Obama's Gun Hate Speech Missed Some Vital Points. He Could Not Mention Them As They Would Not Help His Goal Of Total Gun Confiscation.

What Obama didn’t say in his gun-grabbing rant

Posted on October 5, 2015 by Bob Livingston

For the elected and bureaucrat class, there is no problem that cannot be fixed by yet another law. If one law is in place to prevent a thing and the thing occurs anyway, two more will certainly do the trick.

If three laws don’t stop it, three more surely will. If six laws aren’t enough, surely one — or six — more is enough.

This is the way liberty is lost, one law at a time. One law leads to another and another and another. And then, one day, a once-free nation finds itself in bondage.

It’s called gradualism. It’s a time-honored practice of the ruling class. They are content to set events in motion knowing they will not come to fruition in their lifetime, but will mature 50 years or 100 years down the road.

That’s because the people rarely accept tyranny in one fell swoop. It has to come slowly and imperceptibly, or the people will resist and rebel. Gradualism reduces the shock potential and numbs the senses to the reality that is transpiring all around, no matter how serious the consequences. It neutralizes the mind and numbs the senses to reality.

Investigators were still sorting out how many were dead and wounded in the Umpqua Community College shootings Thursday afternoon and the narcissistic undocumented usurper currently despoiling the people’s House was already going before the cameras politicizing the incident — and admittedly doing so — by calling for more gun laws and blaming guns in a vacuous and fallacious self-promotional philippic.

He said little of consequence in his twelve-minute tirade. Not much of what he said was on point, and less of it was true. But he revealed that deep within his soul his goal is gun confiscation.

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” said he. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

And what laws did Great Britain and Australia craft to “almost eliminate mass shootings?” They passed gun confiscation laws. That is Barack Obama’s — and the gun-grabber crowd’s — ultimate aim. Yet curiously, despite those laws, mass shootings in those countries have still occurred.

But in the meantime, he’ll settle for something less, knowing that it is one more step toward tyranny. It’s sleight of hand. Look at the left hand, which holds the big thing. Ignore the right, which is doing the actual dirty work.

It doesn’t matter if the thing he gets would not prevent another mass shooting — or a shooting of any kind. He’s happy as long as he getssomething that makes it harder for the law-abiding citizen to protect himself, which would then turn him into another ward of the state. Unarmed dependents are much easier for the social Marxists and oppressors to control.

There was more that the narcissist in chief did not say than he did. Not mentioned in Obama’s charade tirade was the fact that there are already federal and state laws against murder. There are federal and state laws against using a weapon for illegal purposes. There are already federal and state laws in Oregon requiring a background check before a weapons purchase can be completed. (Not known as I’m writing is how the shooter obtained his weapons.) There is already a state law requiring a permit to carry a handgun. The campus was a gun-free zone. It had policies prohibiting carrying a weapon on campus.

In other words, the shooter (who will not here be named) likely violated half a dozen laws or more in carrying out his deed. Yet in the world of the gun grabber, one more law would surely be the one that makes a difference. Though they never say what those laws might entail.

Obama did not mention that the shooter was targeting Christians for murder: the second mass shooting in recent months in which Christians were targeted specifically (though the first was propagandized as racist rather than anti-Christian). This would qualify it as a “hate crime.” There are already federal laws against “hate crimes.”

Obama did not mention that the shooter comes from a broken home. He is British, and his white father and black mother were not married, had apparently never been, and his birth father was not in the picture from the time of his birth. Criminality and broken homes go hand in hand.

Obama did not mention that the shooter in online posts showed an affinity for a terrorist organization — the Irish Republican Army — and praised the homosexual lunatic failed reporter who shot down two of his co-workers in Virginia.

Obama did not mention that shooter was a graduate of The Switzer Learning Center in Torrance, California, which, according to the Los Angeles Times, teaches students with special needs, emotional disturbances, autism, Asperger’s syndrome and other issues. According to its website, the school “has a long history of working with children who have been unsuccessful in traditional classrooms because they need the special attention and encouragement that only a school like Switzer can provide.”

Obama did not mention that more and more evidence — despite efforts by Big Pharma, Big Food, the government and the propaganda media to cover it up — links autism, Asperger’s and other mental conditions to vaccines, FDA-approved drugs and genetically modified foods and chemicals in the packaging.

If he had emotional issues or autism or Asperger’s, the shooter was likely on a psychotropic drug. Obama did not mention that psychotropic drugs — including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — are a common denominator in mass shootings. Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes, Columbine killer Eric Harris and a host of other mass-murdering young killers were on some type of psychotropic drugs when they committed their crimes.

According to a study published in the journal PLoS One and based on the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System, the following mind-altering drugs are most frequently linked to violence:

10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) is an antidepressant associated with 7.9 times more violence than many other drugs.

9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) is related to Pristiq and is an antidepressant also used in treating those with anxiety disorders. Effexor is 8.3 times more associated with violent behavior than other drugs.

8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) is an antidepressant that affects serotonin (SSRI), and is 8.4 times more likely to be linked to violence than other medications

7. Triazolam (Halcion) can be addictive and is a benzodiazepine that supposedly treats insomnia. It’s 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other medications.

6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) is often prescribed to tread ADHD and is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence.

5. Mefoquine (Lariam) treats malaria and sometimes products bizarre behavior, and is 9.5 times more likely to be linked to violence.

4. Amphetamines come in many forms and are often used to treat ADHD (even to children not diagnosed with ADHD). They are 9.6 times more likely to be linked to violence.

3. Paroxetine (Paxil) is an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant. Many users experience severe withdrawal symptoms and are more likely to produce children with birth defects as well as 10.3 times more likely to be linked to violence than other medications.

2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) is a household name for a powerful SSRI antidepressant linked with 10.9 times more violence than other drugs.

1. Varenicline (Chantix) is administered to smokers to supposedly help curb cigarette cravings, but it’s a whopping 18 times more likely to be linked to violent behavior than other drugs.

The website SSRIstories.org lists thousands of violent events carried out by people on these chemical agents and others.

Obama did not mention that a typical weekend in his adopted hometown of Chicago — which has some of the strongest gun laws in the country — sees as many killed and wounded every weekend as were killed and wounded in Oregon on Thursday.

Obama did not mention that more people are killed each year by hands and feet than by rifles and shotguns combined, and more are killed by knives than rifles and shotguns combined, but he wants to ban so-called “assault weapons,” which are used in a miniscule number of annual murders. And Obama would have you believe that guns are used to kill people at a higher rate in the U.S. than in other places, but he won’t tell you that if you take out black-on-black crime, the U.S.’s rate is among the lowest in the industrial world, as I told you in “Statistics don’t lie, but gun grabbers do.”

And finally, Obama did not mention that more than 316 million Americans and more than 108 million American gun owners did not shoot anyone on Thursday — or any other day — nor will they ever.

That’s because shootings are carried out by less than half of one-tenth of 1 percent of people. Yet Obama and the gun grabbers are targeting all of the 108 million or so law-abiding gun owners for the crimes of less than one-tenth of 1 percent. But because those who would commit a gun crime are criminals and, by definition, criminals don’t obey laws, no amount of new laws would prevent mass shootings, short of complete confiscation.

Obama claims he wants to pass “common-sense laws” to make America safer. If that were the case, he’d support laws to make it safer to be a baby in the womb by defunding Planned Parenthood, which commits mass murder on scale far greater than all the shooters in history.

But what Obama and his ilk are truly about has nothing to do with “common-sense laws” and everything to do with disarming Americans in order to make them dependents of the state. And they’re content to do it one law at a time by politicizing every shooting that serves their nefarious purpose.