Gun Tweet of the Day: Did the Secret Service Threaten to Take Tom Francois’ Guns?

 Heil Obama! (courtesy twitter.com)

Tom Francois is not a big fan of President Obama’s. His Twitter feed features a photochop of cops perp-walking the Commander-in-Chief out of the White House. The Twitter description predicts that “One day Obama will be dragged kicking+screaming Allah Akbar like a little bitch for Treason, while his Sasquatch wife pounds on the agents screaming racism!” A typical Tweet [as above]: “I am a Catholic, believe in God, but I SWEAR reincarnation is possible, err PROBABLE as Hitler has been re-born and is in our White House!” According to examiner.com [link auto-plays all kinds of crap], the Secret Service paid a little visit to Mr. Francois . . .

“One Agent asked Tom if he has any intentions of ‘whacking’ the President.” To which Tom replied- ‘Of course not. I wish him no harm. I disagree with his policies and actions and I make no bones about it. It’s my First Amendment Right and I intend to exercise it.'”

According to this account, the Secret Service called Francis’ Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms into question as well . . .

When they left Tom’s house, one Secret Service Agent ‘advised’- “Keep in mind, if you step over the line, we’ll come back for your guns.”

Another article in the examiner adds this tidbit:

They had run a background check and discovered that Tom legally owned two guns- and they asked to see them. Tom showed them his firearms. They asked, “Are they loaded?” Tom replied in the affirmative. “What good are guns if they aren’t loaded?”

The bolding of the text of the first quote indicates the reporters’s perspective on the incident, for which there’s no independent verification. Nor did Mr. Francois mention any particular post that may have caught the President’s bodyguards’ collective eye.

Suffice it to say, anti-Obama bloggers, YouTubers and Twitterers should keep in mind the 21st century rule: if you don’t get a picture of it, it didn’t happen.

 Click here to hang with TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia in the Free Fire Zone

comments

  1. avatar o1d_dude says:

    Where were his Google glasses when he needed them?

  2. avatar Swarf says:

    Dude sounds like a total peach and not a potentially dangerous whackaloon at all.

    I mean calling the President’s wife a Sasquatch while accusing her of being overly sensitive about race? That shit is just heelarius, right?

    Oh, the wit!

    1. avatar TTACer says:

      I like to keep up on all the best racial slurs, please explain how calling someone a “sasquatch” is racist.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Connections between blacks and ape-type creatures have been espoused by racists from the time of the early KKK to now. It’s the idea of a primitive, undeveloped but strong creature. And I say this as if your question was sincere.

        1. avatar waif says:

          When Bush was prez, a collection of pictures of his facial expressions juxtaposed with chimpanzee facial expressions circulated. Before that, I remember seeing some George Carlin standup riffs where he would rip Dan Quayle’s wife apart for her appearance.

          What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

        2. avatar TTACer says:

          I guess I don’t know much about sasquatchs. I thought they were mythical rather than ape-like and I assumed that Francois was referring to her size, since the only time I have ever seen anyone called sasquatch it was because they were big rather than dark skinned. For example, on the whitest show on TV “How I Met Your Mother” Jason Segal is sometimes described as a “sasquatch” despite having very little melanin.

        3. avatar RLC says:

          Cmon TTACr, if you have been posting any length of time anywhere online you know better or should, that that kind of comment comes across as bigoted, not clever, nor is the denial credible.

          Plenty of other places on line for that, but thats not how we roll here. Capice?

        4. avatar Ralph says:

          That’s not how “we” roll here? Who the fvck is “we?” I know who TTACer is because he’s been posting here since the beginning and there’s not a racist bone in his body, but who are you, RLC?

        5. avatar Pat says:

          The ugly bitch is called a “sasquatch” because she has big arms, shoulders, and yeti like teeth, not because of race.
          I remember the cartoons and statements that portrayed W as a large eared ape…….not that the current leader could be described as such…..which the libtards would call be to racist to say.
          I guess I just said it.

        6. avatar Spunkmeister says:

          I prefer refferring to her as “Worf”.

      2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        My take was that she’s not sufficiently svelte to please M. François, hence “Sasquatch.”

        The suggestion of her shouting about racism was likely to imply that were Mr. Obama to be arrested and charged, she’d claim racism to be the motivating factor.

        The two statements, while proximal, are unrelated.

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          I’ve been called Sasquatch. And I’m white male as anything. Shove your racism crap RLC. Moochelle is a Sasquatch.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          I worked with a woman that was lilly white. Nobody liked her and we called her sasquatch, bigfoot and frankenstein. It had nothing to do with her race and every thing to do with her evil ways. She was a big woman and while she wasn’t truly ugly, her atrocious personality made it easy to see her as ugly and hate her.

        3. avatar DJ says:

          There was a girl in Germany the guys had nicknamed “Chewbacca”. It had to do with body hair, not complexion.

      3. avatar Dave says:

        It is not. No race or color needs be mentioned because they don’t apply. Its a size comment. Big people (Men or Women) are sometimes called “sasquatch” in a sarcastic/joking way.

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          Heh, My brother is 6’6″ and my friend is 6’5″, I call em Shrek 1 and Shrek 2.

      4. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Yeah, she doesn’t look anything like one; they look like Wookies, but she looks more like a Hutt.

        1. avatar The Blue Angel says:

          How does the First Tranny Wookie grab you people? Discuss!

  3. avatar Kirk says:

    Well, technically, they threatened to take his guns if he threatened the president. Which he apparently has not done and is careful not to.

    In that sense, SOP. Anyone threatening the physical well-being of POTUS should have their guns confiscated.

    What I find surprising is that this guy signed off on a search of so much information. But then, given revelations about NSA (confirming what I’ve been saying for months), why did they even need the warrant? FISA asleep at the switch? Maybe James “least untruthful” Clapper can explain.

    Or perhaps Dir. Mueller of the FBI can hop right on this since he’s not up to anything else, these days (coff-coff — IRS — coff).

  4. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Did he ever think to ask if they had a warrant?

    1. avatar SkyMan77 says:

      What happen to “I do not consent to any search or seizure” then STFU…. If you’re going to put stuff like that out there these day’s its a good idea to know your rights…

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        And here we have a good example of why that is a stupid idea to use all the time. By being reasonable he showed that he is NOT a threat, and made it less likely that they could get probable cause to charge him with anything or confiscate weapons.

        If you’ve got weed in your car and you’re in a traffic stop, yeah, then you should shut up. But if you’re walking down the street and are approached by a cop who wants to ask you a couple questions because you fit the description of a guy who just robbed a bank two blocks away, you might want to allay suspicions. If you don’t you might end up face down in handcuffs and even arrested, LEGALLY, because courts don’t think cops have to be psychics.

        It’s about reasonableness. Feel free to disregard that, but don’t be surprised when people act (seemingly) unreasonable in return.

        1. avatar Bob4 says:

          I work with lawyers who would probably think I an idiot if I voluntarily consented to a search. A few decades ago, I had been an USAF SP. We did not ask for permission to search unless we were fishing or we wanted to ensure that the authorization to search could not be contested in court. If we were asking for permission to search, we were there to get you for something. Permission to search holds up better in court than a warrant. You can be nice about your refusal though. If asked, apologize for the inconvenience. Tell them that you will not resist being search, but you are not giving them permission to do so. Depending on the state, they can do a stop-and-frisk for weapons, and they can search for weapons in your car in areas within reach of a passenger. They can get a warrant, which is an extreme inconvenience to them, but if they misstate the facts or make a mistake in requesting the warrant or a perceived belief the police misstated the facts, your lawyer can have it thrown out and any evidence collected as a result of the warrant. Again, different states have different rules, and federal installations will have a lot more authority to search. Don’t take my word for it, though, consult with a lawyer or read one of the many books written by lawyers that talk about conceal carry and firearms. Remember, if they are asking for permission to search beyond a stop sand frisk, they are not there to be your friend. I will probably never get asked for permission to search; however, if asked, I will follow their instructions and I will not resist access, but I will never give them permission. I may invite them in the house for tea, coffee, or a beer, though.

        2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          SP is Nave. Do you perhaps mean AP?

        3. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Bob is far more accommodating than I. Fvck .gov.

        4. avatar JeffR says:

          I think Bob4 can probably remember whether he was an SP or AP. I wasn’t USAF, but I grew up an Air Force brat and lived on base at Kadena for 6 years. At the time, mid-80s, they were called SPs.

        5. avatar Dave says:

          SP = Security Polic
          LE = Law Enforcement

          At least while I was in the USAF (got out in 94). LE was basically the equivalent of a civilian police officer. Traffic cop on base, wrote tickets etc. SP had more training with military type weapons (M249, M60…etc) and got to guard stuff like, planes, alert area’s, nukes…etc. I am sure there was crossover at each base.

        6. avatar Louis says:

          US NAvy
          SP – Shore Patrol

        7. avatar Rich Grise says:

          USAF: Security Police or Sky Pigs, depending.

        8. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          Fair ’nuff. They called ’em all air police where I was. Sorry.

  5. avatar Meridia says:

    They knew he had firearms because of the background check.

    This is why we don’t want gun registries. Nothing like someone running a background check on you and knowing you have guns. ANYONE CAN RUN A BACKGROUND CHECK ON ANYONE, ANY TIME, ANYWHERE IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION.

    Random Joe Nitwit that thinks its funny to run checks on random people because he has the money to waste and is bored off his ass doesn’t need to know I, or anyone else, has guns.

    It’s on a need to know basis, and most people don’t need to know.

  6. avatar SubZ says:

    They had run a background check and discovered that Tom legally owned two guns

    hmmm

    1. avatar LongBeach says:

      That rang my alarm bells as well…

    2. avatar Rambeast says:

      Depending on where he resides, there may be a registry via local authorities.

    3. avatar DJ says:

      Pulled his CCW info?

  7. avatar Jason says:

    I’m not sure I get the big deal, we have an idiot making what may be threatening remarks about the president in the public sphere, which prompts security forces to take interest to ensure there is no threat.

    On top of that, we ALL should remember that if we ‘cross the line’ into acts of violence we will lose our rights to freedom/guns/etc.

    1. avatar LibtardFantasy says:

      The point is that he got a visit from the SS and never made a threat. I haven’t read all his tweets but I am assuming that. Sounds like intimidation because of his views.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      No government employee should have “security forces”.

      1. avatar Nathanredbeard says:

        Including the employee performing a job in which 70% of the men performing that job over the last 115 years have have attempts made on their lives, and 2 have been killed? GTFO, idiot.

        1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

          But you forget the last one was by who?

          Give you a hint, wasn’t the dude with three names…

    3. avatar William says:

      No such violence occurred; not even a threat of one. Not a big First Amendment fanboy, I take it?

      Either we have free speech, or we don’t: end of storg.

      1. avatar RLC says:

        William- interesting point- you are correct- 1A trumps all, but its not that cut-and-dried, IMHO-

        We dont have all the facts- just what the Examiner posted, and that was a somewhat slanted version, with incomplete info on the other side – hearsay about the “thats up to Holder” comment for example.

        Bottomline, if the guy was exhibiting poor judgement in other posts, and this “could” be reasonably interpreted as making a physical threat, then its the Secret Services job to look into it, if only to be safe.

        This guy kind of reminds me of James Yeager. You can run your mouth all day long online, but when you step over that invisible line of coming across as making a physical threat, then law enforcement has to consider it, and sometimes the authorities have to default to “be safe, rather than sorry”.

        Thats just common sense.

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Please, the dude didn’t threaten anybody. SS is just trying to justify their budget. Even if the dude had malicious intent, there is no way to get near an American President these days with a weapon.

        2. avatar Nathanredbeard says:

          J & D, 8 years ago an Armenian in Georgia (country, not the state) threw a live grenade at Bush. He didn’t get very close to him, but if he had a better arm, he might have been successful.

        3. avatar Gtfoxy says:

          Give up, he doesn’t get it

  8. avatar ensitue says:

    by this time next month there will not be anymore warning chats. I’m taking the Ol’ lady out for a mini-vacation, it feels like the last like France, the spring of 1940.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      Are you one of those guys who thought that the Cheney/Bush crowd were incapable of tyranny despite the Patriot Act and Iraq and the rest, but Obama is Hitler because he passed a Republican healthcare plan from the 90′?

      Where would you go, exactly, to escape this supposed tyranny? Australia? Britain?

      Somalia’s your best bet.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Are you one of those guys who thinks the Obama/Biden crowd are incapable of tyranny despite their doubling down on the Patriot Act, killing an American citizen without due process, imprisoning an American citizen without due process or even charges, and the fact the government has been constantly monitoring everything we say?

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          The first thing that made me hate big O was that he promised to bring our troops home and then instead, doubled GWB’s wars. And, the trillions he’s throwing at the war machine couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the deficit.

          I wonder what’ll happen when China sees/reads the handwriting on the wall and forecloses?

  9. avatar Taco Ninja says:

    I don’t see the problem with what he said. He didn’t infer planning to harm the President or anything…had he done that it would make sense…but believing the President will be discovered as the mastermind behind the Benghazi coverup, the IRS and EPA use as political weapons, the NSA monitoring and the other scandals, yea, he’ll be impeached and hopefully go to jail for his crimes. He just said it more sarcastically…

    1. avatar Will says:

      Impeachment had better be done for more than the principle of drawing a line in the sand; they had better be dead serious and have ALL their info validated in triplicate if it were to work at all. But… I give you this to ponder: Who’s next in line for the position? Shotgun. Either Shotgun is as stupid as he comes off, or he’s masterfully feigning it. That makes him dangerous to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; even more so if he is feigning it. You want HIM in charge? Right now our best hope is getting a (super)majority in place that will not play ball by his corrupted rules and ways, not ousting him.

  10. avatar KY1911 says:

    If they didn’t take his guns, it sounds like they need to. That guy’s gone full retard.

    1. avatar Leo338 says:

      Yeah, how dare him use his 1st amendment right. Who does he think he is? What happens when someone thinks whatever you say is going full retard and advocates for stripping you of all your rights?

      1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

        KY has gone full retard and needs his firearms removed. See how easy that was. Bill of Rights, bitchez.

    2. avatar niceguns says:

      That sound anti American to me. Obama has the right to step all over our Constitution and KY1911 thinks its OK. What a Piece of sh

  11. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    In these days, what precludes this guy from being a provocator? His story all BS and a plant to instill fear? Intended to stir the pot. Remember that Twilight Zone where the aliens get a neighborhood to turn on each other? That is today in America.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      We are become Maple Street.

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        “. . . It’s a cook book!”

  12. avatar Leon says:

    It is amazing the guy is walking around. When you start going looney whacko about the President and post stuff as bitter and hateful as this….?…….you deserve a response from the Feds. Also……Hitler coming back as a Black guy? I agree with KY1911. They should have taken his guns. He is nuts!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Leon, I think Obama is a pr1ck. There, I said it. When can I expect my visit from the Gestapo?

      1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        Minor correction if I may, I believe the term “Sanctimonious Prick” is a better fit.

    2. avatar Stacy says:

      The courts disagree with you. Unless or until the guy says something like “we should all go down to the white house and open fire”, he is within his first amendment rights. I don’t expect Chicago pols to understand that, but you should.

      1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

        Recent public school education Leon? Miss that whole Bill of Rights thing?

    3. avatar designczar says:

      I’m sure you felt the same way about George W. Bush, right? Anyone who called him a “chimp” – get those guns, right?

  13. avatar Nelson says:

    hmm… here I thought they were too busy chasing after $5 Colombian hookers…

  14. avatar Rich Grise says:

    He’s not the reincarnation of Hitler (Godwin’s Law, anyone?), He’s Satan Incarnate.
    The Prince of Lies. The Great Deceiver. Ol’ Nick. Beelzebub. Maybe even Cthulhu.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Nah. He’s just a sh1tty President.

    2. avatar Richard W. says:

      Didn’t the Bible series on the History Channel already demo this.
      -R

  15. avatar Skyler says:

    This is a pretty weak story. If true, it’s weak because they only say what they will rightfully do if he threatens the President. Like him or hate him, that’s the law. But it’s also unverified, so it comes off as little more than a rant by a crack pot.

    1. avatar Brian says:

      I’m with you. It doesn’t pass my smell test. Do you honestly think the Secret Service would ask “do you intend on whacking the president”? And if they were threatening him if he steps out of line, I’d think it’d be with jail time, not confiscation.

  16. avatar JT says:

    Never hand a cop a weapon ESPECIALLY A LOADED ONE! Like they need another excuse to shoot you! If a cop wants to see my gun he can go pick it up. Should have never answered the door let alone let them in his house or shown them his guns.

    1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      If a cop wants to see my gun without a warrant, he can kiss my a$$.

  17. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    I call bullshit on that whole story too many holes

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      True

      If this BS is the threshold for a SS visit they would have have to visit 10million households this week.

  18. avatar C says:

    People always jump to the reductio ad Hitlerum when reductio ad Stalinum is more appropriate. I guess because hitler is more widely recognized as a dick.

  19. avatar Aharon says:

    If true then this is nothing in comparison to what will happen to outspoken critics if Hillary becomes president.

    1. avatar Will says:

      All the more reason to try to re-stack the deck our favor in the 2014 elections. They did it to us already with Hussein and Shotgun; time to return the favor if we can. As far as Hillary goes…. Best to support and rally her political opponents in full force to minimize her threat, preferably on one specific candidate to overpower her chances of getting a chance at destructive power again.

  20. avatar Ocean says:

    Quite frankly I don’t understand why this garbage is being regurgitated here.

    America doesn’t have a gun problem. Instead, our country suffers from a population that is often stupid, ignorant, clumsy, and irresponsible. When these people are armed it is a recipe for disaster.

    So when you post someone else’s antagonizing hyperbole – which is completely irrelevant – all you do is give credence to those pushing for stricter gun control.

    Why wouldn’t they want to limit the firearms in our country when the most popular examples of gun owners tend to be racist and ignorant?

    1. avatar Will says:

      The real problem is they slip in with their corrupted views quietly, and then poison the water. Education and traditional family have been under attack for decades now. Now its a case of make them depend on you even more as you erode their values and education.

      Education has suffered greatly because of this. It doesn’t have to be politics, it can be the NEA. It can be by rewriting history books to favor their poisoned view by minimizing, if not eliminating the real truth. Teaching there are no absolutes (other than in their sanctioned science.)

      Teaching a traditional family is not the only possibility, and all other forms are just as valid. Teaching that that kids shouldn’t experience the real world, but have a utopia of nobody loses (and hence, nobody wins. how ironic they are the winners and the rest of us are the losers.) Teach the utopian view of winning and losing destroys everyone. Teach boys to be more like girls (A full-frontal attack on how guys are wired compared to gals.) Teach that its someone else’s fault for your condition and that you have no responsibility for your own actions.

      Now, you may see it as the lesser educated barbarians don’t need guns, and I’ll say your view matches that of Billy Boy: Elitist. While I agree that fact should be focused on, not some half-baked story, and that guns are not the problem, I believe you have missed the mark with your comment and have actually proven that those, the elitists wish to disarm, actually do need to be armed, lest they lose all rights and are forced to be as sub-human as the elitists see them as. Reality is that those elitists are not any better than the “barbarians” they see the rest of the population as.

  21. avatar Paul McCain says:

    Hey, Francois … Bugs Bunny has got you nailed, pal.

  22. Why have we forgotten “sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me” well, PC overruled that along with apologizing for Americas past. I wish God would urinate on Washington DC while he shouts piss off.

  23. avatar GS650G says:

    For Tom’s sake his taxes better be in order, no illicit porn on his computer, better not have any friends overseas, and make sure no emails sent in the past few years are interesting enough to keep.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email