The predictable overreaction to the latest mass shooting

There's been yet another school shooting in America, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. The shooter, whose name this blog will not provide as it will validate the attention he sought, killed nine people, it has been confirmed.
As usual, the President stepped up to the podium, in this instance only four hours after the incident, in which the full facts of the case had yet to be released by authorities, and opined once more that it's all our fault because most of us—you and me—the law-abiding public, refuse to allow the government to take the purest form of protection out of our hands.
The Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2008 in District of Columbia vs. Heller that the Constitution's Second Amendment upholds the right of an individual to possess a firearm for the lawful purpose of safeguarding one's person or home. In other words, the Court ruled, correctly, that the Second Amendment addresses one's right to self-defense.
This does not matter to Obama. I'm not saying the man encourages such slaughters, but it is evident that he licks his lips and rubs his hands together at the opportunity to lecture us about gun control. As his former protégé Raul Emmanuel has noted, never let a crisis go to waste.
He mentioned the need to politicize the issue. He said his ceaseless imploring and insistence that Americans surrender their guns is not about him seeking to control. Well, sorry, dear leader ... er, Mr. (So-Called) President, but you have a track record of bold-faced lying to us. You have expanded government above and beyond what the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights—you know, those evil white men who founded the country—intended. Why should we believe you?
In the wake of the massacre, you said "Each time this happens, I am going to bring this up." And Americans who believe in the ability to protect themselves with the ultimate equalizer will fight you every time, Mr (So-Called) President. Because we know damn well that you do not propose simple gun-control measures; you want outright confiscation.
By referencing Great Britain and Australia in his speech, Obama hinted at what he considers as no less than acceptable. The UK and Australia banned guns in response to the Dunblane and Port Arthur massacres respectively. I cannot attest to the sheep-like response of the British or Australians, but Americans will not so willingly walk down the path toward being stripped of their right and duty to look after themselves, especially by a leviathan that cares nothing about them.
As Breitbart.com points out, in 1994, the number of privately owned firearms was 192 million. In 2009, the number had jumped to 310 million. However, the firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide rate decreased from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011. Coincidence? I think not.
Progressives pontificate that we should re-think the Second Amendment as it was a product of its time. Well, golly gee, sure we should—just as, under this President, we're re-thinking the First, Fourth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Mother Jones has posted on-line a full list of American mass shootings from 1982 to the present. Breaking this down according to White House administrations, we see that eight occurred while Reagan was in office. Six occurred under George H.W. Bush, seventeen under Clinton, sixteen under George W. Bush, and twenty-five, so far, under Obama. There was a sharp rise during the Clinton years, that was maintained during Dubya's administration, that has truly blossomed during Obama's reign. Draw what conclusions from this that you will. But I have to ask: Where's been the hope? Where's been the change?
If firearms are so evil, then why do even the leftiest of the Left-wing politicos out there have armed bodyguards?  Why doesn't Obama request that the Secret Service disarm?
There's so much that we could do to try as much as possible to prevent massacres like this without violating "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms," as stated by the Second Amendment. 
Perhaps our response to gun massacres should not be so silly, time-wasting and counter-productive. We have banned the Confederate flag and are busying ourselves digging up the bones of the generals who fought for Dixie, and those of their wives, based on the actions of one inbred, psychotic nutcase who had at one time posed with a small Stars and Bars. But when a Rainbow Flag is found on the wall of the apartment of a fruit loop with a massive chip on his shoulder who shot three people in Virginia, no-one dared speak of that flag as a potential symbol of hate. That would be ridiculous, of course, as only one person who embraced that flag carried out the atrocity. So why the effort to rid ourselves of the Confederate flag? These dumb-ass liberals never shut up about slavery, but they're going to attempt to completely whitewash Civil War history so that we have no reference point regarding this tireless debate? Someone please tell me how this makes sense, please?
Let us shed ourselves of another example of inane behavior regarding gun massacres: The establishment and existence of gun-free zones. Notice how these whackjobs intent on slaughtering other people with their often illegally purchased and unregistered guns avoid places where people are bound to be packing? A gun-free zone is the perfect place for cowards to carry out their sickening attacks. If we cannot even agree that the security guard at Umpqua should have had a firearm at his disposal to deal with potential armed troublemakers, then can I say that I am a lot more frightened of this level of ignorance than being caught up in a mass shooting on American soil.
Why is social media never to blame when these nutjobs post their intentions on-line? Facebook will not coöperate when it comes to taking down terror-abetting postings and most social media users are either silent or actively complicit in encouraging these people to act out their stated urge to murder and commit mayhem.
How about having a law-and-order justice system that will severely punish miscreants who violate gun control statutes such as the Sullivan Act? Shall we finally break the chokehold on the courts by the far Left and send criminals down for hard time who offend gun laws, instead of making excuses for them? 
And finally, for those mental rejects that take their parents' guns to commit these massacres? Maybe, just maybe, the authorities should heavily investigate said parents? Why do we not go after the parents or guardians of these young people once it is discovered that they used firearms registered to them to slaughter innocent people?
If the President wants to help, perhaps he could stop dividing Americans along manufactured fault-lines and encouraging victimhood? Maybe he could talk about the common bond of Americans and how those need to be strengthened?
We bring youngsters up in households with unstable family structures, with no belief in God or any sort of Higher Power, with insufficient, often downright negligent social support services, and pollute their growing but vulnerable brains with sex, drugs and violence. And more violence on top of that. We see 8-year-old kids playing Grand Theft Auto or listening to the worst filth that the rap industry can market to them, and we honestly wonder why we have not only a big increase in mental illness among young people, but misfits who ultimately lash out in homicidal rage.
And yet somehow it's always about the great majority of sane, non-violent owners of legally purchased and fully registered guns that are the problem when massacres take place. If this isn't the argument of a power-hungry demagogue, then I honestly don't know what else could be.
By the way, don't hold your breath that even if the petition calling on Obama to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Chris Mintz, who is the only guy to have acted with any level of bravery against the shooter, got shot seven times in the legs and who will have to learn to walk again, gets the required number of signatures, that it will happen. Mr. Mintz is a white army veteran. 'Nuff said. If he should somehow convert to Islam during his time in the hospital, however, I am confident the proposal will be considered with due diligence and executed with the utmost expediency.