Mr. President, Please Ignore the Constitution: Quote of the Day



  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    Nothing screams first world quite like a bunch of people complaining they have too much liberty and asking their government to take it away.

    1. avatar N64456 says:

      Stealing this!

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Ditto. Except I’ll change “asking” to either “demanding” or “begging”.

        1. avatar Extractor says:

          Right. These kids need to suck it up and walk it off. They have no clue how the real world works. Time for them to stop their bitching, get a gun and man up. This is America damn it!

        2. avatar California Richard says:

          Hey Extractor, you need to put *sarc* at the end of your comments, otherwise people who don’t know you will think you are right wing insane instead of left wing insane.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      … and by using a smart phone, which they didn’t design, and don’t understand, to do this.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Moral panics are great places for people to engage in virtue signalling. It makes them feel good about themselves because they’ve “done something” and all their friends will see that they’re on the “right” side of something. And, having publicly announced how virtuous and morally upright they are, their sense of self-pride is embarrassing. The whole thing just seems more than a little tawdry.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        “tawdry”? I’d say; “childish”, or perhaps “infantile”. Like a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way. Complete with kicking and screaming.
        But tawdry works too…

    4. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      They had no plans to use it anyway.

    5. avatar Anonymous says:

      Epic. Perfect. I’m going to use this later. And it’s so true.

  2. avatar Hal J. says:

    No doubt they only want a “common sense” “first step”.

    Funny how they never say what the final step is…..

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      They don’t need to specify the Final Solution because we all know what it is.

      Human history unequivocally demonstrates that human beings have a nasty habit of coalescing on some set of shared values and then seeking to eliminate everyone else who disagrees.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      How about this for a first step….

      Starting from the lowest-level FBI idiot who ignored the Jan5 citizen tip, FIRE every single supervisior, overseer, manager, and executive all the up through the the chain to Wray (and of coarse Wray).

      Make it crsytal clear that there is no safe middle management harbor from doing your job correctly.

      2nd step……Also announce that this is the new quality enforcement procedure for all Federal government agencies.

      Remember that idiot EPA dude that caused the multi-million gallon leak into some river…same procedure…fire every person in the chain from that lunk head up to the EPA chief at the time.

      1. avatar Michael in AK says:


  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The only sensible solution to stop school shootings is to end g un free zones.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      This, exactly.

      The president CAN act. He can do something. He can direct that we take reasonable, common-sense actions to reduce school shootings — like endorsing volunteer armed security guards at schools, and paid school officers at schools that can afford it. Just like air marshals. And at the minimum, he can direct that we stop prohibiting capable, trained, licensed individuals from being able to stop a mass slaughter in process.

      Those are common-sense, reasonable actions that absolutely WILL help reduce the loss of life in school shooting scenarios.

      Under that guise, I concur with the Post’s cover page: Mr. President, PLEASE ACT.

      Do what you can with your pen and your phone.

      If Trump were to stop school shootings from being so disastrous, it would undercut the left’s braying and whinnying about gun control entirely.

      Go, Trump, go.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Actually, the president can not do those things. That would require him to use executive orders to tell the government to stop enforcing their current laws. That is illegal.

        No, Congress needs to act to solve this problem. Read the article by Florida Carry above. The federal government (US Congress and Senate) needs to do the same things.

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      That right there.

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Mr. President, Please Ignore the Constitution: . . . ”

    There’s too many stupid MFs in our Legislative and Judicial branches that tell us every day that they need to be removed, under the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and we don’t want to have to waste a second with the last sentence of the first Paragraph of that Declaration, when we choose to, cause frankly they don’t deserve it.

  5. avatar DerryM says:

    Do not ask for something you consistently fail/refuse to define specifically. Tell us exactly what you mean by “sensible gun control” . The only “sensible gun control” is hitting what you are aiming at….if you want a meme, try this one:
    “We need dedicated, effective security on every school campus to help stop the slaughter.” FIFY.

    1. avatar Rosco says:

      I stumbled here accidently as i was meant to be visiting the sister site to this truthaboutcars.

      I couldn’t help but post here as its a really intriging situation.

      As a New Zealander we have some strict but sensible gun laws which most notably restict the ownership of military weapons to the general population. Why would USA not do the same? Why does any normal person need to own an assault rifle? Protection? If it is for protection then i understand but i hope that the owners of these types of weapons are honest to themselves when they answer ‘yes’ to that question.

      I hope its not that there are a bunch of ‘Rambo’s’ on here that just want to own these weapons of war (unequivocally thats what they are) for the hell of it. Because it’s fun to shoot a mp5? Is that a good enough reason for kids and other innocent people getting killed by these legal to own weapons? It’s a real cultural difference that i just don’t get.

      Just my 2 cents.

      1. avatar ChiGurh18 says:

        Of course you don’t understand the cultural difference: You guys didn’t have a real Bill of Rights until 1990. Something we have had since 200 years ago. When you live in a nation that started off as a monarchy vs. a country which has been a Constitutional Republic since its inception, you’ll never understand why we rather die than give up our individual rights over ‘public safety’ of the state. That the exact definition of liberalism, the rights of the individual over the state.

        Just my 2 pennies.

        1. avatar Rosco says:

          Fair point.

          Hopefully there is a reduction in this stuff happening eventually. Public safety of the common population should be a right in any country regardless of size or rule.

      2. avatar DerryM says:

        Rosco, The Armalite Rifle 15 is strictly a semi-automatic rifle. It shares design, mechanical and cosmetic features with the M-16 (used by the U.S. Military and capable of full automatic fire). The AR 15 is used for hunting, competitive shooting, recreational shooting and self-defense and there are many variants including larger calibers, pistol calibers and rimfire calibers. The standard caliber is 5.56X45 NATO, and it can use .223 Remington, as well, which is very much like 5.56X45 NATO, but you don’t shoot 5.56X45 out of a rifle chambered exclusively for .223 Remington because it is not safe to do so.
        Certainly one can fire many rounds in succession from an AR 15 by releasing the trigger and depressing it again rapidly, as with any other semi-automatic rifle, such as the M1 Garand of WWII fame (a true Military Rifle and weapon of war). The AR 15, as owned by many Americans, is unequivocally not a weapon of war, but if you want to stick with that comparison, then no rifle, pistol or revolver and many shotguns would not qualify as weapons of war.

        Those sponsoring the poster at the heart of this posted article use the phrase “sensible gun control” to mask their real agenda which is to deny every ordinary person access to firearms altogether. The United States already has multiple National Firearms Regulations in effect as Law and there are literally no additional laws that would stop these senseless attacks and killings. Yet, the same persons adamantly refuse to advocate for providing effective Security Measures to protect our school children, which would put a stop to the majority of these incidents. Hence, I condemn them for their shameless hypocrisy.

        It is never what is in the killer’s hand one should fear, but what is in his heart and mind that goads him to wanton murder.

        Insofar as the “Rambo” rhetoric, firearms are like cars. Each model performs differently, presents different challenges and provides different levels of accomplishment. So, “Hell YES!” I own different firearms for their inherent fun and the enjoyment of learning about them, how to shoot them, how they are designed and constructed and how I can get the best “BANG for my buck” out of them. In 57 years of owning and shooting guns, no firearm I have owned was ever used to threaten or harm another Human Being (nor any other creature because I do not hunt), and I fully intend to keep it that way, God Willing.

        Hope you decide to visit TTAG again. Regards, DerryM

        1. avatar Rosco says:

          Fair enough Derry.

          It just seems like there has to be more done to keep these types of guns (or any gun I guess) out of certain peoples hands. That’s the good thing about over here is that there is little chance of running into anybody with a gun so I guess the need/desire to own a gun isn’t the same here. Other than farmers and hunters, the average person simply would have never considered getting a gun license and purchasing a gun. Just too much hassle for something that you would never need.

          Anyway I’m not really informed enough on this subject so I’ll leave ya all be! Cheers!

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          Cheers! Back at ya, Rosco!

        3. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

          @Rosco The failure in your assessment is that firearms aren’t the only way to kill a large number of people at once. Look up Timothy McVeigh. By banning guns – denying the vast majority of owners their rights – in an effort to deny the small few who would misuse them to kill innocents, you set yourself up for an endless litany of banning things – like pointy knives (see UK).

          Focusing efforts on an object, ANY object, isn’t going to stop anything.

      3. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

        All firearms are military in some manner. You’d have to outlaw 100% of all firearms if you wanted to ban “military” weapons. But that said, the right to keep and bear arms means the right to keep and bear the same basic weapons as the forces of the State. It does not mean a right to keep and bear weapons that the Almighty State deems “appropriate” for the lowly little subjects to possess. Arms, generally, are arms, i.e. tools of war and combat, whether they are being used to shoot an intruder into your home (if someone is trying to maim and/or kill you, that person has engaged in a state of war with you, meaning that you have the right to utilize weapons of war against that person), a militia suppressing an insurrection, fighting a tyranny, or repelling an invasion, or a professional military fighting a war.

      4. avatar Son of Alan says:

        Actually you New Zealanders can buy an AR15. Gun City in Christchurch and Auckland:

        1. avatar Rosco says:

          Wow, I stand corrected. I was honestly was unaware that you could buy these over here. That’s a serious looking gun.

        2. avatar ironicatbest says:

          @Roscoe. I think the confusion comes from other countries by the fact other countries don’t act in the capacity of ” world peace keepers” as the U.S. A vast population of Americans are war veterans, most vets liked to be armed. A major population of gun owners see violations of the second amendment as a start of the fall of the rest of the Constitution, it’s really not about the gun as much as what it represents, not death or power to kill, but a freedom won by wars fought. I believe it’s instilled in the American mindset a need to process weapons. Then there’s also this, there are so many firearms in this country, it could never be gun free, not in my lifetime anyway, due to that fact, and also crime escalates with populations, I am glad I too can be armed . dunno, might be we are all just a bunch of gun toting cowboys

      5. avatar Siorus says:


        In the conversations I have with people who aren’t US natives, the single concept that most of them find the most alien is that the government cannot be trusted.

        American governments, at all levels, from local to federal, pass laws where the intended outcome is not correlated to the stated purpose. California is an excellent example of this, with respect to both cars and guns. The CARB smog regulations are deliberately structured to make it difficult to impossible to keep older cars on the road, or to modify your car at all. As an example, the US-spec V8 W126 Mercedes had a 2-into-1 exhaust manifold setup; they had a Y pipe from both banks into a single pre-cat, and then into a single-in, dual-out cat.

        The ECE-code Euro-spec cars had a full dual exhaust system and about 40 horsepower more than the US spec cars did. Now, I could go on ebay, order up a set of euro exhaust manifolds, put modern, high-flow cats on it, and have an end product that produces fewer emissions than it did the day the car rolled off the showroom floor, that gets better fuel mileage, and which is absolutely, categorically illegal in California with absolutely no way to make it legal.

        Similarly, California’s “handgun safety registry” has been co-opted as a backdoor way to ban semiautomatic firearms entirely.

        Across the country, “may issue” CCW permits are denied to people unless they are wealthy and politically connected; I have it on good authority that the only way to get one in the county I used to live in in California was to make a five figure “donation” to the sheriff’s re-election campaign.

        You get the idea.

        And this is the crux of the issue: Nobody on the pro-gun side wants more deaths. We can’t give any ground because the people on the other side of this issue are disingenuous, manipulative liars whose modus operandi is the complete destruction of private firearm ownership. That’s not hyperbole or conjecture; their actions in places like NY, CA, and HI are conclusive proof of it. Every time we have “compromised” with them in the past, they have turned around and decided that the original compromise wasn’t good enough, and “more needs to be done.” At this point, they have no credibility and nobody on the pro-gun side is going to give them the time of day, consequences be damned, because we don’t do business with liars and cheats.

  6. avatar W says:

    Quick, make a tough law while emotions are raw and reasoning is absent.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Never let a crisis go to waste…

      GWV 1027 out!

  7. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    All the crying teenage girls in the world aren’t going to convince me to relinquish my freedoms. Get bent, bitches.

  8. avatar sound awake says:

    these infantile leftists fail to grasp the concept that if we start going down the road of ignoring the constitution guess what

    machine guns become legal in 20 states

    and abortion becomes illegal in about 30

    so be careful what you ask for snowflakes

    it may just happen

  9. avatar Stifan says:

    I agree that hardening soft targets are an easy first step. While this will probably get some very harsh rebuke – but what about treating semiauto rifles like pistols. I believe in most states only 21 yo can purchase a pistol. In TX can own a pistol prior to 21 but they can not purchase or carry.

    This allows time for these kids to mentally develop as well as have more history for evaluation. Having a daughter that is 25, I know she didn’t mentally mature until recently. Given Cruz had run ins with the local pd but never formally arrested – the police probably took pity on him because he was a kid. But those same behaviors as an adult would have resulted in an arrest and ultimately searchable records. Which would have precluded him from acquiring an AR. This would be something I would support.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      At 18, adults, and that’s what they are, can drive 4000 pound machines in public (which are inherently equally as dangerous as firearms when misused) and can fight and die for our country, and the subsequent freedoms you’re looking to suspend. Shameful suggestion.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Agreed. Either they are adults or arent.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Everything that TrueBorn said, plus…

      At 18 years old, by Constitutional amendment, they can vote for Senators, Representatives and the president and vice president, but you don’t think they’re old enough to be trusted with a rifle? And besides that, show me the part of the Second Amendment where it talks about how old “the people” need to be to have a right to keep and bear arms that the government is not allowed to infringe.

      I remember (a long time ago) when I was 18. I had a rifle. Nobody died.


      1. avatar binder says:

        Nobody died. So you are telling me that the whole year you were 18, no body in the world died from a firearms? WOW. No let me guess, you managed not to kill anyone. I bet lots of people drive drunk and nobody dies. Try another argument.

        1. avatar Mercury says:

          Oh are we being deliberately obtuse to make pedantic arguments now? Well the claim was nobody died “when he was 18,” not “when he was 18 and one femtosecond or older”. Of course no one died while he was 18, firearm related or otherwise!

          Try another argument.

        2. avatar binder says:

          OK. I think that an 18 year old should be able to own a firearm, and drink for that matter. I’m also know that the average 18 year old has less regard for others than a 30 year old.
          That being said, claiming that ” I was able to do something with out hurting anyone” cannot be the argument for abolishing a law. And it is one I despise. I hear it all the time from people who drive drunk, or typically put others at risk. So dismissing the argument about the ability of typical (or even a significant minority of) 18 year old kids to be responsible with something with “well I did it” is not something I agree with.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          A simpler argument is “does the law have a right to exist”? If it covers firearms in any way, then the answer is no.

        4. avatar Unrepentent Libertarian says:

          Binder, do you have poor reading comprehension skills or are you high on drugs? Or perhaps you are a Soros bot?
          You do not even try to dispute what was written, you just start making statements up about what was said. Are you stupid enough to believe that you will be safe if guns are illegally outlawed? Do you think you will be safe from harm if civilians are forbidden firearms? There are folks who will take you out back to beat and torture you just because you can not defend yourself from them. (No your cellphone will not protect you from their anger.)
          There are evil people in the world who will do evil things to others just for grins and laughs. If one is small and weak they need a firearm, or other tool, to equalize the situation!

      2. avatar Specialist38 says:

        As Col. Cooper used to say “the effects or reckless driving are localized, but eckless voting affect us all”.

        I had a Handgun a 10, a rifle at 12. Never once considered shooting up a school. Did take a look of squirrels and varmits.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          Cooper is so far on the bell curve that you might as well use Einstein or Washington as an example.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      There was a time when kids were given guns of their own as soon as they were old enough to hold them. In rural America this was the norm rather than the exception. I was given a .22 at age 7 or 8 (still have the nickle I hit at 25 feet), knew about and had been practicing gun-safety with my bb gun from age 6. Back then kids could bring their guns to school so they could go shoot targets or hunt after school. This was a time when children were expected to internalize and practice adult values as a part of growing up.

      Putting age restrictions on gun ownership will be about as effective as age restrictions on booze— which is to say not very effective at all. It’s kinda embarrassing to find virtue signalling on TTAG.

      1. avatar binder says:

        Age restrictions on booze are there for a reason. They keep kids out of bars. Do you want your16 year old daughter showing up at a collage bar? I know they can get a false ID, but lets not make it easy for them. One think I do agree with is keeps the age the same in all states. I grew up when Illinois was 21 and Wisconsin was 18. And as a final FYI the age of maturity (Voting, draft and drinking) was 21 until WWII. Then they lowered the draft to 18 and the rest followed.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Check your facts. 26th Amendment was not until 1971. Demtards thought they were buying permanent ownership of the government. See also “DACA/dreamers”, illegal alien immigrants, vote for felons, etc.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Why do you think the 26th Amendment exists. They were drafting 18 year old kids and sending them off the Vietnam, but denying of those same people their franchise. Something totally fucked up with that. The 18 year old draft started in 1942 as the result of a little problem going on in the rest of the world. When Hitler is on the move, little issues with sending off kids to war is back burner.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          is that where the girls are all dressed in nothing but paper mache?

        4. avatar VOX says:

          >exercising a Constitutional right is exactly the same as drunk driving, lol

          Try harder.

    4. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      Thank you for posting something you know most on here will disagree with.

      That being said, I believe this is the first publicized case of a mass killer that was this young and acquired the weapon legally. Others may know of another instance, but it is certainly the minority. Heck, the Vegas murderer could have been social security.

      I try to come up with common sense gun laws that don’t infringe on someone else’s rights and I keep drawing a blank.

      I would support a required recital of the 4 safety rules for any firearm purchase.

      I would maybe support a mandatory safety training license if it was same day, zero cost (Bloomberg can pay for it). In exchange, for the inconvenience, I want it to be attached to the NICS where I could just flash it, the seller verifies online that it is valid, and I walk out the store with my purchase without forms filled out.

      Other than that, I can’t thinkof much I can get behind even if it’s something that doesn’t affect me directly.

    5. avatar strych9 says:

      Loath as I am to admit it, the OP has a valid point if we’re gonna look at this strictly in terms of biology.

      The brain isn’t done developing until 23-25 in women and generally 24-26 in men. ~18-25, the last few developmental stages, especially in the frontal cortex, are a turbulent time when people really cement their identities for themselves.

      Therefore there could be a valid argument for pushing the age up on a number of things ranging from voting to driving to other things that require both emotional/mental stability and high levels of personal responsibility.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Or we could expect people to be accountable for their own success or failure as we did for a couple of hundred years.

        Then we decided there were reasons that people were shit-asses and couldnt be blamed for doing idiotic things.

        People mature when faced with experiences to mature them. We cloister kids away from anything remotely resembling real experience, then wonder why they have hard time with anything difficult in life.

        Its easiest to learn things as we develop to maturity. Once mature, the learning curve becomes a wall.

        Everything worthwhile is at least a little dangerous. That is life.

        I took shop in 7th grade and used a table saw, band saw, welder, and blow torch. People (children included) tend to do what is expected of them. We just dont expect much from kids today.

        In fact, we expect them to do stupid things and avoid responsibility…..and they do.

        Knowledge is elevated above all else in current society. Unfortunately, we dont encourage the wise application of said knowledge until well past adulthood.

        It seems now we have raised a couple of generations that think they are superior to other people but know little HOW to do anything. They are fully prepared to critque how things are done. Access to information does not make you smart. We have convinced ourselves that it does.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        I agree that the age of “maturity” is no longer 16, as it was in the 1700s, or 18 as it was in the 1950s, but is, as you say, around 25. Most young people I know who marry before 25 don’t stay married for long–they are in a massive period of change between 18 and 25, and they come out a different person at the end of that process. They lose the attitude that they are immortal and no risk is too great, settle down, and become the person they will be for the rest of their lives. So I tell one and all, if you are really that “meant” for each other, just wait a few years until you are 25 to tie the know. Cheaper than a divorce.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          Before WW2 it was 21, so what’s your point? I would argue that when society was poor (Only in the past 100 years has it been anything other than very poor) it could not afford to hold off on responsibility. But at the same time it was way more brutal than it is now. I wounder why? At least there is not a all out war every 40 years now.

      3. avatar RidgeRunner says:

        Agree to a point with OP. Exemptions for military, or maybe have supervision from over-21 when said semi-auto is in use by 18 y-o user. Anyone can shoot me down and be hard-ass and nit-pick, but this feels like a tipping point and clearly the weirdo in Parkland should not have been able to acquire the rifle. Lots of 18 y-os would not be responsible with semi-autos, and some much worse than irresponsible.
        Something will be done on this one, something will change. So being immovable on either side may not be an option.
        It would be nice not to be attacked for ideas on what should be a reasonably friendly site for POTG.

  10. avatar BLAMMO says:

    The Bill of Rights is such a huge problem.

    That’s the whole idea.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Sure… just goes to further prove the point that the 19th amendment was a huge mistake.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    I don’t think they understand how this works. We don’t have a king.

  12. avatar Dale Gribble says:

    Please Mr. President, we already think you’re the second coming of Hitler, so please disarm us so we can’t resist when you round us up and send us to camps.

    1. avatar Boz says:

      Well put Mr. Gribble

      1. avatar John in IN says:

        I leave this comment on left leaning sites:

        You want to take away the guns from civilians. That means only the govenment has the guns. You’re proposing that Donald Trump has all the guns? Do you have that much trust in him?

        I rarely get a response.

        1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          Progressive Dogma is built on glaring contradictions.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      That’s something I like to point out to lefty Jews who keep calling Trump a “fascist” and a “second Hitler.”

      I point out that they’re either full-blown morons or marxist frauds.

      The moron choice is because they should have knowledge of what happens when you give a fascist dictator gun control.

      The fraud argument is because if they’re really calling for gun control, then they don’t really believe Trump is a fascist.

      Quality entertainment.

  13. avatar R. Douthit says:

    What the left fails (refuses) to realize is that laws only prohibit and punish abhorrent behavior; laws will never castrate or curtail abhorrent behavior.

  14. avatar Warlocc says:

    No, I agree with the first part of that request. The president DOES need to act.

    He needs to punish the FBI for ignoring two tips and the cops for ingoring 30+ calls.

  15. avatar R. Douthit says:

    What the left fails (refuses) to realize is laws only prohibit and punish abhorrent behavior; laws will never castrate or curtail abhorrent behavior.

    The only way to protect our children in schools is to arm teachers or staff armed resource officers and visit extreme violence on any cretin that would slay our sons and daughters.

  16. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    And yet, some of you keep protesting when I say that it’s time to repeal the 19th Amendment….

    Do you see how dangerous it was to give the franchise to those who emote before they think?

    In other gun control news, Brazil is putting their military in charge of security in/around Rio – because the police can no longer control the level of gun violence in the city. Once upon a time, Brazilians had gun rights. Then their government instituted strict gun control. Now they (once again) are giving the military police powers to get criminal activity under control. Want an example of where gun control leads? Use Brazil.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Yep, and Brazil is a far more accurate representation of what would happen if strict gun laws were to be implemented in America. Like Brazil, our country has an unfortunate history of incredibly violent street gangs, and we currently have hundreds of thousands of gang-bangers already. No Western European nation has this issue, which means that German gun laws wouldn’t result in German levels of crime, but Brazilian levels of crime.

      It’s always fun to point this out to leftists, and then if they hesitate for even a second, you can scream, “What, you think that couldn’t happen here? You must be RACIST!” I love trolling them; they’re so adorable

      1. avatar John in IN says:

        Fear not. Germany will catch up. Merkel is importing street gangs as fast the electorale will allow her.

  17. avatar Chris says:

    That’s rich, the same people who’ve been calling him a nazi and whatever since he took office and protested everything he’s done, now they all want something from him.

  18. avatar Uh-huh says:

    Do something, do anything! Because…………………………………………..>

  19. avatar Smitty says:

    They are weaklings, soft minds that were raised in a soft / PC world.
    Those who would give up freedom for some security deserve neither…

    My response to them is “fuck your feeling as my God given rights are more important”.

  20. avatar Paranoid prepper says:

    Look…I dont support any gun control. I think I should be able to Amazon prime an M2 to my front door. But I think we need to come to terms with the fact that we will never live in such a world. If we just retreat to our corner and claim the Second Amendment, we’re gonna get railroaded during the midterms and then every piece of anti-gun legislation you can dream of is gonna get crammed down our throats. So we have to be proactive about it. I think maybe a decent idea would be to add an “assault weapons” classification to how the ATF defines firearms. And maybe require some sort of firearms safety course before purchase? Idk just kind of spinning my wheels here. But that was the least invasive way I could come up with to infringe on my RTKABA some more while also “doing something” about the “weapons of war” we make so easily accessible to children(I actually laughed just typing that). We have to do something to satisfy the idiots(the ones who vote, at least). And please don’t bombard me with Ben Franklin quotes, I’m just trying to avoid an AWB and 5 round magazine limits here.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Except the last time bipartisan legislation was voted on we got the Hughes Amendment. And institute training requirements? Except that’ll be abused at some point in the future and expanded to mean 4000 hours of training by a preaproved govt run school that takes 3 years to complete, costs $10,000 and in order to graduate have to run a 2 minutes mile. Yeah, instead of compromising, I’d rather start killing the bonafide enemies of America and get the next Civil War underway and over with. “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so my child may know peace”. And, “it is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to preserve our rights, one must be willing to kill for them, too”.

    2. avatar AZD says:

      Look…I don’t support any speech control. I think I should be able to say whatever I want out of my front door. But I think we need to come to terms with the fact that we will never live in such a world. If we just retreat to our corner and claim the First Amendment, we’re gonna get railroaded during the midterms and then every piece of anti-free speech legislation you can dream of is gonna get crammed down our throats. So we have to be proactive about it. I think maybe a decent idea would be to add an “assault speech” classification to how the FBI defines free speech. And maybe require some sort of free speech safety course before speaking in public? Idk just kind of spinning my wheels here. But that was the least invasive way I could come up with to infringe on my RTFS some more while also “doing something” about the “hate speech” we make so easily accessible to children(I actually laughed just typing that). We have to do something to satisfy the idiots(the ones who vote, at least). And please don’t bombard me with Ben Franklin quotes, I’m just trying to avoid a hate-speech tribunal and 140 character limits here.

      1. avatar Paranoid prepper says:

        ….so your suggestion is to….?

        1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

          I suggest amazon sells M2s delivered to my front door. I would then sign up for Amazon prime.

          I don’t know what he’s suggesting.

        2. avatar Paranoid prepper says:

          Motion seconded

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “We have to do something to satisfy the idiots(the ones who vote, at least). And please don’t bombard me with Ben Franklin quotes, I’m just trying to avoid an AWB and 5 round magazine limits here.”

      So, basically, you’re saying support for gun rights has already lost out to the power of progressive/leftest politics and only by reaching “commonsense” accommodations with gun-controllers we can—what?—keep 10 round magazines?

      “Look…I dont support any gun control.” Yes you do. Ever hear of Bill Ruger?

      1. avatar Paranoid prepper says:

        I’m saying support for gun rights will erode. The middle ground will all fall to the left. I’m saying we’re about to lose the House and Senate to all the liberal candidates running on gun control platforms that sound like “good ideas” and “common sense” to the uninformed. It’s anti-gun talking points being shoved into everyone’s faces, not pro. What do you think President Trump cares about more…gun rights or his legacy? The bills will get signed into law, and we’ll all be screwed unless we are proactive. And don’t tell me what I do and don’t support. My idea of an ideal nation is one which no regulation on firearms exist. It’s also naive to think that will ever happen in this country. Firearms regulation exists and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, like it or not. I’d rather pro gun groups and politicians dictate what that regulation entails than Pelosi and Feinstein.

    4. avatar DoomGuy says:

      You’re not pro-gun, you’re at best a dupe and at worst you’re a complete fudd or a paid Bloomberg troll.

      You’re not pro-gun because you (and all the other “pro gun” sell outs) have to “pad your credentials” of how many guns you own, what you believe, and how long you’ve grown up around guns or that you know people who are in the military or police, right before you go into how the ATF and the government should further “reasonably infringe” on our rights in order to “do something” and to “avoid more severe bans”. That preemptive surrender crap didnt work in the 1990’s and it won’t work now, don’t believe me? Ask Dick Metcalf, as Jim Zumbo, ask the NRA.

      I’m tired of sellouts.

      1. avatar Stifan says:

        Just saying that when I was 18 compared to where I am today are totally different – 30 years later. I too owned and had access to pistols and rifles prior to 18. But I had access to them because my dad bought those for me and he knew what my maturity level or lack of maturity level was at the time. I was also in the Army at 18 yo and recall that no soldier had unfettered access to our M16s or M9s.

        I do question the mental capacity of 18-21 y/o in voting. Thus one of the reason BO was elected 8 years ago.

        Again I’m not saying that an 18 yo should not own a gun is the argument, they can and should. But rather having another adult (typically a parent or family member) that knows the kid help assess whether they should or should not own a pistol or high captivity firearm is better than the quick background check at purchase.

        1. avatar Specialist38 says:

          If he is 18, he is not a kid. He is a grown-ass man.

          Having to ask other adults if you can do something is bondage. Pure and simple.

          Live like you wanna live, and pay the price for stupid actions.

          No nanny state for me….live free or die.

      2. avatar Paranoid prepper says:

        Again, I’ll ask for your suggestion. I explicitly stated I was just spinning my wheels and trying to come up with ideas. Because the other sides idea is an assault weapons ban, magazine capacity restrictions, and civilian disarmament. I would like to come up with a realistic minimally invasive counter proposal to prevent those things. But hey, you continue to stand in your corner and scream “shall not be infringed!!!” That’ll get tons of votes come election time. Watch out for that mud there, Stick. Don’t wanna get stuck in it.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Suggestion? I don’t except the choice of either compromise or lose our rights completely. That’s not happening. Real 2A advocates will tell the Liberal Terrorists™️ to get bent. There is no compromise because our Constitutional Rights aren’t up for debate. Period. They want to pursue unilateral disarmament? Let them try. And in the unlikely event they finally succeed? We’ve got something for that, too. I prefer the later.

        2. avatar DoomGuy says:

          Don’t lecture me on being the problem. If more people would stand their ground and hold to the principles of “shall not be infringed” we’d be a hell of a lot better off.

          Let them overreach let them put forth their tyrannical gun grabs and let them lose votes for themselves.

          Don’t give them any ammunition to go on and certainly don’t “compromise with them” because you haven’t said anything of the sort. What you’re saying is the classic “give the anti’s what they want and call it compromise” approach. You have obviously learned nothing from the dark times of the 1990’s.

          Spare me your sniveling about how you’re trying to “save the second amendment” because you’re doing nothing of the sort. You’re killing us one little paper cut at a time.

          Good day to you.

        3. avatar Specialist38 says:

          Nut-up and get ready for the fight. It will never end.

          Liberty requires eternal vigilence.

          There will never be a lack of people who decide you shouldnt be able to do the things they do because the un- washed masses scare them.

          If you are really having trouble coming to grips with this, then you have not decided what you will die for. Decide what to stand for and quit being destracted by worrying about what MIGHT happen.

          Attempt to make the things you believe in happen. Long live the Republic.

        4. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

          All such a “minimally invasive” compromise will do is serve as a stepping stone to further restrictions down the road. Also, that is not compromise. Compromise means both sides give up something, not that the gun control side gets more gun control but “compromises” in the sense of not getting as much gun control at the moment as they want.

          We protect other rights valiantly as a nation, we need to protect the right to keep and bear arms just the same.

    5. avatar pwrserge says:

      I have a far simpler solution. Repeal the NFA and put a federal ban on any state gun control and tell the commies to go piss up a rope.

      1. avatar Paranoid prepper says:

        Dream scenario! Now we just have to get enough votes to elect politicians who say they’re willing to go through with that and then keep their word once they get to D.C. I’m gonna go look for a flying unicorn in the meantime. And I’ll probably reach the finish line first on that one.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Or just make whatever you want, NFA or not and tell the commies to go piss up a rope.

      2. avatar binder says:

        If there was no NFA, the Vegas shooter would have had a SAW or light machine gun and we would then have a NFA. Good chance all semi autos would end up on it. But look at the bright side, I bet you would have suppressors back.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          If there was no NFA, the antis would have a very hard time confiscating or banning anything. Terminal lead poisoning tends to do that.

        2. avatar Binder says:

          Worked in 1934 and they finished the job 86. And to a lesser extent 1994. You really need to read history. Can you imagine paying $450 ($200 in 86) for a tax stamp for M60?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          If I could buy a brand new M60? Yeah. In a heartbeat. If the 1984 ban and my state ban didn’t exist, every intermediate rifle I own would be select fire.

    6. avatar Red in CO says:

      Oh yeah, because appeasement has worked so well! We have given up countless pieces of our rights over the last century, and that’s why the left is now content to leave us alone! Fuck you, traitor. We are just now starting to regain some lost ground because people have woken up to the failure of appeasement. Or did you not notice the nationwide push over the last half decade to restore gun rights at the state level? And while we might lose congress (though I’m skeptical of that, seeing as the last 4 years or so haven’t followed the usual pattern), it won’t be by a strong enough majority to unequivocally pass whatever they want, not unless they oust Trump by force and establish themselves as Lords, though in that case we’d have far bigger problems.

    7. avatar John in IN says:

      I want my cake back.

    8. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      So … what you’re saying is, if we stand firm on gun rights, we might lose some battles, so we should start infringing on our own rights first, because … that will make them want to take our guns away less? … that will make them like us? When has that ever worked in the history of anything?

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Ignore the constitution at YOUR peril. Do you suppose everyone in America will gleefully turn in their AR’s?!?

    1. avatar Jay in Florida one town over from Parkland says:

      Not a prayer in hell.

    2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      I’d rather die trying to kill the enemies of freedom, first.

    3. avatar binder says:

      No, but they would put up with banning future manufacture. Not like it happen once before.

  22. avatar WILCO says:

    These schools and state officials talk a tough game, post incident. Prior to that they don’t want federal government in their business but as soon as there is a tragedy it’s someone else’s problem to solve. How about investing in your facilities, like access control, fences , cameras, etc and stop pouring money into football stadiums. Invest in training your staff and invest in resource officers. But hey, these are the same guys that hardly pay their teachers.

  23. avatar neiowa says:

    The useless Fed Dept of Edumakasun issues regulations that requires any school receiving fed $ must provide CCW training and licensing of all school employees as required by the local jurisdiction. AND allow these employees to carry on school property.

    Any employee not eligible “obviously” should not be around children.

  24. avatar AnotherAZguy says:

    Damn, how about we simply start demanding: “Please get rid of the mentally ill homicidal maniacs.” It does not matter how they created their carnage. They just need to GO.

    1. avatar John in In says:

      A long time ago, the violently deranged had very, very short lives. Communities knew who was fit to live among them and who was not. They were willing to make hard but necesarry decisions for their collective continued existence.

      We’ve come a long way since then. Now we let the violently deranged shoot up our schools.

  25. avatar ironicatbest says:

    He is acting.

  26. avatar Cam says:

    Kill freedom and save the children. Let’s make it so no one ever leaves their house.
    I guess the only problems is any politician that tried to do so is violating his oath to protect the constitution.

  27. avatar Ret1SG says:

    Was just out today and sighted in my red dot on my AR. God what a joy that was!! Taught my daughter-in-law how to operate it too. Should have seen the smile on her face! Give that up? No Way in Hell! Bought my first rifle , an 1894 Winchester .30-.30 rifle, octagon barrel, manufactured in 1904 . Sweet shooter with that long barrel. That was in 1967 when I was 14, with money I saved up mowing yards all summer. I won’t, and don’t give an inch on my rights when I am able to stop the encroachments. Instead of bitching about what may happen, get involved and let the politicians know where you stand and be a pest about it! Don’t give them an inch, if we do, then they will want the mile!

  28. avatar Wally1 says:

    The leftists don’t think that it could ever happen, but trashing peoples gun rights will lead to civil war. Enough is enough. Decent hard working people have had enough. Liberals will not listen to common sense. They just don’t understand freedom, nor do they really care. Our founding fathers would be shooting by now and tar and feathering their representatives. A nationwide ban on AR 15 ownership would start a revolt. Very few would turn them in and who would try and take them?.

  29. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    “Mr. President, Please Ignore the Constitution: . . . ”
    Oh heck, most politicians try to ignore it all the time.

  30. avatar J_cobbers says:

    Gun control is a personal responsibility, it starts in the mind, goes through the heart and ends with the trigger finger.
    The mind thinks about pulling the trigger, the heart tells the mind if it is the right thing to do, and the trigger finger executes the final decision. If there is a problem with the mind or the heart, that’s when we see tragedy.

    If we want to stop gun violence, then we need to proactively attend to the mental, moral or spiritual health of those who are at risk for carrying it out and so the violent impulse to do so. More resources and personal attention should be put into identifying those students and people in our community who need help with counseling and or mental health treatment, if only to give them a place to vent and be heard and work through whatever anger they have without getting violent or dangerous.

    Likewise, better education on what firearms safety really is all about should be taught in schools.

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