This what I want to hear Obama say about guns

This is what I want to hear Obama say about guns

by Jon Rappoport

January 10, 2013

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?

I want to hear the president say: “Add up the number of guns owned in America. Then subtract from that the number of guns used in crimes. The remainder are not being used to commit crimes. Here is the precise number of guns that are behaving themselves…”

Excuse me for bringing up what may seem to be a peripheral issue, Mr. President, but since the federal government and its corporate allies can now spy on each and every American, 24/7, down to the label on his underwear, and can listen to his every phone call and read his every email and text message and inspect his every purchase, while discovering what may or may not be concealed in his bodily orifices during air travel, don’t you think it’s reasonable to ask for an explanation of all this that goes beyond heading off terrorist attacks?

Aren’t we justified, in fact, in assuming that the federal government views every citizen as a potential threat?

And if so, how would you assess the desire of many people to own weapons?

Please offer a complete and open and honest description of this state of affairs.

You might also enlighten those idiots among us who simultaneously rail about too much government surveillance and yet want the government to take away all our weapons. That would be a bonus.

Again, I apologize for introducing what may seem to be an unconnected point, but I have to ask this question:

Are you the last man in America to find out that many psychiatric drugs induce otherwise law-biding people to commit murder?

It would be ironic if you were. Just asking.

The cat is out of the bag. Everybody and his brother is now aware, for example, that the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) have been scrambling neurotransmitters and causing people to go crazy in violent homicidal ways.

And yet, in your speech after the Sandy Hook murders, you spoke of the need to expand mental-health services. Mr. President, do you have any idea what this means?

It means more of these highly volatile and dangerous drugs will be dispensed, and then we will have more murders.

Everybody has figured this out. Step out of the Oval Office bubble and come to your senses. The catch-all phrase “mental health” may make a suitable sound in a presidential speech, but really, it’s a confession of an ignorance so vast as to be stunning, at this late date.

Returning to how I began this article, let’s hear you clarify your position about gun violence versus gun ownership. You really need to do that, since you haven’t shown you intend to stop gun violence, since you’ve said nothing definitive about gangs and those places on the US map where most of the gun violence is taking place.

A commander-on-chief says: “This is the enemy, and this is where the enemy is, and this is where we’re going after him.”

Your failure to do that is a dead giveaway that your agenda is about something else entirely.

Somehow you’ve managed to hypnotize all those fellow liberals into neglecting to see this glaring fact. Maybe they don’t want to stop gun violence, either. They just want to stop ownership.

The Matrix Revealed

PS: Brian? Brian Williams? Are you there? Caught you on Letterman the other night. Nice impression of Regis Philbin. You spoke glowingly of the American West and its long tradition of guns. Was it just by a slip of memory you failed to mention the private-citizen use of weapons to shoot criminals? That’s a long tradition, too. Or would referring to it have been cutting too close to the bone? Feel free to retrace your steps on the NBC Nightly News, the nation’s most trusted source of truth.

PPS: Mr. President, just thought of something else. You’ve heard of the name, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla? I’m sure you’ve been getting briefings on him. He’s standing trial in your old city, Chicago.

Niebla is a member of the Sinaloa Cartel (drug gang). For some reason, his trial keeps getting postponed. Niebla and his lawyers state that he has special immunity from the DEA, because there is a deal between the US federal government and Sinaloa.

In exchange for the Sinaloa providing intelligence on rival Mexican drug gangs, the US government is permitting Sinaloa to ship tons of drugs into the US through Chicago.

US prosecutors have been asserting the right to suppress quite a bit of evidence in the Niebla trial, for national security reasons.

Is this perhaps one reason why you don’t mention gang gun violence in your campaign to take away guns? Because guns in the hands of gang members ensure the smooth flow of drugs into Chicago and then into the rest of the US? That’s a lot of gang guns in a lot of hands in a lot of places in the US.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at

30 comments on “This what I want to hear Obama say about guns

  1. Frank says:

    Excellent article/blog. Well done!

  2. joe says:

    Please stop referring to those rifles as “assault rifles”…those are Homeland Security Rifles and every honest law abiding American adult male needs to be in possession of one.

  3. secret says:

    Was the letter written to Mr. Obama the President of the United States of America (head of state) or to Mr. Obama the President of the United States (employee of congress) with the advice and consent of the Senate? Yes, he holds two offices, but he does not occupy the Office of President. You might have missed that at the inauguration last time. Pay attention at the next show.
    Why would they want to solve the problem, they helped create it. Don’t hold your breath waiting to hear any of that. The IRS uses enforcement to demonstrate voluntary compliance, why would this be any different. Mr. Obama and the DOJ (Holder) know a thing or two about gang violence and criminals with guns, since they were the ones supplying them to the gangs. Fast and Furious has disappeared into obscurity and nobody is accountable as usual.

    If you really want to address this issue, folks are going to have to learn the Law and read the four Organic Laws, which were the foundation of the United States of America. Here it is in a nutshell. The 50 USC titles and codes (written law) only apply to Federal Territory. The Constitution of Sept 17 1787 is the operating manual for the Federal government. Contrary to popular belief the right to bear arms is an unalienable right as demonstrated in the Declaration. The DOI predated the Constitution by at least 11 years. What were people doing prior to the Constitution with regards to Arms? The Constitution did not give this right to the people, it existed long before the Constitution. The State of California is a political subdivision of the United States. Congress and the State of California legislature only create and enact laws for Federal Territory and US citizens. There are no less than 3 Citizens defined in the Constitution, did you consent and contract to be converted to a 14th amendment citizen with only benefits and privileges? If you are registered voter, bad news, you agreed to be a 14th amendment citizen and the Constitution does not apply to you for most protections.

  4. Terri Zink says:

    Jon, you always can see to the heart of the matter…amazing. I just wish more sheeple could be exposed to your articles. I post many of them on Facebook.

  5. theodorewesson says:

    Great article!

    “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.”

    BTW, where do those who commit theft crimes (say, stealing cash and electronics in order to raise money to buy heroin because said criminal is addicted) typically get their guns and ammo from? I am sure there are reports on where in America most guns and ammo on the black market come from. I will search for this online.

    Since the Sandy Hook massacre, I have yet to stumble upon any mainstream articles on the “black market gun trade in America”.

  6. ginny pierson says:

    Jon, caught part of your interview on Ground Zero with Clyde Lewis tonight and so glad I did…had heard something about that drug trial recently but in the blizzard of craziness over the killing and talk of disarming us, it got lost in the shuffle. they have so distracted us, even me, and I usually keep up on things. but that border remains wide open, guards are unable to do their jobs, Fast and Furious remains on what appears to be permanent hold (as is Benghazi) and hearing you suddenly dropped a bunch of puzzle pieces into place. this is one hideous agenda and most people have no idea what’s really going on, nor do they even seem to care. am glad I live in the country…

  7. vicfedorov says:

    tie federal aid to states lowering murdering rates

  8. Jahn says:

    Q: “Precisely what are those bullets for?” A: Bullets can easily be used as Money. Durable, Transportable, Divisible (4 .22 = 1 9mm, 4 9mm = 1 .308 etc… ) Banking Cartel must have complete control of any asset than can be used as money. And guns? The perfect hard asset. Better than gold. Rather have 50 pistols that 50 gold coins. People can tell a pistol is real. I can’t tell that gold coin is real?

  9. babylovet says:

    of course the rich don’t need guns they have the largest purveyor of weaponry and violence to ever exist on earth to protect their ill-gotten gains, namely the US military and intelligence apparatus.

  10. Sammy says:

    But the federal govt only has jurisdiction over the federal zone…why do they always want to overstep their limited bounds as set forth in the Constitution…disarm all people in the federal zone and leave the rest of us alone===>We the People and independent States! Funny how things are topsy turvy now? and have been for a long time! We the People, States and federal govt…in that order…



  12. Jorge gonzalez says:

    Isn’t it refreshing when somebody tells it like it is. The truth will set you free

  13. Joe in Oly says:

    Hussein will declare an emergency and will ban/confiscate guns by executive order.
    Hide your weapons and ammo now!

  14. John A Feider says:

    How refreshing!! How does a blog such as this get posted in every newspaper in the country…..oh, wait, I forgot who’s side they’re mostly on. Anyway, great article on telling/asking how it really is……somehow I DON’T think Mr. Pres is going to give Jon an answer much less the time of day……he’s too busy with other stuff in the world……I mean country!

  15. alfredo says:

    best defense against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun

  16. Richard says:

    Someone please send this to the president ans every member of congress.

  17. Uncle Chuck says:

    So, Joe; After all that, what is YOUR suggestion(s) to reduce the killings in America?

  18. Clarity says:

    Just came across this newsletter posting in my inbox.
    H.R. 226: Plan is “to reduce the number of privately owned weapons”

  19. Barring says:

    ….And what about the Fort Hood massacre? Has everyone forgotten about this one already? Just workplace violence? Mr. President?

  20. ….What about the criminals who know how and can make their own guns…How can us citizens defend ourselves against that? I have friends, good law-abiding citizens, who know how to build guns. What more for the evil minded criminals who also have this knowledge?

  21. Arem Lemmer says:

    “PERFECT!” — and I don’t even own a firearm …

  22. Paul says:

    Maybe teachers should spend more time teaching about the Constitution, and its Amendments, and less time on social equality. You can’t have the latter without the former.
    As to statistics, let’s overlay a map of murders with guns over a map of the red and blue states.

  23. joe peace says:

    The idea that there is, “not a peep” about gang gun violence could not be more false. That being said it has predictably become a popular, “dog whistle” retort by many on the right because of it’s implied racial implications. Also predicitable is the response by many of the cute little puppies on the right.. who hear the dog whistle… and stop licking their own asses for just long enough to start an essentially thoughtless thread like this.

    What these puppies fail to recognize is the simple notion that much of the proposed legislation on gun safety is in fact a very specific, direct, and focused attempt to reduce gun violece IN ALL COMMUNITIES of the United States…including those in urban communities where gang gun violence is without question a major problem.

    For instance…the specific proposed legislation requiring backround checks on ALL purchases of firearms including purchases at gun shows (a measure opposed by many on the right)is a very specific attempt to limit the availability of firearms to ALL individuals with criminal backrounds. This would include limiting the availablity of guns to gang members.

    Under the current laws a gang member with a criminal backround can walk into a gun show and legally purchase multiple firearms without any backround check. Here are some pesky facts about gun shows purchases by ATF:

    In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the “Following the Gun” report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. “Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations.”[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: “A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations.”

    26 thousand firearms purchased at gun shows… were used for illegal activities by criminals. Those illegal activities include the use of guns by gang members. The proposed legislation on requiring backround checks on all purchases is a direct attempt to limit the availibility of guns to all criminals…including gang members.

    Another thoughtless and predictable retort by the right will undoubtedly be, “tell me again how criminals follow laws”… and while there is a shred of logic to this argument… my retort to them in this specific case is, “Tell me why you are 100% complicit and willing to sell over 28,00 firearms to known criminals…and if there was a way to make it more difficult for those 28,000 guns to be purchased by criminals…why would you vehemently oppose that legislation’?

    Using the logic of the right the only conclusion I can come to is those on the right must support the use of guns by gangs.

  24. Bare says:

    It’s never about guns; it’s always about gun parts. What part of the gun will they object to next? The barrel? The trigger?

  25. Anonymous says:

    The “gun” is not the problem. It is the person standing behind it. We have raised a society that has no respect for others or their property. The ideas of honest hard work and the value of a human life are foreign to many. Legislation will not change this. The gun is just a tool and as with all tools it is the proper training of the operator that makes the difference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *