SUNDAY POST 01/10/2016

Its well known that that President Obama and Hillary Clinton  have an addenda to limit if not eliminate gun ownership in this country.  This has been attempted before and failed. In fact its an ongoing quest involving corporations who one would think have no vested interest in this endeavor.

Gun ownership has suffered the blame for just about any violence that has occurred in this country.  The primary political opposition to gun ownership comes from the political factions within the Democratic party.  This stance by the Democrats is in stark contrast to the facts.  Just as many Democrats own guns as Republicans and we don’t see Democrats lined up turning in their guns.

This week President Obama stood before the nation and declared his intent to circumvent failed gun control legislation on the Federal and State level with some sort of Executive Action.  Its not clear exactly what this action will be, but Obama was tearfully preparing the country for some kind of gun control change.

He called it, “common sense” gun control.

Wiping tears from his face, President Obama would have the nation believe that his plan to implement changes is in response to the lives lost in this country as a result of being shot with a gun.  In particular the lives of small children.  His drama was comparable to the character portrayed by the late Jimmy Stewart in the movie “Mr. Smith goes to Washington”  as Smith testifies before Congress. He too had tears of conscience. 

Of Course all of the Republican Presidential Candidates and the seemingly singular Democratic Hillary Clinton stepped up to the plate.  Clinton thanked the President on her twitter page saying, “Thank you, for taking a crucial step forward on gun violence. Our next president has to build on that progress—not rip it away. –H” and to make sure everyone knew she supports the 2^nd Amendment, “We can protect the Second Amendment while protecting our families and communities from gun violence. And we have to.”

The Republican candidates were not as supportive as Hillary.  Trump said, “No one is going to take away your guns.”

Jeb Bush said, “Today is another reminder that we can’t afford to give the opportunity to expand on  gun-grabbing agenda”. 

Not one single politician of any stripe stood up and told the truth.

The Codefore question is this.   What is in it for the supporters of gun control?  To find the answer we will heed a good police detective’s advice, “follow the money”.  In this generation as in many generations before, politicians rarely do and say things to the benefit of their constituents.  Politicians are singular sociopathic beings who’s motivations center around themselves.   Presidents included.  There is, however, one inclusion not mentioned in this assumption.  All known politicians are financially indebted to their financiers’.  No matter how they try to hide it, it exists and there are tracks that lead a trail straight to the source of funds.  So the answer as to what’s in it for President Obama and Hillary Clinton is MONEY.

In the interest of realism, we can usually assume that the Financiers of our political system are more sly, more sinister and clandestine than their employees the politicians.   The message from the “talking heads”  and that includes mainstream media, is that guns are the root of all violence in this country and for our own good we must eliminate them.  But this is a very weak argument.  Statistics on gun  violence in this country do not support the supposition that the elimination of legal guns in this country would have a positive effect, but do indicate that an increase in gun owner ship in the reported date span  equals a decrease in gun related crimes nationally.

The NRA  says that based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent from 1993=2011. The NRA also sites other statistics that indicate the rate of decline in homicides has been and is still declining.

Factcheck. org says,

• “ Louie Gohmert said that “every time … conceal-carry [gun laws] have been allowed the crime rate has gone down.” But that is far from a settled issue in academia.
• Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign used the number of daily gun murders as proof that “gun violence rates are not” going down. But the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993. However, non-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.
• Federal data also show violent crimes committed with guns — including murders, aggravated assaults and robberies — have declined for three straight years.
• Donna Edwards said that “since Columbine, there have been 181 of these school shootings.” That’s an inflated figure. She used a list of “major school shootings” supplied by the Brady Campaign that included incidents that were neither shootings nor at schools. By our count, the list shows 130 school shootings since Columbine that resulted in at least one student or school official being killed or injured — still unacceptably high, but about a quarter fewer than claimed.

According to Factcheck,we can hang our hats on this:

                                Gun Murders in 2010 11,078.= lowest rate since at least 1981

                                Nonfatal gun injures-assault 2011=55,544 highest rate since                                                                       2008

                                Gun aggravated assault 2011 = 138,336 Lowest rate since at                                                                     least 2004

                                Gun Robbery 2011 = 122,300  Lowest rate since at least 2004

                                Gun Ownership 2007 = 88.8 per 100 people

                                Gun Ownership 2001 = 84 per 100 people

A 2011 Gallup poll  (assuming Gallup is accurate) indicates:

 Since 2000, Gallup has asked respondents with guns in their households a  follow-up question to determine if the gun belongs to the respondent or to  someone else. On this basis, Gallup finds that 34% of all Americans   personally own a gun.   

 Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun  in their  home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest  Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the    4% and 45% highs seen during that period.

Surprisingly the Gallop polls also indicate that the percentages of gun ownership are not politically specific. In other words there is not a significant difference between the percent of gun ownership by Republicans or Democrats.

All this being said, its hard to believe that the constant political push to reduce or eliminate gun ownership in this country is for our own good, or in our own interest.  So why the push?

Another wise police detective said that,”If you do not have an obvious motive, one supported by fact, your common sense will prevail.”   In the case of President  Obama, the motive is clear. Since his motive for gun control  can not be  due to  statistics. it must because  Citibank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world and a bank who is anti gun to the point of refusing to process credit card gun purchases (link here)  gave him over $700,000during his 2008 election effort. The same type of financial  obligation  is present in the Hillary Clinton camp.

The next question is, why is Citibank and others obsessed in eliminating guns in our country?  This is where common sense, as the President would call it, comes in.  Its not to protect us as he would have us believe, its to protect him and Citibank.  Our possession of weapons is all that protects  the citizens of this country from tyranny..  (we are dangerously close)