All factual and logical arguments, as were the arguments against a second term for Obama -- and we know how that turned out.

More murders - fewer murders. That statistic does not matter. It could get biased by criminals killing each other in massive numbers (which is what a large portion of the gun crime is). What does matter is fewer murders and violence against innocent law abiding people. Taking guns away from law abiding people will only mean violent crime against law abiding people will increase.

It already has #2, just google ´black on white crime´ since this regime has taken over and that will give you a window into what the future holds.

And for those of you who will jump on the "Oh, that´s racist"; prove me wrong (btw, I micturate on you and jug-ears!)

pResident Helter Skelter.

Read his books. I have met and talked with John Lott for a few hours. Very bright reasearch economist who wandered into the gun research area, and was shocked at the hatred he got after a some simple research paper.

This piqued his interest, previously zero, in gun crime and it has been an interesting ride, as he has conclusively demolished the leftist and hoplophobe arguments with thorough and wide ranging research, and his mathematical and statistical research methods are absolute impeccable. They hate him but cannot factually challenge his work.

We know that gun control is counterproductive - a negative externality in an already dysfunctional environment. However, I believe we need to stop arguing the point.

I did something for the first time today - I flatly told a boss of mine that he was wrong. He told me he was in favor of Obama´s EOs and I said I was entirely opposed.

He started arguing the usual asinine NPR points about irrelevant things like hunters and so on, and I said the usual things about the statistically provable inverse relationship between gun control and violent crime. At that point he accused me, and all Republicans, of "twisting the facts to prove [our] point."

Tell that to the ´Republican´ Senate in NY, huh?

Anyway, at that point, I gently denied being a liar, and asked him to put facts and figures aside for the moment (this is easy because he´s a lib). I then pointed out that none of that is of importance, regardless of violent crime rates, because:

1.) This is a human rights issue. Our Bill of Rights explicitly states this is a right of American citizens. In combination with our Declaration of Independence, it implies that it is a human right, bestowed upon us by G-d or nature.

2.) It is explicitly worded in our aforementioned Constitution, and by virtue of being in the top ten, has a special place within it. Regardless of what petty fascists like Obama and Feinstein say or do, that law says what it says - it´s not alive, and it is the foundational SUPREME law of the land. And certain things shall not be infringed.

These are the points we always need to make.

I found this earlier:

"The great irony of this assault on one of the most important protections in the Constitution is that it is extremely unlikely that Obama himself could pass a background check required to obtain a firearm permit, as this requires submission of data that would be troubling for Obama, given the ongoing dispute about his birth narrative (place of birth) and undetermined citizenship status.

The permit also references unlawful drug use. It´s well known that Obama acknowledged illicit use of cocaine during the ´08 campaign; the type of hard drug use that would mean denial of a security clearance to an ordinary citizen seeking a GS-13 position in the federal government (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5310-12.pdf).

Obama was never vetted for his Constitutional eligibility; he cannot explain a Connecticut-based Social Security Number and has kept his citizenship-related records sealed from public disclosure, offering only online images (of his long-form birth certificate and draft registration) which computer and forensics experts have now widely declared to be crude forgeries."