Lawks! President Obama has certainly stepped in it now, what with suggesting the American people get by with slightly less rapidly-firing bullet-packed guns that might not be available to lunatics anymore.
Obviously, this is just the kind of thing the NRA exists to help combat (possibly using guns), and they've made it very clear that they're not going to take it.
Classlessness, thy name is gun nuts. But to follow on from yesterday's post, I wonder whether the majority of the US media is going to employ the Little Brother approach (the GOP and the NRA aren't the same thing, of course, but their intersection is so wide as to make the leap a very, very small one) and suggest Obama is to blame for ever suggesting such milquetoast and reasonable restrictions. Because if they don't, you'd think every journalist in America should be able to scrape together the following three questions:
1) Will the NRA publicly support raising taxes by the amount needed to fund Secret Service guards in every school in America?
2) Will the NRA publicly support the significant expansion of government required in placing Secret Service guards in every school in America?
3) If the answer to either of the above questions is "no", will the NRA fuck off, entirely and forever, or at least for the many decades it will take their high command to wash so much blood off their powder-burned hands?
PS: It's been four years since Obama was sworn in as US President, Blogspot; put his fucking name into your spellchecker, already.