The Gun Control Fight Has Only Just Begun

0 Shares
gun on flag

Following the defeat of President Barack Obama’s gun-ban wish list last week, many 2nd Amendment advocates rejoiced and the National Rifle Association said the President “bit off more than he could chew.” But it’s certain that Obama’s crusade against guns hasn’t ended.

On Wednesday, the NRA said in a statement: “Today, the misguided Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal failed in the U.S. Senate. This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution.  As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.”

Meanwhile, the President was busy throwing his now infamous Rose Garden tantrum, saying it was “a shameful day for Washington” and complaining that the NRA and other members of the gun lobby wield too much power in America.

In an interview with the Washington Secrets blog, NRA president David Keene said that Obama was simply upset that he so badly misread public opinion.

“He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn’t change people’s basic values and feelings,” Keene said. “What he learned is that he bit off a lot more than he can chew and that you can’t just talk your way to a victory. You have to have something that makes some sense and he what he was proposing just didn’t make much sense.”

Though the President appears to have been defeated in his gun grab, remarks made last week by Vice President Joe Biden reveal that the Administration isn’t throwing in the towel.

“Look, I know you’re going to say that I’m just being an optimist and I’m trying to put a good face on this. But, you know, I’ve been around here a long time and we’ve already done, because of you, some really good things,” Biden said during a call with supporters, according to Buzzfeed. “Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he’s going to be taking later this week.”

White House officials later backtracked on Biden’s comments, saying that the Vice President meant to say more work was being done to move forward with the gun-related executive actions the President already signed. By the deadline of this article, no additional executive actions had been listed on the White House website.

But Biden’s remarks are likely not as anodyne as White House officials want gun rights advocates to believe. For example, he also said that the Administration was working on ways to increase the number of Americans denied access to guns.

“We also are reviewing the list of prohibited purchasers to maybe expand that list of prohibited purchasers,” he said. “Granted, only 60 percent of people who go for a purchase are doing it [background checks].”

Congressional Democrats are also reportedly regrouping for a renewed gun control fight. Some lawmakers have even suggested adding largely symbolic amendments to gun bills exempting certain rural Americans from provisions to draw new support.

For conservatives, remaining vigilant against anti-gun legislation appears more important than ever as the recent legislative defeat gives rise to new vigor and increasingly dramatic propaganda from the anti-gun left.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

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

  • Motov

    The Democrats have relentlessly attacked the successful hard working people for years in order to reward their star system abusers, They are never happy with the power they have gained over the years and desire total domination, so they can take what they didn’t earn. Their idea of “equality” isn’t the same equality the constitution provides. If they placed the same effort they do in ripping off those who earn their way through life, by doing what it takes to earn their own life, The democratic party would cease to exist

    • Ron r

      You have just described both parties. Neither one is working right now.

  • Ron r

    I have yet to hear a valid argument that makes background checks anti 2nd amendment. BTW did we not have a ban on assault rifles once befor ? Did the government take anything away then? In reality guns or no guns is not as big a deal as a dysfunctional congress and the hold lobbyist have on it . I say term limits is the only way to break their hold. Matters not what party,just do something dam it !!!!!!!!

    • vicki

      Background checks are anti 2nd Amendment because they require you to get the permission of the government (an infringement) to buy or sell a firearm. It also violates your 9th amendment right to buy, give away or sell your private property (your firearm).

      There IS a background check method that won’t violate your 2nd Amendment rights. It will not create a defacto registration and is a LOT cheaper than the current methods. We don’t even need to pass a law to use it.

      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.

      • Bob666

        “Background checks are anti 2nd Amendment because they require you to get the permission of the government (an infringement) to buy or sell a firearm. It also violates your 9th amendment right to buy, give away or sell your private property (your firearm)”.
        Yea, would you like to buy a drone?

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

          Yes I would as a matter of fact. Do you have one for sale?

          • Dave

            Hey Greg,

            Can you try and buy a 88MM Howitzer? I have a hunting trip next week. See how successful you are.

            How about NAPALM? The kids who run through my lawn need to be taught respect for private property… you understand don’t you?

            I am going fishing next week too… do you know where I can buy aArleigh Burke class destroyer with active depth charges? Let me know the offical channel to go through to purchase please. I am tired of these Large Mouth Bass not landing on my line….

          • MikeW

            It’s nonsensical extrapolations like these that show the desparation of the gun-control obsessives. They can’t make a logical rational argument to support their positions, so they resort to absurdity.
            Obviously, NOTHING in Dave’s “argument” would ever even be on the table in a rational 2nd Amendmant discussion.
            It’s all part of the ploy to nibble away at the 2nd Amendment in little incremental bits, but the whole thing ionores the original INTENT of the 2nd Amendment.
            The LIMITED powers GRANTED to the federal government are specifically spelled out in the main text of the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were composed as a specific list of guarantees against intrusion and overreach by the newly authorized federal government.
            Our Founding Fathers were all-too-aware of the dangers of unfettered and untempered government power, and the tyranny it could easily lead to. So the Bill of Rights was constructed to ACKNOWLEDGE (not “grant”) certain rights of the people to be protected FROM their government.
            The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and sport shooting, and EVERYTHING to do with preventing an out-of-control overreaching government from seizing control of our lives as did the British colonial government that the American Revolution overthrew.

          • Dave

            “Rational” discussion???
            Who determines that? You? A large artillery piece is “arms”, Napalm is “arms” a US destroyer is “arms”
            So under many people’s definition of the second amendment here. You should be able to gain all these items. yet you can’t legally.
            I just destroyed many of the second amendment fanatics arguments in this example.
            In the lead up to the American revolution, the British Gov leveled taxes and fees on the colonies without any representation from those colonies. “Big” Gov was not even part of the equation. It was representation and taxes. The Second Amendment was written in 1791 because the US was a new country and needed a standing army. Section 8 illustrated what the definition of a militia is. It is not a citizen acting on their own accord. It is the army. The US Gov system is one where the people vote for the president and the Congres so its a completely different model than the British Monarchy.

          • MikeW

            You destroyed nothing but your own credibility.

            Section 8 of the Constitution defines the National Guard, a homefront force under government command and control, which is NOT the same thing as the Militia. As noted previously, the body of the Cnstitution outlines the specific powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights are specifically the rights of THE PEOPLE that are protected against Government intrusion.

            The Militia Act of 1972 defines the Militia as follows:
            “…each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service…”

            In other words, the Militia is comprised of all free male adult citizens (the Militia Act was amended in 1806 to remove the racial qualifier) organized for the common defense, NOT under direct command of the government AND who are expected to provide their own state-of-the-art weaponry.
            The 2nd Amendment codifies the right, even obligation, of free citizens to own, possess and CARRY their own firearms, since they are all considered to be part of the Militia.
            The reasons for the Revolution do indeed include those you mention, BUT also include the right to self-determination free of a domineering and oppressive government that would impose such levies on its citizens.

          • Dave

            “Obviously, NOTHING in Dave’s “argument” would ever even be on the table in a rational 2nd Amendmant discussion.”
            There are many people on this site that feel the 2nd amendment is limitless…
            A large artillery piece is a “arm”
            Napalm is an “arm”
            A US Destroyer is an “arm”
            And under their definition, I should be able to buy them fully armed as protection from the Gov’s tyranny that I help elect.
            The founders never saw WMD’s like we have now. They can muskets and cannon. You your ideas about what the founding fatheres “intended” with the 2nd Amendment is complete speculation and you put your spin on the amendment to suit your political slant… Nothing more.

          • MikeW

            Using the argument that “…The founders never saw WMD’s like we have now. They can muskets and cannon. You your ideas about what the founding fatheres “intended” with the 2nd Amendment is complete speculation…” is just as ridiculous as saying that “the 1st Amendment ONLY applies to newspapers, because the Founding Fathers never saw radio, television, and the internet”.
            My political “slant” as you call it is non-partisan and pro-Constitution. I am equally disgusted with both major parties, and sick of both far-left and far-right, because ALL of these ideologies are making a mockery of the founding document of this country.

          • Dave

            Mike,
            Your slant on the 2nd Amendment is less likely than mine. I feel pretty safe saying the founders did not forsee Nukes, Automatic weapons etc it which large numbers can be killed with one swath…You are partisan because you are human. This site is an ultra conservative site and if you agree with many of the authors here…well then you are most likely an ultra conservative right winger.
            The US Constitution is a living, breathing document and interpretation of it depends on your politiical point of view in many instances. The 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendments being prime examples.

          • MikeW

            I don’t disagree with your opinion that “…the founders did not forsee Nukes, Automatic weapons etc it which large numbers can be killed with one swath…” My point was that the same can be said for the 1st Amendmant as applied to technologies that, likewise, the founders could not have foreseen.
            Just as the “…living, breathing document…” extends freedom of speech and press protections to information delivered thru means other than print media and public discourse, so too should ALL of the Bill of Rights be interpreted to include new technologies.
            How about 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure as they apply to electronic surveillance that can “see” and hear thru walls without even entering the suspect premises, data mining of online activity, warrantless GPS tracking of cellphone and EZ-Pass signatures, domestic use of military surveillance drones? The founders could not have foreseen those, so should they be covered?
            Does the 5th Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination apply to idiots who post recordings of their misdeeds on Facebook or YouTube?
            Why should the 2nd Amendment be excluded from the same ongoing “changing times and technologies” updates as the Liberals insist upon for the other 9 in the Bill of Rights?
            The language in any of the first 10 amendments is quite clear and not at all ambiguous. The phrase “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…” is quite clear and succinct. The underlying implication, as with the other amendments, is that the rights guaranteed (NOT granted) are immutable, even if the specifics change with the times.

          • JeffH

            To have a rational discussion there must be at least 2 rational people in the discussion.
            Dave the board whiner is obviously not one of those two rational people.

          • JeffH

            And…this is the guy who moans and groans when nobody answers his questions…mostly like the one he just asked above.
            Wah! Wah! Wah!

          • vicki

            There is a bunch of good info on where to get or how to build your own here http://diydrones.com/

            If you want one ready to go you can try http://www.dji-innovations.com/

            Or just type in quadcopter into your favorite search engine

        • vicki

          Matter of fact yes. Probably starting with this one

          http://ardrone2.parrot.com/usa/

      • 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.

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

          Are you a lawyer? That sounds just like a lawyers argument. Trying to confuse rather than clarify the simplicity of the 2nd Amendment.

          • Dave

            Whas that too complex?

        • vicki

          You are correct in that there are limits but they are not where you think they are. The 2nd is very clear that the people shall have their right to keep and bear arms protected. There is NO restriction on what arms they can keep and carry (the bear part).

          The limits are the obvious ones about how you USE the tools you carry. The limits are on mis-use not possession (including how you carry).

          The part of the sentence that is used to give ONE of the many reasons the founders specified that the people shall have their right to keep and bear arms protected mentions a militia but does not confer any limitation on the people. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

        • M

          What part of “people” are in your version of my constitution? “The right of the people to assembly. 1st

          The right of the people to not have the army in there home 4th

          The right of the people if the state and the government have not taken the right shall remain with the people.10th

        • JeffH

          Please try to educate yourself on the 2nd Amendment.

          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.

          The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

          The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a “collective right.” The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

          There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth
          century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

          http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

          • Dave

            You are cute when you lose an argument and you get all angry Jeffrey… Makes you want to pick up a gun and kill someone doesn’t it?

            Section 8 of the Constitution is pretty clear waht a militia is and once again…

            background checks for ALL gun sales is not a GUN BAN
            better mental health capabilities is not a GUN BAN
            Better sharing of data among law enforcement is not a GUN BAN
            Which is what most of Obama’s proposals are… But you lie because it is what you do…
            So
            STOP IT
            STOP IT NOW.

          • JeffH

            The unhinged one Dave says “You are cute when you lose an argument and you get all angry Jeffrey… Makes you want to pick up a gun and kill someone doesn’t it?”

            Are these observations and thoughts by Dave that of a reasonable man? Not even close!

            Seek some help Dave and remember …The pressure cooker did it!

            In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.

            ~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, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

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

      “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” If you cannot understand those four words, you either were a poor student or just failed at reading comprehension. This is why I don’t think stupid people should be allowed to vote, before they are able to read and comprehend what they have read.

    • M

      California took AR’s away when they were banned 10 years ago or so! MA. and NY are doing it now.

      • JeffH

        Actually, California never took the AR away…what they did do is require AR owners to register them over a specific period of time. If you didn’t they became illegal weapons. California also created a list of banned AR platform rifles and also defined the characteristics the may or may not make them legal.

        The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 was California’s first assault weapons act. The Act is still in effect and specifically identifies assault weapons by make and model.
        http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf

        Fortunately with all of the “off-list” manufacturers today, Californian’s can buy or built a modern sporting AR style rifle…with specific limitations of course.

  • Bobalinko7

    I wonder how many people in Boston were thinking they wished they had a gun not knowing if that idiot was going to come busting into their home in desperation. Today on Fox News Sunday, Senator Feinstein again stood by her views on assault weapons when asked if the people in Boston should have been able to protect themselves. She pulled an Uncle Joe idea of using a shotgun. I just want to see her shoot a 12 gauge and a AR15 and then see what she has to say about it. People her age are sometimes fragile. A 12 gauge could be too much for some folks. But I guess I could talk if I had armed guards around me all the time.

    • Gary

      Glenn Beck was saying the same thing a few weeks ago how he was fortunate to be able afford to hire armed thugs to protect him here “in the greatest country in the world”.

    • Trav

      I’m just curious which she would grab if she had an AR and a shotgun beside each other as an attacker came at her..Could she really be so stupid as to grab the shotgun? “Oh I missed, please wait until I re-load my shotgun sir”

  • Bimbam

    The negro clearly is an amateur wannabee tyrant. It’s unbelievable the childish tirade this little infant is capable of.

    The sooner we remove him and Uncle “Slo” Joe the better off America will be by a country mile.

    Let’s do it!!! I’ve always said the negro does not belong there.

    • Doc Sarvis

      More Racist comments!

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

        Apparently, racist comments are allowed here as long as the racist agrees with Bob. Now, your calling Bimbam a racist boob – that might be a different story.

        • Dave

          There are selective “rules” here…. Conservatives can get away with much more… If you are a liberal… you better walk a stright line in Bob’s eyes. He will erase your post in a heartbeat.

          • speedle24

            What did he say that was racist?

          • Doc Sarvis

            I’d say the worst is the last sentence.

          • speedle24

            He didn’t say he didn’t belong there because he is a “Negro”. He just referred to him as a “Negro”. You need to get a life other than a political correctness monitor so that discussions are not hijacked and diverted by “race” issues.

          • nickkin

            he is a half & half…..wasn’t his mother white?

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Have you considered why you lie? Or is it in your world there are no lies as long as your ideology is advanced?

          • Dave

            Hmmm same could be said you you and your ideology

          • Bob666

            Yo Nads,

            Perhaps you could help me and point out where Dave Lied? I would not want to be accused of an ad hominem statement and based on all of your post, I know that you would not want to do that as well?

        • JeffH

          Well, well, well! Look what the cat drug in.
          The two biggest whiners are back at it…”Snake oil” 666 and “Life isn’t fair at PLD” Dave.
          Would you both like a little cheese to go with your whine?
          LaPierre and Pratt 2016!

          • Dave

            Ad hominem attacks!!!! Look Vicki!!! Why do all Jeffery’s posts start with ad hominem attacks?
            Looks like his post didn’t start or end well…

          • JeffH

            Would you like a little more cheese to go with your whine?

            Wah! Wah! Wah!

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

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • Bob666

            Oh Poor Jeffery,
            Looks like you are having a melt-down like a five year old today.

            ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT READ JEFFERY AND HIS TRIDADE ABOUT FIREARMS TODAY.

            ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T CARE about Jeffery’s Opinion AT ALL. Not even by accident.

            STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT!

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

        • Jana

          Actually its a much better word than what the black people call themselves, but the whites are not allowed to call them. I called a black ladies house one day and her little girl answered. I asked for her mother and she yelled “Mama its a whitey.”

      • nickkin

        hey doc…what do you call a “honkey” or a “cracker”? Racist ?

  • gailfilerino0304

    All I got to say is stay vigilant. I believe we will see another major SHOOTING SPREE staged by the radical liberal leftist democrat communist. Don’t be surprised! As for executive orders/actions that would be abuse of powers but why would obama & his communist party push so hard on a bill that did not nor would not curb the violence. Only to take away the guns from law abiding citizens.
    Only 4% of Americans wanted any new GUN CONTROL 96% WERE AGAINST ANY GUN CONTROL. It’s not that the NRA is so powerful but they speak for how AMERICANS feel about their guns & the CONSTITUTION and personal FREEDOM.
    What the liberal communist missed is AMERICANS are sick of being governed against their/the will of THE PEOPLE.
    What has happened here is the American people now realize that obama is not acting in their best interest and he’s over stepping his bounds. Instead of working on the economy and protecting this country from terrorist. He’s more interested in taking your gun rights, changing the definition of marriage, raising taxes in a very bad economy, dumbing down our public schools by CORE CONTROL, limiting our free speech and labeling law abiding Christian as terrorist. 90 million people are out if work.
    Common people when have you seen 90 million people unemployed. PRICES FOR FOOD, CLOTHING AND GAS ARE SKY ROCKETING.50 MILLION ON FOOD STAMPS. Is that what we want a few hundred dollars a mth. Of food stamps or do we want our economy to turn around and have more job opportunities.

    • Bimbam

      Be careful. As Rush said the negro and his white racist handlers are doing this on purpose to make the Americans “SNAP” and then be fully tricked into “change” and a takeover.

      Don’t fall for it. Just keep resisting the negro firmly, but quietly. Do not fall for the childish Saul Alinskinny tactics.

      • R.F.

        Are you actually using the word “negro”? Did you know it is no longer 1945?

        • Doc Sarvis

          EXACTLY! True Americans would not say things like BimBam does here.

          • Capitalist at Birth

            Unfortunately that is the accurate description of those of that race. Negroid or Negro, take your pick. There is nothing racist about it. Actually, I believe the word negroid stems from the Spanish word for the color black. Look it up. There is nothing racist about calling me Caucasian. I don’t take offense to that term, even though you can’t tell by looking that I am over 1/4 Cherokee.

          • Ron r

            The best description is human. But don’t let me stop you from saying what you feel

          • Bimbam

            Finally a smart man. “Black” is not a race.

          • momo

            Exactly what is your definition of a “True American”?

        • Trav

          Your kidding right? With all that is going on in this country you actually want to start a debate over this?? This is priority to you over the downfall of this country?

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

            The downfall of the country? What, over background checks? Are you completely daft?

          • nickkin

            It goes beyond background checks…cameras, chips (in animals for now) and the sharing of information. Cell phones and monitors in our vehicles add to the list. Wake up sleepy!!

        • speedle24

          Did Webster’s dictionary change since 1945? News flash R.F. The world did not start when you were born, and the Pop Culture does not over write established mores.

        • The GLB

          The word Negro is still in my computer’s dictionary, and no, my computer was not built by IBM to document the identification of Jews, Gypsies, and other ethnic groups deemed undesirable by the National Socialist regime.

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

        Would you actually repeat such racist nonsense but for the anonymity of the internet?

      • Ron r

        Where there you have it. Repeating something Russ says. Russ the draft dodger who loves America . The bigot withe a jet. Keep up the poor expressions of hate reich winger . The reich is proud of you and yours. Negro,you ,bob and the other idiots are a hoot.

      • BlueMoney

        Don’t call him a “negro”, it plays into the hands of people who would accuse all gun owners of being ignorant racist rednecks. (I’m sure Jim Carrey would love your posting.)

        Call Obama the “man-child” instead. His lack of credentials, his ineffectual “leadership” over the last 4 years, and his gauche opportunism exploiting the Sandy Hook families followed by that whiny performance he put on in the Rose Garden last week, all lend credence to such a moniker.

        • Joan

          Maybe “half negro” would be better? or anything else you choose. He is a dictator and needs to be impeached.

    • Gary

      It is not my intent toi negate what happened at Newtown but apparently on any given day more kids die from parental abuse than died at Newtown. Should there not be a push to ban parents as well as guns.

      • Trav

        And more children die from being bullied at school than Newton. I used to think that there were only a few deaths caused by bullying simply because there were only a few reported by the media. Type in “Bullied to death” on You Tube and see the hundreds that have committed suicide because of this. I couldnt believe it. And there is nothing said about going after the real reason for school shootings, why? Kick these scum out of school and you solve your school shootings. All these shootings that have occurred (except for the Newton) I have read were a result of being terrorized to the breaking point for these kids.Those poor boys at Columbine were having urine thrown in their face AT SCHOOL. So I can fully understand why they snapped. After years of this terrorism, shunning, verbal and physical attacks and urine in the face, and not one person caring, I would lose it as well. America doesnt stand for terrorism, why should these kids? These bullies are sitting back laughing at how stupid people are and not even seeing or acknowledging what they are doing, so it is continuing and will continue until people with the power to throw these kids out do so. Anyways, I am not arguing with you, I just wanted to add some facts to what you wrote…Cheers

        • vicki

          If the colombine kids were upset with the “bullies” why did they attack all those other people too?

      • identitee

        Unfortunately, there is.
        Or have you not been paying attention to that whole side of the culture war?

  • Peter Barney

    Obama is a marxist. Impeach Obama!

    • Doc Sarvis

      President is a centrist, our twice elected leader.

      • MikeW

        A “CENTRIST”? On what planet? Obama is so far left he makes Pat Buchanon look like a Centrist! And, as for “twice elected leader” his margin was extremely thin, far from a mandate. Almost as many people voted against him as for him. If Electoral votes were deployed proportionally rather than “winner takes all” as in most states, he may not have had sufficient number to secure the second term.

        • Dave

          What policies are “far left”? please.
          So when Bush defeated Kerry… The conservatives considered that a mandate. Obama’s margin of victory against Romney was greater but that is not a “mandate”
          Care to explain?

          • MikeW

            “Far Left” = imposed Socialism, in direct conflict with the Constitution of this country. Leftists continue to pusue this doctrine of governmentally-imposed “fairness” and “equal protection” for all, and of redistribution of wealth through “progressive” taxation , even though it has prven a failure in Europe and elsewhere. The rest of the world is finally turning toward Capitalism, as we are being driven headlong into the Socialist abyss.
            By Constitutional decree, there are only 3 “entitlements” in this country: “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”! There is NO entitlement to live off the hard work of others; to engage in frivolous non-productive pursuits while collecting a generous government stipend. We have no Constitutional entitlement to be “protected” from our own free choices, or to be insulated from anything that may offend us or hurt our feelings or diminish our self-esteem.
            We are entitled to no more or less than the right to strive to achieve our freely chosen goals without governmental intrusion, while respecting the rights of our fellow citizens to do the same.
            A simple majority (51-55%) is NOT a mandate. It is a virtual vote for the status quo, NOT a vote to “…fundamentally change…” the country. A simple majority means that about equal numbers of people are satisfied as dissatisfied. It means, “It’s time for a new chef, as long as he doesn’t change the menu too much”. This is called “normal”.

          • Dave

            You did not answer a single question I had

          • JeffH

            Why would anyone answer any of your questions?

            You’ve shown a propensity to fully ignore any reasonable dialog that doesn’t fit in your little square world…and then whine that life isn’t fair to you here at PLD!

          • Dave

            Show me reasonable dialog Jeffrey…

            I think you mean attacks I get from any challenge to your opinions and your square box “world view”
            I could call you a fascist so I can be more like a conservative and misue terms… Then at least you can understand because that is your language.

          • Jana

            Gun Nut Dave, why should anyone give you reasonable dialog? You have yet to be reasonable. We have tried to be reasonable and it doesn’t work with you. We would ask the same thing of you. Instead you come back with smart aleck answers, that isn’t reasonable.

          • Jana

            By the way Dave I wouldn’t mind having a decent normal conversation sans the smartiness, but I will not be talked down to, and I can sure dish it out if that is what you want.

          • Dave

            Jana,
            Can you cite examples of your “reasonable-ness”. I give as good if not better than I get from people like poor Jeffrey, F/F and a whole assortment of rabid right wingers.
            If you want to engage in civil dialogue… I can give you that.
            If you want to lie can call me a socialist, marxist, communist because I disagree with you? You get smart aleck and your tactics put right back on you. If you don’t like that, then have a serious discussion. Lets start now… Tell me why you think Obama’s proposals are so “gun graby”

          • Dave

            Crickets from Jana…

          • Jana

            You call that a good way to start? Sounds like good old bullying to me GUN NUT DAVE!

            YOU ARE ALREADY PROVING YOU DON’T WANT TO BE CIVIL.
            I didn’t think you could do it and you just showed me and everyone else you can’t or won’t!

          • Dave

            As i said, I give as good as I get from you and others… But lets start over.
            Why do you think Obama gun proposals are a violation of the 2nd Amendment?
            Give me a thoughtful answer on each individual proposal.

          • JeffH

            Only in your twisted little progressive half brain!
            LMAO!!!!!

          • Dave

            My “half brain” is still a half brain more than you possess. Poor jeffrey… you come unglued so easily.

          • JeffH

            Hey dummy…you do realize that you just admitted you’ve got only half a brain…can I call you eddie from this point forward?
            POLLY WANT A CRACKER? baaarrraaaccckkkkk!

          • Jana

            Why don’t we start with you telling me why they ARE Constitutional.After all, it couldn’t even pass the Senate.

          • Dave

            No Jana,

            It is not up to me to tell you why background checks are Constitutional, you and your side are the ones saying it isn’t. You need to show cause. There is nothing the Consitution says that these proposals even come close to violating the Constitution except for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban and the limiting the size of magazines and even that is up for debate.

            The vote was 54-46 IN FAVOR of the watered down but the GOP use the filibuster once again to stop the bill from moving forward.

          • MikeW

            You asked for a definition of “far left”, I gave you one. Those who impose a Socialist order on the people because they believe that they (and ONLY they) know what is “best” for we poor ignorant unenlightened masses.
            At no time, in either of my posts, did I disagree that Bush’s win over Kerry was also not a mandate. You are correct that some conservatives interpreted it in that manner, but I stand by my definition of “mandate” in the final paragraph of my previous post.

          • Dave

            I asked for:

            What policies are “far left”? please.

            Not a definition

            Socialism is the Gov controling the means of production, distribution and the market for the supposed “good” of society.
            What you should be scared of is Authoritarian and underline the Authoritarian… Socialist regimes like China before taking over Hong Kong, Cuba, and the USSR.

            That is nothing like what we have here or even in the same universe as what Obama has proposed. So unless you can cite something, you are lacking knowledge on the subject. BTW, there are countries that have more socialism than we do. (Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Germany etc) and those countries are not “failures” in fact you can argue that they are in better societal shape than we are.

            You want to talk wealth “redistribution?” What do you call it when wealthy corp interests have the power and money to gain access to politicians and to finance their re-election campaigns to get their agenda passed that puts mone money in their pockets of their narrow interests? That sounds like wealth redistribution to me but since these people own the game… thats ok…

            Glad you agreed with me that many conservatives thought they had a mandate in 2004. It is those conservatives that thought they had a mandate in 2004 that need to own up to their hypocrisy. Obama is a centrist. He ran as a left-centrist in 2008, goverened as a right-centrist for the majority of his first term.

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

          I’m sure if you played with the math enough, you could figger a way that no Democrat could ever win. What if we gave California’s votes to Wyoming? What you want is to disenfranchise voters in cities, so even though Obama wins a state like Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh separated by Alabama) by 10 points, the Repug gets the majority of electoral votes. Who came up with that, Karl Rove or Bernie Madoff?

          • MikeW

            What is so hard to understand about proportional allotment of Electoral votes? It’s called a “representative government”. The current syatem disenfranchises what you call the “Alabama” section of PA, by negating their votes and assigning the electoral total as dictated by Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The urban voters would still be counted, they just wouldn’t be stealing the electoral will of the rest of the state. Obama would still probably have won PA, but electoral votes SHOULD reflect the popular vote. This IS supposed to be a representative system. How is it representative if a candidate can win, for example , 52% of the popular vote in a state, yet be awarded 100% of the electoral vote in that state?
            And I am not necessarily across-the-board opposed to Democrats, provided they are responsive to the will of their constituents. What I oppose is any office holder who ignores the will of their constituents to adhere to a party-dictated ideology that betrays the ideals and values held by those who they claim to represent. One of the strongest gun rights advocates ever to hold statewide office here in NJ was the Democrat State Senator who represented my district from the mid-70s thu mid-90s, and he got my vote every time.
            So-called :”gun control” is an urban obsession that tries to apply simplistic ineffective “band-aid” solutions to a complex problem that does NOT afflict 90% of the land mass of this country.

      • JeffH

        Right! Nite is day and day is nite too…and pigs can fly!

        • Bob666

          STUDY: POLICE CHIEFS SUPPORT STRONGER GUN CONTROL LAWS

          NRA Opposes Measures Backed By Police and the PublicTOLEDO – A new study shows police chiefs across the country support tougher gun control measures, including laws to require background checks on all firearm sales.

          “Police Chiefs’ Perceptions of the Regulation of Firearms,” conducted by researchers from the University of Toledo, Kent State University, and Wayne State University and published in the April issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that law enforcement leaders support several gun control proposals opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

          Measures backed by at least 75 percent of police chiefs surveyed include requiring background checks for all handgun purchases (supported by 93.5 percent); equipping new handguns with trigger locks (82.7 percent); requiring background checks for all rifle and shotgun purchases; and requiring the addition of tamper-resistant serial numbers on firearms (81.5 percent).

          The study concluded that most police chiefs believe gun rights must yield to public safety: “When asked whether they agreed with the statement that the government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, even if it means making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns, again the majority (63%) indicated that they agreed with this statement,” the authors said.

          “The NRA pretends to represent the interests of law enforcement, but this study shows that police understand the need for stronger gun laws,” said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy and education group. “Most cops just don’t buy what the NRA is selling, and no amount of spin will persuade law enforcement leaders that the gun lobby is looking out for them.”

          Congress is now considering S. 2460/H.R. 5033, legislation that will repeal laws that prevent the federal government from sharing information about guns traced to crimes with state and local police. The NRA is supporting H.R. 5005, a bill that would impose additional restrictions on access to this data, making it harder for police to track gun crime and the criminals who sell firearms to violent felons.

          Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence in Toledo, said the new study’s findings on the attitudes of police chiefs toward concealed weapons are especially revealing in light of the recent debate over the issue in the state legislature. “Concealed-carry laws have become a pet project of the legislators in Ohio, but this study found that more than half of police chiefs don’t believe civilians should be carrying guns at all in public places,” Hoover said.

          The study also found police chiefs with 30 or more years of experience in law enforcement were more likely to support gun control than those with less experience. The more experienced officers, for example, were more likely to support requiring background checks when purchasing a gun than those on the force for less than 30 years.

          Not surprisingly, the study found significant differences between chiefs who belong to the NRA members and those who do not, with non-NRA members being more supportive of tougher gun laws.

          Gun violence prevention groups have long supported efforts to require background checks on all firearm sales, including sales at gun shows, as well as laws to require microstamping technology, which makes it more difficult to remove serial number markings, on all new guns.

          The full study is available at:

          http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/PIIS0749379705005179/fulltext

      • momo

        Big deal, so was Bush.

    • Dave

      Let me help you…

      “the system of thought developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, esp. the
      doctrines that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change and that capitalism will inevitably be superseded by a socialist order and classless society.”
      Obama is not a Marxist. He bailed out the banks, GM and let them run as they saw it with no Gov intervention. That is for starters…
      Its clear you do not knoiw what a Marxist is and I am here to help you and all conservatives…
      Now on to your next point… Impeachment… on what grounds?
      The Bush administration can lie about the Iraq war, torture and they can out a CIA operative and not get any impeachment proceedings going… So what do you based Obama’s impeachment on?

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

        You are correct. He is more of a Fascist. He does, however, have a strong Marxist background. No Government intervention? Are you serious? Valerie was not a C.I.A. operative at the time she was exposed. It was later determined that it was Richard Armitage of the State Department who exposed her identity. You are a useful idiot, evidently.

        • Dave

          Look Vicki!

          Ad hominem attacks by Greg! So awful… Do you have a tissue I can borrow?

          Greg,

          Here is another opportunity for education for you. Obama is not a Marxist or a Fascist. He is a Corporatist which has disappointed me. Strong Marxist background? What marxist policies has he instituted or wanted to institute?

          Is the State Dept part of the Executive Branch? I think it is.

          • JeffH

            O’mans a hybred commie Marxist…but I don’t expect you to understand that you being a self professed progressive and all’
            More cheese for your whine?

          • Dave

            Vicki does not approve of your ad hominem attacks Jeffrey…
            STOP IT
            STOP IT NOW

          • JeffH

            Unhinged Dave…now you’re speaking for Vicki?
            Yeah, right…and pigs can fly too!

          • Dave

            You can fly? Wow!

          • Jana

            No, but once a gun nut always a gun nut, and once a coward always a coward, and once afraid of guns always afraid of guns!

          • vicki

            Actually I had a liberal friend who was so afraid of guns that when we finally sat her down and showed her a hand gun (she wanted to do this) she still shrank back from it as though it was alive and coiled ready to strike.

            The good news is she DID get over it and is now quite comfortable around guns and has been to classes on proper handling and target shooting. So the fear of certain inanimate objects is curable. As long as the victim wants to be cured.

          • Dave

            You know me well enough to call me a coward? (ad hominem attack)
            Sure Jana Sure…. I have lived more life, gone to more dangerous parts of this country that you even know about. Guns are not scary… People with guns that do not have the proper respect for what a gun is or are mentally unstable (either temporarily or permanent) or do not care about other people’s lives are what can be scary.
            I shoot guns, I appreciate a good gun collection… fear of guns I do not have. Its the idiots I mentioned that are scary. I want to put safety measures in place to reduce the chances that those people get guns, allow for law enforcement to be able to do its job better and to examine why we have such a violent society… Much of what Obama is talking about but you don’t know anything about that because you listen to the right wingers here that put forth disinformation.

          • Jana

            Gun Nut Dave, Talk is cheap, especially yours.

          • vicki

            Ad hominem. And I’m waiting for Dave to complain like eddie47d used to that I don’t point out everyones ad hominem.

          • Jana

            Gun Nut Dave, They are not ad hominem attacks. And by the way we all approve of what he said! Yes yes yes!!!

          • Dave

            In your world maybe not. Since Jeffrey lies whenever he gets an opportunity, I believe they are ad hominems. Jeffrey knows nothing about everything and is a busy little boy cutting and pasting items and not citing the source as if he has the synaptic connections to put those thoughts together himself.
            And Jana, I could care or less if social conservatives do not like me or my politics because I believe them to be worthless in America and keep this country from becoming a better vesion of itself.
            Its about time some of you think about what conservatism has done for ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, SS, medicare and contrast against the liberal record on the same.
            I will spare you the suspence… the conservative record on this is horrible.

          • Jana

            As I have said before Gun Nut Dave, 3 cents and your opinion is worth absolutely ZERO!!!.

          • Dave

            My opinion here is fact… not that conservatives care much for facts… Go ahead and tell me all the great things conservatives have done for minorities, women, the elderly… Give me the list… can you? Of course you can’t so you whine about how awful I am for pointing out the vast amounts of excriment that gets spouted here.
            I am sorry the world of reality upsets you so much.

          • Jana

            Poor Gun Nut Dave, whine whine whine.

          • JeffH

            Nut job Dave’s response that his opinion is fact here reminds me of another long exchange he and I had over the “natural born citizen” issue”. No matter how many facts I present or as Dave whines, “cut & paste”(progressives just hate facts presented like that) he refuses to accept the facts and expects his personal opinions to actually be construed as facts.

            Hallucinogenics? Probably not!
            Mind altering mental health prescriptions? Just my opinion but more than likely!

            Seek help ya lying progressive eddie alter ego!

          • Jana

            He has asked me to give him reasons why Obamas proposals aren’t constitutional and I asked him to tell me why they Are constitutional and that I would then tell him why I don’t agree with these new laws. I have been working on them. Mostly because of what Obama has stated and voted for in the past, he can’t be trusted.

          • JeffH

            Jana, you know progressives can’t see the forrest for the trees…that’s why they’re actually regressive. The man is very sick minded…it’s like trying to communicate with a rock…it just ain’t gonna happen!

          • Jana

            I agree.

          • JeffH

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

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

      • momo

        He bailed out the banksters because they own him. He bailed out GM so his UAW buddies would get an increase their ownership stake at the expense of the bondholders.

        • Dave

          The banksters owned McCain and Romney more than Obama if you check the numbers but that does not excuse the large amounts of money in the political process.

          The GM deal wasn’t even close to what you claimed. Both management and the unions had to make concessions before Obama would go through with the deal. Both sides had to agree to changes.

          • Bob666

            Wow F/F,
            Did hell freeze over?, I agree with you 1000%!

          • momo

            Let’s see the bond holders had a 27 billion dollars in the deal and got a 10 percent stake. Meanwhile the UAW agees to reduce GM’s health liabilities by 9 billion, in exchange they get 9 billion in cash and 17.5 percent ownership. Sounds like a great deal for the union, not so much for the bondholders.

          • Jana

            Oh wow, now poor Gun Nut Dave is trying to convince us the Unions had nothing to do with Obama and his bail outs. What other joke is he going to tell??

          • Dave

            Here is a joke…
            Jana trying to have a “reasonable” conversation. The GM bailout had to do with AMERICA and Obama made it clear that both sides had to give before any action was taken. Both sides did and GM is back in business and making the best cars in their history from a quality standpoint.
            So if you don’t want to have a resonable conversation… run along and play…

      • JeffH

        “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It
        is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
        – Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

        Obama helped fund ‘Alinsky Academy': “The Woods Fund, a
        nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…. Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist
        organization…. ‘Midwest describes itself as ‘one of the nation’s oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.’… Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community
        organizing.”

        “Obama is also an Alinskyite…. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.”

        Saul Alinsky, union organizer and mentor for Hillary Clinton, is the Communist who denied being a Communist for the same reason Obama denies being a Socialist; they don’t want the stigmatism attached with these Marxist ideologies and they will limit their potential for support if they expose the true nature of their political ideology. Alinsky wrote a practical guide to put the theories of Marx and Gramsci to practical use. Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” has been the handbook for revolutionaries and trade unionists for decades.

        Cloward and Piven, both university professors gave Alinsky’s work an intellectual standing and concepts that could be embraced by more literate revolutionaries. Thus we have a brief synopsis of the evolution and history of Marxism and its progression to the White House

        Obama’s years as a Community Organizer employed the concepts of Alinsky and his political red shirts are still using these methods. Obama’s covert agenda creates even more frustration within his soul because he is prevented from declaring his affection for Marxism.

        Guided with a foreign ideology for motivation (Marxism is more readily accepted as an alternative government in Europe), Obama is incapable of seeing another set of possibilities for approaching the debt ceiling problem.

        The obsession that drives Obama’s personal demon is the destruction of ‘Capitalism’ this obsession takes precedence over the vitality of the country: like Ahab’s obsession with the white whale, Moby Dick took precedence over the mission of the Pequod and its crew. An obsession can overwhelm people until it is an addiction. Addictions are typically strong enough to destroy the host and the host is willing to destroy everyone and everything around him to satisfy his addiction and soothe the personal demon that lurks in his heart.

        It is impossible for Obama to see ending or reforming any part of entitlement or deficit spending; as in the fictional example of Captain Ahab, his psychosis drives him to the point that nothing matters except the destruction of the whale or Capitalism.

        America or the ship of state is of secondary importance to Obama it is but a means to accomplish a goal; his Marxist ideology is the defining force of his governance and is the focal point of his administration.

        The mundane and tedious tasks of the office are of little interest to our president; nay, his goal is but to advance the precepts of Marxism at the cost of everything and everyone.

        Ultimately “The end justifies the means”.

  • jim b

    BHO has unlimited tax payer dollars (our money), and Bernaky’s printing press to fund his obsessive war against American Freedom and Liberty. For those a holes that voted him and his minions in office you should be ashamed, for those still backing BHO’s obsession to turn this country into a third world socialist cesspool, your involvement in this madness is not going unnoticed, as your precious ratings have so indicated. Once the BHO regime stops funding you and your cohorts what will you do for income?

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

    Can someone explain how this mild, watered-down proposal, supported by some conservative Repugs, to make sure violent or crazy people can’t easily buy guns is a “gun grab’? I know you guys love to play with language, but really?

    • Chester

      Jeff, most of the violent criminal types don’t bother with going to the nearest gun store to buy their guns, as they KNOW they would be rejected. They either contact someone who wants to sell a weapon, legally, or they go to the black market. Oh, one more way they can get guns, steal them. How many gun store burglaries have you heard of lately? Don’t hear a lot about them, but they do happen, and usually a LOT of guns are taken in one pass. Black market supply plus weapons for his own use.

      • Dave

        So because criminals ignore the law… We should have no gun safety laws at all?
        What gun safety laws would you support?
        The NRA have been actively weakening the gun laws we have now for the past 30 years. So what would be your proposal?

        • Al Chemist

          Exactly how does the NRA weaken existing gun laws. Doesn’t congress write the laws? How about just enforcing the laws we have now?
          To buy a gun now, Federal Law requires that a person is INELIGINLE to receive a firearm if any of the following conditions are met:
          (a) Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for one year.
          (b) Persons convicted in court of crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year…
          (c) The person is a fugitive from justice.
          (d) The person is an unlawful user of (or addicted to) marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant … or any controlled substance.
          (e) The person has been shown to be mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
          (f) The Person has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions.
          (g) The person is illegally in the US.
          (h) The person has renounced his citizenship.
          Law abiding citizens must meet the above each time they buy ANY type of firearm. I know, because every time I buy a gun, I have to fill out the forms and wait for the FBI to okay my purchase.

    • Jim B

      You can’t fix stupid, and you can’t stop crazy, no matter how much the social fixers i.e. the government, try’s. 99.9999 percent of the population register their gun, and follow existing gun laws, and practice gun safety 100 percent of the time. Only stupid (our current Executive Branch) would make such an attempt to usurp the Second Amendment over a crazy population of .00001 percent (I think the civilian crazy is less than the military crazy and they are given physiological test). I’m also starting to think, after the Boston incident, and the information shared with us so far about the governments intel on these guy’s, that our national security is in danger from having way to many agencies, and again none of which are communicating with one another. What will stupid do next, invent another government agency to add to the duplicity and inadequacies. We should all be concerned with what is going on, and what will come next. May liberty and freedom live in your hearts forever!

    • Wiley2

      The unmistakable trend is toward ever-increasing draconian restrictions that are as ridiculous as requiring everyone to wear a straight jacket because some careless, angry, or crazy person MIGHT poke someone in the eye. Instead of just punishing people for actual harm to others, laws now punish people for what they MIGHT potentially do to harm not only others but themselves. The line limiting personal liberty has been pushed too far and some of us think it’s time to say “no further”.

  • TIME

    Dear People,

    Per the words of one of the NWO’s long time members: Henry Kissinger,

    { ” If its only against the law, we can move very fast and do anything we want.”}

    If its against the “Constitution and Bill of Rights” { we just go slower and build a case thats believable and we can sell.}

    That people is why, the NWO wants you disarmed before they pull the BIG plug, as in drop the “Financial System” into its complete death.

    Thus robbing you of all you have woirked for; and then your life.

    Control by Divide, thus they conquer with out much effort, as its just a waiting game, oh and of course the body count has to be high enough with each event to make the mindless follow as they should.

    You all need to go learn the case law on all Gun related laws both positive as well its flip side.
    You also need to build a grass roots movment within your own towns, states, Plus also keep Congress in the loop letting them know you are watching their every move.

    Also you all need to call your Congress persons in both houses and tell them to support the “War Crimes Indictment” ~ against Clinton, Bush, and O’Bama.

    Lets make this thing real and knock down the NWO’s face people – then go after the real NWO leaders for the same PLUS ~ the Theft of your wealth.

    Peace and Love, Shalom.

    People its TIME to pick the side of History you want to be on, the side of Morals and goodness, or the side of the criminals.

  • Dave

    Unfortunately the Author cannot even be honest with that this fight is over… Its not a “gun ban”, “gun grab “. It is gun safety…
    Background checks for ALL gun sales is NOT a gun ban
    Mental Health Checks is NOT a gun ban
    Allowing better sharing of info between law enforcement is NOT a gun ban
    Allocating more money for more police at schools is NOT a gun ban.
    When the other side can start being honest, then I will give them more credibility here.
    There are legit concerns over these proposals that should be discussed but that is not what the author and the NRA doing. They are doing what is called telling a “non truth”

    • JeffH

      If you couldn’t be dishonest or lie about gun control you wouldn’t even be here.

      Dave, you have been dishonest since your arrival here…and even more so whenever the discussion involves “gun control”. You have no credibility here so why on earth would anybody want you to give what you don’t even have.

      Stop with your incessent lies and stop whining.

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

      STOP IT

      STOP IT NOW

      • Dave

        Once again with your ad hominem attacks… You are going to drive Vicki to drink if you keep this up.
        I don’t want to see Vicki driven to the funny farm by your childish antics… She is very sensitive.

        • JeffH

          Au contraire…they are not “ad hominem” if they are truthfull and ladened with fact.

          I’m only guessing here based on your new Vicki fetish, but I do believe you’re well on your way to the looney bin.

          • Dave

            Which yours are not… so again…
            STOP IT
            STOP IT NOW

          • Bob666

            300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T care what JeffeyH said today-NOT AT ALL. Not even by accident.
            STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • vicki

            Thanks Bob666 for helping to point out that

            ~300 Million Americans DIDN’T shoot anyone.

            Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a very few

            Stop it

            Stop it NOW.

          • Dave

            And Vicki,
            4,000,000 NRA members do not have the right to deny 300,000,000 people wanting to have better security around gun sales, better law enforcement and better mental healthy capabilities.
            Sorry Vicki but you lose here.

          • vicki

            The NRA is not denying anyone the right to want something. Neither am I. I am pointing out that denying

            ~300 MILLION Americans the right to keep and bear the best tools of defense is both wrong and unconstitutional.

            We don’t even want to keep people from getting better mental health care if they want it. (I am guessing that is what you meant to say above)

            So as you can see I am not the one on the loosing side.

          • vicki

            He may be an alter ego of RBT

          • JeffH

            :)

        • vicki

          Aww how sweet. Dave cares. Of course if he really cared he would help defend the rights of the

          ~300 Million Americans who DIDN’T shoot anyone.

          Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a very few

          Stop it
          Stop it NOW.

          • Dave

            Vicki,
            I would try to help but I am busy trying to undo every traffic law because….
            ~300 Million Americans didn’t get into an accident
            Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a very few
            Stop it
            Stop it NOW.
            Vicki you are a riot… really.

  • FreedomFighter

    Why gun control at all 200 years plus history in America vindicates citizen gun ownership – gives America the largest standing Army of armed citizens in the world.

    Why Why Why?

    Something to think about:
    GHOULISH DISCOVERY ! Fema Prison Found ??? Mass Grave Preparations & HEINOUS INSTRUMENT of DEATH!!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvpB_LN-r2o
    WTF does FEMA need something that chops off peoples heads?
    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • Dave

      LOL… Are you and Alondra related?

      • JeffH

        Are you and Eddie47D one in the same?

  • JeffH

    One of the best kept secrets about gun control is that street cops, the ones who patrol your neighborhoods, don’t think highly of gun control. Having the advantage of dealing daily with your neighbors and criminals, they know the difference. They understand the methods and motivations of thugs and thieves, and how criminals come by their guns. This has led them to disbelieve in gun control’s efficacy (the National Academy of Sciences, after several years of diligent research, came to the same conclusion).

    But now an extensive poll details what cops think about gun control.

    PoliceOne is an online hub for 450,000 members of law enforcement. In March of 2013, PoliceOne polled their members about various aspects of gun control, including the pack of proposals currently floating around D.C. and Sacramento. Over 12,000 working cops, as well as a handful of retired officers, answered the poll. With 83% of the respondents being on the streets or directly leading those officers, their voice is clear and their opposition to gun control is loud.

    Given the current squabble over new and suspect gun control legislation, some highlights from the survey are instructive:

    · 80% see no value in “universal” background checks.

    · 92% of officers think an “assault weapons” ban would either have no effect on violent crime or would make it worse.

    · 96% doubt banning extra capacity magazines would slow violence.

    Law enforcement’s disinclination toward gun control runs counter to the President and the entire California Senate delegation in Washington. This begs the question of who is best informed about the realities of gun violence, and what policies are appropriate; politicos thousands of miles away or the officer in the squad car on your street corner. In terms of reducing violence, officers in the PoliceOne survey said they know the following strategies would work:

    · 91% favor stiff mandatory sentences with no plea bargaining for using a gun in a crime.

    · The same number support civilian concealed carry and 86% think it would reduce or prevent mass public shooting casualties.

    · 59% think increasing penalties for illegally trafficking guns would help.

    When those sworn to protect you, your loved ones and your children from criminals say gun control isn’t the answer, we need to pay attention. When street cops, who know criminals at a very personal level, think gun control is useless, we better listen.

    • Bob666

      The NRA’s new ad caught our attention, given that it was featured prominently on the Washington Post Web site Wednesday.

      But there are polls — and there are polls.

      Regular readers know that we have urged caution against relying on opt-in Internet surveys that appear to make broad claims about estimating population values. Indeed, the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s 2010 task force, in its top recommendation, warned researchers to avoid “nonprobability online panels” when trying to accurately estimate population values.

      For that reason, we gave Two Pinocchios to President Obama in 2012 for claiming that a majority of millionaires support the Buffett rule. He was relying on an opt-in Internet poll.

      Let’s find out more about this survey, and whether it justifies the language used by the NRA.

      The Facts

      PoliceOne.com is a Web site that caters to law enforcement and is part of San Francisco-based Praetorian Group, a family of Web sites for first responders. The headline on the news release announcing the poll last week said: “PoliceOne.com Releases Survey of 15,000 Law Enforcement Professionals about U.S. Gun Control Policies.” PoliceOne’s Web site describes the survey-takers as “more than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals.”

      The number — 15,000 — sounds impressive, but it turns out that once again, this was an opt-in survey, promoted on the Web site and through e-mails to 260,000 newsletter subscribers.

      Jon Hughes, Praetorian’s vice president for content, said that a qualifying question at the beginning, asking whether a survey-taker was a current or former law enforcement member, was intended to weed out people who were not connected to law enforcement.

      “While that falls short of a 100 percent guarantee that no non-law enforcement members took the survey, we found the responses reflective of the general tone of discussion on our site (e.g. member comments) and the rank distribution and department size distribution closely matches that of our registered member base as well as the law enforcement community as a whole,” Hughes said. “There was no cross-checking after the survey was finalized.”

      Still, let’s do the math.

      The reported membership of PoliceOne is 400,000, so the response rate among members is just 3.75 percent. Moreover, there are some 765,000 sworn local and state law enforcement officers — not to mention federal officers.

      This makes it all but impossible to claim that this survey is representative of law enforcement opinions on gun-control measures, and Hughes conceded that “the survey was not scientific by definition.” He added: “Nowhere in our release did we claim to be speaking on behalf of U.S. law enforcement in its entirety.”

      Moreover, people who opposed gun control might have been more motivated to take the survey because of the way the Web site promoted it. Doug Wyllie, the site’s editor in chief, wrote a column in which he knocked the “made-for-TV imagery” used by “certain politicians” who had rows of uniformed officials behind them. “In reality, those cops are there under orders, silently standing on stage like so much furniture,” Wyllie wrote.

      Hughes noted that the column got only 2,500 page views. “We were not trying to sway responses in any way,” he said. “Did the self-selection by respondents have a skewing effect on the poll? It’s possible, as it is with any such survey. Do we believe the results were inaccurate as a result? No.”

      We won’t go into detail about the wording of the questions, but those also raise some concerns. One question, for instance refers to the “White House’s currently proposed legislation.” In these partisan times, that could skew the results, as Gallup discovered when it inserted Obama’s name in polling on gun control.

      The survey methodology also discloses that a question on criminal background checks was removed from the survey “due to flaws with the question details, highlighted by a handful of users.” That’s rather unusual, especially given that background checks are at the center of the gun-control debate.

      “I agree that the removal of the background-check question was unfortunate, though one that should be chalked up to an error in execution rather than any intent to suppress,” Hughes said.

      (Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but the NRA also has not surveyed its members about background checks, which most surveys show has broad support.)

      Given that the main question on background checks was removed, how could the NRA cite a question on background checks? That’s because the organization relied on the results for this question: “Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?”

      This question doesn’t really say background checks, but it does reflect what the NRA claims would be a consequence of the background-check proposals. Generally, however, pollsters try to ask broader questions about policies, not consequences. This question is a bit like trying to discern if someone likes hard candy by asking if they like to have cavities pulled.

      CNN, for instance, asked a series of questions about various restrictions in the background-check proposals, ending with “if the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift.” That got 54 percent approval, compared to the standard 80 to 90 percent for “universal background checks.”

      NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam countered that such policy-worded questions do not get at the core of legislation and thus are intrinsically misleading. “We are providing information about what could happen,” he said. Surveys that show support for background checks “do not explain the implications.”

      We will leave it to readers to decide whether more neutral language yields more accurate survey results. (For the record, the recent Washington Post poll on Maryland proposals described at length the requirements of the law — and still found overwhelming strong support.)

      “How the NRA decided to use our survey data, we had no influence over nor involvement with,” Hughes said. “Obviously, the data ended up supportive of their perspective, but that was certainly not by design.” He stressed that “our survey release was in no way ‘political advertising,’ nor do we have any stake in the game.”

      Indeed, PoliceOne, in its news release, chose to emphasize a different result on background checks: “Respondents were more split on background checks, with 31 percent agreeing that mental health background checks in all gun sales would help reduce mass shootings, while 45 percent disagreed.” The news release did not mention the result that the NRA describes as a background-check question.

      It is difficult to compare the results of this survey to other surveys of police on this issue because many suffer from the same problems identified above. We found one 2006 survey that relied on a random sample of police chiefs, but the questions aren’t very relevant to this year’s debate.

      The Pinocchio Test

      It is quite possible that a truly randomized survey of police officers would turn up results that mirror this poll, but in the meantime, the NRA can’t claim that it reflects the views of “America’s police.” It only reflects the views of the self-selected people who took the survey — nothing more.

      The NRA is also pushing the envelope with how it characterized one of the questions on the survey. But we will keep the rating at Two Pinocchios — similar to other situations when we have assessed statements based on online opt-in polls.

      UPDATE: Upon reflection, we are increasing this rating to Three Pinocchios. As readers noted, a number of police organizations, including the National Fraternal Order of Police with 325,000 members, have endorsed expanded background checks. Moreover, in our desire to maintain consistency on how we treat such online polls, we failed to place enough weight on how the NRA portrayed the question that it says refers to background checks.

      This Poll gets Three Pinocchios

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/nra-ad-claims-that-poll-data-reflects-views-of-americas-police/2013/04/17/f32b82f6-a7ae-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_blog.html

      • Dave

        Good One Bob… Ole Jeffrey’s melon is exploding as we speak that another one of his cut and paste jobs has been discredited.
        Poor Jeffrey, what will he cut and paste from next. He can’t think for himself on economic issues so he uses mises.org and hasn’t even read and understood the links he sends. he doesn’t understand the 2nd Amendment either.
        Its just so sad to see Jeffrey become so unglued.

        • Bob666

          Yo Dave,

          I discovered this blog about six months ago after I retired and this is the only site that I hang out at. I have had limited interaction with him as he appears to be a more than a couple of cards short of an emotionally secure deck. He did seem to get a bit over wound this week (along with others) and went around like a school yard bully looking for a fight.

          The funny this about this is; I own guns and support a responsible protection of the second amendment. More specifically, I am not a democrat and was a republican before joining the libertarian party over twenty years ago. Its comical coming here as I had never heard of Saul Alinsky until several of these nut jobs accused me of being one of Alinsky’s followers!

          In spite of the fact that I belong to Center for Global Sustainable Capitalism, I have been called a Marxist, a Commie, a Socialist and my very favorite, a Paid Shill.

          I heard stories about people like this, but never knew what rock to turn over to find them, maybe I need to put the rock back?

          These folks want to believe what they believe no matter how far away it is from reality. I enjoyed your Vickie closing today, I hope that you don’t mind, but I had to use it myself.

          • Dave

            I believe yours and my position here is the reasoned position… Neither of us want guns removed. We want a better system to help reduce gun violence.
            I love messing with extremists… :-)

          • vicki

            Yours is a very reasoned position. It is also in error.

          • Bob666

            “Yours is a very reasoned position. It is also in error”
            Is that to say that your position is the correct one? Talent on loan by god??

          • vicki

            You may think you are libertarian but your position on gun ownership appears to be at odds with the libertarian stated position. http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-laws

          • Bob666

            Actually Vicki, that is my position spot on. Where does that definition deal with thermonuclear devices, drones, anti tank weapons?

            Could it be that my issue is not with the second amendment (as your interpretation), But the NRA itself? There are many gun owners who do not have their NRA membership certificates framed and hanging on the wall surrounded by candles burning 24/7.
            This may be a shock to you Vicki, but, it is perfectly normal and rational not to belong to the NRA or treat it like a religious organization.
            That does not make me any more or less an American than you. It means that we have differing opinions and that is OK.