Obama Admin plans executive action on guns…

White House officials are seeking a way to use executive authority to close the so-called gun show loophole that allows thousands of people to buy firearms each year without a background check, but complicated legal issues have slowed the process.

Almost three years ago, after the killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut, President Obama asked Congress to change the law to require background checks for weapons sold outside the network of licensed gun dealers, including sales at gun shows or through the Internet. A bill to tighten the background system died in the Senate a few months later – dashing administration hopes for legislative action.

The deadlock in the Senate continued Thursday as Republicans blocked several efforts by Democrats to add gun-control provisions to a budget measure.

298 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • pete G says:

    I just read where 9,000,000 guns were sold during G Bush’s term and since Obama has been President 18,000,000 guns have been sold. You think there’s a few people in America that don’t trust this dick-tator? He’s been the best thing for gun sales of any President in our history, i bought an extra one 2 years ago. It’s proven that every time this fool makes a gun control speech a few million more guns are sold. He really should shut the hell up, it might help his cause.

  • dodge4jim says:


  • I Seigel says:

    Well, well. What do you think of the latest news? The Supreme Court has decided NOT to hear a challenge to a gun control law in a Chicago suburb. In other words, they are letting the law stand and allowing the citizens and residents in a community decide for themselves whether they want tighter controls. Lets see what happens, shall we? Will Highland Park, IL become an area with fewer gun deaths, or will it become a Killing Fields?? Time will tell.

    1. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

      Read the Highland Park City Ordinance that triggered the lawsuit:

      and the Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts

      in the case:

      Arie S. Friedman, M.D. and the Illinois State Rifle Association, Plaintiffs, v. City of Highland Park, Defendant — No. 13-cv-9073

  • Smitch says:

    Support NRA-ILA!

  • Cetansapa says:

    When are people going to wake up to the fact that executive orders were never intended to have the force of law? They were only for the management of the executive branch itself but they have been abused so egregiously because they have somehow morphed to give a president the authority to create laws by himself. Plus our spineless legislative and judicial branches that have not had the guts to stand up to him and tell that self-proclaimed constitutional professor that he cannot make the “law of the land” with his cursed pen and phone. Until or unless that happens he will continue to stomp all over the Constitution just as he has done since the first day he usurped the office.

  • The Redhawk says:

    BHO-ZO better be careful handling GUNS… the y tend to send out Little Copper lined “candies” and all he needs to do is show his Expertise , …………….Look down the Barrel and pull that “little thing’ near his Finger…iT’LL MAKE HIS DAY and let him get Closer to ALLAH!!!

  • reagangs says:

    Obummer, America’s greatest gun salesman, ever. That will be his “legacy”. And even maybe the down fall of America with his push for UN Agenda21/2030. But he and his minions and puppet masters will be surprised that we sovereign US citizens will NOT go quietly into the night.

  • SDofAZ says:

    If BO does his illegal edict infringing on our rights, this congress of dem lemmings and rinos had better step in quick or face the wrath of this nations LEGAL citizens. It is getting close for some to run again and we are just tallying up their abominable score cards. This will finish the fools. BO is out of control and the dems will pay dearly! Fools and Traitors ALL!

  • dodge4jim says:

    Our whole government and the media are aiding and abetting. They are all traitors. You have to ask who the hell do they work for. It is not us. They laugh at us.

  • reagangs says:

    Obummer, the greatest gun salesman in American history. Sorta like telling me I can’t own and display Old Dixie.

  • dog lover says:

    2017 can’t get here fast enough. Then good bye a$$hole!!!!!!!


  • pete G says:

    If you believe this tyrant is doing this for your safety i have some lakefront property on the Mojave i want to sell you.

    1. Gnowark says:

      I believe it IS for safety’s sake: his safety and his co-elites, NOT ours. I’m amazed at how well the founders knew what would happen to their “grand experiment;” and saddened that we are proving all their warnings so accurate.

      1. pete G says:

        Yes he’s a danger that the blind left refuse to see, notice i said REFUSE to see? I am a registered Dem. and i saw the truth back in late 2008. Democrats are being used to ruin this country through this tyrant. I pray every day that the lord will take care of him one way or the other.

  • Ken Bowman says:

    VILE LIBERAL SCUM are today’s NAZIS! Their goal is to disarm those they call enemies [conservatives] and most likely those considered life unworthy of life just as WWII NAZIS did over 75 years ago.

  • Faithful American says:



  • Robert Green says:

    I’m beginning to believe you are as much an issue as is Barack Obama and his plans. You continue to use a false flag as the basis of what is going on. Sandy Hook was not a real attack NO CHILDREN OR TEACHERS WERE KILLED! It was a film being created for who knows what really! Why you and some others keep alluding to it as a real tragedy I do not know. For someone who is attempting to help keep our rights to own guns and purchase ammunition, you are using a misleading tool. SANDY HOOK NEVER WAS REAL! Plenty of evidence showed its true development. If yuu never saw the video as it was portrayed you would know it was a false flag. They even so stated several months later. Look it up on the internet. I watched the video when it was first shown. As it proceeded there were enough clues to question its validity. To include the one girl who was allegedly killed sitting on Barack Obama’s lap. A coroner who stated the shotgun was used int he killings, when another individual came back with the shotgun being in the trunk of the killer’s car. Correction: Alleged Killer’s car. Why were there few ambulances at the scene? Why weren’t there buses to remove the remaining children and teachers from the school. Why did the father, going into the newsroom, smilling and laughing with the crew until he stepped directly into the front of the camera, where his demeanor changed to the bereaved father? Why weren’t there more parents there besides the one family? I understood two other chilfren were buried shortly after the event. Was that true? I don’t think so. I don’t know which side of the issue you are on, but your sources are definitely questionable.
    As for Obama, He is no president of ours. His intent and those he works for are aiming to destroy America and our freedoms with the help of the big money that controls the Congress as well as the Executive Branch. Until the entire American population begins to realize that we must fight to take back OUR nation and OUR Constitution and eliminate all those who would help in our destruction. Our military needs to honor the Oath they took when they joined their service. We want them to honor that oath. The same for every law enforcement officer in America. Do not accept the word of a traitor who sits in what should be the American People’s president. He should and must be tried for treason against the united States of America. He is only the President of the UNTED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, which is under British control. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t believe me? Then search for yourselves. Oh, yes, Find out which Constituion does the government follow. The Contitution OF the United States of America, or The Constitution FOR the Untied States of America? Then you decide.

    As Michael F below states about the Democratic Party; it not just them, There are RINO’s also going along with them. We have no representation and have not had so since, at least 1871, probably earlier. We need to to be Americans first. Parties be damned! Those in the background have no allegiance to a Party; only to money and power. They use Congress to build on their agenda, not our freedoms.

    1. I Seigel says:

      There’s too much dung in your heap to answer everything, so let’s just take one of your points:

      “To include the one girl who was allegedly killed sitting on Barack Obama’s lap”
      Did you consider that the girl had a sister? And because they’re sisters, they might look similar? And dress similarly?

      You are an embarrassment to America and to humanity in general. You probably know, too, that the moon landings were faked, that Reagan faked his own assassination attempt, and that Saddam and Kaddafi are alive and well and living in beachfront villas in the Seychelles Islands.

      1. Robert Green says:

        A:hover { COLOR: #1188d2 !important } A:hover SPAN { COLOR: #1188d2 !important } .button-cta:hover { COLOR: #ffffff !important; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #1188d2 } .button-cta:hover SPAN { COLOR: #ffffff !important } #outlook A { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px } BODY { WIDTH: 100% !important } .ReadMsgBody { WIDTH: 100% } .ExternalClass { WIDTH: 100%; DISPLAY: block !important } @media Unknown { HTML { -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100% } .content { WIDTH: 100% } TABLE { BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse } H2.headline { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 20px !important; FONT-WEIGHT: 700 } .button-cta { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px !important; PADDING-TOP: 0px !important; PADDING-LEFT: 0px !important; DISPLAY: block !important; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px !important } DIV.header { PADDING-TOP: 20px } DIV.footer { PADDING-BOTTOM: 20px } } p.mod-tools a:hover { color: white!important; background: #8c989f!important; } /* ————————————- PHONE-SIZED DEVICES ————————————- */ @media only screen and (max-device-width: 480px) { td.avatar, td.spacer { width: 38px!important; } td.avatar img, td.spacer img { width: 28px!important; } }

  • DocJimmy says:

    There are far too many “Gun Laws” on the books now. If BHO and his shyster colleagues would spend more time going after the “bad guys” instead of tying the hands of the “Good Guys”, his time in office would be better spent. Oh; I forgot; he IS one of the “bad guys”.

  • KDC says:

    “complicated legal issues”, yes, like the Constitution. Well, supposedly, anyways.

  • Icemancold says:

    WELL I would like to know where these gun shows are held where you can buy guns with out a back ground check . With HUSSEIN OBAMA they must be the ones in SYRIA where the REBELS that HUSSEIN OBAMA gave GUNS to are HANDING THEM OUT OF PICKUPS TO ISIS. cause I haven’t found any here in the USA.!!

  • joe jetson says:

    Oba-Mao’s Plan for Homeland Security:
    1. Confiscate Law Abiding American Citizen’s Guns
    2. Import Tens of Thousands MORE Islamic Terrorists (and label them as “Refugees”).
    3. Secretly laugh as more Americans are slaughtered by “Refugees”.

  • wcgraybill says:

    We don’t need background checks as criminals will still get weapons. The honest people and sane people don’t need the added bullshit. Keep up the good work republic.

    1. I Seigel says:

      And how do you separate the honest and sane people from the criminals?

      How do you separate seeing-impaired or drunk drivers from competent drivers? You make them take tests, get licenses, and put up weekend checkpoints near bars to check for drunk drivers. Do you have any problems with any of that?

      Do you have any problems with honest and sane people having to take tests and get licensed to have access to and prescribe prescription drugs? Those requirements help to keep drugs like Oxycontin out of the hands of addicts and abusers, like Rush Limbaugh.

      1. Gnowark says:

        I seagull: It’s all part of that “the right of the people to keep and bear Driver’s Licenses shall not be infringed” that isn’t in my copy of the Consitution.
        Yes, I have a problem with administrators, elected OR appointed, regulating an un-infringible right, do YOU have a problem with psychotropic drugs that are dispensed by licensed practitioners, with unknown “side effects” on any given person (like a majority of mass-killers in “gun-free” zones)?

      2. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

        “And how do you separate the honest and sane people from the criminals?”

        By separating the criminals from the honest and sane people, of course.

        “How do you separate seeing-impaired or drunk drivers from competent drivers?”

        By separating the drunk drivers from their motor vehicles (and what do you have against “seeing-impaired” drivers — never hear of “corrective lenses?).

        You LibSocs always tend to “put the cart before the horse.”

        1. I Seigel says:

          What kind of a NON-ANSWER is this? You just asked my question differently, but you didn’t provide an answer.

          You ConDumbs always tend to dodge a question and argue a “red herring”.

          And “seeing-impaired” is a PC expression for being blind, or it could signify a person who, even with corrective lenses, can’t see clearly enough or distinguish colors enough to drive safely. Did you know that when you go for a driver’s license, you ACTUALLY HAVE TO TAKE A REAL VISION TEST??!!?? Look it up!

          1. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Seems as though that there are persons who are “legally blind” who nonetheless pass the required vision test for obtaining or retaining a Driver License.

            I should know, for I am one of these: “legally blind” yet legally licensed and legally driving. [HINT: “legal blindness” has multiple parameters and does not necessarily mean “totally blind”.]

            No accidents or citations in over thirty years now — and counting.

            BTW: when I took my last Driver Licensing Vision Test it did not involve recognition of colors.

            Moreover, “corrective lenses” is not limited to glasses hanging on the nose or contact lenses resting on the corneas: it also includes “IOLs” (intraoccular lenses) — which I have had ever since cataract surgery [will get the “With Corrective Lenses” restriction removed the next time DL renewal comes around — just because I can 🙂 ]. I now use reading glasses only for “small print” reading [the “variable power” of IOLs is limited].

            In which state do you reside: Massachusetts, perhaps?

            My state does not require a colors recognition test.

            Also: feel free to study the “Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices” — where you will learn that it’s shapes, in addition to colors, which inform a driver as to the directives the signs represent; such as:

            Circle – Exclusively for railroad advance warning signs
            Octagon – Exclusively for STOP signs
            Crossbuck ( X ) – Exclusively for railroad grade crossing signs
            Pentagon – Used for school advance warning signs and county route marker signs
            Diamond – Used for warning signs
            Rectangle, Longer Dimension Vertical – Used for regulatory signs
            Rectangle, Longer Dimension Horizontal – Used for guide signs, some warning signs, and temporary traffic control signs
            Trapezoid – Used for recreational area guide signs and National Forest route markers
            Equilateral Triangle, Point Down – Exclusively for YIELD signs
            Pennant ( ►) – Exclusively for No Passing Zone signs
            Other shapes – Typically used for route marker signs

            Of course, you already knew that — didn’t you? 😉

          2. I Seigel says:

            LOL! And your point is…??

          3. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            …obviously over your head, Oblio. 😉

          4. I Seigel says:

            That’s the second time (or is it the third?) your answer has been either irrelevant or unresponsive. I don’t think we can have a conversation like that. Bye bye.

          5. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            It’s not my fault you have reading comprehension problems, Seigel.


        2. Glenda Jordan says:

          Funny stuff!! Made my day when I saw I Seigel’s reply below (priceless). LMAO…Laughter is the best medicine!

  • Mort Leith says:

    Usurping our Constitution without due process is TREASON,, and Impeachable…
    And if the Congress refuses to do their job regarding Impeachment,,
    then WE the People will do it,.

  • exar1 says:

    First and foremost, this is an illegal attack on our rights to own guns under the Constitution to protect our selves from the government … a special concern of the Founding Father’s. Australia took all the citizen’s guns to prevent crime – crime just got worse, now they want their guns back and warn Americans not to lose our gun rights! Hillary and obama are simply a danger to America! A law not to be obayed or watch more of our freedoms disappear!

    1. I Seigel says:

      XR, you got your news a little twisted. Since Australia enacted stricter gun laws several years ago, they haven’t had any mass murders. Check it out. Real stats, not internet hearsay.

      1. Gnowark says:

        I seagull” over 70 mass murders, arson seems to be popular, blunt force , stabbings, shootings (even still, who’d have thunk?). It seems your “real stats” come from out of you butt. Where did you get your info from?

        1. I Seigel says:

          KnowSquat – It seems you don’t know how to write an understandable sentence. It looks like you’re stating some statistics – try connecting them in a sentence so that you make a point.

  • cutterguy says:

    If this monkey lookin’ son of a mooslime needs to go out and pick people’s guns up “hisself”. I want to watch his first try.

  • Mike O'Mara says:

    How is it that any constitutional amendment can be subject to the whims of any single politician? In the amendment it states that the RIGHT of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. That is very clear. Since it was written to keep us safe from political threats such as Obama and his socialist democrats. Obama may have a pen and a cell phone but how can it ever be considered to fall under the whim of executive fiat to unilatterally change the constitution and eliminate a right that is not to be infringed? Now as he is flooding the country with sworn enemies who have vowed to destroy America and Israel he is trying to speed up his mission to completely disarm the American people based on no authority but his own wishes. If we had an actual supreme court who followed the rules, such as recusing yourself from any matter you are prejudiced on before you hear the presented arguments on all sides, this could never stand. Wether he likes it or not, the president is sworn to obey the constitution. You might say it is his job description. If it ever needs change there is a proceedure. It is lengthy to keep frivolous changes from being rushed through thereby causing irreparable harm. I know of nothing more dangerous to America and Americans then falling under the uncontrolled wishes of the Delusional, Racist, Islamist, Marxist, gay, formerly drug abusing, anti-American, Alinskyite, Would-be Tyrant, currently the partime resident of the whitehouse. The very thought is terrifying.

    1. Liberty's Advocate says:

      I can neither argue against nor compete with such eloquence as that exemplified by the totality of your statement, Mike. Because I share your belief in and understanding of the Constitution I wouldn’t try. Without being too presumptuous, I would like to add one salient point.

      The Constitution this “Delusional, Racist, Islamist, Marxist, gay, formerly drug abusing, anti-American, Alinskyite, Would-be Tyrant, currently the partime resident of the whitehouse” wants to change is based on the principles and clearly defined Human Rights set forth in our Declaration of Independence. When one realizes and acknowledges that these Rights are gifts from the Creator given us at the moment of our creation, and as “Acts of God” are beyond the reach or jurisdiction of Man or the governments Man has created, the immorality and illegality of his actions becomes crystal clear.

      The words ” … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” have great importance and meaning. Since one cannot possibly argue that your unalienable (Natural) Right to control your own life can be separated from your Right to DEFEND that life, it can be argued that our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be separated from our Right to control our own lives and destinies and therefore has shared roots with our Right to our Lives.

      1. I Seigel says:

        Maybe you can’t argue or compete with such “eloquence”, but I and many other people can.

        Mike’s argument is based on his assumption, “Since it was written to keep us safe from political threats such as Obama and his socialist democrats…” As you’re most likely aware, there’s another, seemingly unrelated, phrase to the Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” So is the right being conferred in order to form a “well regulated Militia”? That’s what the Courts have been trying to resolve for the past 100 years or so. Stay tuned. They’re still trying.

        1. Liberty's Advocate says:

          The Supreme Court HAS resolved this issue every time it has been brought up, by reinforcing the argument that the 2A is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Twice in the past three years, in the Heller and McDonald cases it was confirmed, and this precedent has roots as deep as our Constitution. Indeed, the “militia” is defined as “the whole of the people”. Colonial militia rules required that every able-bodied male citizen above the age of 15″ should keep contemporary arms of the day IN THEIR HOME, along with shot, powder and a rucksack with 3 days provisions so that they might be ready to respond at “a minutes notice” to the common defense of their communities. Thus the term, “Minutemen” used to describe them.

          As a rhetorical question for you, “Why would the founders, when writing and passing the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) to our Constitution, make every amendment an individual right except the 2nd amendment – the only one that can secure the other nine?”

          1. I Seigel says:

            Thank you for an excellent answer. I’ll do the research and fact check. Cheers.

          2. Liberty's Advocate says:

            While you are doing your “fact check”, you might also check out the OTHER side of the argument – the obligation of government. In Warren vs District of Columbia – 444 A2d, 1 (DC Appl. 1981) it was held and decided that no government, agency or subdivision can be held liable for failure to provide government services, such as police or fire protection or water, to any individual. Government is only obligated to provide those services to society as a whole. It is a fundamental principle of American law, having been decided and affirmed at many lower level and state courts, that the INDIVIDUAL is responsible for his/her immediate protection with the police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent. What we have is a government which has ruled out its responsibility to protect us, and now is bent on taking away OUR ability to defend ourselves.

            In states like mine that have gone to a “Shall Issue” format for issuing weapons permits, the incidence of crime has taken a massive nose dive – especially among women. Attackers and rapists don;t know WHO is carrying so all women benefit from the courage of those who do.

            Haven’t you noticed they usually respond AFTER the crime is committed to make reports, take witness statements, mop up the blood, do investigations and followup? When your life is on the line and seconds count, the police are just minutes away …

            Responsibly armed citizens are a unique part of American life and the answer to past, current and future crime and terrorism problems. Virtually ALL of the public mass shootings of the past decade (with the exception of the AZ “Gabby” Gifford shootings) occurred at places which were :Gun Free Zones, offering a target-rich environment of defenseless people.

          3. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Add these to the ‘Warren” decision:

            Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)
            Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
            DeShaney v. Winnebago County D.S.S., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
            Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
            Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995)
            Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)
            Castle Rock v. Gonzales, (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

          4. I Seigel says:

            Liberty, you seem to have a good handle on the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers. So I’ll agree with you and say the Founding Fathers intent was for people to own as many guns as they felt they needed to protect themselves. Since back in those days, the only things they knew were flintlocks and muzzle-loaders, go knock yourselves out and amass all the single-shot, flintlocks you can store. But the FF’s never envisioned 30-clip semi-automatic weapons and armor-piercing shells. If you want to be a strict Constitutionalist, start with that.

          5. Liberty's Advocate says:

            I frequently am reduced to tears from laughter when someone on the Left argues that the founders weren’t of sufficient vision to foresee technological advances, and then use that as an excuse to justify reinterpreting the Constitution in opposition to the original INTENT of the founders. A sports analogy would be changing the rules in a football game at halftime and banning helmets because one member of the home team had used his protective headgear to break the leg bones of a referee.

            “Contemporary arms of the day”. Those arms in common use by the military. Using that as the guiding principle as did the founders, the 1934 Firearms Act already infringes too far on the 2A by banning public possession of fully automatic weapons – interestingly unless a $200 tax is paid. Then you can legally possess them.

            Much of the verbiage of that Act was copied verbatim from the 1928 Nazi Gun Registration Act, which later led to the confiscation of arms and ammunition from law abiding people and the November, 1938 Kristallnacht rampage against the Jews, confiscation of their property and their attempted extermination. I’m just glad it’s not YOU who was appointed to make the rules.

            I find it more interesting that most people today are not only ignorant of history but ignorant of the philosophical/theological concepts which are the foundation for the Human Rights that make their daily lives worth living. The first two paragraphs of the Declaration, written by Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams (the Committee on the Declaration of the Continental Congress) were NOT their original thoughts. The concept of Human Rights emanating from a Higher Power than Man or his governments can be found in the writings of Cicero, Aristotle and later St. Thomas Aquinas in his masterful thesis blending philosophy with theology – “Summa Theologica”.

            It is true that those who don’t know what their rights are … don’t have any. It is also true that one does not have to believe in the Divine origin of their rights in order to benefit from that protection. One has to be tolerant of those who DO believe, though, because the destruction of that foundation destroys the protection for everyone. Once a government has acknowledged the Divine Origin of our rights (as ours did in 1776 and 1789), it can never later say that those rights don’t exist.

            Misuse of guns by a small segment of the population is NOT their right; nor is it a justification to deny the other 99% of the people their God-given Right of self-defense against the excesses of those other men and governments.

            Have you ever considered that, for thousands of years of recorded human history, the ONLY defense against a charge of murder resulting in total exoneration of the accused is the successful proving of SELF-DEFENSE?

            Civilized Man values LIFE, and the founding principles of the Constitution (found in the Declaration) revolve around that value system. Everyone has the right to do WITH their lives that which they wish – as long as it doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same with THEIR life. It is the principle behind the death penalty for capital crimes. Take a life and pay for it by forfeiting yours.

            So, if YOU want to defend YOUR life and those of your family against the illegal, unprovoked attacks of roving gangs or multiple home invaders with a single-shot muzzle loader or a flintlock musket, please feel free. You have a right to make that choice. You DO NOT have the right to make that decision for ME or for anyone else.

            I had to bite my tongue at your lack of knowledge of weapons before but, what the hell. It’s not “30-clip semi-automatics”. They are 30 round MAGAZINES for semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, America’s most popular sporting rifle. Clips are retainers used to LOAD magazines, usually internal ones but some removable ones as well. And even the colonists knew that bullets (round shot) fired from firelock muskets penetrated chain mail and full body armor since the 1500’s – thus they WERE armor-piercing.

          6. I Seigel says:

            Interesting. I see you’ve thought this out pretty well. So using your logic, I would assume that you have no problem with the Constitution allowing an Internal Revenue Service, a Department of Education or Commerce or Energy or Housing and Urban Development. After all, the Founding Fathers meant for government to raise revenues to pay for things, and since they were charging the government to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, those government departments are necessary. Am I right?

          7. Liberty's Advocate says:

            I Seigel – That is a wonderful example of an invalid extrapolation bordering on a non sequitur. Read the ninth and tenth amendments.

            Obviously, a Department of the Treasury IS necessary to properly administer those funds and tax revenues ‘confiscated’ from the people and to pay the bills (obligations) of the federal government.
            The IRS, however, is an abusive federal agency that only recently was reduced in power by an administrative rule placing the burden of proof on the IRS instead of on the people. But to say that it is a “necessary” department is a bit of a stretch.

            The others you mentioned, without exception, are clear violations of the Constitutional intent to limit the power and scope of the central government, usurping powers reserved constitutionally to the states and to the people.

            The only reason I am only partially delegitimizing the IRS is because of the 16th amendment, passed in the dead of night on Christmas Eve, 1913

          8. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Re: the $200 Federal Transfer Tax established by the National Firearms Act of 1934:

            From the National Firearms Act: Hearings on H.R. 9066, Before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1934) [hereinafter 1934 House Firearms Hearings] comes:

            MR. LEWIS: “Lawyer though I am, I have never quite understood how the laws of the various States have been reconciled with the provision in our Constitution denying the privilege to the legislature to take away the right to carry arms. Concealed-weapon laws, of course, are familiar in the various States; there is a legal theory upon which we prohibit the carrying of weapons–the smaller weapons.”

            ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: “Do you have any doubt as to the power of the Government to deal with machine guns as they are transported in interstate commerce?”

            MR. LEWIS: “I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this, General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the Constitution.”

            ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: “Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, and of regulation under the interstate commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say, “We will tax the machine gun,” and when you say that “the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated,” you are easily within the law.”

            MR. LEWIS: “In other words, it does not amount to prohibition, but allows of regulation.”

            ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: “That is the idea. We have studied that very carefully.”

            [“Lewis” = Congressman David John Lewis, D-MD-6
            [“Cummings” – U.S. Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings

          9. Liberty's Advocate says:

            Thank you for those factual, appropriate and noteworthy additions to this thread. The above conversation proves the quote attributed to
            FDR: “Government doesn’t do ANYTHING by accident.”

          10. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:


            “The U.S. government doesn’t do anything by accident, and there are no coincidences. The issues are always well planned and organized — and are contrived.”
            —dogtear5, May 28, 2009

            And never forget Hanlon’s Razor:

            “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

          11. I Seigel says:

            So while you’re laughing so merrily, could you please explain why Ronald Reagan advocated for strong background checks and a ban semi-automatic weapons, and Congress enacted those requirements. The NRA agreed to them. Back then, their mantra was that we needed guns for hunting a self-protection.

            But now, weapons manufacturers need new markets for their products. The military, too, is bringing back their hardware and selling it to police departments, who are awash in MRAPS, armored personnel carriers, and heavy weaponry. And the guns that are available today – fully automatic, 30-clip, killing machines, armor-piercing bullets, etc – are certainly NOT needed for hunting and self-protection. Would Reagan and the Republican Party of the ’80s and ’90s condoned those in our homeland?

          12. Liberty's Advocate says:

            I ALSO ADVOCATE FOR STRONG BACKGROUND CHECKS! What’s the matter with that? If you REALLY want to keep guns out of the hands of felons and crazy people, some improved methods might be in order. Improved inter-agency communication and information sharing with the caveat of protecting individual privacy should be explored. This DOES NOT include creating lists of Christians, conservatives and political enemies and categorizing them as terrorists like the Obama Justice Department does.

            #2 – There IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE! That’s more Obama admin BS designed to ban all private sales and transfers of existing guns even between family members – curios, relics, family heirlooms – like the “Joe Biden Assault Weapon” (a double-barreled Damascus twist exposed hammer black powder shot gun my wife’s grandfather carried at the Alaskan gold rush of 1898.)

            Interesting that you bring up the militarization of our police departments nationwide. I also oppose such weapons in the hands of police, unless the same are available for dissemination among private citizens … who, again, pass a background check. (But what’s this “30-clip” crap? You’re not a slow learner, are you?)

            As far as “armor piercing” rounds are concerned, are you talking specifically about the 5.56 x 45 62 grain 193 M855 Green Tip steel penetrators? If you’ve never been wild boar hunting you can’t appreciate how incredibly difficult that animal is to kill. I’ve had premium ammo (Hornady VMax 55 grain ballistic tips) that has a muzzle velocity in excess of 3240 fps bounce off the skulls of young pigs at 75 yds. and less – knocking them out briefly but only giving them a headache!

            A Green Tip gives me a clean kill every time – and HAS stopped a 290 lb. charging hog in his tracks, saving my life because their tusks can rip you and a dog to sheds. I hear they also can disable an engine in a getaway car, stopping break-ins and theft of private property.

            .223’s and AR-15’s (which can fire both 5.56 x 45 and ,223 ammunition) are extremely popular as hunting rifles for everything from varmints to deer. These are either bolt-action or SEMI-automatic (which means auto-loading) guns.

            Would Reagan condone their use? Of course! Why did he sign (not advocate for) the semi-auto ban? I think it was partially out of loyalty to his Press Secretary James Brady who took a bullet to the brain during the assassination attempt in 1981. Also, because it was the Democrat controlled Congress during his administration that drafted and passed the legislation. He signed it because it had a “Sunset Clause” allowing it to expire and was NOT reauthorized because it was obviously ineffective and purposeless.

            Now it’s YOUR turn to play defense. Sarah Brady, the wife of Jim Brady, with Jim in mind and to “control gun violence”, started an organization called Handgun Control, Inc. after her husband was wounded. (I’m FOR Handgun Control, too … that’s why I practice and use two hands!) They advocated for stronger background checks, proposed bans of many types of weapons, helped draft and pass legislation banning “Straw man” purchases and had to change the name of their organization when it became obvious their goal was the confiscation and elimination of handguns.

            Sarah Brady PERSONALLY purchased a bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifle as a Christmas gift in Lewes, CT for her son. That is the definition of a “Straw Man” purchase. The law doesn’t distinguish between gifts for relatives and purchases for others. The state’s Attorney General said it was an illegal purchase. Being a well-connected Liberal Democrat, the sale was NOT voided and her son, who was not a felon nor barred in any way from purchasing a gun, (none of which mitigates the illegality of the transaction) was the proud owner of a new rifle. If it had been a Republican it likely would have resulted in a fine and jail time. The Constitution says ALL LAWS must apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY. Why not Democrats as well?

            Why was Obama allowed to make over 30 CHANGES, thus re-writing ObamaCare legislation – a power Constitutionally reserved under Article l, Section 1, Clause 1 – THE FIRST WORD IN THE CONSTITUTION – to Congress? Why is he allowed to expand MONTHLY on the waivers, extensions and exemptions which began first with the labor unions who ADVOCATED FOR the passage of the bill? His new waivers are granted to over 1372 companies – ALL OBAMA DONORS – which has elevated cronyism to stratospheric levels and are ALL unconstitutional.

            This “favoritism” is out of control and is historically a universal indicator of tyranny. In view of such attacks on the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution and various other controls in the Constitution itself and a level of corruption threatening the very foundations of our government, why are you concerned with minutia and trivialities and past history?

          13. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “Since back in those days, the only things they knew were flintlocks and muzzle-loaders, go knock yourselves out and amass all the single-shot, flintlocks you can store.”

            Following that LibSoc gun controller illogic, you need to dump your computer and try to find some way to express your LibSoc ideas here via quill pen, parchment paper and iron ball ink: as that’s what was available and used in 1789.

            “But the FF’s never envisioned 30-clip semi-automatic weapons and armor-piercing shells.”

            They also never envisioned personal computers, word-processing and desktop publishing software, nor Manroland, Muller Martini, Presstek, Heidelberg, Komori, Ryobi, Nebiolo Printech, Koenig & Bauer, et al. printing presses.

            So your thoughts and visions are, as previously noted, illogical.

          14. I Seigel says:

            I know this is an old comment, but let’s revisit this topic:

            You’ve mentioned the Heller v DC decision several times in your posts. And you claim that the decision reinforces the right of citizens to bear arms without infringement. Is that right?

            Let’s look at the Heller decision, the majority opinion of which was written by none other than one of the 2 most conservative Judges, Samuel Alito.

            As you’re aware by now, the Court has just turned down another request to look at another local gun control ordinance, This is the 70th-plus time they’ve turned down the opportunity to loosen or eliminate a local gun ordinance.

            Some facts about the Heller decision:

            The Court reaffirmed the right to keep HANDGUNS in the home.

            And this is VERY important – Scalia, in his majority opinion, wrote:

            “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” …nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms” — “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
            So that’s what Heller is REALLY about – not what you CLAIM it’s about.

          15. Liberty's Advocate says:

            ” And you claim that the decision reinforces the right of citizens to bear arms without infringement. Is that right?”

            Nooo … I SAID the decision reaffirmed the 2nd amendment is an individual right. The Firearms Act of 1934 (I said) goes too far re: the 2A in limiting the right of the people to possess fully automatic weapons.

            If the 2A in principle is to preserve the power of the people to repel threats (self-defense), it must be against ALL threats – both foreign and domestic – from whatever source INCLUDING GOVERNMENT which enjoys a monopoly on military arms.

            Such laws PRESUME that EVERY citizen will act illegally and with malice against others and government, sells the idea that government needs them because they have the responsibility to protect us and then has been absolved of that responsibility by the courts – leaving US unprotected from tyrannical government which was the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 2A. It’s no wonder many are confused by the anti-gun, gun-control arguments because the whole concept is convoluted, denying us our God-given right of self-defense which is an overreach of its jurisdiction.

            I FIRST want government to be consistent and responsible to the people and, since they cannot be held liable for providing that protection to us as individuals, government (through laws and law enforcement) must protect us from the actions of the lawless (outlaw) elements of society.

            Stiffer penalties for using firearms to commit felonies, the death penalty on conviction for murder, rape and kidnapping (with limited appeals) ALL will contribute to a safer society. Society would also not be punished by having their taxes used to provide secure housing, 3 squares a day, education and entertainment for those who have demonstrated their unwillingness to live within society’s constraints. Evil DOES EXIST. You don’t compromise with it or provide housing for it; you eliminate it.

          16. Liberty's Advocate says:

            Additionally, Heller was about the District of Columbia’s gun control laws being a violation of individual rights. Congress has the CONSTITUTIONAL power to regulate what goes on in DC.

          17. I Seigel says:

            Your positions are very well thought out and logical. However and unfortunately, you are arguing for a position that does not exist at this time. as I think you’re aware. The Supreme Court and lower courts have all interpreted the Constitution somewhat differently than you have – or they’ve decided NOT to reinterpret – and it’s THEIR decisions that we have to live by. So I’m not sure what I’d recommend: either continue to rail against government – Obama, the Courts, Dems, liberals – or choose to accept what the Supremes have decided. And, I’d also venture, that includes on Obamacare. For liberals, we are appalled by Citizens United, and I believe there is lots of energy being expended to get that decision revisited and eventually overturned. But we live with it and don’t threaten a revolution or a government shutdown if we don’t get our way.

          18. Liberty's Advocate says:

            Yes, and it depends on your personal philosophy (prejudice) as to WHOM you believe is responsible for the intransigence which led to the shutdown, would you not agree?
            With respect to my arguments representing a position that does not exist, I respectfully disagree. In view of the totality of the philosophical foundation upon which my argument is based, it IS the position of the people.
            One of the great mistakes being made by jurists today (and assumed to be correct by lawyers and others [lay people}) is the reliance on legal precedent instead of applying reason, logic and original intent. Regardless of philosophical bent (and I do have great respect for the legal mind of Justice Scalia), most jurists operate with the same mindset.
            Before the turn of the 20th Century, judges at the District Court level stopped informing juries of their right (a principle in place in this country since the days of William Penn) to decide not only the merits of the case based on the evidence but the merits of the LAW under which the defendant was charged as well. An organization called FIJA

  • pete G says:

    Yeah once we get these loop holes closed we will all really be safe, what a bunch of hogwash. Are you telling me that background checks will have an effect on these shootings? Insanity. How damn dumb are Americans? That’s like taking the spikes out of a baseball bat just before i hit you in the head with it. This is all leading to gun collection and when that happens i would hope the sh—-t would hit the fan.

  • pete G says:

    He can’t have my gun unless he comes to my house personally to get it, then we’ll talk.

  • albertbryson says:

    First, Obama is a dictator. He is protecting all the Black Matters people, the college crybabies, and the Islamist terrorists. We need to use our constitution to remove him, if necessary by force.

  • marlio says:

    The obama administration admitted Sandy Hook was a hoax and no one died. How are we to know this latest shooting was not engineered by them as well? They will NEVER get the guns as no one TRUSTS obama or his administration!!! Say no to bo!!!

    1. I Seigel says:

      Could you please post a link to the news story about Sandy Hook being a hoax. I missed the part where the Administration admitted it was a hoax. Post a link, or stuff your head up your bunghole. If you post a legitimate link, I’ll sincerely apologize.

  • Art The Fart says:

    Osama Obama needs to take executive action on halting the importation of any more of these Muslim wackos. We also need to deport any of them, who will not assimilate into our culture and have respect for our country and our laws. Otherwise, we are going to have more serious problems with these crazy Muslim extremists, just like they are now having in Europe. Obozo is either a Muslim, himself, or at the very least a Muslim sympathizer. His actions and speech have shown this to be true. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the American people voted this Bozo into office not once, but twice! Why do the American people want to go down this road? Maybe my lack of understanding is due to my old age! LOL But this is no laughing matter!

  • Robert McFate says:

    How many more executive actions in direct violation of the Constitution will the Congress take without taking action or do the RINOs and liberal Democrats want to turn over power to a dictator?

    1. Gnowark says:

      Despite the GOP’s (AKA RINO’s) gains in the last elections, I don’t see the decisive moves that (re?) elected them. I guess you had a rhetorical question that is answered by “yes, that is what they have (and will) allow to happen.”

  • Larry says:

    You can tell Obumma and his gang of thief’s that he can try and take my constitutional rights away but he will pay the consequences from the America citizens.

  • teaman says:

    If the Executive Anus had his way, he would completely destroy the Constitution and become dictator of the Out House. Fact is, every anti gun law in this country is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. “IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Doesn’t matter what he says and it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Monkeys say. The English is very plain.

  • joe says:

    Our political so-called leaders have a constitutional duty to override any and all of obama’s executive orders that violate constitutional rights. Among those illegal orders are any and all past or future orders that infringe upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
    Have no fear however; our clowns in the Congress do not care about upholding the constitution or their own oath of office; they will go with the current money, which is pro gun control.

  • I Seigel says:

    What would you have Obama do re Israel? Support every new settlement that Netanyahu wants to build in the West Bank? Even Bush didn’t support that. Has O withheld support for Israel’s defensive moves? Has he voted against them in the UN? Has he withheld defense appropriations?

    Has O and his administration fought for Israel against Europe’s moves to impose trade sanctions? (The answer is YES, in case you haven’t been following along.)

    1. pete G says:

      You hate Jews, you hate the Constitution, you Hate America, please leave so you no longer embarrass real Americans.

      1. I Seigel says:

        Why should “real” Americans be embarrassed by me? Maybe because I say things that challenge their beliefs?

      2. I Seigel says:

        You didn’t answer any of my questions, Petey. Did you notice you avoided all my reasonable questions? You’d prefer to just attack, rather than think?

  • The Redhawk says:

    As though ANY of his “EXECUTIVE ACTIONS” have resulted in ANY POsitive RESULTS…may be we better Recall that old KFC ad:
    The time when Playboy offeed Sarah Palin 4,000,000 dollars to appear Nude
    the Time that National Geographic offered Mochielle Obama ^ 40 Bucks for a picture of her bare TOP
    the KFC SHILLERY S[pecial; 2 small breast and a pair of HUGE TIGHS
    and the Newest Obama kFC Special; ONE LEFT WING and a PILE of CHICKEN S-IT!
    TIME to tell this IDIOT to STFU and call Islamo Radical Terrorists by their PROPER NAME….and admit that his Major Illegal Immigration SCREW UPS have IMPORTED ISIS to America….

  • VAM says:

    I discount any thing this admin says. Burn me once shame on you ………
    If you like your doctor…… If you like your plan……..
    I simply can’t trust him to make good decisions for “this” country. And I certainly can not trust anything he “says”.

  • Smitch says:

    It is TIME for Articles of Impeachment!

    1. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

      No: it’s way PAST time for the House to “grow a set” and draft Articles of Impeachment for all of Barry HUSSEIN Obeyme’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”!

  • dbreed50@yahoo.com says:

    Only a traitor would condemn his people to victimhood. Police are rarely on site to protect us when the shooting starts. Not the fault of the police, just the tendancy of evil people to prefer their victims unable to shoot back. That being the case, the logical step is for more good people to be armed. But President Obama wants the good people disarmed. Why? Whatever it is, if he gets it, I bet we won’t like it!

    I would suggest instead of President Obama’s gun control that the Congress pass “An Armed Camp” Bill to reimplement the Second Amendment that basically gives the right to concealed or unconcealed carry throughout the United States as the Constitution states. Anyone that has passed the background check gets a “National Right to Carry” from the Federal Government that is good anywhere in the United States. Anyone new that passes the background check gets the same.

    Let’s make it harder for the bad guys to find a group of unarmed vitims not easier for the them Mr. President.

  • KDC says:

    How about an executive action, by Congress, to oust this treasonous hater of America.

  • michael friend says:

    Obozo doesn’t care about anyone else and he is determined to get his own way no matter what the American people want. The Democraps don’t realize that the more that he pisses off the people the harder it will be for them to get re-elected. The Democrap party has lost touch with reality. Some of them realize that and decided to retire instead of trying to get re-elected.

    1. podunk1 says:

      WAKE UP AMERICA!!! We don’t need new laws.

      We MUST ENFORCE SUPREME LAW against insurrection, rebellion, and treason! Amendment 2 “…right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is under all-out attack by Obama and his progressives!

      There is no congressional immunity for acts of treason, insurrection, rebellion, aiding & abetting – in congress, while attending Session, or anywhere else “ …(congress) shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest …. (Article 1 Section 6)”

      Amendment 14 Sections 3&4, “3- “No (oath bound) person shall … hold any office… (who has) engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (Constitution), or given aid or comfort to (its) enemies…” (NO EXCEPTIONS)! 14-4 violator is personally liable! That applies to the FIRST OFFENSE!!

      EVERY OFFICIAL AND JUDGE IS INDIVIDUALLY OATH BOUND TO Article 6 and 2nd oath as Supreme Law with absolute individual allegiance to defend it without any reservation or reason against any Constitution enemy! Failure betrays oath, commits treason, and prohibits any voice in government! WE NEED ENFORCEMENT AGAINST TRAITORS!!!

      1. I Seigel says:

        More than 50% of Americans would like to see stronger gun control laws and more enforcement. But you can keep showing off your knowledge of the Constitution – quite impressive – although your interpretation is pretty shaky.

        1. SDofAZ says:

          I Seigel, podunk1 is absolutely correct, you are the one who is uninformed and do not have your percentages correct. I suppose you are relying on the bogus poll numbers our media posts these days. So much more the fool you are for that belief.

          1. I Seigel says:

            And what bogus poll numbers are YOU relying on? Ones that aren’t posted by the media these days, I would imagine.

          2. SDofAZ says:

            You are ignorant and I will meet you at every post fool!

          3. I Seigel says:

            I hope you do, so people can be amazed and astounded by the sheer magnitude of your stupidity. Keep posting, especially about the Constitution.

          4. SDofAZ says:

            Glad you have acknowledged your source of the percentage. Have you ever drawn up a poll? If you had you would know far better what is happening.

          5. I Seigel says:

            Huh? Did you think you said something understandable here?

          6. podunk1 says:

            I never argue with a “polecat”. Like possums… they have bad luck crossing roads & making good decisions.

          7. pete G says:

            Why don’t you go find a bunch of Democrap communist that will agree with you and leave real Americans alone.

          8. I Seigel says:

            Waaaaaaa. Cant handle someone who disagrees?? Waaaa.

          9. pete G says:

            No not someone ignorant like you.

          10. I Seigel says:

            I suppose you can quote a right-wing website poll showing only 4% of Americans think gun control needs to be strengthened.

            But recognized, scientific polls such as Gallup consistently show majorities.

            Here is a list of polls and their results:


          11. podunk1 says:

            The prize at the top of pole you’re climbing is ISIS. Move to Syria & get a preview of the new Obama-nation. Let us restore the USA.

            PS Look up the words insurrection, rebellion, treason, & allegiance before you go to bed! There is no statute of limitations.

          12. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Here’s one of those “right-wing web sites,” Seigel:

            Poll: More Americans oppose stricter gun control
            By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
            Updated 7:10 PM ET, Wed October 21, 2015

            Washington (CNN)About half of all Americans oppose stricter gun control laws, a larger segment of the population than those who support tighter controls on guns, according to a new CNN/ORC poll¹ released Wednesday.

            Nearly three weeks after the latest mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people, 52% of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws, 6 percentage points more than the 46% of Americans who support such laws. That’s a wider gap than in June when CNN last surveyed Americans on gun control, finding that the public was equally split at 49% on the issue.


          13. I Seigel says:

            Thank you.

            Further in your cited article is this:
            “Other polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support expanding background checks to private sales and sales at gun shows, where people can buy guns without undergoing a background check.”
            And this is what I was referring to in other posts when I said “loopholes”.
            No one here is advocating for taking away people’s guns. But there should be an effort made to make sure the people buying guns are sane and honest people. Just as we’ve agreed over the past decades to limit driving to those people who aren’t drunk or who can prove they can see.
            And yes, more effort needs to be made to deal with mental health issues. But budget cuts – especially during the sequestration forced by the Republican Congress – has reduced mental health services. And if Republicans REALLY thought that all this violence was simply a matter of mental health, why haven’t they proposed any legislation to increase funding for screening and treatment of mentally unstable people?

          14. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “No one here is advocating for taking away people’s guns.”

            Unfortunately, the ones who ‘count’ do:

            “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in’ — I would have done it.”
            —Diane Feinstein

            “If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated”
            —Nancy Pelosi

            “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true…”
            —Charles Schumer

            “We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!” —Charles Schumer

            “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
            —Janet Reno

            “We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”
            —Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff

            “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
            —Rahm Emanuel, Feb 08, 2009

          15. Hgeyer says:

            Sorry fool but podunk1 didn’t get ANYTHING correct and is as dumb as a box of rocks! Apparently you aren’t any more intelligent……

        2. podunk1 says:

          Get an old Websters Dictionary & check out what was quoted in full. I couldn’t and didn’t write the words and neither could you. I can read, infinitely appreciate, and understand what’s divinely written… you can’t.

          Look up the words insurrection, rebellion, and treason before you go to bed. You’re engaged in it, which is a highest capital crime… very serious depending on allegiance and levels of involvement… & no statute of limitations!

          Treason is going to end!

          1. I Seigel says:

            “I can read, infinitely appreciate, and understand what’s divinely written”

            What’s divinely written, huh? Not too humble either? That’s one of the Seven Sins, you know.

          2. podunk1 says:

            You can’t read… (“I couldn’t and didn’t write it…”)

            Like trying to communicate with a frog.- never again…

          3. I Seigel says:

            If I’m supposed to be the frog, you must be the fly.

          4. podunk1 says:

            too late… you’re already in the pot of boiling water

        3. pete G says:

          Well now that’s a coincidence 50% of the country are either getting welfare, food stamps, or unemployment the same number that want Obama to make gun control a law. These people are going to vote for anything he wants or risk getting cut off. If you don’t want people to defend the Constitution why don’t you pack your a$$ to a communistic country.

          1. I Seigel says:

            Welcome to majority rule.

          2. pete G says:

            You should be ashamed of Obama and how he split this country down the middle, but i know you aren’t because doing the right thing like finding jobs for people doesn’t mean a thing to you liberals as long as you win. BTW i am a Democrat who wouldn’t give you a new dime for the whole bunch of you. I won’t piss on my morals for anyone.

          3. I Seigel says:

            Wait! Are you whining that Obama isn’t finding jobs for people? Is that what you’re saying??

        4. Mort Leith says:

          Bullshit stat,, typical lib Tard

          1. I Seigel says:

            Typical moron response.

        5. Hgeyer says:

          Although the NRA has historically opposed such measures, public opinion may be shifting. A poll of NRA members and gun owners, conducted earlier this year by GOP pollster Frank Luntz, found that 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners supported mandatory background checks for all gun purchases.

          1. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Update On Bogus “Poll” Of NRA Members
            Friday, February 19, 2010

            On Dec. 11, 2009, we noted that a poll paid for by anti-gun politician-activist Michael Bloomberg, claiming to show that NRA members support gun control, was conducted by a pollster who has been reprimanded and censured by two professional polling organizations, and who (of course) doesn’t have access to NRA’s confidential member list.

            Since then, gun control supporters have cited the poll in numerous newspaper editorials, opinion columns, and letters to editors, all attacking NRA’s opposition to gun control. Recently, however, Bloomberg’s pollster, Frank Luntz, admitted how he gets polls to turn out the way his employers want. In a “Penn and Teller” interview posted on YouTube, Luntz says, “The key in survey research is to ask questions that people care about the answers [sic], and to ask the question in a way that you get the right answer.” He added, “[W]ith just a single change of wording, you’ll get a very different reaction in terms of how they think and how they feel.”

            Thanks, Frank, for making it easier for us to write letters to newspapers pointing out why no one should take your “poll of NRA members” seriously.


            You need to update your “Bloomberg Gun Control Internet Propagandist Flip Chart,” Geyer — it’s five years out-of-date. 🙂

        6. Icemancold says:

          50% those are the MSN numbers not the actual Percentages If that many people wanted guns taken away there would not be record gun sales.!!

          1. I Seigel says:

            Where did I say – or anyone say – that “that many people wanted guns taken away”. The polls only show that a majority want stricter controls, not confiscations.

      2. Hgeyer says:

        If we did that the NRA would all be jailed for supporting the 2nd amendment rights of those on our terrorist watch list to buy assault rifles and handguns LEGALLY!

        1. kicklotsofbutt says:

          The NRA has nothing to do with what is going on with obozo trying to disarm the citizens. The only reason obozo is trying to disarm WE THE PEOPLE is to turn this country into a dictatorship. If you can’t understand that fact you have a mental problem.

          1. Hgeyer says:

            Obama has done NOTHING to take guns away from those that legally own them! He has sign only two gun laws BOTH making it easier for me to carry a concealed weapon! The NRA has been fighting for more than ten years to stop the government from adding the people on the terrorist watch list to the list of those that can’t buy guns! So important to protect the 2nd amendment rights of suspected terrorist…. If you don’t believe me go to the NRA web site and search “terror watch list” and check out their videos.

          2. podunk1 says:

            Obama’s terrorist list includes just about anyone who will defend the Constitution from overthrow, which includes the military, Tea Party, and countless other peaceful patriotic citizens… NOT ALIENS! You deserve to live in a gun free zone – why not try Chicago… the Phoenix of the Obama-nation!

          3. Hgeyer says:

            It’s not Obama’s list…. It’s the FBI’s center for terrorist screening “no fly list”. Are you stupid enough to think all teabaggers are on the no fly list? And the military? Seriously? Stop being a fool!
            I don’t believe in gun free zones, why would I want to live in one? I wouldn’t have gotten licensed to carry a gun in 34 states to live in a gun free zone. You really should at least attempt to check your facts BEFORE make a fool of yourself by repeating your lies….

          4. Elessar says:

            You just lost any credibility you may have had by using that slur. Did you know that Ted Kennedy was on the “No Fly List”? It’s far from perfect.

          5. Hgeyer says:

            That was in 2004 when it was a new thing and the TSA was maintaining the list …. Got anything from THIS decade? The “slur” you referred to was totally accurate…. if they didn’t want to be referred to as stupid or foolish they shouldn’t say stupid and foolishthings!

          6. Mort Leith says:

            YOU are a FKin id10t that has no brain of your own,,, you drivel all the CNN and MSNBC talking pts because you are a zombie libT ard..

          7. Bonnie68 says:

            Mort Leith – you are calling Hgeyer a zombie lib T ard.. and I am going to throw that back at you

            I just look for some statistics for you because I am tired of gun rights people constantly fighting for something they already have and no one is taking away from them.

            In 2012 statistics

            500 children DIED from gun shots every year

            259 people DIED from self defense gun shots
            8,342 DIED from criminal homicides gun shots

            That was 3 years ago, I would hate to even estimate those figures for 2015. But the gun rights people have your guns. You own all the guns. The statistic state that 1in 3 people own guns. SO the people who want guns have guns. That means that 33% of the nation has guns and 66% do not have guns.

            Why is it that the gun rights people think that it is okay to allow criminals, mentally ill, and terrorist to purchase guns on line, at gun shows or any other loophole for getting a gun?

            So instead of gun rights people allowing people who SHOULD NOT have guns, instead they should be good citizens of this country and STOP them from getting guns until they are reformed. Stop being ignorant about these type of people, they should not be allowed to have a gun, IF they happen to be on a list by mistake that can be taken care of, IF they want a gun. But your obsession of EVERYONE having a gun is absolutely ridiculous because everyone does not need or want a gun.

          8. pete G says:

            You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. You don’t want a gun don’t buy a gun, in fact move to a gun free zone where you’ll be happy and leave the rest of us the hell alone. what the press isn’t telling you is that well over 300 people save either their own lives or someone else’s life with a gun. The first thing you crybabies do when your in trouble is call who ? A man with a gun. And for God sake’s stop believing a proven liar.

          9. Bonnie68 says:

            Yes you are telling the truth they call a man with a gun I wonder who that is – COP – not one of the NRA good guys with a gun. A COP. A law enforcement person that is by law suppose to protect us, yes he might also belong to the NRA, but I bet he is not on this BLOG ranting about all this crap about the government.

            I bet he is not one of the ones that is targeting the BLM people that pull black people out of their cars and end up shooting them, are they? We are talking about 2 different kinds of people. We are talking about people who are using guns to do their jobs. And we are talking about people who are wanting guns because they can, period.

            It’s the second group that is on this blog.

          10. a police officer admirer says:

            well …bonnie when you have an emergency or when your home is being broken into by a thug with a gun………… CALL OBAMA dearie..

          11. dmttbt says:

            hey can shoot and rape you while you are waiting on the police. Obama has made the racial problem 10 times worse than it was. When a protest is held they bus people in to cause riots, and that is criminal, not protest. When did breaking windows and stealing and setting fires become a legal protest?

          12. reggie says:

            Laws are for honest people. Criminals don’t follow the rules. This present criminal administration speaks with forked tongue. When holder sold guns to cartels, that did it. I don’t want to hear anything else. Oh, BTW, the San Bernadino couple did NOT buy the guns. They tried to alter them into a more rapid fire gun. So, a single shot, 12 gauge gun is really helpful. Gonna solve the problem, Right?
            Article dashboard dot com: “It is estimated that in the U.S. at least one property related crime occurs every three seconds. In the United States there were over 3,600,000 EACH (my caps) year between 1994 and 2005.

          13. dmttbt says:

            The BLM people are using lies to gather their protest people. The black guy that started the don’t shoot hands up had ten minutes before strong arm robbed a store and when the policeman pulled over he tried to take his gun away and shoot him. The policeman shot in self defense. Mike the black person was not standing with his hands up and saying don’t shoot. His criminal sidekick was running and was not saying hands up don’t shoot and I think at the trial there were no witnesses who saw the hands up story happen either. So let’s move on to Travon Martin. He was in an area that had been experiencing burglaries and when approached he attacked the man who was asking him what he was doing there. He was beating the mans head into the sidewalk and was trying to get the man’s gun. He was shot rather than letting him kill the man who was acting as a neighborhood watch person. That man has been in trouble since that time but Travon had been in trouble before that time. These are the two main points that BLM is built upon. Do the lives matter when it is black on black or is it just when it is white on black?

          14. a police officer admirer says:

            yes.. like the liar ego maniac obama who you follow around like a puppet.??? wake up Bonnie68

          15. dmttbt says:

            I have to agree that the people are tuning into MSNBC and CNN and believing what they are telling them. Big mistake. Half if not more of the story headlines turn out when you read the story to be untrue, and the rest is made up to protect the liberal idiots.

          16. Glenda Jordan says:

            Where did you get your bs info from…gun rights people think its ok to allow criminals, mentally ill and terrorists to purchase guns etc. etc.?? As for the terrorists you can blame boybarry and Hilder for that!! We want responsible citizens allowed their 2ndA right, but what you people can’t seem to understand is your laws don’t and won’t work and it will only make it difficult for the good citizens to get guns while the criminals will continue to get them as they always have.

          17. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            The differences between LibSocs and Conservatives on the gun control issue can be boiled down to two simple facts:

            LibSoc Democrats want to take away guns from everyone who is not:

            1) active duty military;
            2) on duty law enforcement;
            3) armed security for LibSoc Democrats

            while Conservatives want to take criminals away from the guns!

          18. a police officer admirer says:

            juanito .. obama already has taken away tools that law enforcement can use to fight criminals .. equipment they need .. obama does not allow military to be armed that is why 6 marines were murdered !! W A K E U P JUANITO …….& other blind followers of ego maniac obama!!!

          19. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            By “active duty military” I primarily meant those deployed “down range.”

            Of course, those in field training exercises and ‘force protection’ in CONUS are “bearing arms” — but not all Security Forces bear arms while on duty.

            The only time I carried weapons was while instructing in “combat arms,” standing guard at a gate and patrolling as ABGD. Never wore a sidearm while working the desk at the Air Guard “CopShop.”

            ps: I am retired civilian CLEO and military LE.

          20. a police officer admirer says:

            how did these followers of an ego maniac become so blind ?????????????

          21. dmttbt says:

            People who do not have guns can get them legally or illegally. Your point ismute.

          22. Bonnie68 says:

            But some of those avenues can and should be closed. Anything that we can do to make it harder for those characters to obtain guns is a win. The police need to get control of the streets to get the guns off the streets.

          23. Hgeyer says:

            Strange since I don’t watch CNN or MSNBC…..

          24. pete G says:

            He’s one of these liberal trolls trying to upset good discussions. There’s one of these a$$ holes on every conservative site, ignore the fool they always go away.

          25. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Will 2014 work for you, Geyer?

            Fox News Pundit Winds Up On The Terrorist Watch List:

          26. Hgeyer says:

            Yes, and they investigated the situate and took him off! So now he can fly again…… But he could ALWAYS HAVE PURCHASED AN ASSULT RIFLE EVEN IF THEY HAD PROVED HE WAS A TERRORIST and left his name on the list he could always have bought that assault rifle!

          27. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            IF he was proven to be a “Terrorist” he should have, at a minimum, been placed on the NICS “list” — as that’s what it’s for, Geyer.

          28. carpkiller says:

            We as common people can not buy assult rifles.

          29. Hgeyer says:

            I have one….. they have dozens at all my local sporting goods stores….. What cave have you been living in? Just not the full auto versions….. unless you have the right license…. FYI…. I don’t support any assault rifle bans…. they do nothing but appease the people that know nothing about guns.

          30. carpkiller says:

            Its obvious that you do not know what an assult rifle is.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: dwhite@geetel.net
            Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 1:53 PM
            Subject: Re: Comment on Obama Admin plans executive action on guns…

            “I have one….. they have dozens at all my local sporting goods stores….. What cave have you been living in?” Settings

            A new comment was posted on 1776 Coalition


            I have one….. they have dozens at all my local sporting goods stores….. What cave have you been living in?
            1:53 p.m., Sunday Dec. 6 | Other comments by Hgeyer

            Reply to Hgeyer

            Hgeyer’s comment is in reply to carpkiller:

            We as common people can not buy assult rifles.

            Read more


            You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to disqus_KR3tTMB74V.
            You can unsubscribe from emails about replies to disqus_KR3tTMB74V by replying to this email with “unsubscribe” or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by adjusting your notification settings.

          31. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “Just not the full auto versions….. unless you have the right license….”

            It’s not a “license,” Geyer: it’s an ATF Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm (ATF Form 5320.4):

            “FYI…. I don’t support any assault rifle bans… ”

            “Assault rifles” have been banned since 19 May 1986, when Congress passed the William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) Amendment (aka “Machine Gun Ban of 1986”) to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-308):

            If you’re going to play the “LibSoc Democrat Gun Control Internet Propagandist Game” (™M.Bloomberg&Co.), Geyer, you must know the legal lexicon:

            as·sault ri·fle
            noun: assault rifle; plural noun: assault rifles
            a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
            M4A1 Assault Rifle

          32. reggie says:

            That man probably gets paid by the number of responses he can generate. Tried to find a TED talk I had listened to. Earmarks of people like him: Inflammatory, over the top, name calling/attacking, controversial, questions those who question authority. I don’t even read his posts because they’re all of the above.

          33. Elessar says:

            Using that slur indicates that the writer is stupid and foolish, it’s incredibly immature.

          34. a police officer admirer says:

            Do you mean like the stupid ridiculous foolish moron things that obama and his blind followers do?? the blind leading the blind

          35. I Seigel says:

            You’ve GOT to be kidding, right? You’re offended by a “slur”, and this alleged one, at that? I’m amazed you can even read and post here, with all the right-wing hate and slurring going on in about 80% of these posts. Where is your indignity expressed to these people who you seem to agree with? Like Mort Leith’s response one or 2 messages down?

          36. Elessar says:

            Who said I was offended?? I was just stating the fact that if you use that slur, it just screams out “Left-Wing Nut Job”! It’s incredibly immature, but what else can you expect from “Liberals”, they’re a special kind of stupid!

          37. KDC says:

            Yup, his colors were shown.

          38. canurelate says:

            He should have been on the “No Drive List”.

          39. Icemancold says:

            HUSSEIN OBAMA gives the orders to the FBI either they do as HUSSEIN OBAMA says or he will take away their Federal funds. OPEN YOUR EYES FOOL

          40. Hgeyer says:

            Sorry, but only congress has the ability to defund the FBI….. What makes you think Obama has time to micro-manage the FBI’s terrorist screening process?

          41. Icemancold says:


          42. Hgeyer says:

            On this one even Wikipedia say’s you are FULL OF $HIT! Don’t you EVER check your facts? You really should….. I hear you can go to hell for lying ……. Maybe you’ll appreciate the heat….. I’m sure it will be full of like minded people for you…..

          43. KDC says:

            You don’t go to hell for lying. So much for your knowledge on THAT subject. You go to hell for rejecting Christ.

          44. Hgeyer says:

            So…. Christ is okay with you being a lieing fool?

          45. KDC says:

            No, but He died for your sins, if you choose to accept His gift of redemption. You are still under the law, so thou shalt not lie stands true.

          46. I Seigel says:

            Rejecting the 10 Commandments is OK then?

          47. KDC says:

            The 10 commandments are there to show you that you can’t keep them. Trying to is what we call ” works”. Once you’re born again you are in the new covenant under the shed blood of Christ. You become a new creature, spiritually. Then you need to read the Word To transform your mind. So since you are not born again, you need to be living under the law of the 10 commandments. Btw, where did I ever say rejecting the 10 commandments was ok?

          48. I Seigel says:

            Well, thank you for that lesson. These were things I was not aware of, since I’m not born again.

            So a couple of questions:
            1. How many times can a person be born again? I seem to hear about quite a few religious people who have “fallen”, and then they get right back up and start preaching (and sinning) all over again.

            2. So if a person is born again, do I understand correctly that they no longer need follow the Ten Commandments?

          49. KDC says:

            1) First off you only need to be born again once. You accept Christ’s death for your sins, ask Him into your heart once and for all. Being human we all fail from time to time. Confess your sin, turn away from it and go on. Sometimes this becomes a battle. Read the Word of God so you can renew your mind.
            2) is more complicated because you don’t know how God works and I m learning this as well. The Jewish people had 613 laws to obey. No one could keep them. The 10 commandments were part of that. People who are not born again are still under the old covenant, the law. When you come to Christ you are then a new creature under Christ’s new covenant. Yes, we obey the Ten Commandments. Perhaps this might help…
            The Old or Mosaic covenant is a works covenant that God made with Israel on Mount Sinai. ( you do this, and I’ll do that covenant) This works covenant is brought to an end and is fulfilled at the cross. It was never intended to save people, but instead its purpose was to demonstrate the inability of even God’s own chosen people (the Israelites) to eradicate sin and guilt until the coming of the Messiah. The fallen world, since the fall of Adam and Eve, can only increase in sin and guilt. Israel, under the Mosaic covenant, was the physical fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, a foreshadow of the superior New Covenant of grace through Jesus Christ.

          50. KDC says:

            Too busy playing golf, huh?

          51. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            He doesn’t “micro-manage” the FBI, Geyer: he issues them marching orders and they follow them!

          52. podunk1 says:

            Obviously you aren’t even aware the FBI reports to OBAMA, any more than the legal definition of terrorist, or the extreme HIGHLY INFAMOUS nature of the crime “terrorism”! The connotation is like drowning a steel cage full of Christians, crucifying a child, or going to a Christmas party and machine gunning unarmed peaceful Christians JUST BECAUSE THEY’RE CHRISTIAN. Obama wants to play Imam, betray the Constitution, and RULE “NO CHRISTIAN SHALL HAVE A GUN TO PROTECT THEMSELVES or defend the Constitution from progressive traitors! Evidently it turns you on!

            More to the point…you, I, nor anyone else could ever count the number of times Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and other oath-bound “progressive” officials have publicly used their offices to condemn Tea Party members and other Constitution defenders as TERRORISTS! Those attacks on Amendment 5 “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” are CIVIL RIGHTS crimes that are enforceable in every court in the land by jury, criminally and civilly! Each attack betrays oath/duty and allegiance with wanton mockery, as if there IS NO CONSTITUTION. Insurrection, rebellion, and treason (including aiding and abetting armed enemies) are the crimes.

            The civil jury damage is as clear as the progressive sheeple’s maniacal fear of peaceful Tea Party members. Removing the threat is as simple as enforcing Amendment 14-3&4, which are universally enforceable by every judge AS SUPREME LAW!

          53. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Gee, Geyer: I thought you were smart enough to understand just how “The Three Branches of United States Government”; Legislative, Judicial & Executive; works!?!

            The FBI is part of the Department of Justice.

            The Department of Justice is a department of the Executive Branch.

            And, as POTUS, Barry HUSSEIN Obeyme is the Boss of everyone who works in the Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government.

            ERGO: any and all decisions, actions and programs initiated and conducted by the FBI are most certainly Barry’s ― so it’s most certainly “Obama’s No-Fly Terrorist Watch List” ― whether or not you admit it, OR like it!!!

          54. pete G says:

            Shawn Hannity said that 78 people that work for homeland security are on the terror watch list. So much for lists.

          55. Hgeyer says:

            Why would ANYONE believe ANYTHING that fool has to say?

          56. podunk1 says:

            Obviously you aren’t even aware the FBI reports to OBAMA, any more than the legal definition of terrorist, or the extreme HIGHLY INFAMOUS nature of the crime “terrorism”! The connotation is like drowning a steel cage full of Christians, crucifying a child, or going to a Christmas party and machine gunning unarmed peaceful Christians JUST BECAUSE THEY’RE CHRISTIAN. Obama wants to play Imam, betray the Constitution, and RULE “NO CHRISTIAN SHALL HAVE A GUN TO PROTECT THEMSELVES or defend the Constitution from progressive traitors! Evidently it turns you on!

            More to the point…you, I, nor anyone else could ever count the number of times Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and other oath-bound “progressive” officials have publicly used their offices to condemn Tea Party members and other Constitution defenders as TERRORISTS! Those attacks on Amendment 5 “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” are CIVIL RIGHTS crimes that are enforceable in every court in the land by jury, criminally and civilly! Each attack betrays oath/duty and allegiance with wanton mockery, as if there IS NO CONSTITUTION. Insurrection, rebellion, and treason (including aiding and abetting armed enemies) are the crimes.

            The civil jury damage is as clear as the progressive sheeple’s maniacal fear of peaceful Tea Party members. Removing the threat is as simple as enforcing Amendment 14-3&4, which are universally enforceable by every judge AS SUPREME LAW!

          57. KDC says:

            ILLEGAL ALIENS. Right on!

          58. a police officer admirer says:


          59. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            NRA Statement on Terror Watch List Distortions
            Friday, November 20, 2015

            Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action issued the following statement on the terror watch list distortions:
            View Related Articles

            “The NRA does not want terrorists or dangerous people to have firearms, any suggestion otherwise is offensive and wrong,” said Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs. “Under the current system, law enforcement is notified every time a person on the list attempts to purchase a firearm. Law Enforcement then makes a case by case decision on the appropriate follow-up for each circumstance.

            “The NRA’s only objective is to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process. It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama’s failed foreign policy.”

            Background Information:

            ● So Much for Innocent -’til Proven Guilty http://www.tbo.com/news/blogs/the-right-stuff/so-much-for-innocent-til-proven-guilty-20151123/
            ● Anyone Who Would Use Terror as an Excuse to Subvert the Second Amendment Should Be Tarred & Feathered: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427512/terrorism-gun-control-advocates-use-fear
            ● Denver FBI spokesman Carl Schlaff said the following regarding FBI Terror watch list in a 2005 Rocky Mountain News article:

            “Schlaff said there’s no cause to deny someone a gun just because he or she is on the watch list. Some people are on the list simply because the FBI wants to interview them about someone else who may have a connection to terrorism. ‘You’re innocent until proven guilty,’ he said.

            Sometimes the watch list will warn local law enforcement to contact the FBI about a person on the list immediately. In other cases, it says only to be aware that the FBI is interested in the person, Schlaff said.” (Ann Imse, “Gun Shoppers on Terrorism Watch List,” Rocky Mountain News, 3/9/2005)

            ● Former CIA Operative Mike Baker Explains the Flaws in the Terrorist Watchlist: https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=360496a7-3e8d-4367-b723-113c856f0f3f

            ● The NRA Is Absolutely Right to Fear the ‘Terrorism Watch List’: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427266/nra-absolutely-right-fear-terrorism-watch-list-charles-c-w-cooke

            ● Did Terrorists Have A 91% Success Rate With Buying Guns In America?: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/11/18/did-terrorists-have-a-91-success-rate-with-buying-guns-in-america/

            ● 7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

            ● Ford Motor Co., 2-Year-Old, Innocent Man Have Records In Terror Database: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/terrorist-watch-list-database_n_1936515.html

            ● Nelson Mandela Was On The U.S. Terrorist Watch List Until 2008: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/nelson-mandela-terrorist_n_4394392.html

            ● Fox News Pundit Winds Up On The Terrorist Watch List: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/stephen-hayes-terrorist-watch-list_n_5870474.html

            ● Senator? Terrorist? A Watch List Stops Kennedy at Airport: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/senator-terrorist-a-watch-list-stops-kennedy-at-airport.html

            ● Terrorist Watch List Hits 1 million: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-10-watchlist_N.htm

            ● US Terrorist Database Growing at Rapid Rate: http://news.yahoo.com/us-terrorist-database-growing-rapid-rate-223303875.html

            ● The ‘terrorist screening database’: Are they all terrorists?: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-terrorist-screening-database-20140813-story.html

            ● Nearly 40% Of Those On The Government’s Terrorist Watchlist Have ‘No Affiliation With Recognized Terrorism Groups’: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140805/11295828116/nearly-40-those-governments-terrorist-watchlist-have-no-affiliation-with-recognized-terrorism-groups.shtml


          60. Hgeyer says:

            And yet ALL Syrian refugees are terrorist with no chance at all to clear their names…… If just one is a terrorist we must deny refuge to all! The American way, By the way…… How does a gun dealer notify the local police for further investigation if they are allowed to have that list? Just MORE NRA lies…

          61. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            My position on the so-called “refugees;” Syrian or not; is let `em ALL in — straight to the old Ellis Island Immigrant Hospital — where they can stay while each and everyone of them is given a “rectal exam” vetting of their backgrounds — just like all you LibSoc Democrats demand of lawful gun buyers.

            While the “refugees” are staying at EIIH, give them brooms, mops, paint brushes and rollers, and all the paint and furnishings they’d need to bring EIIH “up to snuff” — as they’d stay there until their vetting is complete: after which they can be granted a TEMPORARY Visitor Visa.

            Once Obama has “kicked the ‘JV’ Terrorists” asses, all these “refugees” will then be “returned to sender.”

            If they liked their stay here, let them then apply for LEGAL immigration — like the the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization laws intend.

          62. Hgeyer says:

            I have purchased many firearms and had a background check for each and have NEVER had a rectal exam….. perhaps YOUR gun dealer has been pulling your leg…. I would shop elsewhere…..
            FYI…. the process they are doing now IS LEGAL immigration!

          63. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Obviously you are incapable of recognizing sarcasm — even when it’s made abundantly clear via ‘quotation marks.’

            ” …the process they are doing now IS LEGAL immigration!”

            So, Geyer: is that your way of saying that they way it was done back in the early 20th century was “ILLEGAL”???

            So, Geyer: clue us in as to just WHY you and Obama want all these unvetted “Syrian ‘refugees'” allowed into the U.S.

          64. Hgeyer says:

            I stopped replying to your dumb ass months ago….. Just please stay in your Dallas/Ft.Worth area and stop bothering us real American……

          65. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “When the going gets tough, the LibSocs RUNAWAY!”

            Geyer implements Liberal Debate #38. Mockery — then ‘runs away’ — AGAIN!

            “us real American…”


            That would be “we real Americans,” Geyer:

            “Us Americans” or “We Americans”?

            Geyer here reminds me of a MotherJones article:

            “We’re Americans, Please Don’t Bother Us With Facts”


          66. Robert says:

            You just like to call people names.

          67. Hgeyer says:

            Only those that deserve it…..

          68. rwp24382 says:

            Maybe you just don’t pay attention to things Obama has tried to do. Do you remember the ammunition buy out Obama started? These rounds were bought for just about all agencies within the government. The rounds bought by the government weren’t all for calibers used by the government. Some of the calibers were 30.30, .45 long Colt, and .410 shotgun. There were more than enough rounds bought, that each person in the country could have had 5 or 6 rounds used on them. At one point, I think the government agencies had more ammo than the military used. Obama wanted to buy up enough ammo in order to make peoples’ firearms useless. He threw a shortage into the supply that also drove the prices of ammo through the roof. Why do the FDA, SSA, EPA, the Post Office, and several other agencies need this kind of firepower? Are they suddenly being threatened by citizens that much that they need protecting? Why aren’t they protected by Gun Free Zones?

            Obama signed an executive order to not allow foreign made firearms and ammo to be brought into the US. Companies affected simply started an operation in our country to ensure these popular firearms and ammo could still be bought and weren’t made obsolete. Obama has tried to get the Manchin-Toomey bill passed, in order to start registration of firearms. Congress tried to pass a bill that would ban AR-15s and similar weapons. That didn’t work, so he tried to pass his own bills by executive order. One was trying to ban the sale of 5.56 ammo. that didn’t work out, because the day he signed his order, Congress was swamped with calls probably to impeach Obama. He rescinded the order.

            He has tried unsuccessfully to get a Small Arms Treaty signed and passed in the UN. He wanted to go around Congress and claim that the treaty was to override American law. The treaty was to make it unlawful for any person in the US not with a government agency or the military to own a firearm. The very treaty he was promoting, he and Hillary were violating in Benghazi, with their gun running operation. Obama couldn’t promote a treaty that he himself was violating. The treaty has been unsuccessful, because of his illegal activities. It’s not that Obama hasn’t tried, but his own stupidity and arrogance has gotten in his way. Obama can’t make his executive orders stick, because he can’t make laws.

          69. Hgeyer says:

            Perhaps YOU are the one that needs to pay better attention… Government agencies buy ammo EVERY year for their enforcement divisions to use for PRACTICE the number of rounds has actually been lower under Obama than many past presidents because of budget cuts! It was something called panic that caused ammo shortages because paranoid right-wingers were stockpiling ammo because some fool told them that Obama was coming for their ammo and they foolishly believed it! Obama never tried to ban all 223 ammo! The ATF was “looking into” banning armor piercing 223’s and didn’t do it….. Everybody knows hunters need THAT for deer wearing body armor… The UN treaty in absolutely no way would effect ANY domestic gun sales! It was to stop the arming of third world nations and could not and would not effect ANY domestic sales of ANYTHING…. The gun running operation you refer to in Benghazi… how could Obama have violated a treaty we haven’t signed? OH, he DIDN’T! Just more bullshit from you…..

          70. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “Obama never tried to ban all 223 ammo! The ATF was ‘looking into’ banning armor piercing 223’s and didn’t do it…..OH, he DIDN’T! Just more bullshit from you…..”

            Geyer here just cannot stop lying for Der Führer Barry HUSSEIN Obeyme!

            Here’s the TRUTH:

            EXCLUSIVE: Common AR-15 Green Tip Ammunition Already Banned in New ATF Regulation Guide
            Katie Pavlich | Mar 06, 2015

            On Friday February 13 at 4:00 pm, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms released a proposal to ban commonly used M855 “green-tip” AR-15 ammunition under the guise of law enforcement safety. The same day the proposal was released, on a Friday of a three day holiday weekend, ATF opened up a shortened 30-day period for the public to submit comments about the new regulation.

            But it turns out, ATF has been working on a ban of AR-15 “green-tip” ammunition for quite some time and has already issued the ban in its new, 2014 Regulation Guide. For reference, ATF Regulation Guides come out approximately every ten years.

            When you take a look at the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide, you’ll see an exemption for AR-15 “green-tip” ammunition, which means it exempted from the definition of “armor piercing” and therefore is legal on the federal level.


            When you look at the last page of the new, most recent ATF 2014 Regulation Guide, which was published in January, there is no longer an exemption for AR-15 “green-tip” ammunition.


            “The 2014 edition of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide contains information that will help you comply with Federal laws and regulations governing the manufacture, importation and distribution of firearms and ammunition. This edition contains new and amended statutes enacted since publication of the 2005 edition, as well as updated regulations and rulings issued by ATF. In addition to these updated materials, in response to inquiries received from industry members, the public, and partner agencies, the 2014 edition contains additional and amended Questions and Answers to assist with compliance,” ATF Director B. Todd Jones states in the 2014 edition of the new Regulation Guide (emphasis mine). “Laws may change over time, as will information in this guide.”

            The Office of Management and Budget must review and approve ATF Regulation Guides, which again, come out approximately every 10 years. This can take months and changes to Regulation Guides are not easily or often made. Because of the lengthy amount of time it takes for OMB to approve a new ATF Regulation Guide, ATF’s comment period is just for show. ATF officials and the White House have (and never did) no interest in actually listening to or considering comments that are currently being submitted. The exemption for the ammunition in question has already been stripped out of the regulation handbook moving forward and “green-tip” has been reclassified as “armor piercing.” The rules have been changed. Further, because of local rules and regulations in different states across the country having their own “armor piercing” standards based on ATF regulations, thousands of people in possession of AR-15 green tip ammunition have essentially been turned into felons overnight.

            A review of the timeline:

            January 2015: ATF published a new, OMB approved Regulation Guide stripping AR-15 “green-tip” from its armor piercing exemption list.

            February 2015: ATF proposes a ban (which they’ve already put in place through their handbook published in January) on AR-15 “green-tip” ammunition and opens up a comment period.

            March 16, 2015: The comment period about the proposed/already implemented ban on AR-15 “green-tip” ammunition closes, ATF ignores tens-of-thousands of comments because they were never going to consider them in the first place, and continues with the regulations outlined in the new 2014 Regulation Guide.

            ATF changed the law unilaterally, didn’t tell anyone about it and has now put up a bogus comment period that means nothing. Because of these actions, ATF and the White House have not only failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, but has gone around Congress to violate the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

            So, what’s next? ATF is going to have to explain why the change was made under the radar and will also have to explain what this means for people in possession of “green-tip” ammunition after January 2015 when the new ATF Regulation Guide was published with the exemption missing. Is there no grandfathering period for possession? When will manufactures be forced to stop producing? What does this mean for buyers and sellers? States are also going to have to find a way to implement these regulations and define compliance under separate state ammunition possession laws.


            For reference; the current release of the ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide – 2014 Edition (updated 3/7/15):

            Containing the “we got caught illegally banning ‘green-tip’ M855 ammo so we’ll call it an ‘inadvertent omission’” cop-out:

            March 7, 2015
            On January 15, 2015, ATF posted the 2014 Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (the “2014 Guide”) to the ATF website (www.atf.gov). ATF last published this guide in 2005; the 2014 Guide incorporates almost a decade of updates to the federal firearms regulations.

            Since posting the 2014 Guide, ATF became aware that it contained some inadvertent omissions and editing errors. ATF has corrected these omissions and errors in an update to 2014 Guide posted on March 7, 2014.

            At page 190, within the General Information section, the last two subparts of Item 10, Armor Piercing Ammunition, were not included. These subparts consist of: (a) the text of the 1994 amendment Congress made to the Gun Control Act’s (GCA) definition of armor piercing ammunition and, (b) a listing of the projectiles that have been granted exemptions to the GCA’s prohibition on armor piercing ammunition. These subparts are now included.

            The 2005 Regulation Guide:

            ATF announcement:

            ATF Releases the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide – 2014 Edition

          71. Glenda Jordan says:

            Wow Juanito you know your stuff!! I think you just may have made Hgeyer run off to do his trollin’ elsewhere lol

          72. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            We couldn’t be that lucky. 😐

            He’s got to make his appearances here in these news blogs in order to play a ‘gun owner’ while at the same time making sure that he pushes the anti-gun agenda of Barry Obeyme, Mikey Bloomberg and Schwartz György (aka: George Soros).

          73. Mark Pascucci says:

            Since it’s the federal gov’t. who MAKES the list-it’s THEY who make the criteria that determines who is ON the list. An honest, peaceable man, Dr. Michael Savage, was put on the U.K.’s “not welcome” list, which has REAL terrorists on it. He was put on this list, because the British gov’t. doesn’t like what he says. THIS is what the Hussein-Obama regime and their allies want to do. In Texas, a man’s guns were taken by the police JUST because his wife ACCUSED him of “domestic Violence”. He never was even arrested, because there was no proof, He had to take it to the Texas Supreme court before he was able to retrieve his property. Now, while the present regime hasn’t officially put the “gun lobby” on any terror list, doesn’t mean much. With the regime’s hatred of private gun ownership in America, if they’re not stopped, it won’t be long. They’ve already called faithful Christians and Jews “spreaders of hate and prejudice”, while trying to change their religious laws and ethics.

          74. dmttbt says:

            Who gives a s hit where they get their guns? They will get them anyway. It is probably easier to buy a gun illegally than legally. If you think he is your friend then hang with him.

          75. a police officer admirer says:


          76. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Obama is demonstrating the classic symptoms of NPD — Narcissistic Personality Disorder — not a good thing for the U.S. and its citizens. 😐

        2. Icemancold says:

          if they are on the watch list they can not legally buy a gun the background check flags them. You need to verify facts before opening your blow hole

          1. Hgeyer says:

            You are WRONG! They have been trying to add those on the terrorist watch list to the gun data base for 10 years and the NRA has been fighting it and congress has been on the side of the NRA! YOU are the one that needs to check your facts!

          2. Icemancold says:


          3. Hgeyer says:

            “IF” they are on the no fly list they CAN STILL LEGALLY buy guns because the no fly list has NOT been merged or added to the gun check data base! You can thank congress and the NRA for that! If you don’t believe me go to the NRA web site, search “terror data base” and you can see their video’s of their harebrained reasons for NOT adding these potential terrorist to the gun check data base!

          4. Icemancold says:

            Talking to you and trying to get you to understand rationality is like talking to a rotten plum a total waste of time effort and breath !!

          5. Hgeyer says:

            Sorry, I don’t believe thing that are easily discounted as BULL$HIT……. as in….. EVERYTHING YOU HAVE POSTED TODAY! I see you haven’t been MAN enough to checked the NRA web site to see that you are totally WRONG…..

          6. KDC says:

            Both are on the side of the Constitution.

          7. Hgeyer says:

            AND on the side of the terrorists! How patriotic!

          8. KDC says:

            These watch lists? Who makes these lists up? People, doctors? People / doctors can lie and are susceptible to corruptness. Anyone making lists can lie about anybody. Stuff the watch lists, Because this administration is already in the corrupt tank.

        3. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

          So, Geyer: as a staunch LibSoc Democrat, we can trust that you were a supporter of the ‘Terrorist-listed’ Ted Kennedy?

          ● Senator? Terrorist? A Watch List Stops Kennedy at Airport: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/senator-terrorist-a-watch-list-stops-kennedy-at-airport.html

          See the problem with such unfettered “Listings”, Geyer?

          1. Hgeyer says:

            That was over a decade ago when the list was a new thing. Guess what? Things have changed in 11 years!

          2. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Yea; they “have changed in 11 years” — it’s now a LOT easier to get your name placed on “The Terrorist Watch List.”

        4. pete G says:

          You can’t get any ignorant liberals to listen to your BS so you pester us conservatives on this site? You need someone to pull you aside and talk to personally about your trolling.

          1. Glenda Jordan says:

            LOL! Love it!

          2. Hgeyer says:

            Liberals don’t need to hear the truth again…. That would just be preaching to the choir…

          3. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “Liberals don’t need to hear the truth again…. ”

            Well, Geyer; since Liberals have _yet_ to “hear the truth” — and most especially from you…….

        5. dmttbt says:

          Why in the he l are people so hung up on legal weapons? shall not be infringed upon. Do you bleeding heart idiots think that another law will stop criminals from breaking the law. Please, what reasoning are you using. The wonderful FBI is taking care of the watch list. Oh yes that is right the brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon were turned into the FBI before they did their deed also. You are saying that if someone on the terrorist watch list can legally buy a gun and that is stopped they will not get one anyway and use it instead. You make no sense.

          1. Hgeyer says:

            So why have ANY laws? People will just break any law you pass….. We could just get rid of prisons and all those violent criminals can just go free…. If we had NO laws we would have NO criminals….. Problem solved, a zero crime rate….. you’re a genius ….. NOT!

      3. setemfree says:

        that means Obama and ALL of his administration should be arrested and brought up on charges of treason. ARE YOU PREPARED TO FILE CHARGES.???????????????

        1. podunk1 says:

          Working at it… it’s something each of us must demand and expose.

          1. SDofAZ says:

            Go podunk1!

          2. podunk1 says:

            Turn ’em to butter like the good boy Sambo did to the tiger if distant memory is right. Treason is PC, but good little moral of the story boys aren’t if they’re of color. If we could change the word from (bad) tiger to (really bad) Obama, maybe progressives would wake up cleansed from their wicked ways and save America!

          3. SDofAZ says:

            There are some classes of people that will not have a clue to reality until it bites them in the a$$. But your posts might reach some who just need more solid information. Good posts as always podunk1. Told Grayman his post name should be Goodman. He is another good guy like you. I like what you two have to say, it is oh so true. And I am still on my soapbox as well.

          4. podunk1 says:

            I appreciate that. We need to kick butt in congress until none can sleep without visions of steel bars, oak trees, and slip knots. Many, many more of us are on thier trail & I think they are about to be rewarded in kind for their treachery.

          5. SDofAZ says:

            They appear to be deaf, dumb and blind. 2014, 2015 have been years their apple carts were overturned to their intense, immense surprise yet they have not apparently interpreted the message. We shall do it again in 2016 and indeed with the presidential selection.
            I would be happy with Cruz or Trump but a combination would mean 16 years potentially of true patriotic leadership. So, all we can do is what is being done unless BO takes this to another level in his desperation as his rampage comes to a conclusion and he has no hope of saving any of his infamous edicts or his even more infamous legacy of racist hate from his side of the track. He has been the black version of the KKK with his BLM gang of thugs.
            What the blacks in the US do not understand is BO is also a black racist from Kenya. There it is black on black. He really has little regard for those he claims to be part of here in this country. He is what his background has prepared him to be, a black elite. He would be king or a tyrant or a dictator were it possible in this country. And he may still try for just that!

          6. podunk1 says:

            True… There isn’t much difference between the killing fields of Chicago and Syria – both are ruled by tyranny and brutality in a gun free citizen environment that has zero protection under the Constitution and law. Blacks are ghettoized with near zero education, social values, job opportunity, or individual security. It takes pathological hatred to sucker people in like that

          7. SDofAZ says:

            You got it. But then you have always gotten the point of all of this. Too bad more of those really being had don’t get it as well. Have a good evening podunk1.

          8. dmttbt says:

            I have said before and will again that there were more killings in Chicago than there were in Iraq. I think you can throw in Afghanistan with that also. Chicago is Obama’s home state if you can actually say that since this is not his home country. His citizenship is in the country of his father and his father was a communist Muslim. He had to remain that or he would have been killed by his fellow Muslim (his father I mean). He sealed his records to hide his true identity. We have a second term Muslim president whose father and mother were communist and his grandmother and grandfather were also communist. Now the so called journalist want to dig into a misstatement, no not that, a statement they say Ben Carson made about a full scholarship to West point. When will they investigate the president as they should have 7 years ago?

          9. podunk1 says:

            Good post… send it around the world!

            Carson is one of only 3 qualified, patriotic, and truthful candidates… Cruz, Carson, & Trump. I hope he stays in the race.

          10. Greyguy says:

            I smell a 100,00 person march in the near future…..ARMED.

          11. SDofAZ says:

            Hi Goodguy. You are likely right.

          12. Greyguy says:

            Maybe we should all come with those SIRT lazer practice hand guns.

            There is a group of Old Gray Guys who I see at a regional Harley Rodeo at a local eatery; I am odd man out with my BMW, but the old part gets me a seat at their table……we may have to try that if we go.

        2. a police officer admirer says:


        3. judge45colt says:

          what good would it do with supreme court doj etc all scared of losing their cushy jobs

      4. KDC says:

        Amen to that!

      5. harrydweeks says:

        If only we had Congressmen/Congresswomen who had a spine and would follow our Constitution,

        1. dmttbt says:

          They are already asking for donations to run again. I say s it in one hand and want in the other and there they will have the answer.

      6. dmttbt says:

        We need someone to enforce the law and we don’t have that. I feel that ay one of the senators or congressmen could file charges against the president and start the impeachment. They want to own this country. I don’t know why they want to destroy it in order to own it.

        1. podunk1 says:

          True… none in congress will pull the flush lever. There’s nothing wrong with the toilet or garbage disposal, yet we wallow in filth because those sworn by oath to preserve., protect, and defend us betray that 2nd oath to “…defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic… bear true faith and allegiance… without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion… will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office…”! It’s being mocked!

          The oath-bound president and progressive congressional and SCOTUS majority individuals are highly organized, using their offices to actively engage in opposition to Constitutional authority (insurrection) with open rebellion against the Constitution and country by contemptuous legislative and color of law enforcement to mock and overthrow the Constitution as written and ratified! They engage with, aid, and abet enemies! Insurrection, rebellion, and treason are highest of all capital crimes! Article 1, Section 6 …shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during Session” clearly holds all oath-takers to absolute Supreme Constitutional text as noted herein! The very first Article 1Sections 1/2/3 mandate congressional enforcement. Betrayal of that duty requires each oath-taker to defend absolutely per 2nd oath. The only remaining question is, when does the mass arrest begin?

    2. Hgeyer says:

      I believe it is YOU that has lost touch with reality! A vast majority of Americans want this loophole fixed and your denial of that is pathetic! Republicans are a tail that just keeps waging the dog! Time for the dog o get its tail docked!

      1. kicklotsofbutt says:

        For your information most gun shows have been doing background checks for 3-4 years. So the reality is that you don’t even know what is going on. I guess you just can’t fix stupid with your head stuck in obozo’s backside. Kind of dark in there isn’t it? Maybe you should try reading the 1963 communist agenda for the demorats and find out what they have been pushing for.

        1. michael friend says:

          I’ll agree with you on that. Higeyer is entitled to his opinion and every asshole has his opinion.

          1. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            While Geyer is entitled to his own opinion, he’s NOT entitled to his own “facts.”

        2. Hgeyer says:

          Actually, in my state it has been a lot longer than 4 years! Once you step outside the door it becomes a private party sale and NO check is required by anybody! Your only correct statement is I can’t fix stupid! I am licensed to carry in 34 states and am updated daily on gun laws from every state so don’t even attempt to correct ME on gun laws doucebag!

      2. michael friend says:

        Well that’s your opinion, and you need to get your numbers straight. This country does not need more gun laws, they nee better enforcement of th current laws.

        1. Hgeyer says:

          There are NO CURRENT laws requiring background checks on private party sale which account for about 40% of the gun sales in this country! The NEA keeps telling us we don’t need more gun laws and that is pure horsecrap!

          1. pete G says:

            Man you are absolutely stupid i bought a gun at a gun show and i had to pick it up at a local gun store after waiting 11 days. Just keep believing this a$$ hole who continues to fool you dumb people. He’s after collection and you idiots are going to help him get it.

          2. Hgeyer says:

            In my state I get a background check in 20 minutes and take the gun home with me. Or the guy meets you outside and you don’t have to get the background check and you exchange the gun for your cash and you’re done and it’s all legal…. Every state is different, but you could have found that out with a little research. You must live in California or Washington DC ….. Most states don’t have a waiting period.

          3. pete G says:

            I live in California we have the strictest laws in the country. Now we have to take a test that we have to pay the State $25.00 for. And a fee of $25.00 for the background check. In California everything is based on the $. They really don’t give a sweet poop if we’re safe as long as they get the money. I waited 11 days for a rifle while they ran a background check. Oh BTW you are aware of where these murders accured? Crazy isn’t it?

          4. Glenda Jordan says:

            And all for naught pete G or as you say all for the $$. I read an article about these mo mo’s in Cali bragging of their great, outstanding gun control laws and being “stunned” (stupidified imo) to learn the Mr & Mrs that committed this terrorist act were legit, registered gun owners. Even crazier??

          5. Hgeyer says:

            Why register cars? Even people with legally registered cars get in accidents and flee the scene. Is THAT a waste of time too? Laws, like locks, just keep the honest people honest….. Sometimes society just needs to help keep the honest people honest…. Do you lock your house when you leave? Why? Someone could just break a window so why waste your time locking your doors?

          6. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “Why register cars?”

            The registration of motor vehicles was initiated to collect taxes, Geyer.

            Interestingly enough, like the unprecedented “NY SAFE Act”, the practice originated in the state of New York in 1901; though Chicago had a “Wheel Tax” on all wheeled vehicles via an annual license fee from all wagons, carriages, coaches, buggies, and bicycles three years earlier.

            So, Geyer: is it necessary to remind you what happened to the “tax” on another constitutionally-protected right: the right to vote?

          7. Glenda Jordan says:

            “Sometimes society needs to help keep the honest people honest” ?? And here it seems you use the word society in place of government which brings me to recall just how intrusive in our lives our government has become!! A law for this a law for that…I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a law to come that ruled I must lock my doors! These democrats/socialists want to control every aspect of our lives. They think they know whats better for me than I do myself and the libs follow behind whining with their thumb stuck up their ass…I’m getting off track here…I don’t quite understand what your post has to do with what I posted about their “worthless laws”, I didn’t say all laws and I didn’t say anything about vehicle registration but hopefully you got your questioned answered cause Juanito was kind enough to answer that for you (below)…he must of understood your point.

          8. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
            –Ayn Rand, ‘Atlas Shrugged’, 1957

          9. Glenda Jordan says:

            Thankyou Juanito for sharing this!!

          10. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Considering the many thousands of laws carrying felony charges for nothing more than paperwork errors, intentional or otherwise; and considering the type of gun control laws now existing and being pushed by the LibSoc Democrat gun control protagonists, as well as those “Executive Orders” they are pushing Obama for when they cannot succeed in Congress; I thought it most apropos.

          11. Lou says:

            Wrong! EVERY time I have purchase a pistol I submit to a Federal and State background check, EVERY time I purchase a rifle I submit to a Federal background check. How much more do you want me to do? Submit to a lie detector test? Please stop spewing Hillary’s and Obama’s old tired comment about the background check. The DO exist. Instead of re-creating the wheel, enforce ALL the laws that are in place. Firearm AND immigration laws.

          12. Lou says:

            Wrong! EVERY time I have purchase a pistol I submit to a Federal and State background check, EVERY time I purchase a rifle I submit to a Federal background check. How much more do you want me to do? Submit to a lie detector test? Please stop spewing Hillary’s and Obama’s old tired comment about the background check. The DO exist. Instead of re-creating the wheel, enforce ALL the laws that are in place. Firearm AND immigration laws.

          13. Hgeyer says:

            Well I’m happy for you… Background check are not required on private party sale in most states and that is a fact! There are only 5 states that mandate universal background checks. There IS NO federal law requiring background check for private party sales!

          14. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Poor old Geyer: cannot keep his LIES straight!

            Here he states:

            “There are only 5 states that mandate universal background checks.”

            While earlier he stated:

            “There are NO CURRENT laws requiring background checks on private party sale…”

            Only one claim can be truthful: the other is a LIE.

          15. Miriam Farnum says:

            That 40% figure comes from stats ‘2 decades old’.

          16. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “There are NO CURRENT laws requiring background checks on private party sale…”

            One must wonder if Geyer here is a lying twit gun control propagandist, or merely a pig ignorant gun control propagandist:

            Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
            Private Sales in Washington
            Posted on August 31, 2015

            See our Private Sales policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.

            In 2014, Washington became the first state to enact a law requiring background checks on private sales by voter initiative.1 The law requires private buyers and sellers to conduct a firearms transaction through a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). The FFL must process the transaction as if the dealer were selling the firearm from his or her own inventory and comply with all federal and state laws regulating firearms dealers, such as performing the required background check on the purchaser (see the Washington Background Checks section).2

            Some transfers between non-licensed sellers and buyers are exempt from the background check requirement including:3

            ● Bona fide gift transfers between spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles;
            ● Transfers of antique firearms;
            ● Transfers to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm so long as the temporary transfer lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm. The transferee must not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
            ● Transfers to certain law enforcement agencies or officers who are acting within the course and scope of their employment or official duties;
            ● A transfer to or from a federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair; and
            ● Certain types of temporary transfers such as those between spouses or domestic partners or at a shooting range.

            The FFL may not transfer the firearm to the purchaser until either the purchaser clears the background check or ten business days have elapsed from the date the FFL requested the background check, whichever occurs first.4 For transfers of handguns to individuals without valid Washington driver’s licenses or state identification card or who have not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the FFL may not deliver the handgun until the transferee passes a background check or 60 days have elapsed since the date of the request, whichever occurs first.5

            When a Washington resident buys a long gun out-of-state, or sells a long gun to an out-of-state resident, the buyer and seller must follow the procedures of the background checks law.6 FFLs may not sell or deliver a handgun to a resident of another state.7 (See our Dealer Regulations federal policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of laws regulating federally licensed firearms dealers.)

            1. See Initiative Measure No. 594, available at http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf
            2. Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.113
            3. Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.113(4)
            4. Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.113
            5. Id.
            6. Id.
            7. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (3)


        2. Hgeyer says:

          Although the NRA has historically opposed such measures, public opinion may be shifting. A poll of NRA members and gun owners, conducted earlier this year by GOP pollster Frank Luntz, found that 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners supported mandatory background checks for all gun purchases.

          1. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            Update On Bogus “Poll” Of NRA Members
            Friday, February 19, 2010

            On Dec. 11, 2009, we noted that a poll paid for by anti-gun politician-activist Michael Bloomberg, claiming to show that NRA members support gun control, was conducted by a pollster who has been reprimanded and censured by two professional polling organizations, and who (of course) doesn’t have access to NRA’s confidential member list.

            Since then, gun control supporters have cited the poll in numerous newspaper editorials, opinion columns, and letters to editors, all attacking NRA’s opposition to gun control. Recently, however, Bloomberg’s pollster, Frank Luntz, admitted how he gets polls to turn out the way his employers want. In a “Penn and Teller” interview posted on YouTube, Luntz says, “The key in survey research is to ask questions that people care about the answers [sic], and to ask the question in a way that you get the right answer.” He added, “[W]ith just a single change of wording, you’ll get a very different reaction in terms of how they think and how they feel.”

            Thanks, Frank, for making it easier for us to write letters to newspapers pointing out why no one should take your “poll of NRA members” seriously.


            Five years — and you gun controllers are still trotting out that bogus Luntz “poll”…..

    3. a police officer admirer says:

      Love it..obozo .. perfect name for a dictator.. God help us if helllary rotten clingon is elected.. we will be in the same nightmare we are in with obama..

      1. michael friend says:

        Do you know the difference between Obozo and rectal cancer. The answer is— they are the same thing.

    4. dmttbt says:

      I am sorry sir but you along with a enormous number of others are missing the point. Obama would not have gotten away with the things he has without the cooperation of the democrat and republican party. There is one party and that is organized crime.

  • David Scuncio says:

    Obuma your Muslim buddy’s bought there guns legally, so get off the gun show BS
    an crack down on letting these people in our country

    1. I Seigel says:

      The guns were bought “legally” because of the gun show loophole. You’re not THAT dense not to understand that, are you?

      1. SDofAZ says:

        Again, you are the fool in writing. It is obvious who you are, a dem wit dem! These muslims had an arsenal and were planning much more. Sitting ducks are their preference. You are a fool and Hitler had enough fools like you to accomplish his goals. Thankfully this country has enough patriots to stop the PC crapola bunch like you. Post somewhere else idiot!

        1. I Seigel says:

          So your reference to Hitler leads me to believe that you think I’m a fascist?

          1. SDofAZ says:

            That is to be determined. You obviously are a dem wit dem!

          2. I Seigel says:

            Obviously. And these people did have an arsenal, all bought legally. The man was American-born, a US citizen. No alien, illegal or otherwise. His wife was here on a visa, legally. They followed the system. But the system is broken, by the look of things.

          3. SDofAZ says:

            Muslim per the Koran. Sorry makes no diff, he and his imported wife were radical islamist terrorist.

          4. I Seigel says:

            That could very well be. The investigation is still ongoing. What does that have to do with whether they purchased their weapons legally or illegally? Sounds to me that you might be advocating stricter controls/enforcement only for certain people.

          5. pete G says:

            So tell us how this could have been avoided with Obama’s new gun laws, tell us.

          6. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “His wife was here on a visa, legally.”

            That has come into question.

            It’s been revealed that they married in Saudi Arabia, but brought her here on a K1 “Fiancée” Visa:

            Requirements/Documents for a K-1/K-2 Visa

            K-1 Visa

            For U.S. Petitioner (to be filed with USCIS)

            Your certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship, or U.S. birth certificate;
            Your Passport (if available);
            If you were previously married, provide documents to prove that all previous marriages were legally terminated (divorce decrees or certificate of divorce). A death certificate is necessary if previous spouses have passed away;
            If your name shown in the aforementioned documents has changed, you will need to provide legal documents to show how the name change occurred (i.e., a marriage certificate, adoption decree, court order, etc.);
            Your past three years’ tax returns or past three years’ tax return of other sponsors, if any;
            Two recently taken, identical color photos (2″X2″) of yourself and two recently taken identical color photos (2″X2″) of your fiancé/fiancée;
            Evidence that you have met your alien fiancé/fiancée (letters, photos, phone records etc.); and
            You must submit a copy of your criminal record if you had been convicted for a crime or crimes.

            For Alien Fiancé/Fiancée (to be completed at embassy or consulate abroad)

            Your certificate of citizenship or birth certificate;
            Passport; which must be valid for 6 months from the date of your intended date arrival to the United States;
            If you were previously married, you will need to provide documents to prove that all previous marriages were legally terminated (divorce decrees or certificate of divorce).; A death certificate is necessary if previous spouses have passed away;
            If your name shown on the aforementioned documents has changed, you will need to provide legal documents to show how the name change occurred (i.e., a marriage certificate, adoption decree, court order, etc.);
            Medical examination (form I-693)—the consulate will tell you where to complete exam.
            Police Certificates (from places lived since 16 years of age);
            Evidence that you have met your fiancé/fiancée (letters, photos, phone records etc.);
            Two recently taken, identical color photos (2″X2″) of yourself; and
            Evidence of financial support

            K-2 Visa

            Valid passport;
            Form DS-156, 2 duplicate copies;
            2 recently taken color photographs of yourself ;
            An official copy of your birth certificate;
            I-134, Affidavit of Support; and
            Medical examination.


            If, as it’s been reported by the WashPost, they married there, the application for, and granting of, a K1 Visa is most assuredly ILLEGAL:

            “Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles, told The Washington Post that Farook and Malik had been married for two years.”

          7. pete G says:

            Worse your a fooled American. Obama loves you.

      2. kicklotsofbutt says:

        You have no idea where they bought the guns you lying pos. California has very strict gun laws and that did not stop them including background checks at gun shows.

        1. I Seigel says:

          That’s exactly my point KissLotsOfButts. There is no indication that they bought their guns illegally. They are legal citizens or visitors, and their weapons were all acquired legally. So everything is OK, right? Just so long as these laws are being followed, you’re fine with the mass murders and terror attacks? We don’t need to close loopholes or make it harder to buy any kind of weapons we “need”?

          1. pete G says:

            What loop holes you GD degenerate?

          2. I Seigel says:

            Uhhhhhh. Read the first sentence in this news story, GD dumbass. The part that reads, “…the so-called gun show loophole that allows thousands of people to buy firearms each year without a background check…”

            Now go empty your droolcup, moron.

      3. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

        And your evidence supporting that claim can be viewed where?

    2. reggie says:

      I read that the guns were purchased legally, but NOT by these people. ATF is now in the process of backtracking who actually purchased them. Also, the guns were illegally altered to be able to shoot more rounds of a larger caliber. For the “prove it group” – I googled it, I’m not your parent, google your own.

      1. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

        It has been reported that they had attempted to convert one of the rifles to fully-automatic. (No further details were provided in the article, though.)

        1. reggie says:

          Amazing, isn’t it. The possibilities… This whole situation smells like rotten cabbage. The press going through everything in the apartment, the only ‘solution’ is to confiscate guns, the !st Amendment rights to be suspended if you say anything against muslims, per Lynch. Heaven (can I still say that word?) forbid that the truth and facts are presented. Thanks for the link.

          1. Juanito Ibañez, TopCop1988 says:

            “This whole situation smells like rotten cabbage.”

            Well; since sauerkraut is basically ‘rotten cabbage’, and I _love_ sauerkraut ….. 😉

            But I know what you meant. 🙂


            “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
            —Claire Wolfe, ‘101 Things to Do `Til the Revolution’ (1996)

            Many, many people are asking themselves: “Is is _really_ ‘too early…’?”

          2. reggie says:

            No, no, not delicious brined cabbage. Rotten eggs smell like sulfur. Yeah, that’s better. Like your Wolfe quote. My biggest fear is martial law and having a king for life.

        2. reggie says:

          I’ve forwarded the times article. Of course if everyone had the strict CA anti-gun laws, we’d all be as safe as these people were. Horrible thing to do for Christmas. Yeah, we need more vetted immigrants. Need a moratorium until the gubment does their job. Yeah right, don’t hold your breath. BTW, my mother was an immigrant. She jumped hoops for15- 20 years before becoming a citizen. I just remember her having to report every year, and she had been married to my father at that time for years.

  • enubus says:

    Just another tin horn despot, and thank God for Thomas Jefferson

    1. I Seigel says:

      Yeah, that good ole’ hemp grower and pot smoker, Thomas Jefferson. Thank God for him!

      1. USNavyPatriot says:

        Don’t you know that was commonplace in those days. They also screwed Negro slave girls. Do you look down on that? If you talk about people in history to infer judgement, then you must use the legal measuring-stick on that period.

        Thank God for founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson.

        1. I Seigel says:

          Yes it was commonplace and accepted. But there were some Founding Fathers who didn’t smoke pot and who didn’t own and screw slaves. Just because they were a Founding Father doesn’t make them infallible or god-like. Or are you the type of person who likes to build idols to people, which, of course, is against the Ten Commandments?

          Besides, what was enubus referring to when he said “Thank God for Thomas Jefferson”? Why even put TJ into this conversation?

          1. SDofAZ says:

            Dem wit dem idiot indeed.

          2. I Seigel says:

            Are you and Chickenhawk the same person? Or maybe just gay lovers?

          3. pete G says:

            Real brave huh little thinker?

        2. SDofAZ says:

          Pot grows wild over many parts of the country and was useful for many purposes, good post USNavyPatriot. Seigel is a wasted effort, a dem wit dem.

      2. enubus says:

        You are really a fool aren’t you! Please don’t respond with your ignorant drivel.

        1. I Seigel says:

          What? Are you disputing what I said, or you just don’t want to hear something that doesn’t fit your fawning devotion to a Founding Father?

          1. pete G says:

            They should deport people like you to Russia. You’re one of those born here and you’re not thankful for a damn thing. You’re a little spoiled POS. Get out you don’t deserve to live here.

          2. I Seigel says:

            Leave?!?! Are you nuts?!?! And give up all this free health care, free food, free education, tax waivers and general all-around mooching?!?! I couldn’t do this good in Russia!

          3. pete G says:

            Somehow i think you could.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.