DOJ Announces Project Guardian to Reduce ‘Gun Violence’ By Enforcing Existing Laws

attorney general doj William Barr

Attorney General Barr William Barr (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Project Guardian will emphasize background checks, federal prosecutions to reduce firearm-related crimes rather than enacting more gun control laws.

By Arian Sainz and Michael Balsamo, Associated Press

Attorney General William Barr announced a new initiative Wednesday that would better enforce the U.S. gun background check system, coordinate state and federal gun cases and ensure prosecutors quickly update databases to show when a defendant can’t possess a firearm because of mental health issues.

The push, known as Project Guardian, was being unveiled at a news conference in Memphis, Tennessee, alongside officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, on the same day public impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump began in Washington.

As part of the program, U.S. prosecutors will coordinate with state and local law enforcement officials to consider potential federal charges when a suspect is arrested for weapons possession, is believed to have used a gun to commit a violent crime or drug-trafficking offense or is suspected of being a violent gang member.

“Gun crime remains a pervasive problem in too many communities across America,” Barr said in a statement.

The program “will strengthen our efforts to reduce gun violence by allowing the federal government and our state and local partners to better target offenders who use guns in crimes and those who try to buy guns illegally,” Barr said.

The initiative requires agents in charge of ATF offices across the country to either create new guidelines or review the protocols already in place to bring federal charges against people who lie in order to obtain a gun from a firearms dealer. Prosecutors will particularly focus on offenders who have violent backgrounds, are gang members or who have faced domestic violence charges.

U.S. attorney’s offices would also be required to quickly input information about people who can’t own guns for mental health reason into federal databases. The attorney general is also encouraging U.S. attorneys across the country to adopt programs that could help disrupt potential threats and consider recommending court-ordered mental health treatment, in some cases, for defendants found to be ineligible to own firearms for mental health reasons.

The federal government has come under scrutiny in recent years for failing to prevent some mass shooters from buying guns because of lapses in the background check system. In 2018, there were more than 26 million background checks conducted and fewer than 100,000 people failed. The vast majority were for a criminal conviction and just over 6,000 were rejected for a mental health issue.

Federal law defines nine categories that would prohibit someone from being legally allowed to own or possess a firearm. They include being convicted of any felony charge or a misdemeanor domestic violence, being subject to a restraining order or active warrants, being dishonorably discharged from the military, being addicted to drugs, renouncing your U.S. citizenship or being in the country illegally or being involuntarily committed to a mental health institution or being found by a court to be “a mental defective.”

A man who killed nine black parishioners at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in June 2015, was able to buy his gun even though he has admitted to possessing drugs and a gunman who killed 26 people at a church in Texas was able to pass a background check because the Air Force had failed to report his criminal history to the FBI, which maintains the background check database.

A gunman who went on a rampage in West Texas in September, killing seven people, illustrated that even those who are barred from owning guns can skirt the law. That gunman had obtained his AR-style rifle through a private sale, allowing him to evade a federal background check that blocked him from getting a gun in 2014 due to a “mental health issue,” a law enforcement official told The Associated Press at the time.

The new program will also help to enhance ATF’s crime gun intelligence efforts, which the agency uses to identify and target criminals and identify where they obtained their guns.

Agents will work alongside prosecutors to “cut the pipeline of crime guns from those violent individuals who seek to terrorize our communities,” said Regina Lombardo, ATF’s acting deputy director.


  1. avatar Imayeti says:

    Enforce the laws? What a concept.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “The initiative requires agents in charge of ATF offices across the country to either create new guidelines…”

      While I’m glad to read that the DOJ will be focusing on the enforcement of existing laws, there’s still the issue of the ATF, DOJ, and such agencies doing things under “color of law”. Not too happy to see this declaration will require agents across the country to – if I’m understanding this article correctly – create new guidelines in their respective fiefdoms. That’s NOT A GOOD THING AT ALL.

      1. avatar Xaun Loc says:

        The problem will come when we see how various agencies and offices choose to try this new concept of enforcing federal gun laws.

        Federal prosecutors have long considered gun laws as “status violations” that are routinely the first white chip to be tossed away when negotiating a plea deal. The simple fact is that criminals facing federal criminal charges are very rarely prosecuted for any of their status violations (felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition) or even for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The underlying felony is bargained down to some lesser offense and the status offenses are simply dropped.

        On the other hand, federal prosecutors have brought down the full weight of federal prosecution on people who were charged with JUST a status offense. With nothing else to negotiate, prosecutors choose to take the easy win by demonizing individuals who ran afoul of some arcane provision of federal gun laws like having a vertical foregrip on an AR pistol that isn’t at least 26″ OAL (magically transforming it into an unregistered SBR), swapping out a Shockwave grip with a regular pistol grip (magically transforming it into an unregistered AOW), or owning a semiauto AK that happens to have one too many holes in the receiver (magically making it an unregistered machine gun), and of course anyone with a medical marijuana card is a “prohibited person.”

      2. avatar Deserttrek says:

        Agree, allowing atf do create anything is not good

    2. avatar ron says:

      Are we now Pro NFA34/GCA68?

      Do we not consider these tyrannical overreaches and infringements on RKBA? Now we’re to cheer that we’re dedicated to enforcing these idiotic NICS databases, “Prohibited Person” prosecutions? Let’s improperly rule over people using unconstitutional dictates!

      The Tyrant election of 2020 should be exciting: Trump: “Yeah, we’re actually going to enforce the tripe we should never have passed.” (kisses each bicep in turn) Random Dem: “We need more laws that will not matter.” (sticks finger up nose and opens mouth)

      Couple this with Barr’s recent PreCrime Initiative ( and, boy, does RKBA have a bright future.

      How we enjoy our chains, slobbering to thank our rulers for enslaving us.
      The #Winning Koolaide is strong.

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    Most of us have said that we have plenty of laws, we don’t need new ones, but we need better enforcement.

    Now the politicians and their Praetorian Guards want to serve and protect the sh!t out of us like never before. Be careful what you wish for, gentlemen. You may get it. Good and hard.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Looks like more federalization of local law enforcement. Time to have a review of unconstitutional laws passed in the last 100 years.

  3. avatar Dennis says:

    What a novel idea!

  4. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Enforcing existing law. What a novel concept.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Employee reviews companies the world over are inevitably loaded with statements and goals that essentially equate to “this quarter I’ll make an effort to do my job”.

    It should surprise no one that government as a place of work is just as inept as any other.

  6. avatar enuf says:

    This is not a new idea. It has been done before under both parties. For as long as the effort would last it works. Federal down to local prosecutors exanine cases as a team looking to hit real criminals with the harshest punishment and best chance of a guilty verdict. Problem is that while the results are good the effort always runs out of time and money.

    If they can sustain it long term, GOOD!!!

    Getting real bad guy and crazy person data into NICS is good too.

    Now if they could just get all the wrong data out of NICS…………

  7. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Yeah, every felon in possession should be a federal trial. So should every straw buyer. Take them out of local hands to eliminate plea bargain reductions in degree of crime. Locals do that and them wonder why people who shouldn’t have guns have them forgetting they reduce a felony to a misdemeanor.

    1. avatar S.Crock says:

      Why do you want to give the Federal gov so much power? I personally don’t want a Hawaii gun owner who is a felon for breaking state laws against magazines over 10 rounds to face a federal trial. Same goes for an Arizona gun owner who got a felony for smoking pot when he was 18. There are a lot of BS felony charges.

      1. avatar SCSI says:

        They already have the power, they just don’t exercise it.

    2. avatar Xaun Loc says:

      The feds are actually the worst practitioners of deal making — possession gun law violations are status offenses that are almost always discarded in federal plea deals.

      And, many rational gun owners are starting to have second thoughts about the ever expanding categories of “prohibited persons” — sure prohibiting possession of a firearm by felons and domestic abusers sounds like a “no brainer” — but in reality it often turns out to simply be brainless. This country has hundreds of thousands of “felons” who were convicted of non-violent crimes as young adults — often charges that were artificially inflated like “drug trafficking” charges for someone whose “friend” asked him to pick up some pot for him, then turned out to be an undercover cop. How many “robbery” convictions were for getaway drivers who didn’t know that a robbery was happening until their buddy ran out of the store yelling “let’s get out of here!” I’m not excusing their actions or the actions of various “white collar” criminals — but do all these non-violent offenders really deserve to lose their rights for life due to a crime that occurred decades ago?

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        QUOTES……”— often charges that were artificially inflated like “drug trafficking” charges for someone whose “friend” asked him to pick up some pot for him, then turned out to be an undercover cop. How many “robbery” convictions were for getaway drivers who didn’t know that a robbery was happening until their buddy ran out of the store yelling “let’s get out of here!” I’m not excusing their actions or the actions of various “white collar” criminals — but do all these non-violent offenders really deserve to lose their rights for life due to a crime that occurred decades ago”

        Hey XAUN LOC, you must be kidding us with this tripe.
        Doing a drug run for a “friend”, and it turns out to be an undercover cop means you were, in fact, “drug trafficking”. You may want to read how the statute is written. FYI, pick better friends, and know them better if you intend to break laws for them, idiot.
        Also, anyone who had “buddies” that were committing robberies (armed?) and using them as unsuspecting getaway drivers must be total morons incapable of assessing their “buddies”, or have the ability to convince themselves they didn’t know what kind of human trash the “buddies” REALLY were.
        No need to debate which is the case, both should render you unable to pass a background check IMHO.
        REALITY CHECK, defendants have a chance to go before a judge and clear their name. Fight the charges or roll over and take a deal/plead guilty, You f’ed up, f’in deal with it, and shut up. Actions have consequences when you turn 18 and become an adult
        Don’t go away from TTAG angry, just go away.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Do the crime, do the time.

          Eventually, “the time” comes to an end. At that point, all suspended individual rights should be restored. An embezzler has the right to seek and obtain a job. A swindler has the right to re-enter the private sector workforce. A thief is free to enter any retail establishment without seeking government permission. Once “the time” required by the law is satisfied, there is no justification (other than revenge) for denying full rights to the individual who was determined to be suitable for release from prison.

          As many have noted here, if a felon with a completed sentence is not qualified to possess a firearm, that felon should not be released from lockup.

    3. avatar Shaydo says:

      Some states, Washington being one, have provisions in place for certain lower classes of felons to have their firearm rights restored after conditions are met. The conditions in WA are generally passage of 5 years time since all conditions of sentencing have been completed in which no additional misdemeanor or felony crimes have been committed by the person. The Feds have had similar provisions in place for firearm rights restoration but have not been active in doing so for many years. My concern is in how the Feds will handle such cases where the states have restored rights but they have not officially done so. It would seem wrong to prosecute those otherwise law abiding citizens who have payed for their crimes and are carrying on with their lives in a responsible and upright manor.

  8. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The downer is it may only last for 13mos. Having worked for the feds, I can testify that 13mos is not really even enough time for agencies to “review” their current practices.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      You obviously assume one of the idiot squad of progtards is heading to the Whitehouse. Get a clue. Pelosi is letting pencil ride her to losing 60 seats in the House w/ this rediculous “impeachmect” clown show.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You obviously assume one of the idiot squad of progtards is heading to the Whitehouse. Get a clue.”

        Nothing is assured, so…..

        Are you completely ignorant of the fact that even if Trump is re-elected, the attempt at a coup will be reinforced, unrelenting, and again drastically hamstring Trump’s agenda?

  9. avatar S.Crock says:

    Before everyone gets too excited about existing laws being enforced, just realize the pro 2A community is against most existing gun laws as well. Be consistent in ideology folks.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Good point. 🙂 And, if by some miracle they manage to keep guns out the hands of bad people, how they will keep blades, clubs, etc. out of the bad guys hands? Hinging this Project Guardian on firearms is stupid.

  10. avatar Dude says:

    “our state and local partners to better target offenders who use guns”

    Too bad the new batch of George Soros backed District Attorneys will not want to work with you on that. As a matter of fact, they’ll try to undermine your efforts if the criminal has certain preferable physical characteristics or immigration status.

  11. avatar surlycmd says:

    Start with Chicago.

  12. avatar MouseGun says:

    Still stirs concern for some reason…

  13. avatar Biatec says:

    The failures of the government are the reason we should abolish all of the laws. This stuff is why I might stop voting. I’ve been voting in every election since I turned 18. I vote in all the local stuff. I’m tired of it.

    Because when laws don’t work the obvious solution is to stack more on top of them, add funding for some reason, make new initiatives and regulations. It would never make sense to just abide by the Constitution.

    Trump is just a democrat from before they went crazy. but no those amazing court appointments.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      “Because when laws don’t work the obvious solution is to stack more on top of them, add funding for some reason, make new initiatives and regulations.”

      Yes, but the point of this is to not do that. This looks to me like let’s use existing laws for active criminal control.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        It won’t change anything though. We all know they don’t do anything. Why not advocate repeal of existing laws?

        I’m not sure why people want to keep trying again and again.

        Murder has a victim. Buying guns, making guns, and other weapons does not.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It won’t change anything though. We all know they don’t do anything. Why not advocate repeal of existing laws?”

          I noticed “violence” associated with laws. Thinking DOJ is not interested in “process crimes”. Laws regarding violent criminal use of a gun should be enforced. Doing so doesn’t target legal gun owners. If it turns out that all DOJ wants is to enforce confiscations (red flag laws), mag limits, scary gun features, then we have motivation to agitate and complain that “the laws” being enforced are political, not criminal.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Because when laws don’t work the obvious solution is to stack more on top of them, add funding for some reason, make new initiatives and regulations.”

      If at first, you don’t succeed…..

      Doubling down on a solution is the route to victory. Just because others have failed, it is not a given that trying one more time is useless. Besides, maybe the people who tried and and failed just weren’t smart enough to make it work before. It’s no different from putting one more coat of paint on the fence; more is better.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        Socialists make the same argument. Not trying to sound insulting. Just pointing that out. Try it again until the right people are in place.

        Also it’s all unconstitutional. I thought you held that position? I always enjoy your comments though either way.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Also it’s all unconstitutional. I thought you held that position? I always enjoy your comments though either way.”

          It’s all just funnin’. Ridicule.

      2. avatar askeptic says:

        Isn’t that the same excuse used for Socialism/Communism…..
        It just wasn’t done right…wrong people…etc?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Isn’t that the same excuse used for Socialism/Communism…..
          It just wasn’t done right…wrong people…etc?”

          Yes. And as we look around, we see that the conclusion is absolutely correct. Look at how other countries just screwed up a perfectly good concept. People in other nations, even people in the US prior to now were just stupider. One of the great failings of all the other attempts…too many people were left with freedoms and possessions.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Biatec – if you can’t bother to wake up and pay attention, DONT vote. Dem ua the home for ignorant voters the country does not need more ignorant voters.

  14. avatar Gregory Peter DuPont says:

    “who have faced domestic violence charges”…” Faced” or ” convicted of”?? It’s kind of an important distinction.
    I’ve never had domestic violence charges,but I HAVE been the recipient of multiple indictments for felony charges with actual violence as part of the case. I was found not guilty-because I wasn’t guilty/didn’t do what I was accused of-but periodically I have to clarify that in background checks primarily because not everyone knows the difference between indictment and conviction ..or they never read to the bottom of a disposition to take note of whether or not the “G” or ” NG” is checked during a background CORI check on things as varied as job applications, certification,loan and mortgage apps…
    This is why precision is important in the actual language of a law AND from the people talking about it.

  15. avatar Roger J says:

    They can’t do that. The solution is 50,000 new gun laws that will not be enforced.

  16. avatar Mark says:

    What is the [legitimate] scope of federal law in such matters?

  17. avatar Will Drider says:

    Talks cheap, heard this “better enforcement” B.S. before. NICS folks going to report to BATFE everytime a Form 4473 applicant answers dont match data on file? Is BATFE going to open an investigation and persue each one in a timely and efficient manner? Are Prosecutors going to push full Charges or plea deal them down to clear case load?

    Always bravado announcements and back burner effort.

  18. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    Was the West TX murderer’s being prohibited ever confirmed? There seems to be a statement by an unnamed law enforcement source, but no follow-up to confirm whether or not it was actually true.

  19. avatar carl says:

    Project exile worked, bring it back.

  20. avatar TommyJay says:

    I mostly support the DOJ move, assuming they can achieve something like what they claim. One of the exceptions that caught my eye was “being subject to a restraining order.” I’m no lawyer, but I believe that you don’t have to be convicted of anything to be subject to a restraining order.

    On the one hand, protecting people from their violent spouses or paramours is a real thing and valuable. On the other, one person’s claim for restraining order shouldn’t automatically be the end of someone else’s 2A rights.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Judges hand out restraining orders like they were Jujubes, but only in favor of women.

  21. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    So, address “gun violence” by using existing laws to go after people prone to violence, who happen to use a gun. That’s almost like the issue is violence (not guns), violence comes from people, and the few hundred million people who never do anything violent with their guns, or anything else, aren’t the problem.

  22. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    So, surprising nobody, a law enforcement agency has a press conference to announce it’s going to enforce the law … and that’s news.

  23. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Aren’t we the hypocrites?

    So many months, years, people here claiming that new laws are unnecessary, and the current laws should be enforced in an effort to stop real crime. And here we are today, dissing the DOJ for formally agreeing with us.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      This is what I’ve been asking for instead of a bunch of stupid new laws that congress can brag about passing. But, like I said above, I don’t think he’ll get that much cooperation in the jurisdictions that need the most help.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      “And here we are today, dissing the DOJ for formally agreeing with us.”

      No, we’re dissing the DOJ because it’s a group of lying sacks who are very selective in their so-called “enforcement.”

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “No, we’re dissing the DOJ because it’s a group of lying sacks who are very selective in their so-called “enforcement.” ”

        Where did you see anything in the article that indicates the target is enforcing red flag laws? Scary gun feature laws? Mag limits? Seems to me, the announcement revolved around violent criminal use of a gun.

        Point is, we demand the current laws be enforced (without detailing which laws) as a means to curtail crime, but today we are denouncing the enforcement.

        1. avatar Sineater says:

          Given that the perpetrators of violent crime in the US are mostly members of specific demographics who don’t generally come from European ancestry and given that those demographics tend to be protected by both violent mob action and political maneuvering, the only convictions that will be tenable by the government agencies will be of demographics of European ancestry who violet petty gun laws or commit status infractions. It all boils down to the political cost, not the economic cost or that of human life.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Given that the perpetrators of violent crime in the US are mostly members of specific demographics who don’t generally come from European ancestry.”

          You do understand that the people we generally think of as “Hispanic” are descended from Spaniards, right?

  24. avatar Sam Hill says:

    How can they enforce unconstitutional laws. The reason a lot of stuff gets dropped is because they don’t want it to go to the local supreme court let alone SCOTUS. AS lazy as beaurocrats are, icebergs in hell got a better chance of making snow cones, than keeping up with the book work.

  25. avatar neiowa says:

    Virginia did this 30yrs ago with great success. Only lasted a short time, but violent crime WAY down. Put scads of the whining diversity crowd in prison ” not fair”.

  26. avatar Jayk74 says:

    Why are there so many who actively oppose new gun laws cause they infringe on the 2a now okay with existing infringements being enforced?

  27. avatar LifeSavor says:

    It seems to me this action by the DOJ is intended to take gun-control off the table as an election issue. Trump can answer every Dem claim that we need more laws with “More laws will not make a difference. Under the past Dem President, gun control laws were weakly and inconsistently enforced. Before we make more laws let’s make sure we are effective with existing laws. Dems like to write laws to claim they are doing something. My administration will curtail abuse of firearms by making sure our existing laws are working for us.”

    Great political move by the Trump admin.

    Now, do I think existing gun laws are constitutional? No. But we do not need more of them, either.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Addendum: note this move by the DOJ occurred days after Bloomingtoons signaled he may get into the race.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Smart point about the political move. That may be true.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Now, do I think existing gun laws are constitutional? No. But we do not need more of them, either.”

      Conflation of bias with enforcement actions.

      Are you saying that all the laws regarding violent criminal use of a gun are unconstitutional? That you really don’t want “existing laws be enforced”, simply because you think the only laws that to be enforced are “common sense gun controls”?
      Not seeing how those laws (gun control), and laws related to “gun violence” are synonyms.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Sam I Am,

        You are correct; I was not clear. I was referring only to those laws that infringe upon the 2A, as we often discuss on TTAG.

        Thank you for prompting me to clarify!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Thank you for prompting me to clarify!”

          Because of the 2A hammer, we all sometimes see everything as a nail.


  28. avatar rt66paul says:

    We already have way too many laws. Gun laws are “take your pick” for the district attorney, they just keep on coming. But, it is better to try to enforce what is on the books than making “new” laws to cover everything that could happen. Sadly, if they want to prosecute you, they take their pick of laws and force you to plea. We need to standardize laws on firearms, and at least keep them at the state level(I agree that the states should follow the BOR, but allowing counties and cities the right to limit your rights is NOT good).

    There are many people that think they have at the worst, a fight able misdemeanor, only to find out they are up on felony charges, forced to plea and give up guns forever(which is the plan)
    I feel that the government taking your guns away, should only happen if you actually do more than a year in the penitentiary for a violent crime(including deadly weapon use).
    This branding a gun owner with a GO on his forehead to forever keep him from his God given rights is wrong and should be heard by the Supreme Court.

  29. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    Most liberal jurisdictions won’t cooperate with Federal enforcement. We can’t even have illegal immigrants who are convicted of violent crimes held for the Federal enforcement.

    The only laws that need enforced are when there are victims of the crime. The possible exception I would suggest is repeat violent offenders should never be trusted with any type of weapon. Repeat violent offenders should be locked away or should face the death penalty, as if they are away from polite society or are dead, they cannot reoffend and create more victims. Once a person has committed to become repeatedly violent, they have surrendered most of their natural rights and are only entitled to a fair and impartial trial. If not given the death penalty, they can offset the cost to the taxpayers by raising a garden, raising animals and doing continous improvements of their facility.

  30. avatar Kendahl says:

    I’ll believe it when the feds start imprisoning gangbangers the states let go because their prison systems are already overcrowded and they can’t afford to expand them.

  31. avatar TFred says:

    It cannot be overstated that the gun-haters have absolutely NO interest in any laws that actually reduce crime. Their plan of action requires that all new gun-control laws are designed to FAIL – and we see this with every newly proposed law. As these new laws FAIL, they propose even MORE laws. This is their plan, to ultimately “fail” their way to the complete disarmament of every law-abiding citizen.

  32. avatar Rich says:

    There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”
    If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

    1. avatar Rich says:

      American Psychiatric Asso says Half of Americans are mentally ill..
      After crafting by politicians and Media all will be crazy except for the media/politicians..
      300 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were written in 2009 alone..
      Your children on medication for ADHD?
      Single woman with children diagnosed with depression?
      be careful what you ask for

  33. avatar Rich says:

    Mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin..

    Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

    Deceptive Transformation: The Truth of Soviet Influence in America and Gun Control…The idea of using mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin, and the social sciences, or the studying of human behavior has its roots in early twentieth century Russia when Ivan Pavlov developed his “classical conditioning” theories. In fact, Pavlov was disturbed that Vladimir Lenin would use these conditioning methods against the people in order to get them to accept communism. Since that time the social sciences have been used as a means of maintaining control over populations and getting them to accept their own down fall. This is happening today in the United States as our universities and public schools have long ago adopted educational techniques based on the social sciences and classical conditioning methods. Subjects like White Privilege and Multiculturalism are used to demoralize our population, create a guilt consciousness and silence us into accepting a new agenda based on the idea that we have been unfair, and our lifestyles are oppressive, and offensive to others. This agenda dates back to the early twentieth century; however, it saw some of its most major advances in the mid 1900’s after the U.N. was created in 1945. While many people today view the Democrat Party as being made mostly of communists or socialists; the sad truth is that the Republican Party is just as responsible for what we are seeing in education and culture in the United States today.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Enforce the laws already on the books!”

      “Don’t enforce the laws already on the books because…”

      Which is it?

  34. avatar Rich says:

    ATF vs the Constitution.. ALLOW THIS TO SINK IN – “The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. Our founding precepts are espoused in our Declaration of Independence stating that we, the people, are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments were instituted among men to secure these rights. So even if the Second Amendment was not listed in the “Bill of Rights” it would still exist. Let me say very clearly – your rights do not come from government. You have these rights solely on the basis of your existence. In many cases laws create crime where none existed.
    If laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty. So laws will not stop the type of crimes that have happened in the past nor will they stop them from happening in the future. All the central government is managing to do is to increase the victim pool by disarming the law abiding citizen because as we all know the criminal will not obey the law and if he does not have one now the black market will provide it to him just as it always has.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty. So laws will not stop the type of crimes that have happened in the past nor will they stop them from happening in the future. ”

      So… are making the case for elimination of all laws. Can’t pick and choose which failed laws to enforce.

  35. avatar Rich says:

    Abolish the ATF..
    Although Donald Trump portrayed himself as an anti-gun control candidate on the campaign trail, the president apparently has no problem with sending federal agents into Chicago to more fiercely enforce gun laws.
    Anthony Riccio, the chief of the Police Department’s Bureau of Organized Crime, said the new team would “significantly help our efforts to trace and stop the flow of illegal guns.” The phrase “illegal guns” makes it sound like we’re only dealing with very sinister elements within society. But in Chicago, where gun control laws are among the most stringent in the country, the phrase “illegal guns” might as well be interpreted as “most guns, whether owned by peaceful people or not.”
    Thus, it appears that the Trump administration is using federal agents to assist local politics in what is one of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the nation. And, not coincidentally, it’s one of the most violent jurisdictions.
    ATF is not authorized by the US Constitution to make regulations on the peoples rights to keep and bear arms..

  36. avatar Rich says:

    Our Constitution provides zero, zip, nada authority to the ATF, the Justice Department nor the Executive Branch to ban anything. All legislative authority is invested in Congress, and Congress alone, and they are prohibited by the Second Amendment from infringing on the public’s right to keep and bear arms, including those with bump stocks.

    Obviously, this is coming from the White House. Both President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, as well as the Justice Department, were calling for a ban on the accessory that accelerates the firing of a semi-automatic rifle without converting it to fully automatic. However, as I said above, there is no authority for any agency in the Executive Branch to create a rule that bans an item pertaining to arms.

    While the NRA is ready to sell out the rights of gun owners on this issue, as they have in the past, Gun Owners of America has pledged to fight it, calling it a “gross infringement of Second Amendment rights.” What’s most amazing is that the ATF and the DOJ believe they are the ones to propose these regulations. Take a look at the summary at the Federal Register where comments are being taken.

    The motions that the Trump administration are going through are things that even the Obama administration didn’t do. In fact, under Obama, bump stocks were made available.

  37. avatar James Campbell says:

    Having spent time in NYC and the surrounding boroughs in the mid-’80s, I recall not being able to enter ANY business without seeing a “10-20-Life” sign. This was a law stating if you possess a firearm during a robbery you get 10 years in prision, show a firearm during a robbery gets you 20 years, discharging a firearm during a robbery got you life in prison.
    It would be interesting to know how many armed robbers went to prison for violating 10-20-Life.
    I would bet the law was not worth the ink used to make the signs. Nothing more then posting garbage to make the sheeple FEEL safe.

  38. avatar Peter says:

    It is common cause that neither the CDC or National Academy found a single gun law that reduced crime. Are firearm owners now as ignorant as gun control supporters that they do not know this? Why are they now promoting proven useless gun laws?

    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

    First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws — Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services

  39. avatar DDearborn says:


    For those not paying attention, this “Project” is not primarily about “enforcing existing gun laws”. Rather, the primary objective here is to develop and implement a NATIONAL REPOSITORY of anything related to “guns”. All local, Country, State and Federal entities are going to be forced to participate. Naturally, a key component of that “repository” will be the ‘history” of anyone that is in any way related to “guns” (everybody) And of course part of that “history” will be YOUR ownership, purchase and sale of all fire arms.

    This is a “conservative” Republican President that is doing nothing more than trying to once again foist a National Gun Registry on the citizenry. Only this time is will be a “registry” on steroids containing mountains of additional evidence, I mean information. As History has demonstrated time and time again, such registries are always a forerunner to gun confiscation.

    Wake up people, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS”…….It has everything to do with creating lists that will be used later to hunt down law abiding citizens and take their guns……

Leave a Reply to S.Crock Cancel reply

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email