Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:

Quote of the Day: Consensus Building Edition


“There are regional differences here and we should respect those, and guns mean something different for somebody who grew up on a farm in a rural community than somebody who grew up in an inner city. But what we know is the majority of responsible gun owners recognize we cannot have a situation in which 20 more of our children, or 100 more of our children, or 1,000 more of our children are shot and killed in a senseless fashion, and that there are some common-sense steps that we can take and build a consensus around. And we cannot shy away from taking those steps.” – Barack Obama urging Congressional Democrats to enact an assault weapons ban Thursday [via]


  1. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    But what we know is the majority of responsible gun owners recognize we cannot have a situation in which 20 more of our children, or 100 more of our children, or 1,000 more of our children are shot and killed in a senseless fashion,

    So, there is a minority that wants dead children?

    1. avatar Jim Barrett says:

      Yes. Gun grabbers want dead children. They gleefully dance on their graves while pushing their civillian disarmament agenda. That is why the are opposed to armed professionals in schools. That method works in preventing violence and preventing violence is the last thing they want.

    2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      No, he just wants them shot in a common sense fashion. Duh.

    3. avatar Tim says:

      Yes, there is a minority that wants dead children. Adam Lanza was in that minority.

      1. avatar JMS says:

        “No, he just wants them shot in a common sense fashion. Duh.”

        Not shot, drone striked. Plenty of dead children on the other side of the world due to being on the business end of one of our drones. Killing children is okay, as long as it’s for a reason approved by the White House.

      2. avatar nitefly says:

        Sorry, he was not a responsible gun owner.

    4. avatar Cliff says:

      “…we cannot have a situation in which 20 more of our children, or 100 more of our children, or 1,000 more of our children are shot and killed in a senseless fashion”

      Is BHO implying that there is a sensible way to kill children, as collateral damage in drone strikes, maybe?

    5. avatar Evan says:

      Yeah the Brady bunch. They revel in the deaths of innocents.

  2. avatar g says:

    Regional differences, indeed… such as the difference between where I live versus Chicago or Washington DC? Places that have strict gun laws, but I’m more likely to be shot there than my home city?

    No thanks… I’ll take my life here in Washington state over Washington DC, Mr. President.

    Too bad California and New York Democrats don’t realize that being socially liberal doesn’t also equal being an idiot about the truth about guns…

    1. avatar Fred says:

      There are also regions like the Southwest border, where not having at least an AR is giving in to the (in some cases US supplied) cartels.

      The kicker is they use stats from their “ideal” cities to inflate gun violence figures and further their argument. Chicago: a city with the highest national gun crime and no guns. If they would just look at the areas that have strict gun control they’d see it doesn’t work, although they often flat out lie about how effective it is in those cities.

      This all sidesteps the point, though. When talking about crime you’re talking about CRIMINALS, those that operate outside the law. Passing laws will not impact them, it will only impact the law abiding citizens that want to defend themselves. Mag bans are unenforceable, as many in law enforcement have pointed out, “assault rifle” bans will do nothing because they’re statistically uninvolved in crime. It’s not about crime, it’s about feeding off fears and emotions.

      Gun control based on the actions of psychopaths aimed at stopping something “from ever happening again” is an insult to every law-abiding citizen and equates us to psychopaths on a timer, that for whatever reason anyone that is in contact with a gun will just click one day and create a tragic incident. Now who’s really paranoid? Those of use that want to protect our families everyday with active defense from crime that happens every day or those that want to disarm everyone because they believe we could turn into psychopaths one day? On top of that they do not allow us to actively defend our families from those psychopaths thanks to gun free zones that have been used in a vast majority of shootings. This isn’t a gun control issue, it’s a crime and mental health issue, but no one wants to tackle the tough issues because they don’t fit in the budget.

      1. avatar pat says:

        They want the semiauto/magazine interface. This will render the 2nd Amendment toothless (and other Amendments worthless). Future corrupt ‘Big Gov’ will then have true power.

  3. avatar waif says:

    He never acknowledges that firearms ownership is a right.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Thats because he doesnt believe that firearm ownership is a right.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        That’s because he doesn’t believe in rights.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      Why would he? He has shown that he does not care about the constitution, he has signed a law to give him and his family lifetime free security, he signed a law to allow drone strikes on US citizens without going to any court, he made illegal recess appointments and we could go on!

      Why would someone who believes that by taking down one group of people to elevate another group believe in rights of any kind?

      Obama has no respect for the constitution, the law or half of a country’s people. Why would he care about a right?

      1. avatar Rebecca says:

        Well, now….

        1) Recess appointments are legal.

        2) He’s been using them because the Republicans have been refusing to let any of his nominees even close to being voted on, let alone confirmed. So he needed to do something.

        Don’t get me wrong: though I voted for him twice now, with this bru-ha-ha over guns the past few months, I have no love for Obama any more. I hate EVERYONE in Washington. Throw ALL those stinkin’ bums out.

        1. avatar hoyaboyd says:

          I agree, washington stinks but there is an old saying. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

          Recess appointments are only legal if the senate is actually on recess. Both sides used this trick to keep appointments from going through. The difference, Obama ignored the trick and screwed with a bunch of companies to help the unions(the Boeing decision)

        2. avatar Jordan says:

          couldn’t have said it better myself.

        3. avatar Alphapod says:

          Actually, several of his most controversial recess appointments were not legal. See below.

        4. avatar Tex74 says:

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m not siding with republicans on this BUT, some of his nominees have had some very troubling pasts that deserve scrutiny.

        5. avatar Patriot says:

          You voted for him twice, but NOW he has crossed the line and you don’t like him anymore?! JFC.

        6. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Better late than never.

        7. avatar Totenglocke says:

          He’s been using them because the Republicans have been refusing to let any of his nominees even close to being voted on, let alone confirmed. So he needed to do something.

          So it’s Republicans fault that he keeps nominating godawful candidates who openly admit to hating the Constitution?

        8. avatar pat says:

          At least you (and….too many, regarding the last election) have seen the error of your ways and have seen the light by feeling the heat.

  4. avatar Brandon says:

    This whole thing is racism at its finest by the party that claims to be the party of inclusion. Minorities are getting killed off in droves in inner city gang violence and it is business as usual, but when suburban middle class white kids get killed the Dems come out in force to “do something.” I’m not trying to downplay the tragedy, just condemn the hypocrisy of the response. Also, to make absolutely clear, I don’t think anything about guns has to do with our nation’s problems.

    1. avatar Pulatso says:


      This is showmanship at it’s basest. Hundreds of minority deaths (in disarmed areas) gets nary a blip. If they cared about dead kids, they would not be turning a blind eye to progressive controlled enclaves that are defacto war zones. They don’t give a damn about dead people of any color, they just want control.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      2. avatar pat says:

        Oh, they want the handguns too (and the mag ban will affect most). They just like to keep silent on the handgun issue, for now. A few teeth at a time in the defanging of the civilian populus.
        Barry is an evil, clever SOB. As are all the libtards.

    2. avatar Buell301 says:


      Shootings only matter when white people are hurt. And I’m a white guy saying that….

  5. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Once again, divide and conquer. We must stand firm and united.

    The only regional difference I see is that it’s more convenient and practical to carry a rifle or shotgun in a pickup truck than on a crowded subway during rush hour. That’s why pistols with a 17+ round capacity were invented, right?

  6. avatar jp says:

    This coming from a guy who is surrounded by assualt weapons every time he steps outside. Hypocrite.

  7. avatar slow says:

    The only difference is between those who support the US Constitution and those who do not.

  8. avatar In Memphis says:

    His mouth looks like its about 1/3 the size of his face in this pic

    1. avatar Martin says:

      Just like the joker

      “Why so serious “

      1. avatar In Memphis says:

        Scars might be an improvment in this case

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    How nice of Barry to tell us what gun owners think and believe while he’s busy finding ways to subvert our basic rights.

  10. avatar Jim D says:

    Traitor-in Chief; does not believe in the very oath of office.Empty words..judge a man by his past acheivements and what does he bring to the table? nada! Former Chi-town community organizer, look at the free housing projects he supposedly headed up. All are destroyed from within and uninhabitable now.

    But… he has the gift as an speaker, according to some. So he became a Senator from the Illinois voters which the DNC promoted to be a candidate for POTUS. Ignorant people fell under his spell and gave him carte blanche this second term. Destined to be remembered as the Hitler of our time

  11. avatar A Really Pissed Off Lawyer says:

    Dear President Obama, where one grew up has, to a first-order approximation, bugger all to do with it. I grew up in an inner city. I live closer than I’d like to an inner city. My office is about two blocks from some primo slums where people get shot with depressing regularity. I’ve never lived on a farm (in a rural community or in any other place), I don’t hunt, I don’t shoot trap as often as I’d like, and you know what, Mr. President? Despite all that, I’m one of those “people” whose right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE [choice expletive deleted] INFRINGED.

    Let’s have a sensible, rational discussion about “common sense steps.” In fact, let’s talk about what we have in common. Every time you leave the house, you bring men with guns with you. I can only afford to bring one man with a gun with me, and it’s me. But it’s just common sense, and I think we can all agree that all sensible free people ought to take common sense steps like that. I don’t know if it’ll reduce gun violence in America, but I have good reason to expect it’ll reduce the efficacy of gun violence directed at me and my family.

    1. avatar Keith says:

      I like your common sense counter to “common sense.”

  12. avatar Second Amendment says:

    Anybody got the stats on how many black school-aged children have been shot in Chicago and/or D.C. since the the Sandy Hook killings? I’m betting it’s a similar number. And how many school kids have been shot up in those two cities since Barry took office? Indeed, now that white kids have been shot it’s time to act. …smh…

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      The nation is racist. The killing of white kids just gave the president a platform to push an agenda. Black on Black crime has always been happening but nobody including the president will give it the attention needed. Our government can only run under crises mode.

  13. avatar Jim D says:

    Failure to adhere to the Constitution is due cause for impeachment, in case you forgot Barry. Happened to much better men than you already. You are the first Commander-in Chief that I cannot respect due to your failure to live by the oath you took. Barry Hussein, please step aside now for the good of this nation.

    The Patriots

  14. avatar Darkstar says:

    Silly people, don’t you realize it’s do as I say, not as I do?

  15. avatar C says:

    I guess drones are a “sensible fashion.”

  16. avatar Skyler says:

    What Obama and John Roberts don’t seem to understand is that a majority can’t take away our rights.

    1. Well to be fair they could amend the constitution with a 2/3 majority.

      1. avatar Bobtrumpet says:

        . . . and 3/4 of the State legislatures agreeing.

        1. avatar Bill says:

          Doesn’t matter. The right to defend oneself is a natural right and cannot be taken away despite what the morons in the Imperial City think. They can bluster and bather and vote all they want, then they can GFT.

        2. avatar Sammy says:

          They’ll let you defend yourself… with a small rock or an assault stick.

          Edit: Sorry sticks are out. I just reread DiFi’s bill. Seems someone might loose an eye and that would end all the fun. As you were.

  17. avatar girlswithguns says:

    I’m appalled by the number of people calling for a “repeal” of the 2nd amendment. Clearly they don’t understand that the Bill of Rights simply put in writing SOME of humanity’s God-given rights – it didn’t GRANT them to anyone, and therefore they can’t be taken away.

    Which isn’t to say that someone won’t try.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      If they have their way you won’t have to wait long before you don’t have to hear things like that anymore, it would only be a short time before “common sense” dictates removing the First Amendment as well. They might even get rid of the whole of the Constitution while their at it. Think of the children.

  18. avatar Tex74 says:

    If barry truly cared about the kids then he would have already signed on EO mandating armed security or police in every school by now. That’s common sense and should’ve been done years ago.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      If he cared about anything related to The United States of America he would apologize for all the hatred he has fomented and resign.

  19. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    He knows the criminal safe zones gots to go, yet they are popular with his crowd. So, what is the white mans self defense weapon? why by golly its the AR & the black mans? mostly 38 spec revolver, 9mm making inroads I’ve read./// So turn in those AR’s ladies & gentleman, it’s for the kids on aircraft & riding on trains, Randy

  20. avatar Aharon says:

    Everyone wants to be on the side that is using common-sense. It is more of a potentially dangerous fifth column term than a hot woman gun grabber celebrity. I think the pro-2A side needs to use the term the gun-grabbers are trying to steal and command: “common-sense”.

    *It is common-sense to have armed adults in schools to protect the children.
    *It is common-sense for parents to own guns (just like owning a fire extinguisher) for home defense.
    *It is common-sense that all governments go bad and oppressive, and all societies and civilizations collapse.
    *It is common-sense that one law abiding person defending himself and unarmed others from multiple attackers needs a high-capacity gun.
    *It is common-sense that the 2A was written to empower free citizens to defend their lives, liberty, health, and welfare from government tyranny.

    1. avatar Keith says:

      Yes! We have some good points here to stand against the disarmament language corruption.

      This is so critical. Politics, generally, is seeking to destroy our language. It is hard to think of anything more important than language to the functioning of civil society. (See Tower of Babel.)

  21. avatar Patriot says:

    AR-15 in hands of Federale- Personal Defense Weapon
    AR-15 in hands of law-abiding citizen- Assault Rifle

    1. avatar Keith says:

      I think you mean select-fire M4 in hands of Federal officer–personal defense weapon.

  22. avatar Lance says:

    What a idiot we want to save Children that why we have guns like the Glock or the AR-15 so we can kill madmen who come after our children. Pleas ignore Fascist PIGs like Obama.

  23. avatar pat says:

    Do you think a nutjob will assassinate him in office? It would make a martyr and we would carry his likeness in our pockets in coin form before the end of our lifetimes. It would be a disaster for the country and I hope it dont happen. It would also (God help me) put a smile on my face larger than his smug puss in the photo.
    His campaign of divide and conquer has been just too effective.
    Congratulations libtards. Keep fighting to take our liberty (guns) along with the 20 Trillion debt for ‘the children’ (you say you care so much for) before you leave office.

Write a Comment

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

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