Well tinfoil hats aside I have been waiting for this since the election was set. Which one of these two clowns' camp was going to insist their candidate take a hard stance against gun ownership first?
Obviously Obama's camp thinks that announcing these views first is going to seal the deal by playing on the tragedy of the recent events.
What baffles me is how the two sided coin continues to be in play.
On one hand you have the media classifying the Aurora shooter as any of the following: "a loner, desperate, crazy, misguided, malice-minded" and any of a number of other clever statements to make the general public feel this person is not normal and therefor must be an oddity.
On the other hand, the weapons in question must be banned because obviously they are the cause for this crazy person's ability to kill and maim so many.
Well what about the several million legal weapons that are owned by people who aren't "desperate, crazy, misguided, malice-minded" that have never done anyone any harm?
I am pretty sure if you were to have an actual study of the people that own weapon X (in this case the Ak-47) you are going to find that 99.99% of the legal owners have never done anything violent or malice minded to another person in their lives.
So how can the weapon be an issue?
Those idiots that shot up the North Hollywood bank (I know their names but am not naming them) did not own legal weapons. They were both felons, and thus could not own weapons at all, but used illegal weapons with illegal modifications.
How is that a reflection of a legal, registered and law abiding gun owner that has never taken a dime that wasn't theirs in their life?
I truly hope that the American public in general is done with this particular experiment in yet another liberal minded POTUS. My Generation had Carter and the younger generation now has the worst example to date.