Seems weird to me that a "public service announcement" would advocate breaking so many laws

On the other hand, that's pretty much what gun-control freaks do -- they don't  realize how many laws there are to control guns already, and they don't believe that the Second Amendment even counts. So they give us steaming heaps of poo like this and think it is advocating a good way to deal with guns:


Charles C.W. Cooke at National Review is able to disabuse us of the notion that anything this kid is doing is a good idea -- or even legal:

Moreover, in the course of his little ploy, the kid breaks pretty much every law on the books. He takes a gun out of his house (not only is this felony burglary, but he’s not old enough to carry a firearm in public); he then takes that gun into a school(that’s against federal and state law); and, finally, he transfers it to a teacher without a background check, thereby breaking the very rule that progressives tell us is necessary to keep us all safe from gun violence. And for what, pray? Typically, anti-gun commercials focus in on a specific safety issue: a lack of trigger locks, or background checks, or safe-storage, for example. This one seems to feature a child who is saying, “I don’t want any guns in the house at all.” This absolute approach is extreme, even for today’s class of wildly incompetent control freaks. Worse, perhaps, the child seems to believe that the public school system exists as a general service that he might use if he wishes to deprive his parents of their constitutional rights — an implication, let’s say, that is unlikely to win many converts.

I don't know why gun-control types think every gun is bad under all circumstances unless it is wielded by the government. Aren't these the same people who are marching in the streets over recent grand jury decisions not to indict police officers over the deaths of suspects the officers encountered? The same people protesting and claiming that the police (writ large, by the way -- all police) are racists who are just walking around looking for minorities to kill are also arguing that only the police should legally have guns. I believe this is known as cognitive dissonance.

Hat tip to Hot Air.

I totally feel safe about my gun rights now

Because, hey, Barry shot skeet, right?

via Hot Air.

And he looks so comfortable. I guess that's because he "does skeet shooting" all the time. Right? Or maybe not.

News of President Obama's apparently long-secret fondness for skeet shooting came as a surprise to those who say they have witnessed the president's "awkward" attempts at pinging the (clay) pigeons.

This has only happened with the president at Camp David, at most, a couple of times, according to a source who says he has been to the retreat on a half-dozen visits with Obama.

"The only time he shot skeet was for President's Cup," said the source, referring to a shooting competition tradition involving the presidential Marine guards. "I was there. He stayed for about five minutes, and couldn't leave fast enough."

Skeet shooting "is very hard," said the source. "Especially for someone not used to guns ... He couldn't have been more uncomfortable."

The source said a friend of his recalled Obama skeet shooting one other time at Camp David -- very early on in his first term.

I don't know why he thinks that claiming to have fired a shotgun once or twice means we will think he believes in our Second Amendment rights. No one thinks he does. Some folks like that, some don't. But the fact of the matter is, he claims to respect our right to have weapons to hunt or shoot at targets or whatever, but refuses to acknowledge that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with those things. The founders of this nation recognized that we have the right to bear arms so that we can oppose tyranny.  "Consent of the governed" takes on a whole new meaning if the governed are armed. Progressives don't like that idea.