Just another liberal scream-piece about those crazy "gun-nuts"...but I thought I would modify the piece to more accurately reflect reality.
Read the original, here:
In right-wing delusions, Obama's gun control plan is monarchy - latimes.com

Then read my revision here. I've posted it on their "Comments" section, but I doubt it will ever see the light of day.

Fixed it for you!

Even before President Obama announced his proposed gun prohibition measures, many citizens concerned about Constitutional freedoms, including Republican members of Congress, were expressing concern about yet another incursion into the list of basic American rights formulated in the Bill of Rights.

Obama’s proposal is expected to include a call for banning military-looking "assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines (used in the majority of modern weapons), as well as strengthening the background check system for gun buyers. While Congress would have to approve those major steps, he may also lay out 19 actions he can force through by executive order, such as mandating that federal agencies gather data on gun safety.

In the wake of the schoolroom massacre in Newtown, Conn., and many other brutal gun-related tragedies in recent months, ideas for dealing with school safety and mental illness were supposed to be on Obama’s list. But most of the announced measures will be directed at his gun prohibition plan, and much of it is just another step down the slippery slope of total gun prohibition.

Some gun rights advocates are trying to make a point by saying it may be necessary to take up arms to stop the government from confiscating everyone’s guns. Rabid rocker Ted Nugent has declared Obama’s proposals “psychotic” and said putting Vice President Joe Biden (known for plagiarism and lying on his resume) and Atty. Gen. Eric Holder (implicated in the "Fast and Furious" gun scandal) in charge of the task force to come up with gun legislation is comparable to “hiring Jeffrey Dahmer to tell us how to take care of our children.”

Because "assault weapons" have been banned in the past without any discernable effect on crime, and the regulation Obama is considering comes close to negating the right to keep and bear arms "one step at a time", one congressman from Texas said he would push impeachment of the president for trying to nullify the 2nd Amendment.

Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky equated Obama’s proposed administrative actions with the monarchy of King George III and pledged to fight the president “tooth and nail” as if 2013 were 1776. Of course, rational gun owners understood this to mean that the legislative efforts to regain our rights under the Constitution would be extensive and continuous.

Clearly, the attempt to use the killing of innocent children by a madman and turn it into a debate about guns is something that liberals have as an ongoing tactic in their ultimate goal of a complete gun prohibition. While they see England's nearly complete ban on citizen-owned firearms (for example) as the ultimate in safety and security, statistics by the British Home Office do not bear this out, with "violent crime" numbers being much higher in Britian than the U.S.

It's obvous that this is not going to be a reasoned discussion about how to better protect the people in schools and other "gun free zones" from violence at the hands of criminals and crazy people. At least on the left, it will be an exercise in paranoia and fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, in the heavy-handed state of New York, misguided and misinformed legislators have joined together to pass new gun restrictions that will ban high-capacity magazines, strictly limit ownership of assault weapons and ban their sale online. They did it quickly in a knee-jerk reaction to the push by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who signed the measure into law on Tuesday. So far, the Empire State shows no sign of turning into the violence-free fantasy that people were promised when orginal gun bans like the "Sullivan Law" were enacted. While some studies seem to show a correlation between number of concealed carry holders and a decrease in violence, this correlation has not been accepted by the cities of Chicago, New York, and Washinton D.C, all of which have strict gun laws, and all of which have high rates of violent crime.

As gun ownership has gone up across the country, gun murders have dropped to their lowest since 1984, and gun assaults have dropped to their lowest since 2004. While only about 200 homicides annually are from acts of justified self-defense, many more violent crimes are prevented without firing a shot, with estimates ranging from 1 million to 2 million occurrances per year. Still, concerned citizens are concerned that enacting what are characterized by their sponsors as "reasonable" gun control laws, is in actuality a tactic of taking away the right to bear arms in self defense, one small step at a time, similar to the technique used by the British government with their subjects. And dismissing this concern (of the loss of rights) as fantasy ignores the actual problems of NDAA and the Patriot Act.

Further, describing the kind of weapon used by a mentally unstable young man to murder first-graders in Newtown, as being the same as those used by military, is both incorrect and misleading. For those not familiar with the differences, the VISUAL similarities are what they percieve, equating those with functional similaries. However, regardless of what the anti-gun crowd on the left believes, more people are murdered annually with hammers than with "assault rifles".

But folks on the left disagree with the facts, and are obviously willing to repeat inaccuracies that support their position. Apparently, the would-be monarch in the White House is anxious to use this to his advantage.