Previous Post
Next Post

President Obama at the  the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation awards dinner (courtesy

Ever since the State of the union speech, president Barack Obama has promised to work around Congress wherever he can to implement changes which he feels are the “right thing to do.” These changes have included things like directing the EPA to change their rules about power plants and pollution, raising the minimum wage for Federal employees, and a handful of executive orders about guns that didn’t really amount to much. In the wake of the highly publicized shootings in the last week, though, the president made two very strong statements that indicate he is actively looking for ways to implement more gun control laws without involving congress.

First, Obama took an opportunity to praise Australia for their knee-jerk laws banning almost all guns and confiscating them from gun owners:

Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.

Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.

As we keep reminding people, the “gun violence levels” are not, in fact, off the charts. These group of shootings might seem to be proof of that “gun violence epidemic” that people keep crowing about, but in fact they aren’t statistically significant. The crime rate keeps going down.

Even if the concept of a “gun violence epidemic” were as the Democrats describe it, there’s no indication that removing guns (as Australia has done) will improve the situation or is even possible. Especially in the wake of the latest Supreme Court cases, it definitely would not be Constitutional.

Nevertheless, according to Obama’s spokesman, the president is looking to take further actions to limit American citizen’s ability to exercise their Constitutionally protected civil rights — without congress. From The Blaze:

“The president’s goal is to look for opportunities to act administratively, unilaterally using his executive authority to try to make our communities safer,” Earnest said, responding to a question the day that a gunman opened fire at an Oregon high school, killing one student and injuring a teacher. “We’re always looking for those opportunities. But none of those opportunities when they present themselves is going to be an acceptable substitute for robust legislative action.”


“And there are some, and they have unfortunately been bottled up in Congress and that is a disappointment to the president,” Earnest continued. “But that’s not going to stop the president from continuing to push for administrative steps that we can take to help reduce gun violence.”

Individually, these statements aren’t alarming. But taken together and in context with what the President has proposed in the past, something big might be on the horizon.

The media today seems to be constantly blaming “extremist” news sources for stoking the fears of Americans, and by extension causing the shooting incident in Las Vegas. But when the president is making statements of admiration about a gun ban and confiscation scheme I’d say he’s doing a pretty good job stoking those fears all by himself.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. He’d better be careful or he’s going to have an actual revolution, not just some scumbags executing cops and a CCW holder.

    EDIT: just when I was gonna start stocking up on ammo, too.

    • I think he’s looking forward to that revolution…. just so he can declare martial law and ignore the term limit.

      • This may be Obama’s jump the shark moment, if not soon. Its hard to recognize at the time, but clear enough in retrospect. When Dems are jumping ship and reliable Rinos like Cantor are going down with him, on things like immigration, obamacare, and the economy, this will join a number of examples of classic narcissitic denial of reality, and mass psychosis at the WH staff, like Bergdahl, VA scandal response, IRSgate, and so on.

        Here is an excellent perspective by an overseas writer with Australian experience, over at Belmont Club, two articles that fit.

        Stay chilly POTG. All the progtards have left is desperation. Dont get caught up in it. Remember we are all members of the Be There Club. We will be there long after this clown and various Dems who have enabled him are on the trash heap of history.


      • I AGREE. He wants to stir things up mid-term and indefinitely postpone all the campaigns due to a “national emergency:”…

        Consider this – WWII— the Japanese *could have* come on in from Pearl Harbor and attacked the CONUS, but they didn’t. Yamamoto knew better, understood the costs and how bad it would be to try to disarm the US civilians. He opted to sail away.

        I pray that strengthens you as you consider whether you should put the Ipod , kindle, smart phone down.. for just a moment… please… and think about something other than social media…

        Consider how will you handle things when the government does decide what you own is now THEIRS, as they station troops in your yard, your home, your street… black uniforms, or green.

        and start trying to disarm everybody you know…

        • …keep the social media skills as well…along with your guns-n-ammo…social media connections and skills are going to be very important in the upcoming war with these fascists…and we need all that kind of help we can use…marketing and social media will be important for crushing these bastards..

          RJ O’Guillory
          Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

      • Yeah, there’s an old saying…”Be careful in what you wish for, you may just get it.” Plus, he don’t have the man power to martial law over 100 million angry gun owners….It will be entertaining to see him try, though….I’m kind of hoping that he does try….

      • I’ve been trying to figure out how he is going to declare martial law now since he got re-elected. I truly believe you might be right. I have read where one author says it’s logistically impossible, as there are too many people, and too much space…but I do believe _something_ is going to happen…I myself don’t believe I’ll live through it, as no one, NO ONE, is coming into my house without a warrant or my permission while I’m still alive. So…..

    • Yeah, them ammo prices. Crap.

      Sure, whatever President O-tool. I’m used to the statist insanity imposed by global bankers by now. Judging by the election results this year you and your Wall Street cabal well know you are surrounded and under siege by the citizenry. So now, you and your buddies are more than likely planning a great big gun and data grab during your imminent lame duck period. Hail Oligarchy.

      I don’t know about any of you, but it looks like it’s time to reinstate my installment plan: Buy a minimum one hundred rounds per month no matter how much it costs. And I might also start buying reloading components and binary just to give the plutocrats extra middle fingers on a regular basis.

    • I think what Mr. Usurper has to worry about is if the People revisit Operation Fast & Furious. His actions along with Holder do indeed need that case to be fully reopened and politicized. The People should be reminded that people on both sides of the border were killed due to their negligence and their agenda to blame the American people for gun violence. Being an unlicensed attorney, Obama and Holder should know there is no statue of Limitations on murder in the United States. This should be put in the back burner for the next president (if they have the gonads) to revisit the crime once Obama and his cohorts leave office. Since their evil deed required planning, it is clear evidence that the crime falls under 1st degree murder charges worthy of the death penalty.

      • Well, looking at Capitol Hill, it seems to me what happens to traitors in this republic is that they’re re-elected over and over and over…

        • (re-elected over and over again)… Until they are the wealthiest families in the nation, and then they work to enact laws to restrict all the dangerous poor people’s rights.

    • They will. It’ll be a pre-dawn raid where your door is busted and flashbangs are thrown in, and then a bunch of guys clad in level 4 armor storm the apartment and shoot anything that looks like it’s moving. Most likely, no-one outside of your block will even hear about it, and it’ll be reported as a one-line “SWAT raid to confiscate illegal dangerous goods” in the local newspapers. If they somehow screw up, we might read about it here on TTAG in a few days, and people will post angry comments about how this is totally fascist, and how they will not stand for it, and “molon labe” etc. And that will be that.

      Because that’s how it’s been going so far for a while now, so why should the next time be any different?

      • Yup.

        Gun owners by and large are complete cowards. When someone actually lobs a melon they distance themselves from that person and they do their best to vilify them. Gun owners are all talk and no action. They will roll over and take their fucking with a smile when the day finally comes all while saying, “At least I didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils!”

        What makes you think that it will be any different when confiscations begin?

        I’ll give all of you out there without a badge some good advice.

        Sell your guns now before the government takes them without compensation. Get as much money as you can and don’t look back. Because there will be no 94′ style AWB. Confiscation is coming.

        • TTAG is making a difference with reasoned facts and rational debate. We get the odd OCD OCtard and wannabe Bundy Bodyguards, but the move on when they don’t get any support. We get the occasional progtard troll looking to discredit the POTG with over-the-top rhetoric, probably so folks like MDA have a reason for a hissy fit.

          I’m not saying you are either of these, but the language is familiar, and the lame tactic to try and start a circular firing squad is even more pathetic.

          There are better places on the innertubz if you want that kind of aattention and mental mastrurbation, or you need to prove MOVE-ON is getting their moneys worth for your clicks….

          Just my two cents…dont feed the troll.

        • Welp that’s enough for me. Who wants some guns for cheap? Everything MUST go, JC762 says so!

      • If raids on gun owners become so common that they seem inevitable, I’d bet dollars to donuts that people wouldn’t just sit and wait for a heavily armed, highly trained paramilitary force to lay siege to their homes, and hope to come out on top. People would start being proactive, and at that point, I’d surmise that it would become quite dangerous to be a member of a SWAT team. I am not talking about more danger when they are geared up kicking doors down. I mean after they take off their hats, and return to “civilian” life at the end of the day.

        I hope and pray every day that it never even comes close to that point. We do not want a shooting war with anyone, let alone against other Americans. This “Us vs. them” mentality needs to stop immediately.

        • Obama and leftists are very clearly and very deliberately making it an Us vs Them country, for this very reason. They want it so that when SWAT obliterates a family of law abiding citizens, most of the country cheers.

        • But, of course, conservatives reach out to the “leftists” every day for compromise and mutual respect and understanding. Right?

      • people like you are the problem you are actually referring to… you are mad as hell….and you want something done…..but why are YOU NOT doing something?! why does it have to be someone else?! nobody wants to put their neck on the line for others in this country anymore…including yourself!! you want something done?! then do something!! then you might actually see others follow suit!!

        • Has AlexJones,com lost their village idiot, or is this Jennifer from MDA making something up again?

          Can’t wait for the Mother Jones article….

  2. There go ammo prices again.

    The guy has zero respect for the Constitution. I guess the time he spent as a “Constitutional scholar” was just casing the joint.

    • Yup.
      I feel sorry for new shooters and those who weren’t able to stock up on a decent supply of ammo.

    • …from the looks of Obama and his bloodshot eyes these days…I think he’s rolling joints now….and he must be double-high to think that the vast amount of Americans are going to give up our rights like this….or because of these obvious BS false-flag attacks…he…they…are insane…we are bankrupt…we’ve been ripped off and raped by the Bush Dynasty or decades….let us start charging, and convicting these people of treason…then start hanging them…

      RJ O’Guillory
      Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family


    • Dangit, there are only so many guns and ammo I can buy Mr. President! I’m trying to do my part but my resources are finite. His economic policy of terrifying 60% of the population into buying something they want might work better if he wasn’t also forcing them to buy something they don’t.

  3. Ya know what… I’m sick of it. If you want em, all I can say is “good luck.”

    Go on Mr President, Be an enemy of the Constitution. I effing DARE you!

    • He’s already an enemy of the constitution Tommycat, just not in such a way or to such degree that it’s time for removal. Already though the impeachment flag is at half mast and going up and he’s a short timer in office. Mostly what this rhetoric does is put vulnerable senate dems in a worse place and weaken the already poor chances of a dem gaining the whitehouse in 16. Let the idiot talk, you’ve heard of not interfering when your opponent is destroying himself, right?

  4. One of the reasons the gun confiscation in Australia worked, that is the people went along with it, is because they were “subjects” not citizens.
    Subjects of the Crown, not Citizens of the Republic.

    Obama constantly misjudges what the result will be when he and his (world’s most incompetent ever) staff decide on a course of action. He really needs to go slow here, fully think this out and get some advice from a lot more knowledgeable people than he has been consulting lately.

    • The only way in which the confiscation in Australia “worked” is in wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a fool’s errand and turning otherwise law-abiding and peaceable citizens into criminals if they didn’t comply with sexist, racist, anti-rights, and anti-Humanist laws.

    • Considering that he got elected at all let alone the fact that
      he’s never been forcefully challenged on anything by
      anyone other than those in new media. I’d say he’s got
      got enough reason to assume that a majority of the
      electorate really is nothing more than dutiful subjects.

      As for the Australians, I wonder just how many sat back
      and said time and again “if the PM pushes any further
      we won’t stand for it”.

      • ChuckN,

        None did and for one simple reason, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights and no Second Amendment to said Bill of Rights.

      • Australia has never had a large community of gun owners, or even hunters. Outdoorsmen are a rare breed there. Check out their demographics sometime; the population almost entirely urban… i.e., CITY DWELLERS, clustered in a few big coastal cities. It’s what America might’ve looked like if people never left the city limits of Chicago, New York, Boston ect. (and the countryside was a lot flatter, drier, hotter, buggier, and snakier.)
        The image of Australia as a nation of rugged, independent bushrangers as depicted in the movie “Crocodile Dundee” is a false one. Most Australians have never even seen the outback, much less fired (or even held) a gun in their lives. Consequently, disarming the Australian public was easy-peasy.
        America is a different story altogether!

    • “Subjects of the Crown, not Citizens of the Republic”

      You’re an idiot. Australia is a federated democracy. We’re no more subjects of the crown than Canadians are.

      It worked because we, the democracy, decided as a group we were no longer going to let idiots with toys blow our kids away.

      And we still have shooting clubs in Australia…they just have to prove they’re responsible, with gun safes, proper training and licensing…oh, and we don’t let them buy freakin’ ak-47s! No dear hunter needs an AK.

      • No deer hunter needs a .30-30 when there’s a .308. No deer hunter needs a .308 when there’s a .30-06. No deer hunter needs a .30-06 when there is a .45-70. We are adults and can make our own decisions. I’ve taken deer with all of the aforementioned calibers and then some.

        Or you could just save us your uninformed deer hunting advice. In fact, I’ll do you one better. If an AR is the best weapon for me to defend myself against a felon while I’m on-duty, there’s a good chance that it’s the best thing to defend myself with when I’m off-duty.

        • Adam,

          Disarmed people are mere subjects. Just because they haven’t been subjugated yet doesn’t change this fact. None of my guns are for hunting nor competitions. I don’t have to justify their ownership to any government entity. And I won’t trade personal security for the illusion of safety, period!

      • It worked except for those pesky arsonists. Oh and I can hunt deer with an AK. It works just fine.

        • I’ll second that. The AK sure isn’t my favorite deer rifle, but I have taken a whitetail with one, worked just fine.

      • @Adam, yo Oz…you are a subject…a slave. Learn it, live it…you gave it a way knave.

        • I’m sure the chains rest nice and easy on him. Heck, they’d probably miss them if they suddenly vanished.

      • If only the 2A was about hunting or sporting.

        You’re a subject because you have absolutely no means to prevent the government from enslaving you. Just because they’ve decided not to (for now) doesn’t change the fact that you are utterly at their mercy, and at the mercy of criminals. You’re a child with an abusive father, thinking you’re safe when he’s not hitting you.

        You can’t possibly understand freedom or what it means to stand up to a tyrannical government, or live your own life off the government leash. You’ve been indoctrinated to be subservient. Stop commenting on matters you can’t possibly understand.

      • Adam,

        1) You use several constructions that tell us you are NOT Australian

        2) Australasia Constitution was written by an occupying empire

        3) your crime rate started out lower and yours has dropped LESS than ours has since.
        US murder and violent crime rates fell rates fell 50% since the time your massive gun confiscation was enacted, and Australian murder and crime rates fell only 32%

        All the evidence is that you would have less gun violence today if you had never enacted that law.

        4) By the way 90% of US murder is criminals killing criminals. If you are not a drug dealer, gang member of career criminal, you are SAFER i the USA than Australia

        5) lastly, Australia in fact has less constitutional protections of individual rights. It is easier to hold people without bail, easier for police to collect and enter evidence, and you even have lower first Amendment rights.

        Are you really bragging about Australia when you have less First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth amendment rights? Look at your conviction rates.

        • Yup. DOESN’t read like an Aussie to me either, more like an out of work Communications major with a UCSB degree, posting for click pay for OFA.

          Don’t forget the rising violent crime stats in the UK, even with their admittedly cooked books trying to show gun control worked there. They are a few years ahead of Australia, and the trend, at least anecdotally in Australian urban centers, is showing same: criminals are preying upon disarmed citizens and when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

      • Who said anything about needing to deer hunt with an AK? For that matter, who said that the rights American citizens are supposed to enjoy as Constitutionally protected had anything to do with hunting?

      • yep federated democracy and aconstitutional monarchy.

        Here in America, we don’t have a British Consul-General sitting in our national capital representing the Queen nor do we have British governors sitting along side our elected governors like you do in every one of your provinces.

        But folks in Australia do.

        Who appoints the High Court and all of your Federal Judges? the British Consul General does. Who makes up your Executive Branch? The British Consul General does and he is “advised” by your Prime Minister. Who can dismiss the elected prime Minister? The British Consul-General can.

        If you’re not Subjects of the Queen, what is with all this British Consul-General nonsense?

      • Sure, Adam, that’s why a few dozen Lebanese immigrants with clubs and rocks can bring whole cities to a standstill. Kind of like one of our school lockdowns only bigger. No thanks.

      • Adam, you are obfuscating badly. Your 1996 National Firearms Agreement, which mandated the compensated confiscation of many types of firearms and stringent limitations on ownership of restricted weapons (permits based on a police[government]-approved ‘need’, which does NOT include self-defense) was put in place because your then-Prime Minister, John Howard, and his GOVERNMENT dragooned your state governments into passing it. There was NO popular vote. This is NOT ‘democracy’ in action–that is, unless a majority of your citizens voted to approve their legislators enacting such law, which is not the case.

        I would normally ask you what a ‘dear hunter’ is, but instead of assuming that it is a rather effeminate fellow who either minces or prances Broadway-style into the woods to hunt, I’ll take it as a misspelling. It’s still funny. . .

        As to hunting with an AK, you seem to think, like all other antis, that an AK is some incredible weapon of mass destruction capable of emitting full 30 caliber bullet magazine clips in less than a second with one pull of the trigger. It isn’t; it’s a semi-automatic (I’m sure that you don’t mean a select-fire version, which is clearly illegal to possess in your country AND would be prohibited for hunting in ANY civilized nation) short-barreled rifle firing a cartridge with less muzzle energy than a .303 Enfield rifle, and incapable of firing very much faster than a good WWI soldier could work the bolt on said Enfield, which by the way holds ten rounds in a detachable magazine, making it an ‘assault weapon’ by many a government’s criteria. I do believe that the Enfield Number 1 MkIII* is somewhat popular in your country?

        Anything else?

    • Actually the numbers showed violent crime increased after the Australian debacle. There was a scarey surge of :home invasions where armed people came into unarmed households and took what they want and stayed as long as they wanted. The delusion is that lack of guns can make a violent society less violent.

  5. Impeach, impeach, impeach. 38% approval for Barry. So it seems a lot of RATS are abandoning ship. It appears B.Hussain does not care about public opinion anymore. It is hard to believe any president could ever be this corrupt-or inept.

    • That 30% of that 38% would approve even if he started eating baby fetuses on tv to gain their powers. The other 8% would just cough and look uncomfortable.

      • I would suspect that if Mr. Obama gobbled some aborted fetuses on PBS ‘live’ some evening, a goodly percentage of Liberals and Democrats would applaud his Green attitude in putting to good wholesome use some of the 56,662,169 children murdered by abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

        But, I digress.

        Even if Mr. Obama walked out of the White House tonight, went next door, and murdered a gay mixed-race special-needs couple and their 1.3 children in cold blood, the WH PR team and the media would scramble to make his actions at best laudable or to at worst cover them up; If that wasn’t successful, the full House would have to vote a bill of impeachment by simple majority, which would then go to the Senate who would have to have a 2/3rds majority in favour of first impeaching him and then CONVICTING him of an impeachable offense, and THEN remove him from office, at which time he MIGHT be indicted for the crimes and MIGHT be convicted in a trial.

        And, still, he would be defended by most Liberals and Democrats, as the whole thing was just racist.

    • It is hard to believe any president could ever be this corrupt-or inept.

      Is it really that hard to believe? After the clown parade of mediocre, bumbling, dishonest, immoral, disrespectful, degenerate criminal shitheads who have dishonored the office before him for the last five decades or so, it seems to me that he’s just following a well-worn path. It’s no longer noteworthy that our president is inept and corrupt; I would be much more surprised if he weren’t.

    • He learned from Bush that the presidency is imperialist, and you can get away with damned near anything. The next one will have even more power. Now, will we get Romney, or Hillary? Either way, the grabbing goes into high gear.

    • Can’t impeach as long as the Democrats own the Senate. There is no way in the world they’d go along with impeaching the guy they take their lead from. It would never even reach the floor of the Senate for a vote, and the MSM would immediately start screaming about the “racist effort to impeach the first black President for being black”. We HAVE to take back the Senate and maintain control of the House, and it has to be by supermajority in both, or there will be no chance of reigning this nut and his cohorts in.

  6. “But when the president is making statements of admiration about a gun ban and confiscation scheme I’d say he’s doing a pretty good job stoking those fears all by himself.”

    Well, he is after all known as, along with a great many other “colorful” (to say the least) monikers, “The Greatest Gun Salesman of All Time”.

    It is what he and the other jibbering idiots on Capitol Hill said that directly caused the Great Panic Buying of 2012 — which, by the way, we’re only just seeing the end of in 2014.

    • Well, those economic numbers weren’t good last quarter…so why not get the scare out there and get people buying again. For him it’s even better if he can actually follow through

        • Credit card debt has skyrocketed in the past few months. Means people either are optimistic they can pay it back, or don’t expect to have to.

        • For me, it’s cash in small enough amounts to be manageable. I sure don’t want records of my ammo purchases going to a Fusion Center.

      • And then you have folks like me who would happily drop some coin on a Tavor and/or a Scar 17, but of course I can’t. Even with money to spend and stock on the shelves of various e-tailers, there is no commerce to be made.

  7. Gun control after the elections this Fall. In the mean time, look for him to throw his tantrum over immigration going nowhere with the primary defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Gun control is a losing issue while immigration may have legs. He’ll have to use his phone and pen for both issues.

  8. Is he trying to screw the rest of the Democratic Party at this point? Having the leader of their party praise ban-and-confiscate policies should cost them some more races in what’s already shaping up to be a bad year for them.

    • I love it. You can see all the old guard Dems shifting uncomfortably with every irrational act his incompetent administration commits. He must have some serious dirt on Harry to keep up that love fest.

    • Right at the time citizens are running away from gun control, the Volvo-driving, corporate-socialist, Bloomberg Dems picked gun control as their hill to die on. Screw ’em. They’ll get what they deserve soon enough.

    • Operative term: “self-procalimed”. He has nothing but CONTEMPT for the Constitution.

      • “The path we’re embarked upon, in the name of good, is a familiar one. The unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism did not begin in the ‘30s and ‘40s with the men usually associated with those names. Those horrors were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to the consolidation of power in central government in the name of “social justice.” It was decent but misguided Germans, who would have cringed at the thought of extermination and genocide, who built the Trojan Horse for Hitler to take over. We Americans promote disrespect for our Constitution, rule of law and private property in our pursuit of “social justice.” But the scum that rises to the top has an agenda of command and control that’s leading toward totalitarianism. And, incidentally, it’s no coincidence that most of those at the top are lawyers — people with a special, seemingly tutored, contempt for our Constitution and rule of law.”

        — Walter E. Williams
        (1936- ) Columnist, Professor of Economics at George Mason University
        Source: Conservative Chronicle, September 20, 1995

  9. I’ve got an idea for the Prez. He could instruct his Attorney General, Eric Holder to have the ATF set up a ‘sting’ operation in which they ‘inadvertently’ funnel a few thousand ‘assault rifles’ to the Sinaloa Drug Cartel. Then when the guns start showing up at murder scenes they could claim that lax American gun laws are ‘causing’ the violence in Mexico. This will crate such a furor in this country that the ATF will then be able to selectively impose stricter rules on certain firearms dealers without congressional approval.

    • Sounds like an excellent plan! We should make sure those pesky kids and that dog aren’t around first…. just in case!

      • Dear God, a Scooby-Doo episode centered around ATF gun-smuggling would be so awesome. The monster of the week could even be some sort of gun-golem that is foiled when Shaggy and Scoob ensnare it in a comically oversized trigger-lock.

        • That would be the
          BEST. EPISODE. EVER.

          “Now, let’s see who’s under that mask”

          “Gasp! Attorney General Eric Holder!”

          “I woulda gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddlin’ kids.”

  10. It’s a little disingenuous to point to Australia and laud their lack of mass shootings. In the 1980s, Australia had 25 mass murder victims, all shootings. In the 1990s they enacted draconian firearm laws. In the 2000s they had 25 mass murder victims, all by arson. Not much of an improvement, unless you accept the frankly insane premise that death by gunshot is infinitely worse than being burned alive.

  11. I don’t intend to underestimate him, but personally I think he is just grandstanding. On the other hand, If he tries to do anything, good ol’ Leonidas said it best.

    Edit: If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Barry has some ammo company stock in his portfolio. He’s certainly sold me on buying more guns and ammo than anybody else ever has.

  12. Calm down everyone. POTUS cannot have an Executive Order enforced if it is unconstutional. Please do not feed the (POTUS) troll. I am hoping he submits an Executive Order so it will “blow up” in the Dems face. I am still under oath to defend the constution against ALL enemies…

    • I’m guessing the part about unconstitutional orders being unenforced is sarcasm, right? The Constitution is repeatedly in ignored and flouted by this administration, and likewise by the legislature, and also the judiciary.

      • We functionally have no legislative oversight with his golf buddy Boehner and he’s filled up the DC circuit courts that rule on his unConstitutional actions after Harry changed Senate rules for him.

    • It’s only unconstitutional if someone says it’s unconstitutional. That could be the Supreme Court, the executive branch under him, or the populace. Those three are in order of “shit’s going bad”. If the Supreme Court determines it to be unconstitutional, well, that’s not bad. That’s the pressure release in the system. If the executive branch refuses to support it’s head, well, that’s approaching a constitutional crisis. If the populace makes the determination that the executive is overstepping and has no support from the other branches… well… things could get ugly.

  13. So adorable. Typical leftist projection; he is lawless and so sees the general citizen as the same.

    • he is lawless and so sees the general citizen as the same.

      No he does not, he see’s us as a threat to his goal of tyranny, treason and oppression.

    • Being a student of WWII history, I can say that the ideology of the National-Socialist of the early 1930s mirrors today’s Progressives. If someone reading does not believe, study it. Albert Spiers wrote extensively about Hitler’s inner circle, and it shows what happens when Progressives have no boundaries.

  14. Sure. Gun confiscation worked like a charm in Australia. Ask any of the police officers having to deal with all the criminals throwing frisbees at each other. Such a tough day watching gang members have pillow fights.

  15. “Gun violence levels aren’t statistically significant”


    An average of ONE SCHOOL SHOOTING EVERY WEEK FOR THE LAST 18 MONTHS is not ‘statistically significant’?

    If there is another school shooting, I hope Karma knows where the children of the author of this worthless diatribe go to school.

    • No, there hasn’t. The map Everytown published contained duplicates, suicides with no other victims and incidents that happened off school property.

      Oh, and that’s the fifth or sixth time I’ve heard a “concerned” gun control advocate suggest that maybe the children of people they disagree with should be the next to die, including once about my own child. It’s not simply grotesque and cruel, it’s indicative of a person who is apparently fine with children dying, despite their bullshit rhetoric.

        • I believe it means TTAG has a generous, liberal policy when it comes to people who are anti freedom.
          It kind of highlights the people who are either trollers or downright, ah, um,” intelligence challenged”?

        • TTAG certainly is. I’ve apparently been blocked from making responses on “Being Liberal”. I guess that they can’t take a little debate on their favorite issues….

        • Gotcha Matt. I didn’t know if something had been moderated or whatever. I’m not too bright.

      • Nobody is “anti freedom.” But more and more are becoming “anti lugnut with a powerful gun” and that includes plenty of those of us that are gun owners.

        • I beg to differ – there are plenty of people who are anti-freedom. Sure, there may not be many people who are “domain-general” anti-freedom, but our political discourse is positively chock-full of people who would seek to restrict the liberties of others in some respect or another on very dubious grounds. They might identify as anti-liquor, or anti-flag-burning, or anti-gun, but they are all anti-freedom.

        • since only a couple of the “school shootings” involve something like an AR-15, and are usually just plain old pump shotguns or a pistol, I guess “powerful guns” = all guns?

    • “… I hope Karma knows where the children of the author”

      You’re a bitter little ray of sunshine then, aren’t you?

    • Yes, because wishing death upon someone you disagree with is much better than suggesting any kind of alternative solution. Do us a favor and go troll somewhere else.

    • Dear Worried Citizen,

      Firearm homicides average less than 12,000 per year. There are over 300,000,000 million firearms in this country. 12,000 improperly used firearms per year, versus 299,978,000 properly used. This means that 99.99% of all firearms are used in a legal proper manner each year. That’s the textbook definition of statistically insignificant. Compare that to 33,000 deaths from poisoning or the same number from car accidents. It’s a red herring.

    • Guys, trolls are like stray cats. It may be really tempting to feed them, but once you give them a bite, they never go away. Save yourselves some trouble and please refrain from feeding the trolls.

      • Not everyone who voices an opposing opinion, even loudly, is a troll. Sometimes the things they say need to be set straight, if not for their benefit, then for the benefit of others watching.

        • Of course, Matt. Its just that when you have someone post for first time with the obvious “concern troll” type moniker “a worried citizen” who lays out an obvious strawman, combined with a veiled threat at one’s kids, then it looks very much like progtard rhetoric, by the lame-o Alinsky playbook.

          We can waste a lot of time resonding to the misdirection of the strawman, or simply call them out.

    • It’s now common to see gun controllers wish death on other people children. That’s very telling.

      I would never wish death on your child. Au contraire, I will always stand up for your constitutional rights, and try to protect your life, even though you would happily take away my rights and my life.

    • Thank you for reaffirming my commitment to carry a gun every day, everywhere, knowing there are violent, psychotic people like you in the world.

    • Please seek help immediately. I become worried about your mental state when wish death on others.

    • “A worried citizen”

      Yeah, you may be worried, but you aren’t doing much thinking either. 1 a month you say?
      Dear lord….. let’s start throwing away rights.

      4-5 of anything per month is NOTHING in a society of 400,000,000 million people. Pretty much every other cause you can think of has a higher death toll on children than guns. (that’s why it always makes the news) Stop and think about things for a moment, instead of close minded, slack jawed ignorance, try using that brain that made man the rulers of the earth. Learn to think, or go back to the cave.

      Also, why is it always “the children, the children, the children the children the children, the children” with you people?

      What good are children?
      We have plenty to go around. Over population is one of the single greatest problems in this world. Nearly every major problem we face could be made better by a lower population.

      “The children” don’t pay any taxes. They soak up tax dollars like a sponge.

      Yes, I get it. We are all hard wired to want to save the tribe’s young so we can survive. It’s a natural trait for our species… but so are a lot of other things we ignore. It’s just cave man survival traits.

      “The children” are FAR less valuable to a society than the adults.

      • A bit Ayn Rand-ish for my tastes, but you’re technically correct about how little children contribute. By that same token, you don’t rip out a tomato vine before it’s mature enough to bear fruit. You do have to take excellent care of the vines you plant until then, though; otherwise, we end up with a bunch of weeds.

    • 44 people (not necessarily children) died or were wounded in those shootings since Sandy Hook.

      For comparison, over 50,000 children died from various causes last year alone in the USA.

      So yes, the school shootings are pretty much statistically insignificant in the big scheme of things. It’s just that you hear about them on TV, while you don’t hear about kids hit dead by a car (~10k/year – so about 30 kids every day). Unless it’s your kid, that is.

    • “Concerned citizen”
      1) Gun murder of children has been plummeting.

      2) Over 95% of kids killed in and around school are killed because of the drug trade and gangs. Only about 12% of kids killed in and around schools are killed whit guns
      And less kids are killed with assault rifles than are killed with circumcision.

      3) About 16x more kids are killed though non gun murder simply from being in the homes of criminals. What you want is to make it illegal for a child to be raised in the home of a criminal.

      Children in the homes of gun owners who are not criminals are 20% safer than those in unarmed

      Children raised in homes where criminals are domiciled, with and without guns are 20x more likely to be harmed.

      4) Otherwise demographcically equal States with the highest gun ownerhhsip have the LOWEST murder rates of children

    • Even using your absurdly inflated numbers that would be 72 school shootings out of 98,817 schools or 0.07% of schools in the US experiencing a shooting. 7 1/100ths of a percent isn’t significant statistically.

      In the last year there were 11,110 murders in which a gun was the primary weapon, in a nation of 317m people that’s 0.003 percent of the population, again, statistically insignificant.

      If school safety is a primary concern one should look to student drivers, the drive (or ride outside of a school bus) is more likely to cause death than all forms of intentional violence combined. For that matter school aged children are more likely to die by suicide than homicide. There are serious issues facing us in terms of children’s safety but guns aren’t even near the top of the list. Perhaps we should revisit violence after we’ve addressed the leading causes of death in children, but not before.

      A further break down reveals that most homicide for ‘children’ occurs somewhere other than school, and that the vast majority were either engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior or else were accidentally killed in an attempt by a person with a pattern of criminal behavior to kill another person so engaged. Essentially, gang wars kill far more ‘children; than school shooters, they just tend to do it one at a time. Where is the outrage for that, and what plans are offered to alter the cycle of criminality, poverty and murder in our inner cities?

      Nothing will change if the only solution offered in gun control, it hasn’t worked and can’t work to resolve what amounts to on going tribal warfare. We actually have to find solutions to the problem, not attempt to limit the arms the war is being fought with. That’s never worked in a military setting and isn’t likely to succeed in a civil one.

    • So former jock who’s life has taken a downturn, who goes to school in the middle of the night and commits suicide is tragic, but by no rational person’s definition is this a school shooting.

  16. Obama holds breath, stomps feet.

    A republican president would have been impeached for this kind of shit long ago.

    • Not to put too fine a point on it, but if he was white period, he would have been impeached by now and quite possibly charged with treason. Unfortunately this is not going to happen. Every time people try to argue against Obama’s policies, his supporters (including the MSM) start screaming racism. Just look at the vitriol that gets dumped on the Tea Party, for example. You must either agree with The One, or you are a hateful, uneducated, racist pig.

  17. Well I guess we are about due for another
    Gun run and ammo run agin
    Grrrrrrrr and I probably should gets some clips
    While im at it

  18. Bring it on, Barry. I will enjoy the sweet, sweet tears of your Congressional allies in paper tyranny come election season as they grieve outside the Capitol wondering what went wrong.

  19. As we keep reminding people, the “gun violence levels” are no, in fact, off the charts.

    I always enjoy seeing the TTAG boys channel their inner Scotsman! =D

    • Nae mair makin’ fin ay other men’s spellin’! it’s nae reit! Whit ur ye, a bludy sassenach?

  20. I guess now’s the time to buy stock in gun companies; This is as close I’m ever going to get to insider information.

    Cha-Ching! $$$

  21. That top picture.
    Is he showing us a measurement of his constitutional knowledge or the length of his

    attention span.

  22. After Sandy Hook, I thought that it would take something extreme to put gun control back on the table. I underestimated the power of the press. They will literally publicize any gun-related crime involving middle-class, white people.

  23. This POTUS “Vows to Act Without Congress” yet again?

    Um, yeah… here’s my surprised face. 😐

    • I remember when I used to live in a country where a president publicly proclaiming he would enact laws without congress would have been arrested and impeached. What the hell happened to the USA?

      • I’ll tell you what happened: the population became dominated by people like my mother, whose attitude about Obama’s EOs is basically “he has to do it, congress won’t ever get anything done.” Yes, my mother said those words verbatim.

        Throw out the checks and balances system that the country was built on, for the sake of expediency and immediate political satisfaction.

  24. Australia is the PERFECT example of how gun bans DON’T prevent gun violence…

    How many gang members over there have perfectly functional garage guns? Anyone? SMH…

    • 10’s of thousands the 648K of guns handed in durning the 96 confiscation in Australia were not even in the banned list, they were bolt action etc.

  25. What could a little ‘modest’ trimming of your rights hurt? The suppression of the many over the actions of a few.

  26. Please, bring it and bring it hard. He said earlier this year gun control was off the table and wanted dems to stop talking about it for they may get killed in the mid-terms, I guess he no longer cares about the mid-terms. All this will make it difficult on Hillary who already opened her mouth about gun control. Let gun control be the issue that removes the democrats from the majority and makes a long lasting bitter pill not soon to be forgotten in the future.

  27. You know, I really wish his handlers would do a better job ensuring that he only reads from a tele-prompter and ceases to ad-lib. Every time he starts flapping his gums we’re reminded of how little he really knows.

    • “flapping his gums” is that some kind of a racist statement? Are you a racist? Racist, racist!!! We have a RACIST here!!!!!! Someone call Holder!!!!! Inform MSNBC and Toure!!!!!

  28. With a certain interpretation of the “take Care” clause.. such an action, would be setting himself up for impeachment just for attempting it. These actions directly conflict with his oath of office, sure… But Executive Orders were never intended to be, and there is no wording in the Constitution on the duties of the president, that they be used to grant broad discretionary power. It is meant to aid in the enforcement of laws, not to nullify, or write new laws while bypassing the due process.

    But when you’ve got two years to go, no chance at keeping your job, and have a lame duck as your second… well, I guess you get to try whatever you want.

    • Fun fact, the 1st executive order was used by Martha Washington to ask for money to buy dishes for a party.

      • And it was proper.. executive orders can be used for things like ordering stationary, gassing up Air Force 1, acquiring caviar for foreign dignitaries… Anything that aids in the execution of the duties of the office.

        • Not correct, Sean. Executive orders are for the purpose of executing the laws passed by Congress. Congress is famous for passing vague and open ended statutes, and leaves it to the executive branch and all of its various agencies to interpret those laws and pass regulations to put the law into effect. Most laws are not self-executing but instead required Executive Branch action. By the same token, executive or agency action must be supported by a law granting the executive authority–Obama cannot simply act outside the scope of his constitutional powers or those granted to him by Congress.

  29. If this wannabe despot continues trying to rule by fiat, he’s going to have a WORLD of trouble fall upon him.

  30. Been expecting this since he was re-elected in 2012. He very well might order that all people on the “terror watch list” be dumped into the NICS system first, and a few other unsavory things, figuring it will take years for the resulting lawsuits to work their way \up through the court system. By then, the damage will pretty much be done.

    I don’t think he’ll actually try to confiscate. I hope I’m not wrong.

  31. You guys, Obama isn’t coming after your guns. Look, he barely went after guns at all in his first term. There are just lots and lots of “pro-gun Democrats” out there. As a Constitutional scholar, Obama respects the rule of law…


    Here’s another pro tip for those who thought Obama wouldn’t be anti gun: don’t vote for Hillary in 2016. Don’t support Christie, either. Also, show every anti-gun Democrat and Republican the door in 2014. Soap box, ballot box…you get the idea.

    As for me, I’ll never interrupt a statist politician while he or she is making a mistake. Except maybe if it involves another inept prisoner exchange.

    • That reminds me–has Cristie acted on that obnoxious gun bill the NJ Legislature dumped in his lap? Seems to have fallen out of the news cycle here.

      • Haven’t seen any update since May 24. Looks like Christie is too busy getting sued by teachers unions to veto it. Probably weighing the pros of further disarming his victims against the cons of losing the chance to get more future victims in a white house run. Make no mistake, he wants to sign it so bad.

        • Christie may as well save his money and stay home. The guy couldn’t get a republican nomination if he ran unopposed in the primary.

    • Yup. Obama can’t help returning to his roots by rolling out the same failed rhetoric as instilled by his mentors, Marshall, Wright, and Ayers, and the puppet master, Jarret, is all alone as the few remaining adults in WH bail out, leaving the kids in charge, xbox boy Rhodes, Youtube Rice, et al.

      Who’s got the popcorn?

  32. Only in the US i.e. developed country does mass murder happen here. Only here do is the right to bear arms blah, blah bal blah hah. Yes Mr. President we have mass murder here, because deep down you and every legislator wants it….warm blood flowing on the sidewalks, the dirt, the concrete, the carpet. Yes the stuff of life, drained from the citizens you have responsibility for. The blood letting of Aztec’s at the pinnacle of pyramids is now replaced among the streets and homes of your citizens.

    AND THE ONLY ANSWER the leader of the free world is ink on paper. No force multiplier of an armed citizenry. No good guy putting it on the line, being the person in the arena. No one to call the ball and put a mad man/woman down. Madness ends at the opposite end of a barrel. The barrel while extinguishes life, preserves others. At what point does the intellectual mind intersect reality…apparently it doesn’t



      Some of them, yes. Certainly any who is actually paying attention to what the admin does and still votes for him. But there are also a large number of people I think who are genuinely clueless, but can be reached (especially when they find what happens to their own interests). I think many are starting to realize they’ve been lied to all along.

      • Hence the big push for voter registration on college campuses. Clueless, idealistic, naive high school graduates will vote the way they are told to. To appear mature and sophisticated. NOT like their parents, who are supporting them. And in droves.

        • There’s truth in what you say about the young and clueless, which is a main goal of public education and the universities. On the other hand, the youth always rebel against “the man,” whoever than man is. Part of the human condition. So, who’s “the man” now? Leftists. Has to be a way to leverage that, but the message probably should come from others in that generation. Teach your children well so they can be one of those voices.

  33. Gun sales will be brisk through January 2017. The FBI will at one point stop releasing the monthly NICS numbers, bet on it…

  34. Door to door confiscation would be grounds for massive civil unrest/disobedience and especially what it’s based on, lies and bullshit. Australia’s gun laws are NOTHING to be proud of and are an example of a FAILURE in policy.

    • “…Door to door confiscation would be grounds for massive civil unrest/disobedience.”

      Yes, the question is whether the admin understands this, and if so whether they would actually welcome it. Depends on their state of mind.

      The leftists have been eating away at America’s structures for more than 100 years. They gain control, kick America in the nuts as hard as they can for as long as they can, people wise up and vote them out, they go back to ground for 30 or 40 years (all the while making steady gains in taking over basic institutions like education and the press), then come back under another name for another round of furious nut-kicking. Each cycle they do lasting damage (the Fed, progressive income tax, social security, medicare, welfare) that leaves the US weaker than before. Like a matador slowly weakening a bull until it’s possible to deliver the coup de grace.

      So, do the Progs smell endgame in the air? Or do they think they need to go to ground for another cycle before they make their final move? I don’t know. If the former, they might welcome unrest as an excuse to drop the mask and go openly totalitarian. If the latter, they may show some restraint.

      Obama seems to care little about his party’s prospects in 2014 and 2016. That could indicate that he accepts that the Progs are essentially done for another 30 years, so he’s decided to give our collective nut sack as many swift kicks as he can on the way out. Or it could indicate that the Progs are ready to go all in. Of course, he could simply be bat-shit crazy (instead of or in addition to the other possibilities). Which is it? I wish I knew, but I think we are in for some very interesting times.

  35. This is how authoritarians and dictators do things. Create fear and tension, with a liberal dose of overall uncertainty, and you can have the little people kvetching to and fro because no one knows what awful thing is going to happen next. Start with gun control talk and open admiration for gun confiscation, and you can get a broad range of Americans to achieve a state of permanent agitation. Tick-tick-tick…

  36. People can howl all they want, but you can thank every single gun owner who went out and voted for this guy because they agreed with him on some pet issue. Conservatives knew his past statements as a professor and a senator and knew he was a nightmare for gun rights ready to happen. Sorry, it’s a fact.

  37. Ok, may take some heat for this but here goes
    Your gun laws in the USA are broken but so are ours here in Australia. you have too much freedom with regards to background checks classifications acquisition and open carry , we have way too many criteria to be met in order to shoot regularly let alone own a gun and open carry and CC are completely illegal hell we can’t even play airsoft cause the guns “look real”

    There is a sweet spot though , introduce background checks, sporting club membership and special licences for conceal and open carry.
    Make owners shoot a number of times a year to show that you use then for things other than tetmination of life. I have always admired the 2nd amendment and lamented that we don’t have something like that here. Right now if someone rolls into my house with a gun… I probably get shot and I think that is the real crime

    P.s the gun buy back didn’t work here, cause the only people who handed back ALL their guns were people who couldn’t find a place to hide them .. oh and criminals cause they dont care about laws

    • There is no “sweet spot.” We have nothing to gain from capitulation. We have already given too much away and now we are winning the long game. Crime is dropping year after year even with more guns in circulation, more states are liberalizing their carry laws, and mass shootings are the exception not the norm. And sorry, the 2nd Amendment was never about “hunting” or “sporting purposes.” Making our freedoms contingent on being a member of some elite organization is a betrayal of everything our Bill of Rights stands for and someone who “admires” the 2nd needs to understand that.

    • No such thing as too much freedom. We are all born naturally free, except immediately thrust into a coercive, government-mandated life. By the time we’re grown up enough to be self aware, we’re already indoctrinated to believe that a life subservient to government and society is the norm.

    • You don’t get it…

      Use your own words, though instead of using the terms “for conceal and open carry” use the word fists. Do you think any government has the right to prevent you from using your fists to defend yourself if your life was threatened? Do we put restrictions on martial arts? What kind of license should a 3rd degree blackbelt have in order to defend himself? How about High Capacity magazine, I mean, round-house kick ban? Should we restrict their usage and say you can only throw 10 of those kind of kicks in a fight before having to meditate?

      By all intents and purposes a firearm is an extension of your need for personal defense against ANYTHING and ANYONE that threatens you and those you love just as much as your own fists are. Make no mistake It is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to defend yourself! Our second amendment simply exists to tell those who would try to take that right from us to go to hell.

      I understand, its hard for people under the thumb of an oppressive government to comprehend this simple truth.

    • I’m not sure why people don’t know even in our own country but, we already have background checks. We have had them since the 90’s.

    • “There is a sweet spot though , introduce background checks, sporting club membership and special licences for conceal and open carry.”

      I don’t even know how to reply to this kind of foolishness.
      Don’t moderate me for calling it foolishness either. It is.

      You’re already so far lost that you honestly have no place speaking on this issue. Go over to the gun grabbers, you’re 90% there already.

      If we support these asinine “club memberships” you talk about, then there will be a push to require them before long. Hey, I have an idea… let’s all get a patch for our clubs, and wear it all the time!
      So people can know not to trust us evil gun owners!
      Maybe it could be pointy, and star like?

      Special licenses for CC, yeah we already have that. Learn before you speak.

      Special licenses for OC?
      OC is already banned in many places, and is an issue of mass contention anyhow. OC is always an attention grabber.

      You either have the desire and ability to commit a gun crime, or you don’t.
      Laws really aren’t going to influence that.

      Stop suggesting we castrate our rights.

    • Here’s our sweet spot:

      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.

      When you understand what that means, in its entirety and word by word, you will understand that this nation was founded upon individual Liberty. When it no longer rests on Liberty, it ceases to be our nation.

    • You talk about open carry… even though I’m not a fan of it in urban areas what on earth would a law against open carry do to protect anyone? When is the last time someone decided to shoot up a school but then said ‘shucks, better not do it and turn myself in because open carry is illegal’?

    • You’re going to catch heat for a simple and fundamental reason; the point of the second amendment isn’t to ensure that we can keep guns for the heck of it, it’s so that we can keep guns for the purpose of defending our other liberties from threats domestic and foreign. Government didn’t ‘give’ us the right to keep and bear arms, that right has always existed. Likewise government cannot take away that right, we’d have to surrender it and I believe there are too many of us who refuse to do so for that to work. The primary difference between the American point of view and the Australian is this: The 2nd was written with an eye towards revolution, and revolution is what we will have if it isn’t respected and upheld.

      What Obama does with these statements is flirt dangerously close to tyranny, and the time honored solution to that in the US is revolution. There will be no turn in here, no confiscation until there is a victor in a nasty internal war. The most likely victor? China, unless you count the Russians annexing all of eastern and central Europe as victory. The people of the US may not win their liberty from the government if it becomes tyrannical, but they will so weaken it that there is little doubt that it would be years, perhaps decades before the US is able to focus externally again. What world it will find when it looks outward after that is hard to say, but it couldn’t be pretty.

    • you have too much freedom

      So says the world at the U.S.

      ….until they need their ass saved again.

    • How about this: You stay where you are and clean up your own mess, and we’ll stay here and take care of our business, m’k?

    • Aussie, what part of Oz? What gun club, bloke? Not that I suspect you, or anything, but the appeal to a compromise, from a failing position, such as yours, vs whats actually working, here in the US, with court decisions, elections, and rising public opinion for preservation of 2A rights, is a false choice, mate.

      I see the libtard tide has turned there, with some of your elections. When you get it right there, come back and check in with us, alright. You went the way of the bloody pom’s and now you’ve got some work to do sorting it out there, cheerio.

  38. “there’s no indication that removing guns (as Australia has done) will improve the situation or is even possible”

    That statements about an Australian style buyback not being possible or reducing mass shootings is factually incorrect.

    Obviously it’s possible, Australia did it (a democracy with very similar pre-buyback gun laws to the US).

    About whether buybacks work..that last study on the subject showed that in Australia, in the decade prior to the buyback, there was an average of one mass shooting (five or more victims) every year. Since the gun buyback scheme was announced in 1996 there have been zero mass shootings in Australia. Not one. Zip…Nada….in 18 years.

    Not only that, suicides have fallen. Without firearm availability suicide victims have had to result in less fatal means which has improved the ability for medical intervention. There was a 10% immediate and continued drop in suicides after the introduction of the buyback scheme.

    The US gun debate is a complex and emotive issue – but please at least have the honour to keep it factual.

    • That doesn’t explain how Japan’s suicide rate is much higher than ours in one of the most gun-free societies on Earth.

      Or how the Dunblane and Cumbria shootings in the UK were possible even with stricter laws than ours in both cases.

      These are not red herrings. Australia is just one case out of many and every country has its own set of problems. Even if their experiment worked it is statistically unsound to base all gun control outcomes on the results of one country, especially since our crime rates were falling in tandem with Australia’s (and continue to fall) despite not passing laws of such severity.

      • …I could be wrong…but I think eventually from a historic perspective…they will find that our crime rates are tied to the demographics and aging of the post WWII war baby boomers…and the drug /drink fueled years across their generational lives…the boomer’s parent (in general) were an abusive generation that rolled in hypocrisy and drink….take the idiotic war on drugs, three-strikes-and you’re out…and the fact that many parents had already spun the souls of their kids by the mid-70’s…now we see their offspring off on the meth and pills…but with each new generation we (hopefully) build better parents who learn to raise happier, more productive adults…and hopefully (as well)..our kids have become aware and libertarian …. so we are making progress…

        RJ O’Guillory
        Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

        • There are two interesting theories on our plummeting violent crime rates.

          The first is that the 1978 ban on lead paint use in residential structures resulted in an eventual drop in the number of children developing lead exposure based behavioral problems.

          The other, and more compelling argument is that the 56.6 million unwanted pregnancies terminated since 1973 has resulted in a continuing decline of the population from which most violent criminals were traditionally drawn (unwanted children born to unwed mothers). Additionally, with black males representing only 6.3% of the population but responsible for nearly 40% of all homicide offenders and 50% of victims, while 64% of all abortions are sought by non-whites, legalized abortion may be the driving factor in our declining crime rates.

          It’s easy to shout racism or to make pro-life arguments and it’s not my purpose to make a statement on either race or the legitimacy of abortion. Rather, it’s to point out that the evidence indicates a decline in the number of black males would doubtlessly result in lower crime rates and that legalized abortion has in fact resulted in a huge reduction in the number of black males. Clearly a reduction in the demographic committing 40% of murders and representing 50% of victims must result in a reduction in the number of murders.

          There are, of course, various social and economic factors responsible by degrees for the drop in violent crime, but if one wanted a factor on which to hang ones hat, legalized abortion has likely done more for reducing crime than all other factors combined.

    • You want factual and yet you lied and said Australia has had no mass shootings since 1996.

      Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

      Not to mention even your own media says gun crime is “out of control” in your country. You have gun deaths every year despite major gun control. Sydney? How many thousands of illegal guns get confiscated every year, and how many MILLIONS of illegal guns does your government estimate are in the hands of criminals?

      Glass house, handful of stones. Throw away, sparky.

    • Suicide rates in Australia have RISEN since the gun confiscation. They did not fall.

      Only the method changed and changed to methods less likely to be ruled suicide.

      In Australia a self inflicted gunshot is prima facie evidence of suicide according to Australian case law and coroners’ evidenciary requirements. Self inflicted drug overdose is not prima facie sucide, so absent a suicide note, the skyrocketing suicides by drug overdose, are ruled “accidental deaths”

      Fact is more people are committing suicide by drug overdoes in Australia, creating a net increase in suicide since your gun ban

      • Interestingly, I have guns, and I have never done heroin, but I know what it is and I know what guns do. Given the choice, I’d take ODing on smack over shooting myself any day. It’s not surprising at all that deaths from overdose increase when suicides by gun decrease. See also: single vehicle traffic fatalities and falls from high spaces.

      • I wonder if hooking a hose to the tailpipe of a car is prima facie evidence of suicide
        or accidental death due to hooking a snorkel to an impure air source?

    • Obviously it’s possible, Australia did it (a democracy with very similar pre-buyback gun laws to the US).


      No they did not; the Second Amendment is about killing the tyrants and oppressors not hunting or sport.


    Also, it’s cute that Barry thinks free Americans will follow his laws. Australians turned in their guns and bent over for the government because they’re subjects who don’t know the true definition of freedom. American values are unique, and once we start emulating petty tyrannies like Australia and the UK, we cease to become America and become just another free range for tax cattle, our entire lives at the whim of idiots in government buildings.

    Also, yes, Obama stokes more fears than anyone else in the world right now. He is, literally, a domestic terrorist.

  40. I am not too worried. Yes, Obama wants to act, but he recognizes that his ability to act without Congress is limited by the powers granted to his office through laws passed by Congress; if he acts without statutory authorization, any order he issues is subject to immediate and successful challenge. He has said before, when his gun ban was defeated, that he would do this thing. Over a year later, he has done little, and nothing of consequence. Which to me means that his is empty rhetoric because his staff has been unable to find any statute granting him the authority to do what he wants to do.

    • Under German law Hitler was barred from holding office. Laws are little hindrance to Messianic, Narcissistic Sociopaths

    • Indeed, or any way around the statues preventing him from achieving his agenda. As someone said above, Obama and his ilk study the constitution the way a thief studies locks, with an eye towards defeating them. It’s shocking that a sitting president could say such things without drawing an impeachment.

  41. There may be no mid-term elections, the Progressives sure act like it.
    Its the final phase folks, yeah the ovens have yet to be built but they are shovel ready.

    • They got what they wanted, the progressives: A non-white president with a radically progressive agenda that he wasn’t afraid to show. It turned out of course that he’s also incompetent and inept whatever you think of his policies and that the majority (what’s his approval rating, 38%?) of the people strongly dislike his policies. The problem for the progressives is that their identities and ideology are so wrapped up in these outrageous policies and plans that even now, when it’s off paper and no longer just an ideal but a real situation that has mangled the economy, beggared the constitution, reduced our standing in the world and generally disenfranchised a majority of the people they can’t quite let go of it, can’t admit that the grand design has failed. They’re standing by to yield the senate to Republicans and if the primaries are any evidence, to conservative Republicans at that. Even so, they seem to be largely willing to double down. We’ve always said they were out of touch, now they intend to prove it in the one way they don’t lie about; they are about to give up power rather than tone it down a notch.

  42. I reckon it’s a coming. Keep saying confiscation. That’ll cool things down a ha. No wacko wants to lose his guns. They’ll tow the line for sure.

  43. I am in my mid 50s, I got my first gun, a Remington single shot 22 for my 10th birthday My dad was a gun guy too. He hunted, shot trap and skeet, target shot, and even built a few custom guns over the years. I am old enough to remember how it was before the GCA of 1968(as always brought to you by the freedom hating Democrat party) at least a little bit.I got to go with my dad and hang out at Pete Fresh’s gunstore in Rockville. There were no 4473s. You could buy guns through the mail. The old guys that hung out there instilled in me a tremendous respect for the gun culture, and respect for guns. I was allowed to handle some…I was taught the 4 rules. Throughout my childhood there were guns in our house. They were secured, but not locked away. My dad delighted in showing me and my siblings his latest find. As I headed to adulthood, I picked up where my dad left off. He collected some things, I collected others.I shared my latest finds with him too, right up until he passed away. What is my point to all of this? The gun culture is my culture. It has been a part of the United States since the beginning of this country. (See Kentucky rifles…)It is only since the creation of the “progressives” that gun ownership has ever been questioned. It is only in the last 50 years that gun ownership has come under constant attack. And it is always the same political party. Yes, gun ownership is enshrined in the BOR, but more than that, it is in our very DNA. Not only do they wish to rule us by force, they wish to stamp out our very culture. They want to separate us from the culture that allowed our forefathers to create our very country. This is past unacceptable. It is wrong, unconstitutional, and unAmerican. I will not accept this. I urge all of you that have not, find a copy of Unintended Consequences , and read it. When you see “that which shall not be infringed” infringed all in one place, you will understand how far back we have already been pushed. Let us not be pushed back any more.

  44. Utterly predictable.

    Liberals (especially Obama) have been desperately casting about for the last two weeks, trying to find something to take the heat off Obama for the VA medical care fiasco.

    Obama thought he’d do that with the Bergdahl release. That blew up in his face, big time. Even some liberals think that Obama screwed the pooch on that one. They tried a quick diversion into some more global warming nonsense, but everyone knows that dog doesn’t hunt outside of NYC and DC.

    So now he’s looking to change the subject ASAP to something else. Annnnnd, as I’ve said before, what is the one topic that a liberal can bring up to get the press back into his corner, get the press yapping about a topic where it seems that 95% of “progressives” have especially damp dreams?

    Gun control. Banning and confiscating guns. Talking about “protecting children” and so on.

    End result? Liberals, progressives and compliant bootlickers in the press (but I repeat myself) start have painful priapristic episodes lasting days on end. Success! The press starts talking about something else than Obama’s spectacular failures.

    How to derail this most recently push?

    Keep talking about Obama’s failures. Don’t let him change the subject. Remind people that Obama is trying to distract from his failures.

    • And don’t forget that in the current MSM vernacular a “mass shooting” by a fifteen year old gang-banger “child” “gunman” can include as many as one victim.

      Propaganda is truly awe-inspiring sometimes.

    • 100% spot on.

      What worked before in the post Sandy Hook mass hysteria and over-reach will work again. Contact your elected reps and let them know what you expect, in writing. Back it up in $ and time to their opponent if the dont get it. The Cantor result is proof that the grassroots tide is in favor of common-sense application of existing laws, not more executive over-reach.


  45. I think Obama is in the secret employ of the gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers. It’s all a clever capitalistic plot.

  46. Because i learned (and even saw someone note on this blog one time) that you should never believe a statistic you didn’t produce yourself, i looked at the Australia and US murder and rape rates from 1995 -2007 with my own eyes.

    The article linked to by a previous commenter was accurate in its message: their murder rate decline mirrored ours while their sexual assault rate SKYROCKETED

    as a husband and father to a daughter, i think i’ll pass on that outcome.

  47. Respectfully sir, you’re an idiot. Irresponsible, connect the dots “journalism” like this is at least partly to blame for the inability of the people to do anything meaningful to protect our society from irresponsible gun owners. Any time anyone makes an attempt to pass even the most common sense legislation, such as background check requirements, instigators such as yourself spout foolishness about the government confiscating guns from law abiding citizens. You rile unbalanced and fragile minded individuals up with false conjectures and conspiracy theories that spur them to violence with delusions of grandeur. Responsible gun owners support sensible legislation that helps keep guns out of the hands of those who are not legally allowed to possess them. The mentally ill, convicted criminals and others should not be able to easily or freely obtain a dangerous weapon and responsible gun owners should have the tools to know whether they are potentially selling to these people.

    • @RenaeAnapau, if it weren’t for Leftists like yourself, the mentally ill and convicted criminals would be where they belong instead of prowling our streets.

    • “Mentally ill?” By whose standard and definition? That is a slippery slope when you have a government that has no respect for the Constitution or the will of the people and has already demonstrated a willingness to illegally detain, censor, torture or murder its own citizens. Have the Bush years taught your side nothing?

    • We already have background checks and they have been in place since the 90s, requiring private sales to have background checks will do nothing to prevent illegal sales to criminals or the mentally ill no matter how many restrictions or laws are put in place.

      How many of the shooters over the past few years have gone through background checks from an FFL to get guns rather than go through a private sale? Thinking back, most of them. How do you propose to change the background check system to screen for mentally ill and mass shooter types?

      Also, please walk us through how your supposed common sense gun laws will decrease crime and shootings. I would like to see your reasoning.

      • “Well just because they will. So there!” The really sad part is there are a lot of people out there in jeopardy because of illegal guns and nothing proposed by any of these anti-gunners makes a single one them any safer. The flip side is there are a lot of people who have been convinced they have been made safer by all these new laws (and are relieved) that have been swindled. Politics is a dirty business made worse by power grabs resulting in bad public policy.

    • Gun Free Zones, background checks, concealed carry permits, magazine capacity limits, state – level assault weapons bans – the list goes on and on. Many citizens have virtually no legal avenue to carry a defensive handgun during their daily activities. One such place is the Isla Vista / Santa Barbara area, where the sheriff refuses to approve concealed carry permits (except for the wealthy and politically connected, of course). Another is Washington DC. It is laughable that so many liberal progressives truly believe that there are no gun laws in the US.

      If you were to bother to check, you would find an inverse relationship between the severity of gun laws and the existence of gun violence. That means that inner city areas like Chicago and Washington DC have high murder rates despite their strict gun laws. A host of small cities and free states have considerable gun freedom. The murder rates are not off the chart.

      Were you to bother to look, you would also find that more than 90% of mass shooting incidents of the past 20 years have occurred in Gun Free Zones. Guns are 100% banned for civilians in most schools, colleges and military bases. That fact creates a target rich environment for psychos such as Lanza, Holmes, Hasan, etc.

      But something tells me that you’ve already drank the Kool-aid, and will happily vote for less freedom, more laws, and higher taxes.

    • I’ve proposed banning Leftists from owning guns (seeing as they’re responsible for the vast majority of spree shootings and Leftist dominated cities produce over 90 percent of the country’s violence), which should cut the country’s violence by about 93 percent. You on board for that? If not, why? Why do you want to see more children die? Why can’t you be responsible and just do something?

      And why bother punishing me for violence that is almost exclusively the arena of YOUR ilk?

    • What I really meant by my statement here:

      ‘Responsible gun owners support sensible legislation that helps keep guns out of the hands of those who are not legally allowed to possess them.’

      Is that according to the Bill of Rights (the unalienable rights) everyone is legally allowed to own a gun. So responsible gun owners support sensible legislation of gun control: NONE.

      • We like facts and aren’t much into opinions when it comes to regulation. How about providing some facts regarding how gun control has reduced crime. The evidence demonstrates falling crime rates with increased access to guns in every place for which there is data. In fact, every national study of the issue found either decreased crime with relaxed gun laws or no change in crime rates with less gun control. If you could cite something, really anything that supports your argument I’ll listen. Frankly though I don’t think you can find any facts or evidence for your position because I don’t believe any such exist.

        It may not be intuitive for some (though for others it’s rather obvious), but gun control has not ever been linked to crime reduction. It’s not just something to consider, its the second most important thing to consider, right behind the ‘shall not be infringed’ natural and constitutionally protected rights thing.

    • @RenaeAnapau

      Actually most NON gun owners do not want any more gun laws.

      Gallup May 2014 shows 29% and FALLING of Americans want more gun laws and the remainder want less gun control or the same.

      So you are factually wrong

    • You know we already have background checks, right? I went through one for every gun I own. Making something that is already illegal (e.g. possession of a firearm by a prohibited person) more illegaler isn’t going to do a whole lot, y’know? That’s like reacting to people breaking the 55 mph speed limit by lowering it to 45. Yes, private sales occur at gun shows (the dreaded “loophole”), but they occur anywhere else two private citizens have the right to be, as well. You’ll also notice that’s effectively a non-factor in this discussion. Look at the last several “mass shootings” for evidence. (I put that in quotes because the definition of that term seems to get murkier every day.) Most if not all the guns used in the last several incidents have either been legally purchased at retail with a background check, or they’ve been stolen. There’s already laws against the second one of those, and the first one is, well, legal.

      I really don’t expect a response to this, since commenters like you are usually one-and-done around here.

  48. Funny he raised minimum wage for federal employes but not everyone else.

    The minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation.

      • Why not? Just curious. Shouldn’t there be some checks in place to prevent job providers from abusing you? Not everyone has the opportunity to just switch jobs.

        Feeling really mellow and relaxed now, been probably listening to too much Musetta.

        • It’s simple. First, our government wasn’t created with that privilege enumerated and a proper amendment has not been made to grant it. If business owners want to band together and agree on a minimum wage they are free to do so as it is their business and their property. However, government doesn’t have constitutional authority to demand it happen. Second, it’s immoral under our founding principles for government to demand it. The first is the strongest argument against and the second is my personal opinion.

        • What you are saying works great – in theory, not in practice. Just like communism, letting either beast win that tug of war ends badly. Whether through too much or too little government intervention.

        • I believe the appropriate way to prevent an employer from abusing you in a free market is to not work for the abusive party. Why take a job that pays less than you consider fair for the work? Why should some outside entity prevent you from taking a job for pay you consider fair (you wouldn’t take a job without fair compensation would you)? Why should the government be involved in wage negotiations between a private person and a private employer, and from where does it derive this authority?

          John is right, there shouldn’t be a minimum wage, there should be a ‘prevailing wage’. Just don’t do work for less than you think it’s worth. It’s an individual problem with an individual solution.

        • You never considered there isn’t other opportunities for some? What if the only place you can work abuses you, but it pays more than being on the street?

          Don’t be so naive. Life isn’t as simple as you think.

        • @lolinski: Again, it is against the supreme law of the land here; aka unconstitutional for the federal government to set a national minimum wage. That is reality. When our government does this, it operates outside of its authority. It really is that simple.