Obama's problem on guns is that he continues to put forward an intentionally-false narrative, and in doing so he not only damages himself, he severely insults those who have bothered to read history -- or worse, have experienced it.

President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue.

...

The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.

He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.

He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with "family traditions" and hunting. 

It has to do with this, which is remembered today:

WARSAW, Poland – Holocaust survivors, politicians, religious leaders and others marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Sunday with solemn prayers and the now oft-repeated warnings to never let such horrors happen again.

Events took place at sites including Auschwitz-Birkenau, the former death camp where Hitler's Germany killed at least 1.1 million people, mostly Jews, in southern Poland. In Warsaw, prayers were also held at a monument to the fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943.

Pope Benedict XVI, speaking from his window at St. Peter's Square at the Vatican, warned that humanity must always be on guard against a repeat of murderous racism.

The Second amendment is the guard against murderous racism.

It is the only one that works.

Every genocide in the last 100 years was preceded by gun registration, confiscation or both.

Every single one.

In addition, and key to the point, while mass-murder incidents like Sandy Hook are terrible, there are several facts that none of the "gun control" advocates are willing to discuss or debate.  These are:

• As a percentage of total homicides these incidents are a tiny percentage of the whole.  Fewer than 100 homicides are "mass shooting" incidents a year.  There are over 11,000 homicides a year in the United States.  It is therefore a fact that the gun control advocates are playing on emotions in that they are attempting to use events that total less than one percent of the annual homicides for political purpose.
  
  
• Not one of the proposals made thus far would have prevented Sandy Hook.  Adam Lanza stole the firearms he used and murdered their owner.  He also possessed multiple firearms, including a common shotgun.  Had one of the weapons not been present, he had three others from which to choose.  Nor would a magazine size restriction have mattered; Harris and Klebold committed their massacre while said ban was in effect and they simply carried more magazines, reloading multiple times (at least ten, if reports are to be believed.)
  
  Further, and at least as importantly, Harris and Klebold intended to commit their psychotic mass-murder using bombs.  They used firearms as a backup when the bombs failed to explode.  Fortunately their skill level in constructing said bombs was not "up to snuff" as firearms kill people more slowly and less-certainly than bombs do.  I will note that the materials they used to construct those bombs were ordinary civilian propane tanks; items that do not require a background check or license to purchase, fill, store or use.
  
  The first test of any proposed legislation is that it would actually address the claimed flaw the proponent argues exists.  All of these "gun control" measures fail this first essential test and thus are not intended to address same; they have another undisclosed purpose, and that makes the proponent not only dishonest but a common thug who is using a tragedy to advance a hidden -- and quite-possibly treasonous -- agenda.
  
  
• Obama's Government at the same time claims these guns are "assault weapons" that are "only intended to murder people" while it issued a Statement of Work to acquire 7,000 Personal Defensive Weapons.  What are those weapons?  Let me just quote from the SOW:

General. DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required. Only one specific nomenclature firearm from each Contractor shall be submitted for solicitation testing and considered for contract award.

The solicitation goes on to list other very-specific requirements:

3.9.10 The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.

3.9.11 The receiver top shall be equipped with an integral MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail for mounting sights and other accessories.

3.10 Fire Control Selector.

3.10.1 The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic. The selector shall have positions which are clearly labeled for the mode of fire.

3.10.2 The selector shall operate manually without binding from one position to another when the hammer is cocked.

3.10.3 The selector shall remain in place in each position under spring detent.

3.10.4 The selector shall be capable of being checked for position both visually and by feel.

3.10.5 The selector shall be movable between the mode of fire positions by the operator without moving the firing hand from the shooting position.

3.10.6 The selector shall be designed to allow for operation by left and right handed shooters with no parts changes or modification.

3.12 Overall Length.

3.12.1 The overall length of the firearm shall not exceed 30 inches with the stock fully extended.

3.12.2 The overall length of the firearm shall not exceed 20 inches with the stock fully retracted and/or folded.

3.14.3 The barrel shall be equipped with a flash suppressor and/or muzzle brake. The muzzle device will be rated on its ability to reduce muzzle signature. It is desired that the muzzle devise effectively reduces muzzle rise during firing.

3.15 Caliber. The firearm shall be chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO.

3.16 Pistol Grip.

3.16.1 The pistol grip shall be a fixed, vertical pistol grip constructed of a durable material.

3.16.2 The pistol grip shall be designed for use by right or left handed shooters.

If the government needs 7,000 Personal Defensive Weapons that can accept and use standard 30 round magazines, possesses a folding stock, are chambered in 5.56 NATO, have a flash suppressor/muzzle brake and have a pistol grip (not to mention being capable of select-fire) then the people can certainly have one or more of them for themselves -- right?  After all this is a Personal Defensive Weapon by the Government's own official, on-the-record declaration!

• It is a fact that nearly all of these "mass shooters" are or were (in the very recent past prior to the event) on some sort of SSRI -- that is, psychotropic medication.  It it is also the case that nearly all of these assailants are teens or young men under the age of 25.  The drugs companies themselves warn of side effects in a small percentage of the users of these drugs, especially in persons under the age of 25, that have a range of expression that includes extreme rage.  While the percentage of users of these substances that have this sort of bad reaction is very small, when you have one million users (there are in fact more than 20 million!) even a 0.1% "bad outcome" rate results in creating 1,000 rage monsters!  This should be the focus of our public debate -- is this an acceptable price for the alleged benefits that these drugs provide in this age group?  I don't have that answer but that would be an actual productive question to ask.
  
  
• It is a fact that when you dial 911 the police will be there in a few minutes.  It is also a fact that a felonious thug requires only seconds to kill you.  There is only one means available to deter someone who intends to use deadly force upon your person -- and that is to meet their force with equal or greater response.  It might be nice if this was not the case, but that something is distasteful doesn't make it less true.
  
  
• The United States was founded on the premise that all persons are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, including the right to life.  That which you are unable to defend because of regulatory fiat is no right at all; it is a privilege.  But the Constitution and Declaration of Independence assert that government never possessed this, you came into possession of it by simple virtue of being human.  The government therefore has no right to prohibit your use of defensive weaponry of any sort to deter someone who would take your life by force.  That is the premise of the Second Amendment, and any infringement of that right is a per-se violation of your natural, God-given rights.  If you do not believe this you are not an American and you do not share America's values.  Those who deny this truth are welcome to emigrate to North Korea; Delta is ready when you are.
  
  
• A foundational principle of American justice is that a guilty person should be punished for his transgressions but his transgressions do not attach to any other person who is not at fault for his actions.  Indeed, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution forbids "corruption of blood" even for Treason; the crime and attendant punishment ends with the person who committed it.  As such any law that arises from and seeks to punish law-abiding persons due to the acts of a criminal is counter to the foundational principles of this nation.

It is not "House Republicans" who don't get it.  It is that we have a President who craps all over the Constitution on a daily basis, believes that he and his minions such as Turbo Timmy are above the law, refuses to recognize that government has no rights whatsoever, only privileges that are delegated by the people, that unalienable rights are just that -- unable to be lawfully taken although government can certainly attempt to disrespect them, that any government that claims a need for a "Personal Defensive Weapon" for its police and military forces by definition cedes the argument that the citizens have the same need for the same weapon, that through the last 100 years it has been six times more likely that you will be a victim of genocide by your government than murdered by a thug using a firearm, that the only effective defense against that risk of genocide is that you be able to keep and bear defensive weapons equal to that of those who would assault you in this fashion and finally, and most importantly:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Never Again Mr. President.

Never Again.