Obama Says America Needs Soul Searching on Gun Violence: Will Obama Support Gun Control Before the Election?

Obama better not start since America with common sense have rights to bear arms..to protections..here's the real history of why..
#1:
The right to keep and bear arms prevents the government from doing whatever it wants. We may not have the equipment they have but there are 300 million of us and when we have guns they can't force us all into submission should we decide to reject them.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.


#2:
The police can not be everywhere all the time. Usually the police do not get to a crime scene until after the crime is done. By the time they get there you, a family member or a friend could be seriously injured or dead. Criminals choose the time and place of their assaults, and they ensure that their crimes occur when the police are not around. Criminals choose their victims, and they choose those over whom they believe they have an advantage, be it due to them having possession of a weapon, their youth, strength, or numbers. It is in the nature of things, therefore, that the victims will almost certainly be alone and be at a disadvantage relative to their assailant. The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be "fair." Without a weapon, an "equalizer" to overcome those natural disadvantages, it is unlikely that the victim will have an effective means of defending themselves. Without a weapon, it is very likely that whether the victim lives, dies or is injured will depend largely or entirely on the mercy of his assailant.

#3:
Arms are useful to shoot down animals which
threaten the life of humans, in certain living
areas. Without arms, many murders will still be committed
with other weapons such as the knife. So if we
ban guns, we might as well ban all items which are
sharp and can pierce. Banning of guns will not change humans motives to kill other humans. But, if a rather strong person does threaten the life of another person who is
rather not strong, then arms would be useful.