Quote of the Day: If You Like Your Guns, You Can Keep Your Guns Edition

arizona-obama-speechjpg-8825a1a75be42925

“We should be able to talk about (more gun laws) as citizens without demonizing all gun owners who are overwhelmingly law abiding, but also without suggesting that any debate about this involves a wild-eyed plot to take everybody’s guns away,” – Barack Obama in Obama: Church shooting exposes ‘blight’ of racism, need for gun laws [at Reuters.com]

comments

  1. avatar DickDanger says:

    Well, at least a liberal didn’t claim we’re all blood-thirty insurrectionists.

    1. avatar Panzer says:

      Liberals are also known to say things that even they don’t believe (do they lie???). I don’t believe anything liberals say. In fact, if we believe just the opposite of what they say, we may have some semblance of the truth.

  2. avatar the ruester says:

    Sooo… you DIDN’T try to pass a gun ban? Right in front of us? Oh, I get it; gun owners see “wild eyed” conspiracy in everything. And he’s NOT demonizing us…

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      “Of course you’re just another conspiracy gun nut. Even though He tried to pass common sense safety laws by trying to ban certain guns, you don’t need those anyway… and has a gun ban occurred during His presidency? No! See, that’s proof that you’re all just paranoid wackos to think anyone is trying to ban guns!”

      /progderp

      1. avatar mee says:

        The purpose of the second ammendment is so the people can take back control of a corrupt lost government. Not to have “sporting” toys so yeah, we do need them. All of them.

        1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          Hence the “/progderp” tag.

  3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Okay, I’ll play: what gun control law could possibly have prevented this massacre?

    Name a specific measure, explain how it would have prevented this massacre, and describe the efficacy of such measure where it has been tried elsewhere.

    Background checks? He was a prohibited person, and passed one by lying on the Form 4473.

    Gun free zones? The church where he carried out his attack is one.

    Licensed carry? Did he even bother to try to get an SC carry license?

    Magazine capacity limits? He reloaded 5 times.

    So, if none of those: what, then? What law would have stopped him?

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      ‘We have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it.’

      1. avatar Chrispy says:

        Zing!

    2. avatar RH says:

      Simple. No arms for peasants.

    3. avatar Model 31 says:

      1. National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity
      2. Vast reduction in GFZs*
      3. PSAs encouraging more self reliance for self defense and less reliance on government deterrent policies.

      * GFZs worth discussing are where a container puncture would result in catastrophic release of material. -Bio-hazard, Nuclear, airplanes, submarines, prisons. After all, we are looking at reasonable restrictions.

      1. avatar joecr says:

        Hollywood lies about guns in airplanes. Mythbusters busted the myth. So long as you are not shooting tracers and you don’t hit control cables you should be fine.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          If you’re in a plane that flies with cables, either A) Your 707 is old as shit. Or B) why the hell is somebody hijacking your Cessna?

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Planes like the 707 have their control cables just under the cabin floor if memory serves.

          Cutting any one of them doesn’t kill the aircraft as they have several redundant cables there as well.

          Is my (what little there is) memory accurate on that?

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      Background checks? He was a prohibited person, and passed one by lying on the Form 4473.

      Well his lie was able to work due to the laziness and ineptitude of the government that didn’t get a February indictment logged into a database for the April NICS check.

      Hey all we need to do is solve government ineptitude…how hard can that be?

      (Note: The Feb and April dates are from the MFM so take that for what its worth….approximately nothing)

    5. avatar S.CROCK says:

      He really reloaded 5 times? I know he used a .45 but do we know what kind?

      1. avatar Leadslinger says:

        One of his friends was interviewed and stated it was a Glock .45.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          1) He had friends?

          2) I’ll take that report with a grain of salt for now. To many people, “semi-automatic pistol” = “Glock”.

        2. avatar Leadslinger says:

          The gun

          Roof turned 21 in April, and a short time later he had a gun.

          On Thursday, investigators did a trace of the handgun used in Wednesday’s shooting and determined that it was a .45-caliber handgun Roof purchased from a Charleston gun store in April, two law enforcement officials told CNN’s Perez and Bruer.

          Roof purchased a Glock .45-caliber model 41, which holds 13 rounds, a federal law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation said. Witnesses have reported that Roof reloaded a number of times.

          http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-suspect/

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          If only he had been limited to 10 rounds, then he wouldn’t have been able to kill 9 people!

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        If the reports of reloading are true, my guess is that he used a 1911. The magazines are ubiquitous, easy to find, and cheap.

      3. avatar Sian says:

        Glock 41 gen4

    6. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      And so the search continues for the one anti-gun bill to rule them all.

    7. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      It seems to me that the fact that he passed a background check when he SHOULDN’T have is being ignored.
      Besides the applicant lying, SHOULD he have failed? If so, why? Did someone in the court fail to notify the FBI about the pending charge? Did the FBI get notified but are so slow and underfunded they didn’t get that information input into the database in time to get added to the prohibited list?
      This is what I would like to know. He passed a background check and shouldn’t have. He joins list of other attackers who got their guns via background checks as well.

      Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta), among others.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        Great list Mark Lloyd , interesting you have this compiled and useful enough for me to save . Thanks , keep up the good work . What do they do with all their information they gather on people if they don’t use it to stop the whacks ? Typical government bureaucracy I guess . I wonder how many nuts these list actually do stop , that would make a nice study oops I better be careful , I might give someone up the on the hill an idea of how they can spend a few more million of the working mans dollars to make a survey of something that means nothing .

        1. avatar Sian says:

          States aren’t required to report data to the background check system, much less in a timely manner.

          If we’re going to have the system at all, shouldn’t it at least be useful?

  4. avatar SCS says:

    A sure sign that King Barack Hussein is lying…………….his lips are moving.

    1. avatar Yogi B says:

      He may be your king, but I bow to no man

      1. avatar SCS says:

        Not my king or president, for that matter.

        1. avatar Gatha58 says:

          You may not have voted for him but he is your President for now. One of the great things about this country is that we can accept a candidate even though we may not have voted for him or her. You don’t have to agree with them or go along with everything they say or represent after they are elected. But, they are your representative after the election. And in four years you can vote for a different candidate if you don’t like the one that was elected. My gut feeling is that President Obama would not be in office today if the Republican Party had been smarter about their VP candidates in the last 2 Presidential Elections.

        2. avatar actionphysicalman says:

          Gatha58: Acceptance of the rule of unethical demagogues is not one of the ‘great things about this country’.

        3. avatar SCS says:

          I don’t give a rats ass what he calls himself. He is not my president. I can not follow a “man” who so blatantly disrespects the office and the Constitution.

        4. avatar JD says:

          He may not have won in 2012 if there wasn’t rampant voter fraud, don’t you mean? There were plenty of places where he took 100% of the vote. Where does that happen besides in places like Cuba, Iran, North Korea? Other places reported more than 100% of the registered voters voting.

        1. avatar Pillager1900 says:

          I don’t think it was just the VP candidates that lost those two elections. Their presidential candidates where extremely weak. We had an old white man vs Obama, then a rich white man against Obama. Hrm, even I did not see that going well. In both of those elections I felt like I had to choose from the lessor of the two evils. I chose against Obama both times but was not happy with my choice.

          This time around we have some great candidates and the Dems have Hilary, for now. We the people need to get active in the primary and pick someone who we not only think can win, but also does not leave a bad taste in our mouths when leaving the polls. If you are a Democrat, get active and get yourselves a good candidate too. I personally would love to have a hard time picking which side to vote for in 2016, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime (at least in a good way).

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      If we can agree that as a general policy it is desirable to not include the names of mass-killer psychopaths in articles in order to deny them the infamy they so desperately seek, can we not agree to stop publishing pictures of this reprobate Marxist we are stuck with as our supposed president? What purpose does it serve to keep being inflicted with his image other than to further inflame our disgust and increase his feelings of self-importance.

      I can, with a little effort, almost always manage not to hear his lying voice, but it is more difficult to avoid the sudden appearance of such photographs. Give us a break, please.

  5. avatar MAC][ says:

    …he says as he orchestrates secret back room meetings and misuses executive power per his playbook.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      … and we can keep our current doctors and health insurance

    2. avatar H says:

      We say the left keeps lying about guns.
      Here are some facts.
      All Presidents have executive powers and have used them.
      This time the Right press is crying foul, that’s all.
      Back room deals? Both Parties, always.

  6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I refuse to be lectured about my guns by someone who runs guns to Mexican drug cartels and Islamic jihadis.

  7. avatar Anonymous says:

    Church shooting exposes ‘blight’ of racism, need for gun laws

    No gun law would have stopped this (except maybe banning all of them). It’s already against the law to kill people.

    Maybe we should just ban racism?

    1. avatar Frank says:

      There is one gun law that would have stopped this. That law is repealing every gun law that has ever been passed. Give the population the choice to be armed or not.

      A 1 way range is easy to pick victims and do the most damage you can until armed people show up. A 2 way range makes choosing victims a lot harder since you have to keep your head down and hope you don’t get out flanked.

  8. avatar Tominator says:

    “We should be able to talk about (more gun laws) as citizens…”

    We have and rejected the notion!

    Who elected this bozo anyway?

    1. avatar Adub says:

      Idiots.

      No Republican ever says “I’m going to throw grandma down off a cliff and dump arsenic in your backyard” but idiots think they do.

      Obama was caught on tape many times talking about bankrupting certain industries, making electricity prices to skyrocket, and going to government-run health care, and people just shrug and ignore it.

  9. avatar John F lake havasu Az says:

    The 2nd amendment is there to PROTECT us from People & GOVERNMENTS that would harm US…

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Thank you for that link. It was exactly what I needed to relieve my disgust at having to look at yet another picture of the man pretending to be our president.

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    You could stick a hood on his head and replace guns with black people and the rhetoric would be the same.
    Though, at least racism is targeted at humans who commit acts and not at inanimate objects incapable of action. In that respect it would make more sense for a klansman to be giving this same speech about crime in the black community than it does for Obama to make this speech about guns.

    Not all gun owners are bad.
    I have some friends who own guns.
    I myself have shot one. Here’s a picture.
    But (enter bigoted statements here).

  11. avatar David Thompson says:

    How about instead of concentrating on broad laws which affect tens of millions yet would gave no chance of stopping this sort of thing, we focus on the real problem: the people who do this sort of thing.

    This means revisiting involuntary commitment laws as well as a long hard look at the psychotropic drugs many of these killers are on.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      +1000. Of course it will never happen under either Democrat or Republican regime because it means abandoning political.correctness and accepting that some behaviors are indicative of a severe and dangerous mental health problem. Like obsessively talking about shooting up a church or a school or a movie theater for weeks or months.

    2. avatar Richard says:

      David, now you are touching on what the real problem is. There is a formula for mass murder. The formula needs the right components. Gun + Bullets + Lunatic bent on killing innocent people = mass killing, Other formulas don’t work. Gun + Bullets+ Law abiding Person= nothing. Gun + Bullets = nothing. We have thousands of lunatics in our country and are breeding more daily. Without a hate filled lunatic, you do not have the formula for murder. While we are talking about gun control, these lunatics are growing in numbers and are waiting to become the next headline in the news.

  12. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Parse his words. He is right. There is no “wild eye” conspiracy. It is rather blatant instead

  13. avatar Gatha58 says:

    We have been talking about gun laws. We just object you any of your proposed “solutions” where you blame the guns instead of the people pulling the triggers. How about talking about ways to keep these “wild eyed killers” from killing innocent victims ? Hint: The solution does not involve gun control laws.

    1. avatar JJ48 says:

      Well clearly you’re NOT talking about them, or else you would agree with them, obviously! President Obama’s ideas are so good and perfect that it is impossible for anyone to discuss them without agreeing with them 100%. Any gun-lover discussing them would immediately see the error of his ways and throw all his firearms into the hottest furnace he could find, for discussion is equivalent to agreeing with our benevolent overlord! Only when we have stripped ourselves of such useless, meaningless ideas as “freedom” and “thinking” shall we usher in a glorious, Utopian age of peace and prosperity wherein no one ever again does an unkind thing!

      …and because some people on this site have difficulty judging such things, the preceding paragraph was sarcasm, or tongue-in-cheek, or whatever you would classify it as.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      The solution is not outlawing wolves, or what they prefer for dinner, the solution is forcing the wolf to ask himself as he gazes at the flock of sheep, “How many of them are packing?”

      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

      Our Constitutional Republic and the Second Amendment ensure that the sheep’s opinion matters.

  14. avatar brentondadams says:

    Who ya gonna trust? Me or your own lying eyes?

  15. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Said the pole turtle…

  16. avatar Art out West says:

    If I knew nothing about world or American history, I might believe these lies. Tyrants never want to deal with armed peasants. Gun grabbers are never satisfied, and will never stop. We cannot give another inch to them. In fact we have mountains of stupid laws to repeal. We had the illegal and pointless NFA. We have the illegal anand pointless GCA of 1968. We have the illegal and pointless Brady law. Look at pitiful England. Look at pitiful Australia. Look at imperial Japan, Communist Russia, China, etc. Look at Germany and the Jewish holocaust. Look at slavery, segregation, the internment camps, and the treatment of the native people in America. Look at Boco Haram. Look at the treatment of Christians and Yezidis etc by ISIS. Look at Rwanda and the Balkans in the 90’s. Government murder and oppress millions, and other violent evil doers do as well.

    I’ll be keeping my guns. There is a reason for the second Ammendment. We may need those guns sometime.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Since it is obvious historically that governments are the real danger after they disarm the people, the obvious response MUST be Molin Labe! Might as well die resisting the effort ot disarm, you are most certainly going to die anyway.

  17. avatar John L. says:

    After reading that quote, I have this strong urge to go out and buy another gun…

  18. avatar OakRiver says:

    We should be able to discuss mass shootings in a calm and sensible manner. However when millions of peaceful gun owners are continuously demonized, subjected to violent rhetoric, and considered killers-in-waiting then the conversation is starting on the wrong foot through no fault of our own.

  19. avatar BS says:

    I dunno about the rest of you but I am done with the “laws” that break the 2nd amendment. 100 political heads for every unconstitutional new “law”.

    It is time for patriots to rise.

  20. avatar KCK says:

    The whole reason for the limited mag capacity laws is to give someone a chance to neutralize the shooter.
    Here someone choosing a .45 voluntarily limited their capacity.
    That neutralization was neutralized by a GFZ.
    One would at least hope anti’s would opt to eliminate the GFZ’s.
    Just call me crazy.

  21. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Banning all guns wouldn’t solve or prevent violence or murder from occurring.

    Violence is a people problem not a gun problem. Violence is not something you can solve by focusing on the tools people use in their violent acts.

    However, the only possible logic in “focusing on the tool” in the anti-gun agenda is the idea of trying curb the lethality of any future violent events by limiting the availability of the tools that do enable an attacker to be able to inflict X amount of damage in Y amount of time.

    While I understand the concept, it is folly because it’s painfully apparent there is no method that doesn’t infringe on our rights for limiting access to a certain tool in attempts to predict when a very small percentage of the population will “snap” and commit a violent act.

    Are there precursory signs and red flags that predict violent behavior? Yes. There is a whole field of study in that area. See Gavin DeBecker’s “Predicting Violent Behavior” book. Are there abysmal failures in the mental health system that assume a deeply disturbed person with violent tendencies isn’t a threat to society just because they haven’t said the magic words that would lead to their institutionalization? Sure, just look at the last few mass shootings where the mentally ill person pretty much spelled out their plan of violence to their therapist. Lots of red flags pop up prior to a disturbed person finally taking action and carrying out a violent act. However, at what point do you say, “this many red flags is enough” to detain someone?

    The reality is that you can’t change people and you can’t control them. All you can do is be as prepared as you can for when (not if) crazy violent people decide today is the day to carry out their plan.

    What’s so backwards about the anti-gun agenda is they focus on guns, so their “solutions” are always based on some sort of idea centered around guns. It doesn’t address the root cause of violence, which is a human issue tied to mental health. Money would be better spent educating the general public on identifying the behaviors and signs that lead to violent behavior so we, as a country, can be more aware of our peers’ behavior.

    However, when it comes to the public, that’s where a lot of good ideas are scrapped because of a another human issue: misuse of a good thing and abuses of power. Unfortunately, millions of people are just useless bags of meat. So the pessimist in me thinks “good luck with getting the general public to actually be useful” — We live in an age where the current generation thinks it’s cute to “swat” people via the internet. I have little hope for society in general and the current “you are special” and “everyone is a unique snowflake” generation is too self-involved and plugged into their internet lives to really be useful in the observation of what’s going on around them…

  22. avatar nothappening2day says:

    THAT is the face of an evil, delusional, racist, peter puffer.

  23. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    So Barry Soetoro lies yet again…oh yeah I caught an “interview”(on FOX) with a man who claims to have had an encounter with bowl head boy. In a restaurant with bowl boy’s daddy. And the boy whos name shall not be uttered whipped out his GLOCK 21 to show this guy. Which holds 13or 14 rounds-and he claims bowl-boy said it was a gift from daddy. LOT’S of BS in THIS narrative…

  24. avatar Edward Jaffe says:

    “We should be able to talk about (more gun laws) as citizens without demonizing all gun owners who are overwhelmingly law abiding, but also without suggesting that any debate about this involves a wild-eyed plot to take everybody’s guns away,”

    Wow — we don’t want to demonize ALL gun owners? Very generous.

    Oh and he is right — no one is taking my guns away — they are taking ME away — to prison — for the wrong mag or an empty shotgun shell or some other infraction.

  25. Iv’e been called an “absolutist” when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. It was meant to be an insult from fellow gun enthusiasts and “pro 2A” POTG.

    There is the problem. We know the progressives/liberals, what ever they want to call themselves this generation, want to eliminate the ability for anyone outside of government employ to own guns. But it is the “Conservatives” or “pro gun liberals” that do not help preserve our rights.

    Remember the Feinstein-Cruz exchange when Frau Blücher (NEIGH!!!) told Cruz that there were so many guns not on the ban list (which she denied was a ban) that the people had enough guns and “do they need a bazooka?” Well Cruz gave a decent answer but he missed the point of the 2nd amendment by not simply saying:

    “Need is yet to be determined, but what has been determined is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” “That means, and it was the founder’s intent, that the people have the right to stockpile weapons for whatever reason in order to protect the Republic from collapse of National security or protect it from a tyrannical government operating against the will of the people.” “It is the will of the people that the Bill of Rights be maintained in it’s entirety.”

    Then there was the topic of assault weapons ban in the 2012 debate where Obama played both sides as usual in a debate. But Romney showed either his ignorance of the Constitution or unwillingness to uphold it with his incorrect statement that “automatic weapons are illegal to own”.

    As long as Conservatives feel ashamed of the Constitution, thereby refusing to be labeled an “Absolutist”, we will continue to live as subjects to the State. I’m not comfortable with that. Are you?

  26. avatar mark s. says:

    One of these days some nut is going to do something that pushes Barry to instigate another executive order like gun registration , or even confiscation . Ammo reductions or bans . The first thing that will happen is my gun and ammo investments over the years will dramatically inflate in value and I will instantly become outlaw because I cannot comply with his new mandate . Many will stand with me and the battle will begin within . I foresee dreadful days ahead if we do not stand very firm on our rights now . We cannot allow comments like Barry’s to go unchallenged . The next pres election can’t come soon enough for me and we better make sure the next one is a STRONG constitutionalist and defender of or GOD given rights . Remember , our founders only reiterated our God given rights on paper , they did not create these rights . I have a duty to defend and protect my children and those who cannot protect themselves . I also have a right to choose not to . Be very cautious of anyone who ask for a “small part” of something that is not needed for their existence . Why do you ask me for my coat when your coat is finer than mine ? Do you wish me to be in the cold ? Do you need it for someone who is cold and without a coat ? You have no need of my gun other than to deprive me of something you have yourself .

  27. avatar Sammy says:

    A man who’s track record for honest and transparency hardly inspires trust.

  28. avatar Don in PA says:

    I have a better idea… shoot spree killers. That’ll address the racist ones, the political ones, the pro-religion ones, the anti-religion ones, and the generically crazy ones.

  29. avatar Ralph says:

    Oh, good news! POTUS won’t demonize us.

    He has the media for that.

  30. avatar CoolHand says:

    Dear JugEars,
    Blow me.

    Sincerely,
    Everyone who’s sick of hearing your noise wind.

    1. avatar Roger Cain says:

      LOL. JugEars? Love it.

  31. avatar Roger Cain says:

    I’ve never seen a U.S. President less sincere and more intellectually dishonest than Barrack Hussein Obama.

  32. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “We should be able to talk about (more gun laws) as citizens without demonizing all gun owners who are overwhelmingly law abiding, but also without suggesting that any debate about this involves a wild-eyed plot to take everybody’s guns away,” – Barack Obama

    Well, I look forward to hearing suggested additional laws which:

    — will demonstrably make people safer: not “reasoning” but data

    — won’t create burdens on law-abiding people: for example someone being stalked in NJ who gets shot while unarmed, while waiting for “approval”

    — can’t be hijacked into stealth prohibition by friction: for example NY, DC, or CA

    — won’t build a national registry: useful for the folks taking guns out of everybody’s hands in a “state of emergency”, like in New Orleans. Or Canada. Calm, sensible, measured Canada where they used records from the approval process to choose homes to enter for no other reason, search until they found the guns, remove guns from, and not return the guns when the “emergency” was over

    — can’t form the basis for eventual confiscation: “civilian disarmament” being a convenient term for “I see no reason why anyone should have a gun who isn’t in the military or police” – the publicly avowed position and goal of a large chunk of the “common sense regulation” coalition – “common sense” means “regulate it out of existence, because we couldn’t get it on the up and up.”

    I hate sounding like a paranoid whackjob, but me and my tinfoil hat would get a lot less of a workout if they hadn’t frakking done all these things.

    Also, President, “if you like your health plan, you can keep it”, might have a credibility plan with whatever he chooses to advocate.

    Now, nobody trusts him.

  33. avatar barnbwt says:

    In light of the proposed ITAR changes that would practically shutter all gun news outlets, I cannot see anything other than an attempt to enjoin our gun and speech rights. The president is lying, again, still.

  34. avatar Brian M says:

    What have we left to give up? This latest atrocity was committed with an uncontentious handgun. Are they so desperate to take away rights that they’ll jump on anything they can get?

    Now imagine this: one of the parishoners also had a gun. When the massacre began, the parishoner deployed their weapon and brought it to a swift halt. Clearly, antigun logic would dictate that it would be superior to have allowed everyone to have been murdered rather than for one of the intended victims to have offered resistance with a firearm of their own.

  35. avatar Royal Tony says:

    Oh man, I feel much better now he’s cleared that up. In other news, that piss down your back is actually something called rain.

  36. avatar Accur81 says:

    Who hears still remembers when lots of TTAG commentors thought Obama wasn’t going after guns and wouldn’t stump for more gun control. As for me, I knew Obama was a statist hack back in ’07. In other obvious news, Hillary and Sanders are also pro gun control, as is the majority of the Democratic Party. Christie would throw gun rights under the bus as well.

    Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Scott Walker have been pretty strong on gun rights. The furthest left I’ll vote is for small-government Republicans.

  37. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    “We should be able to talk about (more gun laws) as citizens without demonizing all gun owners who are overwhelmingly law abiding, Why not? Gun owners have been the target of this socialist regime even before it took power. I am surprised they have not sent us to the gulag by now.

  38. avatar tjdd01 says:

    Can someone tell me how that no leggs guy in Australia got a hand gun to kill his girlfriend??????

  39. avatar Anonymous says:

    If You Like Your Guns, You Can Keep Your Guns

    The freedom-hating collectivists list:

    You can keep your guns while we regulate machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, silencers, any other weapon that can be made to shoot a bullet, and destructive devices. If you want any of these you need a pay a gigantic tax of $200 (1934 terms) and register yourself with the ATF, pass a background check with photographs, fingerprints, obtain ATF approval to move the firearm to your state. No one inside or outside your household is allowed access to these unless a transfer is performed with all the requirements above. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns while we ban calibers over .50. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns while we ban anything that can possibly be made into a full auto machine gun even though they are not technically full auto machine guns because you would have to weld them, machine them, and fit them, etc. We will arbitrarily decide whether the parts you have constitute this and we will determine if you have intent or not. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns but not if you are under 21 and seek a handgun. Anyone less than 21 doesn’t need a handgun. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns while we impose interstate commerce clauses that regulate gun traffic only through licensed dealers that have to pay us money to get licensed. We are going to establish import restrictions and what we call the term “sporting purposes” which is whatever we want to define. We are going to require marking requirements for all guns and make the defacing of serial numbers a felony – because not hurting anyone but removing numbers on a piece of metal deserves prison time. Also – if you went to prison for a felony (like felony speeding or reading your wife’s email or computer hacking or bringing a steak knife to school to cut your steak) you need your gun rights revoked immediately. No guns for you. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns but no machine guns can be manufactured this point forward for civilians. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns but we don’t like plastic. No plastic guns for you – there needs to be some metal in them – even though someone who is intent on murdering someone in a secure area probably isn’t going to bother putting metal in them. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns except in school zones. Don’t tell anyone that we know that people intent on mass murder at schools probably don’t care about a law that says no guns. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns but you need to go through background checks at dealers. Anyone at a dealer needs a background check. Also we need to license manufactures and gunsmiths. Pay us some money for these licenses. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns while we pass some legislation that arbitrarily ban cosmetic features of firearms we call “assault weapons.” This is experimental so we are going to let this one expire someday. We know this has nothing to do with crime, but it does require you get some thumbhole stocks. It does annoy gun owners so we know that is a plus. ——– Passed – CHECK.

    You can keep your guns while we pass universal background checks and nationwide registration even though It wouldn’t have stopped Roof, but it does let us know who all has guns. ——— Pending.

    You can keep your guns while we ban semi-automatics and extremely high capacity magazines (mags over 10 rounds) because they have too much firepower. We don’t it doesn’t stop much – but we like it. ——— Pending.

    You can keep your guns while we ban handguns as no one needs handguns except law enforcement and military. Seriously – why do you need handguns. The overall homicide rate of the US is more important than your individual rights. ——— Pending.

    You can keep your guns as long as they aren’t assault weapons. We don’t like assault weapons and they are hereby banned. The only rifle you need is a 3 round hunting rifle all other rifles are banned from manufacture in the civilian market going forward. Firearm collection trucks will be coming by your home during this period. You may turn over all of your firearms (except 3 round hunting rifles) at this time. The 2nd amendment is about hunting after all. ——— Pending.

    You can keep your guns as long as you keep them at the licensed firing range. You can check them out there if you want to go hunting. You don’t need guns in your home. The lives of robbers, rapists, and burglars are more important than your property and your health. Gun deaths need to be at an all time low for the nation collectively. If you want to transport a firearm for hunting or range purposes you need to check out a firearm transport license at your local BATFEKBS branch. Approval is based on a physical, training, safety, mental, and criminal background check. This is progress people. ——— Pending.

  40. avatar rlc2 says:

    Reuters has gone full progtard on news spin. Quoting the gun-grabber in Chief, and then summing with a quote from a gun-grabber group is hardly objective “news”. Especially when the obvious history of Obama’s own actions bely his words. At some point you have to wonder if Reuters reporters for hire are conducting deliberate disinformation, and the editorial staff is either too busy, too sympathetic, or simply too incompetent to care to review the news submissions.

    “We should be able to talk about this issue as citizens without demonizing all gun owners”….

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/09/17/flashback_obama_calls_americans_bitter_clingers

    “without suggesting that any debate about this involves a wild-eyed plot to take everybody’s guns away,”

    http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-control-under-radar

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/17/years-later-justice-department-still-covering-up-aftermath-of-fast-and-furious-scandal/

  41. avatar Bob says:

    So, once again the gun-control zealots are telling us that they do not want to take away our guns? Except when they admit the truth…

    “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 them all in.”, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” – US Senator Diane Feinstein in 1995, following passage of the Assault Weapons Ban.

  42. avatar John Franco says:

    That will be the day I believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the liar in chief. This man salivates everytime a tragedy occurs, because it gives him another opportunity to force his agenda, his only goal is destroying our rights and the future of this country. He is despicable!

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