I tell you, Bill Clinton and his anti-gun fanatics have some nerve. Here he is, the executive representative of the American people, and he continues to try to pass laws that are plainly not supported by the majority of people. Over half of the states of America (31 at last count, if I recall correctly) now have some form of concealed-carry laws allowing their citizens to carry handguns upon their person. While the state governments are, as a whole, becoming pro-gun, Bill Clinton and the Federal government are still attempting to enact tougher restrictions on the law-abiding citizens of the U.S. Who is it that he's supposed to represent? The people as a whole or special interest groups, like Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc? Why doesn't he take the hint and realize that state and local governments do not believe his bullshit lies about the dangers of firearm possession, and that he should be spending our tax money, not on biased "research" and funding for eliminating our constitutional rights, but on enforcing the myriad of federal gun laws already on the books, but so often ignored.

And have you ever heard a member of the anti-gun movement ask themselves in amazement, "How in the world did the NRA become such a powerful lobbying group?" It's simple. The NRA has the moral and financial support of the people of the United States of America. Not all, no, but it's lobbying status (ranked the 6th most powerful American lobbying group by one insider poll) is derived from its massive number of loyal followers and members, not donations from Chinese special interests. Stop and consider that there's a reason for the NRA's lobbying strength before you whine about how unfair it is.

Why is it that the liberals believe it is the job of the Federal government to take complete care of its citizens, whether they want it or not? If it was anyone's job, it would be the States of the Union, but that responsibility should not even fall on their shoulders. This used to be the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Coddling. There's nothing worse than a person who believes that all of their wants and desires should be fulfilled by someone else. I've known people like that, and I despise them above all else. Where, along the way, did so many people lose their drive to better themselves, and provide for themselves and their families? How would these people expect to survive if there wasn't any Federal government to baby them and take care of their every need? They'd better be thankful that survival of the fittest doesn't really exist in a "civilized society". That way of thinking is not only un-American, but it's also unnatural.