IMG_0963_1

Among the usual comments of support and resolution after the murder of five Dallas police officers, Attorney General Loretta Lynch was sure to sound a recurring theme of the Obama administration – the problem is guns. Did she mention the self avowed racism of Micah Xavier Johnson? Not a syllable. But she made sure to say that “we must take a hard look at the ease with which wrongdoers can get their hands on deadly weapons.”

Politicians always fall back on their core beliefs. Key among them: Civilians shouldn’t have access to firearms. Period. Not just criminals, all Americans. The only difference lately: they’ve been a lot less reluctant to express that thought.

Recommended For You

106 Responses to Attorney General Lynch: Guns Too Easily Available to Americans

  1. How many shooters were there last night? Two? You saw how much damage they did. We also saw one man (Chris Dorner) shut down California for a week. Gun owners outnumber all police, military, and federal agents (including all non-armed personnel) by about 25 to 1. If Democrats get the civil war that they want, they will lose – badly.

    • There was only one actual shooter. A pair of individuals were detained for questioning, their involvement is TBD, but it doesn’t seem like they were trigger pullers.

    • I hate to interrupt your fantasy there, but just because there are lots of gun owners doesn’t mean they’re all civil war masturbators. Regardless, the guvmint has this thing called the military, and it’s pretty big, and pretty strong. Additionally, what you’re describing would result in the deaths of no fewer than 10 million Americans, destroy our economy (at least temporarily) and anhiallate us as a country and a society. Finally, your side (technically, I guess, our side) would lose, and the government is the only thing that would emerge stronger.

      • Blinky, don’t have much imagination, do you. You can’t think of any tactics besides going mano a mano with the military, or militarized police, for that matter?

        • I have an excellent imagination… that’s what my mom always told me, anyway.

          I can, by the way. I envision grassroots, legislative efforts to elect sane, responsible and, by gosh, Libertarian-leaning leaders who respect individual rights. Yes, you may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. And at least I’m not thinking of guerilla warfare, quasi-terrorist tactics and the complete breakdown of the US is something to aspire to.

      • So “we” have actually won/left Afganistan and Iraq? How long were we (or the French) in Vietnam before the demtards surrendered? How long were the Russians in Afganistan (or Finland)? Need some more?

        There are these great things called books (not comic, history books). It’s all recorded.

        But you’re correct that the 1st American Civil war was nasty. Another would be worse.

        • There is a substantial difference between two military forces fighting over one country. In fact, you probably recognize this, because every example you used involved a foreign invading force, and in all examples of victory, save perhaps for one, it was expelled by a formal military operation. Finland is an interesting one, but it involves more nuance than you’re leading on. Finally, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t really relevant here; in each case formal military operations were nothing less than a pushover. The real violence came when each country entered (or returned to) a state of completely chaotic feudalism.

          The scenario with an American civil war would be quite a bit different. There’s no invading force to expel. And with economic and social conditions being what they are – unprecedentedly good when looking at human history from a total world view – support for a war would be remarkably low. The fact that things appear to be worse now than they were in say, 2007, or 1998, or 1955 or whenever is almost totally irrelevant.

          The likelihood of something like this happening on a large scale in the US is highly unlikely, and if it did it would be horrible, as would the outcome.

        • “There is a substantial difference between two military forces fighting over one country.”

          Russia was the only military force in Afghanistan, and the people had to fabricate their own weapons from scrap. And the Russians lost very badly. And the American military will not be involved with any revolution, or they will be equally involved on both sides.

      • Where did you get that 10 million number from? There’s less than 800 Senators, Congressman, and Cabinet Members. Throw in a few lettered agencies senior staff and you’re looking at less than 2000. 3 companies and and a few unattached platoons could handle it.

        Just sayin’. Not that I would promote that sort of thing.

        • Roughly 1 million people total died during the American Civil War, when the population was about 31 million. Today it’s about 310 million, so the maths say it’s about 10 million. Chances are it would actually be substantial more, but I think the figure is fairly reliable for a full blown conflict, and assuming each side wound up with reasonably equal materials.

          Senators are congressmen; there are 535 people currently in congress and 15 cabinet members. I’m not sure what you’re insinuating here, but if you think some random detachment of the American military is just going to go and kill, arrest or do whatever you’re imagining with all of them then, well, you should be writing for Michael Bay. Unfortunately you’re gonna have to recognize that you’re describing the bad guys first, though.

      • “Additionally, what you’re describing would result in the deaths of no fewer than 10 million Americans, destroy our economy (at least temporarily) and anhiallate us as a country and a society.”

        And this is the point of an armed society. It makes the concept of subdual by force unthinkably costly. If we were disarmed, then tightening the straps and putting more weight on the boot-heels would be a much more viable and appealing option.

        “Finally, your side (technically, I guess, our side) would lose, and the government is the only thing that would emerge stronger.”

        You don’t know much about insurgencies, do you? Also, the military has a higher percentage of conservative types that respect the constitution than the general populace. How many divisions will choose to refuse an illegal order, (as the military is not allowed to conduct combat operations on American soil) refuse to fire on civilians, and change sides or at least passively resist? I’d say more than half. Between that, internal sabotage, guerilla attacks on poorly-secured bases and supply depots, the US military would have a very tough time of putting down a serious insurgency. could they nuke us? Sure, but that would be one for the history books in the category of ‘most profane war atrocities ever’ wouldn’t it? And what would that gain, aside from the eternal scorn of the international community against the now CLEARLY EVIL US government?

      • The United States Military has never had to fight a war without the moral, technical, and logitstical support of its citizens.

        Our military has an enormous appetite. Men and machines need fuel and support. This relys on a functioning US infrastructure that would, most likely, cease to exist if civil war comes to our land.

        Recent conflicts in the middle east have shown the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare. Now imagine that hurdle domestically coupled with a non-functional support infrastructure.

        Many people think that “an AR can’t beat a tank or a plane”. That’s true – but it also assumes the tank and the plane still work.

      • Not true. Civil war would be devastating, no doubt. But the revolutionary war was won with a mere 3% of the US population joining the fight. If the federal government ever gets into a shooting war with the people it has sworn to hate (you know – US citizens, patriots, Christians, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters, children and puppies) the federal government will lose. About 1/2 the military combat personnel will defend the constitution against the Federalistas, and that includes appx. 90 percent of SF fighters. High-level decision-makers on both sides would certainly die, but when the Federalista leadership starts bleeding that gooey pink blood they have in their veins, they will want to make peace. You see, a civil war necessarily means the worst possible kind of fighting. A civil war is a war of vengeance and annihilation. No one wants that, but through-out history, it often comes to that. If the government wants a fight, it will find that the battle will be waged in their own garages, their own homes, their children’s homes, their businesses, political offices, boardrooms, hideouts and bunkers.

      • I agree with you that civil war is a fantasy many seem to have without understanding that it would most likely just destroy the country and result in a solid dictator taking over. The concept of resistance to tyranny is only to be reserved for the most extreme of circumstances, this is stated right in the Declaration of Independence even. THAT SAID, the idea you have that the military the government has would be able to run roughshod over an American resistance is itself I believe a fantasy.

        This is the same military that we were told could not be used to bomb ISIS, when at only 40,000 people, into oblivion. We were told over and over, ad nauseum, by the “experts” on TV, that air power is not enough. No amount of drones and bombs will work to destroy a force like that. The full might of the U.S. military arsenal isn’t going to work to bomb out 40,000 untrained terrorists. You will need ground troops, and that will lead to a long drawn-out affair and lots of dead U.S. soldiers.

        BUT, then we’re told that if a tyranny was to form in this country and that it had control over a military force of equivalent capability of the U.S. military (because it wouldn’t be the actual U.S. military philosophically at that point as it would be siding with the tyranny), that this military force would be able to just run roughshod over 311 million Americans who, if less than 1% were to mount an organized resistance, said resistance could still amount to over 3 million people.

      • @BlinkyPeteReturns — I hate to interrupt your fantasy here, but no one here is claiming anyone is a civil war masturbator at all except you. Regardless, da gummint’s military has never been able to defeat an entrenched insurgency, as big and as strong as it is. So, no, it’s actually your side (which clearly isn’t “our side”) would lose, and the rebels would be what comes out stronger after the government collapses on itself. Mostly out of embarrassment that it can’t defeat a rather motley crew with rifles.

        • Blinky has never served in the military. I know from my time in the USMC, the vast majority of us would never follow illegal orders to fire on Americans.

        • I know from my 20 as an AF pilot that anyone who loads up a combat aircraft to kill Americans will be surprised where the bombs land. Blinky lives in fantasyland. It would be the police only defending the unarmed political targets, and we just saw in Dallas how well that would work-one man tore up the whole police force and shut down the city for a week. Multiply *that* by your 3 million figure.

        • To be fair though, I think Blink’s assumption is that it would be a military of equivalent capability as the U.S. military at that point, not the actual U.S. military for the reasons you cite.

    • This.

      On a side note, to the left being able to buy a firearm no matter the cost, time, wait, burden, ect they will always see it as “too easy”.

      They will never see a delay/regulation, burden they do not love.

    • There was ONE, an d there are about 100,000,000, probably more, Americans who own modern firearms. The fact that there are so few shootings shows just how law abiding we are. If we could separate the convicted felons from their guns, this nation would be the safest on Earth, if it is not , in fact, already.

      • Yeah, and the one was an honorably discharged Army veteran with no criminal record. It will be fascinating to learn what brilliant common sense gun control the idiot-in-chief thinks will prevent that happening in the future.

  2. AG Lynch has zero respect after she had a private meeting with Bill Clinton during his wife’s FBI investigation. Lynch is an idiot. Idiots say stupid stuff. And only other idiots listen to fellow idiots.

    • Question: How in the hell do you become Attorney General of the United States of America when you cannot read and comprehend a simple, short sentence plainly written in the English language?

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      The ONLY confusing thing about this amendment is why they did not put an exclamation point at the end.

      • Don’t know her whole history, but she defended the Clintons during the aftermath of one or another of their little mishaps (want to say Whitewater, but won’t swear to that). In return, Clinton appointed her a Federal judge. All makes sense in context.

  3. Ah yes. The third-world solution to everything: more government power.

    Americans elected a third world administration in Obama. We’re now seeing the third world mentality at work.

    • You misspelled “Roosevelt”. Both Teddy and FDR were big time progressives who believed that more government was the answer to all problems. Obama is just the latest example.

      • Woodrow Wilson was really the beginning of Progressivism. The Roosevelts just continued and expanded on it.

      • it actually worked at the time…got us through the depression and post WW2…worked really well actually. the programs were never created to allow those who cannot afford to support families to continue to grow bigger families, or provide support/funding generation after generation. The problem is, like any power application, it becomes demented, over used or abused.

        • Actually what FDR did likely prolonged the Great Depression and when he created Social Security he created a massive slush fund that the government was bound to raid and use the money to buy votes with.

    • And you win the internets today. People are surprised to get all of the commiecrat lifestyle after continuing to elect commiecrats…

  4. The one that let the criminal go…par for the nations course

    The freight train of infringement is inbound and government is bringing hell with it.

    Funny the liar was all set this evening to talk about BLM and police abuse. Cancelled the rally and brushing up on her anti gun speech for a town talk.

    The state senator for IL, Ms.Lynch, and the emotional compromise Democratic nominee.

    If one does not vote republican, the triad of infringement is in play.

  5. So a man who was filled with hatred and had at least one explosive device would have been stopped had he not had access to a gun? I’m going to speculate that he may have just used a different weapon to inflict his terror. If anything, we need more people carrying to take down animals like this one.

  6. Never mind this piece of crap shooter said he wanted to shoot white people… Middle class and white is no place to be. Way to call a spade a spade lynch….

    • Black lives matter so…even though a racist black man killed & wounded white officers, we’ll take white men guns away.

      Enough with white guilt….the systemic racist today are local, state and federal black legislators, politicians and elected representatives.

      • Precisely. I dont own slaves so I owe them no extra respect. Especially since they don’t respect themselvs.

  7. Americans to Attorney General Lynch: Power too easily available to politicians and gov’t officials.

  8. Funny the liar was all set this evening to talk about BLM and police abuse.

    The Democrats should not be allowed to keep these two narratives separate. They’ve been doing it for far too long. They simultaneously believe that black people are being targeted, brutalized, and oppressed by agents of the state, and also that they need to be disarmed by those same agents of that same state.

  9. In the same speech she said( paraphrasing) “To those who peacefully protest for change I want to assure you your Constitutional rights will be protected.”

    It is to laugh. Oh, it is to laugh.

  10. And now I get to watch another officer being shot in st Louis on the news. Civil war ain’t to far off. Thanks Obama.

    • If and when these tensions result in all out conflict civil war is not what I think we’re going to see. We’re going to see mob rule, the local police will struggle to curtail it, and we’ll be arming ourselves even more to survive the bedlam.

      The civil war part will eventually happen, but only because we’ll be the ones holding the bag when the military steps in to fix the chaos we didn’t start.

  11. Doesn’the the government always say people don’the need to be armed because the police will protect us? I believe last night’s events prove that when even the police are being murdered, it is more important than ever for people to be armed.

    • #1 take away from the Orlando Pulse shooting for me was that not only are police minutes away, but when they are right there, they still cannot prevent someone from shooting up a joint. Underscoring even more that we are the only ones responsible for protecting ourselves and loved ones.

  12. All she has to do is look in the mirror. Once people lose trust that the government will provide equal justice under the law, people will take matters rightfully or wrongly into their own hands.

    No sane person justifies what happened in Dallas. However, after her actions earlier this week she is part of the problem and in no way the solution.

  13. Well Loretta, I will be happy to listen to your arguments if you tell the President to shut his mouth when there is a police-criminal interaction until are in and convent a Grand Jury to look into Ms. Clinton’s gross negligence in handling classified information. I will accept the findings of no crime committed if that’s what the Grand Jury says.

  14. Her speech came on the radio while I was sitting in my car thumbing through my tablet. Completely ignored everything she said as I’ve lost all respect for her and no longer even care about any off the cuff threats she might make toward gun ownership. I don’t think Obama has the will for it. She’ll have to wait for her next boss that she cut a deal with last week to try again. I found the article I was reading about a perpetually stoned deer much more interesting.

  15. California checking in here, and it ain’t easy to get a gun, and it’s getting a whole lot more difficult in the very near term, and it is ALWAYS easy for criminals to get guns that they shouldn’t have regardless of where they live; just ask the local drug user where their supply comes from.

    Gowdy, Ryan, even Trump should be constantly hitting back with, “why are you demonizing a collection of metal parts for the action of the person who operated it” instead of allowing sit-ins and media rhetoric to outshout this narrative. They need to hit that message hard EVERY day, non stop, because only then may people stop turning off their brains and start thinking beyond the gun.

    • The wise have known exactly that for a long time. The quote attributed to Jefferson was from an essay written in 1764. .

      “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes.” … Translated from the Italian by Thomas Jefferson from Cesare Beccaria’s ‘Essay on Crimes and Punishments’

      https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Crimes_and_Punishments

      That’s from 250 years ago. Where have all the wise men gone? Those willing to trust the trustworthy and punish only the lawbreakers? Are there none left to lead us? I grow weary of feeling personally held to account for all the nation’s sorrows; being discomfited for no more reason than I am an easier target than the truly guilty.

    • What they should be hitting back with is by pointing out that Obama’s inflammatory rhetoric in support of black criminals is stirring up anti-police and anti-nonblack hatred among black Americans and also charge that he uses it to distract black Americans from the disastrous effects of Progressive social policy.

  16. Free speech too easily available to Liberals, progressives and corrupt politicians, or in the case of the attorney general, all of the above.

    Can’t take one right without taking them all…

  17. In the remaining days of the Obama regime, I predict Obama will take action by executive order banning the sale of the type of arms Democrats love to hate, you know, the ones with barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, black in color. He might even declare a national emergency so that he can do whatever he wants, as the law grants him the right to be king. Then he could ban the sale of all guns and ammunition. It would be symbolic, as the bad guys already have plenty of guns.

    The six million dollar question is this. Will the American people use their lawful right of regime change, and resist Obamas attempts at nullification of the 2nd Amendment?

    • “In the remaining days of the Obama regime, I predict Obama will take action by executive order banning the sale of the type of arms Democrats love to hate, you know, the ones with barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, black in color.”

      That and more.

      The game will be

      1 – Get people all wee-weeed up, so the advocates will be mobilized, and the opponents cowed.

      2 – Slam something through any way they can.

      3 – Once it’s in place, it sticks because it’s harder to unwind than to oppose before it happens.

      THIS is why they look to amplify everydamnthing. THIS is why they demand that “Something must be done. Now.”

      They did it with the affordable care act. They’ve done it (sort of) with the “navigable waterway” expansion to EPA scope of authority. They’re doing it pushing “safety” regulations into appliance energy standards. They do it with drones, foreign and domestic.

    • Why is that hard for someone to denounce. Roof got slammed about it, this guy obviously made statements to that end as well.

      Racism is a shitty thing, and it will likely always exist at a level. That being said it needs to be called out no matter who’s saying or acting on it. This idea that certain demographics can’t be racist is just absurd.

    • The public deserves to know. It may be necessary to ban some black pride imagery from the public square, because of it’s shameful racist overtones. Social justice demands no less!

  18. Well I guess we got that “change we can relieve on”. Thanks for choosing Bury Soetoro Valerie Jarrett. The perfect shill…SHTF is here POTG. Who’s surprised at the Lynch gal?

  19. Wasn’t the shooter in the national guard? Are we planning of disarming the national guard now?

    Maybe we need to figure out why we are making our guardsman so angry….assuming i’m right about the guardsman thing that is.

  20. We cannot allow ourselves to take incidents such as the one last night, even as significant as it was, as indicative that freedoms must be lost. The implications for this act of hate are widespread and affect multiple parts of the Bill of Rights, be it the First, Second or Fourth Amendments. One cannot fight indifference with hate, or hate with indifference. The officers in the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings acted with indifference to the lives of the people they were dealing with. The Dallas shooters let that indifference feed their hatred… and for what? Retribution against the innocent? Retribution, by definition, cannot be against the innocent.

    All lives matter. Black lives do matter, and black lives are cut short too often, whether by police intervention or gang/drug violence, but increased tribalism isn’t going to help. Compartmentalizing Americans into right/left, liberal/conservative, black/non-black, rich/poor, LEO/non-LEO, gun owner/non-gun-owner etc. does nothing to advance the cause of economic prosperity, racial equality and the type of community the nation was founded on.

    Before the blood’s been washed off the sidewalks, our AG is shifting blame, is requiring factions.

    • “but increased tribalism isn’t going to help. “

      Humans are tribal by nature. It’s fundamental. You can’t stop; you can’t NOT be ‘tribal.’

      So, one could argue that attempting to ignore our fundamental tribal nature is the root of the problem.

      There is nothing wrong with tribalism; it alone does not imply violence or mistreatment of other tribes in any way. It’s merely recognition that relationships and similarities make people closer to some rather than others.

      • Tribalism is one of the most powerful forces in all of human existence.

        I’ve said it before here at TTAG, and I will say it again, even tho the “Coexist” bumper sticker wankers want it to be not true:

        Diversity + proximity = war.

      • Tribalism is unavoidable but we need to make it a force of good again. Multiculturalism has failed. Blacks and police shouldn’t be tribes separate from the rest of us. We should all be part of the American tribe sharing American ideals. A little nationalism is what we need right now.

        • This was what I was alluding to- we don’t need to be fractured, we all need to belong to the tribe of the United States of America, a tribe rooted in freedom. “Increased tribalism” should have been “segmented tribalism” or similar.

          I don’t care if you’re black or gay, or black and gay, or bisexual and Hispanic, or a police officer and Asian or a white guy with dreadlocks, gauges and piercings- if you stand next to me in defense of freedom, you’re my American brother/sister.

        • “if you stand next to me in defense of freedom, you’re my American brother/sister.”

          I agree with this…or at least part of it. I’m less concerned with “American.” If you believe in individual liberty…really value the individual over the ‘collective’…I consider you “my tribe.”

          But, we’ll never have that in America 100%. We can’t, by very nature of humans. Some will seek to gain power over others and some will willingly sell themselves for whatever illusions the power seekers offer.

          America can never be “one tribe.” We could be “non-violent coexistence” except for the ‘take take take’ nature of the power-seeker tribe.

          They are the problem…not blacks, whites, rich, poor. The simple fact is they seek to “rule” others, and it is the nature of that desire that simply cannot co-exist with any semblance of ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ in another tribe.

  21. Politicians always fall back on their core beliefs. Key among them: Civilians shouldn’t have access to firearms. Period. Not just criminals, all Americans. The only difference lately: they’ve been a lot less reluctant to express that thought.

    Everything not compulsory is forbidden.

    Attorney General Lynch: Guns Too Easily Available to Americans

    Wait, I thought intent mattered.

  22. So, a bunch of people deliberately commit violence, particularly focused on agents of order, to make a political point.

    O think there’s a word for this. Wait, it’ll come to me. Wait. Um …

    Oh, yeah, what A G Lynch (& D-party Congresscritters, and their operatives and the media – but, I repeat myself). The word is “Terrorist”, perhaps also “Insurrectionist.”

    Or, exactly what the NRA, gun rights folks, the Tea Party, Limited Government folks, anybody who opposed a federal budget, you know the people who get called “terrorists” are not – not violent, not shooting up their opposition to make a point, not burning cities or pooping on police cars in “occupied” public parks.

    I look forward to A G Lynch’s announcement of deploying the FBI to investigate this domestic terrorism, her designation of the “movement” that has taken credit for this mess as a “terrorist group”, and placing all their names on a “no guns for you” watch list.

  23. Oh, yeah. “Dallas Gunman Wanted to Kill Whites.” Because they were white.

    So, the hate crime charges will be coming out any minute. You know, because there’s no question about his “intent.”

  24. Guns are too easily accessible to Americans? Really? I would say in response that the federal bureaucracy is too easily accessible to communists like her and her boss.

  25. I don’t see how additional restrictions on ordinary citizens could have stopped this shooter. After all, he was in the military and had no criminal record that would prevent ownership. Even in Canada, or the UK, or Australia he would have been granted a license based on that, and could have acquired sufficient firepower to cause mayhem (either personally purchased or just swiped from the military).

  26. What is she saying? “Too easily available to Americans”, means what exactly? Is she saying she only wants them easily available to Mexican cartels like her predecessor? Or only to Syrian ISIS terrorists like her boss? Or like Hillary made them easily available to Libyan terrorists?

    Our whole government is just totally tone deaf. Call me cynical if you must. I wouldn’t be surprised if the BLM terrorist’s firearms weren’t facilitated somehow by our own government, too.

  27. “we must take a hard look at the ease with which wrongdoers can get their hands on deadly weapons.”

    I’ve looked at it hard, and determined that crazy people, criminals, and terrorists are going to do what they do, regardless of the tool (or gun) used. Lets be honest. It’s easy for a person to build their own flame thrower, or make a bomb. There quite literally is – nothing that can stop that. So rather than ban everything in existence, we need to be vigilant and make attempts to be prepared for such incidents and also to address the root cause by teaching our children family values, ethics, morals, etc.

  28. Dear AG Lynch:

    Are you aware of these words in our constitution: “shall not be infringed?”

    Americans, really ALL human beings, have a God given right to keep and bear arms. People do NOT have any right to use those arms to murder other human beings in cold blood.

    Stop trying to take away our liberty.

  29. ***BREAKING NEWS!***
    Everyday American claims positions of power too easily available to liberal hacks.

  30. Feb2015 The panel voted 12 to 8 to advance Ms. Lynch, …. Ms. Lynch needed just two Republican votes to proceed to consideration by the full Senate. She got the votes of three: Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

    Apr2015 Senators voted 56-43 to confirm Lynch….. Ten Republican senators broke ranks and sided with Democrats to get Lynch over the 50-vote threshold: Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

    This witch should be impeached. And all Senators who voted for her tarred/feathered and thrown out.

  31. To AG Lynch I say, Au contrare, it is far to difficult for Americans to obtain guns.
    First, have you looked at the price of guns lately? They’re not exactly going for pocket change.
    Next, look at all the barriers in place and hoops American citizens must jump through to exercise a basic, fundamental right. Tell me, how easy is it for someone in DC, NYC, Chicago, or LA to legally acquire a pistol. And once it is acquired, can they actually ‘bear’ it?
    Even here in the relatively free state of NC, you cannot purchase a pistol from a licensed dealer without permission from your local sheriff (in the form of a Pistol Purchase Permit or a Concealed Carry Permit). And this costs time and money.
    Finally, while travelling outside your home state you can’t buy a pistol from a dealer for your immediate use. And I for one am not going to buy a gun out of the trunk of his car from some guy I don’t know at a Walmart in Topeka, KS.
    So no, Ms. Lynch, it is far too difficult to get a gun in America.

    • Those that do sell privately in NC want to see a pistol permit or CCW and sign a bill of sale. Even though the state doesn’t require it. Why? Because they are responsible! But you never hear this when the cry of universal background checks is shouted…

  32. Loretta, you lost any credibility you had left in the eyes of all Americans when you chose to hang with slick Willie for the benefit of slick Hillie.

    Please hand over your resignation and go away.

  33. BLM is a volatile, racist organization created to spread hate and fear. Were they investigated? If not, why not?

    They already have a track record of being violent.

  34. Why hasn’t this been labeled as domestic terrorism!!! If this was a white it would have been labeled as domestic terror!!! The politics is horseshit.

  35. According to the Democrats way of thinking Its begining to look like a high powered weapon is any weapon. This guy used a relic, a 70 year old 1950s era SKS and the Democrats are already calling it a High Powered Assault Rifle. They are positioning to try to include all semiautomatic guns into the Weapon of war category of Assault Weapons ban. My neighbor even said today that Assault Weapons are to blame because CBS said so….. 😵

  36. That’s it you crazy bitch, blame the guns, not the psycho doing the killing. You’ll still never take firearms from law abiding people! Find another leg to hump, dumbass!

Leave a Reply

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