2nd Amendment Lives Another Day

0 Shares
gunsobama0418

Acting like the petulant, narcissistic, Marxist child he is and flanked by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and some of his Newtown school shooting props, President Barack Obama lashed out at Senators who voted down an attack on the 2nd Amendment, calling it a “shameful day in Washington.”

What was shameful is that 54 U.S. Senators voted to assault the 2nd Amendment — and that the U.S. President and Vice President used a lot of political capital to support the assault — and that it took a concerted fight by Americans to keep the number that low. What is shameful is that Obama vowed to assault the 2nd Amendment again.

And what is shameful is that Obama continued to lie about what the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act did — it did create the groundwork for a national groundwork and extorted States with money and penalties for non-compliance and would have made criminals out of citizens who passed guns to their family and friends — and that he lied that Senate rules were somehow “distorted” by the vote.

The President is a liar and a thug. The Senate, for once, followed the will of the majority of Americans and voted to uphold the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment survived another assault. But make no mistake: The gun grabbers will be back.

Personal Liberty

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Harold Olsen

    Just another childish temper tantrum from this worthless POS. He’s nothing but a whining crybaby, not worthy of anyone’s respect.

    • KG

      Ummm…Mr Olsen. Aren’t you afraid that the “illuminati” may track you down and sacrifice you pet dog to Satan??? I’d be carefull if I were you.

      • hungry4food

        KG … nice little pistol whipping of Mr. Olsens 1st amendment rights there bucko

      • hippybiker

        KG, does O-Homo the Bath house boys fecal matter have a pleasing taste?

        • Jeff

          Apparently you have first hand info, Stevie Boy. That’s the only way one can be so certain of such matters.

      • $20888627

        Are you so stupid that you think that you’ll be spared once the Kenyan fraud enacts martial law? Do you think he’ll stop by in a limo and just “take you away” like Calgon, idiot??? This POS hates YOU and you stupid Obumma zombies fall all over yrselves to worship him. PATHETIC.

    • hungry4food

      The Politician cannot be saying there is NO TERRORIST Threat and that the USA is the reason why its Chickens are coming home to roost and then turn around and say the Bombing in Boston was a terrorist attack because of the bombing and not look like a Hypocrite don’t you think ????

      • $20888627

        Hes already a hypocrite MANY times over.

        • hungry4food

          Yeah and when you try to push the Ideology of a Controlling nature against the will of FREE Thinking FREE Will Societies the Hypocrisy is reveled by the Free Thinking society as they stand up and defend the rights that these Ideologues get Boxed in with , Like how this Politico story shows , http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/behind-the-curtain-obama-boxed-in-90312.html

          The Founders were Geniuses when they designed this Republic with the Constitution and Bill of Rights because it makes Hypocrites out of anyone that tries to Change the Free Society we have for a Ideological Purpose .

          And these Ideologues want to now control the Mental aspects of society so they do not have society challenge the Ideology of a Utopian society that they can control the things they do economically to save earth from the destructive consumer driven economic system called Capitalism .

    • Jeff

      And who’s worthy of respect in your most humble opinion? Those senators who have to ask the NRA if it’s OK for them to go to the bathroom before voting against even the most minimal or reasonable restrictions on guns? You guys will eventually paint yourselves into such an ideological corner on the 2nd Amendment that you will sink the entire Republican Party. I can’t wait.

      • sootsme

        Jeff, Liberty is neither “minimal or reasonable”; it is or is not “absolute”.
        “Minimal or reasonable” is a euphemism for the camel getting his nose under the tent- doesn’t end well… Oh, and the Republican Party is over and doesn’t know it yet- they’re way too “minimal and reasonable”. You read it here, folks…

        • Jeff

          Oh really? In a society of 300 million people, your precious “rights” may just have to bend a little for the common good. Name one right (other than guns) guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that is absolute and without any limits.

          • Motov

            All of our rights carry responsibility that we do not ABUSE those rights, We only need to enforce them, and not go into knee-jerk reaction every time some clown gets a bug up his butt and goes on a rampage.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            And who determines when a right has been abused?

          • Motov

            That’s what courts are for, but unfortunately the lawyers have complicated everything up to the point beyond insanity.

  • stadalberts

    In the end these morons and a-holes in our Government will NOT prevail.

  • hungry4food

    People will be more vigilant to maintian all their GUNS because of this Boston Bombing and whats going down now with the Potential Terrorist Cell Threat and this cell activity be all across the USA !!!!!

  • Hallvard Wie

    For somebody from Europe it is quite difficult to understand the American love relationship with hand guns. When the country is so saturated with guns thousands of deaths by gunshots are bound to happen every year, either deliberately by crazy people or by accidents by reckless people.

    It is naive to think that your guns are a protection. If nobody were allowed to own handguns many lives would be saved.

    • Warrior

      And maybe “scapels” too! Contact your “UN” representive today.

    • Joel Macejak

      Hey European Dumbass – Criminals in the U.S. do NOT follow laws !! The same as in Europe. “If nobody were allowed ??” What kind of NAIVE little child are you ?? Oh, by the way…guns are ALSO used by law-abiding citizens for self-defense. Thought you might like to know that. IDIOT.

    • $20888627

      STFU and get out of our country!! Who cares what some foreigner thinks!! Its stupid to think that guns aren’t used to save infinitely more people’s lives than take them thru crime. Statistics support this. The CIA false flag bombing in Boston shows that if they want to kill someone, they’ll do it, by whatever means necessary.

      • sootsme

        “Statistics support this.” Yep. over 2 million instances in the last year for which statistics are available. Google “John Lott” and refer to his work in this regard. He is a former gun control advocate who actually did the research, and then was compelled to write “More Guns-Less Crime”. Of course, this is not on “The View”, so you are not accountable if you’re ill-informed…

    • Mikey

      Far more people are killed by Hammers, Knifes, Cars, and Doctors than by guns. The main difference is that guns can be used to save lives in the hands of a citizen protecting him/her self and family. You also have to look at the bigger picture: if the citizens can’t defend themselves, they are much easier targets for a power hungry government take over of all our other rights. Gun ownership is a RIGHT in this country.

      • michiganminuteman

        It is a God given right to protect our selves, family and property!

      • Miss Melody Taylor

        Amen!

    • Mikey

      “It is naive to think that your guns are a protection. If nobody were allowed to own handguns many lives would be saved.” This statement is quite possibly the most naive statement made by you gullible sheep. You’ll never take the guns away from the criminals. They don’t obey the law….that’s why they are criminals! My God you lefties are dense!

      • Jeff

        Which criminals do you mean? Big time mafiosi? You’re probably right. Small time street thugs? I think you’re dead wrong. And the mass shooters? They’re not career criminals. They’re troubled kids with easy access to guns. Without the guns, they’re troubled kids just like yours.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      I had to reread your idiotic comment to make sure that at first reading my thoughts of what you are were not wrong. They weren’t. You must not do any work because work can be dangerous and if work is prohibited many lives would be saved.
      Why did you leave your “safe” cocoon? According to you it was Utopia.

    • hungry4food

      With the Real Possibility of Terrorist cells Now in the USA with this recent Bombing in Boston all Gun Rights will be upheld with a Vengeance !!!!! The 2 bomber did not work alone , they have been helped this is Obvious .

    • Jolly Roger

      Well they are and as long as we stand they will. The problem is as many powerful nations before us were marked for extinction. But it England who has the antichrist to call its king soon not America. Too bad but the wild Wild West will be long gone nuked off face of the earth for no other reason than to come for the resources. That’s the demise if this nation is its untapped resources and power. The people here carry guns everywhere people get stabbed shot etc. everywhere all country’s were not alone in the problem with crazies problem is people who say nothing do nothing or know nothing.
      We’re all carrying guns in texas everybody when they invade they’ll have to just literally bomb saturated bomb some places and were still going to be shooting from everywhere. If your country were invaded and it probably will be by its oak tyrannical government to take spoils then what? You just give them your life wife stuff can have. They can have all my stuff but I’m keeping my guns and my bible and my family or were all going to die together. That’s how it is we’re not chicken hearted like in other places. Look in Middle East they still have their guns wars everyday. We’re not fighting here at all look at Africa wars daily were not fighting here. Look in Mexico wars daily were not fighting here were protecting ourselves from tyrannical governments coming in including our own. You’ll never understand because you’ve never really known true freedom to decide all things in your own life following king or country only without God means your not free men your only a whisper of a fart. Fells funny for second smells bad then your gone. A flea on a dogs ass is all.

    • michiganminuteman

      hallvard wie, I hate to sound unfriendly but why don’t you go back to your armpit of the world (europe). You have no concept of what FREEDOM means! Thats why the founding fathers left europe in the first place. Are you stupid enough to think just the existance of armed citizens don’t save an untold number of lives a year because of the deterant factor? You can’t unring a bell, you can’t make all the bad people go away just by wishing it so? I hate to use an old worn saying but hear goes- “If you outlaw guns…….only outlaws will have guns”!! Think about that real hard, can your limited intellect grasp the meaning yet? Go away and suck your massias dick you POS! I know……I’m not a perfect speller, but I’m smart enough to see the rats for who they are! Hey, would you like to go have a beer with me? I’ll drive!

    • michiganminuteman

      Are you really that stupid?

  • http://www.yahoo.com/ wyatt48

    It’s pretty simple to see. Obama can’t control the rest of us,who are not indebited to him, as long as we have our guns. You gotta know that P####s him off. It makes me laugh!!

  • Jolly Roger 45

    It sure is a shameful day that our elected officials would concider a vote on our rights. They swore to uphold the constitution of these United States of America. The persons putting forth the garbage bills should be held in contempt of treason against America. Who was that the president who echoes the sentiment were without rights. These folks need the real laws to upheld and impeach the miserable people who are trying to be dicktators. Time to rule the country like it was meant to be obastard. Time to fire those who will not uphold the rights were born with from God. Our right to bear arms isn’t up for grabs at all obastard. Time to impeach and get Americans real ones in offices and throw away the country killing policies of the last two to Six terms and start again as Americans. Pay our debt and finish well at war or at peace get out of other country’s and become a voice of reason instead of a voice of treason. Stay out of war in Middle East unless its protection if Israel and await the return of the King its real soon as we see in events of obastards choosing.

    • michiganminuteman

      Spot on! Very Good! I wish I could control my rage well enough to write that well!

  • laidbackrebel

    I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING BUT SHAMEFUL DAYS IN WASHINGTON, SINCE THE CURRENT COMMUNIST ENTERED THE OVAL. THAT ALONE IS REASON ENOUGH TO BE ASHAMED. WHERE IS A RATTLESNAKE KILLER, WHEN WE NEED ONE?

  • red neck

    This man that they call the “president” is a disgrace to this great nation!.
    Anyone and I mean anyone that will stoop so low as to use children as props to push an anti-constitutional agenda is a disgusting filthy rat faced traitor!.

    • Jeff

      Background checks to keep mental defectives like you from buying guns is unconstitutional? I guess we’ll wait for the test case.

      • Motov

        We already have “background checks” and as you can see they don’t work with criminals, because by definition they will get what they want illegally anyways, so, your point is moot and your insult was uncalled for!

        • Jeff

          If we’re talking about school or other mass shootings, none of them has been committed by a career criminal. Yes, the mafia and big time drug dealers will have guns no matter what. But kids like Adam Lanza? Hardly.

          • Motov

            You are still in error, first time offenders are innoscent until they are convicted of a felony. They can still get weapons if they want them bad enough, Most school shootings were from other kids no one suspected until they opened fire. Taking away guns doesn’t prevent anyone from committing mass murder, as Oklahoma City has already proven.
            How do you stop someone from getting material to make a molotov cocktail? Government has the largest criminal element.
            WE simply do not trust government to do anything without ripping off someone, which is why amendment #2 exists.

          • Jeff

            Yes, people can kill without guns, but guns do make it a lot easier. No law that government passes will eliminate all evil, but if it stops some of it whether it’s 10%, 20%, 50%, or 80%, shouldn’t we do it? You want to tell the parent of a kid killed by the 25th bullet fired from 30 round clip how you NEED high capacity magazines because Jesus said you don’t have to change clips? I know Repugs are selfish but this is beyond belief.

          • Motov

            Again, You missed the point. Restrictive laws hurt only those who abide by them, and not the ones who desire to commit crime. A better threat to criminal behavior is, If you kill someone intentionally (and not due to self preservation), and found guilty beyond all doubt after the court process, Death penalty should be automatic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            I’m not missing the point at all. Background checks are the most minimal of protections. If you have nothing to hide, how are you harmed by submitting to a check? And isn’t that slight invasion of your privacy worth the lives that might be saved if a mentally unstable person is prevented from purchasing a gun? Perhaps Mrs. Lanza couldn’t have purchased her guns if the law had required a background check of the people in her household.

            As for the death penalty, it has no more deterrent effect than life in prison. And we know that many on death row (and many who have been executed) were actually innocent. Why are we alone in the civilized world in retaining the death penalty? Again, we’re lumped in with China, Iran, and North Korea.

          • Motov

            Why is it ok to kill unborn babies but not a convicted murderer?
            As for the “slight” invasion of privacy, that has a nasty habit of growing,

          • vicki

            I wonder how liberals would like a background check before being allowed to vote? Judging from their reaction that the voter show ANY I.D. I am betting they won’t like it.

          • Jeff

            It’s that kind of analogy (and the “thinking” behind it) that will eventually be the undoing of you conservatives. Comparing voting and buying a gun, particularly an AR-15 with extended-firing capacity, is the ultimate in faulty logic. One has nothing to do with the other and pretending they are somehow linked should be a text book example of how not to reason.

          • Irish1025

            You make me laugh! You and the democrats object to Voter ID! Well if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black!! I am quite sure you are a democrat now you use all of their tactics,when someone makes a valid point you attack that person. I definitely have your number now. Have a nice day Jeff!

          • Jeff

            When did you ever make a valid point? You’re confusing apples and oranges. Voting and buying a gun are different. If you want I.D.s for voting, that’s fine. Just don’t introduce the legislation right before an election with the clear intent to favor one side. Gun registration is proper I.D. but student I.D. isn’t? Give people sufficient time to obtain the necessary gov’t i.d and don’t make obtaining it tantamount to a poll tax. But WTF has that got to do with making it more difficult for the next Adam Lanza to get his hands on an AR-15 with the capability of firing 100 rounds in a minute or 2?

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            How many convicted murderers who happen to be innocent are you “OK” with killing? Our tradition has been that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free to avoid 1 innocent man being wrongly convicted. I guess you’ve turned that adage on its head.

          • Jeff

            Isn’t it equally annoying you have to register your car? And the way most cities are constructed, your car is a necessity for you to go to work. When you live amongst other people, inconvenience is an every-day event. In my humble opinion (and I daresay that of nearly every sane person), the 20 minutes a background check might take is a small price for making it more difficult for people like Adam Lanza to get a high-powered weapon. Clearly, you disagree. Perhaps you won’t if someone close to you is the victim of a shooter.

          • Motov

            the difference of a car is driving is a privilege, and if you cannot afford it,.. there are many alternatives,..ie a bicycle, walking, take the bus or find a friend to ride with. as for the right to defend yourself, what would you rather have if say at 2 AM you hear a sound you know is not good, a gun or a cell phone?
            A gun would greatly improve your odds of survival, a cell phone? you better hope there is a cop really close,
            Sure I’d love to see criminals disarmed but the reality of life is they don’t care about the law and will probably be armed with a gun (legally or not legally obtained) Then you also have the problem with other people who may share the same name as you, You could be an outstanding citizen, but another person with the same name you have may have a mile long “rap sheet”
            and you may be denied in the confusion.
            Government doesn’t need a “National Data Base” on its population, the temptation of abusing such data is far too great for a group prone to dictating what, how, we should live our lives.

          • Jeff

            Again, you’re confusing and conflating career criminals with kids who get their hands on guns because they’re around. Adam Lanza was not a “criminal” in the sense you’re suggesting. But for his mother, he never would have gotten his hands on those weapons. Professional bank robbers, drug dealers, and organized crime “wise guys” will find ways to get guns. But generally they’re only dangerous to those they’re “doing business” with. Such criminals are not the ones shooting up schools and shopping malls.

            As for the mechanics of doing background checks, one has to assume they use more than just a name to confirm identity. Otherwise, nobody named Anthony Davis or Mohamed Anything would ever pass any background test. They use date of birth, Social Security Number, and Drivers License numbers as well.

          • Jeff

            Worst case scenario envisioned by framers of 2nd Amendment:

            http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/51627801

          • Irish1025

            That link explains A WHOLE LOT about you! And No I don’t mean that in a good way either!

          • Jeff

            Did it take 4 days for someone to explain it to you?

          • Irish1025

            I wouldn’t expect a propaganda watching lib such as your self to understand. EVERY body knows that MSNBC is a bottom feeder scraping the bottom of the barrel but I guess the “super intelligent” liberals don’t like it when truth comes out. Your post’s tell me what kind of person you are , you are one of the liberal “elite” who espouse’s the view “do as I say not as I do” hypocrite.You want your rights protected at the expense of others like myself what exactly makes you any better than someone else.Our Founding Fathers were brilliant men who gave us the blueprint for a republic NOT a democracy which o calls an outdated document that need’s to be changed to fit with the times we live in. But I guess i’m to dumb to understand your thinking,as for it taking 4 days , I just read the article today. Have a nice day

          • Jimmy the Greek

            Motov I was with you untill you sead that crap about driving being a privilege , Driving is a Right not a privilege ! Riding a donkey a bicycle or a oxcart was not a dam privilege , driving a car is just todays oxcart . A drivers licence is just a way for the goverment to dig into your pocket ,the same with licence plates , here in texas we have mexicans driving all the time without a licence and licence plates they got off other cars , and the world has not ended , its ok as long as you are not a American . LOL

          • vicki

            Jeff writes:

            I’m
            not missing the point at all. Background checks are the most minimal
            of protections. If you have nothing to hide, how are you harmed by
            submitting to a check?

            A right delayed is a right denied. Fortunately I know of a more efficent, less expesive, less error prone and less intrusive background check method. It even solves the problem of criminals evading background checks.

            Check the background. Is it a prison (county jail etc)?

            If yes then don’t sell a gun to the inmate.
            If no then sell the gun to a free citizen.

            KEEP Criminals IN JAIL. It’s that easy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            If the sellers have to abide by the laws, a “criminal” will not be able to buy the gun from him. But the point is making it more difficult for someone with issues to buy a gun makes it less likely he will do so. If someone is a committed killer, he’ll get a gun regardless. Everyone knows that. Most, if not all, these mass shootings are done by young men who lash out with a gun. Make it more difficult to get a gun and many will do something else. We’re not talking about the Corleone family here.

          • vicki

            Jeff writes:

            Yes, people can kill without guns, but guns do make it a lot easier.

            Guns make defense against killers a LOT easier too.

            No law that government passes will eliminate all evil, but if it stops
            some of it whether it’s 10%, 20%, 50%, or 80%, shouldn’t we do it?

            Yes we should. And since having law abiding citizens armed and able to resist killers will stop some of it, I am glad to see that you are actually pro-2nd amendment and will help eliminate the unconstitutional laws restricting the possession of the best tools of self defense.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            Most of us don’t walk around with guns. We go to the grocery, to the movies, to work, to school, to play golf, and even to rendezvous in cheap motels – all without packing heat. If you’d rather live in fictional Dodge City, I hear Baghdad is beautiful this time of year.

            When heavily-armed mass shooters open fire, they are almost never stopped by a civilian who happens to have a gun. They are stopped after they run out of ammo or have to reload. They may be stopped by a law enforcement officer (sometimes off duty) but never by an untrained civilian. All these added guns will add to the shootings but will do nothing to stop mass shootings. (And I’m NOT talking about someone shooting a guy sticking up a restaurant.)

          • vicki

            Jeff writes:

            Most
            of us don’t walk around with guns. We go to the grocery, to the
            movies, to work, to school, to play golf, and even to rendezvous in
            cheap motels – all without packing heat.

            Ad hominem removed

            When heavily-armed mass shooters open fire, they are almost never stopped by a civilian who happens to have a gun.

            Ipso Facto.

          • Jeff

            It’s nice the way you label arguments without addressing them. You’re clearly not worth conversing with as you have nothing to say except guns are always good. Now tell med you didn’t actually say that, but in effect, haven’t you?

          • Irish1025

            here’s a suggestion Jeff…..Why don’t you go on living with out your gun’s and when a criminal come’s to rob or kill you We promise NOT to use our gun’s to protect you! doe’s that strike you as fair enough? also how about we outlaw alcohol and automobiles so that innocent people are not killed by drunk drivers? your arguments make about that much sense.

          • vicki

            Interesting that you choose Adam Lanza as your example of how background checks work. He was denied a purchase of a firearm. He did as criminals do and stole them thus bypassing the background check and showing it to be a useless waste.
            http://www.pressherald.com/news/adam-lanza-attempted-failed-to-purchase-his-own-gun-sources-say_2012-12-16.html

            Now what WOULD have stopped him is the elimination of Gun Free School Zones. Armed (and preferably trained) School staff and even the responsible children.

            http://chattoogaphotohistory.com/bring_your_gun_to_school_day.html

            Now why didn’t one of those students freak out and shoot up his school? Cause the other 11 would have stopped him promptly.

            And here is another reason why those students didn’t freak and start killing (with any weapon)

            http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/kids-and-guns-the-real-story/#axzz2REbw9Uz0

            That school was not the only one.
            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338167/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            Wow. Arm the teachers AND the students. Only the nerdy “A” students because the thugs NEVER take anything from them. Have you ever been in a high school. Fights can start at the drop of a hat. We need to add guns. What could possibly go wrong?

            Adam Lanza may have been denied a gun (in violation of the 2nd Amendment?), but he lived with his mother. My point was IF the law required background checks for all the residents of the house, Mrs. Lanza and 26 students and teachers would still be alive. But God forbid YOU should have to fill out a form and wait a few minutes before getting your precious gun.

        • Samantha Richerson

          Exactly

  • James Zablocki

    Arrest this piece of [expletive deleted] NOW!

  • Guest

    I believe that their is a mistake in the above article. I thought the vote went 54 in favor of the 2nd amendment & 47 who actually assaulted our God given right to own and bear arms.

    Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

    The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global …ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

    Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

    Here are the 46 traitorous senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bennet (D-CO)
    Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Cowan (D-MA)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Hirono (D-HI)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kaine (D-VA)
    King (I-ME)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Murphy (D-CT)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Schatz (D-HI)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Warren (D-MA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose their next election. This is a very serious betrayal of the rights millions have fought and died for. DIED FOR…!!!

    Do YOU understand yet?

    46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N. God bless the Senators who voted against this stupidity. I hope you understand how VERY close we just came to in all probability…the next armed revolution. Many of us Constitutional Patriots will NOT give our weapons of defense over to a tyrannical government.

    God Bless all Patriots of the Constitution willing to pay the price for everyone’s freedom…past, present & future!

    • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Guest,

      You write: “I believe that their (sic) is a mistake in the above article. I thought the vote went 54 in favor of the 2nd amendment & 46 who actually assaulted our God given right to own and bear arms.” There is no mistake. You do not understand how the Senate vote worked.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • BrotherPatriot

        Bob…this was my post that got glitched and double posted here…please feel free to delete. Thank you, Sir.

  • BrotherPatriot

    I believe that their is a mistake in the above article. I thought the vote went 54 in favor of the 2nd amendment & 46 who actually assaulted our God given right to own and bear arms.

    Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

    The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global …ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

    Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

    Here are the 46 traitorous senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bennet (D-CO)
    Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Cowan (D-MA)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Hirono (D-HI)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kaine (D-VA)
    King (I-ME)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Murphy (D-CT)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Schatz (D-HI)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Warren (D-MA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose their next election. This is a very serious betrayal of the rights millions have fought and died for. DIED FOR…!!!

    Do YOU understand yet?

    46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N. God bless the Senators who voted against this stupidity. I hope you understand how VERY close we just came to in all probability…the next armed revolution. Many of us Constitutional Patriots will NOT give our weapons of defense over to a tyrannical government.

    God Bless all Patriots of the Constitution willing to pay the price for everyone’s freedom…past, present & future!

    • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Brother Patriot,

      You write: “I believe that their (sic) is a mistake in the above article. I thought the vote went 54 in favor of the 2nd amendment & 46 who actually assaulted our God given right to own and bear arms.” There is no mistake. You do not understand how the Senate vote worked.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Jeff

        Imagine that. One of your acolytes doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Kind of like how Fox viewers still think Saddam Husseim orchestrated 9-11.

        • vicki

          Ad hominem / argument to ridicule.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            Yes, indeed. People who think like you and read “articles” calling a passionate presidential address “petulant” deserve ridicule. This entire thread is ridiculous. You want to disagree with Obama? Fine. But this nonsense about him being childish or a socialist is pure poppycock. Like all non-gun-nuts, Obama believes there are some people who shouldn’t have guns. Clearly, you disagree.

          • vicki

            I believe that some people should not be allowed to speak either. Fortunately for you, I honor my oath and fight against laws that would restrict your right to speak. I have even been known to ask Bob Livingston to let the liberals post here even though there is nothing in the Constitution that requires him to do so.

      • BrotherPatriot

        Well, if I’m wrong Bob then I’m wrong but aren’t we talking about the following vote that just went down?

        http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/290001-senate-votes-to-stop-us-from-joining-un-arms-treaty

        I think there actually was one senator who didn’t vote…so it was more like 53 to 46 or something like that?
        There are some people who continue to post that that vote had nothing to do with our gun rights…to that I say, WRONG. It directly gave THEM a loophole to try & legally work with to continue to attack our 2nd Amendment rights. God Bless.

        • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear BrotherPatriot,

          You write: ”

          Well, if I’m wrong Bob then I’m wrong but aren’t we talking about the following vote that just went down?

          http://thehill.com/blogs/floor…” That is a different issue from the one I wrote about above.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • BrotherPatriot

            Ohhh…then my bad that I didn’t catch the difference. In regards to what I posted, Bob…that was correct, yes?

    • Jeff

      I understand you are completely insane. That treaty had nothing whatsoever to do with your right to own a stupid gun you’ll probably kill yourself or your wife with. It was to enable the UN to prevent the sale of guns to regimes bent on mass murder and genicide. It’s interesting the whole world was for it except North Korea, Iran, Syria, and the NRA. Maybe all you gun nuts would be happier in Syria?

      • vicki

        Jeff writes:

        I
        understand you are completely insane.

        Ad hominem

        That treaty had nothing whatsoever to do with your right to own a stupid gun you’ll probably kill yourself or your wife with.

        Useless speculation and argument to ridicule.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

          Vicki:

          If someone said the Moon is made of green cheese, how would you respond? The notion on the right that this treaty is going to impact your precious relationship with your gun is ludicrous. I responded in kind although my comment about your safety with a gun in the house is actually correct.

          • vicki

            Jeff writes:

            Vicki:
            If someone said the Moon is made of green cheese, how would you respond?

            Irrelevant and argumentative.

            The notion on the right that this treaty is going to impact your precious relationship with your gun is ludicrous.

            ad hominem and argument to ridicule

            I responded in kind although my comment about your safety with a gun in the house is actually correct.

            Proof by bald assertion.

  • Jake Thomas

    Take a good listen to his tirade. You were not watching a president, you were watching nothing more than a community organizer

    • Elton Robb

      No, a spoiled little kid.

    • Jeff

      I was watching an impassioned president addressing a Senate that can’t (a) reform the filibuster idiocy and (2) pass a common sense provision supported by almost everyone. You saw a figment of your imagination.

  • Kinetic1

    Bob,
    “petulant, narcissistic, Marxist”? Taking the Senate to the carpet for voting against expanded registration, and thus against the will of the majority of Americans is “petulant, narcissistic, Marxist “?

    “The Senate, for once, followed the will of the majority”
    Talk about shameful lying!
    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 11-14, 2013
    “Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?” Support 56% Oppose 42%

    “Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets?”
    Support 56% Oppose 41%

    “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?”
    Support 86% Oppose 13%

    NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll April 5-8, 2013
    “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?”

    CNN/ORC Poll. April 5-7, 2013
    “Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances.

    “If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from a gun store or other business that sells guns” Favor 89% Oppose 11%

    “If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show”
    Favor 83% Oppose 17%

    “If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them”
    Favor 70% Oppose 29%

    “If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift”
    Favor 55% Oppose 45%

    “The will of the majority”. Do you understand what that means? Do you read the polls? The shouts and shaking fists of a small group like those who support this web site, no matter how loud, does not constitute “the will of the majority.” Stop telling lies.

    • Elton Robb

      Polls can be manipulated.

      • Kinetic1

        And that is why I gave you the actual questions asked and not my take on it. The questions are very straight forward, the responses are yes or no rather than graded and the results are simple. The fact is, the majority of Americans have no problem with background checks.

        • vicki

          You gave us your typing. Do you have a link to the actual poll?

          • Kinetic1

            vicki,
            I identified each of the polls I quoted. Please, if verification is important to you take the time to simply Google the poll described. Oh to heck with it. If you have to ask then clearly you won’t put out the effort. Her you go
            http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

          • vicki

            Thanks for the link substantiating your assertion.

        • http://www.facebook.com/joe.burns.733450 Patriotic Viet Vet

          You got it wrong. 4% by gallup poll. 90% my ass, that came from only 6 states all liberal all voted for bumma.
          get your facts straight

    • sootsme

      “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”- Benjamin Franklin.
      “Give me Liberty or give me death.”- Patrick Henry.
      “Me too!”- Ed Williams.

    • WTS/JAY

      According to Doc Sarvis, 90% of Americans were/are in favour of more intrusive back-ground checks. Perhaps you should track old Doc down and inform him that that simply isn’t so.

  • Carl Stevenson

    Yes, they will be back. Harry Reid voted NO to give him the ability to make a motion to reconsider if he thinks he’s bought enough votes to pass it.

  • hungry4food

    Did the 2 Boston bombers go to
    this Springfield, MA Terrorist training camp ???
    http://battlefieldamerica.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mapterrorists-training-camps-in-the-us/

    Did the 2 Boston Bombers go to any of these
    Terrorist training camps in the USA ???? ,

    Listen to the Hannity Interview
    in this link about the Training camps in the USA !!!!!

    http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/

    http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/special-investigative-reports/muslim-terrorist-training-camps-in-north-america

    Ties between Islamic extremist groups and
    Chechnya well-documented

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/19/ties-between-islamic-extremist-groups-and-chechnya-well-documented/#ixzz2QvSXrMPe

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/19/jonathan-kay-how-chechnyas-culture-of-terror-came-to-the-streets-of-boston/

    This link talks about the Islamic schools spreading
    extremism , How Chechnya Became a Breeding Ground for Terror

    http://www.meforum.org/744/how-chechnya-became-a-breeding-ground-for-terror

    a lot of information that’s been buried on the Chechnya
    Terrorist Threat !!!!! http://globalgeopolitics.net/wordpress/2010/03/31/chechen-terrorism-an-update/

    Lives of
    Boston bombing suspects defined by war in Russian Caucasus

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/lives-of-boston-bombing-suspects-defined-by-war-in-russian-caucasus/article11407214/?cmpid=rss1

  • Mike

    and unfringed.

  • R.F.

    The shameful thing is your article. It is shameful that you refer to the Newtown parents as props. Those American parents had their little children blown to bits by a rapid fire heavy weapon. Several of those American youngsters had their heads actually blow right off. They are not props nor are their parents props. But you have had your “victory”. Now folks who should not have guns can continue to buy them and continue to perpetrate mass killings. It’s a great day for you. The next massacre of Americans in a school or a mall or a movie theatre or a day care is YOUR fault. Yes YOU.

    • WTS/JAY

      Funny R.F.,but i do not see Mr. Mark Mattiolli standing next to Obama, whose son, James, was killed in the shooting, and who took a strong stand against more gun gun laws. Why is that? Why is Mr. Mattiolli not in the picture?

    • Motov

      What part of criminals will have guns did you fail to understand?
      We already have “background checks” to purchase a weapon you must fill out forms, and criminals won’t do things like that, they will find other ways to obtain weapons. Passing laws doesn’t stop criminals from breaking them.

      • Kinetic1

        Motov,
        Yes, we already have background check and registration laws, but they are not required under many circumstances. The goal of at least one of these bills was to reduce the number of situations in which an individual might purchase fire arms without any record of the transactions. This would, by reason reduce the number of instances where an otherwise law abiding citizen might purchase guns to then sell to criminals. Would it stop all criminals from getting guns? Of course not, but if all laws were conditional on their ability to end all activity they are aimed at we would no laws! Drivers still run through red lights and stop signs, but we’re still better off having them.

  • WTS/JAY

    President Obama is mad. Not raving mad, thankfully, just boiling mad. He used the awesome power of his office to make a public pronouncement berating Republicans, or 90% of them at any rate.

    Shame on them for not passing his common sense gun reforms. He called them and none could even offer a coherent argument. They let down the parents of Newtown. They would not try to save our kids. This despite his straightforward campaign in which he told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    On the other side were lobbyists, well-funded lobbyists, using lies and scare tactics. Why, 90% of Americans backed this bill, including 80% of NRA members. Yet these awful lobbyists flush with cash managed to psych out a minority of gun owners to the point that they threatened their lawmakers until they surrendered in terror.

    When listening to a tirade of that sort, it is always fascinating to pick up the interplay between the accusation that people who think like this are vicious predatory menacing creeps and the sneering intimation that such people are blundering dunderheaded lummoxes. Which is it, are they mean or are they dumb? Are they more to be pitied or more to be censured? In either case, the President is mad.

    In fact, he was so caught up into the spirit of ranting and raving that he even took the opportunity to criticize the Senate rule requiring 60 votes for cloture. This from the man who famously delivered a speech in the Senate (when Republicans had the majority) explaining how the 60-vote rule preserved the unique role of the Senate as a deliberative body.

    Putting the hypocrisy aside, this tirade was something remarkable for a sitting President. Leaders of nations are people we look to for gracious behavior, judicious expression, and the ability to appreciate the good will of those who hold opposing views. Apparently President Obama would love to show respect to the other side of the issue, if someone could demonstrate to him that one even exists.

    Sure enough, within hours my friends on the left were sending me posters saying “Shame On You, Republicans” and similar sentiments.

    Well, at the risk of giving away just how stupid and/or mean I am, I will declare the opposite: “Shame on you, President Obama.”

    The starting point is the Newtown massacre. Children sit defenseless in a schoolhouse with no security in place. In walks a fruitcake who stole his mother’s gun and starts shooting. Many teachers and students are killed. This is a senseless, terrible tragedy. Something must be done.

    So what is the plan? Surely you will do something to defend the helpless kids who are sitting ducks. Will you bring in guns to defend them? No. Will you install state of the art 911 buttons? No. Will you create a rapid response program, an electric eye in each classroom programmed to spot certain danger signs and sound the alarm? No again.

    In short, any plan involving actual defense, actual response, actual concern, actual involvement, actual training, actual avoidance, is nixed. More important to engage in some abstract philosophical debate about the rules for gun purchases. This despite the fact that even if some new rule is put in place it will be impossible to enforce with a police force already incapable of keeping out either drugs or entire human beings.

    Shame on you, President Obama. We gave you the power to protect our children and you refuse to use it. You actually sue a state which tries to prevent people from crossing our borders. So it is common sense to try to keep guns out of the hands of killers but not common sense to try to keep killers out of our country?

    Ask yourself this question, dear liberal friends, and if you answer it honestly within your own heart you will expose the shameful political predator sitting in the Oval Office. If a school massacre was perpetrated by an illegal immigrant, would Obama recommend common sense legislation to protect the border from criminals entering without a background check?

    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/19/shame-old-shame-old-from-obama

  • Motov

    Certainly acting like the spoiled child that he is. He didn’t care about the Boston bombing like he did with the other incidents, And we all know why.
    Had the Boston Marathon been a shooting incident, you know where I’m going with this.

  • Jeff

    Bob:

    The more of these diatribe “articles” you write, the more you will lock yourself into favor with your hard-core followers and the more the rest of us will realize just how loony and extreme your positions are. So any limitation on anybody’s ability to purchase any gun is the same as repealing the 2nd Amendment? Do you ever expect anyone sane to swallow that nonsense?

    Now be sure to “grade” me and tell me how you didn’t precisely say that. Well, I can read between the lines, and that appears to be what you and Wayne LaPierre think. I hope you keep posting these diatribes because the more you extremists are linked to the NRA, the faster its power over the Repug Party will diminish.

  • mnkysnkle

    C’mon Bob! Correct that 4th paragraph and you can call it a good article. What was disgraceful was the fact that the people had to defend the constitution from the assaults by D.C in the first place.

  • http://twitter.com/jopa52078396 jopa

    IIf you looked a little closer you would see thes are people that are victims of gun violence and not props.For anyone to say otherwise is shameful and disgusting.After the Boston bombing once again our President has shown us what great leadership is.He used all Federal forces available and in less than a week he had the perpetrators , one dead another in custody.Unlike GW who gave up on the chase of Usama Bin Laden saying “I don’t know where he is and I don’t care”.Obama cared and took him out also.Terrorists domestic and foreign have no chance anymore against our leader and Commander in Chief.

  • saner

    There is nothing anti-constitution about this agenda. Do you really think that 26 people could have been killed in less than 5 minutes without an assault rifle and large magazines?

    • vicki
      • Kinetic1

        vicki,
        “Trivial”?! the loss of 26 lives is “Trivial!?! Try telling that to the families who lost children at that school. See what solace they find in the knowledge that another lunatic killed 11 more kids with a bomb back in 1927.

        This is the sort of callous, mindless and pointless argument that leads people to question the minds of those who oppose gun registration.

        • vicki

          saner asked if I thought that 26 people could have been killed in less then 5 min without an assault rifle and large magazine. I responded that it was trivial to prove that 26 people could have been killed in less than 5 min without an assault rifle (which requires NFA registration btw) and large magazine. I even provided the evidence.

          You then claim that I said that the loss of 26 lives was trivial … and then claim that I was being callous is why so many people here no longer even try to be nice to the likes of you.

          I understand their frustration.

  • FredL

    Hitler used children to confiscate the guns of the Germans. We have pictures of that! And with the excuse of avoiding “violence” he deliver The Holocaust. Obama uses children also, and now Gifford and the School victims (and they don’t know they are being USED as well!). Any one who thinks it is to avoid violence does not know Obama and ignores History! Wake up America!!!

  • Samantha Richerson

    This is so ridiculous background checks are already in place and apparently criminals are still able to get their hands on guns…so what’s the point of any of this? Obama is just trying to take our rights away as Americans so.he can turn this country’s states into police states!!!!!

  • Irish1025

    This “thing” is revolting to say the least. He make’s me sick to my stomach his voice is as irritating as a fingernail going down a chalk board. when are we ever going to be rid of him? What is shameful is that he is still in our White House. Obama need’s to ooze back under the rock he oozed out from under.

  • SocialMediaHater

    Would you PLEASE get rid of the farcebook comments, or put them AFTER the regular comments. I am sick of having to go past them to read the comments directly to this site or to make my own comment.

  • Dadwasright

    I was wondering ? Who is paying for these ( sandy hook ) people to be here ? I sure hope it is NOT the president or his stooges using OUR money to bring his troop of performers here & putting them up for days on end. Especially considering the hurting he is putting on the FLYING public. If that was the case it would seem if not ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, not that they would care, even if it was possible for them to understand ! I have never seen so much, at the best misinformation,more likely LIES about Sandy Hook. Watch Robbie Parker laughing & smiling, till seconds before he steps to the mike . So hold your nose, stand on your chair. http://youtu.be/_rVfGnDpdV8 Boston was handled better, tho that is still not saying much!