Previous Post
Next Post

According to a report on MSNBC — and really, who’s more in tune with the gun-grabbing zeitgeist than the number three-ranked cable news network? — Barack Obama will hold a news conference at 11:30a eastern tomorrow to announce his much-anticipated executive orders designed to further curb Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Setting expectations as low as humanly possible, White House spokesnoid Josh Earnest told assembled members of the press . . .

“We’re not under the illusion that these actions will prevent every incident of gun violence, but they will (succeed) if they even prevent one.”

And you’ll probably want to swallow your coffee before this one:

“‘Obama’s’ not taking these steps out of politics. He’s taking these steps because he believes we can save some lives.”

If, for some reason, you believe that, remember that a previous president once noted that the nine most frightening words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Previous Post
Next Post


      • As bad as the recent remake of Episode IV was I’m sure his address will be worse. Therefore it needs more buildup.

      • Unlike most of his problems, that’s not his fault. It’s the fault of his enablers in the media, who are pushing this with a vigor not seen in recent decades. It’s almost like they realize that this is probably their last chance in a generation to get some of these useless programs put into place, even tenuously through EOs/EAs.

      • Community Organizer from Kenya says WHAT?

        Ohole A-hole-ism doesn’t have to be one-sided. He wants to pull that cr_p, we can stop listening completely.

  1. will Shannon be there? I am at a business conference but will step out to catch the presser. . . . .

  2. “If it saves even one life”. I actually feel nauseous when I hear this phrase, because I know what immediately follows is another attack on my supposedly inalienable rights without actually saving even one life.

    Where as we know if we outlawed abortion, that would actually save even one life, if not millions.

    • “If it saves even one life”.

      We have to use that against the gun-grabbers. If that is sufficient criteria for public policy, then we have sufficient reason for public policy which allows us to be armed … because we know of multiple instances where armed people used their firearms to save one life.

      • Don’t kid yourself. Those stories are all fiction. Nobody has protected life with a gun, ever…ever…ever infinity.

  3. Hopefully everyone countering he takes which make no sense also us the ‘if it saves one life’ by proposing

    – Requiring national reciprocity for CCLs
    – Elimination of gun-free zones

    • This would encourage more law abiding. That is counterproductive to making everyone a felon and stripping their rights away.

  4. How interesting that they want these rules just in case it can hypothetically save “even one” life, but they scoff at real, documented defensive gun uses that have demonstrably saved lives and claim those “never happen”…

    • As usual, you have to parse what leftists say carefully. What they mean is that if the regulations can save the life of even one of the collectivist authoritarian elite after they finish looting our wealth and subjugating us to their will, it will be worth it. From their perspective, I’m sure that’s absolutely true.

    • Heh, just like they de-funded Planned Parenthood, illegal executive amnesty, and Obamacare. Though you are right that they should.

    • Congress needs to spend the entirety of the ATFs budget on mom jeans and send them to the ATF and firearms tech branch in West Virginia.

  5. Spoiler Alert: Obama will get up there, probably say common sense a few times, maybe throw in a token “assault weapons” or “vast majority of Americans” comment. Then, he’ll put his Herby Hancock on a few fluffy bunny EOs, which will do really nothing except inconvenience people who actually care about the rule of law and make the muggles feel “safe.”

    Gun folks won’t like it, or agree with it, but we will deal with it because it won’t effect the “vast majority” of us (see what I did there…) After that, he will pat himself on the back and the liberals will clap and cheer, then Obama can tell his handlers he towed the line and helped the Dems going into 2016. And ALL the Dems and liberals can tout, “Look, see here, we did something…”

    Finally, after all is said and done, I’ll go home, have a Scotch and Ginger Ale, or two, hang out with my wife and kids, eat something for dinner that had a mom, scratch my nuts at least once, and go to bed.

    And things will continue to be as they were; Obama is a tool, the G is inept, guns are here to stay, I enjoy a good Scotch with some grilled meat, and sometimes my balls need itching.

    • Know what would be cool? How about one of the also-ran prez candidates, with no chance anyway, follows the prez on TV promising “I will not comply!”, and setting a time and date when he will violate that EO on national TV? He’ll sure get attention, and there is no way anybody would even TRY to prosecute under those circumstances, make the fool look like a fool!

    • Keep dreaming. I want to see their budget cut by 5% every year until they can figure out how to prioritize investigating actual criminal violations of Federal firearm statutes vs. trying to criminalize otherwise honest citizens with questionable stings and unreliable informants.

  6. I often wonder if the anti-gunners are prepared for life after guns. Gang bangers would still bang. Wife beaters would still beat. Rapists would still rape. Robbers would still rob. Burglars would still burgle. Mass murderers might have to switch methods but they would manage. (I can think of several ways to commit mass murder without guns but dare not mention them for fear that these losers, too incompetent to think of something on their own, would act on them.) What would the anti-gunners do then other than bleat that it wasn’t supposed to be this way?

    • They would talk in the first few months about what a success it has been, and then the media would totally ignore the rising violent crime rates. Or, if they are forced to acknowledge it, they would find some other flimsy excuse such as the divide between the rich and the poor.

      • Probably exactly correct, once there are no guns, they can come for your cash with guns, and you’d better just pay up. Income redistribution, you understand, is they take all of your money and then distribute 2% of it to other people.

    • If you want to know what “life after guns” would look like, just look “across the pond” ay Old Blighty. And indeed, the criminals are still doing crime, and the gov is fudging the numbers to make it look like it is not happening. Oh, and the sheep are still being sheep…

  7. “We’re not under the illusion that these actions will prevent every incident of gun violence, but they will (succeed) if they even prevent one.”

    Will they consider them a success if they enable any? Because, that’s just, if not more, likely.

  8. I have an idea, lets ban news media from covering these shootings; I’d bet by providing less advertisement to these loons it could save “just one life.” With the way that CNN, MSNBC, etc. cover this stuff it’s like an ad that says “have a mcmurder kind of day.”

  9. “We’re not under the illusion that these actions will prevent every incident of gun violence, but they will (succeed) if they even prevent one.”

    Funny, that’s how I feel about Constitutional Carry!

  10. The Constitution does not give the president the authority to make laws based on the action or inaction of Congress. The authority to make law rests with Congress. The Second Amendment to the Constitution grants all Americans the right to own and bear arms, and states that this right “shall not be infringed.” Obama shows his contempt for the American people, the Congress and the Constitution with this act.

    • 2A does not “grant” anything, it recognizes that the people already had that right before 2A was written, and then prohibits infringement.

  11. What if these “do something about guns” actions *don’t* save any lives? Would it still be worthwhile then?

    Considering that these actions likely wouldn’t have prevented any of the mass shootings you cite as reasons to act, what is their real point? Is this just a feel-good measure, or is it leading to some larger goal (for instance, Australian turn-em-all-in style gun control)?

    What if restricting the ability of peaceful, everyday people to buy, sell, keep, and use guns actually *costs* more lives than it saves? The most conservative estimates of defensive gun usage run from tens to hundreds of thousands per year — every one of these defensive uses is a crime stopped, an innocent life saved. Considering that defensive gun uses outnumber spree killings by about ten thousand to one, wouldn’t encouraging legal gun ownership be more helpful than restricting it?

    Somebody needs to ask the Big Zero these questions at his CNN Town Hall — but I have a sneaking feeling that nobody will. Won’t make any difference anyway, because he’s making his decisions in a hermetically sealed ideological loop behind closed doors; the TV appearance is just after-the-fact PR spin.

    • He can’t issue an EO to force-pass another agency’s rule. Nor can he just make up any law or limit he wants. (i.e., he can’t just say ‘assault weapons and silencers are now illegal.’) There are constraints, but there are creative ways to get around them.

      What he can do is issue an EO to “advise” the ATF to operate by a certain directive or level of scrutiny or guidance, which would lead to *them* passing 41P in a certain condition (i.e., it’s strictest form), a week or two (I’m predicting) after.

      Unfortunately the timing is certainly right for the ATF to follow the Executive’s lead on this one.

  12. I find it interesting that everyone wants to talk about gun control as the way to fight terrorism yet nobody wants to ever address why Islamists hate the U.S. in the first place. Even Osama bin Laden himself plainly spelled it out yet it’s like the right and the left both want to ignore the true root cause and simply use terrorism as an excuse to dismantle the Constitution.

    • I don’t give a sh!t why Islamists hate the U.S. I’d rather let the Islamists worry about why we hate them.

  13. A gentle reminder, or request, if you will. We can hate on the man’s policies all we want to but please – let’s go easy on the rhetoric wishing the President ill. Bloomberg’s minions are paid to troll through sites like this where they’ll cut and paste comments taken out of context to show what murderous racist gun-nut insurrectionists we all are. I think we were all degenerate terrorists last week. Hard to keep track.

    We’re in a political fight and we don’t want to give the other side any extra ammunition.

    • let’s go easy on the rhetoric wishing the President ill.

      Seeing the gun grabber blogs, they all wish us dead.

    • “…We’re in a political fight and we don’t want to give the other side any extra ammunition.”


      But no.

      They are going to talk crap about us anyway so if they are going to go ahead and blame us why don’t we get the full benefit and go ahead and do it.

  14. “We’re not under the illusion that these actions will prevent every incident of gun violence, but they will (succeed) if they even prevent one.”

    We should ban Tylenol. It will save at least one life.

    We should ban swimming pools, stairs, kitchen knives, and vitamins. It will save at least one life.

  15. “We’re not under the illusion that these actions will prevent ANY incident of gun violence…” -FIFY

  16. Just saw the guy on the evening snooze say “test the limits of his power”…apt metaphor from a hack. How about impeachment? Would that tarnish the rep he lusts after? Maybe not-slick willy is back…I’m thinkin’ Bury is infinitely more of a narcissist than willy.

  17. The level of full-retard being represented here with the tinfoil hat comments astounds me. Honestly, I really enjoy this site and most of what is offered here. But to witness people pedaling the same old rhetoric for the sake of oneupmanship and cyber-crybaby logic almost makes me want to get rid of my guns so that Im not accidentally mistaken to be affiliated with these batsh*t crazy evangelical hayseeds. If you are a well educated and cultured person, you should be ashamed of yourself for resonating with such low life whimpering. Walk it off guys… you sound like children who just learned how to swear and want to prove how old you are by being vulgar and naive. Go read a book not written by ted nugent and realize the world is bigger than your little gun club of guntubing couch soldiers who get hard-ons from rush’s tits. rant over

    • But to witness people pedaling the same old rhetoric for the sake of oneupmanship and cyber-crybaby logic almost makes me want to get rid of my guns so that Im not accidentally mistaken to be affiliated with these batsh*t crazy evangelical hayseeds.

      If you cannot figure out what is really at stake here, you should get rid of your guns.
      There is now a movement to ditch the 1st Amendment in academia which nurtures potential future leaders. This is not just about guns.

    • A cultured, well-educated person who reads books might be expected to know how to spell “peddling.”

      See how asshole-ish casting aspersions on others’ intellect and breeding is? Now bugger off.

      • Give that troll a raise! A stupid stipend…and yeah I’m an evangelical. Proudly…

      • Yes, forget about gun buybacks, I’m all for the “I feel terrible owning my guns and need to donate them to TTAG readers” program. That’s a common sense solution I can get behind!

    • Your entire post sounded like low life whimpering. You speak of children just learning how to swear but then spout off trolling and immature comments such as your silly closing statement that I’m sure inflated your ego. Please feel good about yourself and move on to the next blog on your list for trolling.

      • well his/her name is “SupidSnotWithMe” so idk why we’d expect anyone who keeps company with dumb snot would have good arguements.

  18. “‘Obama’s’ not taking these steps out of politics. He’s taking these steps because he believes we can save some lives.”
    Any actual instances of these Executive Legislative Laws preventing any actual criminal cases.
    Otherwise the is Newspeak from the Ministry Of Truth.

  19. “‘Obama’s’ not taking these steps out of politics. He’s taking these steps because he believes we can save some lives.”

    The actions will likely lose more lives than they save…
    In other news abortion is still a thing, liberals are still hypocrites, and lions are not currently laying down with lambs.

  20. It won’t be house to house confiscation, or a ban, or a buyback. It won’t even begin to touch what the NFA did.

    It will be a few instructions to the ATF to lower the number of gun sales allowable without an FFL, and maybe instructions that they should prosecute anyone who doesn’t report a gun loss. For the most part, tho, the ATF will get marching orders – but no budget, maps, or goals. These agents aren’t sitting around in the squad room eatin donuts all morning folks, they do keep busy with the terrorists and white supremacists they know about. Adding hundreds of thousands more to investigate – with no way to know who IS selling lots of guns, or a method to see who DID have their rowboat sink with their AK, HK91, and MK18 look alike.

    It’s just politics and the point is to get a triptych in the Obama Library as his anti gun legacy. I’m just glad it’s in Ethiopia where I will never visit.

  21. Hey people, take a step back for a second and re-read this. Obama – fucking OBAMA – said the words “people’s lawful right to bear arms”.
    Does he mean it? Probably not. But he felt he had to say it.
    This is a major victory for gun rights, people. No joke.
    Whatever else comes out of his mouth, THIS MUCH is a major victory, and we need to recognize it as such.

  22. Funny. In medicine the Feds use a calculated life year saved. I have to acknowledge I have considered this aspect prior to implantation of some cardiac devices. They put a $ figure on therapy when considering treatment – and reject some when it falls over a calculated measurement.

    Now they will spend or force to be spent millions if they can save just one life.


Comments are closed.