pro-vs-antigun (courtesy conservativehideout.com)

President Obama didn’t come for your guns. Yes, the President favors “gun responsibility” (or whatever they call it today) and lobbied for “common sense gun laws” both before but especially after the slaughter at Sandy Hook. But the former community organizer never actually confiscated a single American’s guns. Therefore, gun rights advocates are paranoid, whipped to a frenzy by the NRA, whose real goal is to feather their nest and aid and abet the death-dealing firearms industry. That’s the new pro-gun control meme that making the rounds. Like this . . .

This mainstream media memery is a masterpiece of militant mendaciousness masquerading as open-minded debate. You can also read the “they didn’t come for your guns” assertion here [via South Carolina’s postandcourier.com]:

This is going to be a big issue because some people believe registration is just a way for the government to get a list so they can come and confiscate guns. Sorry, but despite what gun manufacturers and the NRA have been saying, the Obama administration has not tried to take anyone’s guns.

So, has the Obama administration confiscated anyone’s guns? If not, it’s certainly not for a lack of trying. If so, when, where and how?

Recommended For You

87 Responses to Question of the Day: Did Obama Come for Your Guns? [VIDEO]

  1. I don’t know; maybe ask veterans who have admitted an inability to balance their checkbooks?

    Maybe ask people in California who have had guns confiscated because a family member has run afoul of unconstitutional GVROs?

    Maybe ask CT gun owners, who were asked to register or divest certain firearms?

    Maybe ask NY gun owners, who were asked to do worse under the SAFE Act?

    • YEAH! What Chip said, go ask all those people how they feel about government confiscation of their firearms.

      • Correct. As Ralph and Bob Watson (and perhaps others) have said below, just because Obama and his cohorts have failed in their current attempts, doesn’t mean they didn’t try, or don’t WANT to “come for our guns.” To see a current wish list of what they’d like, go to this White House dot GOV link and scroll down to the little checklist:

        https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

        Most of these are simple steps in incrementalism, as they have been unsuccessful in passing/implementing any large or sweeping measures, so the only way to get to their goals is by passing tiny laws that shave-off a few people at a time, or make things just a little more difficult for gun owners, over and over again. Here are a few items from their current wish list:

        – Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons – “Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.”

        To most people, a “ban” on something means it is not legal to own or use. The previous Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) was more of a freeze on further production of magazines and gun models that had certain features. If you already had one, you could keep it and still use it. The only ways to “strengthen” this kind of ban is to make it illegal to own/posses/use the banned object (outright prohibition) and a collection effort to actually remove them from possession (confiscation). See the “Armor piercing ammo”, below.

        – Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds – “Congress needs to reinstate the prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.”

        Any argument or “research” that supports magazine capacity restrictions of more than 10 rounds, can also be used to support lower, and lower, and lower yet mag limits. This is a slippery slope leading to single-shot firearms being the only ones allowed. Note the word “prohibition”, and expect that means the incrementalist approach, once again (freeze production as the AWB did, then make possession use of older mags illegal, and finally, turn-in or confiscation of all mags over the limit. Repeat as limits are lowered each time).

        – Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets – “Congress should finish the job of protecting law enforcement and the public by banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition by, and its transfer to, anyone other than the military and law enforcement.”

        This ammo clause shows us where the gun clauses will end up. First you freeze importation and production (done, with AP ammo), then ban possession and transfer. Once you can’t legally possess or transfer an object, confiscation is perfectly legal, whenever it is found.

        • It’s always been this President’s way to encourage, and where possible, fully enable others to do his bidding.

          For example, no doubt expanding gun restrictions and confiscations was an important part of the conversation during Obama’s visit with “The prettiest Attorney General…” when he visited Camala Harris in CA a few years back.

    • To say Obama isn’t trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens is a farce. Perhaps the strict logic of the statement is incorrect in that he is, was and will be pushing to criminalize the law abiding as was the end result in Connecticut. It is estimated that there was massive non compliance. Including among law enforcement in CT.

      Michael Lawlor Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy, after hearing that compliance registration rates were low made the statement AFTER the deadline for registration of magazines and banned items was quoted as saying ““If you haven’t declared it or registered it and you get caught . . . you’ll be a felon. People who disregard the law are, among other things, jeopardizing their right to own firearms. If you’re not a law-abiding citizen, you’re not a law-abiding citizen,”

      ref: http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/
      http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/03/connecticut-shouldnt-be-surprised-that-f

      In Connecticut after many public hearings and much testimony against gun control bills the legislature passed a bill (SB 1160) for which the draft was only released the day of the voting. That was April 3 2013. The bill was signed by Gov. Malloy April 4, 2013. It was fairly clear that this was slammed through in anticipation of President Obama coming to Connecticut on April 8 2013. He was in Connecticut to coerce people to support his vision of more restrictive gun control.

      From NBC Conneciticut article entitled :”Obama in Conn.: “We Need a Vote””
      “President Barack Obama demanded Monday in a fierce address in West Hartford that Congress bring new gun control proposals to a vote”.

      Obama is quoted as saying “Connecticut has shown the way, and now is the time for Congress to do the same — this week,” This is in reference to the corrupt proceedings where Bill SB1160 was given “Emergency Certification” Status to rush it through in order to circumvent further public hearings and get the bill passed into law without it being looked at by the public, all days before Obama was to visit Connecicut.

      It was a lesson in the farce of representative government in Connecticut.

      http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/President-to-Visit-Connecticut-Over-Gun-Proposals-201071821.html

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/click-here-to-read-connecticut-gun-ban-bill-1160/

    • Hey Chip , I tried to answer your question (to me) about where I lived under your comment about all police being bullies ( sorry for the poor paraphrasing ) , but my switches weren’t cooperating and I couldn’t reply there . I will qualify my response first by admitting that even here , where I live , there are undoubtedly some police that struggle with character issues , but by and large , most are simply our friends and neighbors trying to solve problems people are experiencing in the course of their lives . I know our local sheriffs , four counties , personally I know the police chiefs of the town I live , and the surrounding two towns , personally and many of the officers on these departments , personally , and I want to respect what they do for their communities and their families and I want them on my side when or if TSHTF . I live in West Virginia in an area referred to as the tri-state where the total population of citizens is below 100,000 people , about 80 % rural and 20 % urban . The violet crime rate is low but probably about average for a state and towns where probably 20 % of the population carries and I would estimate 80% own firearms . This is one of the areas often referred to as buckles on the bible belt and would be , by most standards , considered the foothills of the Appalachians . There are a lot of Scots Irish descendants still living here and we are profoundly patriotic and cherish our individual , God given , founders justified , personal liberties as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence .

      • but by and large , most are simply our friends and neighbors trying to solve problems people are experiencing in the course of their lives.
        They are from the Government and they are here to help, sort of like the NKVD.

        • Why are there so many cop haters here ? I realize there is a lot of cop hating in the libertarian political movement , is this what I’m seeing ?
          Listen up folks , police have their hands full every single day , even in smaller communities there is domestic disputes , violence with drunks and drug punks . Every day , day in and day out the same bull crap and if most or all cops as some would have us believe were ruthless thugs then we would all be locked up black and blue or dead . We need to support these men and women that police our broken societies and work together to weed out the corrupt ones .

    • Or ask people in CA who owned an SKS in the 90’s and were required to register them. Then, not long after, the state decided that SKS rifles were evil and banned them too, then used the registry info to round them up.

  2. No, Obama did not come for my guns. If Obama had come for my guns, Biden would already be President.

    Oh, wait — were you speaking metaphorically? Because if you were, then yes, Obama has come for our guns, but did not succeed. Which is pretty much his track record on everything.

    • “Obama has come for our guns, but did not succeed. Which is pretty much his track record on everything.”

      I’m gonna disagree on that.

      He has stated he will ‘fundamentally transform the United States of America’, and he has spent his presidency setting up the chessboard to do just that.

      That stack of executive orders he signed on firearms (and others) will bite us in the future.

      The damage he and his ilk have inflicted on this country by eroding fundamental liberty may never be fully undone.

      My .02 and worth every penny.

      • Any EOs signed by this PO(S)TUS can be undone by the next POTUS. I’m looking forward to seeing Obama’s entire “legacy” undone, like Bill Clinton’s AWB, and Obama’s entire administration consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

        • “Any EOs signed by this PO(S)TUS can be undone by the next POTUS.”

          Yeah, but I’m not confident a Biden – Warren ticket will lose to a Trump – ‘Whoever’ ticket.

          I’m a pessimist at this point.

          If the true horror of ObamaCare gets exposed before the next general election, *maybe*. It looks like the masses won’t taste it until after he’s gone.

        • Clinton’s AWB had an end date from the very beginning, it was just good fortune that the following president didn’t decide to breathe new life into it.

  3. Obama banned the import of guns … AK47s, etc. AND … the return of M1 Garands that were originally made over here, using the argument that he wants to prevent them from being used in any crimes … like that has ever been an issue.

    • I suspect the last time M1 Garands were used in a drive by was probably Korea and the getaway car was a half-track.

    • To be clear, he didn’t ban the import of AK47s, or AKs in general. It was Vepr and Saiga rifles and shotguns, which are actually pretty good guns, I owned one of each. The ban also included Ural motorcycles.

      Obama has literally and figuratively came after our guns. We’ve mostly defeated his efforts, except on anything where his pen and phone is all he needs.

      • not sure why you think Ural motorcycles are banned, i just bought one a couple months ago and i know many more are coming into the states

        • Yeah, I was confused by that whole VEPR episode. I happened to learn of them, and wanted to get a VEPR 12 and saved for a couple of months and placed my order with Classic. About a week later this Obama thing happened with these certain imports and they sent me an email that there will be a delay. I did eventually get it by complaining to cancel my order.. Strange times. There seems to be no lack of supply of them for “my batch” to be the last imported into the country. Even $100 cheaper (got mine at $899) – seen ads for them for $799 now. Even with that, I wouldn’t trade anything for this brilliant firearm!

    • Having recently been to the CMP Advanced Maintenance Class (AMC) and had the pleasure of building my own M1 Garand, I have the real story on the S. Korean Garands as was relayed to us by the CMP COO.

      It has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. There is a General in S. Korea that believe all those M1’s belong to him. He wants to sell the M1s to the highest bidder. That is against the original agreement that gave them the guns in the first place. Those guns belong to the US Army and they can only sell them through the CMP.

      The General wants a ridiculous amount for the guns and the US Army is only willing to pay for the packing and shipping of the guns, accessories and ammo and nothing else. Which means the General does not get to line his pockets.

      When the press release comes out that the State Department stopped the deal, it has nothing to do with not wanting them, it has all to do with the General in S. Korea wanting to make money and sell to a 3rd party other than the US Army. The price he wanted for each rifle from the Army was equivalent of what you would pay retail for a Field Grade Rifle.

      So, the truth on this one is it has nothing to do with Obama. We can give him much blame on many things but not this particular item.

      I encourage anyone who wants an M1 Garand and is mechanically inclined, to take the AMC class where you get to build your own. It is an experience to see the effort required to put one together properly from a just a bunch of mismatched parts.

      • Even if all that is true, that didn’t stop the Obama administration from taking credit for the rifles not being imported back in August 2013:

        “Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.”

        That statement tells me it wouldn’t be likely that the State Department under this president would approve the re-importation of those rifles, regardless of how much or how little money General Dickhead wanted, or any other factors. Obama and his cronies just hate guns, and can’t stand the idea of Americans having them.

  4. He may not have personally come for my guns or anyone else’s yet. But given the company he is pictured with. I’m sure under the right circumstances. There would be a knock on my door at any given time soon.

  5. He hasn’t that I know of–that certainly doesn’t mean (a) that he doesn’t want to and (b) that he hasn’t tried to arrange it. And I assume he wants to, if he can be taken at his word (remember how he answered that letter supposedly from an 11-year-old girl who stated that “only the police and military should have guns”? IIRC, he stated publicly that he would do all in his power to bring that about.

    • BTW, the Courier article is just more run-of-the-mill gun-muggle moonbattery. In case you’re thinking of reading it, I would say don’t bother

  6. Yes. Any gun I would like to purchase but has become nonsensically ‘illegal’ during the last 8 years has been taken from me. Not because they ran out, stopped producing them or were being hoarded by collectors, but by the stroke of a pen, attributes which have nothing to do with the lethality of a gun, some of which do not even exist in reality, have been mandated by the overlords.

  7. “A good first step” is a comment that echoes down through the decades each time a new restriction on the right to keep and bear arms has been implemented. Incrementalism is the long range strategy of those who would disarm the people of this country. The failure of the current occupant of the White House to “take anyone’s guns” is not an indication of intent, rather it points to incompetence (for which I am grateful).

    • Excellent comment my dear Watson
      ” Incrementalism is the long range strategy of those who would disarm the people of this country.”

      I hope this very statement is why the older Citizens have had their ideas of gun owning as a state privilege, transformed into an absolute right to follow and invoke the Second Amendment, as needed. Shall not be infringed means exactly that, and it does not mean that we have to beg the state for permission to not be discriminated against for exercising our rights.

      Statist only believe in the illusion of compromise, while they enact their plans regardless. The only difference between a D and an R is two lines added or subtracted on the campaign donor’s check.

      Statsit play the long haul because their opposition are comfortable cowards, who would choose materialism over moralism. The plans have already been set in law to disarm the people, but thankfully the statist don’t have popular support, yet.

  8. Have never heard of the “Daily Wrap” some MSNBC thing with 3 viewers? And who is the big mouth Obumer apologist?

  9. Obama points out how he wishes he accomplish what Australia has done. Folks, that’s confiscation. Just because he hasn’t succeeded doesn’t mean we should let our guard down.

    • I was waiting , finally someone said it . Thanks ! Exactly . Right on the money .
      He has and he will . …………………………. Did I miss the headline that announced Barry was done ?

  10. Did Obama come for my guns?

    I’ll answer that question as soon as the anti-gunners answer this question….. Did Ronald McDonald make you eat that cheeseburger?

  11. The Obama administration has not come for the guns directly.

    However, through devious means, they have.

    • The attempt at banning M855 from the civilian market. No bullets, they may as well have taken your guns.

    • GVRO laws, veteran mental health disqualifications, etc…another attempt.

    People label us as paranoid, but that paranoia has kept things like registration and confiscation as pipe dreams. I’d rather be paranoid and have my firearms than complacent and suddenly one day we’re faced with registration.

  12. Yeah I’ve had this conversation with retards on Fark plenty of times, back when I could stand to use social media sites. Just because a tyrant is ineffective doesn’t mean he isn’t a tyrant.

  13. Every time this nitwit says “I understand what he is saying,” I am thinking the hell you do! And yes, he did come for our guns. Ask any Vet who foolishly admitted that they couldn’t balance their checkbook or was having problems getting bills paid correctly, when they admitted this in order to get paperwork done to have a relative handle this for them they got automatically entered into the NICS database which means not only can they not purchase a firearm, they will also loose any concealed carry license, since those go through the NICS system as well.

  14. So by this logic, (discounting the times that the administration HAS taken peoples’ guns) you shouldn’t lock your doors because nobody has tried to rob you yet. You shouldn’t keep a fire extinguisher because you’ve never had a kitchen fire. You shouldn’t watch what you eat because you haven’t had a cardiac event, and you shouldn’t worry about the government giving itself sweeping, unsupervised powers because they promise they won’t abuse it.

  15. Do you speak English? Obama absolutely came for our guns. Does he need to literally pry the guns from our hands in order to “come for our guns”? “Coming for our guns” does not imply successful confiscation. He instituted import bans. He tried to ban many firearms. He once responded to a survey saying he supported banning handguns back when that position was politically viable, and I bet he still believes it. If he could he would have banned them all. He came for them by influencing Congress to try to ban our weapons. He came. He did not succeed, but he was coming for our guns all right, bearing down on our rights.

    New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said outright “confiscation is on the table”. He didn’t get all that he asked for, but he certainly came for our guns.

  16. They keep saying how I’m being whipped into a frenzy but my experience is that we’re left banging on the table wishing the NRA would exhibit any kind of urgency at all. The NRA I know is slow to speak and quick to compromise.

    Who is this activist NRA and how can I join that one?

  17. it’s not for lack of trying. and he still has 16 months. he will have plenty of bad stuff for gun owners before he goes. IF he goes .

  18. I am reminded of several things in this discussion that I think are important and worth always remembering . . .
    When there is some new twist to an already long term, existing, but often ineffective attempt at pushing a policy or a political goal which has proven to be not of the people’s choice the goverment turns to the Media and suddenly on the evening “news” we are told “….. and a NEW STUDY shows ….” Or they push hard on some other unrelated story, news item, or devisive misdirection to attempt to redirect the attention of the general constituency away from what their doing supposedly “…in our name…” and by their definition “…in our (?) best interests…”.
    It’s just the way it is. It’s the battle ground we are committed to. We, those of us who are oath keepers, still believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, or who don’t take anything for granted or truth just because someone holding elected office says so. We, toe the line and stand to post, our weapons? The right to challenge our goverment and demand accountability of them and by them for their actions.
    So, from my POV I dont worry greatly when yet another direction or misdirection is attempted in the war of words or when “… A new study shows …”.
    As I see it they are shooting themselves in the foot by telling us what their doing! We just have to be listening carefully to hear them telling us! So, bring it on! We all know what our choices are, we all know who’s on the side of the anti-firearms movement and we all know what they want.
    I’m not concerned with those attempts I can see, I am concerned by those that are hidden from me for they are attempted with the same mentality as a cowardly mugger in an ally and if unprepaired may threaten my life by being caught out of position.
    I’m just one person and this is just my opinion. Seems however that most journeys start in this manner.
    Thanks for allowing me to comment here.

  19. Pretty simple when it comes to registration and such, you do not want to find out. Obviously the Gov’t can’t confiscate what they don’t know exists. Support the NRA, SAF and GOA!

  20. “some people believe registration is just a way for the government to get a list so they can come and confiscate guns.”

    What else could it possibly be used for? Serious question, I have never gotten a rational answer yet! There are a jillion people who call registration critical to “common sense gun control”, when the absolutely ONLY thing it can “sensibly” do is facilitate confiscation. This illustrates how stupid they think we are, and how easy to fool.

    • This is correct. Over and over again, I’ve asked anti-gun folks to describe how registration prevents illegal use of firearms, and they just can’t do it. I tell them, okay, let’s say I just registered my guns, and I suddenly go crazy or decide to commit a violent criminal act. How does the fact that my guns are registered stop me? The correct answer, of course, is that it doesn’t stop me at all. If a person doesn’t care about murdering people due to mental illness or criminal intent, then any concern about using a registered gun to commit the act is a non-starter.

  21. Obama didn’t come for our guns because the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America and a host of other organizations went bat shit crazy when he did try to come for therm.

    May God bless and keep every one of them and may they remain strong and vigilant forever

  22. The real question is what would’ve been taken had we not fought like hell to stop it. The point they think they’re making is actually an affirmation of our success.

  23. Riddle me this…if you can have any item X, but then the government puts enough restrictions that make obtaining, owning and using item X impossible or difficult that is might as well be a complete ban, how is it different than taking them away so you cannot use them?

    Because, pretty much that is how the laws have made it in certain states.

    Sure, if you want to get technical like so many faux journalists and go by the word “take” — nobody has taken my guns, but if they put enough laws and restrictions on the books that the only place you can keep your guns in a locked up safe, how that any different? What good is being able to own something if you cannot actually enjoy and use it?

    Because, pretty much that is what was done in some places like CT and CA. These faux journalists like to use the word “inconvenience” — I would like to see what they think of “inconvenience” if someone takes away their mouse and keyboard and then at the same time tells them, go ahead, write all the stories you want you just cannot use any mouse or keyboard to do so. Because with many gun laws, they have done about the same thing.

  24. Is that a trick question? Barry tried-and with the stock market CRASH I see gubmint “oversight ” looming. A whole lot of folks may want to be armed…

  25. I REMEMBER OBAMA YO MAMA
    You can cling to your guns if you have a Bible.
    You can keep your doctor.
    Folks (bite lip), you can’t keep you doctor but we will give you a better doctor or qualified healthcare equivalent.
    You must talk to your doctor about your guns if you ever have children in your house.
    Your doctor will keep a list of your guns and how they are stored.
    Your doctor will not share this list with anyone. Ever. Particularly federal government agents who want to compile a national list. Well maybe with them but nobody else. Nobody. Ever. Particularly state and local agents who want to compile their own lists and maybe investigate you for possible mental health issues or other potential risks to the state. Well maybe them too. But absolutely no one else. Really. Folks, it’s just common sense we can all agree on.
    Lastly, to prevent children from firearms exposure we will, prior to their birth, gladly pay to butcher them and sell the parts.
    It takes a village.

  26. “…the Obama administration has not tried to take anyone’s guns.”

    And the guy that got his hand slapped when he reached for my bacon wasn’t trying to take it either….

  27. Of all the people you would associate with obama he has done more damage to this country than all the others combined…….Ya he is in appropriate company.

  28. Actually, he has taken peoples guns, as others have pointed out with the VA and trying with the SSA. His attempts at gun controls has had such a backlash that he dad to back off on much of it. So when he couldn’t go after the gun, he went after the ammunition for the most popular centerfire platform in the county.

    The man is not stupid. He knows that the massive jump in gun owners – in the tens of millions – is no less than the people of the nation arming themselves against his government. That’s a big part of why he has decimated the fighting capability of the military. That’s why there’s no heavy armor left in the local national guard. That’s why there’s been such a ridiculous militarization of the federal bureaucracy.

  29. Just because they haven’t begun de facto confiscation doesn’t mean that they don’t want to.

    They just don’t want to deal with the violent public backlash.

  30. Awww c’mon guys, you are just Bitter Clingers. Obozo is here with the government and the UN to help us by protecting us from our guns and bibles. Godam America!

  31. In certain areas of the country, Obama’s knock is getting closer, with the help of Bloomberg, Gates, and other Self- serving elitist “Billionairocrats” !

    Oregon’s newly “legislatively” passed (Bloomberg bought) universal background check law…..
    It will not only do a background check on the private sale BUYER, they will apparently be collecting also FULL info about the SELLER….TOO….. for their database. Who knows, are they going to do a possible background check on the seller TOO. What happens if a seller were to fail a NICS check, Selling/ transferring a firearm?
    Either way, it is an abuse of the system, pushing an agenda without restraint and regard
    for the law.

    as of Aug 06, 2015 The Oregon FFL Dealer’s NICS Background check computers, are seeing newly (to be) implemented information screens appear on their systems – for the State’s database building. Not only having BUYERS INFO FILLED IN for a NICS check, but, also
    SELLERS INFO ….This includes the seller’s name, address, city, state and zip and their phone number.

    Oregon SB 941 was a background check law requiring buyers and/ or recipients of a firearm – whether temporary or permanent possession , to have a STATE PROCESSED NICS check, with the state collecting firearm details- brand, model, serial number.

    WATCH OUT Obama is riding the back of Bloomberg financed sheeple, And they’re HERDING ( or heading) your way.

    CHECK IT OUT FURTHER at
    http://www.oregonfirearms.org/osp-collecting-data-on-gun-sellers

    OSP COLLECTING DATA ON GUN SELLERS!
    08.06.15

  32. Obama, try as he might, just isn’t going anywhere with the Republican congress and any EO’s he signs can be challenged in court or undone by the next President.
    Chalk it up as another failure. (thankfully)

    What worries me more is the wrong republican in the WH next time.
    Currently the republicans won’t allow any talk of gun control because they aren’t about to give Obama an inch. I suspect another Democrat in the WH will be the same.

    If their own guy is in the WH, we might see some warming to “common sense” (cough cough) restrictions, particularly if there is another mass shooting or three and it’s politically expedient for them to do so.
    Better vet these guys carefully and avoid the weak.

  33. Anyone else renew their M855 stockpile after the Obama-administration ATF tried to ban it? The ATF has Obama’s blessing, from Fast and Furious, Operation Chokepoint, and raiding Ares Armor.

    Yes, the Obama administration wants to ban guns. Heck, the Bammer banned mowing grass when the government was “shut down.”

    • That is actually an easy answer. For the first time in a very, very long time, a large portion of the general populace – numbered in the 10’s of millions – have been arming themselves against the Federal Government.

      And whether you believe it or not, the government certainly does. They have been actively purging the military of anyone that would put their oath or faith first and they have been militarizing the bearuacracy at an unprecidented level.

  34. Perhaps a year ago, the answer was no, he’s doing it through proxies, the statists in the states. Now, the answer is yes, both through his statist proxies and through the federal government including agencies that should have nothing to do with it. It should be the top story on any real news every night but we don’t hear about it.

  35. I have read that some criminals are wearing bullet proof vest. It is time to aim for the groin. Aim for the groin, Aim for the groin!!!! Put yourself in the shoes of a dirt bag trying to take what is yours and iff they know they will NEVER have sex or children again or even use the toilet like they use to try may think twice. While we are talking about criminals we know that NO Washington D.C. is a criminal and would take away our right to protect ourselves, how about they eliminate the double standards and get on Obamacare and SS like most of Americans. Just so I am not misunderstood Obamacare and SS for the DC politicians not the special for them only retirement health care. In case you have not guessed I AM fed up!! It is time to take America back from the corruption. mrpresident2016.com

  36. First they came for the negro guns. Then they came for the Nisei guns. Then they came for the German America and Italian American guns. Obama is part of a long line of gun confiscation leaders.

  37. There once was a gun grabber named Barry ,
    Who went after the guns of his Quarry ,
    Those who clung to their guns and their Bibles ,
    He considered the pawns of his rivals ,
    His rivals it seemed
    had screwed up his dreams
    and managed to drill for more oil ,
    They bought lots of guns , even some nuns ,
    and they did it without to much toil ,
    They filled up their tanks
    and filled up their banks
    hanging onto all the Feds easing ,
    They all went conceal carry ,
    which sure pissed off Barry ,
    it wasn’t at all to his pleasing ,
    and all the chickens came home ,
    to find their nest were all gone ,
    and the fox had snuck into the hen house ,
    The chickens cried foul and Barry smiled Fowl ,
    the chickens had been infected with hen louse ,
    Now Barry it seemed ,
    Had broken their dreams ,
    and managed to get all guns in a big rouse .

  38. This is the “sliding definition” rhetorical trick. The definition of “come for your guns” varies, depending, so The Right People can win the argument.

    “Come for your guns” means knock on every gun owner’s door, taking all their guns by force, President Obama personally in front, or maybe only directing the action from the command center a couple blocks away.

    There are two counter-moves: pin the definition, or warp it the other way. Pin the definition is kind of honest – “So, ‘come for your guns’ means what?” Then work with that definition consistently. Warp it the other way is simply interpreting anything vague however is most advantageous to your. Put it on the other guys to anchor a definition. If / when they complain: “That’s not what it means.” the reply is “Oh, that’s not what you said. So, what you meant to say is … ” By the time you’re done they’ll be left with a piece of crappy conceptual territory they don’t want to hold.

    “Well, how many executive orders did he do after the congress didn’t pass that gun legislation? That sounds to me like President Obama, ‘coming for guns’ despite congress rejecting the scheme, in response to people stepping in to express their preferences.”

    “What have been the ATF regulation changes, proposed regulation changes – since defeated – enforcement actions and court cases? Which of those expanded the freedom to use guns lawfully? I believe the ATF works for the administration, or am I confused?”

    “You know, rhetoric matters. He ‘came for’ guns every way he could in speech after speech. Remarks after remarks. And so on.”

    There are several good breakdowns on this kind or rhetorical crip-crap, even on line. See “motte and bailey argument” as a search term.

Leave a Reply

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