Even the WaPo calls out Obama on his gun lies

The president was playing fast and loose with his language here—to a group of college students no less. There’s little excuse for the claim that in some neighborhoods, it is easier to buy a gun than vegetable (see update above) — or to say he’s “not exaggerating” when he claims that some people have proposed laws that would allow machine guns in bars. 

As for the U.S. ranking on homicides among industrialized nations, the president certainly would have had a stronger case if he said the United States was above average, or that it was in the top ranks. But instead he claimed the United States had rates that were higher “by like a mile.” 

The gun debate is serious enough that it should not be poisoned by exaggerated claims and faux statistics. The president earns Three Pinocchios.


Why can’t gun control folks stop lying? Surely if their position had any merit, they would simply tell the truth and see their goal come to fruition.


41 thoughts on “Even the WaPo calls out Obama on his gun lies

  1. I find it hard to find any “merit” in a group whose goal is to deprive me of my basic rights, without any sort of due process. I dare to use the “evil and destructive” description for them. I've done no harm. yet they want to harass and steal from me.


  2. They ave no merit, only myth. Since they cannot easily or quickly attain their end goal….they do something just as despicable. They advocate levying taxes on the exercise of a Constitutional right. Not the implement inherent in that right….but the basic and fundamental exercise of it.


  3. CI is obviously referring to the gun manufacturer's Right to large profits. As we all know, that Right comes before a gun violence victim's right to Life – and is by far the more important Right.


  4. LOL! Yeah, Obama's having a little too much fun with hyperbole there.

    Now, to say there's no merit to what Obama is saying is to completely miss the point, and reality. Okay, so you can't buy a gun easier than a turnip in Watts, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are millions of unaccounted guns all over this country. I don't know of anyone specifically proposing machine gun carrying in bars, but that doesn't negate the fact that some gunny politicians have offered bills to allow guns – modern guns that may as well be “machine guns” – in bars and even to make it a felony to offer any bill for any kind of gun control whatsoever.

    Obama shouldn't engage in hyperbole on this, though. It doesn't help anything. It just feeds the beast.



  5. That sums up the gun control position. If they don't believe that they have the right ad duty to defend themselves, but rather rely solely on a reactive system of law enforcement, that is their right. That's not what they want though…..they have a utopian vision that even though even though we've criminalized…crime; and man is going to forever continue to commit crime, if we take away the tool that allows the citizen to defend him/herself…the criminal will not assault the citizen.

    It's a naive fantasy….but in keeping with their myth making regarding firearms themselves.


  6. modern guns that may as well be “machine guns”……

    Once again we see the willful conflation as an appeal to emotion. Never mind that it's hyperbole [I'm being generous, it's actually an outright lie]….and that gun controllers would rather there be carved out zones where one cannot legally defend themselves against someone with a gun…a someone who would not be prone to following the law in the first place…thus provably making certain places obvious target for those bent on committing violence.

    Nice job.


  7. A “fantasy” that has been proven effective elsewhere. Why can't gun nuts stop lying? Surely if their position had any merit, they would simply tell the truth and see their goal come to fruition (the goal of these megalomaniac sickos being an acceptance by the public of mass killings as a problem that can't be solved… Except with more guns).

    dmarks confirming his extreme paranoia was completely unnecessary. This was something we all were already well aware of. Get your gun yet, dmarks? That is a scary thought… An armed trigger happy – and paranoid – gun nut! I'd be afraid to live anywhere near him.


  8. How sad. Your projecting again. And relying on an OpEd? Really? Is that the best you can do.

    Listen, I understand that you want to live in a society that tells bars you from defending yourself with a tool commensurate with the threat, but you don't live in a society where the State can dictate that your self defense is not a “good enough reason” to own said tool.

    You're a sheep….and you have every right to be. But you don't have the right to make us all sheep.


  9. Sure, I'm a sheep and “projecting” because I think the high number of US firearm deaths is unacceptable and that we COULD do something about it… If not for the sheep who believe lies from the NRA and “academics” like John Lott.

    As for “self defense”, the stats show that a gun in the home is more likely to harm a family member than an intruder. How is that “self defense”? But the sheep believe what they are told to believe…

    Now that is genuinely sad.


  10. C.I. The projected fantasy you see is an attempt to divert attention from the facts with a goal of a deadlier more oppressive society.

    An attempt which only brings laughter.. You might think it hones your arguing skills, CI. But one can hardly get better with using a broadsword by spending all their time hacking away at soft butter with it.


  11. What's funny is that when dmarks refers to “diverting attention from the facts with a goal of a deadlier more oppressive society” – what he writes applies to his agenda (his agenda being the gun nut agenda).


  12. It’s so cute when you are compelled to invoke the NRA in such a pavlovian fashion. Intellectually retarded, but cute nonetheless.

    But wait! Stop the presses!! You mean to tell us that homes with firearms are more likely to experience an accidental injury or death by firearm, than homes without a firearm! Whoa…heavy……next you’ll tell me that homes with swimming pools are more likely to experience an accidental drowning than homes without a swimming pool…..

    True to the script, your source follows the two basic rules of gun control methodology: always include suicides, because otherwise the numbers won’t have the intended appeal to emotion, and never factor in defensive firearm use because it will undermine the report. Extra credit is awarded when one invokes the flawed Kellerman study.

    But by all means, please define for us what exactly you mean when you trot out the following pablum: “the goal of a deadlier more oppressive society”. This is interesting, because you are forced to project that your opposition don’t merely want the status quo, which maintains a heinously infringed Constitutional right…because that won’t produce the requisite dog whistle….but you have to make your reader think that we who support said Constitutional right, actually want to see more criminal activity wit the use of a firearm.

    All this said with the caveat that gun controllers never factor in [as it harms their argument] the very real fact that a disarmed populace of law abiding citizens has near zero impact on the number of armed criminals that would then find easier prey. Why don’t THOSE deaths matter? Why do you pine for a society [such as in the UK] where homeowners are now assaulted with impunity, as defending oneself with what the law calls an ‘offensive weapon’, transforms said citizen into a criminal in these of the law.


  13. CI: It's quite clear to us who the nut is according to guns. The sad thing is that WD isn't content to keep his nutty ideas and intentional falsehoods about firearms to himself: he wants the government to force his personal preferences on everyone. Rather than leave this matter up to the people as the Constitution, reason, and a basic mature (non-megalomaniac) mind demand.


  14. CI said…. “I'm being generous, it's actually an outright lie”

    Which wouldn't be such a dangerous delusion were this person to keep it to himself, and not force it on us at risk of our lives, property, and rights.


  15. Check the polls and you'll find that a majority of people favor more gun control. What dmarks favors is the current system under which the evil NRA pays off (or scares) enough congresspersons into voting their way (allowing the profits to continue rolling in while the slaughter continues).

    BTW, “the government” (actually The People via democracy – which is something people like dmarks hate) forces people to do things all the time. These forcings are called laws. Laws, BTW, are rules put in place for the benefit of society as a whole.

    Yet people like dmarks only care for their own individual “rights”. What they do not care about are the rights of those who disagree with them. People who would prefer not to have to worry so much about their loved ones getting killed with an easily available gun. In dmarks' world his rights trump the rights of those people (as well as democracy).

    He thinks it's perfectly fine that he forces others to recognize his “rights” while the rights of others are ignored. It's the megalomania and love for fascism of the gun nuts writ large.


  16. dmarks: It's quite clear to us who the nut is according to guns.

    According to guns? Sounds like dmarks thinks guns are talking to him. Further proof dmarks fits the definition of gun NUT literally. When he shoots someone (because his gun told him to?) he'll be able to choose from a Stand Your Ground defense or an insanity defense.


  17. “Check the polls and you'll find that a majority of people favor more gun control.”

    Why don't we check the polls?

    “More than half of voters now oppose stricter gun control laws, and belief that the country needs stricter enforcement of laws that already exist is also down.”


    “In a Pew Research poll released Wednesday, 52 percent are in support of the protection of gun rights and 46 percent support gun control. This is the first time in two decades that Pew has found more support for gun rights than gun control.”


    “A new poll finds only 33 percent of those asked want stricter laws on the sale of firearms. That compares with 48 percent just two years ago.”


    “What dmarks favors is the current system under which the evil NRA pays off….”

    Aside from the Pavlovian script, I note that you never source these assertions.

    “….while the slaughter continues.”

    You also seem intellectually unable to form a sentence without the appeal to emotion framing. Another indicator of blindly following the script.

    “What they do not care about are the rights of those who disagree with them.”

    What rights are those? What rights to do think that dmarks doesn't care about?

    “In dmarks' world his rights trump the rights of those people (as well as democracy).”

    dmarks is then absolutely correct. His [and mine, and yours] Constitutional right to bear arms [as well as the natural right to self defense] absolutely and thoroughly trumps your perceived right to “feel” safe. And you undermine your own point by inserting the label of Democracy. Never mind that we're a representative Republic….if enough people desired to overturn the 2nd Amendment, they have the Constitutional mechanism in place to do so.

    Speaking of fascism…..


  18. CI: pretty scary when someone justifies a deadly very fasciatic agenda by cherry-picking misleadingly-worded opinion polls.

    They wish upon us a death of the Constitution and diminishment of our rights by PR polls.

    A mechanism, of course, which has absolutely no place in law. Whatever armchair attorneys may assert.

    All very well said, CI.


  19. Correction of spelling: “fascistic”. Referring of course to one person's consistent appeal to the divine right of the rulers coupled with a very extreme hostility to the rights, lives, and choices of the people.


  20. dmarks comment above = pure BS. Nobody hates the idea of earning money honestly… Which is not something the Evil NRA does. They act as the propaganda arm for the arms manufacturers, pumping up sales (blood money) with total fabrications (example: John Lott) designed to generate paranoia (example: dmarks) and get gun nuts (example: dmarks) to buy guns they don't need. And then there is their opposition to laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But Arming both sides generates the most profit.

    As for CI's polls… I should have checked instead of going from memory. But, as the Pew poll he linked to points out, for 30 years what I initially claimed has been true. Sadly it looks like NRA propaganda is succeeding. But they have a LOT of money to spend fooling the gullible masses.

    Although those numbers will likely go the other way after the next mass shooting. Then The People will again call for sensical and reasonable gun control… And once again the NRA will trot out lies like “good guys with guns” and “more guns results in less crimes” and the bought-off politicians will allow nothing to be brought to a vote.

    And the slaughter WILL continue (which some refer to as an “appeal to emotion”… Despite the fact that this *is* what is happening). Except for those who are so brainiwashed that they are among those who think Sandy Hook was a hoax (dmarks?).

    BTW, dmarks, hearing voices (of guns talking to you) and persecution delusions (which you admitted you have) are both signs of schizophrenia. Is dmarks an example of someone who absolutely should not be allowed to own a gun? I think the evidence says YES.


  21. I fully support the right of certain individuals to exercise their own preferences on firearm ownership.

    I fully oppose their repeated insistence on forcing these personal preferences on others… law abiding citizens…. to the point of harassing and stealing from them in direct violation of the United States Constitution, and completely without any sort of due process to justify this persecution and deprivation.


  22. By the way, CI, what do you think of the idea, presented here, of using opinion polls to “convict” and then punish individual US citizens, instead of using the courts and due process?

    This outrage has indeed been presented here.


  23. dmarks: This outrage has indeed been presented here.

    Looking over the thread I can't find any comment where such an idea is presented. I THINK dmarks is referring to my remark concerning opinion polls, but I was talking about the public's desire for their elected representatives to pass (or at least bring to a vote) sensible gun control laws.

    Nobody has ever been convicted or punished by an opinion poll. More outrage from dmarks concerning something that could not possibly happen… Further proof (not that any more was needed) that dmarks is likely seriously mentally ill. How long before we hear about a shooting in MI involving a new gun owner and a “violent thug” (African American), I wonder?


  24. I tend to agree with you that nobody is technically 'convicted' by public opinion polls. But not only was your assertion on polling mistaken, but the gun control camp hasn't abated…whether by text or political cartoon….the slandering of firearm owners.

    I still haven't seen where dmarks favors the 2nd Amendment at the expense of other Constitutional rights…as you claimed.


  25. Someone here is going out in a limb equating African American with violent thug. But this person's deep-seated racism and prejudice is no more relevant to anything than trying to make points on Constitutional law by willfully misrepresenting what are still ultimately irrelevant poll results.


  26. LOL. I referred to YOUR deep-seated racism – calling Black people (young African American males, specifically) “violent thugs” and “felons” (when they have never been convicted of a felony).

    As for dmarks favoring the gun nut interpretation of the 2nd Amendment at the expense of other rights… What about a person's right to life?


  27. CI said: “I tend to agree with you that nobody is technically 'convicted' by public opinion polls”

    I didn't read the hogwash that your comment is in a direct response to. What I was referring to was certain individual's attempts to use fickle/biased opinion polls with no legal standing whatsoever as a green light to steal from individuals and deprive them of their rights. That was my point, CI. It's all part of attempts by certain quarters to harass and deprive law-abiding citizens with out any regard to the Constitution at all.


  28. Criticizing a comment you didn't read? Yeah, that is exactly the type of criticism that should be taken seriously… Not. This does explain why this commenter's criticisms almost always wildly misrepresent what the person he is criticizing actually wrote… LOL.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s