Right Wing Goes Nuts As President Suggests Reasonable Gun Restrictions


In the wake of the horror of the Aurora massacre, President Obama addressed the need for government action to reduce gun violence, including the possibility of reinstating the assault weapons ban and tightening restriction on gun purchasers.

Predictably the hard right went nuts.

In Congress gun control will get nowhere, but the President deserves credit for taking this issue on. The radical right wing of this country has already accused the administration of staging the Aurora shooting as a way to take away people’s guns so any leadership on the issue of reasonable gun restrictions will automatically inflame them, and lets be honest here, endanger him.

But it shouldn’t. Most Americans believe in reasonable gun restrictions, including a ban on military-style civilian assault rifles like the one purchased legally and used to kill twelve innocent people in Colorado.

“I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons. We should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller. Many mentally unbalanced individuals should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily,” he said. “These steps shouldn’t be controversial they should be common sense.”

Indeed, they should be common sense. But, thanks to the gun-sellers lobby otherwise known as the National Rifle Association, they are not. So for now it will continue to be more difficult to purchase birth control pills, Sudafed and to register to vote than to arm yourself with the sole intention of killing innocents.

Thanks, Republicans.

Related Stories:

Gun Sales Up After Aurora Massacre

6 Horrendous Things People Are Saying About The Aurora Massacre

Three Aurora Victims Died Protecting Girlfriends

Photo from brian.ch via flickr.


Stanley Rampersad
Stanley Balgobin4 years ago

Imprison all GOP activists, jail the 2 KOCHroaches, Adelson, corrupt Right Wing Supreme Court Judges, waterboard (not a for of torture) all neo-con right wing fascist scum, bandit Corporate CEO's, Wall street crooks, Impeach all the lias who took us to illegal wars, and squandered $3.85 Trillion prosecute them in the International Court of Justice in the Haig.

Doug Kizerian
Doug Kizerian4 years ago

they are all a bunch of treasonous puppets doth sides have there agenda and they will fight and sling mud. But when it come right down to it non of them care about us. They want us divided to control us perhaps in different ways.......so what do you want take your pick....tyranny forced upon us or slowly slid under the door...

pam w.
pam w.4 years ago

Literally ANYTHING President Obama says/wants will be considered TREASONOUS by the Republican party of REACTORS.

If he says the sky is blue--they'll deny it. If he says breathing is good--they'll deny it.

We all know this is true.

Sheri D.
Sheri D.4 years ago

I can't believe anyone would not want people to have criminal background checks before they can purchase guns.

marc page
Marc P.4 years ago

DR C: Again I appreciate your well reasoned and articulated comments. People seem to think that "Ordinary" people just don't have the wherewithal to defend themselves properly. This presumes that police are somehow superhuman heroes that have magical abilities and powers. This is absurd. And @RobertH: Your comment "The shooter in Aurora was wearing full body armor. No Ones pistol would have hurt him. He would have killed just as many people and you can bet the one shooting at him would have been the very next one dead." is inaccurate. Bullet proof vests may stop a bullet, that is true. However, my Sig Sauer 40 caliber pistol would CERTAINLY take a person off of his feet if he was hit in the vest. It would also smash his ribs and probably cause internal injuries.. Bullet proof vests stop PENETRATION, they do not reduce the velocity of the impact of the bullet.

marc page
Marc P.4 years ago

Cindy B: You illustrate a salient point: People taking things completely out of context and artificially inflating them to make a point. Of course we need regulations regarding guns (And we have a ton of them already.) What we do NOT need are bans of ammunition, magazines or certain size calibers because they sound scary. Your allegory about drivers licenses are an excellent example. People have been known to use cars to kill people, even driving into crowds killing many. Yet we don't BAN certain kinds of cars because they are used to do this. Same thing with drugs in your overblown Meth analogy. Baking soda is used making meth. In your world you would ban baking soda. We need laws that regulate, not ban. And as for your statement "If you can keep your damn paws off my rights to own/operate something that's ONLY fer easy, rapid-fire death and destruction." This again presumes you know what I do with my personal property. Bottom line is that I have lots of guns. I haven't hunted in over 20 years. I shoot targets and skeet. And I enjoy blasting away with my gun at these objects. Why? That is none of your concern and I don't need to explain myself to you. And I personally don't care about your opinion on the matter. I also carry a gun to protect myself and people like you from scumbags that commit mass murder in theaters.

Doug Kizerian
Doug Kizerian4 years ago

Thank you DR C for your comments you are speack the truth in this sea of ignorance and stupidity..

Joseph Zeke
Joseph Zarkowski4 years ago

And as for the claim that ."If other people are armed then the attacker will be stopped." Thats just really great thinking !!. I can see it now. Some jerk comes into a place, starts to shoot, then some other gun toting ya who hauls out his cannon and shoots. From a nother angle some other nay bob hauls out his and starts to shoot. Pretty soon you have some dozens of people all shooting because they "saw" some one shoot a gun.I guess the only really practical way of looking at this is this. When people are killed by some one with a gun it is nature's way of lowering the population.Strictly a random act. Like winning the lottery. It's a shame.But it is the society and world we live in. For all of mans accomplishments and achievements the species is base, ruthless,violent,self serving, egotistical,self aggrandizing, and above all, careless. And this fanomina of mass killing is a part of the culture you live in called freedom and democracy. In the Amazonian rain forest their is a people called the Yomamonie.A tribal group of people who live with out any out side influences of modern cultures.They don't have this problem. Hell, they don't even have tooth decay.So you see. In essence it is the society you live in.The culture you are raised in.The principals and values that are instilled in you as a child, is what makes a society the way it is. Change the way you raise your kids and you change society.

Joseph Zeke
Joseph Zarkowski4 years ago

First of all . Back ground checks are useless in preventing mass gun shootings. In every case the shooter was clean as can be, no arrest record for anything. I am for no guns period.No guns for the cops. No guns for the people.No guns at all.No more hunting.No more killing except the food industry and then that as humanly as possable.You need in home protection buy a dog.They should have a voter pole on this topic to see what the vote would be.I don't care what any one says. I am for taking away all guns.And don't post a comment to this i don't care what you gun nuts have to say.Your all a bunch of gun packing idiots.

Dr Clue
Dr Clue4 years ago

@Carole L. [And you think an ordinary citizen sitting in a dark theatre filled with tear gas being fired upon by a semi-automatic weapon could have gotten line of sight on the shooter?]

Given the testimony of those in the theater itself , the effects of the tear gas were not such that it prevented them, from taking what actions they could to protect themselves and others.

The theater was not totally dark as the movie was still playing with at least 1200 watts of light being cast into the room and theater goers were able to give detailed descriptions of the attacker.

As most were ducking behind seat backs to avoid fire, there was a viable target and since the assailant could only point his weapon in a single direction at a time there would have been opportunity to see, aim and fire at the gas masked head.