under control, Jeffery. Your projection being noted there are some citizens who have permits for full auto weapons in case you didn’t know that. None of whom have ever committed a crime with those weapons. EVER. And I personally have no problem with responsible citizens having the ability to obtain full auto permits and weapons. However, in order to compromise with the anti gun folks restrictions are made. As an example I would be 100% behind a complete ban on registered democrats owning guns. They have already shown such a lack of common sense, judgment and responsibility by their actions as to render gun ownership as dangerous to those around them.

    Now I’m going to spend my Saturday at my pool and barbeque. Good bye.

  22. Jeffery says:

    Got it, assault weapons are designed for women to defend themselves.

    Buh bye.

  23. Hoagie says:

    Got it, assault weapons are designed for women to defend themselves.

    Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. How mature!

    Right there is a prime example of a rabid leftist who can’t admit he’s beat. That sentence is a totally obtuse and disingenuous. The exact projection he does every time. Yes, Jeffery you dumbass, assault weapons are designed for women.

    Just admit you lose.

    I knew if I checked back I could count on Jeffery for some silly response and he didn’t let me down. Never does.

    Assault weapons are made for war, Jeffery, semi auto carbines are made for civilian use in many different uses, women’s self defense being one of them. Why don’t you want women to be able to defend themselves?

  24. drowningpuppies says:

    Speaking of white people…

    Did you know over the last decade, black males made up 40 percent of all cop killers, even though they’re six percent of the population?

    It turns out that a police officer is 18-and-a-half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is likely to be killed by a police officer.

  25. Hoagie says:

    The left is electing Trump with each BLM march, every riot and each cop they kill.

  26. Hoagie says:

    I am so pleased to see how The Great Uniter, Obama has done with race relations. Black moslems shooting cops, moslems killing gays at clubs, riots, rapes, racial tension all across the fruited plain. Golly, Mr. President, is this what you and your leftist pals meant by “fundamental change”?

    Well I’ll be damned Mr. President, YOU really did build that after all. Anyone who voted for this racist looser should have their right to vote revoked.

  27. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    You left out white cops killing Black men.

    You’re just a typical old frustrated racist. You blame President Obama for your hatred of him, LOL. Hatred is the currency of the far-right – you hate Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, Blacks, women, gays, etc etc and so forth.

    When decent folk point out white privilege, peckerwoods interpret it as oppression. And then whine. Oh the whining, whining, whining, whining!

  28. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    We understand your admiration for Trump. He is a bully, a strongman, aggressive, demeaning, a fascist and un-nuanced. Far-right authoritarian followers always need a “strongman” leader. His hatred and bullying of “others” signals how “tough” he is. Are there enough bigots to elect him? Unlikely, but it’s always a risk.

  29. Hoagie says:

    You’re just a typical old frustrated racist. You blame President Obama for your hatred of him, LOL. Hatred is the currency of the far-right – you hate Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, Blacks, women, gays, etc etc and so forth.

    First of all you idiot, I’m a quarter African, my first wife was a Jew and now I’m married to a Korean so if I’m a racist I’m a lousy one. Secondly, you’re the one who constantly projects anti white racism. I blame Obama for the crap Obama does. You excuse the mess he made because it goes against your narrative. You and John are the only people here that has displayed any form of hatred toward others. Just the way you attacked me with a blistering volley of false accusations shows your hatred of anyone not agreeing with you. Again you project. You hate, not I. I don’t hate a person on earth even people who have harmed me. I hate Obamas commie politics. But I don’t hate Obama.

    When decent folk point out white privilege, peckerwoods interpret it as oppression.

    “Decent” folk don’t even know what white privilege is because they don’t think in terms of race or sex like you leftist bigots do. I’ve noticed the only people who talk about white privilege are privileged white bigots. You white racists are instilling hate into the minds of blacks and have been doing it for years. That’s why you hate the likes of Rice, Thomas, Williams or Sowell because they don’t buy the $hit you’re selling and neither am I.

    So far every item you mentioned was a lie. You made it all up because you, like all leftists are bereft of truth. Now this nugget of stupidity:

    We understand your admiration for Trump. He is a bully, a strongman, aggressive, demeaning, a fascist and un-nuanced. Far-right authoritarian followers always need a “strongman” leader. His hatred and bullying of “others” signals how “tough” he is. Are there enough bigots to elect him? Unlikely, but it’s always a risk.

    When you start off with “we” do you think it makes you sound “kingly”? Because it makes you sound ridiculous. Where have I ever indicated any “admiration for Trump”. You say I have it, quote me. So, once again YOU LIED because you can’t win with the truth. Like I said before (and you can quote me on this) when liberals talk they are lying. You lie about the stupidest things like me “admiring Trump” when everybody knows I am a Cruz supporter, idiot.

    You should know when it comes to “authoritarians” you leftist murderers have cornered the market from Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Castro to Kim they are all leftist socialist murdering dogs. Just like you. Every policy you espouse requires government force, never individual initiative. Because you and all your ilk are lying despots.

    Now go get you shoeshine box.

  30. David7134 says:

    crooked,lying Hillary, only idiot liberals are stupid enough to be for her.

  31. Joe Texan says:

    There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. Any rifle that could be considered an assault rifle was covered under the 1934 ban.