4 Bogus Excuses Barack Obama Is Using To Disarm The American People

President Barack Obama has wasted no time this year rolling out more executive fiat designed to imprint his vision of society onto the American people via Executive Actions that are intended to bypass Congress. He issued four Executive Actions on January 4th, 2016, and also made appearances on television to rally support for them. Conjuring up the ghosts of the Sandy Hook kids, he managed to cry on camera at the appropriate time to tie in the emotionalism that is the hallmark of all leftist politics. He then followed up with a CNN exclusive “town hall” meeting on January 7th designed to appear unbiased and accurate.

These are the phony reasons given for the policies he intends to enact:

1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks

Filling out NICS paperwork during a purchase.

Well, the problem is, is that about 30 percent, 40 percent of those guns are coming from Indiana across the border, where there are much laxer laws, and so folks will go to a gun show and purchase a whole bunch of firearms, put them in a van, drive up into Mike Pfleger’s neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago where his parish is, open up the trunk, and those things are for sale.  – Barack Obama.

The first action is to direct an expansion of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is used for every firearm purchase from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holding dealer. All new guns, and most used guns, go through a dealer for sale, and are subject to a NICS check. Private sales of used guns, however, are not subject to the NICS check or taxes.

This is a fundamental part of American liberty. The Constitution does not permit the government any power to regulate private sales. Obama’s tactic in this situation is to change the definition of “dealer” to mean “anyone that sells a gun,” so he can build upon the existing law and skirt around his lack of authority to monitor private sales. There was never such a thing as a “Gun Show Loophole;” I can buy a gun via a private sale anywhere the seller and I choose. That’s called freedom of commerce, and it happens to be legal.

If you buy a gun with intent to sell it to someone who cannot own it legally (like homies on the South Side of Chicago), it’s a straw purchase. Since straw purchases, possession of guns by felons, and murder are all illegal already, the point must be to enhance the amount of transactions the NICS covers. Monitoring all firearms transactions is the first step to confiscating all firearms.

This upstanding young citizen would likely not pass a NICS check.

And we’re also trying to close a loophole that has been developing over the last decade, where now, people are using cut-out trusts and shell corporations to purchase the most dangerous weapons — sawed-off shotguns, automatic weapons, silencers — and don’t have to go through background checks at all. -Obama.

Obama twists the truth with this comment on NFA trusts. A National Firearms Act trust is a legal construction designed to place ownership to a trust, instead of a person. These are things like fully automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and silencers, and all must have federal stamps and permits to be legally had. The idea is so that, when a trustee dies, it is not illegal to inherit the NFA guns, as the permits transfer, instead of being illegal while the heir reapplies or sells the guns.

This is, quite simply, a lie on Obama’s part, and another “half law” designed to remove yet more guns from lawful owners via legalese. All guns going through dealers must do the NICS check, trusts included. What’s going to be next, a NICS check on you when you inherit your father’s gun?

2. Make our communities safer from gun violence

Properly attired wife-beater.

The first part of this was to ensure that all dealers report all lost and stolen guns. While this may seem like a decent plan on the surface, it’s another way of getting the camel’s nose into the tent. Checking out a lost or stolen gun’s data can turn into recording all of a dealer’s transactions, current and previous, and then you have de-facto registration of all of those guns (and their owners).

The other part will ring familiarly here. Obama directed federal help to state agencies dealing with domestic violence for “wider options.” If someone you are with calls in a complaint of domestic violence, when the police come for the investigation, the first thing they take is all your guns, even if there is no arrest. You won’t get them back very quickly, and you may never get them back at all. The disallowing of certain people to possess guns, and the confiscation of said guns, simply furthers the plan of eventual confiscation of all guns. This action’s goal is to make sure all state agencies tow the Federal line, as Federal assistance always comes with rules.

3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system

If you are mentally ill, you are not allowed to possess guns. The NRA, and other organizations, have stonewalled the CDC (a fact that Obama lamented), because of abuses of being designated as such. Obamacare, insurance companies making doctors ask about firearms ownership of their patients, and Social Security “dependent” status are all parts of linking your healthcare information together, and using that information to remove your rights by labeling you defective.

Part of the left’s argument, in an attempt to make it more palatable, is “Of course, everyone should be able to own guns, except X, Y, and Z.” It sounds reasonable until you find out that everyone can now be classified as X, Y, or Z at their whim.

4. Shape the future of gun technology

Personalized weapons only work in film.

If you are a gun-owner, I would think that you would at least want a choice so that if you wanted to purchase a firearm that could only be used by you, in part to avoid accidents in your home, in part to make sure that if it’s stolen, it’s not used by a criminal, in part if there’s an intruder, you pull the gun, but you — somehow it gets wrested away from you, that gun can’t be turned on you and used on you, I would think there might be a market for that. – Obama

Firearms are a mature technology; there hasn’t been a fundamental improvement in the basic firearm since the development of the assault rifle in the forties. Firearms are purely mechanical systems, propelled by chemical energy ignited into kinetic; to put electronic interlocks on them is the height of stupidity.

The solution to the potential problem of “having a gun wrested away from you” is training, good situational awareness, and having already thought through the whole “would I really shoot someone in this situation?” mental debate. You don’t need a prone-to-failure (or outside intervention) battery powered fingerprint scanner or similar technology in a self-defense scenario.

Underlying Motivations

Obama’s tactics, like all liberals on this issue, is to use a tragedy (or an anniversary of a tragedy if a fresh one doesn’t present itself) to trigger “the feels” and press for legislation that is one more cut in the thousand that is the death of our rights to firearms, and anything else essential to preserve our freedoms. I urge everyone to review the Gun Control Act of 1934 and 1968 to see what has already been lost.

The left doesn’t hate guns; they hate YOU having guns. They are protected by people with guns, and they’ll use people with guns to take away yours, if and when they semi-legally pass legislation to do so, and those people will use those guns on you if you resist. Gun control has never been about the guns; it’s always been about control.

Every government atrocity committed since firearms have been developed has always been preceded by gun control, registration, prohibition, and confiscation. People fear their government, and live in an uneasy truce their whole lives, trusting that, by being a good citizen and believing anyone that gets arrested was not, they will escape persecution or prosecution.

And, by the way, the young man who killed those kids in New Town, he didn’t have a criminal record, and so, we didn’t know ahead of time, necessarily, that he was going to do something like that. – Obama.

Freedom and liberty isn’t necessarily safe. We are living in the cesspool of the failed liberal experiment with the divorce and prescription drugs of our parents giving rise to the numb narcissism and anti-socialism prevalent in our generations. The left’s solution is to police us so that the abandoned and ill who don’t bow to their assigned role can’t act out in rage and are relegated to live and die in misery and frustration. All of us, especially those who display independent thought, are thought of as the next potential shooter.

There is another solution. The number of people tired of an omnipotent government is growing. The left’s rhetoric of guns being just for criminals and rednecks is failing. The fact that the possession of a gun by a citizen simply empowers them to act in their own defense and says nothing about their politics, stances, or personality is being realized across all levels.

Every political debate should be looked at as “Is the government trying to restrict my ability to do something?” and opposition to the formation and enforcement of any such restriction is the logical conclusion. Draw the line in the sand for government interference in your life and tolerate no violations of your rights as a man.

The answer to the question of “Should the government….” is always “NO!”

Read More: Future Leaders Of America Call To Abolish Freedom Of Speech And Press

140 thoughts on “4 Bogus Excuses Barack Obama Is Using To Disarm The American People”

  1. Everybody who might be interested, check this interview with George Soros, yesterday, and read what he’s been doing about the EU and the USA.
    Note that now he is fully in, dedicating his whole day to build an “open Society” (no borders, he means more millions of rapefugees coming), to hostilize Russia at the West’s eyes, to drag the USA into Syria’s war, and to stop Trump from achieving political success.

    1. Soros is evil incarnate. He is a Jew who helped the Nazis pillage other Jews. His excuse? Someone was gonna do it [and profit from it]; might as well be me.

  2. Most if not all of those shooters above were on some form of mind altering meds that big pharma got a gag order to not reveal what they were either.

    1. This. Psychotropic drugs, particularly SSRIs, are strongly correlated with mass shootings. That, and a generation of young men who are realizing their society doesn’t give a fuck about them, and are being subjected to incel (involuntary celebacy) by the 80/20 rule feminism has created are factors. (80% of women being monopolized by 20% of men.) Some snap when they realize they’ve been disenfranchised from advancement in society, having a family, and sex.
      The pharmaceutical lobby amounts to legalized drug dealing. They don’t make profit by solving problems, they make profit by making people dependent on their drugs.
      The media also grossly overplays the scope of gun violence in the US. You have a 0.00008% chance of dying in a mass shooting. You are much more likely to die by falling down in your home (over 20,000 deaths a year attributed to falls.)

      1. And a majority of mass shootings are in “gun free zones” because they know they’ll have the upper hand against their victims. The media always leaves that part out but their just doing their part to change the public opinion in their favor. Also I’ve seen politicians mention allowing lawsuits against the makers of the firearms used in shootings as a way to bankrupt gun makers or just scare them out of business. I know people don’t think the government has the means to disarm Americans but they’ll try everything they can to limit the way and amount of firearms people can have

        1. “And a majority of mass shootings are in “gun free zones” because they
          know they’ll have the upper hand against their victims. The media always
          leaves that part out but their just doing their part to change the
          public opinion in their favor.”
          You’re being too generous with them. They DON’T CARE that these mass shootings have been done in gun free zones. All they see is an opportunity to push the narrative. Saving lives isn’t a priority.

        2. Exactly but for the uniformed American it’s all they need to hear and then more and more Americans will push for more gun control out of ignorance

        3. I would go further and say they establish “gun free zones” just so that these tragedies happen. More grist for the mill.

        4. Sadly, you are correct. They want these things to happen so people will overreact and give away their rights out of fear.

        5. The idea of “gun free zones” comes from the same mindset that chicks can get drunk and topless with no expectation of being raped; they can slather themselves in gray, staple T-bone steaks to their tits and then walk into African Lion Safari and then be surprised when then get eaten.

        6. yeah. i think we’re arguing the same thing, but to be clear, holmes supposedly attacked the theatre he attacked because he assumed it would be full of law-abiding people who would not have guns with them since concealed carry is against colorado law in a place where a private business forbids it. the vast majority of mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones.”

        7. They also leave out whenever a killer is taken down by another citizen with a gun, usually using terminology like ‘bystanders subdued the shooter’.

        8. I agree but what are the precise laws on carrying in a movie theater. Can you do that? Or do movie theaters themselves prohibit guns. And if so, do the security guards carry? They should.

        9. The laws, at least in my state, are that any privately owned business can post a No Firearms sign for their establishment. It is up to their discretion. Security guards do not carry from what I’ve seen. However, my local movie theater does have a cop that hangs out there on Saturdays, since it is the busiest night of the week.

      2. Exactly, and to use lefty logic we should therefore ban all two-story homes in order to eliminate stairs.

      3. Bingo. When it becomes obvious that our shooters are found out to be overmedicated incels the truth becomes inconvient and therefore ignored.

    2. The animators of the Simpsons were off their meds when they thought you could fire three shells from a double barrel shotgun. I want to know…

    3. …and that is the REAL elephant in the room. These whackos are tripping out and it gets swept under the rug. We need a full scale Congressional inquiry.

    4. Watch any TV or cable news channel for a while.
      Count the number of commercials you see for mind-altering drugs that have all kinds of side-effects. (And they would range from depression, suicide, sleep disorders, etc. )
      Count the number of gun and ammo commercials you see.

      1. Yea most of those meds are a joke that simply treat the symptoms and not the problem. My father is pushing 60 and has low T, blood pressure issues, and cholesterol problems so I told him to ask his doctor for hgh which would cure all that but of course the doctor bullshitted and offered him half a dozen pills with a bunch of side effects. Modern medicine is a racket

      2. This also keeps TV news from criticizing them. Its such a major part of their income, they dont dare.

      3. Take this pill for depression, although a side effect is an increase in suicidal thoughts. Sounds legit.

      1. I’ll look but I just remember reading about the shootings and always coming across the part about meds and them being “depressed” and whatnot and the reason big pharma would use for the gag order was that “they didn’t want people being scared into not using their meds” if by chance they happen to be on the same meds as the killer which in turn according to them would put more people in harms way or some bullshit along those lines

        1. Hey bud I just typed in “mass shootings and…” And the third phrase on google was “mass shootings and prescription drugs” and it had a ton of articles on the connections between them along with suicide in general and other problems from taking them. It’s worth a gander to see how bad some people get from taking it. One site was dedicated to personal stories from people who were taking but had to get off for their own health. It’s crazy to think a lot of doctors don’t actually have your well being in mind and I’m not talking about all but a good bit.

        2. cheers, I’ll check it out when I can. I know that some common drugs like SSRIs, Prozac and anti-acne drugs have been implicated in suicides, but mass killings – i.e. psycho-killings is a whole different ball-game so to speak

        3. Yea it is and the fact that they are hiding what those people might have been on really hinders advancement on maybe being able to screen people for certain drugs and doing test on how some people might react to certain chemicals. All that shit is out of my realm of knowledge but I know if somebody is down on fucks to give and you give them a mind altering drug it might not work out for the best. I always try to find a natural/healthy cure for my problems rather than a pill.

        4. I always thought auto accidents were the gold standard in the number people killed per year…but legal drugs top them now.

    5. Quite right. Mass shootings are caused by treating people like shit and medicating them because it’s their fault they are unhappy.

  3. I read somewhere that what he’s trying to do isn’t enforceable anyway. These restrictions were put before Congress several times and shot down every time. He doesn’t get to “modify” existing law that will in effect override what Congress has decreed.

    1. The only rub I see with your statement is the fact that he’s said on multiple occasions that if he feels Congress isn’t doing what he thinks is necessary, he’ll create an executive order, and we all know how good Congress has been on pushing back against Obama’s executive orders… *impotent*

      1. Congress is worthless but a federal judge could nullify it if a case got that far. Trump said he would undo these executive orders, which a President can do.

  4. It is interesting how there has been such a concerted effort to create with corporate money fake grassroots groups to destroy the 2nd amendment.. Bloomberg’s Mom’s against Gun Violence was created not by moms against gun violence but the money of an olligarch. Huffpo recently called for the need for anti-gunner “single issue voters” like those of the NRA. Huffpo is the darling of “anti-establishment” Fortune 500 plutocrats. Those who write the paychecks of Jessica Valenti, Anita Sarkesian, Lena Dunham and advertize on websites like Jezebel.
    They portray the NRA as a big money organization that needs to be countered. But the NRA gets its money mostly from dues paying grassroots members. It is not a corporate crony organization but a grassroots organization. I do not mind 35 dollar annual dues,( but I will mention in passing that you may also want to pay 20 bucks and join the more effective and conservative Gunowners of America. I am a proud card carrying member of both.)
    So one can only conclude that the pro-gun lobby is one of the few instances of empowered citizens standing up to a corporate crony lobby. A movement that the establishment of liberal elite SJW social engineers is desperate to quash.

      1. After Sandy Hook,The NRA was ready to compromise. GOA was more hardline. Thanks to GOA, NRA hardened its stance to avoid being wimps. As a result, nothing got through congressl
        But that is not all. I have never seen Larry Pratt lose a debate. He not only wins but absolutely humiliates his opponenet in very debate.
        Check him out on youtube

  5. Transact private sales while you still can. Also, estate sales are an excellent if overlooked source of firearms. Don’t forget extra mags for your dreaded semi-auto pistols and rifles.

  6. Wow, another Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling rant.
    Taking firearms away from citizens will cause another civil war. Every politician knows this. They know they would lose. They know that the new power structure would prevent them from maintaining power.
    They also know that fear is a great control device. So good job on helping them out with that.
    Before you start, yes, I own guns. I own several. I plan on owning more. I have my concealed carry permit. So make sure your arguments are crafted better.

    1. “Taking firearms away from citizens will cause another civil war.”
      This is why taking firearms away is being done by degree, step by step instead of all at once. The left calls it The Long March. Restrictive gun laws are passed incrementally until one day everyone wakes up and realizes The Second Amendment has been nullified.
      It’s the straw that broke the camel’s back analogy. Asking Big Daddy Government permission to buy guns (universal background checks) is a huge step towards their goal. Once that’s established, they begin another campaign of expanding the definition of who can’t buy guns because they have some blemish on their record. Similar to the no fly list, in which half the people on it don’t belong on it. Hillary has already suggested people on the no fly list shouldn’t be able to buy guns. It’s a slippery slope.

      1. “Restrictive gun laws are done incrementally until one day everyone wakes up and realizes The Second Amendment has been nullified.”
        And then years later they’ll pass another amendment to reinstate it.

      2. I don’t care if you own a gun. Or five guns. I am curious as to why you want to own thirty including military hardware. I don’t care if you have them, but I’m certainly wanting to know why. Even if the real reason is “I want to own them.” Okay cool. Rock on with your bad self.
        There is no reason that I can leave the office on my lunch break, buy a conceal carry handgun, and return before the end of my lunch. When I bought my first I was shocked when they let me walk out of the store that night.
        The majority of proposed gun control doesn’t inconvience a gun owner like me. I have no plans on living in Cali so they can fuck right off. It does pinch the dick of Safari Joe who call his twenty AR-15s hunting rifles and bitches about drones flying over his 50 acre compound.
        It’s not going to happen on that scale. Our government will collapse or we’ll be living in some version of a Fallout game before total gun restriction occurs.

    2. There wasn’t a first “rant,” so how could there be another. I’m not sure rant is the right word, you seem to be using the definition of “a discussion that has points I don’t agree with” that is in vogue these days.
      Gun control advocates operate under the guise of incremental increasing control. Every one of their measures is a “compromise,” and reasonable people should agree to such a thing. Once done, the cycle starts anew for another “compromise.”
      I do not fear gun control advocates; I fear my fellow citizens , awash in ignorance, believing their lies, so I spread the word so that liberal bullshit seeds have no ground on which to sprout.
      I was not intending to “start” with an ad hominem about your gun ownership or lack thereof. Either way, you are entitled to your opinion here, as am I. Mine just gets published. 🙂

  7. When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear government, there is tyranny. –Thomas Jefferson

    1. I noticed in gun friendly states [like Texas] police are peace keepers. In gun control states [pick any shitty Democrat state] the police are militant enforcers. The treatment you receive is a 180 difference when the state has a monopoly on force.

        1. ^That’s how it should be. Im noticing more everyday that society and civil servants harmonize best when there is a balance of force. It’s keeps natural human ego in check.

      1. The exception, of course, being that even in Texas police are forced to act as highwaymen. They are known to pull over any driver who gives them the slightest opening in order to take their money AND extend their criminal records.
        Honestly, I’d prefer to be mugged. It’s cheaper and easier to recover from.

        1. Haha, I’ll deal with Texas lawmen everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Growing up in LA and going to college in NYC, the only two groups with guns are cops and thugs-sometimes it’s hard to tell which is which. While the layman is left to fend for himself.

  8. “Monitoring all firearms transactions is the first step to confiscating all firearms.”
    “The disallowing of certain people to possess guns, and the confiscation of said guns, simply furthers the plan of eventual confiscation of all guns.”
    I’ll admit I’m ambivalent on the issue of gun control, but using the slippery slope argument is an excuse not to do anything in the first place because your conclusion, no matter how irrational or far-fetched, has now become the inevitable.

  9. When the right calls for small government that gives people more freedom and less restrictions, the left comically calls it anarchy. They’re disingenuous because the left has always seen the government as a tool for forcing their beliefs on other people. This applies with guns. They say, “you really think you could take on an army with your measly parks and rifles?” What they fail to realize is that the army we hypothetically face is made up of our brothers and sisters.

    1. “They say, “you really think you could take on an army with your measly parks and rifles?”
      I always respond, that it’s better than facing them with rocks and pointy sticks. These people honestly don’t know the first thing about history and war. I would suggest they go back and study the Vietnam war before making such assertions.

      1. US military vs Bubba and the kin that live in the holler?
        My money’s on Bubba to take out more than double his losses. Home terrrain gives a huge advantage. No army can stand that kind of attrition over time.

        1. There’s so many factors at play that the typical lefty simpleton who’s never fired a gun before doesn’t take into account:
          Home terrain advantage: 2nd Amendment defenders
          Morale/Conviction: 2nd Amendment defenders (not many US soldiers are going to be keen on the idea of fighting their own people)
          Sheer numbers: 2nd Amendment defenders
          Guerrilla tactics advantage: 2nd Amendment defenders
          Financing: 2nd Amendment Defenders who won’t have the same costs as a fully decked out army. As you said, rebel forces almost always win a battle of attrition.
          The list goes on.

    2. In 1932 40,000+ war veterans and their families traveled to Washington to camp outside to protest for backpay they were still owed that the govt was holding back on due to the change in the economy. The govt (hoover) turned the troops (the active serving ones) loose on them. They were bashed and shot at and their camp & belongings burned to the ground. Of course the govt spun it as putting down a communist insurrection. lol
      If they can do this to their fellow former comrades in arms and war heros who were doing it hard with the depression and legitimately owed promised pay by the govt then as an ordinary citizen don’t count on your plea of ‘but I’m your fellow american brother’ stopping the marine from bashing you with his rifle butt or worse.
      Those veterans were unarmed though.

    1. He doesn’t have any sons considering he’s pro gun control but has body guards(Or that’s a mean spirites race joke? #Under30)

        1. you mean how the race known as black baited the world
          And demanded
          An innocent man be gassed by the state of Florida just for having a Jewish sounding last name? Yep.

        2. No that’s how the media potrayed it which is why it got the attention it did, keyword ; Race bait

      1. It goes back to the Trayvon Martin justified shooting. Obama said, “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.”

        1. That’s just a race bait nonsense the media created, but he is right Obama is not a father figure which would make his son a thug

  10. An obama advisor recently said that whatever executive action they take needs tp be formulated so that it cannot be undone by congress. That right there shows how pathetic the left is. They are anti-democracy as they go against the very fiber of how American politics is supposed to work.

  11. When you look at where most of the misnamed “gun violence” comes from, you’ll see that we really need “black control,” not “gun control.”
    Seriously, I’ve lived in a redneck gun culture for much of my life. I grew up in Tulsa, and I’ve lived the last several years in rural Arizona, a state which has an open carry law. I have never feared for my life from an armed white man. I can’t say that if I happen to wind up in a shitty black neighborhood.
    We really should appreciate the wisdom shown by those Southern segregationists who kept blacks away from white communities. They knew their business based on daily experience with blacks, as we can see from the results of the attempted social engineering which trashed their safeguards against black decivilization.

    1. Those were democrats who checked this out banned blacks from owning guns. That argument is also biogas considering “black thugs” only attack who they perceive as weak notice how this is only a problem in Blue states?
      Looks like we got another Vermont Democrat

  12. So true. The mass murderers of today would have committed mass murder with anything they could get their hands on. If not guns, how about knives or machetes? Of course, the ever “deep” and “compassionate” left loves to deflect attention away from having to actually look into the real root causes of mass shootings. Mass shootings are a modern phenomenon…the simple question is “why”? Why? The answers are not convenient. In fact much of the root causes are caused by, imo, the left itself. When Columbine happened I knew right away what really occurred. At the time, the mass consumerism and the commiserate culture that goes along with it, the music, the movies, the clothes, the mannerism etc, created a vicious hierarchy among the white middle to upper class youth. Video games, mental illness…all tangential to the fact that those kids were excluded. How could this be? In the late 90s political correctness was huge ergo the underlying belief that we’re all undeniably equal, yet, from Aeropostale to Abercrombie & Fitch to who was getting laid…this “equality” wasn’t equality…but “they”, to include the very students high on the totem pole, keep insisting it is? The result – confusion, incoherence, dismay! Only a culture of moral relativism allows itself to become so ideological lazy that it can permit blatant contradictions. We’ve had the bell curve since mankind could walk, so, people have been acknowledging their station in life, good or bad, without resorting to mass murder for eons. However, what happens when an outside force, an authority, no less, gives out participation trophies? I know my station in life, yet, you say its not really real, so, where is my place in the higher rungs in high school society? I believe it was these contradictions and incoherence that drives people so insane they committed mass murder. And things have only gotten worse. It comes down to outside intervention i.e. social engineering and the myth of “equality”. Kids aren’t dumb. Impressionable, yes. They deserve the truth because it makes them adults. Equality is a dangerous myth and its far better to be real with kids and people than it is to shove sunshine in their ass.

  13. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
    Make no mistake, the government does NOT fear an armed population. They’ll always have much bigger and much more sophisticated arms than the ordinary citizen will ever be able to get hold of. In comparison, you’re just a bunch of cowboys with their little toys.
    So while the American public is engaged in a fierce debate (online, no doubt) pro and against personal arms, your government has committed to spending at least $1 trillion over the next three decades to improve the ability to fight a nuclear war.
    Yes, you heard me right – it’s the beginning of Cold War 2.0! That’s right they are AGAIN preparing for a war that could destroy much of the habitat on this planet. The cost $1 trillion does not include cost overruns, delays, or clean-up and decommissioning costs. So to be safe, it will run up to $3 trillion at least.
    And it seems the other side is undergoing a heavy rearmament too. Russia reveals giant nuclear torpedo.
    Source – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34797252
    But still, The United States has an estimated 1,900 nuclear weapons deployed, versus 1,780 for Russia. Apparently all that isn’t enough to let top Pentagon officials sleep at night.
    Don’t just take it from me. James Doyle, a former nonproliferation analyst at Los Alamos National Laboratory, put it, “Lowering the threshold of nuclear war poses the very real threat of rapid escalation in a conflict potentially resulting in the use of many, more destructive nuclear weapons.”
    What is Russia’s response to all this? Russia’s deputy defense minister, Anatoly Antonov, denounced it as “irresponsible” and “openly provocative.”
    So gentlemen, I’m sorry to break it to you, but you are being fooled about this issues yet again as you’re currently being fooled with Trump too.

  14. Why can’t the Right call a spade a spade about gun violence? Why not just be honest and say gun violence is the price to pay for gun freedom? No one has much problems with traffic fatalities as no one is talking about banning cars rather they see it tragic for a day and then forget about it.

  15. What’s really idiotic is how little support there is for any of these premises:
    Keep guns out of the wrong hands – alleged support is some anecdote about some guy allegedly filling a van with guns, driving it across the border and selling them out of his trunk. You’d think we’d have some concrete evidence of something so brazen – an arrest perhaps. But nothing. We’re just supposed to assume this is happening, because it’s supposedly common sense. But common sense actually dictates that if someone was doing this, he would be immediately arrested by trigger happy cops that would be happy to execute him in the street, especially if he’s black.
    Make our communities safer from gun violence – no real alleged support. How dangerous is your community? I live in an area where MS-13 roams, and there have been two murders recently – both stabbings. I’m not really sure that gun violence is something I should be worried about. In fact, in the past several years, there has been one gun murder that I remember, compared to two stabbing murders, one vehicular murder, and one bludgeoning murder. So, what exactly should I be concerned about?
    Increase mental health treatment and reporting – no evidence that this would work. We already know that the expanded background checks would not have stopped any one of these whack jobs. Fundamentally, the problem is that you don’t know if someone is a violent lunatic before this shit happens. And you almost certainly never will. So these fucktards shift the goal posts and argue: well, if we got rid of guns, the violent people couldn’t kill as many innocent people. Wrong. The most deadly school massacre ever was not Sandy Hook. It was Bath, Connecticut. In 1927. When a sick fuck killed 45 kids by blowing them up. There are likely as many multiple victim vehicular homicides as there are mass shootings, but no one studies or reports on that so we can put things in perspective. And if you pay attention, there is no shortage of multiple homicide knife attacks. The fatalities from these can often be high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack. But, of course, we already knew that since on 9/11, 20 dudes effectively killed 3,000 people with box cutters (not trying to start some debate about inside jobs or whatever, just stating that whoever you think controlled these guys, they were able to achieve their ends using box cutters).
    Gun technology – evidence is the scare tactic that your gun could be turned against you. Not one concrete example where this has ever happened, which, if it was common, should be easy to trot out. The closest they ever come is these bullshit studies that say that you are more at risk of gun violence if you have a gun in your home. Of course, the obvious question that is never included in these studies is: “who owns the gun that kills you?” If you live in a dangerous neighborhood prone to home invasion, it shouldn’t be a surprise that you might want to own a gun, or that you might die by one. But if it isn’t YOUR gun that kills you – this doesn’t mean that your ownership of firearms increased your risk of death. Even if it was your gun that killed you, ask yourself whether you want to have that gun when three armed dudes break into your house. I’ll take my chances. Also ask the common sense question: if having a gun makes you more likely to die by one, why don’t we disarm cops to end the “war on cops?”
    Bottom line, most of this shit masquerades as “reasonable” and “common sense” but it is not. Pro gun control folks like to trot out the “if there’s a chance that we could save one child’s life, we should do it” nonsense. Yes, well there is a chance that if we all get on our knees at noon and pray to the cancer gods of the north that it might save one child from Leukemia too. Are you going to do it? No. Because it’s fucking pointless and retarded.
    Same with all this gun control nonsense – some infinitesimal chance of a positive result doesn’t justify a nonsensical action. Further, as to what’s “reasonable,” stop conceding that their solutions are reasonable when you debate these people. Turn the tables on them. For example, I know a woman who tried to commit suicide when she was sixteen, and she was involuntarily committed. Under these expanded background checks, that would render her incapable of buying a firearm. She’s now 40, has a family, has a good life, a steady job and has been a model citizen ever since. Should she really be prevented from defending her children from some violent psychopath when her husband is out of town on business just because when she was 16, she was “depressed” like every other 16 year old girl? That’s fucking retarded. If these idiots want to argue over hypothetical dead kids, construct the hypotheticals to show how their “reasonable common sense” solutions lead to mountains of them.

    1. “if there’s a chance that we could save one child’s life, we should do it”
      At the cost of how many lives lost due to citizens not being able to obtain a firearm to protect themselves and their families?
      Their hyperbole and rhetoric is their own downfall.

  16. Its interesting that politicians like to use this uncertain sounding language to appear reasonable and conversational “I would think… also we’re trying… we didn’t know…” while taking away your rights and locking the door to the surveillance state behind you.

  17. He isn’t looking to “disarm”, there are 300 million guns in circulation in the States, all he is looking to do is have a pointless background check.

  18. Facebook and Twitter have given crazies and terrorist cowards a free way to recruit, plan, and publicize their “mission” and hopes to be famous for killing.

  19. “The Constitution does not permit the government any power to regulate private sales” Ever heard of the Interstate Commerce clause? Under the IC clause, the Federal government CAN regulate commerce (i.e. sales) that crosses state borders. Meanwhile, the States can use their police powers to regulate in-state sales. Fortunately, we do have the Second Amendment to protect the fundamental right of gun ownership.

    1. The President thinks he can write laws and amend the Constitution. For the most part Congress seems to be OK with that. Add to the fact 5 Supreme Court Justices also rewrite laws while ignoring the Constitution and Federal Agencies do the same… we are screwed. Why have a Congress or a Constitution?

    2. I have heard of that clause, along with the rest of the Constitution. You are buying into the fallacy that the Constitution justifies the myriad of abuses that have been “based” off of it. In context, Congress can regulate the trade of the USA with other nations, and the states between themselves. It says nothing of private citizens. The government may TAX a sale between private citizens, but that is all, they cannot legally deny it.

      1. I do agree that in the modern era, the meaning of the Commerce Clause has been stretched like putty to permit whatever power the federal government wishes to appropriate for itself.
        I don’t understand your implication that “regulating commerce” only applies to trade “between the USA and other nations, or between states themselves.” Sure, the USA as a governmental entity purchases goods and services, but by and large “trade” (i.e. commerce, economic activity) is the sum total of such activity by millions of “private citizens” (i.e. individuals, small businesses, mega corporations). The power to regulate such activity includes the power to tax, make rules such as contract law, regulatory law, safety law and even impose trade quotas.

  20. What’s the name of the shooter on the left again? I always thought he looked like the human incarnation of psychopathy.

  21. I don’t know, maybe if someone really wanted to do something to prevent guns falling into criminal hands and enterprise, they would say…indict Eric Holder and those responsible for walking guns across the Southern border to Latin American Drug Cartels? You know, uphold the law especially when Federal entities break it?
    Prosecute the recent spate of gangbangers in urban areas that have so far been allowed free or given slaps on the wrist? Mostly due their race.
    Have a similar penalty system to the one enacted by Reagan when he was Governor of California? It was something to the tune of: you have a gun with you when you commit a crime, it is treated as premeditated, aggravated, attempted murder, and as a gun crime whether you shot anyone or not.
    There are a lot of things that would be effective and meaningful in punishing actual criminals rather than penalizing law-abiding citizens and seeking to bypass the Constitution and limitations on Executive authority, but they will never be pushed by a would-be dictator and his ilk.
    Time to elect a real President and quit this placeholder.

    1. That links back to the war on drugs the welfare state, creating single mother households and victimless crimes. Hate to break it to you but you just skipped over the problem

  22. Obama effectively increased weapons ownership with each attempt to pass legislation. AS long as he wants to keep “marketing” our fears of ourselves against us, people will keep scooping up weapons buying into the fear. Consider it diverting military spending he’s cut, into the self-armament. Claps asshole.
    Believe me, society is notably more armed than it was 8 years ago. What scares me is all these stupid broads with CCWs (Who takes most meds?). It seems practically everything Obama touched turned to shit, unless of course you were in the minority-hand-out line, then you loved him. Almost everything he’s tried has gotten the opposite “desired” results per his claims.

  23. You’ll never hear stories on MSM of all school shootings that were thwarted because a teacher had a gun and stopped the would be shooter.

    1. The study made by Lott “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws” mentions that over 2 million crimes are thwarted every year in the US with less than 1% of the time a shot being fired.
      The MSM has a narrative, a socialist one, and will not deviate from the lies.

      1. Sad, isn’t it?
        Did you ever see the video of that thug beating the shit out of that old lady after breaking into her house in NJ[gun control state]? Put that same scenario in Texas and his brains would be plastered all over the wall due to a shotgun shell, and rightfully so.
        People don’t realize that guns not only keep government in check, but they also keep thug wannabees in check too.

        1. So NJ is a gun control state, that still means the old lady could own a gun though if she passed the NICS and she wanted to. It also means that it likely kept a gun out of the hands of the thugs that broke into her and others houses.She got hit & robbed but no one got killed. Crime goes on regardless like in other countries with much stricter gun controls, but its not as if in those countries crime runs rampant or that crime is low in the gun loving US.
          There will be stories that go both ways on this debate. Where a victim could have stopped the beating and left a dead perp or were the perp and the victim shoot it out and both end up dead, and add to the thousands that die from gun deaths each year, Don’t get me wrong, I’ve owned a gun and I’m fine on gun ownership but I don’t see how weapons registration/regulation on ownership is the same as “the evil govt are taking away every citizen’s gun”, like some are posting

        2. Gun ownership is a deterrent. When is the last time a mass shooting occurred in a gun friendly environment?

        3. I thought the US has had many of them, every year or so. More so than probably all other countries with much stricter gun control laws. My country was pretty easy going on guns until there was a massacre and then with all the headlines and media outcry the government (rightwing) rushed thru legislation to curtail gun ownership and buy back guns from owners.
          Permissive gun ownership though made no difference on the day of the massacre as citizens were not allowed to walk around in public with weapons. Sure you could walk around the bush (country side) with your gun but not the streets.

        4. And that’s my point. All of the mass shootings in America and abroad occurred in gun free zones (schools, disarmed military bases, California, Paris, etc). They never occur in areas where people carry. Announcing that you are gun free is akin to putting a target on your back.

        5. “Buy back” A government cannot buy back what it did not own. It was forced confiscation with little monetary return for the victims and still you have crime. It solved nothing but the elites’ irrational fear of you being free.

        6. r, Don’t get me wrong, I’ve owned a gun and I’m fine on gun ownership but I don’t see how weapons registration/regulation on ownership is the same as “the evil govt are taking away every citizen’s gun”, like some are posting.
          They won’t/can’t just take them them away but, it will be death by a thousand cuts. We already have gun control,we have GCA 1934,GCA 1968, the Brady Bill among others. What is the point of registration exactly? How will the omnipotent government knowing where every firearm is prevent someone from doing something illegal with it? We already have registration more or less in the BATF Form 4473, how do you think law enforcement knows within a few hours where a firearm originated from when used in a high profile crime( one that gets immediate national news coverage)? EVERY new firearm sold in the U.S is tracked from the manufacturer/importer to the purchaser and a record is kept(BATF 4473).
          As far as other countries with more gun control having fewer firearms deaths, Mexico has some of the strictest gun regulations on the planet. As far as U.S states with low crime rates, Vermont has the least restrictive firearms laws in the country and one of the lowest crime rates.

        7. How many mass shootings did your country have BEFORE that particular massacre happened? Probably none? Different country,different culture,different demographics.
          Most every mass shooting here has been somewhere where NO ONE could be armed such as “gun free zones”.

        8. I can only think of one and it involved a shoot out with police a few years before. Sure there were incidents like a guy going nuts with a divorce and killing his wife and child and himself but they were pretty rare. That incident that sparked the change in legislation was a 35 dead massacre. Of course it made the news around the world and local media hyped it for all its worth. The govt (right wing) thinking they were on a popular thing + its easier than making the hard long term decisions to benefit the economy rushed through the changes in gun laws. Politicians can get a lot of mileage from the ‘we are tough on crime’ slogan. They got a boost in the polls and re-elected but we don’t have the same ‘right to bear arms’ & ‘a country forged from revolution’ attitude as the US. I see Oz is coming up as an case study in the current gun debate in the US.
          Even though the gun laws were more liberal prior to then, people still were not allowed to walk the streets with a gun as there was just no need. You could throw your gun in the back of the car and go out to bush and shoot rabbits, foxes, wild pigs, deers and kangaroos though. You still can if you are registered gun owner but no semi automatics, though I’m not sure if farmers are allowed them.

        9. It sounded more palatable & media friendly calling it a buyback I assume they decided at a cabinet meeting. Some weapons (fully auto, military style, certain calibers) were made outright illegal so it was better getting $ than not and for many they decided the hassle to still own with new regulations was not worth it and sold it. So some was forced confiscation and some was not. Supposedly cost the taxpayer 1/2billion and were all destroyed. Should have sold them to the Americans or some African country having a civil war.. Yeh Oz still has crime but not so many gun deaths and that stat is all that matters to the govt to say they did the right thing. Brazil also did something similar.

        10. I haven’t but I have seen other crime scenes that fit what you describe. I, and probably many others here, have bee raised in a culture where guns are the norm and I am glad for it. But forget Europeans… they have been conditioned to be sheep and view “gun=evil” from birth.

        11. As did Venezuela. Her capital, Caracas had some 3,900 murders last year. Almost all of it by…you guessed it…illegal guns.

      2. Then the US should have a much lower crime rate than other nations with much stricter laws on gun ownership plus to give the US an advantage it has the biggest prison population in the world, but its not at the bottom of the crime rankings. For the big fuss that there has been recently over say the few deaths that happened at Benghazi the deaths by guns in the US in just one year (2013) there was 33,100 gun deaths and 84,200 injuries. Way more US citizens hurt but they don’t seem to matter when its US shooting US. Granted some of those that committed suicide would have come up with another way but that’s still a lot of bloodshed in the name of prevention.
        From what I gather the US govt is not going to confiscate legal guns just tighten regulations.In my country lots of citizens can own a gun, but just that majority don’t have the strong desire to spend the money (not cheap) and pay for permits, get on police database, do training, buy a safe, travel to gun ranges, etc. Random home invasions by armed thugs are so rare, they would rather spend the $ on new IT gadget or security for the house.

        1. In US…700, 000 injuries by car. 40,000 deaths by car. Over 1,000,000 people injured by medical mistakes per year. 70,000 dead by same. Let’s ban cars and doctors.

        2. “Then the US should have a much lower crime rate..”
          Crime rate is subjective when you are applying world wide (eg. drinking alchol in Saudi Arabia is a “crime”).
          “For the big fuss that there has been recently over say the few deaths that happened at Benghazi”
          You are comparing a democrat US state department fiasco with US gun control? So you are a socialist here to attack strawmen then? Got it.
          Everything else you mention is BS based on your opinion and fallacies. Your country, where ever that is, makes you jump through so many hoops that People give up and I am sure the state requires that it can “inspect” your fireams, if you comply with all the regulations to finally get one, to ensure “safety” for you and your familly.
          Do pigs know they are in a pen to provide for their masters?

        3. No not socialist, but not hardcore right either. I believe in gun ownership but also (reasonable) regulations when it comes to deadly weapons in the public when there are lots of dickheads or reckless people out there. From what I gather US people here are not going to lose their guns..just have to deal with tighter controls. with the intention that they will reduce the death toll of fellow US citizens. I am highlighting the fact that a handful of US citizens die overseas and its a big deal for people here, but they resent gun laws (not just these but past ones as well) that can save many more of their fellow citizens lives. Not straw man as I am not arguing against for your new controls as I don’t live in the US, just that I don’t get the impression the changes are going to have big impact on the gun owners here. They still get to keep them.
          Yes my country makes it more of a PITA to own a gun these days, and lots gave up as for many there was not the overwhelming desire to really need a gun. Random home invasions by armed thugs are very rare and there just isn’t the right to bear arms culture here. After the govt (rightwing) clamped down its popularity went up in polls.The issue will be ongoing as everytime there is a mass shooting the media are going to hype it up and call for the govt to do something (more so now with sjws via www/social media) and if the polls support it they will try.

  24. Most mass shootings can be prevented with medical marijuana and the occasional prostitute. Obamas executive actions did absolutely nothing to stop the bad apples from owning guns.
    Truth is, his executive actions did nothing but change the definition of a responsible person in a gun trust. He dramatically increased the difficulty for law abiding citizens to purchase through a trust. Hes going after trusts because he doesnt want people sharing resources to own guns and he doesnt want trustees to inherit firearms when family members pass away.
    Obama also shifted more federal workers over to perform the nics background checks. Problem is, the workers he shifted over were the guys responsible for handling appeals in situations where a person gets denied on a background check.
    Right now there is zero due process in america for a citizen who gets denied on a background check due to errors. I know 3 people that were denied, submitted appeals, and heard zero responses as to why they were denied.

    1. As an non US person, I was surprised to read that an artificial entity (trusts) can purchase & own guns/silencers. To me that does seem like a loophole. None of the people in the trust who are holding & using the weapons are listed as the owners on the federal gun register. I assume none of them have background checks or mental checks.
      From reading the main article I also get the impression that others outside of the trust can inherit the weapons, and they could well not be registered as the new owners or criminally or mentally verified. Is this correct?
      Something else I am not sure of from reading the article. It seems if you go to a gun dealer and buy a gun, the transaction is recorded in the federal gun owners DB and the weapon can be traced to you as the buyer. There is maybe a waiting period and a NICS check. But it seems you can then sell the gun to whoever you want in a private sale, with no NICS or mental checks or notifying the govt of the new owner?
      It used to be this way in my country once upon a time, but no way can you just sell your weapon in the trading post to any joe blo. Ownership of all guns must be accounted for and you must be registered. You can still buy a gun though – if you register + do training course + have safe storage for it + have no violent history. Gun deaths are 1/3 of what they were in the years before stricter regulations. From reading the article here the “US govt is not banning anyone here from buying a gun (unless they fail NICS) just wanting to track ownership better. Yeh the redtape for some due to misunderstandings say on their past/mental state will be a pain the ass but in the majority of transactions it should be ok.

  25. On the mental health issue, you can be put on psychiatric hold for 72 hours for no reason. If that happens, you lose the right to own a gun for five years , as it is. You can already lose your guns as it is.

  26. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government should be regulating gun or much of anything else.

  27. What annoys me most about Obama’s response to this is that if he wants to use a tragedy to promote an agenda there needs to be a direct cause and effect. The gun show loop hole is often mentioned, yet no recent mass killings were a result of a crazy person using the gun show loop hole. Hone in on the specific avenues used to acquire guns in these tragic cases and tailor the law or enforcement to the mode of failure. Everything else is a red herring.

  28. I’ll give my guns up the second that many of these politicians want to give up their armed security guards. Many of these gun control politicians (mostly leftists) want to live in a world where you give up your guns but they are happy keeping their guns (their security detail).
    What about the military and the police…are they giving up their guns as well?
    If Obama keeps pushing on gun control, then he’s going to get the civil war that he wants (it won’t be pretty).

    1. Civil war will be the best thing to happen to this country, we will finally end the Bullshit ounce and for all

  29. There are two reasons to require government registration of firearms:
    1. To tax them.
    2. To confiscate them.
    Have a look at the bullshit going on in Europe, from the Rotherham sex abuse case (and related cases), to the enforced “multicultralism” of bringing in a bunch of Sand People into countries where they don’t fit in and they don’t belong. Wherever 3rd World muslim men go, rape, murder and crime follow.
    From Sweden, earlier today:
    ^ Well-meaning 22 y.o. girl (no doubt a liberal multi-culti fucktard, but she didn’t deserve to die for it) was STABBED to death by a 15 y.o. asylum seeker.
    This is on top of Cologne, and on top of all the the other problems, and it DEMONSTRATES why Americans can NEVER give up their guns.
    The Poles have the EU Multi-Culti LIE susses out and want no part of it:

  30. The NRA proposed allowing peer to peer transfers by allowing the NICS program to be sold as an app. It was rejected by both sides.

  31. Libs have no idea how to help the “gun violence” issue. They push education but they don’t push education for people who want to or own firearms. Mom had a loaded .38 in her purse and little Timmy pulled the trigger while she was looking at shoes – who’s fault is that? No the gun! The gun is the issue not the idiot owning it.
    We license people to drive cars, we should do the same for guns. Not take them away educate the masses.

  32. Now they have doctors involved to report back to the govt if someone is “insane” so they can ban them from buying firearms.

  33. The left doesn’t hate guns; they hate YOU having guns.
    More encompassing is the reality that the government, ergo; globalists, want the monopoly of violence. Only cowards that desire complete control would act out once they can verify no violent resistance.
    Buy more guns, keep the would-be masters on edge.
    Good article.

    1. Yupp.. The Trotskyists being yellow belly cowards facing armed goyim is too dangerous for their miserable skin… So they want you disarmed, so they can treat you like Palestinian are treated by this scums ?? Shooting little boys & girls in the back ….

    2. I collect swords because that is my thing. In the circles I walk in I would not feel the least bit concerned if the people I know owned an M-4 or Spaz-12 or DEagle Nifty Fifty or what have you.
      The thing is, half the population has an IQ under 100. They make bad choices and do some really fucked up stuff.

  34. Obama is the biggest fascist since the Wilson administration. As a Canadian living in China, I suppose I don’t have a lot of skin in the game but I will glad to see him gone in November, and all that we can hope is that a few million Americans will pull their heads out of their asses and NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.
    But just as an observation, I turned 49 last year and in the last 30 years there has only been one time where carrying a firearm would have been handy. The thing is, I was carrying a pair of ice skates which turned out to be sufficiently intimidating to keep three drunken punks at bay.
    In Canada they all but declared war on the use of force in self defense. Thankfully, various judges each found one brain cell to find various guys not guilty.

  35. 1. Even if background checks were mandated for private sales of long guns (they are already a federal requirement for the private sale of pistols) it would be an exceptionally small percentage of gun transactions a year. Plus, most private parties still require the buyer to pass a NICS check through a gun dealer as a condition of sale. Reason – they don’t want the cops ever knocking on their door if the gun is used in a violent crime and they were the last sale in the non-existent gun registry.
    2. This pipe dream that America is like every other country is with gun ownership (other then the Swiss, Finland, and a few others) really need to end. We have around half a billion guns in private circulation. Call it Pandora’s Box or what not but guns in America are here to stay. Trying to control them has only put more into private circulation over the last eight years then the best efforts of the NRA ever could to sell them to Americans.
    3. Mental health is fine. There are legit reasons to keep guns out of the hands of someone that has been adjudicated with proper due process of being crazy. I agree recordkeeping here could get shored up but I am sure the number of legal gun sales that would be denied because of this would be extremely low. But, then again, NICS is a recordkeeping nightmare that needs to be cleaned up in general. If you have the same name and birth date as some weirdo on the other side of the country that could result in you having to fill out reams of “supplemental forms” just to buy a gun. Also, “mental health” is becoming a proxy for “people we don’t think should own guns”. Go see a shrink because you are having some personal issues and all the sudden the cops in CA are knocking at your door with a gun confiscation order. Nothing sounds worse to me then scaring people away from accessing mental health services then making them think their source of self defense is going to be confiscated by a SWAT team.
    4. Until we get phasers or laser guns, technology involving firearms is fundamentally going to be the same for at least the next 40-50 years. The idea of a “smart gun” is just plain stupid. Plus sometimes in a literal gun fight you will WANT to be able to shoot a gun that does not have your official fingerprint. And that ignores the fact that if my smart phone with fingerprint tech can break in a small rain storm or being dropped from two feet on to carpet what do they think will happen to the small computer that operates such tech on a gun?

  36. Liberals don’t hate guns because they’re dangerous per se (if they did they’d adamantly oppose all this mass immigration stuff).
    Libs are control freak, assholes that want to rule the world but they’re too cowardly to fight for the right to do so.
    They want to run things from a position of weakness and vulnerability instead of strength cuz they ain’t got any.
    So when a lib sees a guy with a gun they don’t see a guy defending his family or home or a guy exercising his rights.
    In their projection, they just see another control freak like themselves. Only this control freak isn’t afraid to use guns!
    This video shows this in a remarkably clear way.

    Look how badly his camera shakes!
    So as long as they see that someone else is brave enough to do what the lib isn’t then the stakes are too high for the lib to play that power game.
    So what he must do is disarm the other guy at all costs.
    A good analogy is a guy that wants to win at football but he doesn’t want to risk breaking bones so he petitions to ban tackling and replace with flags instead.
    That is the real reason they want to ban guns.

  37. Keep Akhenaten’s name out of your mouths you peasants , you were our slaves in the past , remember ? not much has changed .

  38. This is a fundamental part of American liberty. The Constitution does not permit the government any power to regulate private sales.

    Wickard v. Filburn.
    If you’re not familiar with this Supreme Court case, you need to be. This was the case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that growing your own food on your own land for your use is “interstate commerce” and thus subject to federal regulation. Don’t think for a second that the same twisted “reasoning” cannot apply to firearms.
    This is why the next election is so critical, and why a leftist must not win it. The 2nd Amendment is literally one Supreme Court justice’s death or retirement away from being “interpreted” to death.

  39. The elite have a master plan. That plan is to tax everyone 100 %, torch the constitution, make everything we now enjoy on a fee basis (only for the elite) .., or illegal. Megalomaniacs won’t stop their stupid game until we wipe them all out, and then only for a little while until the next crop decides it must rule the (entire) world and murder a few hundred million more this century like they did the last one..Make no mistake, that is what they want to do. Hunger Games, 101.. Its never gonna change. People are sheep, up to a certain point… Sheep will pay for the rope they are going to be used to be hung with. Of course there are a few times in history when folks will say enough,.. the french revolution, the American revolution, and a few other places but for the most part, we must remain vigilant and never let them ban or take our fire arms. If they do, the freedom of the world will be lost, which is only one false (bio-nuke-school shooting, assassination ) flag away from happening.

  40. Number two is already in full effect for those unfortunate enough to live in California.
    As for the left grabbing guns, at least in America, they have painted themselves into a corner without even realizing it.
    With the increasing number of post-sex and the city lifestyle single cat ladies out there, there is a sizable chunk of otherwise leftist women voters who still want to own a gun for their personal protection. There is man in the house, and a cat makes a pretty lame guardian.
    So long as they think they will be left defenseless, the cat ladies will be reluctant to surrender their right to own a gun, even though they will publicly ridicule all things NRA and second amendment oriented. Deep down inside, they are alone, scared, and feel unsafe every night they cry themselves to sleep in their pillow. They just can’t bring themselves to support a total gun ban – at least not until they’ve secured one for themselves.

  41. Think carefully…if you trusted and loved your people, why would you want them disarmed with laws that never affect actual criminals? Don’t comment yet. Just think it through. Maybe make some notes. The vast majority of gun owners never commit any crime. Why create laws specifically that target them? Simultaneously, why clamor for “understanding” of criminals and loosening of criminal punishment and law?
    Think carefully.

  42. I don’t wish to shill for another website or person, but check out Steven Crowder. He did an undercover video to examine the “gun show loophole.”
    It shows just what you expect. The loophole is completely fictional.

    1. I’ll do that. Thanks. The “gun show loophole” is a good example of controlling language. You take something legal and widespread (private, non-monitored sales between citizens) and make it sound like it’s illegal and uncommon. He who controls the language controls the debate. This is why the left fabricates terms and uses labels as an argument, an example being calling anyone who criticizes Obama a racist.

  43. The fundamental problem is technology – I hate the fact that one gun can now kill dozens of people in seconds while in the past one man with a sword could only kill so many in that time.
    For all the communists, inequality has only been increasing with the advent of society.
    Anyways, my point is, unless we can return to a military technology level of the 16th century (we can’t), then guns have to be allowed to citizens as a human right.
    As much as you hear the liberals ranting about safety, freedom and free will are values infinitely more important.

Comments are closed.