

President Obama teared up while making an "emotional plea" for more gun control earlier today.







“Our unalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness - those rights were stripped from college kids in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara and from high schoolers in Columbine, and from first graders in Newtown - first graders - and from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun,” Obama said.



“Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad, and by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago everyday,” Obama stated, while tears streamed down his face.



Here's the problem: it's a load of bullsh*t.



While the right to life of those who were murdered was taken away, that in no way justifies taking away the gun rights of entirely unrelated parties.



No amount of tears will change this immutable fact.



Just because you're mad does not mean you have a right to take away the rights of others. Just because you're sad does not mean you have the right to take away the rights of others. Just because you cry does not mean you have the right to take away the rights of others.



Those people's deaths do not justify gun control.



Let's look at the facts.



Note, despite previous pitches, Obama actually acknowledged—dead last—that murders with guns happen on the streets of Chicago "every day."



Indeed this is true, the state where he was a Senator is a democrat haven, and it just so happens to be filled with a massive amount of black on black gun violence.



Despite this fact, Obama says we have to focus on tackling the "gun lobby" that's "hold[ing] America hostage."



How many of African-Americans in Chicago are members of the NRA?



I'd love to know the actual numbers, but I don't think it's a stretch to say there's not very many— and yet this is his target—the overwhelming white majority of law abiding, gun-owning NRA members. A population for whom relatively little to no gun homicides occur.





[Image source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Homicide rates among persons aged 10–24 years, by race/ethnicity — United States, 1990–2010.]



There were 442 people shot and killed in Chicago last year, meanwhile in the state of Vermont, which has a massive amount of NRA supporters, two people were murdered by a gun in 2010, which is the most recent data I could find. Adjusted for population size and rounding up that would be 9 people—as opposed to 442.



Yet who is Obama's new gun background checks going to disproportionately fall on? Inner city Chicagoans or rural people in Vermont?



The Washington Post confirmed no recent gun control proposals would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, yet when the White House was confronted on this fact White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was unable to give a straight response.















It's clear as day: Obama's latest gun control proposal is a dishonest fraud, and his tears are crocodile tears.







Obama's not actually interested in addressing gun violence where it occurs. Obama does not actually give a damn about fixing the problem, he just wants to wage an all out assault on peaceful and law abiding gun owners.

_

Christopher Menahan runs the news site InformationLiberation.com. He's sick and tired of being ruled by lying con-artists. Follow @infolibnews on twitter.







