A disconcerting email from The White House

[Mauser8mm]

Why do they have to just control "gun violence"? Why not control bomb violence, knife violence, fist violence, or baseball bat violence. Instead of controlling just gun violence, how about controlling all violence? How about the 98,000 deaths a year due to preventable medical mal-practices?? I guess only people who are killed by guns matter. When violence occurs, people try to find something to blame, rather than the concept of violence itself.

[GeoP]

measures that have the support of the majority of the American people.

I think polls from time to time would show the "majority of the American people" think or have thought new measures limiting the the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments are needed too.

All the liberties and rights recognized in the Bill of Rights were put into the Constitution specifically to resist the will of the majority. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eights an be shown to cause many innocent deaths and can be attacked for that by "majorities."

And I directed the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence—because it is critical that we understand the science behind this public health crisis.

I can not help but wonder what Mr. Obama's position is on the "public health crisis" caused by criminal defendants' constitutional rights?
Would Mr. Obama support a study of the pubic health costs of Miranda? of the right to bail? Isn't rampant rape and sexual assault a"public health crisis?" Can we study the effect of Bill of Rights protections on rape?

Hunting and sport shooting

But no mention of protection against criminals and not to deter tyranny? The first is an endemic danger recognized by the courts. The issue of tyranny is neither arcane nor ancient history. Nor is the danger of tyranny something feared or mentioned by only marginal people advocating anti democratic or seditious acts. Tyrannical acts and environmental can be local. In the south, in my lifetime, it was local governments that used force and tyrannical acts including mass abuse of arrest, and police enforced suppression of civil rights. Many major civil rights groups armed themselves, bore arms, recommended as many people resisting that local tyranny do so. They saw non violence and being armed as perfectly compatible. Indeed the saw the latter being necessary to insure the former.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons...se_and_Justice
Note that it is not only the deacons but the much larger SNCC (Student Non Violence Coordinating committee) and CORE which strongly advocated being armed. They, and current gun owners, when speaking of "tyranny" were not envisioning or advocating shooting police or government officials. They were simply aware of an armed citizenry per se deterring tyranny and tyrannical actions. There is also evidence that the bearing of arms by civil rights groups reduced and deterred local tyrannical acts.

Does the president have any sense of irony? The text and rational from the White House bearing his name could be used to attack any Bill of Rights liberty.