Previous Post
Next Post

US President Barack Obama gets emotional as he delivers a statement on executive actions to reduce gun violence on January 5, 2016 at the White House in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO/JIM WATSON / AFP / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

By Alan Korwin (from, reprinted with permission)

Here are the highlights from the president’s plans on new gun controls. It is obvious he is limited in what he can do without Congress. His packed house and emotional introduction was brilliantly performed. Unfortunately, the president left out most hard details on what he actually plans to have his officials do, so the workings he leaked to Politico on New Years Eve remain unknown, but this has not stopped pundits from speculating wildly. Real details below . . .

Politico suggested (but he did not say) gun dealers would be redefined as: anyone selling more than 25 guns in a year, in the original boxes, within a short period from acquisition, and the most dangerous suggestion, if they hold a certain unspecified-size inventory, which could affect huge numbers of Americans with collections. The current definition of a gun dealer, in place for decades, is in CFR §178.11, a regulation (not a statute) which can be changed by administrative procedure without Congress.

The scariest part of all that is he could change the definition to 25 guns a year, set the precedent, and then reduce it later to a few guns a year, or minimal “inventory” holdings, making everyone an unlicensed dealer.

Dealers must conduct background checks on all sales, keep scrupulous records under felony penalties for paperwork errors, are subject to unannounced warrantless searches of their homes or premises without any limitations and other conditions.


Obama said: If you’re in the business of selling guns you have to get a license and conduct background checks.

The truth: He opened with this, and his audience loved it. This is already law (18 USC §922). It is a felony to be in the business of selling guns without a license, or without conducting background checks. People are prosecuted for doing this all the time. No one present, who had displaced the reporters normally present in the East Room for this sort of presentation, seemed aware of the fact.

Obama said: He plans to crack down on criminals using trusts to avoid the law.

The truth: This is completely illegal and he could have been doing this from the day he took office. Reporters need to ask him why he waited so long. The crowd applauded wildly, as they did for his opening proposal.

Obama said: A recent study showed that 1 in 30 gun buyers from one Internet site were felons and buy guns without a background check.

The truth: If that’s the case, and authorities have a way to tell (which raises all sorts of questions) — they should be making arrests, end of story. That’s illegal under multiple laws. Why aren’t they? Nothing Obama said indicates a change that will go after these known law breakers with tools and laws they apparently already have. Hopefully reporters will grill him on why this isn’t already standard practice — or hasn’t been the entire time he has been in office.

Legitimate online retailers offer product, conclude transactions, and then make deliveries through physical locations where the buyer must be physically present, go through a background check, and then pick up the merchandise. If the buyer can’t clear the background check, the person is simply set free — that’s the loophole authorities refuse to even acknowledge, let along fix.

They identify felons, mental cases, illegal aliens and other miscreants trying to buy guns, and put them on the street, with their money, trying to buy guns. If they want to get guns “off the streets” that’s how to do it. Instead, they continually seek to get more people to send their names to the FBI, through “expanded” background checks.

Obama said: The Manchin-Toomey expanded background check law would have solved our main gun problems but was turned down by a stonewalled Congress.

The truth: The Manchin-Toomey bill was a gun-registration plan, plain and simple. I studied and analyzed the bill, and its main purpose was to create a list of every gun owner in America. Read about it right here. The president was flat out wrong about this. What’s so bad about gun registration? That’s plainly described too, along with the actual language of the bill (which reporters never read, judging from their “news” coverage of it.

Obama asked: How did this become so partisan?

The answer: By so many politicians telling us “I support the Second Amendment but…” This is a revealing turn of phrase, a linguistic mechanism similar to a “tell” in poker. “But” statements secretly reveal what a person really thinks, it works with unerring accuracy, try this and see. (Try it on your spouse!) The first half of a “but” statement is what the person really thinks, if you reverse it, and change “but” to “and,” so that the second half reveals the truth. Vocal inflection brings the point home. “I love your dress but the color is all wrong.” This typically means, “I hate your dress and the color is all wrong.” When someone says “I support the Second Amendment but…” they are really saying, “I don’t support the Second Amendment and…”

Obama said, “I support the Second Amendment but…” twice. He did nothing to enhance the Second Amendment, and did act to constrain it, and praised bills that would have gutted it.

It also becomes partisan when our leaders tell us they are proposing one law, but then the language of the law says something totally different, like Manchin-Toomey. Or when instead of defending our rights like they have sworn to do, they attack them, like John McCain did.

Obama said: John McCain’s excellent helpful gun show bill was shot down by an NRA-controlled Congress that cares nothing about our safety or dead children (I’m paraphrasing but I’ve captured the gist).

The truth: John McCain’s gun show bill would have completely closed down gun shows. When I confronted McCain about this publicly at a Town Hall meeting it became obvious McCain was unaware of what was in his own bill — it was written by others and he was simply sent out to promote it, as if it was a background check bill. I read the bill, as I always do. It is analyzed here, read it yourself. It would register every gun owner who attended a show, even if they don’t buy anything:

Then it turned out it was even worse — there would be no way to even run a gun show under its terms — it would close down gun shows completely:

Obama said: Two out of three gun deaths are suicides, a stunning NEW stat. It used to be only one out of two.

This means: 20,000 of the 30,000 gun deaths constantly referred to by anti-rights crusaders are a medical problem, not a crime problem. Of the 10,000 deaths remaining, 6,000 we know are blacks murdering each other in ghettos,, putting a different complexion on the problem entirely.

Click here for the new 2016 Travelers Guide to the Firearm Laws of the 50 States

Obama said: We must boost gun-safety technology. If we can have fingerprint access for our cell phone we can surely have that for guns. The audience went wild with applause. We can put safety caps on aspirin bottles to protect children we can do something similar to protect kids from guns. Audience loves it! We have an app so we can find an iPad, cause he keeps losing his (yeah, right), so we should have the same thing for finding stolen guns. Audience chuckles its approval.

This means: Anyone who has ever had their cell phone, car or flashlight battery die knows exactly why guns don’t run on batteries and never should. A gun must work without fail as if your life depends on it, because it does.

If you ever scraped battery corrosion off a device that has sat unused for a while you know why a battery doesn’t belong inside a gun.

Adults who have had to ask their kids to help them get the lid off a medicine bottle know what’s wrong with that silly suggestion. And the idea that authorities can identify your gun, or even turn it off at a distance, because it has a locator beacon built in, do I really have to spell that out for you? Guns are supposed to work despite authorities, not with their cooperation, that’s the balance of power “prime directive” built into the Second Amendment.

This man who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is doing nothing of the sort. He could be going after criminals and instead he is going after the property that 100 million Americans currently own, that his supporters are scared of, instead of educating people in gun safety and proper use of the most important tool of freedom Americans possess.


He plans to make the background checks more efficient, bring them into the 21st century.
They are already very quick with very high “Proceed” rates and fully digital, by Internet, fax or phone.
It’s unclear what he plans to do, and he didn’t say (but it got applause). We must wait and see.

He plans to hire another 200 BATFE agents.
The bureaucracy will of course like this, as government grows.
Funding must come from Congress, results unknown. wants to eliminate this rogue agency whose horrific track record of abuse is stunning.

He wants timely gun theft reports and protection for domestic violence.
Also popular with the audience, but no details provided, we must wait and see.
If reporters tell you they know what this is don’t believe them, no one knows, yet.
It did seem like the theft reports will apply between manufacturers and stores,
something that could have been addressed when he took office.

He pledged $500 million to improve mental health conditions.
Of course Congress must approve the funds, not the White House, this remains to be seen.
He revealed that two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides, a startling NEW stat.
The money and effort will be made to get states to submit health records to the feds
and end barriers for submitting mental health records to national databanks.

The medical community is more reluctant to stigmatize people and add them to government lists
for denying constitutional rights than the NRA, and rightfully so. This is a tough hill to climb.


Barack Hussein-Obama closed by tearing up, the image I predict will be used, virtually forever, in “news” reports about this event. The clicking of camera shutters at that moment was almost deafening.

He told us the gun lobby wants guns available to “anybody, anytime,” and we have to stand up to “gun lobby lies.”

What American must stand up to is Barack Hussein-Obama lies, many of them clearly outlined in this report.

The gun lobby and nobody wants guns available to “anybody, anytime,” that’s a bald faced lie. Jihadis, no guns. Hardened criminals, no guns. Crazy people, no guns. That’s what the NRA stands for, that’s what Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (a real hard core group) stands for. SAF, GOA, every state gun-rights organization in the nation stands for that. Bad guys, no guns. Our president just lied to us on national TV. Manchin-Toomey, McCain’s gun show bill — rights-demolishing oppressive bills sold on lies. The president just lied to us on national TV.

It’s time for the president to start focusing on criminals, not on the innocent. The one million bad guys he says we’ve found with the background check we already have in place? Reporters — ask him about that. Round them up. Send the 200 new agents after them. Or is that a lie too?

And — when are we going to demand real gun education for children and adults, brought to you by this station and the Ad Council? National go-to-the-range-and-practice day? Arm the Army already? How about some excellent new model laws?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. all i got out of it was the guy can now cry on Que….must have got that talent from all the Hollywood libs he’s been hangin with…

  2. I’m not one to fault a man for crying in private, but in public? Kim Jong Un and Putin must be wondering if Obama can hold it together through an episode of the Gilmore Girls. Weak.. He makes us all look so. Effing. Weak.

  3. The idea that my collection could be considered an “inventory” is quite possibly the most terrifiying thing I have heard yet. I have been considering the fact that if I sold even one gun that I have had for years and made a profit on it would make me a dealer to be a bad thing; but if I can be considered to be “in the business” simply by the size of my collection, despite the fact that I have never sold a gun, I am really starting to be worried about this.

    • “…if I sold even one gun that I have had for years and made a profit…”

      How do “they” determine what a profit is? If you bought a gun for $300 in the year 2000, and sold it today for $425, would that be $125 in profit?

      No. That would be a $1.12 LOSS based on 2000 dollars ($298.88), and a $1.27 LOSS in inflation adjusted 2015 dollars ($426.59).

  4. Is there no stop to this guy’s ridiculous solutions to a quite easy problem.Here comes the ballpoint pen and all the executive orders, we better look out.

  5. Again, I just have to wonder if most of the folks cheering him will ever catch on that he is not really changing the legal status quo vis-à-vis dealers, and that he certainly isn’t doing anything to put a dent in the “gun crime” rate. Probably not, when the news keeps reporting “mass shootings” they will just shake their heads and demand more “gun control”. After all, they still haven’t figured out there’s no such thing as an “assault weapon” outside of their fevered imaginations.

  6. The people at that speech was a who’s who among freedom hating disarmers. I spotted Mark kelly, Gabby Giffords, Daniel Webster, Josh Horowitz, and Shannon Watts, just to name a few.

  7. “If we can have fingerprint access for our cell phone we can surely have that for guns.”

    IMO This is our best avenue of attack on smart guns, the touch ID on my iPhone rarely works the first time I press my finger on it, maybe 25% of the time, if my hands are cold, sweaty, or I just ate some Cheetoes or anything even moderately greasy/salty you can just fuggedaboutit. Look how unreliable they are, so I challenge everyone here to ask someone next time they bring up smart gun technology, “look you may not believe in carrying a gun for self defense, but how many times in a day does your finger print ID fail to unlock your phone in the first try? Now imagine someone is kicking your door in and your life depended on accessing your phone, what then?” Or better yet, ask them if they would appreciate the government being able to turn on “find my iPhone” without their permission and either just simply track them or shut their phone down completely. Point being, relate the technology to something they know and understand (and for the most part probably believe they couldn’t live without).

    • My phone has a swipe lock as well, but I can still make an emergency call without unlocking the phone.

      When it comes to my gun…EVERY CALL IS AN EMERGENCY!

    • That’s not a problem, because guns are never used for imminent self defense, only to murder people. And the “warning” that the government can turn off your gun with an app? Let me draw you a picture of Obama, Hillary and Loretta Lynch rubbing their hands with glee.

      Your gun doesn’t work when you want it to? Nothing would make them happier.

    • Guns will be needed under stress. Guns get dropped, banged up, dirty and wet. Such a device would have to be hardened to prevent tampering too. It would also suck if your spouse or children needed your gun, but it won’t work for them. Cell phone is a false analogy.

  8. It’s interesting how you went from referring our President from Obama to Barak Hussein-Obama. There is no hyphen in the man’s name. You’re not Daniel Victor-Zimmerman. Are you trying to incite racial/religious/cultural prejudices? Are you not insinuating the ridiculous fear about Muslims because our President has a “foreign ” middle name? You may have some very valid points with your argument about the President’s proposals, you wipe it away with your ignorant context.

  9. The most famous TV tears since Iron Eyes Cody — the fake Indian formerly known as Espera Oscar de Corti — cried because he saw a candy wrapper floating in a river. Now brought to you by a fake American formerly known as Barry Soetoro.

    Keeping America Stupid, one tear at a time. Sniff.

  10. If only there was some sort of elected body that could draft legislation to provide a concrete definition for what constitutes a “gun dealer”.

    • It’s harder than it may look to come up with a “concrete” definition of a “dealer” that wouldn’t run afoul of large-scale collectors, one-time estate sales, and other situations where a relatively large number of guns may be involved outside of an actual, for-profit business.

      • As a first step, at least, toward this liar’s *stated* goals, completely within his executive powers, why doesn’t he direct whoever actually performs NICS checks to perform them for anybody, at taxpayer cost. If I want to check out the guy dating my daughter, call this number. 4473s not necessary for a NICS check, what is needed is name and SSN, possibly address. This would create no registry, no database, and every guy looking to sell a gun to a neighbor could have the answer in hand by an hour from now. Why was that not included?

        If I am buying a gun, I have no need for a background check, and do not want to pay for it. If the American People *REALLY* think they are necessary, then the American people should pay for them. Watch how fast that goes away.

  11. The domestic violence card is being used here, Australia, to expand reasons to “suspend” your firearms licence
    It has changed over the last five years from court hearing to judge or magistrate to sign temporary order until court hearing to any complaint to police and the police can suspend your licence and you have to surrender or remove to other storage. Some gun stores now make a lot of money this way at average cost of $30 a month per firearm.
    As per usual legal gun owners are not the people shotting each other over drug deals etc

  12. I appreciate the article writing out what we are all questioning and thinking about.

    The applause resembled a TV show with applause-signs and or laugh tracks. The cry was disingenuous making no sense under the circumstances. This was to me embarrassing. I wondered if he had a chemical irritant which he rubbed on his face to elicit tearing. Without question the speech had far more to do with politics than anything else. Still, this was a direct Constitutional attack and must not be allowed to stand.

    There is no question, Obama has stepped over the line. We are now faced with what to do about it, and him. I dropped a few bucks on NRA, GOA and SAF last night. We might all consider at least a minimum donation.

  13. Multiple times in recent months (including this address) the president has said “The second amendment conveys a right to keep and bear arms….” ……My problem here is that there is a huge difference between “a right” and “the right”. “A right” in this context is one as defined by the president himself. “The right” is as it was written and intended, to be taken at face value. Just another indicator of his true views,regardless of what he says.

    • 2A “conveys” no right whatsoever, try reading it. It acknowledges a preexisting right, then prohibits government infringement. This “conveys” crap is a smokescreen, hoping we won’t notice the clear infringements.

  14. It was, as I expected, a dog and pony show. It was complete with fake wild applause, tear-jerk moments and a lot to do about nothing.
    Too bad this isn’t Star Trek and Star Fleet because we could get rid of Obama due to he being clearly emotionally compromised and unfit for command under regulation 619

  15. He’s not an idiot, he just thinks the entire populace is.

    For instance, does anyone actually think that taking guns away from a suicidal person is going to prevent them from “checking out”? Nope. Not if they’re serious about it.

    Also, I love technology, within reason. When Cadillac offered an optional night vision system on their DTS models a few years back, I thought that was cool as balls. However, some new cars have “stop-by-wire” brakes, meaning the brake pedal is just a sensor that tells the computer when and how hard you want to stop. No thanks. I sure as hell wouldn’t want that system to fail while driving and have no brakes. I’m sure measures were taken to ensure that doesn’t happen, but I won’t risk it. So count me out when it comes to “smart guns”, too. While I think that a gun that will only fire for it’s owner is a cool idea, I still think it’s just a novelty item. Too much could go wrong with it in a life-and-death situation. I’d trust a zip gun with my life before I’d trust a smart gun.

  16. “We have to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies”
    That’s very fascist of him to declare that his opposition only spreads lies and deceit.
    Let’s have some fun.
    “We have to stand up to the (opposing sides) ‘lies'”

    “We have to stand up to the Jew’s lies” (Germany, 1930s to 1940s)

    “We have to stand up to the foreigners lies” (Various historical examples)

    “We have to stand up to the witches lies” (Salem, 17th century)

    “We have to stand up to the capitalists lies.” (Communist despots, Current American Liberals, etc.)

  17. The liberal smart gun.. it can be integrated into your smart phone… Out of Ammo?.. theres an app for that automatically uploads virtual bullets onto your “ghone” ..looking for a gun range?.. squeeze the trigger and the bullets find their way to the nearest range via text.

    hey, im all about throwing them a bone.. anything to get em off our backs!

  18. I really like President Obama’s common sense gun violence approach, but I have a few problems with some of the implementation.

    • I have yet to hear any common sense from Obama regarding anything about guns, violence or otherwise.

      His line about knowing the Constitution goes to the heart of that: if he knew the Constitution, he’d know that the only way authorized for doing anything at all about guns is “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia”. Congress could require the militia (all of us) to keep all weapons not in use stored securely. Congress could require everyone to get gun safety training. Congress could authorize a community mental health system that could allow local authorities to decide temporarily that certain individuals are “not competent to arms”.

      But Congress can’t make rules about guns directly — that authority isn’t granted. It can only legislate “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia”, and that means whatever law they pass has to affect everyone — which means they can’t require just gun owners to get training, they’d have to require everyone to get it, since everyone is part of the militia.

      They can’t even, to be particular, assess fees for gun owners having anything to do with the use or ownership of guns: to “provide for” included providing the funding for whatever was enacted, and that means tax money paying for it.

  19. He can call himself Barack Hussein Obama Rodham Cougar Mellancamp for all I care.

    He’s done more damage to America and the rule of law than any terrorist has. He deserves to be in prison. Failing that, impeached, convicted and removed from office. Failing that, a long, long retirement during which he can contemplate the enormity of incompetence that was his presidency, all the while enduring history’s harshest judgment.

    This president has been the most racist, most divisive, least qualified, and least accomplished in a century. He’s a no talent hack and affirmative action baby who’s whined and cried and mau-maued his way to high office.

    Having spent seven years using the Constitution to wipe his butt, now he’ll spend his final year in office using it to wipe his crocodile tears. Unbelievable and unforgivable.

  20. Anybody else notice that BHO will say that the changes to gun law’s will not stop all shooting death’s when asked if they (new gun law’s) would stop past shooters.

    He won’t say “yes it would” or “no it wouldn’t”, of course saying that the changes
    would do nothing to stop past shooting’s would lead to the end of the push for
    gun control.

    • If you think about it, there is no possibility of background checks stopping any particular crime. Either the shooter passed a background check, so obviously enforcing more background checks would have done nothing, or he avoided a background check illegally (like, by murdering his mother!) so obviously enforcing more background checks would have done nothing. The man is a moron.

  21. I swear it seemed that you insinuated that a person attempting to buy a gun that fails a background check shuldn’t be set free, implying that they should be arrested.

    “If the buyer can’t clear the background check, the person is simply set free — that’s the loophole authorities refuse to even acknowledge, let along fix.”

    That is absolutely ridiculous considering the flaws in the system.

    If that isn’t what you meant by that then please explain.

    Of course if the person knowingly lies, that is a different story and I have witnessed, at least twice, state police arresting individuals who very obviously lied on the form. However, no person should ever be arrested for failing a background check, that is not a crime, and it is simply ridiculous to imply that they should.

    I have a close friend who recently failed a background check for a drug arrest that happened over 10 years ago. He bought a Ruger two weeks before. It is ridiculous to imply that a person failing a background check should have anything happen to them other than be “set free”.

    Hell, I don’t think we should be keeping felons from purchasing firearms anyway. If they have served their time, payed their debt, and stayed out of trouble for a reasonable amount of time their is no justification in keeping their rights from them. Voting included.

    • It’s also absolutely ridiculous because if the law provided for arresting people on the spot, it would be unconstitutional, since it would be requiring self-incrimination. In order to have a law that made every purchaser go through a BGC, Congress had to set it so statements on the form cannot be used as a basis for prosecution.

  22. Anything where your life depends on it, you don’t want depending on electronics and software. That is why the Abrams battle tank (and the Challenger and Leopard tanks) have a human loader, as opposed to an auto-loading mechanism. Auto-loaders require parts that require maintenance and can break. It’s easier and more reliable, although not as sexy sounding, to have a physical human manually picking up the rounds and physically loading them into the tank’s main gun.

    In the space program, one could have turned off the rocket engine of the Apollo spacecraft via turning a hand crank. But that wasn’t sexy-sounding enough, so they put in electronics to do it, although the astronauts preferred the valve option because when you’re in space, you don’t want to have to rely on electronics. But it would have sounded to unbelievable to the public, a spacecraft, the height of American technological supremacy, having the engine turned off and on with something it sounded like you could buy at the local hardware store.

    I wouldn’t be surprised even if the diesel truck engine that powers Obama’s limousine is completely mechanical, like the Cummins 6BT. None of that modern common rail fuel-injection stuff with all the electronics or anything, just pure mechanical operation, so that in the event of an EMP, there is no risk of the engine failing. I have no idea if that is the case or not with The Beast, but as said it wouldn’t surprise me.

    And with guns, the same. Gun people love high-tech with regards to scopes, lights, lasers, materials science, etc…but leave the core mechanism of the gun itself mechanical.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here