On Twitter, the White House’s feed was live posting some of the better comments from President Obama’s speech earlier this evening. One comment in particular is getting a ton of attention from Twitter followers, namely the comment questioning what possible reason someone could give to allow people on the “terrorist watchlist” to purchase guns. We have already discussed that in detail, but I gotta admit reading these Tweets is giving me the warm fuzzies that there are still some people who understand the Constitution and civil rights.

85 Responses to Twitter Reacts to Obama’s Demand to Strip Due Process Rights from Gun Owners

  1. I had written this to my Congress Critters earlier.
    The Islamic terror attacks in California and France prove that Islam is not a peaceful religion.
    The Islamic attacks prove that women can and will kill for Islam.
    The Islamic attacks prove that hosting Muslim refugees is dangerous.
    The FBI has stated that Islamic Centers in the USA are also Terror Centers.
    The Islamic attacks have proven that the unconstitutional NSA wiretapping does not work.
    The Islamic attacks in California and France proves that gun control laws and no fly lists do not work.
    Islamic attacks in Paris and San Bernardino both occurred in gun free zones and in areas with strict gun control.
    While gun ownership has risen, crime has generally gone down…except for violence in gun free zones.
    The no fly lists are unconstitutional as there is no due process of law.
    Basing gun buying prohibition from no fly lists is unconstitutional as there is no due process of law.
    Banning military type guns is unconstitutional as those are the guns protected by the 2A. Most of the military features are more cosmetic than functional. Who determines if the gun is military grade? Ithaca 37 shotguns used by Navy SEALs makes them a military grade weapon?
    Basing the security threats of the USA on Tea Party members versus Islamic Centers for political correctness have proven to be dangerous.
    Loretta Lynch defending Muslims at the expense of American free speech is ridiculous.
    President Obama constantly sweeping Islamic terrorism under the rug is dangerous.

    • “The Islamic terror attacks in California and France prove that Islam is not a peaceful religion.”

      Any statement that Islam is a peaceful religion is a mis-quote. The correct statement is that Islam is a religion of peace. That is to say, the Arabic word islam means, literally, submission. The concept of peace as promoted in the Muslim faith is that of a world where all persons submit to Allah and his representatives on Earth through total submission, or all enemies of the faithful are killed – that is the peace they talk of. When there are no more infidels or unbelievers to kill or convert or force into submission, then there will be peace.

    • Root of the problem:
      The violent parts of the Quran and Hadiths (Islamic scriptures) and the people who choose to follow them literally.

      There are more peaceful practitioners of Islam (Muslims) than there are violent ones. Can they reclaim their religion from the extremists? Can they somehow stamp out this violent reading of the faith?

      Christianity *used* to NOT be a religion of peace (burning women who were thought to be witches, the Spanish Inquisition, etc…), but it’s practitioners eventually made it into a religion of peace (at least 99.9% peaceful). Could the same thing happen with Islam?

        • They aren’t “taking back” their religion, they may be trying to drag those who actually follow it, kicking and screaming, into the the modern world. Finally. Or not, the Qu’ran and the Hadith are replete with instructions on how it is morally right to lie to the Infidels to eventually institute the worldwide caliphate. Please read the garbage these people believe before pretending to understand what they are actually doing.

          The reality is that after 1400 years, there is not one place on planet earth with any measurable Muslim presence that is close to civilized – in context of Western Civilization. Not that we’re perfect, but we’re far better than the animals and their honor killings, acid in the face of women, religious police, stonings of ‘adulterers’, stonings of rape victims (they asked for it), and the rest of the religion-driven behaviors of these barbarians. Quit making excuses, the problem is Islam, pure and simple. Always was, always will be.

          Every single place where there are significant Muslim populations is a human rights s-hole. Every. Single. One. These so-called “moderates” are never in charge. Ever. Anywhere. So please, go find some of these aetheral ‘moderates’. See which one of them stands up for you while you’re walking the streets of your own country, through some place where the Muslims have been allowed to populate en masse. Ask Londoners and Parisians how it feels to be assaulted in their own country by some “refugee” who believes that your girlfriend should be dressed in hijab, so as not to offend them.

          Hundreds and hundreds of vids on YT of these animals assaulting the rightful citizens of the EU. Spare us the mythology and propaganda that the ‘moderates matter. They never matter.

          This is no less than the battle for civilization. Pick a side.

        • @16V – so what’s your solution then? You have offered no solution. I have. Do you want to kill 1.6 billion Muslims? Try to get them all to become atheists?

          In all of those places you mention that are getting spoiled by extremist muslims, you are right. But most of them are moderates and do want to assimilate.

          BTW, there are 2.6 million muslims in the U.S., I guess the U.S. then is an uncivilized shithole.

          I’m not defending Islamic extremism, I think every single ISIS member should be shot in the face today.

        • Bob R, I’m not offering that we must kill 1.6B Muslims, but we likely may need to kill a very decent percentage if we are to continue to have a civilization that we find civilized.

          Those countries (every single Islamic one) are ruined by believers. They aren’t “extremists”, they are the people who actually follow the Qu’ran and the Hadith. That’s not extreme, it’s following the brainwashing of 5 times-per-day submission training based on the self-motivated writings of a primitive warlord.

          I have friends who believe they’re “Muslim” just like I have friends who believe they’re “Christian”. The thing is, that none of them actually follow any of the rules of their particular scriptures. They pick a few warm-fuzzies that they have exactly in common with secular humanists, and ignore the rest. That’s great. But it does nothing to manage the ‘believers’.

          The “solution” for the US (if there is one) is to only allow them in very small numbers so as to force assimilation in a couple of generations. Allowing them in any quantity allows for the thought that they can bring their primitive “culture” to the US, and we should somehow “tolerate” it. Or worse, welcome it. These huge batches of refugees will be a massive financial burden on us – they’re useless as we have no railroads to construct, or wilderness to cut down. They bring nothing but generations of expense to the citizen-taxpayer. The bonus being they don’t want to assimilate – they want to live their barbarian religion here too. Islam is a way of life, not something you do as a social construct one day a week.

          The stated fundamental goal of Islam is to take over the world. That’s when the ‘peace; it talks about will happen. When we all live like 8th century animals.

      • @ Bob R. Your quote: “Christianity *used* to NOT be a religion of peace (burning women who were thought to be witches, the Spanish Inquisition, etc…), but it’s practitioners eventually made it into a religion of peace (at least 99.9% peaceful).”

        I disagree. The difference between Muslims killing for their religion and Christians killing for their religion is this: Christianity does not advocate for or support killing, Christ taught to “Love your neighbor as yourself”.

        Islam advocates for what we call murder, here are just three examples of many:
        – Quran 2:191-193 “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”
        http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php#002.191

        – Quran 8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
        http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/008-qmt.php#008.012

        – Quran 8:39 – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah”
        http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/008-qmt.php#008.039

        In short, a Christian who murders is violating God’s will, and is not following Jesus. A Christian who shows others God’s love is living as Christ desires. Yes, there have been those who have killed in the name of Christianity; they have not been true to their religion in doing so.

        A Muslim who murders (only those who the Quran says it is okay, and in the specific grace period) is doing the will of Allah. A Muslim who DOES NOT murder the Az-Zalimun, infidels, and those who have converted from Islam; DOES NOT follow the will of Allah. Not my words, just the words of Muhammad.

        Many other examples can be found in the Quran, they can be found very easily through this link: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

        • You can cherry pick similar good and bad things in both the bible and Quran. What is going on here is that there are extremists cherry picking the bad parts of the Quran and acting on them. Some Christians used to do that but that had stopped.

        • @BoB R you HAVE to cherry pick the Bible to make it say other than what the entirety of the message is, which is “Love God, Love your neighbor” The Bible also says this is IMPOSSIBLE for men, which is why we look to Jesus for success and salvation and not a human leader.

          The message of the Qu’ran is “Kill the infidels” no matter which way you read it. You must ignore context and cherry pick the Qu’ran to make it say anything else. The word for “LOVE” is not even IN the Qu’ran. At all. AT. ALL.

        • Christianity has always been a peaceful religion. Christians themselves have not always been peaceful and the description of God himself in his actions wasn’t per se peaceful, but the Bible and teachings of Jesus do not advocate slaughtering people like we find with Islam.

          Some of the things Christianity is criticized for, such as the Crusades, are due to misconceptions, for example the Crusades were a defensive action taken against what had been centuries of constant Muslim conquest at the time. Christianity and the Bible also played a very large role in the development of the political philosophy than underlies Western civilization, such as the right of people to resist a tyranny and the idea that humans do not have to answer to kings on this Earth.

        • If Christians followed JC what you say would ring true. JC said “love is the fulfilling of the law.” “You no longer have to follow the Ten Commandments…..paraphrased here.”
          The Sermon on the Mount. The Beatitudes. Perfect way to be with God and man.

          Who spits out the vitriol? Those that go back to Isaiah and Ezekiel. Those who say from the Old Testament, “God is a vengeful God.” You can’t do it both ways. Women just got the vote and Americans can’t admit that Blacks are equal and that they abused them. So I don’t see the expression of Jesus love. I see a people who for the most part have left their bad behind but are easily led astray like the Hebrews by politicians who say things that are not what Jesus would say.

          Our problems, Our problems, are not simple and can’t be fixed by declaring a whole people our enemy. Jesus never spoke ill of any religion.

      • Christianity isn’t represented as a religion of war. Its a religion of faith. Just because some stupid and extremist motherfuckers during the crusades and spanish inquisitions didnl some God awful shit, doesn’t make them the ambassadors to the faith. No where in the Bible does it tell Christians to murder and/or convert or kill. No where. Don’t believe me, read it. Evangelical or non denominational Christianity follows strictly from the Bible and does not deviate from it like the crusaders and pilgrims burning wotches. That shit is whack and has never been in the Bible.

        In Islam jihad and murder or convert of other faiths is mandetory. It is literally in their doctrine. Simple as that. Theyre not radical islamists if they do, theyre just the ones who practice what they preach.

    • It really doesn’t matter if it’s a “peaceful religion” or not.

      What matters is the extent to which the practitioners are willing to pick and choose and discard the parts that say it’s okay to murder other people for faith. We know there’s literally millions (and millions!) of people who self-identify as Muslims who are willing to do that. You pass by them every day. They’re insulated against radicalization because why would they give up their iProducts and their white picket fence houses to go innacave and fight drones somewhere?

      So really, at what percentage of bad apples will you throw out the barrel? Think carefully, because the antis will use it on us.

  2. There’s this *weird* thing…..it’s a really ‘goofy’ thing, actually…probably came from another planet or sum such…..it’s called “due process”.

    It means that the government can’t simply label you an “a$$hole”, and then point to that arbitrary label as proof that ‘you are in fact an a$$hole’.

  3. I’m continually amazed that a former Constitutional scholar seems to have so little regard for the Constitution.

    Fifth Amendment; “[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ”
    Fourteenth Amendmant; “[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law “

    • Again, he was and is no “Constitutional scholar”; he was a part-time lecturer in Con Law at some second-tier law school.

      • The University of Chicago is a “second tier law school”? Really? In 2014 it was ranked number 3 behind Harvard and Stanford. It has long been a top tier law school. And according to the school:

        “From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

    • He may have been a constitutional scholar, but to paraphrase W.C. Fields, he was most likely “Just lookin’ for a loophole.”

  4. we should not have to explain the plain words of the Constitution of the United States of America to our elected officials. At any level, at any place or at any time!. They do have lawyers to explain such things to them.a

    These are sad time with ignoramuses if not idiots, at the highest positions of government.

    If they are going to be sheep guarding us against the wolves of the world, we must at least have the tools to be our own watchdogs when they have abdicated their responsibilities.

    • “These are sad time with ignoramuses if not idiots, at the highest positions of government. “

      Dave S, they are neither ignoramuses nor idiots. They know full well what they are saying, and that it flies in the face of the Constitution.

      They do not care. They don’t care that it flies in the face of the Constitution, and they don’t care about the Constitution or what it says.

      The US Constitution is an impediment to them. They could easily enact their Utopia if only the US Constitution were more broadly ignored. The Constitution is a barrier…interestingly, exactly as it was intended to be…to their tyranny.

      They are counting on the ignorance of the US population to accept their notions of how things should be and how the Constitution should be interpreted.

      Why do you think they (the Progressives/Communists) have fought so hard for control of the public school system? How much actual US History do you think is taught in public schools these days? These are no accidents.

      • Sad but true. As flabbergasting as it is (and should be), it is a shot across the bow, a signal willingness to rely on voters who don’t care or are too dumb or stricken by partisan angst to know the difference, people who will opt for full government control of our rights and people who are already in mental goose step formation.

    • The government claims to uphold the constitution and protect us from having our rights violated, yet they are by far the most egregious violators.

  5. Huh, looks like some Americans know more about this “Constitution” thingey than the “Constitutional Scholar”

  6. Win-win concept for Obie.
    If a Republican dominated Congress doesn’t grossly violate the Constitution, the press will rip them for the next 11 months.

    If a Republican dominated Congress does grossly violate the Constitution, the people who normally vote R will destroy the GOP.

  7. translated the bullshit out of Obamas latest oval office address.
    You see, America has these freedoms, and we need to take them away to protect you from terrorists. These terrorists want to install a terrible dictatorship and take away American freedoms, so we need to take your freedoms away so they can’t do this.

    Now onto to ISIL, we armed them, and trained and supported them, now they are the bad guys, so now we’ll train these other guys, who will totally be different this time, I promises.

    Our strategy to defeat ISIL is to do the same thing Bush did, but it’s different cause I’m not him.
    I’m gonna give these overfunded inefficient government agencies more power to comb through your private communications cause it will totally saves you from the terrorists! Even though the California terrorists publicly declared their allegiance to ISIS on social media, and we couldn’t catch that.

    Now, I need Congress to go ahead and suspend the fifth amendment rights of people with absolutely no due process because they are on a list that includes 4 and 8 year olds and the FBI admits 40% of the list is completely wrong. Even though these two terrorists in California weren’t on the list anyway.

    I don’t get how people could argue against my tyrannical methods of suspending your rights under the constitution with absolutely zero oversight. Cue the buzzwords ;powerful’ assault weapons, you know those guns that are banned for hunting anything larger than varmints in some states because they aren’t powerful. Remember the guns in California were already illegal, we need to make them more illegal. Gun safety! I don’t know what it means. We suck at preventing terrorism and because of that you need to give up all your rights to me. We can take the guns away and they’ll just be stuck with the dozen pipe bombs they built.

    Now finally we need to go back to war on the ground in Iraq because it worked really good last time. We will not economically sanction or punish the financiers of terrorism, cause they my buds

  8. Nick, Robert, Dan, et al, thanks for watching the POS, I mean POTUS tonight to keep us informed.
    I was out buying a gun so I missed it.

  9. Replace the term “suspected terrorist” with “suspected communist” and let the lefties frame our arguments for us.

    • Hmm darn. All the Twitter comments said 72 DHS employees on the list. I thought that was much funnier, since isn’t that the number of virgins awaiting certain folk when they enter heaven?

  10.  I hate terrorism as much as the next guy but I believe in our constitution. Where will the ACLU be on the violation of the 5th, 6th and 9th Amendment in the name of “safety”.

    • The aclu is not a valid civil rights org. NRA has more right to claim the title of a civil rights activists group than the aclu.

      • You’re just mad the ACLU defends people against your preferred flavors of government criminality. 🙂

        • Well if they do anything at all to help one person they’ve done more than you. Funny how you liberal left statists have no problem making up fantasies about us pro 2a types.

        • Your disdain for the ACLU exactly fits with one kind of pro-2A stereotype. No fantasy needed, thanks to you. 🙂

        • The suit doesn’t appear to have anything to do with 2a rights. Just the aclu wanting people to be able to appeal their inclusion to the list.

          When the aclu starts filing regular suits that are pro 2a I’ll review my opinion of them. You’re still a left wing statist. And if you support the aclu you’re also anti 2a.

          But I’ve never doubted your pedigree. Anti 2a, pro jihadi. Just surprises me that you haven’t made loud proclamations of support for the san berdoo terrorists.

        • “Only 2A issues are civil rights. Nothing else matters.”

          This is how stupid you sound. 🙂

          You might be interested to know that the ACLU worked with the NRA to prevent the creation of a gun owners registry. But it sounds like your government animal mind is already made up.

          Also, the government murderer calling others statists. The irony, it is too much.

        • Wow. OMG. You really are afraid of letting the real trannysoreass out, aren’t you. The thought of having to own those pro jihadi, anti American screeds is causing the yellow stuff to run down your legs.

          Wait. Has that plumbing van been sitting outside on your street since the san berdoo jihad?

          This is too funny. 🙂

        • Ah. The ACLU is “pro jihadi, anti American” because they dare to fight against baseless surveillance, extended detention without charges, extraordinary rendition into black sites run by foreign torturers, and kangaroo courts run by the Pentagon with no civilian oversight.

          2A stereotype fulfilled. You are the delusional sheepdog. 🙂

          Keep fooling yourself, Mr. “Only gun rights are civil rights”. I provided multiple links on instances where the ACLU did indeed defend gun rights. Where’s your proof of the ACLU being “pro jihadi”, or “anti American” (whatever that means)? Be a big boy and post it.

        • I never said the aclu was pro jihadi. I said you were. In your multiple personalities. Blane cooper. Whacko biker. Good riddunce. More ded soldiers.

          If you was pinnochio your nose would reach across time zones and state lines.

          Anti American is self explanatory. You’ve stated numerous times you were happy American soldiers were being killed and cheered the jihadis doing the killing. It don’t get more anti American than that.

        • Nice! Change the subject when you’ve been exposed as the fraudulent defender of liberty that you are. One moment we’re talking about the ACLU, the next second you whine about someone else entirely. Get BTFO. 🙂

          What have you done more than the ACLU to defend gun rights? How is your doctrinaire defense of the government defending 2A when 2A exists for people to defend themselves against the same government?

        • WTF? Now you’ve gone completely mental. Not that you were too tightly wrapped to start with. When your meds take effect we’ll try again. ( Could this be an attempt to prime an insanity defense on your part?)

  11. A no fly list parable.

    Pakistani immigrant Sayed Farook, no not the dead terrorist, has a 7-11 in a sketchy neighborhood. Now that #blacklivesmatter the police have told him he’s on his own. Sayed goes down to his LGS to buy a gun to protect himself and his business but for some strange reason he is turned down.

    Next evening 6’5″ 275lb Juwon the gangbanger and his buddy Jamel show up and grab some Arizona Ice Tea and Skittles. Juwon decides he doesn’t like Mr. Farook and proceeds to beat him into a vegetative state.

    In ensuing investigation it is discovered that Mr. Farook was inadvertently placed on the no fly list because he had the same name as a dead terrorist. In a further irony Sayed Farook left Pakistan because he converted to Christianity.

    Unbelievable? Maybe, but it is still more likely than prohibiting someone on the no fly list from buying a gun will stop a terrorist attack.

    • The ACLU is currently litigating a lawsuit on the lack of transparency and inability to appeal the no-fly list. This was filed long before the so-called guardians of the Constitution in the 2A camp started to care about the issue last night.

  12. Here’s a thought…. criminals need to be convicted of a felony before losing their right to buy and own firearms, but average citizens only need to have the same name as somebody suspicious on a list?

  13. If the president doesn’t understand the constitution, it’s like your driver not knowing what a brake pedal does.

    I want off this bus.

      • Even if the current driver is thrown bodily off the bus and a more capable person takes the wheel, the bus is still dangerously close to plunging off a cliff.

        It might be better to just bail, than hold on and hope for the best.

        • Personally, I think the bus company is ripe for buyout by a private equity firm. Use the big broom, no golden parachutes for the CEO or board members.

  14. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because administrative fiat always gets used to keep the down people down, just like, oh, I don’t know, Jim Crow.”

    — A white guy who remembers how Jim Crow worked. Let’s not enable that again, OK?

  15. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because in a country where entire neighborhoods are “occupied” under arbitrary law enforcement, giving the gendarmes more discretionary power, without review is not such a good idea.”

    — I Guy Who’s Seen a Lot of Protests This Year

  16. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because it’s wrong to suspect, and especially punish someone on flimsy evidence, beyond review, or so I’ve been told lately, about a great many groups of people.”

    — A citizen who’s been paying attention.

  17. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because the same people who want to say: ‘You are a terrorist, no guns for you!’ didn’t know the San B shooters were terrorists.”

    — I question your ability to identify who’s on what team.

  18. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because this administration has called about 100,000,000(*) citizens who never harmed, nor threatened to harm, anyone ‘terrorists..”

    — I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    (*) Administration officials and spokes-things, directly calling non-violent US citizens terrorists, or their activities terrorism. I’m not even counting belligerent Harry, the over-the-top DNC chair, or the cheerleaders and proxies. Google is your friend. Look it up & add it up. It’s about 1/3 of the country.

  19. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because why in the h-e-double-toothpicks would you want to let an actual terrorist you haven’t swept up yet know you are on to them?”

    — We’re watching them to find their connections, right? Or so I’ve been told.

  20. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because ‘terrorist suspect’ includes school kids who build clocks, grandmas and Ted Kennedy.”

    — Ted Kennedy should probably be disarmed, but I’d like to see them try to disarm grandma.

  21. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because in this country, you have to make the case to *disallow* someone from doing what they want. I’ll wait.”

    — So, no argument needed.

  22. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Because you haven’t made your case for doing so. I’ll wait.”

    — Still waiting

  23. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “Not knowing the counter arguments demonstrates that you haven’t thought this through.”

    — Do your homework first. Then talk.

  24. Americans should be very concerned about this. Besides the due process issues, what else would the President like to prevent people on the watch list(s) from doing?

    The most dangerous weapon that Farook, et. al. had on Monday was not their AR-15s, it was the SUV they were driving.

    What’s next; banning people on the watch list(s) from obtaining driver’s licenses? Buying motor vehicles? Riding on any form of public or private transportation?

    Maybe the Govrrnment will also ban them from food, drug, and home improvemrnt stores po prevent them from obtaining materials for IEDs.

  25. They love to cite that number of “2,000 people on the terror watch list were able to purchase guns.” But one glaringly-absent statistic is how many of them actually used those particular guns to commit crimes (let alone terrorism). I’m not saying that none of them did, I’m only saying that if it’s a significant number, then they should be citing that number to support their argument. If the number is insignificant (or zero), then they have no argument.

  26. Certainly someone like Ted Kennedy could use his political clout to straighten out the “no-fly list” mess he was in. But what hope do us mere mortals have of getting off such lists?

  27. “What could pozsibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi automatic weapon.”

    “Nixon kept an enemies list.”

    — Just sayin

  28. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

    — The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

    “It’ll get more people killed than it might save?”

    — What are the counts here?

  29. All anyone really had to say is…

    The Fifth Amendment!!!

    But lets not forget the hundreds of people placed on the list unjustly and for no reason. Grandma’s and two year old children. Law abiding college students. The no fly list has been flawed since its inception and it is damn near impossible to get your name off of it even when theres no cause for your name to be there in the first place.

Leave a Reply

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