Previous Post
Next Post

President Obama, surrounded by guns (courtesy

For some reason, the Obama White House has just emailed a response to this petition, filed December 23, 2012:

Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them

Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.

Here’s the Big O’s reply . . .

Working to Keep Everyone Safe

Thanks for your petition.

We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis. Even those who are mere candidates in a national election become symbols of our country, which makes them potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests. In 1901, after the third assassination of a sitting President, Congress mandated that the President receive full-time protection, and that law is still in effect today. Because of it, those who are the subject of ongoing threats must receive the necessary and appropriate protection.

At the same time, all of us deserve to live in safer communities, which is why we need to take responsible, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, even while respecting individual freedom. And let’s be clear: President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. You can see him talk about that in a previous petition response:

But the common-sense steps the President has proposed don’t infringe in any way on our Second Amendment rights. We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.

That’s why the President and an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on Congress to pass gun safety legislation that closes loopholes in the background check system and makes gun trafficking a federal crime.

A minority in the Senate is blocking this common-sense legislation to reduce gun violence, but President Obama is already taking action to protect our kids with executive actions. He is taking the steps available to him as President to strengthen the existing background check system, give law enforcement officials more tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make schools safer, and improve access to mental health care.

You can learn more about the President’s positions on this issue at [ED: links to a 404].

Tell us what you think about this petition and We the People.

Stay Connected

Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials.

[h/t DN]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • There’s an old joke: “How can you tell when a politician is lying? When his lips are moving.”

      Unfortunately, Obama took that joke as a challenge. At this point, I wouldn’t believe him if he swore he was lying.

      Here’s an appropriate music video:

    • So – you are puking every time his lips start moving or he signs his name to some piece of written crud. Man, that is tough – you might want to get a saline drip going to prevent the massive dehydration resulting from continuous nausea.

    • All while doing the whole “I respect 2A, but…” routine. “I won’t infringe on your rights, but I’m going to completely disregard the actual point of having these rights.”

      • He respects the right to keep and bear arms the same way the rest of us would respect a raging grizzly.

    • I disagree Nick. He responded to the petition directly. He says very clearly that, as president, he is so much more important than us peons, that he deserves protection.

    • Nick, he didn’t pussyfoot around the issue.

      His handlers used the petition as an opportunity to issue the reminder that here on the Animal Farm, some pigs are more equal than others.

      You see, Mr. Obama has people out to get him, and hurt him, because, you know, America.

      The rest of us who have people who target us for obliteration because, you know, whatever…?

      To hell and back with all of us. Now fork over your dollars to pay for security for these people who are so much more important than we peons.

    • This is exactly how all other petitions on that website have been treated to date.

      The only one that has seen different treatment was the one on NSA/Snowden scandal. That one was simply ignored outright. There’s now a new petition that demands that the previous one is actually answered.

  1. I think I can translate this from Washington speak to plain English:

    Listen you uppity peasants, I am Barack Obama and you better recognize that I am your better. You should be grateful that I even lowered myself to speak to you serfs. Because I am your better, I can have all the armed security I want. You need to know your role, keep quiet, and to what I tell you. If I say, surrender your guns, they you better do it.

  2. so this whole we the people thing only counts if the petitions are about things he supports. ok barry

  3. actually, he did respond – he said it is the law and it is mandatory so he will follow it. Easy enough – call on Reid and Boehner to sponsor legislation stripping all secret service protection from the POTUS and members of congress. then make the Big O sign it. It is for the children(TM) and Justice for Trayvon(TM) and Twana Brawley (ooops, my bad)

  4. I think he has a point because politicians now are doing what may just be the worst performance of their duties of politicians ever. That leads many people to be very upset at them, putting them at a greater risk. /s

    They ask for a “look” (aka repeal) of stand-you-ground laws yet assert the law is set in stone when it comes to their personal protection. Pretty standard double-standards.

    • Sig Sauer P229 full size .357 Sigs, MP5’s, SBR 5.56 ARs, and the assault team has 5.56 M4s. Counter snipers usually have .308s and .300 Mags, but have freedom to change their tools depending upon the situation. All are standard capacity mags. So to translate: weapons of war with high capacity mags protect presidents, politicians, and police. The peasants are left with reduced capacity mags, despite paying the wages of the government employees. If that doesn’t piss you off, then you aren’t paying attention.

  5. I’m saddened that my tax money paid for those worthless bits. What a waste of perfectly good bandwidth. Children in Africa have no Internet because of this…

    • Do what I do. Claim only earned income up to 25000, only take cash for the rest, have your wife stay home, claim your kids, then only get money back.

      0 participation. Don’t pay taxes, Don’t work for the system. Buy guns, gold, and grains. Don’t spend your money on taxable items (other than a select few items, obviously). That’s it. ZERO PARTICIPATION will crash this fiat-fascist (aka democratic) state that we have.

  6. “We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis.”

    Mr. Obama, being a former resident of Chicago you of all people should know that we live in a world where ALL citizens are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats-and on an HOURLY basis, at that. I have a source who’ll confirm that if you wish-just ask Brian Terry’s family.

  7. That line about 90% of Americans favoring laws that make it harder for criminals to get guns is cute. It’s probably closer to 99%. What we don’t favor is laws that pretend to disarm criminals but actually attack the rest of us. Funny how they can’t seem to tell the difference.

    • The survey that surfaced the 90% was proven to be bogus. Just like those that repeat the statistic.

        • Yep. And three million conservative voters didn’t go to the polls in November, 2012. And they all have good excuses. Mitt wasn’t good enough. They say to themselves, one at a time, “one vote doesn’t matter.” Clearly if three million people say the same thing, and therefore don’t vote, it matters. It ought to be obvious to people, one at a time. It isn’t. Elections are a mind game. You get to pick one side, The rest is talk, advocacy, salesmanship, ‘puffery.’ Live with it. You can’t get a better Senate if you don’t vote. The House isn’t a sure thing, either.

  8. Scary thing is the majority of this country believes what comes out of his mouth, or just don’t listen & think… Just give them their Obama phone and money…

  9. ” We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. ”

    Fine, than start with the police and Secret Service, bar them from using patrol rifles.

    • If the standard is “on the streets,” then law enforcement surely accounts for the VAST majority.

      • “Weapons of war” on the streets is BS. The problem all across the nation in its urban cores is punks on the street with no respect for law, some of whom use guns instead of knives or fists. Everyone knows it. Politicians, on the other hand, are freaked out by what they perceive as weapons of possible resistance. They could not care less about the gang-on-gang violence. You know it. I know it. They know it. But we also know that a semi rifle is the best defense when gangs go astray and end up in our neighborhoods. A full-on attack on urban lawlessness would anger too many urban voters. Violence and robbery are the problems. Politicians just can’t bring themselves to say “the problem isn’t guns, it’s YOU. Obey the laws against violence or go to jail.” They know it. You know it. I know it.

  10. That minority in the Senate…. I’m pretty sure it was Harry Reid that ‘tabled’ the Coburn amendment without any vote, even tho it is an “idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.”

  11. It occurs to me that the average citizen also faces a credible and constant threat of assassination by
    insane criminals.

  12. ” I believe in the 2nd Ammendment, BUT…

    “You know, my brother once told me that nothing someone says before the word ‘but’ really counts.” –Benjen Stark, A Game of Thrones

    • A majority of voters voted for him, BUT they likely wouldn’t today.

      Captain Nuh Uh strikes again! Bwahahahahahaa!!!!!!!

  13. As the guys out in Vegas would say, you’re trying to make your point the hard way.”
    I get it, illustrate absurdity by being absurd. Is this really helping us? This is as pointless as the liberals petitioning to destroy all of our nuclear weapons, it’s not going to happen. They know it’s not going to happen, but they do it anyway. To paraphrase Macbeth, “It’s a petition, written by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    A petition demanding that Obama stop lying to the American public about how much he respects the 2nd Amendment, and the U.S. Constitution would serve a much better purpose. President Obama, there is no “but” in the Constitution. Please put your Constitutional scholar title down, and show us where in the 2nd amendment it allows you to ban certain kinds of guns. For a Constitutional scholar, this should be as easy as falsifying a birth certificate.

  14. Same old dribble,he still wants gun registration so he can round up the guns.He is a liar when he says that none of what he proposes is aimed at decreasing crime violence,if that were the real case tougher laws against criminal use of weapons would be at the top of the list,but it isn’t due to the fact that I stated “he wants to round up the guns”.Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

    • Obama acknowledged during the debates that the problem isn’t really rifles, it’s handguns in the cities. He was halfway there: The problem is an attitude of entitlement and wanton disdain for the laws against violence …among teenagers and young men, in particular.

  15. If you repeat something enough, one of two things happen. One – people start to believe it. Or, two – it discredits the group delivering the message and erodes any other message they have.

    We do not believe the 90% garbage statement but too many do. We need to find a way to reach those people and leverage it to completely discredit everything they say.

    The worst thing is to let the statement sit without challenge at any time or it gains momentum.

    Ideas from anyone on several ways to approach this? We have tried logic, how can we approach this emotionally? Other avenues? The more ways we take a single statement and refute it, the more people see the truth. Each is reached in a different way.

    • There are two pieces of information to question when countering the bogus 90% argument. First is the wording of the poll question which is hard to find. Very few polling organizations release their polling questionnaire with exact wording, so we are left to hearsay. But the second piece information comes in the form of another poll conducted after the bill failed. Notice the difference in numbers:

  16. I can not stand his turdness..
    Each time he speaks I see nothing but brown turdness flowing out of his worthless orifice..
    I wish I could just flush him away like I flush my daily turds in the toilette..

  17. I think that what the petition ended up revealing had less to do with the 2a and more to do with elitism and the us v them mentality. While it’s impractical to expect POTUS to forgo security it’s immoral to interfere with our ability to defend ourselves and each other. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and a constitutionally protected one. The entitlement to security has far less weight. Thus it is reasonable to expect POTUS to give up armed security before we the people are disarmed.

    An interesting question is what the morality play is when POTUS visits a gun free school. If children are actually safer in gun free zones than with armed protectors shouldn’t POTUS disarm his security when entering into the GFZ?

    The only logical escape from such a conundrum is to admit that GFZs don’t actually offer any safety. This alone would be enough to eliminate them as they bar exercise of constitutional rights while suggesting they have no value. Never minding the rather obvious fact that GFZs actually result in a net loss of safety, at the very least they serve no purpose and as such are capricious and arbitrary.

    Real security is (and always will be) about force, either negating the enemies force (think walls and fences) or neutralizing it with superior force. The very notion that the absence of force provides safety is flawed in that it fails to recognize that an unknown force can materialize nearly instantly. The only practical way to deal with such an event is to neutralize it with superior force.

    Much of security theater is predicated on influencing the law abiding. People enter through security checkpoints, criminals climb in the window. People stand in line to be groped by the NSA terrorists will certainly use some other method. In order to believe that GFZs provide security one would have to be completely ignorant of the fact that people can and do disregard signage and break the law. While it’s conceivable that the politicians responsible for this legislation and it’s continuance could be so ignorant it’s extremely unlikely. This fact points to some ulterior motivation for GFZs. I suggest that conditioning the public to think of possessing guns as being a detriment to security is one of those motivations. Since this is false, and results in victimization it’s evil. As such one can only conclude that there are two types of politicians: Willfully and profoundly ignorant, and evil.

    • I think that what the petition ended up revealing had less to do with the 2a and more to do with elitism and the us v them mentality.


      How much of the energy in the dust up around the attempted gun restrictions is simply astonishment and umbrage at the little people speaking up? Most of it.

  18. “The law says I have to have body guards – so this is not even up for discussion. It’s been the law since 1901. But the Second Amendment? We can play fast and loose with that as long as some people are ignorant or say the changes are “reasonable”.”

    Dude. The Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear ARMS. In 1776 (and 1791) if you asked for a dictionary you would get Johnson’s. It defines “Arms” as “Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” A few years later America produces it’s own dictionary – Websters. It defines “Arms” as “Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.”

    Weapons of war is what the Second Amendment is about.

  19. I’ll see your 1901 Mr. President, and raise you a 1791, when congress ratified the Bill of Rights, and THOSE laws are “still in effect today”, one of which, the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall NOT be INFRINGED. Gun free zones are illegal and infinge on the people’s right.

  20. Say common sense again. SAY COMMON SENSE AGAIN! I dare you…

    Every time I hear Bronco Bama say “common sense” I think about that scene in Pulp Fiction where Jules freaks out on the dude because he keeps saying “what”.

  21. The Second Amendment is precisely about protecting a person’s right to possess the basic tools of war/weapons of war. That is what the whole issue is about: do the people have a right to possess the basic weapons of war or are all weapons or war the purview of the state? That is one of the main things historically that separated the statist philosophers from the republican philosophers.

    When people like Aristotle wrote about arms in his book “Politics,” and the Founders and people like John Locke thousands of years later, I doubt they meant one’s right to keep plague on hand or one’s right to keep a rotting carcass on hand (the practice of tossing rotting carcasses and plague-infested bodies over the walls of cities under siege goes back thousands of years). Similarly, in modern times, it doesn’t mean a right to possess nuclear, biological, chemical, etc…weapons. But things like handguns, rifles, and shotguns, very much so.

  22. If a government employee thinks he needs a bodyguard, then the government employee should pay for the protection out of his own pocket. The president, no matter who he is, is not our leader. He is our employee.

  23. First, I didn’t watch the video because the sound of BO’s voice makes my anus itch. And to be honest I only skimmed the article just to play it safe. But you set it up on the tee and President Fistbump just completely whiffs. So I’ll try to help him out; Police are not required to disarm when entering a GFZ. Neither are federal agents. The difference is the Prez is important enough to provide with armed guards, your children aren’t.

  24. Until we get the voting back on our shores where we can monitor it we are all going to be sh*t out of luck going forward because they are not counting our votes……..the elite (world leaders, bankers, corporations) could be making them up for whatever candidate they decided should be in office to do their dirty deeds against us. Hillary is the next object of their affection. Don’t believe me? Check out this CNN article (yes I am surprised it was CNN that published this) Our votes were counted in Spain for the 2012. This is something we HAVE to start working on now or the next election is going to be more of the same. This is not about what party you are with or being a poor looser, it is about what is right and honest and getting these jerks out of office.. Lobbyist and big money is what is influencing Washington. If voting is nothing but a fraud, then why vote? Unfortunately most of America is too busy to get educated on how we are loosing our freedom and what is really going on behind the scenes. A good example is: Congress votes for themselves to be exempt from Obama care. Does anyone see a problem with that? Lets see, who wants to vote for your salary to be cut in half to save the Central Bankers?? Any takers?? I thought not! What a surprise!!! Congress should abide by the same laws we do and if they want to vote on the matter it should be from us WE THE PEOPLE. Otherwise it is not the fox who is watching the chicken coop?? Yes it is and until sheeple wake up and demand better leadership, we are doomed to more of the same. Lets start with taking back the vote.

    • So if we bring it into the United States it magically becomes corruption proof? interesting

  25. There is this thing that travels in equality. This thing is among all parties of politics. It is in all genders, it lives in every nation. This thing is in every religion, in every, ethnic class, in every way of life. This thing is among the rich as well as the poor. This thing is among anti gun as well as those of right to bear arms. What is it? It is in all we can group into. It is STUPID and we can’t fix stupid. The sky is not falling henny penny and clucky lucky. I have read a lot of these blogs. I have found stupid everywhere. It’s anti NRA stupid as well as NRA stupid comments. There are a lot more straight thinkers, but then no one is exempt. Stop, think and don’t compound stupid. Maybe I just did. 🙂

  26. It’s reasonable that the President have armed guards, and that not all of them be apparent to a casual observer. It’s a good idea.

    Since he faces daily, credible threats and cannot be effective if a recluse, let him have his highly trained specialists. It’s his neck; let him protect it’s he sees fit.

    It’s reasonable that our children, malls, post offices, parking lots, streets, homes, hospitals, restaurants et cetera have armed guards, and that not all of them be apparent to a casual observer. It’s a good idea.

    Since the country as a whole faces daily, credible threats but is friggin’ huge, let us, all three hundred some million of us, help y’all out. It’s OUR collective neck; let US protect it as WE THE FRIGGIN’ PEOPLE see fit.

    There you go. Fair and balanced. Common sense. Constitutional.

    • Let him protect it on his own dime, not the tax payer’s.

      We need to disband the Secret Service, the FeeBI, the ATF, the NSA, the CIA and every other Federal law enforcement agency except the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol. Those two should be limited to operations within 1 mile of the border.

  27. I have no doubt that this Communist Socialist punk believes in the 2nd Amendment. That is why he is so against it. It hinders his agenda and “forward” movement.

  28. Regardless of how big his nose gets every time he opens his mouth.
    Who in their right mind would want to take O out???
    Hes had the best life insurance policy money cant buy or has ever been written for the last 5 plus years.
    Joe “the joke” Biden.

  29. Want happened to equality for all humankind. As many people that have given their lives in the name of Freedom, Peace, and Human rights, you’d think we wouldn’t need weapons of any kind by now. But the founding fathers of this now despicable country probably never figured that separation of church and state would turn into the mess we have today, any more than freedom of speech would have to be so politically correct as to not hurt anyone’s feelings. Seems they want us to be more afraid of being caught with a gun then being caught without one. Why don’t they use their gestapo type tactics, as they did in Boston, on some of the problem places like Chicago? Why because it won’t work any better then their war on drugs, or the border, or stopping drunk drivers. Its all too politically correct. And that I guess by definition means, telling every body what they want to hear, not what they need to hear, and always with a catch. Which usually works out for the benefit of Them We should not let them get away with calling piss rain. The reach around is the “I’m not going to mess with the 2A”.

    • Actually, drunk driving isn’t nearly the problem it used to be. Or do you believe that it should be permitted? I’m unsure of your meaning.

    • “But the founding fathers of this now despicable country…”

      Despicable? Then do yourself a favor and find another country to live in. No one is forcing you to live in such a terrible country.

      Maybe the rest of the fake patriots around here will join you.

  30. This “response” to the petition is pretty exactly what we could expect from Obama and ably demonstrates the Grand Canyon to the one thousandth power size gulf between The People and the Washington DC Aristocracy that pretends to “rule” us. Until We, The People. take the committed and drastic steps needed to restore the integrity of the Constitutional Republic originally framed by The Founders, we can expect no more or better than this kind of condescending, dis-informational drivel. According to Mark R. Levin, there is recourse in the Fifth Amendment where The States can hold a Convention to create and submit Amendments to the Constitution and he has written about this extensively in a forthcoming book. Might just be the answer so many Americans are looking for. In the meantime Obama and his Statist supporters will continue their lying and deliberate destruction of the Republic and there’s no point in being disappointed by this kind of “response” to our attempts to sway them to reason. Their concept of “reason” is the antithesis to reason.

    • Let me correct myself. Mr.Levin is referring to Article V (5) of the Constitution…NOT the 5th Amendment…this was a brainfart typo on my part. Apologies to all.

      • Article V is about amendments. We don’t need no steenkeeng new amendments; we need to make the SOBs follow the Constitution that we’ve got!

        • Levin’s suggestion is that the States convene Constitutional Amendment Conventions to undo the things Congress has passed that are infringing our Rights, which is the alternative Article Five provides to The States and The People. Things like term limits to banish life career Senators and Representatives, break-up the unaccountable Bureaucracy, and restore the Federal Government’s relationship to The States to the Founders’ original intents. It may be the only non-violent recourse The People have at this point.
          The Constitution we have presently is dysfunctional because of all the Laws Congress has layered over it that ignore or sidestep the original Constitution. It’s worth consideration and far more preferable than the bloodshed alternative.

  31. “all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others….”

    way to call it, George Orwell.

  32. So pretty much “I’m more important than you and need guns to protect me…but you are the little people who don’t matter and don’t need guns.”

    So basically the petition, which holds great weight, is reduced to nothing because this moron has a thick skull.

  33. If a lawless thug, knows this is a gun free zone and he (or she) is the ONLY gun there well ,they have free reign to kill threat or harm those unarmed.. IF a legal gun owner takes these threats out. After a while they will get the message. The punk thug etc. will be killed instead of some innocent child, elderly or any citizen. Not that hard to figure out. Take away all of obamas body guards and these other liberal celebs. Let them practice what they preach.Do you really think “gun free “means anything to those who ignore the law or are evil?

  34. Obama is the biggest threat to America and we should protect ourselves against the likes of him.

  35. >10-30% of the words used in the reply are not accurate.
    “We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.”

    We: Who and how?
    ought: …but can’t. Maybe in Utopia?
    weapons of war: any weapon
    streets: any building or storage facility; few guns are stored on a street
    We: see above
    ought: see above
    close: prohibit
    loopholes: They don’t exist as implied.
    background check system: only one of the forms of discrimination in sales choices
    make it too easy: already easy. It’s too easy for any dangerous person, and no legislation can change it.
    idea: So what specifically is the idea?
    has the support: not really, but according to twisted polls maybe
    people: Which people?

    This is why listening to political speeches, especially in this case, is a waste of time.
    If you disagree with my definitions that’s fine; determine what you think is right, but clearly the text doesn’t communicate what it really means.

  36. The President of the United States of America is a citizen, just like you and me. The country would function without someone in that role for some time. We would not function without the millions of working citizens that comprise the engine to power the nation. Each one of us are, therefore, “potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests”. It follows that each one of us are afforded the same protection that any of us are. The Second Amendment guarantees this Nature-given right to defend ourselves.

  37. Weapons of War??

    Is our Commander-in-Chief laboring under the delusion that our military sends troops into combat with only semi-automatic weapons????

Comments are closed.