Personal Liberty Digest™ will be upgraded this weekend to reflect a dynamic new look and mobile-friendly viewing to enhance your experience! Plus, we'll be providing even more of the compelling content you've come to expect, delivered in a whole new way!

  Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

A Huge Defeat For The Gun Grabbers

April 19, 2013 by  

A Huge Defeat For The Gun Grabbers
PHOTOS.COM

Congratulations, patriots! Thanks to your unremitting pressure on the politicians in Washington, every single assault on our 2nd Amendment rights went down to defeat in the Senate this week.

Prior to the votes, Senate leaders had agreed that a 60-vote majority would be necessary for approval of the various proposals. They did this to head off a threatened filibuster led by Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

For one of the few times this year, Vice President Joe Biden even returned to the Senate to preside over the voting. The gesture was purely symbolic, since there wasn’t a snowball’s chance that he’d get to exercise his Constitutional prerogative to cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. He was there to gloat in victory; instead, he looked like he had been sucking on lemons when he had to announce the agony of defeat.

Gun control advocates had pulled out all of the stops to get passage, including numerous appearances by relatives of the victims from the schoolhouse slayings in Newtown, Conn., and Tucson, Ariz. President Barack Obama had flown many of them to Washington on board Air Force One so they could lobby lawmakers, appear with him in a photo op in the Rose Garden and pack the Senate galleries. (One violated Senate protocol, and demonstrated very bad manners, by shouting “Shame on you!” after the vote.)

The first vote was taken on the measure gun-control advocates were most confidant of getting passed: expanding background checks to include the private sale or transfer of firearms. This was the highly publicized “compromise” measure put together by Senators Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

When the votes were tallied, the measure failed by 54-46. Five Democrats joined 41 Republicans in opposing the measure. They included three Senators facing re-election next year: Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana. Significantly, all three States gave Mitt Romney a solid majority last November. The nervous Senators were joined by Heidi Heitkamp, the newly elected junior Senator from North Dakota. And a name most people would be surprised to see on the “no” side was that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He made it clear that he cast his negative ballot purely as a procedural matter, so he could bring the measure back up for a vote sometime in the future.

The three Republicans who voted “aye,” in addition to Toomey, can usually be found voting in favor of tougher gun-control measures. They were John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois. No surprises there.

Among the other measures that went down to defeat last Wednesday afternoon were a proposed ban on assault weapons, which got only 40 votes, and an effort to block the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, which received 46 “ayes.” Even a measure that was endorsed by the National Rifle Association, which would have expanded concealed carry permits, got only 57 positive votes — three short of the 60 necessary for passage.

Obama wasted no time in declaring that the votes two days ago made it “a pretty shameful day for Washington.” His anger at being thwarted was obvious. He vowed that gun-control advocates will redouble their efforts to regulate and restrict our right to keep and bear arms. “This effort is not over,” he declared.

But for now it certainly is. Proponents failed to persuade opponents that expanded background checks would do anything to help prevent future tragedies like the ones in Newtown; Tucson; or Aurora, Colo. Of course they won’t. And every gun grabber knows it.

What would make a difference? Let’s take a look at what some cops say. When some 15,000 law-enforcement personnel were asked that question, here’s how they responded:

When asked what the likely outcome would have been at Aurora and Newtown had a legally armed civilian been there, 80 percent said there would have been fewer casualties; 6.2 percent said it would have prevented casualties altogether. Only 5.5 percent thought it would have led to greater loss of life.

When asked what could be done to prevent future mass public shootings, the most popular answer — picked by 28.8 percent  — was for more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians. More aggressive institutionalization of the mentally ill was the choice of 19.6 percent. More armed guards were favored by 15.8 percent. Of course, none of these solutions are acceptable to the gun grabbers.

Improved background checks were in fourth place, the choice of 14 percent of the respondents, followed by longer prison terms when guns are used in violent crimes (7.9 percent).

What did the law-enforcement professionals have to say about the left’s favorite solutions? A meager 1.5 percent put tighter limits on weapons sales at the top of their list. While legislative restrictions on “assault weapons” and larger magazines didn’t even get a nod from one out of 100 of the boys and girls in blue, it was the choice of .9 percent.

When it comes to making the public safer, including our children, “the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility” has the right answer: Get more arms in the right hands. And do a better job of getting the truly crazy off the streets.

Now there’s a program that would make us all sleep better at night. Don’t you agree?

In the meantime, have a wonderful weekend, knowing that we won some significant victories in Washington this week. But remember, too, that eternal vigilance will always be the price we must pay to preserve and protect our liberties.

So until next time, stay on guard. And keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “A Huge Defeat For The Gun Grabbers”

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.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • MexicanSaysLibtardsRPukes

    well

    • MexicanSaysLibtardsRPukes

      I clicked post button to soon by mistake! I was going to say Us regular Americans may have won the battle, But the war is far from over. The commie Democraps reds & Rino’s will more relentless trying to squash us americans!

      • Bob666

        “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967, after two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill. Reagan said guns were “a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”

        • perry holmes

          @disqus_OWXu3dRxlv:disqus If guns are soooo bad why does DHS buy such a large number and such a large number of bullets

          • Bob666

            please elaborate.

          • perry holmes

            Bob I do not need to elaborate you know or will not admit the what Obama is up to

          • Bob666

            As I thought, little substance in your reply.

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra
    • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra
      • Karolyn

        You have GOT to be kidding! Using the name of Jesus in the same sentence as “gun” is blasphemy. The most enlightened spiritual man ever would NEVER have hurt a soul. Stupid! Oh, well, it is Homer Simpson after all.

        • FreedemFighter

          Agree it was stupid but served to make a point.

          Have you ever read Revelations? When your done you may have a different opinion, pay special attention to the part about Armageddon and how the army of the anti-Christ is destroyed.

          Laus Deo
          Semper FI

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            F/F, I respectfully disagree with you. It was not stupid, but humorous.

            “Then He [Jesus] said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money
            bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and HE WHO HAS NO SWORD, let him sell his garment and BUY ONE.’” (Luke 22:36)

            “CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DISARM THE MILITIA. Their SWORDS, and every other extreme implement of the soldier, are the BIRTHRIGHT of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the SWORD is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.” – Tenche Coxe (an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress

          • FreedomFighter

            The Homer clip was not the thought.
            Laus Deo
            Semper FI

          • Karolyn

            It’s actually “Revelation,” and I do not believe it. I do not believe much of what is in the Bible other than as lessons in life.

          • FreedomFighter

            Your belief or disbelief is not needed, everything predicted in Bible prophecy has happened as foretold in the exact way foretold, at the exact time, time, after time, after time. To ignore a 100% track record of accuracy is simply “stunningly stupid”

            Chuck Missler’s Extended Interview: Interpreting Prophetic Events
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbudr7KoE2M

            Hope the above helps you.

            Laus Deo
            Semper FI

          • Karolyn

            People can always manipulate events to suit their own beliefs. That has been demonstrated time after time, including those who find hidden messages in the Bible and in other writings.

          • Jana

            Karolyn,
            You and others can conjure up any reasoning you all want as to why you don’t want to believe in God or the Bible.

          • Karolyn

            I never said I didn’t believe in God.

          • Jana

            Which god do you believe in?

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            God, which is made in her own image.

          • Karolyn

            There is only one, and it is not a “supreme being” who sits in judgment and has human feelings like jealousy and anger. God is Universal Intelligence. God is everything all rolled up; God is love.

          • Jana

            You are going to be very surprised when you actually meet God that you have no idea Who God really is. You have rejected Him and have a false image of who you want a god to be.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            People, who manipulate events are DEMONcrat/Liberals/ Progressives/ Kommunists/Marxists.

            Who is re-writing the history of THIS Country? Who is replacing the
            TRUTH with the lies? Who is substituting heroes with villains, changing the pluses on minuses, the white on the black.

            Who is discrediting the family as an institution? Who encouraged promiscuity and easy divorce? Who promotes debauchery
            beginning from the kindergarten?

            Answer is DEMONcrats/Liberals/Progressives/Kommunists

            Here you have the TEN POOREST CITIES with population over 250,000 & the percentage (%) of People BELOW the Poverty Level
            1. Detroit, MI – 32.5%
            2. Buffalo, NY – 29.9%
            3. Cincinnati, OH – 27.8%
            4. Cleveland, OH – 27.0%
            5. Miami, FL – 26.9%
            5. St. Louis, MO – 26.8%
            7. El Paso, TX – 26.4%
            8. Milwaukee, WI – 26.2%
            9. Philadelphia, PA – 25.1%
            10. Newark, NJ – 24.2%
            Statistic is for 2011. Take a guess WHAT these cities with the highest poverty rate have in common?
            Yep. The Mayors of ALL these cities are Democratic Asses.

            P.S. You are one who is manipulating/distorting/twisting events.
            You are a TRUE Democrat with “Hope & Change”

          • KG

            All of these cities were prosperous and nice to live in when the Unions were strong. However, thanks to Republican “free markets” gurus and tax breaks, all of the good manufacturing jobs are gone. So, is it “family values” republicans scouring the earth for low wages that’s causing families to disintegrate? Are young people drinking on the corner because there is no other place to go? What if business built new factories in these towns instead of getting rich off of cheap overseas labor? People are voting Democrat for a reason. When you get raped, you tend to shun the rapist.

          • Jana

            Keep trying to convince yourself of these lies. Unions and Socialism go hand in hand!!

          • KG

            What lies? What did I lie about? Maybe you are lying to yourself.Ask anyone older than 50 when the “good old days”were. They will say the 1950’s. And America had about 25-30% union membership.

            So Unions have nothing to do with middle class prosperity?

          • Jana

            I will repeat Mr Socialist Unions and Socialism go hand in hand so I imagine you were very happy.

          • WTS/JAY

            FF: Your belief or disbelief is not needed, everything predicted in Bible prophecy has happened as foretold in the exact way foretold, at the exact time, time, after time, after time.

            A true statement! In fact, even if the whole world were to reject the “Word” outright…regardless, not a jot or title would go unfulfilled! Good for you!

        • Jimmy G

          Why would you even click on their link?? Think

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            Because she is idiotically stupid as any obese lesbian.

          • Doc Sarvis

            And the Conservative war on women continues.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            On the lamebrained Liberal women only.

            But the Liberals war on the helpless and defenseless infants NEVER stopped. The feminists and Liberal women are pro-Infanticide. It does not bother you?

            Do you want this Liberal monster to be your wife or daughter, Doc?
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uax-FrhOioY

          • SavaDude

            LMAO! You know, I didn’t actually believe there were stupid people out there that believed the ‘war on women’ crap that was concocted by a team of sociologists, political strategists, advertising experts, and televisions and film directors until now. IK think Doc actually means it!
            Well Doc, congratulations. All the money that was paid to come up with that ridiculous garbage was well spent. You have become a parrot.

          • The Snarf

            War on women? Kind of like ‘Julia’ telling women they are too unintelligent and weak to care for themselves,so need govt. as sugar daddy for life,women being reduced to ‘uteruses with legs’ that need govt. protection,lawmakers deciding women are too stupid to handle a gun responsibly,so should use ball point pens to stab a shooter while he reloads,or use ‘assault bodily fluids’? I could go on all day,Doc.
            That women even tolerate that insulting,sexist garbage only shows how dumbed-down many Americans have become.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            WHO REALLY LEADS THE WAR ON WOMEN, on under-aged Girls and on unborn Girls?
            1) In May of 2012 Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) sponsored Legislation to BAN SELECTIVE-SEX ABORTIONS. But it WAS REJECTED by
            DEMONcrats

            2) “It’s 2012. It’s 2012, everybody. What is it we’re talking about women getting paid less? Are you going home to your little girls each day and saying: ‘Work hard, study hard, be diligent so that when you grow up you can make less than your brother? … There seems to be a decision somewhere in some companies and parts of our economy that that’s an okay thing to do.” – Deranged Draculett Pelosi

            Nutty Pelosi condemned companies that pay women less than men, but was unwilling to condemn Senate DEMONcrats who pay their female staffers less than male staffers, saying that the Senate is “another world.”

            3) Only DEMONcratic IDIOTS (O’homobama, Panetta, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Nutty
            Pelosi and the bunch of dupes) lifted the ban on WOMEN SERVING IN COMBAT.

            4) Only PERVERT DEMONcrats are promoting sex-education
            for the children of 5-14 years old. And ONLY Liberal ‘women’ are supporting this sick idea.

            5) Only PERVERT DEMONcrats would require to provide the 5th graders girls with contraceptives and teach boys how to put condoms on banana or cucumber. And ONLY Liberal ‘women’ are supporting this sick idea.

            6) Only PERVERT Liberals would push teachers to “brainwash children into believing that gender neutrality is ideal for society. And ONLY Liberal ‘women’ are supporting this sick idea.

            Doc, please tell me: WHAT do women get from the DemocRats?
            I’ll answer for you: FREE contraceptives and FREE INFANTICIDE.

          • Jana

            Doc, You are the one waging the war on women!
            STOP IT!!!

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            Jana, you have to see this: The deaths of over 1000 children per year in the custody of the Child Protection Servise
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48YF1uEuCUA

        • rocketride

          Well, I do recall that the Lamb of God did say something to the effect of ‘Let the man who has two cloaks and no sword sell one of the cloaks and buy a sword.’ (Recall that guns hadn’t been invented, yet.) He was, it appears, a bit more of a realist than you are. And even the Roman Catholic Church has a patron Saint for Marksmanship. (His name was Gabriel Possenti, and the miracle for which he was canonized was an amazing feat of defensive marksmanship using a handgun.) So, you’re closer to blasphemy (putting words in Jesus’ mouth) than Alondra ever got.

          • Doc Sarvis

            The Roman Catholic Church has A LOT of child molesters as well.

          • rocketride

            Which is relevant to this discussion, how? Is your ad hominem attack the best you can do?

          • The Snarf

            Perhaps one thing Doc understands and identifies with?

          • rocketride

            This isn’t the first time he’s raised that issue. Perhaps it’s close to home. Maybe on both sides of the equation– many, if not most molesters had, themselves, been molested.

          • FreedomFighter

            Always a snake in the garden Doc, also allot of gays in the Catholic church – so is the church gay or child molesters or are the snakes?
            I bet the snakes are, so stop the hissing already.
            Laus Deo
            Semper FI

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            The pedophile House of Orange in Nederland
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSVYvcP35Y4

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            The [expletive deleted] was for HOMOSEXUALS who are having malicious desire for the largest American youth organization Boy Scouts

          • WTS/JAY

            Child molesters are everywhere, not just in the Roman Catholic-industries. You will find a lot of pedophiles ensconced in political offices, from where they can best protect their own.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            Child porn “epidemic” among Pentagon officials and US government employees
            http://www.darkmoon.me/2013/child-porn-epidemic-among-pentagon-officials-and-us-government-employees-by-lori-handrahan/

          • Jana

            Satan always infiltrates and tries to take over God’s good things. Then it’s men and women like the liberals who close their eyes and let them. If we follow God’s laws then we would boot them out.
            God says to put a rapist to death. God says to put a pedophile to death. Do we do it? NO! We have the liberals out there saying no to the death penalty and no no, these people can be rehabilitated. Yet we have never seen any pedophile that has ever been rehabilitated. In fact they get released and go out and do it over and over again.
            This all because the liberals have such great compassion on the wrong ones. They have compassion for the criminals and hatred for the unborn child that has somehow inhabited a poor woman’s body all by itself without her knowledge of how or when it happened so they go murder this unborn child but let a rapist and a pedophile loose.
            Don’t blame God, blame man because he has not obeyed God or His Word!.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            Jana: “God says to put a pedophile to death…We have the liberals out there saying no to the death penalty”.

            Jana, for the Liberals the pedophilia JUST another sex orientation and the Pedophiles JUST another minority group with the SEXUAL
            attraction to young children and what they need it’s JUST a little understanding and compassion.

            “Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world
            because of offenses! For offenses must come, but WOE TO THAT MAN BY WHOM THE OFFENSE COMES!” (Matthew 18)

            “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’” (Mathew 19)

          • Jana

            Alondra,

            Exactly. Muslims are notorious for this actually. Muhammad “married a 6 yr. old girl at age 53. He waited till she was 8 to consummate the marriage. How nice of him. He was a pedophile.
            A lot of the acid thrown on women and boys in the Muslim culture is because the woman or boy refused their advances.

            I have seen way too many pictures of these acid burns on young boys and women. This acid burn scars them for life.

          • sootsme

            Google “Ann Barnhardt” + “assault weapon” Made me smile…

          • rocketride

            Luke 22:36 (had to look up the chapter and verse) Translations, of course, vary.

          • Jana

            Luke 22:36

            36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
            KJV

            Luke 22:38

            38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he (Jesus) said unto them, It is enough.
            KJV

          • rocketride

            KJV is fine with me. All the mainstream translations get to the same point.

          • Karolyn

            Never heard of Jesus with a sword, did you? I guess he just wanted other people to do his dirty work? We don’t even know if he said those things. Do you believe everything you read?

          • WTS/JAY

            Karolyn: Do you believe everything you read?

            Weren’t you the one that made the incorrect claim that Jesus would never hurt a soul? Which is, of course, false!

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Apparently you believe everything you read with quite a bit of New Age rubbish you have spouted on this site You are not that capable of coming up with that rubbish all by youself since the rubbish is as old as mankind and your comments do not potray you as well read. What little bit of information you have about Jesus also came filtered through some supposed scholars’ minds and that is why your information is so erroneous.

          • Bob666

            Yonads,
            Based on the numerous “unique” fragments of information that you bring us on a daily basis, should you make a post like that?

          • Jana

            Karolyn,
            You can’t have it both ways. One time when it suits you you quote the Bible as though it makes your point. Another time you use it to ridicule.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            Hypocrite, thy name is Karolyn.

        • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

          “Then He [Jesus] said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and HE WHO HAS NO SWORD, let him sell his garment and BUY ONE.’” (Luke 22)

          “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven … And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM Me, you WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS!’” – Jesus Christ (Matthew)

          “Be doers of the WORD, and not hearers only, DECEIVING yourselves.” (James)

          • WTS/JAY

            The (underlying) argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. In the Bible we read about the murder of Abel by Cain. Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible makes no mention. The point is, the evil in Cain’s heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon. God’s response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer.

            Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.

        • WTS/JAY

          Karolyn: The most enlightened spiritual man ever would NEVER have hurt a soul.

          Not true. When he cleansed the temple, twice, He did so by overturning tables and chasing out the money-lenders with a “WHIP” made out of rope. I’m sure some of the money-lenders felt the sting from the whip for a few days! If you think thats bad, wait till the tribulation hits…He will wipe out 2/3 of the population and devastate the planet beyond what you or environmentalists can even begin to imagine. Yes, Jesus was nice, and loving, and above all, peaceful…but He also administers justice.

        • Jana

          Karolyn,
          You are wrong here. It is not blasphemy. You really have to know what you are talking about before you open your mouth so to speak.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            She has NO CLUE. Is that news?

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra
    • Bob666

      “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” said NRA President Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praising state gun control laws in Congress. He testified before the 1938 federal gun control law passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

    The history of the Gun Control Laws in the USofAmerica
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKRMgF_rts4

    Pay attention WHO sponsored those Laws.

    • Bob666

      “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States,” NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth told Congress, shortly after Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle Oswald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’sAmerican Rifleman magazine.

  • Harold Olsen

    This won’t end it. If Obama can’t get what he wants constitutionally, he’ll dictate it. I suspect there are EO’s in the works right now. No one says no to Obama. He’s overruled the Supreme Court and has gotten away with it, and he sure as hell is not going to let a vote in either house of Congress stop him. He’s nothing but a whining crybaby who throws temper tantrums when he does not get his way.

    • FreedomFighter

      H. Olsen you are correct, the progressives never stop, Dirty Harry only put the bill on ice for the time being, it will rear its ugly head soon enough.

      Consider this: The day the senate voted for the bill the Boston bombing occurred, media quickly tried to blame right wing extremists “the white guys” for the bombing.

      Of course this makes no sense in any context, to blow up people you want on your side does not provide any gain for conservative values or right wing causes, none at all — in fact it would turn the normal person away from conservative values, what the progressives want.

      IMHO if this bill would have passed the senate, the bombing pinned on “a white guy” the pressure in the House to pass the bill would have been overwhelming — and gun confiscation would start soon enough.

      IMHO the government had an idea what was about to go down at the Boston Marathon, the huge security presence, bomb dogs, Seals or Craft operatives, under cover agents — you can spot them in the crowds in the hundreds of pictures available. Then the Saudi “agent?” whisked out of the country after a Obummer meeting with the Saudis – wtf was that? It was a false flag event that went south – IMHO.

      Then the huge explosion of the fertilizer plant, a distraction from the cover up, while damage control and sanitation operations were performed.

      Of course this is all speculation, but one thing is for sure, gun control and confiscation is of paramount importance to those that wish the American people harm and the Communist 5th column in the senate, house and while house will not stop until you and every other American are disarmed.

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI

      • The Christian American

        The division line is not with blacks and whites, muslims and christians or any other race or religion. It’s with the producers and predators, the people who support his godless socialist communist philosophy and the God fearing lovers of our Constitutional Republic. The predators won the day at the election. In his mind, America is now run with the communist philosophy and the people who believe in the Constitution Republic are aliens to be gotten rid of. If he can’t get rid of the people having the ability to defend themselves with legislation, he’ll do it with martial law. Boston will help that approach. He’s anything but a cry baby. He’s as dedicated to his cause as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and their ilk were to theirs. We should have the will to stand up for our cause as he has with his.

        • FreedomFighter

          Father Of Boston Suspects: US Security Services Set Up My Sons
          Laus Deo
          Semper FI

        • GALT

          What makes you think YOU are a “producer”?

          What “value” do YOU represent?

          Are YOU indispensable to the world?

        • Martin

          I could agree more with one exception it is not communism he seeks but rule by Sharia an Islamic law that governs everything you say and do it even has rules on how the world should be run if you don’t believe it just look it up.
          They are not a bunch of goat herders every Muslim provides for Sharia in the way they are taught

      • Martin

        What about the way they started martial law shut down a whole city with just a bull horn stay in your homes do not come outside no traveling by plane train or automobile we don’t care even if it’s an emergency.
        Yet that same day ten people were killed in Chicago nothing in the papers no martial law and that’s because their so safe with out letting citizens protect themselves by order of their government defining there illegally I might add their rights under the 2nd amendment but you don’t hear about them violating the federal government. Instead they arrest the law abiding with a gun and let others illegally walk the streets killing people or should I say letting them get away with murder

    • Katrael

      This event was just a battle and not the war. Unfortunately the war may never be over. I watched a video two nights ago about the Warsaw Poland rebellion during the Nazi occupation of Poland. They held off the Germans for a couple of months until they were finally subdued. Why is this important to this thread? Because it becomes apparent that those who control the firearms eventually win. The Jew neither had a way to produce firearms or ammunition to use for their defense. The native Americans didn’t either and they were eventually subdued by a government that should have been as much theirs as anybody else’s. Will this government residing in
      Washington turn on it’s own people again as it had in the past? Will this government turn on it’s own people the way the German government turned on it’s own population? I know the answer and believe everybody does.

      • Martin

        I think your on the right track just need to study up on Sharia laws written by a Muslim in 1928.
        It tells every Muslim how to act think it even says how the world should be run that is their ultimate goal and you remember Obama was a Muslim first before he lied about being catholic he pastor and guidance counselor is now head of The Muslim Brotherhood with many outlawed or miss leading organizations under him one outlawed is ACORN which Obama ran during his younger years with help from reading Cloward-Piven Stragedy and the writings of Saul Alinsky read those books and read about Sharia Law then you will see what he is really up to

        • Katrael

          Martin, I haven’t yet read anything official about Sharia Law. All I know is that if someone isn’t Muslim then they are kafur’s(spelling) and subject to being sold or killed whichever is preferable to the Muslims you come in contact with. I don’t know if this is true it’s only what I’ve heard. Yes our Commander-in Chief is a liar and deceiver. Nothing new for a politician however, Obama has taken his ruse(or is it ruse de guerre) to a new level as he has openly switched from being Christian to Muslim and it seems apparent that this was part of his strategy to get elected. Why in the world would anyone trust these people?.

    • KG

      Sorta like the Religious Right with their pictures of dead babies? I have never seen Mr. Obama throw a “temper tantrum.” But, if you listen to Rush, you will hear on every day! “Waaaaa! The liberals are winning! That’s not fair!”
      For you idiots who have given up on America, please, when you leave, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

      • Mike in MI

        AGAIN, WRONG … but then, one mustn’t expect too much where such a depth of inherent mental defect exists. It’s the same genetic defect that resulted in Cain’s preference for the instruction of the god he listened to, rather than the True God’s requests. It’s the defect that led Cain to murder Able rather than simply do what God indicated He wanted for prayer and offerings. He could very simply have changed; he knew the difference. Cain just didn’t like it that God judged Cain’s form of worship to be error and then refused to accept Cain’s. So, he decided Able was the central cause of the problem and should destroy that. So, murdered Able. To this day the same defect is being transmitted by Cain’s progeny with the same results. (Witness: Boston Marathon = muslim “love of god” – carrying out the instruction in their book)

        The way you put it above anyone would read that to make it sound like objecting to infanticide is caused by “the Religious Right”. The Right didn’t cause all that murder. The sort of insanity you represent is responsible for all of that and you point the UGLY Finger at us.

        Gotta be some sort of depth of mental defect there, Cagey. But, that’s why your side will continue to succeed. That kind of sly and cagey mis-allocated blame … like Cain. Most conservatives can’t agree on what is wrong to get things going Right. Truth is available, but goes unheeded.

        At least until the Lord Jesus Christ comes back to settle things and take charge of the kingdom God promised him when he did the things God asked him to do about 1985 years ago.

        • wagontrain

          Great answer Mike. We always have the unGodly and the socialists like KG among us. They may win for awhile, but in the end, like you said when the Lord Jesus Christ comes back to settle things and takes charge they will lose.
          Meanwhile we have to put up with this nonsense and keep up the good fight and keep the faith.

          • Mike in MI

            Thanks you two. Proud to stand together with you and the others here who know that and why liberalism in all its forms are on the losing side of the contest of the Word’s way.

            Cagey –
            Nice to see you know a little about what you are up against. You are right and I figured if you did know anything you might ask about Noah. Well, you’re right. Noah wasn’t out of Cain’s line.
            However, there had been some screwing of good genetic lines with the bad during Noah’s time. Then evil held precedence in the One-World-Government of that day in most men’s minds, mostly rape. Ergo, one of the son’s of Noah, namely Ham, sired a whole bunch of knot-heads who became notable for their evil. Leading the list was Nimrod (Nimrud? Numb-head … whatever, a despicable, despotic, pus-head whom your kind would adore, revere, etc.) But, God had promised, “No more watery over-flow. Fire, next time.” Just to let you know what you’ve got to look foreward to. It is by no means an “allegory”. There are geologists who can see there is no other reasonable alternative to the evidence they INVESTIGATE. (Of course you can believe the guided imagery of the One-Worlders of our day. Remember, Jesus said it would be, “as in the days of Noah”.
            But, as you said elsewhere everything is according to “personal opinion”, at least in our culture today. By all means, enjoy yours while you can, because God’s truth WILL prevail.

          • KG

            Yes. She will prevail. As it is written in your shepherders book:
            Note that this is written to the LAST CHURCH:

            Revelation 3

            14 And
            unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things
            saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the
            creation of God;

            15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

            16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

            17 Because
            thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of
            nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and
            poor, and blind, and naked:

            18 I
            counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be
            rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame
            of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve,
            that thou mayest see.

            19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

            20 Behold,
            I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the
            door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

            21 To
            him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I
            also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

            22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

          • Jana

            Ok, so you quoted some Bible scriptures. Now tell me how this correlates with what we have been talking about? Do you comprehend what you have been reading?

            What does it mean that – I would thou wert cold or hot.
            (Do you even know what the church of the Laodiceans represents?)

            16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. ———-

            I am not surprised to see you quote scriptures. Satan quoted scriptures too, and twisted them.

            Just asking KG?????

          • Jana

            Not meaning to imply you are Satan in any way KG. Just saying if you don’t serve the One True God you are serving the one false god and his name is satan.

          • GALT

            How is it that you are compelled to worship a “screw up”?

            1.) Created the angels. ( screwed it up. )
            2.) Created Adam. ( screwed it up. )
            3.) Created Eve. ( screwed it up. )

            Hasn’t got one thing RIGHT yet…..

          • Peter Nyikos

            Typical determinist — blaming free actions of some angels (not all) and two humans on God.

            While I have you on the line: do you stand with Obama and KG where infanticide is concerned? Here is a hard-hitting article from _The Atlantic_ with a picture of a dead baby to help you make up your mind:

            http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

          • GALT

            1.) How were the angels free? What were they FREE to do?
            2.) How were the humans free? What were they free to do?

            3.) I haven’t killed any babies, have you?

          • Peter Nyikos

            In reply to 1) and 2): do you have a clue as to what “determinist” means? If you do, then all you need to know is that I am not one, and I use the word “free” in that sense.

            In reply to 3), I see you do not want to answer my question, so I won’t bother you with it any more.

          • GALT

            I don’t care how you mean what….I do not see
            an answer to the questions asked……

            So I guess I shall have to repeat them….

            1.) How were the angels free? What were they FREE to do?
            2.) How were the humans free? What were they free to do?

          • Peter Nyikos

            The “how” is answered by saying how I used the word “free”. The only reason you might not see that is that you don’t know what the determinism vs free will issue is all about.

            But there is no reason to expect the average person to even know what determinism or free will is in this post-Christian era, so I will try to explain.

            According to free will theory, people are free to do whatever they are capable of doing. [And according to Christian theology, the same is true of angels.] You are free to murder anyone in the sense that it is your decision and no one else’s. Sure, someone might have a gun leveled at your head and threaten to kill you unless you commit the murder; but you are still freely deciding whether to risk getting your brains blown out or to commit the murder.

            According to scripture, Adam and Eve and the angels weren’t under that kind of duress, so their decision was close to being free in the more ordinary, everyday sense of the word.

          • GALT

            I don’t care how you mean what….I do not see
            an answer to the questions asked……

            So I guess I shall have to repeat them….

            1.) How were the angels free? What were they FREE to do?
            2.) How were the humans free? What were they free to do?

          • GALT

            C’mon you get to play god, you have created an angel….

            You are god, I am your angel…..what am I free to do?

          • GALT

            You know for GOD, you really are SLOW……

          • Peter Nyikos

            You don’t get to dictate what games we play, troll. Nor do you get to dictate the timetable of my replies to you.

            But thanks for showing people how stupid YOU are.

          • GALT

            Of course I do….I have been….I will continue,
            because I am not the one that CAN’T answer the questions.

            So I guess I shall have to repeat them….

            1.) How were the angels free? What were they FREE to do?
            2.) How were the humans free? What were they free to do?

          • GALT

            BTW…all that murder stuff is stupid human thoughts……..
            if you believe in GOD what difference would a gun to your head make…….what difference do unborn babies make?

            Is god going to punish the unborn baby?

            Show me how stupid you are…….

          • GALT

            YO GOD….what’s up pal…….I’m bored……

          • GALT

            BTW “close to being free” is not “free”.

            Neither the angels nor Adam and Eve existed in conditions
            that were either everyday or ordinary…..in the sense of those
            words. ( nor was there any doubt……for them that God existed.)

            So you have explained nothing….nor can you, because they
            were NOT FREE.

            free′ will′
            n.

            1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision.

            2. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

            BTW determinism has no application ( as noted above )
            and since you are not “one”…..it is doubly irrelevant.

          • GALT

            Hey Pete, let’s play……

            You be GOD….and I’ll be one of your newly created angels,….

            I’ll go first…..

            Huh????/What is this? Where am I? What am I doing?

            ( your turn )

          • GALT

            BTW this doesn’t end well…….but come on, show me how REALLY STUPID YOU ARE!!!!!!

          • Peter Nyikos

            By the way, just so you don’t make the obvious retort, the answer to your question is No, and as far as I know, neither have KG nor Obama. But KG thinks pictures of murdered infants are over the top, while Obama fought tooth and nail, successfully, against Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Acts. Fortunately, Pennsylvania takes the issue of infanticide seriously.

          • GALT

            Really? You think you KNOW what anything obvious is….?

            Let’s see. Since YOU are against killing babies, you support welfare for single pregnant women?

          • Peter Nyikos

            Sorry, since you ducked my question, I am free [in a more ordinary sense than the one I explain below] to duck yours. I will point out, though, that I am not in favor of outlawing abortion until the developing human reaches the fetus stage–the stage where the Medline encyclopedia, a service of NIH, takes to calling it a baby. This is the law in Portugal, elective abortion until the end of the 10th week LMP, with severe restrictions later in the pregnancy, and it seem to be working out well.

            What about you? Do you believe in the right to abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, for any reason or no reason? If so, how can you, an atheist, bear the thought of an unborn baby being robbed of its only chance to experience life the way we have experienced it?

            Will you duck these questions too?

          • GALT

            So then you believe a baby is capable of surviving on its own at the end of ten weeks?

            So YOU would be willing to pay the mother to remove the baby?

            But you are right in one sense, life is sacred to an atheist,
            at the same time…..if an atheist can not provide an option,
            by what right could they intervene?

          • GALT

            I haven’t ducked a single question, and you have yet to answer one………………..

        • KG

          I know you have probably read some verses out of that “bible” of yours. So, tell me, what proof you have that YOU are not “by Cain’s progeny”? Are you a Caucasian? What about Noah? If you believe the “bible”, then you must believe we are all decedents of Noah and his family? Was Noah “Cain’s progeny”?

          The Eden myth is an allegorical tale written by sheepherders in tents out in the desert. I think you missed the point. Our President, Mr. Obama presented it beautifully when running the first time in 2008. He asked a simple question, the same one Cain asked god. “Am I my Brothers keeper?” Or, in other words, are we all responsible for each other? And what was the answer she (god) said?

          • Jana

            Cains offspring are called Kenites. You would know that if you knew the Word.
            You are like most Communist wannabe’s, which is a Socialist/Liberal. They leave God out, which is what you are so proudly doing.
            Fine, I really don’t care what YOU do, leave Him out all you want.

            To take a term that you used and turn it around I will call you the UN-Godly left!

            Sure you liberals are going to win, it is written. But it won’t last for long. God does win in the end, whether you like it or not!
            One thing I am assured of is, because I am a child of the Most High God, and I know He isn’t mad at me because I stand for Him and love Him, I have nothing to fear from His wrath when it comes. None of His born again children do.

            So, gloat while you can.

  • KG

    I told you guys that they wouldn’t take your guns. However, the true intentions of everyone in the congress has been outed. We know who are the “whackos” and who are the reasonable. Especially the ones who voted AGAINST strengthing the “straw buys”. Like the one that killed that prison warden in Colorado. Thank GOD I can still illegaly purchase a gun to kill law enforcement officers.

    • bruceb64

      Your Comment makes NO Sense! Especially the “last” sentence.

      • Jimmy G

        He’s a troll, ignore KG

    • jdn

      KG at least you have the ability to move to New York , Illinois , California or DC where the laws are to your liking .

    • rendarsmith

      Why don’t you petition to ban pressure cookers? Pressure cookers are dangerous! Didn’t you see the damage they did in Boston? Don’t you care? Think of the children! The children are in danger from all those pressure cookers!

    • Gnowark

      How about a trade (KG)? I want OUT of this sick state! (NY resident).
      The laws here are NOT made with common sense, nor the founders desires, not reasonable, but I merely repeat what’s said by those who don’t
      want government control, cradle to grave WITHOUT possibility of
      resistance (the socialist way). I must stay and fight as best I can, while I can. At least we agree the true intentions are outed(sic). AND you AGREE that Laws don’t stop illegal actions like murder, they just provide penalties, posthumously. Not a very efficient method. You pointed out the background check can only stop those who try to obey laws, iIllegal purchases are not effected by bkg. chks. More “reasonable” laws? What is reasonable about ineffectual?

    • FreedomFighter

      KG your a communist, your idol is a K. Marx a drunken dirt bag that abandoned his children and copied the illuminati manifesto of the Satanist and called it his own work – a fake, a drunk, a dirt bag and didn’t even have an original idea – just a stooge used by Satanists.

      Try to rise above this false religion of yours and embrace the truth, become a man standing in the light of righteousness and truth.

      Don’t model your life after a drunken fool used as tool for evil.

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI

    • WTS/JAY

      KG: Thank GOD I can still illegaly purchase a gun to kill law enforcement officers.

      Are you insane?

      • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

        He is.

        • Mike in MI

          Certifiably, according to his own testimony.

          But … that’s the sort Obama needs to pull off his thing.

    • Jana

      Uhhh, Where is GUN NUT Dave???? Here is an example of a psycho and a moron!!!

  • hungry4food

    GUN Rights are not going anywhere now that the International Terrorist Cell Threat exists in the USA !!!!!

    • Nomad

      You are absolutely correct. This new false flag situation has put in concrete the need for the people to be armed. If it was a true attack, Americans need to be armed. There were 100’s of police, dogs, check points, FBI agents,seal team members at the Boston event and this still happened!! Citizens needed to protect themselves!!! Giving up your guns especially the so called “assault rifles” would be suicide at this time. BHO is smart, he new a vote would be lost so be can start civil unrest when he pushes an EO through. That will be him lighting the fuse of the social economic collapse he is trying to achieve. This is all happening methodically as planned by both parties.

      • rocketride

        That goober over at Salon must have been creaming his drawers when he saw the pictures released last evening. And about ready to slit his wrists this morning when the white guys (who with any luck would have been Tea Partiers) turned out to be Chechnyan Islamic terrorists.

        • Bob666

          “You do know that I am a member of the NRA and my position on the right to bear arms is well known,” Reagan said, speaking out in support of the 1994 Brady bill to create new background checks and a waiting period for gun buyers. “But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay.”

          • JeffH

            President Ronald Reagan will forever be remembered fondly by Second Amendment supporters, many of who are among the American conservatives who consider Reagan a poster child of modern conservatism.

            But words and actions of Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, left behind a mixed record on gun rights.

            Reagan wrote in a 1975 issue of Guns & Ammo magazine, “who say that gun control is an idea whose time has come.” The Gun Control Act of 1968 was still a relatively fresh issue, and U.S. Attorney General Edward H. Levi had proposed outlawing guns in areas with high crime rates.

            In his Guns & Ammo column, Reagan left little doubt about his stance on the Second Amendment, writing: “In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea.”

            His presidential administration did not bring about any new gun control laws of significance. However, in his post-presidency, Reagan cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban.

            The lone piece of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law by Reagan on May 19, 1986, the legislation amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by repealing parts of the original act that were deemed by studies to be unconstitutional.

            A more lasting impact of Reagan’s policy on guns was the nomination of several Supreme Court justices. Of the four justices nominated by Reagan — Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy — the latter two were still on the bench for a pair of important Supreme Court rulings on gun rights in the 2000s: District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. Both sided with a narrow, 4-3 majority in striking down gun bans in Washington D.C. and Chicago while ruling that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and the states.

          • Bob666

            If Regan were alive and in office today, you would be referring to him as a RINO.

          • JeffH

            And you know this how ?
            Oh, and he’d be far superior to that hybred commie Marxist illegal POTUS running the show now.

            America Just Prior to the Reagan Administration
            1. Seven million Americans were unemployed.

            2. We were told to live on less, to buckle our belts and to prepare for scarcity.

            3. Americans went through two of the worst years of inflation in 60 years. There was a 13% inflation rate. Family income dropped and we had the highest tax bill in our history.

            4. We were on the verge of a major recession.

            5. With our cold wars during the ’70s, we inspired our enemies not to be afraid of us. The Soviets refused to come to the bargaining table. Cultural exchanges between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. came to a halt.

            6. Disarmament was considered a noble goal. We did not know where to draw the line in our negotiations with the Soviets. Three countries fell to communism under the Carter administration: Benin (1977), Nicaragua (1979), and Zimbabwe (1980).

            7. Guns and tanks that did not even work were being sent to battle.

            8. Young Americans were not allowed to pray in school … even though Congress, every state house, and the Supreme Court begins business with prayer.

            9. Progressive values became fashionable. Social policies emulated the values of a small, vocal minority.

            10. Education did not sustain moral values. Educational curricula began to promote “alternative lifesyles,” such as homosexuality.

            11. America wore a “kick me” sign on its back. We lost our edge in technology and in global markets due to excessive government regulation, and high taxes which devoured capital.
            ___________________________________________
            Reagan’s greatest accomplishments

            1. President Reagan’s economic policies stimulated the economy, creating 17 million new jobs. One-fourth of the new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half.

            2. We were given incentives to save our money, to work, and to invest because of Reagan’s tax reforms.

            3. The inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4%. Family income rose 12%.

            4. We are now experiencing the longest and strongest peacetime prosperity in the history of the nation.

            5. We are experiencing the best peacetime relationship with the Soviet Union in our history. We have also seen the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

            6. We are now keeping the peace. We drew the line in Grenada, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, and no countries have fallen to communism during the Reagan era.

            7. The U.S. military was refurbished and strengthened.

            8. There is now a call for prayer in schools. The Republican adminstration has been lobbying to give this deserved religious freedom.

            9. We have seen a return to traditional values. Under Reagan, we have seen a cut in federal funding of abortions; emphasis on a strong family unit; and the development of family-oriented public policy.

            10. Educational leaders are now working to sustain moral values and reestablish a clear understanding of right and wrong. The need for values in the curriculum has been trumpeted by the Reagan administration.

            11. People from other nations are flocking to America to follow our example. Our principles of civil and economic freedom are now being copied all over the world.

          • Bob666

            Wow Jeffery,
            Since I hosted a couple of jelly bean partie at my house back when I belonged to the republican party to raise money for his election, I guess all of those little details you listed would be new to me-Not.
            Bottom line, if Regan were alive and in office today-you would refer to him as a RINO, not because he would be any different, it’s because the handlers of the GOP have lost their way and moved away from Regan’s common sense and leadership.
            If I am wrong, care to esplain the last two elections and don’t bring up the fraud fantasy.

          • JeffH

            And you know this for a fact? LMAO @ you progressive morons that think you’ve got it all figured out…if only pigs could fly too!

          • Bob666

            Oh Jeffery,

            To Quote Ronald Regan, “There you go again”.

            Should I expect to have an objective dialog with a guy who gets his information on public opinion regarding gun checks from a site called Ammoland and calls the currant president a “hybred commie Marxist”?

            I’m probably wasting my time on this statement, but the world is not black and white Jeffery, it is many shades of grey. Just because a person has a different opinion than you do does not make them a student of Alinsky or a socialist or any less an American.
            If you ran an Ice Cream store, would you only sell one flavor called pasty face vanilla?

          • JeffH

            Sorry to dissappoint 666 but I do see the full spectrum of colors unlike many of those I disagree with including you. If only you were half as adept as you’d like to think you are you’d see more than black/white & grey yourself.

            Yes, you’ve been wasting your time. You are what you are and you can’t change that…you can lay out any childish scenario you’d like, give your obviously ineffective opinions and try to mimic your favorite comedian with ridicule but this homey don’t play your game or play under your rules. Unlike you I also prefer to deal in reality.

            Posters like you are a dime a dozen…you come and you go after you’ve dirtied the sandbox.

            I’se call ‘em like I’se sees ‘um!

          • JeffH

            One more thing…you mentioned “objective dialog”…try practicing what you’re trying to preach there…your childish dialog falls quite short of anything objective let alone anything close to mature.

          • Bob666

            Yo Jeffy,
            Good for you! I really don’t interact with you much Jeffy since you carry the “I’m always Right” mentality. The sad fact is; you are they guy who sees the Obama Buggy man behind every tree wanting to grab your gun.

            Guys like you live for the upcoming revolution calling people who don’t agree with you names along with the special nick names for the president.

            Personally, I find you to be more amusing and not much of a threat to anyone. Enjoy your vanilla ice cream.

          • JeffH

            Yo ho ho and a bottle of 666 snake oil…the only one seeing boogey men are the likes of you and your progressive cohorts.

            You say ” I find you to be more amusing and not much of a threat to anyone.” Well I see you do actually see me as a threat or you wouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place…you must be a conspiracist?

            If you can’t handle the heat, get outa da kitchen!

            Like Half Wit Thinker, Dave and a few other mindless minions around here you’re limited to using only half of what brain you may have.

            FYI, I don’t find you amusing at all but I do find you to be a hypocrit and clueless about the real world around you…”Rainbows & Unicorns”?

          • Bob666

            Jeffery,

            Get some help, it’s a big sand box and big boys learn to share it.

          • JeffH

            “Get some help”? WOW! BRILLIANT!
            Obvious that desperation has set in.

          • Bob666

            Jeffery.
            No desperation what so ever on my part,
            but Vicki does not approve of your ad hominem attacks!
            STOP IT
            STOP IT NOW

          • Mike in MI

            JeffH –
            We just need to realize that the conversation between the two above is pretty close to a one-wit discussion … the sum of two about half-wits is close to a full-wit.
            Sort of like a half-tone reproduction in printing. At reading distance it looks grey. Yet on closer inspection and magnified resolution one clearly sees there is strict separation of black and white. That’s what makes it (them so) deceptive.
            If there were a good vs. bad examination for best choice of only the the black points and only the white points (black being error – white being facts and truth) few would reject the white, while only the insane would choose the black.
            What little light they have in their souls is what keeps them alive. If they were pure darkness it would kill them. But, the darkness is what draws them to each other in their little huddles as above.

          • JeffH

            Mike in Mi, boy haven’t we been subjected to the vitriolic diatribes of the Dave’s and the 666’s for years now…enough to draw fair conclusions and understand the total lack of coherant thought that is the basis for their very existance in life.

            “None so empty as those who are full of themselves.”
            – Benjamin Whichcote

          • Bob666

            Yo Homie

            “we been subjected to the vitriol diatribes of the Dave’s and the 666’s for years now”

            Now that is Funny homey since I never posted on a blog in my life until seven months ago here on PLD before I retired at the end of last year. I got on his site (PLD) the night of the election and other than reading Livingston for a few years.

            ” Unlike you I also prefer to deal in reality”. Like gun statistics for “Ammoland”?

            “I’se call ‘em like I’se sees ‘um!”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhuBIkPXn0

            Could I suggest an eye appointment and by the way, your pig is about to take off!

            Laughing my A$$ of right now!!!!!

          • JeffH

            Duh 666…here’s what I said and you can twist it all you like…””we been subjected to the vitriol diatribes of the Dave’s and the 666’s for years now”

            Reread what I posted…In real life thinking, “the Dave’s and the 666’s” means posters just like “you and Dave” have been coming here for years and there ain’t nothing you can say that we haven’t heard…but I do realize it’s above your comprehension abilities.
            Making mockery of my references isn’t anywhere close to refuting their accuracy…so have at it half brain and enjoy your laugh because it doesn’t alter the actual facts in any way, shape or form..
            Now it’s my turn to ROFLMAO!

          • Bob666

            Dam CAB,

            now that was a statement, I almost feel bad.

          • Mike in MI

            I understand. Totally insensate. part of the genetic neurological derangement. You could change. Your choice; but your perception of the world is governed by your will and training.

            Training can’t change; but your heart’s cognition and accommodation to it (in the presence of new information) can… if you WANT to be right/acceptable/lovely in God’s sight.

            If not ……..?

          • Mike in MI

            Sorry. “your perception of the world is governed by your SENSES, will and training”. It’s the senses/perception part that is genetically disordered. But you have received teaching in a form you can acknowledge. I’ll attest to that when God’s Judgement.appertains. Nought you can do about it now.

          • Dave

            Bob,
            Don’t expect to get any serious replies from Jeffrey… He gets his marching orders from Bob L and the rest of the mises.org claptraps…Jeffery will point to the right against “inconvience” in the US Consititution right from the same place he gets his economic theory… straight from his rectal region.
            Notice none of the “gun nuts” will go down the list line by line of Obama’s proposals and have a dialogue about each of their merits…because they can’t… all they have is bumberstickers and BS phrases like “gun grab” because they are incapable of having and intelligent conversation about violence and gun safety… Their lord and master LaPierre will not allow it.

          • Bob666

            Yo Dave,

            I deal with Jeffery and people just like him every day. Give them documented facts that don’t meet their Agenda and you’re a “progressive student of Alinsky” & a “Commie Marxist”, a “Paid Shill” and a “Gun Grabber”.
            There will be a multitude of right wing websites cited and the repository of intellectual excellence called You-Tube and Wikipedia.
            However, They do provide hours of amusement.

          • JeffH

            But…but you ignore the facts altogether…unless it fits your ideology…long on words – short on substance…LMAO again!
            You ridicule the source but you can’t refute the substance…real bright guy you be – NOT!

          • Jana

            Exactly!

          • Jana

            But you didn’t give any documented facts. You just stated your opinion and that does not meet the requirement of documentation.

          • JeffH

            WOW! Now that was a real intelligent post!

          • Mike in MI

            Dave –

            What is there to dialogue about on the “merits” of Obama’s proposals when the “merits” are debits? The truth of this is shown in that even the Senate, with their majority, couldn’t pass the defective and stupid bill. Your depth of inherent mental defect is manifesting publicly.

          • Jana

            Liberals are the GUN NUTS who are afraid of guns and are incapable of having any intelligent conversation about violence and gun safety.

          • JeffH

            Jana, ain’t it the truth. Both of these two hacks are afraid of their own shadow…and we’re crazy for using rational thoughts and not making comments and decisions based soley on our emotional instability…in snake 666’s case,it’s nice to know he doesn’t see me as a threat…yeah, he said it…whatta brain!

          • JeffH

            Ronald Reagan’s legislative record on gun laws is mixed at best.

            Also remember that Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease in 1994…In 1994 Ronald Reagan was, arguably, no longer himself.
            ___________________________________
            “The second amendment gives the individual citizen a means of protection against the despotism of the state. Look what it refers to: “The security of a free state.” The word “free” should be underlined because that is what they are talking about and that is what the Constitution is about–a free nation and a free people, where the rights of the individual are preeminent. The founding fathers had seen, as the Declaration of Independence tells us, what a despotic government can do to its own people. Indeed, every American should read the Declaration of Independence before he reads the Constitution, and he will see that the Constitution aims at preventing a recurrence of the way George III’s government treated the colonies.”– President Ronald Reagan

            “You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing is worth dying for, when did this begin…? …Should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots of Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world?” – Ronald Reagan

  • bee

    the gay black traitor in the white house did not get his way so now he is acting like a spoiled brat. obama you are all done ruining this country and our freedoms.
    MOLON LABE

  • Warrior

    Something tells me that if the “busy people” would get their “boots” off of America’s “collective” throat, there may be a whole lot less “angst” amongst the populous.

  • Red55bird

    The Communist lost a battle but not the war, a great victory for the American citizen, but we must not let up, or we face defeat of our 2nd Admendment. Obama cannot control the people if we have our guns, and he knows this. Every country that has disarm their people that country leader became a Dictator and millions died at the hands of these men. Will we repeat History or stand our ground on this all out attack on our 2nd Admendment of our Constitution.

    • NObama_Holder_Reid_Pelosi_2012

      He is already showing signs of his intentions by slowly desensitizing the public with his drones attacks on American citizens along with the collateral damage that goes with it. He and Holder make subtle hints on the aspect. Why do you people (liberal obots) think he took the patriot act and added to it forming the NDAA and changed the wording from what Bush’s Patriot act stated as conditions for all foreign citizens and Obama added not just foreign but also domestic citizens rights to trial and jury. I might also note that the Patriot Act that all you libturds claim is so devastating (and I agree it is) signed by Bush was reaffirmed by Obama and added additions by way of the NDAA. So if Bush’s ideas were so bad and devasting in the eyes of your libtards, why is and has your Daddy / messiah been reaffirming Bush’s tax cuts, and Patriot act and everything that comes with it instead of getting rid of it.

      • Mike in MI

        Rob –

        You want to know why the “liberal obots” who come here to dissent against EVERYTHING so vilified Bush for some of the things he did? Yet, when Oblamer continues those same policies, makes additions and ratchets up the amendments, extensions and penalties thereof they’re obliviomamas to his incursions into our (and their) associations, liberties and communicative pursuits?

        He signs their pay checks.

        See, if the obots were truly just normal people with real person thoughts and concerns and life objectives they’d have to – once in a while – agree with some of the regular conservative reader/commenters who appreciate many of the PLD writers’ views.

        But, obots don’t! They come here using parsed words and phrases, devilish logic (not just bad logic, but the kind of verbal trickery and tactics the old Hebrew priests, Pharisees ((John 8:44)) and the Devil himself used against Jesus Christ), regurgitated propaganda and talking-point promptings, novel liberal word definitions, etc., etc.

        It’s really worthless to respond to them. The Obamster will one day take them off. Then he will throw ‘em away like a pair of his dirty, smelly socks like Michelle complained about once. Then he’ll do to them what he’d do (if he felt safe trying) with all his enemies and others he has no more use for. As far as “if he felt safe trying”, some day he will try – like every other megalomaniac who ever lied his way into control of an army…he’ll try.

        • JeffH

          Hear Hear! Two thumbs up!

          • Mike in MI

            Thanks, JeffH, I have had great admiration for you too for a long time. It’s appreciated..

  • Karolyn

    “(One violated Senate protocol, and demonstrated very bad manners, by shouting “Shame on you!” after the vote.)” Oh, my! How terrible!

  • cynthia

    One of the better deterrent is stiff penalties when crimes are committed with guns. Why is there no focus on this? This puts the punishment “with” those who use guns for violence.

    • rocketride

      What you suggest has already been in place for years, on the federal, state and local levels. Given that it doesn’t seem to helped much, I’d have to disagree about it being one of the better deterrents, unless what you mean by that “better” is merely that the other deterrents really suck

      • Jana

        The reason its not much of a deterrent is they are not upheld. The laws are no better than the courts who let the criminals go.

    • vicki

      Why does the tool used make a difference? A murdered person is just as dead. This leads people to start blaming the gun for violence instead of people.

      And what you suggest has been used for MANY years (as rocketride mentioned)

    • JeffH

      Here are some of the Federal gun crime laws the Feds fail to enforce…especially in Chicago, Obama’s home town. Chicago ranks last @ #90 out of 90 US Attorney Districts for Federal Law prosecutions.
      In 2011 Chicago had thousands of violent crimes involving armed criminals and ~506 murders involving firearms…yet pathetically they only prosecuted a total of 63 federal gun-laws.

      Here are some of the prison terms that don’t get enforced by the AG.
      10 years – possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive or drug user

      10 years – possession of a stolen firearm

      10 years – shipping or transporting a stolen firearm across state lines

      10 years – shipping or transporting or reciet of a stolen firearm across state lines with the intent to commit a felony
      5 – 30 years – carrying, using or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking
      Life or the death penalty – committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking
      15 year mandatory minimum – for a “prohibited person” who has 3 prior convictions for drug offenses violent felonies
      10 years – for interstate travel to aquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes

  • http://www.yahoo.com/ wyatt48

    Looks like it will take a little more time for Obama and his minons to turn the U,S. into a third world muslim country. Thank god there are still a few people with some common sense out there to help with this fight. Obama will come back with some other plot to get what he wants. It is correct that this is far from over. We will have to make our voices and intentions heard again soon.

  • vietnamvet1971

    It was a Good Day when O”Dictator and his Liberal Evil party Lost /Failed to get his way. He is so Evil nothing will STOP his Evil agenda. But for ONE day we Won.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Hmmm. Seems that IF President Obama was a dictator we would already be under the background checks and limited magazine sizes that he proposes. Do you understand what the term dictator means?

      • chocopot

        As long as 80-90 million Americans still own firearms, Bozo will have to tread lightly. But make no mistake, he is not done with us.

        • Doc Sarvis

          President Obama is the leader of the American people, gun owners and non-gun owners. He is obviously NOT a dictator as vietnamvet1971 labeled him.

          • chocopot

            He is a fraud and a liar who has yet to provide a single document proving he is even eligible for the position he occupies. And before you get your ire up, his own words prove he is, in fact, ineligible: his father was a British citizen/subject and his mother was underage (17) when he was born. Thus, regardless of where he was born, geographically, he is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as President. Why he has been permitted to occupy the position of President in clear violation of the rules set down in the Constitution is what I have been asking for 4+ years.

          • Doc Sarvis

            A lot of people (good people) have asked those same questions, saw the evidence, took off their tin foil hat, and agreed that President Obama is the legal and twice elected President of the United States of America.

          • Capitalist at Birth

            Stupid people, in my humble opinion. That does not make them correct, either.

          • Doc Sarvis

            The 14th Amendments states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Since Hawaii is part of the U.S., even if President Obama’s parents were both non-U.S. citizens who had not even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he would still qualify as a natural born citizen.

            I stand on top of rocks in plain view for I have nothing to hide from. I am not fearful as so many on this site seem to be. and I get no form of payment from any government or political party – just to set you straight yet again.

          • chocopot

            Wrong. He is NOT a natural-born citizen. Your citation regards citizenship – that has nothing to do with the defintion of natural-born citizen.

          • vageorge

            Read the rest of the amendment and used all the words.

          • JeffH

            Hey Doc. you are wrong again… a 14th Amendment citizen cannot be a “natural born citizen”…

            Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

            From the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

            When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children and Obama Jr., though born in Hawaii, held “dual citizenship” and therefore never could be considered a “natural born citizen”.

          • Frank Kahn

            You are wrong, nobody, and I mean nobody with authority, has ever tried to claim that someone born to two alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. And a naturalized citizen is never natural born or they would not have to be naturalized.

          • SavaDude

            Funny – Even the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which it is being presented that the president used a false social security card and insodoing has committed tax fraud.

          • Doc Sarvis

            HOAX!

          • vietnamvet1971

            U -JOKE!

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            He IS.

          • vageorge

            I do believe you are !…a HOAX or just uneducated at best

          • Jana

            Actually Doc,
            I surmise that it is the people with tinfoil hats shaped in a cone style that actually voted for Obama. Only in school they call them dunce caps!

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Doc Sarvis, So anyone who disagrees with you, you deem a a “bad people”.

          • Bob666

            Yo Nads,
            Surprised to see you make a comment like that since it fits you to a “T”!

          • vageorge

            If you aren’t lying tell me why there is not a single bit of evidence that obama is legitimate. Well he has pretty well admitted that he is a bastard, but if he wasn’t lying about his history why is he hiding it? Usually when someone goes to so much trouble to hide information they are afraid of the truth. I doubt seriously that the last election was any more than a fraud. Paid for by the Muslim Brotherhood…. They were given 200 Abrams tanks and 16 F-16 warplanes in return

          • freebirds

            Yea. Your right. When you bus in every African american and offer them free food at the voting booth and the bus has Obama stickers on it. Hmm. You get what u get. Welfare is the worst ever. And he just keeps on giving more, and the Democrats advertise to get on it via bill boards.
            Let’s try to sink this nation and disarm it.
            Your unintelligent question would be much answered like this. “Kids were having a vote today here in our school. Do you want Mr. Jones for principal or Mr. smith. Oh.. Mr. Jones will be handing out free suckers before school starts every day. Now cast your votes and Mr. Jones secretary will collect them and let you know who wins”

          • Jackson7268

            Semantics Doc. Look up the word. The fact that he is even proposing such ridiculous measures speaks volumes.

          • rocketride

            He’s not a dictator, yet.. He’s still working on it, though. He’s still got time.

          • vietnamvet1971

            He is your Fearless Leader, But he is a LIAR.

          • Patriotic Viet Vet

            Leader? If he was a leader he would uphold the oath of office,not trample on our rights,not throw a temper tantrum like a child because he did not get his way,using a lunatic’s murder at a gun free zone to forward his agenda,he is a disgusting liar and non patriotic non American, period. He is against all that America has stood for, and now he sees the heart of the true Americans who understand freedom comes at a cost. Give me liberty or give me death. You should know my answer.
            Molon labe!!

          • eyeswideopennow

            So, it is ok that our military personnel must pass a background check prior to being issued a gun, but it is ok for any idiot can buy a gun? What a slap in the face to them. I would think as a vet, you would know that if the government wants to take you out, your machine guns won’t do squat against a drone. What kind of idiots think they could beat this military? After all we are the best in the world, so if they want you, your ass is theirs. Get in the real world dude!

          • vicki

            eyeswideopennow writes:

            So,
            it is ok that our military personnel must pass a background check prior to being issued a gun, but it is ok for any idiot can buy a gun? What a slap in the face to them.

            You failed to provide any evidence that military personnel must pass a background check prior to being issued a gun. And since they are (usually) Americans, of course they can buy a gun with their own money so no slap at all. What is a slap in the face is AFTER they are honorably discharged they get their right to keep their guns taken away.
            http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/senators-va-has-denied-gun-rights-to-more-than-100000-veterans/

            eyeswideopennow:

            I would think as a vet, you would know that
            if the government wants to take you out, your machine guns won’t do squat against a drone. What kind of idiots think they could beat this military?

            Which is exactly why the founders put no limits on “arms” in the 2nd Amendment. Like you, they clearly recognized the danger of having a standing army and went to great lengths to make the whole of the people our army.

            eyeswideopennow:

            After all we are the best in the world, so if they want you,
            your ass is theirs. Get in the real world dude!

            Which is why I pray that those fine people in the military really intend to honor their oath to protect the Constitution.

          • JeffH

            Remember that the pressure cooker did it .

            ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

            ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

            Join the NRA, the GOA and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • vicki

            :)

          • KG

            299,999,999 Americans have a brain. Sorry dude.

          • Jana

            You are sorry they have a brain and can think and not shoot anyone??

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            Unlawful search and the forceful disarming of the Vets in CT.
            Red Alert: “POLICE Disarming Navy Veterans BY FORCE”
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjxu4I2jxXg

            Please PASS IT ON.

          • Jana

            This was so sad and really bad!

          • Patriotic Viet Vet

            I am in the real world dude. I did not say i could take them out either. I already have to pass a background check when i buy a gun,on internet or at a gun show,which i have done,and surpassed that with a chl background check. You need to get in the real world and see what is going on. You think i am the only one that feels this way, then there are a lot others that ‘are not in the real world’ as you say. You are telling LEO’S,sheriffs, rangers,vets,chl holders,etc, they are not in the real world.
            I think you need to open your eyes a little more.

          • freebirds

            The military swears to oath to uphold the constitution. They won’t use drones on us. But Obummers DHS Might or his U.N. might. But he will have to get rid of the military 1st. Or the Democrats will have to get rid of the military. Then DHS Will move in or the U.N. will.

          • Bill

            Obama is not a leader of the American people. He is a racist that uses class envy to turn us against each other. With him, it is all about your money and power. He is a very dangerous man and will cause this country more harm than good

          • Jana

            Lets see, he likes to lead from behind. Where I come from that is called a follower. He doesn’t know how to lead. He doesn’t know how to be a President. All he knows how to do is campaign, make campaign promises which are never meant to be fulfilled so they are lies, he is good at raising money, and he is GREAT at playing games, spending money and vacationing. Wow we are so proud of him. YUCK!

          • POR-Poor Old Ray

            A president that rules by executive orders is a dictator. This one can’t stand the limiting powers of the Constitution. He is obsessed with his and his masters socialist and Godless agenda.

          • freebirds

            He is a sorry excuse for a leader. He isn’t my leader. But you can have him and his narcissistic ways

      • vietnamvet1971

        No, Please Enlighten us poor uneducated peons about the DA liberals like you running around telling us what to say, what to think, DUH like I said it was a GREAT Day when he Lost. Now go play in the Huffington Post cesspool. I know the difference I have no use for your president.

    • Dave

      What is it with conservatives not knowing the definitions of big words they throw around? Its comical and sad at the same time.

      • vietnamvet1971

        Liberal Balderdash=

        senseless, stupid, or exaggerated talk or writing; nonsense.
        stupid or illogical talk; senseless rubbish. Just listen to your Boy president mumble & jumble, stutter,Uh, oh when he tries to talk.

        • Dave

          President of your debate class I see… Well done. Question: Does Breitbart tell you which shoe to put on first?

      • The Snarf

        Try looking up the real definitions. We’re not going by the Proglodyte revisionism.

        • Dave

          Why do you enighten me genius?
          Find me your versions of a dictionary and find the definitions of:
          Dictator
          Socialism
          Communism
          Marxism
          We can compare notes.

          • Jana

            Dave you have been on this blog how long? and have yet to be enlightened so really, there is no hope for you to ever be enlightened. You know the old saying you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.
            You can talk to a liberal and teach a liberal but it seldom does any good, they have eyes that refuse to see and ears that are closed to truth and common sense.

          • Dave

            Liberals ended slavery…. conservatives wanted to keep slavery
            Liberals fought for women’s rights… conservatives fought to keep women out of the voting both
            Liberals pushed for racisl equality… conservatives fought for the Jim crow laws and the old white boys network.
            Please Jana, you and the other conservatives educate me what good social conservatives have done for this country… I would love to hear it… And please do not use the lie about how the GOP was so great for civil rights because that was before the “Dixiecrats” switched parties to the GOP in the 1960’s and 1970’s… We are talking about political ideology, not party… they are two very different things. Can you muster enough brain power to think about that?
            For someone to be truly educated, you have to have a certain amount of liberalism because the textbook definition of liberalism is to be accepting of new information and new facts as they come to light. Conservatism in America if born from religion and thouse religious manipulators that use religion for their own political gain. Just like the KKK did when you used the bible to justify their racism.
            You and your other conservative friends are simply lost in the deep haze of a morally bankrupt ideology. Sorry.

          • Jana

            It was women who pushed through women’s rights!!!

            Yes, Liberals did a lot for this country, but its too bad that the LIBERALS of today have perverted liberalism. You all have taken liberalism and made it unrecognizable from its original intent, so don’t brag too hard.

            I will reiterate, you can talk to a liberal of today and teach and even show proof but it seldom does any good, they have eyes that refuse to see and ears that are closed to truth and common sense.

          • Dave

            LOL! Yes… Liberal women and men.. Unless you forgot, women could not vote.

            Liberals also put forth SS which drastically reduced the incidence of poverty in the elderly population.
            The funny part of your nonsense is that I have given you multiple examples of the good social liberals have done for this country while you have presented ZERO examples of what conservatives have done. LOL… I wonder why that is? I have a good idea why…
            Why don’t you tell us how the liberals of today have perverted liberalism?

          • Jana

            And I have told you that you don’t represent the good old liberals of yesterday. You Gun Nut Dave represent the perverted liberal of today!

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Dave, the reality is that you are the one who has to look up words that are used by the posters you denigrate otherwise you would not dwell on this. Got yourself all frustrated because you couldn’t find a dictionary.

      • vicki

        What is it with liberals thinking they know the definitions of the big words they read?

        • Dave

          Because I use those words in their proper definition and context… Thats why I don’t pull a “conservative” and call you a fascist because I disagree with you.

          • Jana

            Dave you can use every word in the Dictionary, but it still doesn’t make you right. You will always be left, and you will always be a liberal socialist, and that is always on the wrong side of TRUTH!

          • Dave

            I might have been hurt by that if I wasn’t so sure about the fact you don’t know me or what a liberal or a socialist is. You like many of your conservative bretheren have no clue about what terms “liberal” or “socialist” means but you act like you do because others with the same mental disorder you do use those terms wrongly so you just hop of the bandwagon.

          • Jana

            Oh Poor GUN NUT DAVE, might have been hurt by that. Wow. But, you see, I do know what a progressive liberal of today is. It is a perversion of what a good liberal used to be. Socialism takes God out of society, and you fit both of those bills, liberal perversion and socialism. So sorry if I hurt your feelings. (Not really) Truth hurts.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            Dave, what is the proper definition for ILLEGAL; KRIMINAL; CHRONIC LIAR; Ego-Centric PSYCHOPATH; RACIST; America, Americans, American’s Values and American Military HATER; FORGE Documents; FELON; Mental PERVERSION; Sexual DEPRAVITY; Anti-Christian…

          • Bob666

            Yet,
            when it comes to sanity, Dave runs circles around you.

          • vicki

            Which is why Dave is dizzy?

          • Bob666

            Even when Dave is dizzy, he is far more lucid than Alondra.

          • Dave

            Which is why you only have bumperstickers when it comes to dealing with the violence in our society and why you won’t read Obama’s proposals or lack the ability to comprehend them.

          • vicki

            Argument to ridicule and ad hominem? Is that the best you’ve got?

          • Jana

            Gun Nut Dave actually has no sanity, he is just a normal liberal of today’s standards which has perverted the term liberal.

          • Jana

            Liberal Socialist!!!

          • Dave

            say you were describing the GOP and conservatives. We just need to find out how many of the conservatives are illegal.

          • Jana

            And this is supposed to make sense????

          • JeffH

            Sure you do self professed progressive Dave…words like “common sense”…of which you have no clue about. Why you even believe that “progressive” has some odd link to progress…which isn’t true either and is bass ackwards.

            The progress sought in Progressivism was to be an ongoing process through which society at large would evolve benefit under the guise of “the state,” administered by specialists, scientists, and the expertise of elitst intellectuals. They also agreed that only government so populated with and administered by elitists could be up to the job. Such a government, they argued, has the resources and the expertise could accomplish such an organizational task.

            And this leads us to the rub.

            No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.

            Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.” (President Coolidge – July 5, 1926)

            Progressivism advocates—then and now—a total break from the principles of freedom articulated in our founding documents, particularly the Declaration of Independence. It seeks to either get around or dismantle limitations on government power, the very constitutional limitations established in the Constitution for the protection of individual freedom.

            For this reason, the progressives desire for something old in world history, not something new.

            As such, in the context of individual freedom progressives seek to roll back, not forward, the hands of progress; they seek regression, not progression.

  • laidbackrebel

    There were no guns in the time that Jesus walked the earth as the “Son of Man”. He did advise about self defense however. No doubt there are many communists/socialist/liberal/progressives who will not own a Bible, so go borrow one from a human being, and go read Luke 22:36. This is the way Jesus advised us to be armed. Yes, he preferred non violence, but he did not advise us to be defenseless. AND HE IS STILL RIGHT!!!

    • Doc Sarvis

      Luke 22:36 – Oh brother; there’s a stretch.

      • Jana

        Luke 22:36

        36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
        KJV

        Luke 22:38

        38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he (Jesus) said unto them, It is enough.
        KJV
        It’s what they used at the time Doc. No stretch. Some carried fancy ones and some carried plain ones. Some carried double edged swords, some carried ones with better metal than others, but I don’t think anyone was trying to outlaw the better metal ones or the fancy ones. No matter the type of style, a good swordsman was a good swordsman. A good swordsman could be a deadly swordsman but it doesn’t mean he ever killed anyone.

      • vicki

        Not a stretch at all Doc. It is exactly what Jesus said.

  • Himmicane Ike Survivor TX

    This is good news, but you can bet fedzilla will redouble their efforts to grab the guns. If only they would focus on the real culprit behind the scenes – pharmaceuticals that make people go off their rockers and commit mass shootings. Of course this will never happen since big govt. is in bed with big pharma…..

    • Dave

      Yes, before big pharma there were no instances of mass shootings…right… Its all one big conspiracy and Obama is the head of it all….(feel better?)
      Except…
      There is no “gun grab”… But lovely spin… really.

      • Jana

        Keep repeating it, you might actually start believing it!

  • Jimmy G

    When it comes to making the public safer, including our children?
    Outlaw video games, violent hollywood movies and turn off the TV to spend time with our kids. We have the power to do this in our homes. I took my son and his friends hunting and shooting. Taught them to hunt, shoot and handle firearms, clean and cook game, and never let government register your guns.
    The gun grabbers are not in the majority and it doesn’t matter if they ever are, they can’t have my guns.

    Still free in TX

    • vicki

      Though I disagree with what JimmyG wants to outlaw, everything else in his suggestion list does not violate the Constitution and we don’t have to wait for some bureaucrat somewhere to write a law. As Jimmy says, we can do it right now,

  • Dave

    Yes, a huge victory for the gun manufacturers, criminals and for a people who want our society to live in fear.
    Can’t have background checks for ALL gun sales
    Can’t have better mental health capabilities
    Can’t have better communication between law enforncement to be able to do their jobs better…
    It would inconvenience people…
    So the NRA and their bought and sold congresspeople win. The American people lose…

    • http://www.facebook.com/CapitalistAtBirth Greg Murphy

      LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.

      • Dave

        Compelling retort…. I expect nothing less from conservatives

        • DarlK

          And I expect nothing less from a Marxist like yourself

          • Dave

            And I expect nothing less from a conservative who doesn’t know what they are talking about… redudant… I know.

          • Mike in MI

            Huh? “… redudant”? Take another swig you sot. What verbal sludge from a premier example of human detritus.

    • The Snarf

      Dave,only you hoplophobics live in fear.The majority of us,who actually understand the use and intent of guns,feel much safer for now.

    • SavaDude

      How about a victory for 80-90 million people that aren’t breaking any laws?

      • Dave

        Sure… why have any laws at all? Whats the point if you don’t have 100% adherence to decent behavior? The criminals just break the laws anyways… Thats the silly mentality of the “gun nuts”
        The “gun nuts” are those who check common sense at the door just so they are not inconvenienced.

        • SavaDude

          So you can legislate common sense? Funny. We have 20,000 gun laws on the books and yet gun crime remains about the same. I know! We need another ‘common sense law’ ! That will keep the criminals from killing with guns, and that will eliminate the ‘gun nuts’!
          Dave, you are a genius.

          • Dave

            Not a genius, some laws are common sense, some laws are to move society in a particular direction on the social side. See, I actually read Obama’s proposals…They are not just about “guns”… If you bothered to read them, you would know that too. It takes more than just “laws” to deal with the level of violence in our society. Obama addressed many of those things in his proposals.
            The NRA has spent that last 30 years weakening the laws we have,
            Can you tell me a non-NRA sponsered gun safety measure the NRA supported?

        • DarlK

          You have it wrong, Dave. Marxists, like yourself, are the ones who check common sense at the door so they won’t be inconvienced when they aspire to trample our Constitution.

          • Dave

            Using big words without knowing their meaning again I see. I am a Marxist like you are a Fascist.

          • Jana

            Sounds like Dave is the one who doesn’t know the meaning of words.

            Fascist often capitalized : a
            political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition———-

            This sounds more like Dave than Darl. You know Dave the Gun Nut who is afraid of guns.

        • Jana

          Come on Dave, Use a little common sense. Just a little common sense will help you out. I know that is asking a lot for a liberal!
          When you say silly mentality go look in the mirror!

          • Dave

            Common Sense… that what Obama’s proposals were… And is sorely lacking on the “gun nut” side.

          • Jana

            Actually you are on the “gun nut” side. After all, I am not the one who is AFRAID of guns.

          • Dave

            I’m not afraid of guns… Just afraid of morons and psychos with guns. That’s what most of the proposal put forth dealt with.

          • Jana

            The only morons and psychos are liberals. When liberals and socialists get together look at the mess they leave all over the place. After conservatives leave a meeting place they clean up after themselves.

            Look what happens when liberals meet, arguments and yelling and fights just like at the occupy wall street group. They even had to stand guard over the tent where the women slept because of the rapes that were occurring on the women. They were defecating in the street. Dirty filthy people. Definitely liberal psychos and morons!!!
            Yes, You are the gun nuts! Propagating fear of guns!!!

        • JeffH

          Dave says “The “gun nuts” are those who check common sense at the door just so they are not inconvenienced.”

          Unfortunately you haven’t a clue about anything “common sense” or what it even means.

          As for your latest buzzword…It’s “common sense.”

          All you hear is “common sense” gun laws. If common sense works so well, why did people still make alcohol, get rich and get drunk during Prohibition? Why do people still manufacture drugs, get rich and get high? Why do people get drunk, have accidents and kill people, over and over again? Why do areas, like Chicago, have tougher gun laws than most other places and have higher incidents of gun violence?

          Here’s one for the “common sense” liberals. Common sense tells me that law-abiding citizens obey the laws; law breakers will not and never have. Common sense tells me there are thousands of gun laws on the books now; if the bad guys fear these laws, why do we still have crimes, committed with guns? Common sense tells me that trying the same solutions over and over again and again will have the same results. Good guys, no guns; bad guys, all the guns.

          Yes Dave, like you Sen. Feinstein has been using the “common sense” buzzword for decades…and she is an anti-gun zealot who, when she can’t justify her zealotry with facts, makes them up under the guise of “common sense”. You see, world of you progressives, your brand of “common sense” means just the opposite of the Merriam/Webster version…and we know it!

      • WTS/JAY

        Law-abiding citizens don’t make for good “head-lines”…It is more profitable, it seems, and certainly more self-serving, to concentrate on the “minority” of the “non-law-abiding”. Another words, use the less then 1% of criminals amongst us to generate “fear” and “paranoia” to stimulate the majority to accept and cheer for “draconian” legislation”! A page right out of the military-industrial-complex manual, who makes more profits in one day of war then they do in one year of peace.

    • FreedomFighter

      Every time a smaller attack on liberty is exposed or openly announced by the cult of statism, elitists invariably respond with a false face of rationality and common sense. They claim that they respect the line. They claim that they will take only the minimum. They claim that they are pursuing only a reasonable compromise. They expound on the “virtues” of their motives. They sing songs of unity, brotherhood and the greater good. They appeal to our diplomatic side; and if that doesn’t work, they try to shame us instead for being “selfish” or “ignorant” of so-called “social progress.” But this never has been and never will be about social progress.

      Their goal is not to introduce greater understanding or awareness. It is not about public good or public safety. And at the very core, it is not about truth. If they cared about truth or principle and if their objectives were honorable, they would not feel the need to constantly lie, cheat, steal, manipulate and threaten in an effort to impose their own worldview on the rest of us. If their purpose was as righteous as they pretend, then deceit and subversion should be beneath them. Their philosophy should be able to carry itself, without their convoluted efforts.”

      The Goal Is To Destroy All Constitutional Culture
      http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1450-the-goal-is-to-destroy-all-constitutional-culture

      Hope that helps with decent response dave

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI

    • rocketride

      No, what got defeated was things like:

      Having to get a background check to just lend a firearm to a friend at the range, or for a hunting trip.

      Giving any MD or Psychologist the authority, on his/her sole say-so, to report any patient, for any reason, to a psychiatric registry which would automatically put them into the NICS system as being ineligible to own weapons.

      (The bill was so vaguely worded as to allow a doctor who doesn’t like guns on general principles to report all of his patients to the registry without having to cite reasons that individual patients might be a danger to themselves or others. (Or maybe he’d threaten non- or late-paying patients with it.)

      There was no provision for any kind of hearing to make such a determination (it’s all done on doc’s unsupported say-so). An accused felon gets a trial before his rights are taken away, some guy who was on Prozac for non-suicidal depression 15 years ago wouldn’t. How is that remotely fair?

      Nor was there any provision for an appeals process. Once you’re on the list, there’s no way off. Nor any for punishing doctors who abuse this godlike privilege. I think either of the scenarios I cited would qualify as abuse, I’m guessing that you wouldn’t. (My best guess is that the proponents were hoping that some anti-gun doctors would go to town.)

      Now if they want to come back with legislation whit sufficient safeguards to protect what is, after all, the most basic of all human rights, that legislation would be worthy of consideration. A right so basic that we, at least, respect animals when they exercise it. A right that cannot be rightly taken from a human other than as the result of “due process”– a legal determination that due to that individuals’ past criminal or insane behavior he is too dangerous to (mainly others) to be allowed to run around armed. Frankly, anyone that dangerous should either be incarcerated or institutionalized (as the case may be).

      • Dave

        Rocketride,
        I appreciate what you wrote. Those are worthy considerations. If the legislation that was submitted did not have some of those provisions, then it was right to be voted down after a vigorus debate on it.
        No law is going to be perfect…But I simply want to see gun safety measures that make sense put in place that are vigorously enforced. In order our society to address the level of violence in it, we have to address gun safety, responsibility, accountability, economics, desire for attention/mental health to help get our society to a better place. Laws are only a part of the solution, we as people have to want to change the nature of things in our society.
        Contrary to what some of the “gun nuts” say, I have no problem with guns, I grew up in the NRA’s backyard. I have no issue with hunting, collecting or using guns to protect your home. I am not in agreement with those far left liberals who would like to see all guns gone… They are the minority. But I have also seen what the NRA have been doing… If the NRA came out with reasonable concerns about Obama’s proposals and worked with Obama to fine tune them to address the valid concerns you have. I would have respect for the NRA. But that hasn’t been what they were doing.
        Again, I appreciate what you wrote and I agree those concerns need to be addressed.

    • JeffH

      POLLY WANT ANOTHER CRACKER? baaarrraaaccckkkkk!

    • WTS/JAY

      Sounds like “sour-grapes” to me, Dave.

      • JeffH

        The NRA proposes that we protect our schools the same way we protect our homes, banks and neighborhoods – and lefties go nuts.

        Wayne LaPierre:

        “Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation or anything else; as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work,” LaPierre said. “And by that I mean armed security.”

        He said Congress should immediately appropriate funds to post an armed police officer in every school. Meanwhile, he said the NRA would develop a school emergency response program that would include volunteers from the group’s 4.3 million members to help guard children.

        His armed-officers idea was immediately lambasted by gun control advocates and like any “usefull idiot” Dave continues to carry that torch.

        Gun control advocates are thrilled by school massacres in the same way that climate alarmists were thrilled about Sandy, and the last thing they want to see is an end to them. They couldn’t care less about protecting children – it is all about having excuses to take away other people’s rights…it’s just progressive(regressive) “common sense”.

        • Dave

          NRA’s big proposal to to arm and train teachers. What could go wrong there? Try again. Let me know when you and LaPierre find ANY common sense.

          • JeffH

            As I said before and your desperate Alinsky infused responses continue to confirm…
            “Gun control advocates are thrilled by school massacres in the same way that climate alarmists were thrilled about Sandy, and the last thing they want to see is an end to them. They couldn’t care less about protecting children – it is all about having excuses to take away other people’s rights…it’s just progressive(regressive) “common sense”.

          • Dave

            Pathetic JeffH,
            I have a 7 year old J/A and my mentality comes from something called empathy decency and common sense… Something you lack is great amounts A/H.
            Why while you think you know something about me or “progressives” you really don’t know crap… as usual.

          • JeffH

            I know all I need to know about you Dave…speaking of pathetic.
            The shoe fits, now wear it!

          • Mike in MI

            Nah Dave, those are two of the primary foci of the people who suffer from the depth of inherent, genetic mental derangement that has brought us to the same “One -Worlder” point God recognized as something He regretted setting in order.

            By the way, God didn’t cause the destruction in the time of Noah. The way He set up the Universe and the laws we call “Scientific” it entailed locking things within certain parameters of “good” and “evil”.
            When people do things right they bring blessings on themselves by way of the laws God established. When they do things that are stupid, nonsensical and evil they bring hard times and evil on themselves. So, that’s how the Old Testament assigns everything that happens to God’s action. He doesn’t cause death and destruction or, conversely, blessings and peace by His sovereign active power. People do, by lining up in refutation of His eternal principles, which He has always done His utmost to make known among all people, or aligning with HIS PRINCIPLES. Aligning with His principles of whatever sort – physics, chemistry, family, finances, radiant energies, photon entanglement, business, believing, personal relationships, leadership, … whatever (all of it), it brings blessings on whoever does those principles. What do you want and in what areas of life? What you sow you reap.

            STUDY THE BIBLE FOR PRINCIPLES. IT WORKS for everybody. It just happens that Biblical believers have a leg up.

          • Jana

            GUN NUT DAVE you ought to pay attention to Mike below because he is telling you the truth. Just open your ears to hear it.

      • Dave

        No, just sad that after another massacre in which 20 kids are gunned down…The NRA made sure nothing changes…

        • WTS/JAY

          The NRA cannot enforce the 20,000 laws that are currently in effect and are more then adequate to preserve some semblance of safety in our society…they only need to enforced. Your beef is not with the NRA, your beef is with out judicial-system that always turns a blind-eye to crime and coddles criminals. Besides that, i don’t think that Americans want criminals of the type that brought us (fast and furious) involved in writing laws where gun-safety is a concern…and understandably so!

          • Dave

            They have just paid Congress and lobbied congress to weaken those laws so excuse me if I call into question the NRA’s ultimate motive.

            You need to understand “fast and furious” to effectively comment on it. So…. Do you trust the Mexican Gov when it comes to the “drug war” really?????

          • Jana

            GUN NUT DAVE don’t forget the other side has just as many if not more lobbyists pestering congress as the NRA.

  • HGS

    As I sit here this morning watching the events unfold in Boston I find myself pondering the question, how many others are living among us and attending our schools with our kids? How many others harbor these vicious intentions? How many others like them are able to amass such a cache of weapons and explosives under the radar? How many others are doing this while we sit at home watching the Simpsons? Is this what a simple background check is all about? Are these re-loaders or bomb manufacturers? These are the types of things that I think simple and sensible background checks are all about. Guys like these two could be all over the [expletive deleted] place attending weekend gun shows near you and loading up on weapons and the same gunpowder that re-loaders use harmlessly for target rounds but this guys chose to pack into pressure cookers with nails, and ball bearings designed more to maim not so much to kill. I really think many of us fail to understand what the scope of the background check is all about. This is ground zero for the show us your picture ID to cast a simple one among millions of votes, but ID to purchase assault weapons and explosives, NO [expletive deleted] WAY. Call me crazy but I’d like my law enforcement community to know if guys like these, who are not even close to sporting arms types, are loading up. Count me a member of the 90% of Americans who agree as well as the 80 some % of NRA members who also agree that back ground checks are simply a no brainer. But then again I don’t wear a tin foil hat and live in constant fear that I may have to engage in armed warfare with my government and that our elected President is a terrorist dictator who wants to destroy America

    • chocopot

      And you think the people who intend to harm us are going to obtain their weapons and explosives legally? Are you delusional? Laws only affect the law abiding – and we have enough already: in fact, more than 22,000 at last count.

    • http://www.facebook.com/CapitalistAtBirth Greg Murphy

      What don’t you understand about: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”?

      • HGS

        Trust me if the full weight of the federal government wanted to take your freedom and your guns from you they would have done that a long time ago .. no problem .. you would constitute nothing more than a collective mob of ill equipped and ill trained groups and would stand no chance against the most powerful military on the planet. So never fear because the military is extremely patriotic, extremely community oriented, and will turn on the government before they would ever mobilize against their own friends and relatives at home. They will abandon their posts first.

    • SavaDude

      What surprises me is that you think that a criminal would use an ID to buy explosives, or show his face at a gun show to purchase a weapon.
      I can go to the border and buy any gun I want for $50 from another criminal that ‘never saw me’. Why the HELL would I go to a gun show and spend FAR more money and have hundreds of people, law enforcement, and cameras see me?
      Again, this law would do what the other 20,000 laws have done to stop criminals: NOTHING

  • Doc Sarvis

    ANYONE in this string who has used the term “gun grabbers” must lack any ability to assess what 90% of the country is asking for; that is background checks to make it harder (not impossible) for criminals to get firearms. You are fearful. The Brave and thinking 90% of Americans will NOT “grab” your (and their own) guns. Fear, Fear, Fear and you go run and hide.

    • momo

      There are over 20,000 laws regulating firearms, and criminals still get them. You think one more law is going to stop them?

      • Doc Sarvis

        Like I said, it will make it harder for them. There will always be crime. Laws make it more difficult for the criminals and provide legal standing to prosecute crime.

        • http://www.facebook.com/CapitalistAtBirth Greg Murphy

          Idiot.

        • SavaDude

          Its as easy to get guns illegally as it is to buy meth. Sorry man, this law affects those of us that already follow the law. It will have ZERO – not SOME – impact on criminals getting guns. They are cheaper than legal guns, and easier to get than legal guns.

        • WTS/JAY

          Criminals don’t care much for laws. Hence their title “criminals”!

        • Jana

          No it won’t. Not till we start punishing the crimes as they were meant to be punished and making the criminals responsible for their crimes. We must re-enact the death penalty and make the punishment fit the crime as my answer above to Dave!.

        • Jana

          Uh not laws Doc, not the laws. Its the Liberals with their bleeding hearts who feel sorry for the criminals and don’t want to see them punished and want to psychoanalyze them and rehabilitate them and fix them all and then take from the rich and throw a lot of money at them so they can feel good (violins playing here).

      • Dave

        So to use Momo’s logic… We should scrap all traffic laws unless all accidents can be stopped.

        • momo

          Wrong Dave, I said adding one additional law to the 20,000 we already have concerning firearms is not going to stop criminals from obtaining them. I didn’t say we should scrap anything.

          • Dave

            The NRA has spent the past 30 years weakening those laws and the analogy is correct….Why have any laws at all if we go by your logic. No law is worth having unless you have 100% compliance by everyone. So since traffic laws are not 100% adhered too.. lets get rid of them… Same thing with EPA laws… hell… murder still happens so we might as well 86 those laws too. The gun nuts har completely out to lunch here but the NRA has the money and money rules the day in this country.

          • Jana

            No Dave,
            Liberals and their liberal ways of “don’t punish the criminals” or their cries of ” look at what caused them to turn into a criminal”, or “we can’t put them to death so abolish the death penalty”. So we have become soft on crime. That is what has weakened our society and weakened our laws. there is no punishment for the crimes that are committed. No one is supposed to take responsibility for their own actions any longer.
            Why we even have to use politically correct language and call illegal aliens undocumented somebodies. All they are doing is weakening America! Thank you Liberals UGH!!

          • Dave

            Wait… Are you really saying conservatives are responsible and are tough on crime? Lol!

            Hill larry us

          • Jana

            GUN NUT DAVE, I am saying that its the bleeding heart liberals who are NOT tough on crime.

    • Doc Sarvis

      90%, looks like I was rounding down, it was actually 91%. See:

      http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/91-percent-americans-support-gun-background-checks-poll-144348180–politics.html

      I can understand your name calling because you can’t prove me wrong. Must be frustrating.

      • WTS/JAY

        Yahoo? Yahoo is but a wasteland, where the dead go to blog. They should change the name to “Cemetery”…

    • The Snarf

      Like the fear showing through in your every desperate post,Doc? Though it’s not guns you fear,but guns in the hands of others who might disagree with your commie agendas.

    • sootsme

      Around here, you would be challenged to find 9% in favor of this crap, and likely chastised and mocked for even asking such an impertinent question. If you wish to not own guns/weapons, or wish to reveal the contents of your inventory, fine. If I, or anyone else, wish to exercise another option, fine. This is called not infringing… I suggest we stick with it.

      BTW, folks who have and know how to handle guns don’t really do “run and hide” much- imagine that…

      Said another way: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”- Ben Franklin
      (rant ends)

      • Doc Sarvis

        So here is another vote for the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders.

        • Kuurus

          Grow up Doc, the sandy hook mess would have happened even with all the laws that failed this week.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            No way. He stuck in his Little Boy pants.

        • Jana

          Wrong Doc, Wrong. If just one person would have had a gun to defend themselves that boy would have stopped long before he was able to kill all of those children and teachers, but people like YOU made them all defenseless.

    • WTS/JAY

      Doc: ANYONE in this string who has used the term “gun grabbers” must lack any ability to assess what 90% of the country is asking for;

      If the support was indeed, 90%…why then the “defeat” in the Senate this week? You’re 90% figure is purely wishful-thinking?

    • WTS/JAY

      The 90% figure is purely fictional. If that were so, the “verdict” the week would have been different. Anti-gun proponents throw the 90% figure around in an attempt to dupe the clued-out dumb dumbs!

  • Kinetic1

    Chip,

    Where in the 2nd does it say that all American’s have the right to purchase a gun without registering? How does a background check constitute a violation of your rights? And since when is denying the will of almost 90% of the people a “victory”? There’s a reason people like you are called “gun nuts”.

    Before you or anyone else asks, yes I own 2 rifles and my son has been through the Scout’s gun safety program. I’m not a hunter, but I do enjoy shooting.

    • Vigilant

      “Why would the Senate reject something as evident as the concept that we shouldn’t let maniacs, criminals, or those who have been named in orders of protection buy guns? Why would they vote to maintain the artificial distinction between guns sold in stores and those sold in shows when they are equally likely to kill or maim?

      Is President Obama correct when he blames lies from the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the rejection? No. The president has only himself to blame.

      The fact is that while the overwhelming majority of the public approves of the narrow terms of the bill — to expand background checks to gun shows — the president has so poisoned the atmosphere in our nation’s politics that we don’t trust the government and we don’t trust the president.

      The president was amazed that people did not read the plain language in the bill which bans using the background check information to amass a registry of gun owners. But he’s wrong. They read it. They just didn’t believe it.”
      -Dick Morris

      • SavaDude

        Personally, I found it laughable, listening to the president chide ANYONE for propaganda. He is the KING of propaganda. Hilarious! What a collection of fools are we…

      • rocketride

        We didn’t believe it because we’ve been observing that the plain language already forbidding it is already being violated.

      • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

        “the [USURPER] has so poisoned the atmosphere in our nation’s politics”
        He POISONED the nation’s Life as well.

        • Bob666

          “These people are crazy,” said Alan Gura, referring to NRA critics who said he’d ceded too much to gun control arguments when he successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2008 to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and establish a Second Amendment right to a handgun at home for self-defense. “I could have, if I wanted to, stood before the Court and said, ‘Yes, [the Amendment’s clause] shall not be infringed,’ means you would never have any gun laws, and of course need to all have machine guns in case we want to overthrow the government, and while we’re at it we should have rocket launchers and stinger missiles. And that would have probably made me very popular in some cabin somewhere out there in the woods… Of course, I would have lost 9-0.”

    • Capitalist at Birth

      What don’t you understand about: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” Those words were not inserted by accident.

      • Dave

        What don’t you understand about “well regulated”???? Those words were not in there by accident either… especially in 1795 when the United States had no real standing army.

        • SavaDude

          Hey Dave!
          What do you not understand about:
          1. The US DID HAVE A STANDING ARMY
          2. WELL REGULATED refers to the FIRST PART OF THE 2nD AMENDMENT WHICH REFERS TO THE MILITIA.
          3. The MILITIA is DEFINED by SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION
          4. THE 2nD AMENDMEND is 2 SEPERATE PARTS
          5. THE SECOND PART IS ‘THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

          I have explained this to you before, and it is FACT, not OPINION.
          STOP spreading that garbage. After having been SCHOOLED you STILL stand on your lame argument that is not rooted in fact.

          • Dave

            And Christian, you are full of crap as I have said before.

            Here is section 8 of the Constitution as it pretains to the milita.

            “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

            To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
            Sounds like the Army (appointment of the officers???) which is what the 2nd Amendment means by “milita… Well regulated means the gov by the people and for the people regulates that milita.
            Go get over your nonsense.

        • rocketride

          We understand more about that phrase, as it was used at the time of the country’s founding, than you apparently do. In the late 18th century, the phrase “well regulated” was understood to refer to things that ran themselves without fuss or bother and did not often need adjustment or management from without.

          As an example, a clock was said to be well regulated if it did NOT require frequent adjustment or tinkering (other than periodically winding the mainspring or lifting the weights to keep it powered) in order to keep accurate time.

      • Bob666

        Yo Capitalist,

        And the words “well regulated” were not inserted by accident as well. What it get down to is the meaning of “well regulated” and that seems to be the crux of debate today.

    • sootsme

      “INFRINGED” covers any regulation whatsoever. ALL LAWS “INFRINGE”, as none of them create or allow any actions or choices that did not exist prior to said “law’s” existence. The point is that Sovereign Citizens do not need laws because they exercise personal responsibility in their actions- this is the bargain we make when we demand Liberty, and nothing else is worthy of a free people. Those who do not get this are rightfully relegated to remain “subjects”. Sadly, this is a rapidly growing segment of our present society…

      Within a free Republic, “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” would be the name of the local convenience store, (remember the General Store in the old westerns?) rather than a huge, oppressive government alphabet agency.

      “Peace through superior firepower”- good enough for our United States Strategic Air Command- good enough for me.

      • Mike in MI

        ABSOLUTAMUNDO, Ed,
        The rights we have are GOD GIVEN and the government is SUPPOSED to be the protector of our GODLY RIGHTS and ability to be right via information . It isn’t supposed to be the generator and propagator of information that drives public opinion.

    • Andy

      “Shall not be infringed” that’s where dumbass. And, 90% of the people do not support background checks. just another leftist lie.

      • Karolyn

        Do you have proof of your 90% assertion?

        • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

          Do you have DISPROOF of it???

          • Karolyn

            That would be disprove, Alondra; and the burden of proof is on the one making he assertion.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            You are very LAZY as a typical LIBERAL female.
            Why would not you move your buttocks and do your research?

          • Karolyn

            Why would I have to move my buttocks to do research?? I never post statistics unless I have accompanying citation.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Alondra is correct, Karolyn. So your one-upmanship did not succeed. Alondra does not have to prove anything as newspapers, TV, and the Internet carried the survey results. If the Dems/Progs/Leftists didn’t like the results they could have disputed with the company who did the survey.

          • Karolyn

            My response was not to Alondra in the first place. And, actually, everything I’ve seen says that 90% APPROVE of background checks. This is why I asked for proof. This is only one survey. I’ve seen another that says that 74% of NRA members support background checks.

            http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0418/Why-the-90-percent-lost-on-gun-background-checks

          • Karolyn

            Here the crickets? :-)

          • Patriotic Viet Vet

            That poll was from about 1300
            Democrats who had probably voted for bumma

          • Dave

            Proof of that assertion? Like all the gun nuts… nowhere

          • Jana

            You are the “Gun Nuts”, not us, we are not AFRAID of guns, you are.

          • vicki

            Dave writes:

            Proof of that assertion?

            A reasonable request.

            Dave:

            Like all the gun nuts… nowhere

            Then you show that you are not seriously interested by answering your own question with an ad hominem.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            I know Vet. Karolyn is a radical Democrat leaning to Extreme Liberalism. So her sources are Snopes; Skeptoid; Washington Post; HuffPost; MSNBC; CNN; Media Matters; Daily Kos

            May God Bless you.

          • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

            You MUST to here this. Unlawful search and the forceful disarming of the Vets in CT.
            Red Alert: “POLICE Disarming Navy Veterans BY FORCE” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjxu4I2jxXg

            Please PASS IT ON.

          • Bob666

            Yo Pork Chop,

            Once again, You-Tube, the Light and Truth, too Funny!

          • Dave

            Lol… Alondra… You are great “disproof”…. You are a great conservative…. Don’t let anyone tell you different.

        • Mike in MI

          Sure he does but he won’t pass it on because Oblie’t’me and his personal army of Pollcats went out with parsed questions and came back with parsed and made up answers to try to make the news be what they want it to be. They sometimes succeed because of the PC driven, ambulatory Amerikan puss-filled comdoms who are so over-conscious of their social images in the neighborhoods they populate who would sooner die than be caught on the “wrong” side of an issue – rather than get facts and Truths to back up their opinions.

          • Bob666

            Yo MI-Mike,

            “Amerikan puss-filled comdoms who are so over-conscious of their social images in the neighborhoods they populate who would sooner die than be caught on the “wrong” side of an issue – rather than get facts and Truths to back up their opinions”
            Was there a point in there somewhere?

          • Mike in MI

            Point? Why, yes. I figured somebody like you would take umbrage.
            Thanks for not disappointing.

      • Bob666

        Andy,
        Beg to disagree on the 90%:

        Pew:
        Currently, 50% say controlling gun ownership is more important, while 46% prioritize protecting the right of Americans to own guns.

        Newsmax:
        Do you agree that all gun buyers should be subject to a national background check? 29% YES.
        Should the federal government regulate guns of
        any types? 24% YES.
        Should Congress ban semi-automatic weapons? 78% YES.
        Do you agree that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear guns without infringement? 24% YES.

        There are plenty more, you just have to leave Drudge, Bribart & Fox to find them. While several of these are not specifically related to back ground checks, it does support that more than 10% want background checks.

      • Kinetc1

        Note that I said “almost 90%”. That having been said ……

        ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 11-14, 2013
        “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?”
        Support 86% Oppose 13%

        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%

        More polls are available. Will you continue to claim each and every one is a “leftist lie”? If so, how about these two?

        CBS News/New York Times. conducted Jan. 11-15,
        85 percent of those living in a household with an NRA member favored background checks for all potential gun buyers.

        Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Feb. 13-18. “people in NRA households overwhelmingly favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks: 74 percent favor this proposal, while just 26 percent are opposed.”

      • Bob666

        Oh Andy, Hate to bring bad news, but you are all so wrong:

        Pew: (I know you will say this is liberal)

        Public opinion shifted modestly toward support for gun control in the immediate aftermath of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. on Dec. 14. Since then, there has been very little change in public attitudes toward gun control. Currently, 50% say controlling gun ownership is more important, while 46% prioritize protecting the right of Americans to own guns. Background checks for private sales and gun shows are particularly popular: 83% of Americans favor this, including large majorities across all major demographic and partisan groups.

        http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/21/section-1-opinions-about-major-issues/#gunsfebruary

        Newsmax: (far more right leaning).

        Do you agree that all gun buyers should be subject to a national background check? 29% Yes.
        Should the federal government regulate guns of any types? 24% Yes.
        Should Congress ban semi-automatic weapons? 78% Yes.
        Do you agree that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear guns without infringement? 25% Yes.

        http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Results/id/64

        Crawl out of the FOX hole and you might learn something factual.

    • SavaDude

      You don’t understand the 4th or 5th Amendments at all, do you? If you did, you wouldn’t ask questions that aren’t relevant like this.
      I shall school you – The 2nd Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms.
      The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure and that if an investigation into our private property ( I.E. our GUNS ) is necessary, a warrant must first be issued. The 5th Amendment protects us from having our private property confiscated without just compensation.
      The idea of background checks on one of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights violates our right to privacy in that it assumes that our intent is ill. That is not legal. How would you like your government asking you to submit your posts here to some government agency for their scrutiny before you are allowed to post them, simply because it is remotely possible you post something that could be construed as libelous?
      Last time I checked, criminals steal guns, or buy stolen guns. A background check is a violation of YOUR rights as well as everyone elses, and does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from obtaining firearms.

      • Bob666

        “To ‘keep and bear arms’ for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; ‘Saturday night specials’ [handguns] and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles,” said retired U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade magazine, in January 1990.

        • SavaDude

          Yet the SCOTUS upheld our right to own firearms as a manner of self defense in 2008. Go figure.
          Bob, you don’t want to own a gun, so don’t. But last time I checked, my gun, as well as the guns of 90 million other people never killed, hurt, or maimed anyone.So please, mind your OWN business and stop being so interested in the private property of others.

          • Bob666

            Wow Christian,
            Are we having a bad day? Bit of an anger management problem or is history causing you some grief? For your info, I own several firearms and have no interest in your property.
            Sometimes history can be painful can’t it?

    • JeffH

      Too much kool aid huh? 90% of the people? 90% of what? Balderdash!

      The 90 percent support for Expanded Background Checks is a myth, nothing more, a creation; like every other one of the talking points and so called “facts” of the Anti Gun left.

      Maybe that’s why they and the President were so shocked and angry at the results of Wednesdays Vote, they believe the validity of their own lies and presume that the American Public believes them as well.
      http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/gun-control-lies-files-90-percent-support-for-background-checks/#ixzz2R39FbLNl

      But is it true? Do 90 percent of 300 million plus Citizens really support expanded or Universal Background Checks? That would be an astounding number in a Nation that hasn’t been so polarized and divided since the Civil War Era.

      Ok so 90 percent of the population supporting the concept is quite a stretch, unbelievable actually, thats 9 out 0f 10 people!

      Nine out of ten Americans wouldn’t agree if it was partly sunny or partly cloudy on any given day. In fact, its a flat out lie, as a Gallup Poll on Monday, just 48 hours before debate in the Senate on the Gun Control Package showed that only 4 % of the Public felt that Gun Control as an issue was the “most important issue facing the Country”. The topic ranked as the ninth “most important issue” in the poll, with issues like the Economy, Jobs, the Federal Deficit, Debt, Immigration and the like all ranking higher as important to American voters.

      Well, maybe they meant 90 percent of poll respondents then?

      And that in fact is significantly more likely to be accurate, but it is totally dependent on the way the poll questions were worded, as a well known and documented concept known as selection bias comes into play, as does sampling size.

      By the way, the industry jargon for the careful wording of poll questions to get the desired answers to support a pre-ordained, paid for result is known as “push polling”.

      That is why polls such as those paid for and marketed (really a self congratulatory circle jerk) by Anti Gun Groups like MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns), a poll that claimed that 2/3rds majority of NRA Members supported Universal Background Checks are so suspect.

      Selection Bias.
      The NRA doesn’t publish or release the membership information, so how can MAIG be reasonably certain that those polled actually were in fact NRA Members ? They CANT!

      • Bob666

        Funny, 90% according to a web site called ammoland?

        Are you trying to replace Ben for the Saturday Funnies?

    • vicki

      Doesn’t actually matter if 99.99999% support (or not) background
      checks, it is our RIGHT to keep and bear arms WITHOUT infringement.
      Background checks as currently exist or recently proposed
      unconstitutionally infringe on that right. They do so by haveing to ask permission of the government to exercise a right. You can not keep something you can not acquire.

      There is however a
      background check system that won’t infringe anywhere near as much or at
      all. It is much less expensive and requires little or no bureaucracy.

      Here it is:
      ————————————————————————-
      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.

      ————————————————————————–

      Obviously
      it is way too simple thus no politician or bureaucrat will want to
      implement it. It even increases the independence of individuals.

  • Jake Thomas

    Just because the senate could not pass anything doesn’t mean it’s a victory, take a look at all the draconian laws that the states are passing

  • rocketride

    Actually, Biden looked more like he’d had a lemon shoved in each end, than like he’d merely been sucking on one.

  • Jim B

    Hard to believe after all those countless appearances by the one and only BHO with all those police lines standing behind him in their best dress blues and grays that all that effort, and all those billions of dollars spent for not! Just goes to show you how out of touch he is with America, how his ideology is out of step with America’s freedom and liberty mind set. It should be clear by now, even to the most ardent supporter of BHO that he has done nothing to enhance or help them achieve the American dream, or move this country forward instead of decades back. Gun control, and new gun laws (on top of the thousands of laws on the books to date) was a waste of precious time that could have been spent focusing on economic recovery (not relief) e.g. reducing regulation, shelving Obamacare, getting their hands out of the pockets of the American people, and American business, and how about dealing with a 17 Trillion dollar national debt. BHO is a small thinker, small minded with small minded thinkers surrounding him (i.e. Joe Biden). It’s sad that we American have chosen so poorly, and it is sadder yet to think what devastation the remaining 3 years will be under this POTUS.

    • sootsme

      Obama is neither a small thinker, nor is he actually in charge. As in most things, “FOLLOW THE MONEY”! According to old Baron Von Rothschild, many years ago, “He who controls the money cares not who controls the government.” America’s situation is but another facet of the same story that is playing out in Cyprus, Europe, et al: The big time money folks smell blood and perceive that now is the time to accelerate their agenda to acquire ever more power over the serfs. This explanation is the only one that satisfies “Occam’s razor”: the simplest answer that accounts for the available data is likely correct. Sadly, not many have eyes to see or ears to hear beyond whatever’s on the tube…

  • The Christian American

    I would be wonderful and scary, accept for WHY? it got voted down.Most of them not vote because they a need to uphold the Consitution, they voted against to save their A** at the next election. Accept for a remnant that really believe in what they are doing, the rest are for sale to the highest bidder. In my mind their both disgusting and repugnant. The bible puts it this way, be hot or cold or I’ll spew you out of my mouth says God.
    It was a victory against Communism in America, but a small victory. Who’s going to introduce a bill to repeal the rest of the decrees we’re living with? We’re on a roll so why stop now. I’m ready for the tar and feathers. We stood up for the constitution on this one. What about the rest of the constitution we’re ignoring? We’ve been indoctrinated to hate Muslims and don’t give a damn who we kill and maim. They struck back in Boston. What do we expect? I’ll feel comfortable when I can use my guns for hunting and not worry about having them as last resort.

  • securityman

    doc sarvis, why are you still here in this country where you have the rights that you have? you talk so much about giving up the rights that we have that i would have thought you would have gone to another country by now. one where you are told what you can do or not do. obummer and his a– kissers will put a gun slant on the Boston Bombing and try to get another bill through. doc, how brown is your nose?

    • Mike in MI

      Probably an Oblaster shade of tan … at LEAST? What the “good” Doc won’t let on about is what kind of “Doc” he is.
      Proctologist? Maybe, … could you figure?

  • HGS

    When the minority prevails though intimidation, bribery, manipulation, or extortion then we are now clearly supporting a form of governing historically referred to as fascism. It’s in the dictionary.

    • vicki

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
      1 often capitalized :
      a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
      that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands
      for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
      2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control (early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge)

      I don’t see where the method used to create the centralized autocratic government determines fascism but certainly most of the ones we know of used the methods you mention to force people to accept it. (see definition 2 inside the () )

  • http://www.facebook.com/rodolph.julian.9 Rodolph Julian

    Long live the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment Lets give continuing support . Gun owners or not. Check on the NRA go to gun shows. You don’t have to buy a firearm!

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

    GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Gun control is not about gun grabbing. We need to do better at as Mr. Wood pointed out “getting the truly crazy off the streets”. But as long as the crazy and the immoral are still out there we need to also do more to combat gun violence and to be judicial in allowing people access to guns. I think anyone would agree that not everyone can be trusted with a gun. How does that standard get determined. Well thats where things like background checks and gun safety training come in. More guns does not equal less crime. More guns simply equals more chances for gun related deaths. The Manchin-Toomey which was voted down was intended to regulate and require back ground checks for internet purchases and gun shows. I see this as reasonable. The internet is notorious for people hiding information about their background and identity. Why you would want to sell people guns over the internet without a background check is beyond me. And also at guns shows. Why would you want to sell a gun to someone you have never met without finding out if they are a convicted felon or on a terrorist watch list or have a history of mental illness. If it is a family member then I can understand. You know them. But selling guns to strangers or even acquaintances is something that should be regulated.

    The purpose of background checks and most other types of gun control are in many ways the same as the laws requiring drivers ed and obtaining a drivers license before being allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Its to provide a system to prevent people who cannot be trusted with a motor vehicle from being allowed to legally operate one. At the same time its to insure that honest and caring people have a knowledge of how to operate a vehicle before being able to use one. There are plenty of people who don’t let road rage effect them and don’t intend to use their car to do stupid things like race or burn rubber. But just because you intend to obey the laws does not mean you understand them. And just because you intend to use your vehicle legally and productively does not mean you know how to safely operate it on the road. I understand that guns are powerful and can inflict harm. If I purchased a gun I would do so simply for protecting my family. But just because I have good intentions does not mean I can be trusted with a gun. I have no training in the safe operation of a gun. A loaded gun in my hands could be just as dangerous as in the hands of a criminal. Just as a car in the hands of a well intentioned person with no knowledge of how to stop a car or change lanes could make them just as dangerous as someone speeding just for the fun of it.

    The bottom line is this. Guns are a powerful weapon. In the right hands they can do great good. In the wrong they can do great harm. A person who is trained in the use of a firearm and only keeps a few guns in the home to protect their family is not a threat to anyone. Nor is someone simply buying one gun for personal protection. The danger arises when even moderate gun control such as mandatory safety training and background checks to determine criminal record or mental health history is opposed as “gun grabbing”. Wanting gun control to combat gun violence does not mean I want to take every ones guns away. Not wanting everyone to have guns does not mean I want no one to have guns.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Gun control IS about gun grabbing. Incrementalism was defined on this site and if you missed it look it up in the the dictionary.

    • vicki

      Jeremy Leochner writes:

      Gun control is not about gun grabbing.

      Correct. Sortof. It’s all about people control You can’t control people if they have guns. Ergo the final goal is gun grabbing. Of course we have known that from the beginning. The gun grabbers have been quite clear as to their final intent.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XWXG1k8I4

      http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/n-y-assemblyman-exposes-real-gun-control-confiscation-agenda-of-democrats-video/

      http://www.infowars.com/democrats-call-for-door-to-door-gun-confiscation/

      http://www.dailypaul.com/282215/placid-americans-caught-in-headlights-on-full-gun-control-forced-confiscation
      “Satire is becoming reality in America as the Democrats call for door-to-door gun confiscation as a long-term agenda that will be pushed on the people, as Democratic Austin City Council member and potential next mayor Mike Martinez, revealed.”

      We need to do better at as Mr. Wood pointed out “getting the truly crazy off the streets”.

      We did do better. Then the liberals came and let them out of mental institutions.

      But as long as the crazy and the immoral are still out there we need to also do more to combat gun violence and to be judicial in allowing people access to guns.

      Indeed we do. Since the immoral and crazy ARE out there we should end GunFree Zones at once. Let the intended victims be armed and dangerous.

    • vicki

      Jeremy Leochner writes:

      I think anyone would agree that not everyone can be trusted with a gun. How does that standard get determined. Well thats where things like background checks and gun safety training come in.

      Since those who can NOT be trusted with a gun do not bother with background checks and gun safety training that is NOT where those things come in.

      More guns does not equal less crime. More guns simply equals more chances for gun related deaths.

      Demonstrably false. there is a whole book on the subject
      http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

      The Manchin-Toomey which was voted down was intended to regulate and require back ground checks for internet purchases and gun shows. I see this as reasonable.

      Here is a background check system that is just as reasonable if not more so and is cheaper too.

      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.

      Why would you want to sell a gun to someone you have never met without finding out if they are a convicted felon…

      That is the beauty of my system. You can check immediately if they are a convict or not. If they are they will have a prison in the background. If they are buying from you on ebay (or other internet path) then they are not in prison either.

      And even if they were, you would not have to worry cause the firearm will be added to the prison guards arsenal and the convict STILL won’t have it.

    • vicki

      Jeremy Leochner writes:

      The purpose of background checks and most other types of gun control are in many ways the same as the laws requiring drivers ed and obtaining a drivers license before being allowed to operate a motor vehicle.

      You really must quit confusing possession with use.

      Its to provide a system to prevent people who cannot be trusted with a motor vehicle from being allowed to legally operate one. At the same time its to insure that honest and caring people have a knowledge of how to operate a vehicle before being able to use one.

      Amusingly enough we have such a system for gun ownership already. It is called the criminal justice system. If you misuse a gun we run you thru due-process to verify that you have mis-used a gun and if yes we punish you. Just like with cars. You can possess one all you like. If you mis use one then you get a ticket. Or worse punishment.

      I understand that guns are powerful and can inflict harm. If I purchased a gun I would do so simply for protecting my family. But just because I have good intentions does not mean I can be trusted with a gun.

      And if you mis-use a gun we have a system in place already that does not violate the 2nd Amendment protections of the (wait for it)

      ~300 Million Americans who did NOT and never have mis-used a firearm

      The bottom line is this. Guns are a powerful weapon. In the right hands they can do great good. In the wrong they can do great harm. A person who is trained in the use of a firearm and only keeps a few guns in the home to protect their family is not a threat to anyone.

      And I have positive irrefutable proof that training and number of guns is irrelevant to the threat posed by people owning guns.

      ~300 MILLION Americans (most of which are NOT trained beyond common sense) didn’t shoot anyone, even by accident.

      Stop blaming them. Stop accusing them of being a threat to you no matter how many guns they possess.
      Stop PUNISHING them for the acts of a very few

      Stop it
      Stop it NOW.

      (For those interested in the proof just look up the current population of the US. Then look up the crime stats from the FBI. Notice how many crimes are committed where tool = gun. Divide the crime stats number by the population for the year you are checking. Multiply by 100 to get percent.

    • vicki

      Jeremy Leochner writes:

      The danger arises when even moderate gun control such as mandatory safety training and background checks to determine criminal record or mental health history is opposed as “gun grabbing”. Wanting gun control to combat gun violence does not mean I want to take every ones guns away. Not wanting everyone to have guns does not mean I want no one to have guns.

      Where have I heard that before. Hmmmmm…… Ah I remember.

      “anyone who possessed a military rifle or handgun was a public enemy unless he or she was a member of a Nazi-approved organization. Of the three listed organizations, the SS (Schutzstaffeln) or Elite Guard of the National Socialist Party, headed by Heinrich Himmler, emerged as the most powerful Nazi police organization”
      http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

      Yes, Hitler was fine with loyal party members possessing arms.

  • Betta

    The illegal POTUS has threatened to go around CONgress to get his way. I’m afraid we will have to show him what it is to be a TRUE American and how we handle those who wish to infringe upon our constitutional rights.

    When he lost his bid to start the path to gun grabbing, I hope his family jewels drew up into his throat. COUGH now!

  • JeffH

    Let’s call it what it is…An Old School Arse-Whuppin’!

    Yes, the GOA and the NRA and their membership were very instrumental in this fight…in the end it is the Constitutional, freedon & liberty loving people that have made the difference here in support of our civil rights. Our voices were heard…that “Universal Background Checks” are not universal!

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
    — Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

    “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”
    — Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

    The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
    — Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
    ___________________________________________________
    ___________________________________________________
    Senator Charles Schumer shrieked.

    Vice President Joe Biden dialed Senatorial cellphones until he got blisters on his fingers.

    Senator Diane Feinstein even played her own version of “Double-Dog-Dare-Ya” to vote for a semiautomatic rifle ban that would easily cost thousands of jobs in such “blue” states as Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine.

    But in the end, the old school techniques of NRA Members’ phone calls, emails, and faxes trumped the vaunted Obama Social Media Machine. Given that this social media methodology was touted by Liberals as being the New Wave of voter mobilization, and had proven effective against the F-35 of Republican Presidential Campaign Communications (formerly known as “Project Orca”), it is all the more illustrative as to how politics can be done in the DC Beltway and beyond.

    In fact, the amount of liberal blood left on the mat of the Political Octagon in Washington DC seems to indicate that the rumors that Obama has hordes of fake Twitter Followers may have something to them.

    Face it- Team Obama expected to overwhelm an outmatched, weakened pro-gun community through the use of the modern eclectic style of political combat. They apparently expected to come into the ring and find an inept Jon Favreau-type character ripe for the picking.
    http://www.calgunlaws.com/old-school-ass-whuppin/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ObservationPostBlog+%28CalGunLaws+%C2%BB+Observation+Post+A+Blog+by+Anthony+Canales%29
    Now get ready for this “lame duck” POTUS and his unconstituional administration to search the pages of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” for advice on the next move towards their ultimate goal of gun confiscation

    • Dave

      “Old school techniques”=money and thuggery

      • JeffH

        Progressive Dave says “Old school techniques”=money and thuggery
        That’s the Obama/Chicago way alright.
        p[[ LMAO again!

        • Dave

          Chicago compared to the NRA? HA! NRA wins that battle of lies, deceit, strong arming and buying politicians
          Conservative… or is it Libertarian today?? JeffH is funy.

          • JeffH

            Sure desperate Dave, because you said so…and pigs can fly too!

            The pressure cooker did it!

            ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

            ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

            Join the NRA, the GOA and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • vicki

            Hey guys. Dave is right the NRA won that battle of lies, deceit and strong arm, bullying. Biden and obama used them a lot and still lost. The NRA didn’t use any of those tactics and won.

            NRA. Well done.

          • JeffH

            Yepper! (smiling)

          • JeffH

            A simple case of good winning over evil!

    • WTS/JAY

      JeffH: Let’s call it what it is…An Old School Arse-Whuppin’!

      For sure, they got their azzezz handed to them…loved the look on the faces of old Obamy and Joey Biden, Priceless!!!

    • BrotherPatriot

      Great to see you in your usual good form, JeffH. :)
      Hope all is well with you & yours…God Bless.

      • JeffH

        Brother Patriot… :) it’s good to be alive and thanks for asking fellow patriot.

        I may not post often but I am always here…the facts and only the facts!

        • BrotherPatriot

          Roger that! :D

  • Karolyn

    What’s worse than background checks to purchase guns is background checks to own certain “aggressive” breeds of dogs, which has been proposed in the NC House. Those breeds include American Staffies and other “pitbull”-like dogs, rottweilers, mastiffs, chows and presa canarios. Anyone living in NC should contact their legislators about this ridiculous bill. Not only does it require background checks, but it also requires owners to go through training.

    • Mike in MI

      And you’re expectant of …,….what??? It’s a demo – critic state isn’t it?

      Next thing they’ll ban is Bibles and stones. If it poses a threat to you … ban the thing.

  • mark

    Another huge victory for the gun and ammo producers! They ginned up the fear and paranoia among all the right-wing lemmings over proposals that never stood a chance of passing – and got all the suckers to run out and buy ever more guns and bulllets. They do this every six months or so, and it never fails. The lemmings fall for it over and over again. It’s like all those Absolute, Final, Going Out of Business, Furniture sales that the same stores hold every six months ad infinitum. And the suckers race out everytime to buy another love seat. PT Barnum was right. And gun profits keep going through the roof.

  • 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://personalliberty.com/2013/04/19/2nd-amendment-lives-another-day/

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

    Welcome to the barack hussein mahommed obama’s FUNDAMENTAL
    TRANSFORMATION of the USofAmerica known as “The Take Down of
    America”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TVIF3I6khY4

  • Dave

    Lets all have a minute of silence for the victims of background checks for ALL gun sales…
    Lets have a moment of silence for the victims of better tools for law enforcement to do their jobs.
    Lets have a moment of silence for the victims of better mental health capabilities.
    The “inconvenience” of the gun nuts is a more important issue.
    Well done.

    • vicki

      Inconveniencing the right of people you ridicule is less important then inconveniencing the “right” of people to vote? Have you read “animal farm”?

      • Dave

        Do you understand and comprehend its points? If you did… you would not be a conservative in America.

        • vicki

          Enlighten us.

  • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

    HERE IS THE LARGEST NATIONAL SURVEY OF RANK-AND-FILE POLICE
    OFFICERS

    In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey EVER of
    American LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ opinions

    1) 95% respondents say that a federal ban (O’homo’s law) on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds WOULD NOT REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME.

    2) 71% — say a federal ban on the manufacture and SALE of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

    3) 85% of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

    4) 70% of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that THEY WOULD NOT ENFORCE MORE RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS IN THEIR JURISDICTIONS.

    5) More than 61% said THEY WOULD REFUSE TO ENFORCE SUCH LAWS if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

    6) The overwhelming majority (almost 90%) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident like at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

      This is a list of a 140 companies that are AGAINST gun control and have taken the steps to publicly announce that THEY WILL NOT SELL ITEMS TO STATES, COUNTIES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES THAT RESTRICT THEIR CITIZENS RIGHTS TO OWN THEM; therefore closing the “police loophole” themselves.
      http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

    • http://cowboybyte.com/ Alondra

      According to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) the SHERIFF ASSOCIATIONS of the 17 States and total 421 Sheriffs and police chiefs across the country are saying “NO” to ALL unconstitutional policies of the
      Kenyan EGO-Centric Psychopath. http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/

    • Bob666

      Yo Oinkster,
      Why is it that 99% of your “facts” do not come from a credible web site?

      • vicki

        Why do 99% of your posts start with ad hominem?

        • Bob666

          Start with?
          Now Vicki, I would never want to give you a run for the money. I simply asked the propaganda queen a question.

          • vicki

            still can’t avoid ad hominem I see.

          • Bob666

            As I said, I would never want to give you a run for the money.

        • Dave

          Vuicki why do all of your posts start and end with zero substance? But you can repeat nonsense bumperstickers Vicki…
          Why don’t you ask Alondra the same question you ask Bob?

          • Bob666

            Yo Dave,

            That is a very good question for Vicki since Alonda specializes in the ad hominem attack.
            I have the answer to that question, but to want to see how creative Vicki is in her very crafted answer.

          • vicki

            Ad hominem.

          • Bob666

            Yo Vicki,
            As YOU stated, not if it’s a fact. And when are you going to chase down Alondra as the As Hominem police, or….is there a double standard?

  • Dave

    Lets have some facts among the BS rhetoric put forth by the gun nuts.

    Here is what Obama proposed which is not the watered down bill the Senate Fillibusted.
    ——————————–
    Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.

    Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.

    Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

    Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.

    Increasing criminal penalties for “straw purchasers,” people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.

    Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.

    Confirming President Obama’s nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.

    Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.

    Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.

    Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.

    Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.
    ————
    If you read these and call these measures extreme… Then you are a an extremist yourself. Most of these measures by themselves, have majority support in every poll put out. But then again, when does a conservative or the NRA care about the people anyways?

    • Jana

      “Lets have some facts among the BS rhetoric put forth by the gun nuts.”
      As I said before, You are the gun NUT, I am not AFRAID of guns you are.

      Look what happened in Boston. Those two young men hurt and killed a lot of people and they didn’t use one big or little gun.

      Ha I had written a nice long answer, but I erased it because I remembered who it was that I was answering, a liberal who isn’t really interested in hearing any type of reasonable answer any way!

      • Dave

        Reasonable? Is that what the NRA and other gun nuts are? Fascinating

        • Jana

          Dave is the TRUE GUN NUT!!! He propagates fear of guns!!!

          • Dave

            Whatever label you want to lie about me with to make yourself feel better. My opinion is the majority opinion in this country. Just not here because of the skewed population of gun nuts like you.

          • vicki

            Have you ever bothered to notice that the purpose of the Bill of Rights and indeed the entire Constitution is to make it REALLY difficult for the majority to take away the rights of even a SINGLE individual?

            It really doesn’t matter that 99+% of the population wants your right to speak your mind (I.E. post here), the government can NOT stop you. And despite the fact that likely the majority opinion of posters here is that you should not be allowed to post, Bob Livingston has graciously allowed you to post anyway. You should probably thank him occasionally.

            Oh and I notice you still can’t avoid ad hominem in your posts

          • Dave

            What I have noticed is that conservatives misuse the fillibuster to prevent any bill they don’t like from even being discussed.

            And just like I thought

            “And despite the fact that likely the majority opinion of posters here is that you should not be allowed to post”

            Your side doesn’t like freedom. You just don’t like to be inconvenienced and you do not like dissent. You would prefer to stop all dissent and voices that oppose your own. Very Anti-American.

            Bob L has created a PUBLIC forum. He does his best to discourage those who disagree with him from posting here by selective enforcement of the “rules”. If Bob L, you or JeffH wants to create a “private” club where you three can tell yourselves how right you are about everything… you guys can do that at any time. But as long as this is a PUBLIC forum, I have the right to express my ideas, thoughts and opinions just like you do… I love it when your true selves get exposed just like you just did in your quote I cited… You are Napoleon from Animal Farm to a tee.

            LOL.

            Thanks Bob L for creating a public forum so we understand how the conservative “mind” works and how you use religion conspiracy theory and economic theory that has never worked in the real world during the industrial age to keep the middle class and poor people that fall for the conservative propaganda in line.
            Its entertaining.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Dave,

            You write: “He does his best to discourage those who disagree with him from posting here by selective enforcement of the ‘rules’.” You are a liar.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Dave

            ad hominem attack.
            OH Moderator!!!!!

          • vicki

            Stating a fact is not an ad hominem.

          • Dave

            Then what I say is also not ad hominem since you feel Bob’s heinious claim about me is true to you… then I say about you jeffrey and the rest is true to me so it is also not ad hominem so we are equal there.
            Works both ways Vicki

          • Jana

            GUN NUT DAVE your opinion and 3 cents buys you nothing!

    • vicki

      Dave writes:

      Lets have some facts among the BS rhetoric put forth by the gun nuts.

      Argument to ridicule. Not a great start.

      Dave:

      Here is what Obama proposed:
      ——————————–
      Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.

      Thus violating the 2nd by requiring you to get permission from the government to exercise 2 rights. The explicitly protected right to keep and bear arms and the implicitly protected right to buy, sell, trade your personal property.

      Dave:

      Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.

      Thus violating the 2nd by denying you the right to keep and bear (some) firearms.

      Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

      Thus violating the 2nd by denying you the right to keep and bear (some) firearms (ones that have more than 11 rounds in them.)

      Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.

      Thus violating the 2nd by denying you the right to keep and bear (some) firearms

      Increasing criminal penalties for “straw purchasers,” people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.

      Thus violating the 2nd by requiring you to get permission from the
      government to exercise 2 rights. The explicitly protected right to keep
      and bear arms and the implicitly protected right to buy, sell, trade
      your personal property.

      Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.

      Congratulations. You found a proposal that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution. Just out of curiosity where is there in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power or authority to help keep ANY police officers on the street?

      • Dave

        Lets see Vicki,

        Here is the second Amendment.

        “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        What is a “well regulated militia? Section 8 of the Constitution spells it out.

        “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”

        Section 8 lays the foundation for the “all-volunteer army” that we have that is under civilian control of Congress who are voted by the people.

        The 2nd Amendment is not limitless just like the 1st Amendment is not limitless. You need to get over it.

        • vicki

          Since the right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT limited in any way by their participation in a militia your long point about the militia in section 8 of the Constitution is not in any way a set of limits on the 2nd Amendment. It is even settled law that the right is an INDIVIDUAL right not requiring militia membership

          “The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

          Amusingly even English grammar supports the SCOTUS decision. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

          Certainly the limits, if they were to exist, would include protecting the right of the people to keep and carry all the small arms that government agents keep and carry.

          • Dave

            Why small arms Vicki? If the 2nd Amendment as you claim it to be, I should be able to get hold of ANY arms I want to.
            You just can’t handle the idea that gun safety and allowing for better law enforcement and mental health is not a violation of your rights. It is to help society lessen the occurrence of massive gun violence.
            Something in wich the NRA and yourselve have not come up with any real solutions for.

          • Dave

            BTW, I am in agreement of the Cornell link. Banning all guns is unconstitutional and whats more… It doesn’t work.
            That is NOT what Obama if trying to do, nor is it in the Senate bill that lost against the filibuster.

  • NObama_Holder_Reid_Pelosi_2012

    Not to worry folks, what congress has failed to do in assisting Obama’s gun confiscation scheme, the UN small arms treaty will take care of it, and if that fails, then he will as usual circumvent congress and the people and issue EO’s saying that he can’t wait for congress to act. When he says “WE” can’t wait, he means “He” can’t wait to get what he wants. So the next avenue I suspect Obama will take is the UN “Small arms treaty” to get his gun registry.

  • EthanShays

    Communist legislation just keeps coming back until it finally passes. Expect more attempts in the future. Stay vigilant.

  • rbrooks

    what victory? it was a magic show. and most of you missed the sleight of hand. while the children were distracted by the feds, several states passed some of the very same restrictions.

  • rbrooks

    half of the americans in this country are restricted from owning a gun. most of you support those restrictions. you only complain when you are going to be included.

  • vietnamvet1971

    It broke my Heart to watch O’Bozo Whining & almost crying that he did not get his way but like a good little spoiled Boy he finally said it is not over till I write all my Executive Orders. I thought there were more Urgent / Important things to Cry for like High Unemployment (Bush its your fault ) a Run away Budget (oops forgot you said no problem there the Higher the Better) BUT you did Cry over the Sandy Hook dead children that almost made you Human, But yesterday you were the FIRST president to Host / Have their Backs at the Gala Party of Planned Parenthood I am sure ALL you enjoyed sharing notes on Abortion and what you really liked. So keep up the Good HYPOCRITICAL things that you like and are not so boring.

  • Patriot66

    We’ve won for now. But they will relentlessly persist until
    they get what they want. I believe their main goal is to make it mandatory to
    get a psych evaluation before being allowed to purchase a gun. Can you imagine
    the can of worms this would open! The need to have permission of some quack to
    say you’re fit to own a weapon is the main agenda. Most quacks are very liberal
    messed up basket cases themselves. But this would give them tremendous power,
    and I can assure you all that these individuals would be placed very
    strategically to promote the agenda of world domination and the enslavement of
    all mankind. I tweeted, a much tamer version of this agenda, in the very
    liberal Washington Post and New York Times and was edited out within minutes.
    It horrifies me of the power they would have and what the criteria would be for
    being declared sane. What is the definition of sane/insane? What are the thresholds
    of each? It gives me the creeps just thinking about it.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.