This is what I want to hear Obama say about guns
by Jon Rappoport

Note: Normally, on Fridays, the Coffee Coaster features a book review. But the forces trying to take away our human right of self-defense are in high gear after Sandy Hook, and must be dealt with immediately, en masse. This is the third in a series of guest columns dealing with the subject.—ed.

Excerpt:
nomorefakenews.com: 1/10/13

The first thing I want to hear Obama say about guns is what I’d expect from any rational person:

“Here is where gun murders are occurring in the United States. Look at this map.”

Yes, let’s start there. I mean, if we were heading up a campaign to stop gun murders and gun maiming, wouldn’t we do that?

Let’s see where all this gun violence is happening. Is it on Western ranches? Is it in the desert? Is it in the Everglades? On Mt. Whitney? In Scarsdale? Shaker Heights?

Gangs! That’s a good place to start, wouldn’t you say? Especially since gangs can obtain guns whether or not they’re legal. So no new law is going to stop them from what they’re doing.

If Obama really wants to solve the problem of gun violence, why doesn’t he say anything about gangs?

Why doesn’t he say anything about New Orleans, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, and St. Louis?

Is it because he’s not trying to solve gun violence but only gun ownership? Is ownership what’s really bothering him?

And then I want to hear him say this, too:

“A father is home at night. An intruder breaks in. The father is armed. To defend his life and the lives of his family and his property, he has every right to shoot the intruder.

“If he does that, if he shoots the intruder, he’s a good father.”

This is what I want to hear from the lips of the president, just to make things clear, just to set the record straight. No equivocation.

I don’t want to hear anything about calling 911 or waiting for the police. I don’t want to hear anything about turning on the lights or inspecting the safety on the intruder’s gun to see if it’s engaged.

And then I want to hear the president say this:

“There is no doubt the Second Amendment was drafted, in part, to allow citizens to protect themselves against the possible future tyranny of the central government. That potential tyranny was exactly why the whole Constitution was written as it was. To check the power of federal authority.”

I want that on the record, too.

Then and only then is a real conversation about guns possible.

You see, with all the verbiage about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, many people assume, however, that the real and legal bottom-line reasons for owning a gun in this country are secure.

I don’t agree.

I don’t agree that the president or any of his allies in the White House and Congress acknowledge those basic reasons and accept them.

I hear a lot of talk about “the traditional gun culture” in America. That generalization is meant to be a tip of the hat to hunters in wide open spaces of the West. Oh yes, his father and his grandfather owned guns. Bring down a deer and eat it. Sure. And people love their guns. It’s ingrained in the American spirit.

I’m not falling for any of that. People own guns for reasons other than hunting. They own them to protect themselves against criminals. Which means shooting those criminals. And they own guns to protect themselves against a central government that wants to operate as a de facto monarchy.

Do the president and the Congress explicitly agree? Let’s hear them admit it.

That would be the just the beginning of the dialogue.

Without that admission, however, there is no trust and no good will.

And Mr. President, when you make the admission, you’ll have to go a long way, in your words, in your attitude, to overcome deep public skepticism. That’s up to you. No guarantees.

But without the admission, there is nothing, except the obvious conclusion you’re operating a bait and switch. What you really want is all the guns, and you’re taking a few radical steps in that direction.

You must also explain why law-enforcement agencies have ordered more than a billion rounds of ammunition in the last year. Precisely what are those bullets for? All those agencies operate domestically.

I want to hear the president admit there is a world of difference between an armed citizen defending his life, liberty, and property and the lives of his loved ones…and a criminal using a gun to commit a crime.

I want him to admit that the program to take away guns cannot make a true distinction between these situations. Therefore, the honest and honorable citizen is punished and stripped of legal means for defense, as if he were a criminal.

As a gesture of good will, every wealthy person who declares an intention to grab guns should spell out the precise nature of his own means of protection. This would entail listing the number of security people who guard him and what weapons they carry. It’s called full disclosure. It puts the true cards on the table.

“I’m a limousine liberal. I don’t believe in owning a gun. I wouldn’t know how to shoot a gun if my life depended on it. But I do have fourteen men who work for me who carry weapons…”

Good. Give us their names so their guns can be taken away.

And how about taking guns away from private security companies, the big ones who do contract work for the government? Those people are very easy to locate and inspect. How about grabbing their guns first?

Of course, many policemen in America own guns they don’t use on the job. Those guns should be confiscated immediately, correct?