Who are the 'dangerous' people?

President Obama was in Mexico this week and used the visit to blame America as the source of guns used to commit violence there. Never mind that during Mr. Obama's term in office, the ATF help shepherd thousands of guns to Mexico with Operation Fast and Furious, and the White House continues to shield documents that could determine how high the authorization went. But there may be an even more sinister side within the context of his comments this week regarding guns.

The president's defenders say he articulated a defense on of the Second Amendment while being critical of gun trafficking. But to others, it was just typical Obama double talk.

Here's context of what Mr. Obama said when he supported the individual right to bear arms:

And we also recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States. (Applause.) I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms, and as President I swore an oath to uphold that right and I always will. But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do. (Applause.) So we’ll keep increasing the pressure on gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico. We’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong -- behind bars. 

Criminals. And dangerous people.

What dangerous people?

Veterans? Those guilty of seeking mental health counseling for counseling - only to have the shrink report them as dangerous under proposed regulations now proposed by HHS?

The progressive mindset insists that most all gun owners are dangerous, exposing people to either a means to carry out evil intent or cause potential accidents.

There's even a progressive newspaper editor from Colorado who thinks the NRA and its members should be shipped off to Gitmo without trial. Dave Perry writes at the Aurora Sentinel:

No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism. When the facts are so clearly before all Americans, for the whole world to see, why bother with this country’s odious and cumbersome system of justice? Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.  

No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association. 

Perry is furious that the gun control crowd didn't prevail in the U.S. Senate last month. His editorial seethes with anger much like Mr. Obama's televised comments after the senate vote. Senators too, are villainized for not coming under the spell of Obama, Bloomberg and Feinstain. Anyone who lobbied against the gun control bill, he labels a coward or a terrorist.

What are the chances that when Mr. Obama claims to support an individual's right to bear arms, it's only window dressing? Something he has to say until the would-be gun grabbers build a bigger power base or bully through gun control legislation that guts Second Amendment protections.

Earlier this week, Fairleigh Dickinson University released the results of a national poll that found 29 percent of Americans believe an armed revolution may be necessary in the next few years to protect our individual rights and liberties. With a president working to broaden the definition of "dangerous" people and guys like Perry blowing his horn, I suspect that 29 percent will continue to rise - if pollsters are bold enough to keep asking that particular question.

If you want to define who the dangerous people are, I'd say those seeking to undermine the Constitution and dismiss its protections as odious and cumbersome are among the most dangerous.


H/T:  David Codrea, who also offers commentary on the Perry editorial.