Robert, time for a bit of education.

Obozo has never once put forth any gun control measures that would have led to a differing outcome after any of the mass killings you referenced. The only restrictions he's ever lobbied for simply serve to restrict legal gun ownership and/or serve to vilify legal gun overs. Also, while private citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights have been challenged by these intended measures no such restrictions were intended to be placed upon any governmental entities., effectively leaving us powerless against governmental abuse/misuse of its authority. This is the real reason for the 2nd amendments inclusion in our Constitution.

Prior to the American revolution the British criminalized gun ownership as a means of limiting or eliminating the colonists ability to defend themselves against their British overlords. For that very reason it was written into our Constitution that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon” as a means to insure all future Americans would never again be made powerless against an oppressive or unlawful government.

Interestingly enough, at the same time Obozo and others have pushed for these measures numerous branches of government have placed such increasingly large numbers of ammunition orders that it effectively caused shortages of these ammunition rounds as manufacturers production schedules were completely monopolized in efforts to fill government requisitions. This of course means while one hand of the government was ramping up its might, the other was trying to decrease the citizenries ability to defend themselves against it. If this all seems coincidental or without purpose all I can say is that such ideas espouse more faith in the goodness of our government than I myself am willing to embrace.

Secondly, Obozo has never introduced any “bills” regarding gun control. The way our government works is any such bills have to originate within congress as the president has no authority to introduce legislation. However, his minions in congress have introduced many bills, and yes they've so far been defeated. The primary reasons for these defeats having been a resounding nay vote having been sent to congresspeople by their constituents. Yes the NRA has lobbied against these measures but the American people themselves have been the deciding voice as to why these measures failed in congress.

On the topic of Obozos inadequacy, it would be hard put to claim he's been inadequate in furthering his agenda, through legislation and by executive fiat (usurpation of powers not constitutionally granted his office). Managing to implement Obamacare, his signature legislation, through a democratically controlled congress when the US population steadfastly was at 60% opposing it (a stat that still remains to this day), was no small feat.

He's also managed to infiltrate numerous federal and state governmental agencies with his Muslim bretheren, you know, the ones he claimed in his own biography “if push came to shove, I would always stand with my Muslim brothers”.

This serves to undermine the very laws he swore in his oath of office to uphold as it has empowered a steadily progressive creep towards the implementation of sharia law. If you have any doubts of the veracity of my claims I suggest you do some research on Dearborn, Michigan, where Christians are now denied the constitutionally given right of public peaceful assemblage and free speech as this is now deemed inciteful behavior and even the police force themselves are utilized to enforce the rights of Muslims over all other religious groups.

He's also tied the hands of the very agencies empowered to implement our duly enacted laws on immigration, again violating his oath of office. Under his administration he's handed down unlawful edicts regarding immigration enforcement which stand in stark opposition to the law he swore to uphold. Similarly he's manipulated the persons in authority of immigration agencies to ensure resistance to his policies would be minimal.

He's also managed to misuse his authority to quash numerous scandals within his administration, claiming doing so was in the interest of national security. Any time the heat starts to get really hot on an investigation of governmental abuse, over reach or wrong doing it has always managed to be either misdirected or outright stopped through exertion of executive power upon those concerned.

Obozo has stirred the pot of racial divide to the point it's set race relations back 50 yrs. from where things were when he took office. The killings of white cops and whites in general has risen to a level above any point in our history, and all the while the mostly liberal media has been complicit through their own failure to report the bulk of black on white crime. Yet every time there's a racial outbreak of looting and destruction by blacks Obozo is always at the ready to justify their criminal actions and then use the might of Department of Justice to disempower enforcement of criminal charges against the criminal actors while systematically undermining local law enforcement at the same time.

We white Americans all know WE are the only ones who can be accused of hate crimes under this administration, never anyone of another race or creed, even when evidence to the contrary is as plain as the nose on ones face.

With all this shit going on (and far more numerous examples that would take a book length to enumerate), yeah we are loath to give up our right to protect ourselves against our government and the criminals within and outside of it.

One last educational point here before closing:

There is and always has been more than one legal remedy for nullifying any and all constitutionally enumerated laws and freedoms. Should any such method be legally utilized to nullify our rights under the 2nd amendment, though I wouldn't find myself in agreement with it, as a constitutionally bound conservative, at least I'd be in agreement with the right of the American public to make such a change.

I however will never be in agreement with any other means that could be utilized to minimize or repeal our rights as granted under the 2nd amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is very direct and in need of no further interpretation