“‘We are going to get to the bottom of this,’ (President Obama) said. ‘There may be mixed motives in all of this.'” Does that mean that that, like Ft. Hood jihadi Nidal Hassan’s shooting spree, the San Bernardino attack will be classified as workplace violence, too? Would that surprise anyone at this point? . . .

Never one to let facts get in the way of the prevailing narrative, he then steered his comments back to one of the primary focuses of his last agonizing year in office:

“We need to make sure when individuals decide they want to do harm we make it harder because right now it’s just too easy,” he said. “We’re going to have to I think search ourselves as a society to make sure that we take some basic steps that make it harder — not impossible — but harder for individuals to get access to weapons.

Oh, and did you know that November was the biggest gun sales month in the history of the world, ever? Did you get yours?

Recommended For You

107 Responses to Obama: The Problem is Still the Guns

  1. God I hope we turn out in good number next year. I don’t think I’ll survive another 8 with a progressive lib.

      • From CNN:
        http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

        “Officials had previously said that neither Farook and Malik were known to the FBI or on a list of potentially radicalized people. Nor had they had any known interactions with police until Wednesday’s deadly shootout that culminated in their deaths.”

        So, how would banning people on the terrorist watch list have helped solve this if neither of these two were on it?

      • Sorry Bill, but there isn’t any drama here. I mean to say that I literally do not believe that our nation will survive another 8 years under this kind of insane management. Pushing emotionally charged gun control laws that serve no logical purpose and have no discernible impact on violence or crime, (See assault weapons ban) and that fly in the face of the constitution are eroding away the fabric that bind us all as american.

        I truly believe that the heightened state of polarized politics and extremism from both sides will push us away from a nationalistic identity into a regional identity. When a region no longer feels that DC represents them in the best way it will seek isolation. I believe that if the next president of the Unites States follows the same line of Liberal Progressive dogma that it will force those who disagree to remove themselves from the governance of what they find to be a tyrannical and unrepresentative government that caters to the mob of the big cities.

        • I think we are headed towards a civil war. In fact, I think it is unavoidable and has been since at least the 2000 election, if not before. History shows us that people living through events rarely understand their impact, which is only appreciated in hindsight.

          As for a civil war, I don’t wish for one, but unfortunately that doesn’t matter. Just as wishing and hoping doesn’t stop Jihadists from waging war on us, neither will it stop the Leftists from waging war on us.

          That said, I won’t comply with any new gun control laws. If they try confiscation, I will shoot to defend myself. My recent gun purchases have mostly been with an eye towards what will be useful in a guerrilla war.

          I’ve stopped trying to politely debate the Leftists. Stopped trying to reason with them. They cannot be reasoned with. Now my response is “Any attempt to disarm me or my fellow armed Americans will result in mass bloodshed. Your move.”

        • Mitch – Well said. However, it is not a civil war we need, it is Revolution, which is entirely legal under Constitutional Law. You will find it under The Federal Papers #28, #29 by Alexander Hamilton, and #46 by James Madison. Have no doubts these are law as stated by one of the founders (Hamilton maybe?) in a press conference when the University of Virgina held the opening ceremony for its new law school. When asked what to base the writing of the law upon, the founder replied, “The Constitution, the Declaration of Indiependence, the Bill of Rights, and The Federalist Papers for these are the Laws of of the Land.” Revolution my friend is taking back control of our nation, and keeping it INTACT and is authorized under federal law. Civil war is not. My opinion – we are screwed either way. Obama has allowed to be infiltrated too heavily by the enemy. Both the ones he has groomed, and those from other nations.

        • Mitch/Myra, I think you are both correct.
          Revolution or Civil War whatever they will call it after it is over with is definitely coming.
          I believe to the bottom of my heart the war is inevitable.
          [Not that i want it]
          It just appears to me to be a Natural thing.
          Certain powerful interest want more power.
          When they get it they can’t hold on to it forever.
          Then it breaks apart.
          I have studied the history of this country quite well.
          From its incubator colonies through the first civil war.

          Powerful interests were always divided.
          Eventually someone wants more power than they have
          or someone wants power they lost.

          The Statists vs the Individualists.
          In the 1800’s and early 1900’s the big push in Europe was for consolidation.
          Russia turned into the Soviet Union.

          The Independent sovereign countries pushed for the European Union.
          The Soviet Union broke up.

          Our Founding Fathers knew that States ceased to govern well after they got too large.

          Virginia was broken up several times and then part of it became West Virginia.

          Putting all the power in one central government is insane and repeating the same mistake our Founding Fathers figured out a long time ago.

          Now our country and its reach is much larger that the Founders ever anticipated.
          Conflicting interests eventually will pull us apart.

          The groups that will endure tumultuous times are clans of 50 to 100 members.
          The rugged individual survivalist will either get caught up in a clan or they will be killed.
          If you thin just you and your family will be able to just ride out the storm you are mistaken.

          One thing I would offer as advice.
          Don’t put pictures up on the internet telling the whole world how many and what kind of guns you have.

    • Our political system can survive 8 years of Obama. I’m not sure it can survive a population willing to elect him twice. – Rush Limbaugh (paraphrased)

    • Frankly, I doubt a lot of people will survive another Cloward and Piven influenced Progressive government. In this election, we are voting for the survival of the country.

  2. Here is what I heard… (2:27)”So many American’s feel as if there is nothing we can do about it. We are fortunate to have an extraordinary combination of law enforcement, intelligence and military… We can’t just leave it to our professionals to deal with…. We all have a part to play…”

    That sounds like he just suggested and approved armed citizens?

    • Oh no, the place of the peons is to die. Thats what he’s saying. The attack in France worked exactly how their government wanted it to. No important government officials died. The people are to become a nice statistic to justify marshall law and the suspension of the Constitution, or its French equivalent. Eff that noise.

    • I came here to post the same quote. Kind of funny how I completely agree with that sentence but completely disagree with President Obama about what it means.

    • Obviously we need a law where pipes have to be cut into 3 pieces. That way its demilled just like gun receivers have to be. Make solid pieces of pipe illegal. Also ball bearings, chemistry, metal working tools, wire, and electronics.

      Why is it that progressive’s “solutions” all involve completely ignoring science and pretending it doesn’t exist? Like every single stance. C02 as a pollutant? Untrained illegal immigration and its affect on low income Americans? Revisionist history about the Founders? Appease terrorists?

      I suppose its because its impossible for them to control a population that can see through their BS. Ironically what the Founders also intended.

      • “Also ball bearings, chemistry, metal working tools, wire, and electronics. ”

        You can’t do that to the poor little kiddies that want to stuff a clock into a suitcase!

        • i heard on the radio yesterday that little Clochmed is homesick, and wants to come back to Texas. Apparently Quatar is not the muslim paradise he thought it was.

    • It would be perfectly in character for him to step up to the podium and tell us he is going to implement the full raft of gun control measures the Progs want by executive order. He will simply have no choice but to assume dictatorial powers because Congress won’t pass common sense laws that all sane [i.e., leftist] Americans want. That’s the way the framers intended for separation of powers to work, right?

      So, here’s the question. What is the more frightening thought: That he doesn’t understand the kind of strife such an illegal action would trigger, or that he does understand and would welcome it?

      • The sad thing is: it’s not just him. There are plenty of people out there that are fully ready to embrace the state and surrender their freedoms. After all, they turned out in droves to vote for him–twice.

        • It’s been a long time brewing. The public schools, universities, and press have been preparing the way for decades. I hope there are still enough Americans left in the USA to stop it.

    • If only you understood the constitution. Keep drinking the kool-aid and maybe you will get a visit from the fairy godmother tonight.

      • I fully understand the Constitution, and have read the complete Helper decision by the Supreme Court, as well as the Federalist Papers. I expect, I understand for better than the person posing as a Constitutional lawyer that we unfortunately elected to be President.

        • I believe he fully understands it. He just doesn’t like it. He is allegedly a constitutional scholar. If that is the case, it was only to figure out how to justify working around it.

    • We all know he does this. What we need to really ask is why? Why are they so interested in removing the gun that is responsible for the least crime – the AR?

      It seems to me the only possible reason why they are so intent and unwavering in their desire to stop us from having firearms is that they plan to do things that the firearms would make it difficult for them to do.

      Mind, I am not saying that this is what they are planning, just that it’s the only reason I can think of that makes sense. Protecting citizens lives? AR’s do far more to protect us than otherwise, and truthfully I don’t believe for a second that they care about the well being of us citizens.

      So nothing else seems to make sense.

      I say we stick with the constitution. If they want to change it then there is a process. End of discussion.

  3. Incredible, last week a certifiably insane reclusive hermit who identifies as a political independent, and that has never once mentioned being concerned about abortion in his life shoots some people at a Planned Parenthood Clinic and before the police even had the guy in handcuffs, Obama and the usual suspects are condemning the attack as a religious fundamentalist attack against women’s rights.

    One week later, a devout muslim, who has visited Saudi Arabia and openly proclaimed his devotion to Islam, and his wife roll up in full battle rattle to his company christmas party with firearms and bombs and we are still searching for a motive? WTF, are people really as stupid as they think we are?

        • I was rebutting the idea that there was NO evidence to link it to Abortion. Definitive yet? No. But a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, from the supposed quote at the scene, the choice of target, and now this. Also, neighbors said he was handing out anti-Obama literature- which says nothing about abortion!- but implies he’s not a liberal.

    • Well said. Watching the news is absolutely embarrassing. In their need to be politically correct, the “Journalists” won’t even hint of terrorism or a Radical Islamic connection.

      What mother leaves her 6 month old child behind and goes on a murder spree killing innocent people?

    • Most people ARE that stupid–and lazy. That’s why most MSM tell us what to think. There are more opinion pieces than objective news articles. That’s what most of the public wants. Too hard to think for yourself. Much easier to have someone else do it for you so that you can be entertained/distracted by Hollywood.

    • Yes and no. If you are in the FBI investigating this incident, would you announce that it is terrorism if you know that the President and his minions would attack you with both barrels if they believe they have even a smidgen of a chance to change the narrative in their favor? If you value your future, your pension, and your freedom, you would probably wait until you have so much indisputable evidence that the leftists would not dare confront the truth. Anyone of reasonable intelligence knows that this is terrorism. The FBI agents working on it know it is terrorism. They are just not going to say it yet. The Democrat Party leadership knows it too…but they are going to sling the mud until the bitter end. I think the only people who do not know it are the leftist voters who only know world events from the nightly news.

  4. “take some basic steps that make it harder — not impossible — but harder for individuals to get access to weapons.”

    So I’m sitting at my desk in my office, without a single gun within 1000 feet of me. And yet, I’m surrounded by weapons. A pair of 4″ x 4″ square granite coasters – I could incapacitate you with one or both of them. A bronze antique desk lamp – I could crush your skull in one blow with it. Computer cables – I could strangle you with them. Flatscreen monitors – another pair of bludgeons. The picture frame on my desk – one sharp impact from being a wickedly sharp improvised knife. This is all within arm’s reach of me, and I haven’t even mentioned the simple folding knife in my pocket, or the keys in my other pocket (they’d make a very nasty set of improvised brass knuckles).

    So tell me, Mr Obama, how will you make it “harder” for people to gain access to weapons?

    Oh, you just meant guns? Something any competent machinist can turn out with a lathe, some files, and a handful of other simple tools? Nothing you propose will do anything but leave honest citizens disarmed and helpless. Granted, that’s a dream situation for a wanna-be dictator like yourself. But our right to keep and bear arms is a major reason it remains just a dream for you.

  5. The whole country witnessed a demonstration of what gun laws like magazine capacity bans, discretionary issue, handgun rosters, assault weapon bans etc. achieve-

    Unarmed victims for those willing to commit evil acts.

    We really, really, don’t need more of that. Especially when the president is pushing accepting refugees that even the FBI admits we can’t possibly screen for terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

  6. Are these guns defective? My guns only go off if I pull the trigger. Where do you buy violent guns that shoot all by themselves? /sarc

  7. As a gun loving American and lifetime supporter of the 2nd amendment I have struggled with this debate for sometime. I have come to the conclusion that do nothing is the wrong direction for a solution instead, it will just bring us more of the same. I am a responsible gun owner and always will be so I have no problem closing loop holes and expanding background checks. Law abiding citizen’s will not lose their rights to bear arms. So let’s not stand in the way of common sense reform. If we continue to do nothing and next time it is one of our own loved one’s who dies, can we really remain blameless. Thoughts from a red white and blue American!??

    • How do you propose closing private sells “loophole”? The same way Uncle Sammy closed the private recreational pharmaceutical marking and sales loophole? He even started a war on recreational pharmaceutical use over 40 years ago. How’s that going in Chicago? There is a war going on there, strict firearm and drug laws yet it just keeps getting worst.

      So do tell what is the solution.

      Your comment reeks of a false flag post.

      • Right, the answer is do nothing or arm everyone! Boy hard to argue that logic! Hopefully you can read me some more of your fairy tales when you have time to do so.

        • If you truly are the Fudd you pretend to be, then I’ve got this for you to chew on: when they’re done with the AR’s, AK’s, semi automatic pistols and the like, they’ll be coming for your shotguns and deer rifles next. There will be no end to it until guns are banned, period.

          If you are just another paid troll, like I suspect you are, then please…go back to your masters and let them know that lots of us are converted Fudd’s and have seen the light. Your side is lying through their teeth and we know it. Get on with trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment or STFU.

        • If the choice is between a disarmed population living in fear and every person who can carry walking around with a gun, I’ll go for option two, please.

          I realise that actually having 100% of the population strapped is an unrealistic goal. Even among mentally competent adults, that’s just not going to happen. But for the deterrent factor, it doesn’t need to be all that high. Say just 30% of qualified adults are walking around with a gun on their person. That makes Right wing nut Job Joe or Jihad John think twice about going somewhere and shooting up the place.

          One thing I got from the radio on the way into work, aside from the mental gymnastics the press and officials are going through to avoid calling this terrorism, is the confusion over the choice of targets. They seem baffled that the shooters got gunned up and strapped on full battle rattle to shoot up a company Christmas party at a center for the disabled. And of course they’re missing the point. It was chosen because it was a soft target that was lightly defended in a state with very strict gun control. It’s the prime goal of a terrorist. Hit us where we’re vulnerable and scare the crap out of us. It’s pretty clear at this point that they were heading back to their house to rearm and maybe hit another target when the police got in a shootout with them and killed them.

          So this is where we’re at. We are at war. The enemy could strike anywhere at any vulnerable target. More police cannot protect us. More gun control sure as Hell can’t protect us. The only thing that can protect us is that every citizen take personal responsibility for their own safety and the safety of those they love.

          So, yes, f**king Arm Everyone is the only sane option at this point. Or at least allow everyone who WANTS to carry a gun to carry one.

    • — Law abiding citizen’s will not lose their rights to bear arms.—

      Have you missed the part where the latest “common sense” bullcrap they want is the unconstitutional violation of due process known as the “terrorist watch list” to apply for gun ownership? You know that secret list that nobody knows who is on it, or have no way to get off?

      • Since you are so smart explain to me how the government, which by the way consist of you and me, is going to take away all of the guns from law-abiding citizens. Especially since many on the congressional smembers of Congress are also law-abiding gun owners. Stop with the fear. No one is ever going to take away law abiding gun owners guns. Unfortunately you can’t have a logical argument with people who don’t want to comprehend logic.

        • Pretending that the rabble who elected Obama and his goverment represent me is almost as funny as the idea that the left doesn’t want to take our guns. Please go read about the Gun control laws of the UK and Australia. Also how Hillary has said that we should look at Australian confiscation as a viable option here in the states. You are either a liar, willfully ignorant, or completely clueless.

        • We are going to willingly hand them over, to comply with law. Hillary keeps mentioning an “Australian style” buyback that would accomplish exactly that. She’s obviously pretty serious about it. Everybody that doesn’t want to go to jail (you and me) will line up to turn in our guns. Of course, this will leave a flourishing black market, where less prison-fearing individuals will buy and sell guns without regard for the “common sense” laws.

        • That is the easy part how do trump, diane feinstein etc. get ccw permits in places virtually no one else can? They have money and power to buy out what they want. Hell Bill Gates had a Porsche imported bypassing epa and safety regs LITTERALLY through an act of congress.

        • @desreno, what is ironic about Clinton calling for Australian style gun control is that she claimed it would eliminate civil handgun ownership. Aussie gun control targeted semiautomatic rifles and pump action shotguns. Handguns are still legal, albeit registered. I had a discussion on a forum with an Australian .44 Magnum Desert Eagle about the shortage of W296 powder in OZ.

          But then these are the same politicians that are still talking about closing a nonexistent “Gun Show Loophole.”

        • *Australian Desert Eagle owner*
          A .44 Magnum Desert Eagle did not gain sentience spontaneously and start posting on the internet.

    • “Thoughts from a red white and blue American!”

      If you support the Second Amendment as you ‘claim’, what part of “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” are you too stupid to understand?

        • What I find interesting is that no one can answer the one question I have asked which is how is it that the government which again consist of you and me and has many members of Congress who are law-abiding second amendment gun owners ever going to take away our guns. It’s not going to happen folks so stop with the fear baiting. We will get to keep our guns. All we are saying is to pass reasonable gun control regulation just like we do in every other aspect of society. It is not going to take away our guns. I am beginning to think this has more to do with race then the second amendment. Very very sad.

      • Simple minds think of simple things. I totally get it so I will will not get to sophisticated with my reply. Are you against all regulations that we as citizens of the United States have agreed to. Do you not agree with regulating speed limits. Do you not agree with regulating food safety or car safety. Do you not agree and regulating seatbelt use. I know the truth and sadly so do you. However I will ask you to answer me this question, when Congress consist of members who believe in the Second Amendment how do you ever think that the government, which of course consist of you and me, could ever go about taking all guns away from law-abiding citizen. They can’t and never will so stop making second grade arguments in an adult world.

        • Seat belt requirements and restrictions on the second amendment? Amusing that you don’t see the difference. You of course support reasonable restrictions on the sacred right of abortion, don’t you Billy boy?

        • Yes Bill, our guns can be taken away. The simple fact is it can be done through laws and the slow erosion of the 2nd amendment. As law abiding citizens when laws are passed, most of us comply. Furthermore, I doubt they would come in the form of true “buybacks” or “bans”. They would simply make it illegal to manufacture or sell a certain category of firearm I.E. the NFA, GCA, GOPA, to name but a few. Heavily restricting suppressors hasn’t had any impact on crime or homicide yet I have to jump through hoops to get one. Heavily restricting “Assault Weapons” had no discernible impact on crime, yet was imposed on me against my will in the name of public safety. Why?

          Progressive Liberals believe to the core that all firearms are bad and all those that possess them are equally maligned. Coming to our place of discussion and claiming that nobody can “Answer your simple questions” and shouting others down only seeks to prove that you, not us, is the one who can’t comprehend logic and is only interested in a one sided discussion. Go home Bill, you’re drunk.

        • Hey Bloomberg Troll, we already have regulations on guns. Lots of them. Vastly more far-reaching than those governing speed limits, food and seatbelts.

          But no, I don’t agree with government regulating speed limits, food or seatbelts, either.

        • Bill, read the NY State S.A.F.E. act. Those are the first guns they are confiscating. It will not be their last try.

        • “I am beginning to think this has more to do with race then the second amendment.”

          Why is that?

          Please tell me.

        • Bill, there are many examples of high-ranking politicians, and not all of them Democrats, saying they want to confiscate guns. I’m not just talking about paranoid right-wing Fox News interpretations of unclear or unintentional statements, I’m talking actual context appropriate quotes. They abound if you search for them.

          But one need only look at the current proposal to expand prohibition on gun ownership to anyone on the terror watch list to see a very real possibility of an attempted confiscation. Here’s a possible example: Picture yourself as a lawful gun owner. Because you’re responsible and law-abiding, you have dutifully filed 4473s for each firearm you own when you purchased them. You don’t agree with unregulated private sales, or maybe you live in a state where they’re not legal anyway, so you’ve had a proper background check each time. You’ve never even had a traffic ticket on your record, you don’t associate with any suspicious persons, you’re a church-going, freedom-loving, service-giving American, and proud to be so. You donate to worthy causes, volunteer at community events, and coach your kids’ soccer team. You are a fine example of what the all-American dad should be.

          One day, you decide to fly somewhere. Maybe it’s just to the next state over because you would rather not drive. You go online, purchase your ticket, and download your itinerary. You go to the airport and attempt to check in. Suddenly the TSA screener asks you to follow her, please, so you step out of line. You follow her to a room. She leaves you there. 8 hours later, after extensive questioning by police, FBI, and maybe one or two private security personnel, you’re allowed to go home. Sorry, you missed your flight and will not be refunded or reimbursed. When you get home, you find your door broken in with a warrant taped to it. You enter your house to find it in shambles; all cupboards are open, all drawers are dumped out. Your gun safe has been cut open and is emptied, and your ammunition locker is too.

          Fast forward 5 years. You still don’t have your guns back. You still can’t fly. You can’t buy any more guns. You can’t even get anyone to confirm whether you’re on the terror-watch list or why.
          How did this happen? In 2016, the Federal Government passed a law removing the right to firearm ownership from those on any terror watch list. Bill, you have multiple 4473 forms filed over a 3 or 4 year period. You searched for ammunition online, and had some delivered to your home. You posted a picture on your Facebook of you with a firearm, and you even sought professional training. Each time you entered a 4473, a little flag was added to your file in the huge data center in Utah. Each time you read a firearm-related article, another one was added. Each time you searched for and purchased ammunition online, more flags. And since many terrorists have used firearms, firearms can be related to terrorist activity; Since firearms = terrorist activity, commenting on a firearms blog = active support for terrorism. This, combined with your previous flags, constitutes more than adequate evidence to add you to the terror watch list.

          This is how it happens. It will not be a sudden knock on the door in the night. It will not be a house-to-house search. It will be individually, secretly, and slowly, with no explanation given or options for recourse. And it will happen because we traded freedom for the illusion of safety.

        • Since I can’t reply to your comment above, I’ll ask here: who is the “we” you refer to above, as in “all WE are saying..” in the comment above? Just so we all know who “we” really is?

    • It wasn’t long ago that I could have any non-NFA firearm mail ordered to my doorstep. No form 4473 required, no permits, none, and the mass/school shootings we see today were nonexistent back then. The problem isn’t guns and imaginary “loopholes”, it’s the forty-year downward spiral in parenting culture that desperately needs to be fixed. And the driving force behind any progressive scheme is based entirely on coercing Americans to embrace life as a weak-willed, guilt-ridden collective instead of self-reliant, rugged individuals with inalienable rights. Every gun-related death is now billed as “our” responsibility even though it really isn’t. It’s the same lie told over and over again, and you’ve been duped into believing it.

    • California has no loopholes, has all the background checks, a registry for handguns and long guns, a ban on ‘assault weapons’ and standard capacity magazines, and many additional restrictions that far exceed ‘common sense’.

      So what of these ‘common sense’ measures would have stopped something like this?

    • “As someone who claims to be just like you guys, let me tell you how great the gun-grabbers’ simple, common sense ideas are!”

      You know, if you’re going to pretend you’re not part of the anti-gun astroturf effort, you should at least learn not to parrot their script word-for-word. You’re embarrassing yourself.

  8. I think shooting back would make it a bit harder for attackers to harm you.
    But that’s too easy and doesn’t infringe on anyone’s liberty so….

  9. So that means they have hard evidence these people bought their guns through a gun show dealer wearing a tan trenchcoat without a background check the day before, right? Or is it another case of illegal guns that couldn’t be stopped, tracked, or detected being used in a premeditated crime? Or could it be these people jumped through all the current hoops and used legally owned guns in a premeditated crime? No matter what this was a premeditated criminal plot and that is never the focus. They focus on the tool and not the criminal because they’re all about removing responsibility from people.

    • Apparently some of the guns were legally purchased and some were (illegal) straw purchases.

      Shockingly, California’s laws on background checks were unable to stop the Muslim terrorists who gunned down 35 people from obtaining the straw purchase guns.

  10. California already has all of the “common sense gun safety” laws that they have been wailing about. I find it funny that they aren’t mentioning the details for those laws they want to see. Maybe because what they wanted was in effect in CA and impotent to prevent bad people from doing bad things.

  11. It’s the same bs as their approach to “climate change”. Deprive those you can control (guns,fossil fuels) and allow the real violators (Terrorists,China & India) to continue unfettered. I believe the 2016 election is the Alamo, provided our chances are even that good.

  12. One thing that a lot of people I don’t think take into account is that back when we had far more lenient gun control laws, we didn’t have these .as shootings. What that means is that the mass shootings must be being caused by something else. It used to be where you could have an automatic fire Tommy gun shipped right to your front door, no background check, no FFL, no magazine capacity limitations, no n I thing. After JFK was shot, Congress stopped mail order sales of guns, but you still could buy them automatic fire without a background check. The limitations on automatic fire didn’t come until 1986, and the background check system of course didn’t come until the early 1990s. Yet mass shootings have only spiked in the last ten years or so, and in this case, it seems that radical Islam is the main culprit.

    • Not quite true there, machine guns have been as restricted since 1934 as they are today. The only thing that’s changed is you can’t but new ones anymore. Or ones made after May, 1986.

  13. FBI says they could not rule out terrorism as a motive. Gee, has an act of random holiday kindness been ruled out?

  14. 1. His statement doesn’t say stop threats, just make it harder. So he uses weasel words to say: it won’t really work.

    2. The Detroit police chief has called attention to their armed citizens as a form of deterence.

    3. Anyone out there with spare time able to look up Detroit crime rates since the police chief called for citizens to arm themselves? Normally I would do it but I barely have time to read articles on this site right now.

  15. Well the ‘problem’ really is the guns, as in, not enough of them in the right hands.
    But his ‘solutions’ move the needle in the wrong direction.

  16. Fools will call for gun control.

    Intelligent people are already armed and prepared.

    NO!, Obama is not stupid, he is a Marxist revolutionary with malicious intent, trying to destroy the USA as we have known it. He knows exactly what he is doing and he is doing it!

    The actors in this event were Islamic jhadist on a mission from God. “True” Kioranic Islam is a Satanic blood cult.

    Obama and the Islamist know what they want and are organized and on track. It is our side that is disorganized!!

  17. You know, for a second there, as I was reading the quote about making it hard, I thought, just maybe he’s going to say that we need to make ourselves hard targets, then I read the rest and sighed disparagingly. How do we convince our politicians, mass media, and activist groups that being a victim is a bad thing?

  18. Tooled up to the hilt-they had lots of help. NOTHING says al kay-duh or isis like a married terrorist couple. Look for a big run on guns. Merry Christmas!

  19. Obooma is partially right: “The Problem is Still the Guns”, just in the hands of Muslims. May be that guy in Florida who refuses to sell guns to Muslim has a point?

  20. So does Mr. Pres suggest it should be legal for me to carry at work? I mean if “workplace violence” is so bad then someone should be armed right?

    • I was wondering when someone else came to the same conclusion about Obonzo and his no visible terrorist threats on the horizon, smooth sailing ahead mentality.
      What me worry?

  21. Obonzo is a gun control Chatty Kathy with a string attached to his back that has a box that states gun control slogans.

  22. Dudes get radicalized in Saudi and the prez says the problem is it’s too easy for people with bad intentions to do bad things, so we need to make it harder to defend ourselves, wtf? Run, hide and then fight, with a stick or a chair or maybe a spare flip flop.

  23. These shooters virtually broke every California gun control law in a government “Gun Free Zone” building.
    California has the strictest gun control laws for any state in the union, according to the Brady Campaign.
    – You cannot own an assault weapon without a class 1 license (virtually impossible to get without owning a gun store or being a manufacture):
    – There are magazine capacity limits.
    – Background checks on every gun purchase and transfers.
    – Registration is required for every gun.
    – No open carry.
    – Mandatory safety class and safety license before owning a handgun (which has to be renewed every year.)
    – For conceal carry you have to apply for an additional license and pass several gun safety classes.
    – Can’t be in possession of a gun within 1000 feet near any government building or school. (You can be charge with a felony if you get caught if the gun is not locked in a government approved case.)
    How is more gun control going to stop a planned terrorist attack.
    Second, mass shooting in United States is about the same per capita as in most 1st world nations.
    Source: http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screenshot-6_18_2015-9_43_12-PM.jpg
    Taken from Harvard: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/
    Other 1st world nations have even stricter gun control laws than any state in the US. The reason we have higher number of mass shooting is because we are the largest by population and size for all 1st world countries.
    And most gun deaths in the US are caused by police.

Leave a Reply

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