Previous Post
Next Post

Nick has done a stellar job fisking the “No Fly, No Buy” initiative currently consuming the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex. As we anxiously await the President’s New Year’s executive orders on gun control – potentially end-running Congress to institute a ban on gun ownership for suspected terrorists – we can’t say it enough, or in enough different ways: this is the greatest threat to gun ownership in decades. It’s the thin end of a wedge that will allow the government to begin a long (or short) march to tyranny. It must be opposed however, whenever and wherever it can. That is all.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Absolutely agree.

    If there is an attempt to combine the no fly list and link it with NICS, we must all band together and demand that Congress stop it up to and including impeaching the President.

    It is more than time to get rid of the no fly list

  2. This ‘list’ is a red herring, linking the list with firearm purchases is the same thing as the government saying ‘the second amendment applies only where we say it does’, which is the same thing as saying ‘the second amendment does not exist’.

    This is obvious and inarguable to anyone who has the intellectual honesty to look at the meaning of the second amendment; hence invisible to the slow thinking consumer of media news.

    In fact, this is the exact reason there is a second amendment.

    Tyranny is already here. This has been a soft tyranny for many decades already.

    I’m afraid we are moving past the soft tyranny phase, incrementally of course, but, frog, boiling water and all that.

    • Tyranny is already here. This has been a soft tyranny for many decades already.

      Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!

      When I can purchase any firearm I that I want and take immediate possession:
      (a) regardless of dimensions (barrel length, overall length, caliber), magazine capacity, and how many times it goes “bang” with one pull of the trigger …
      (b) whether or not it has a suppressor, flash hider, and/or compensator …
      (c) without paying taxes and without requiring government permission or a license …
      (d) and possess it anywhere in the United States of America …
      … then we will no longer be under soft tyranny.

  3. I think the video gets it wrong that its okay for the government to strip rights after a conviction. Those rights never belonged to the the government, theyre not the governments to give or take. Dont care that its the ways its been being done, its been wrong for a long time.

    • When you go to jail for a crime, certain rights are infringed. Most people are ok with this seeing as a gun shop in a prison would be ridiculous.

      If someone is enough of a terrorist to have their rights infringed without a trial they should already be in prison. It’s clear that most people on the no fly list haven’t actually done anything terroristic.

    • I haven’t thought this through in every case, but, if one is justly convicted of, say, murder or robbery, hasn’t that person infringed on someone’s rights and therefore be deserving of some infringement himself?

      • If TRTKABA is absolute, there is no constitutional justification for striping 2A rights, no matter the crime. Taken to a logical conclusion, the government would have no authority to ban weapons in prison. And if you don’t take rights to their logical conclusion, then you are saying rights are absolute except for things you don’t like. Which is the basis for 2A restrictions/limits. Can’t be for an absolute right, and then declare that certain restrictions are OK, but others are not.

        • Although government authorities do their best to ban weapons in prisons everyone knows that the effort is hardly 100% successful – just ask any prison guard or warden. The right to defend oneself by whatever weapon can be obtained or manufactured is natural and can only be suppressed, not taken away.

          I had a friend many years ago who was a guard at Deer Lodge prison in Montana. He was forced to quit after being shot in the back of the head with a zip gun using match-heads and paper clips as ammunition.

        • Agree. Even though the state makes weapons is prison illegal, depriving a person of the right of self-defense, prisoners thoroughly agree that the right to self-defense is absolute.

          What is curious is how so many 2A believers are willing to restrict 2A rights for “certain people”, like felons, or mentally disabled. Making any exception means all exceptions are equally valid because they are based on preferences of one restriction over another.

        • Your premise is false. There’s no such thing as an absolute right. Why? Because there’s more than one person on the planet.

          Whenever you have people in contact, you will have rights in conflict. It’s never been and can never be otherwise. Hence, there will always be a need to limit rights to some degree. Likewise, there will always be a need for a mechanism to limit those rights. I know, I know, I’m the big bad statist who wants to take away your rights.

          No, I’m just the realist who acknowledges that any two people will disagree eventually, and the scale and scope of human endeavors is such that both sides may very well be at least partially in the right in these disagreements. It’s simply impossible for every disagreement to consist of one party who’s 100% right and another party who’s 100% wrong every time. It’s the legal equivalent to the philosophical posit of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.

          The idea that rights are absolute vis-a-vis private parties is silly enough, but to deny that government’s proper purpose is to ensure and enforce those rights, which can include depriving some offenders of theirs, is absurd in the extreme. Once can discuss natural rights, God-given rights, human rights and so forth all day long. Eventually, however, you have to devise a methodology and mechanism for enforcing those rights. Enforcement is a meaningless concept outside of the context of being able to deprive some people of some of their rights.

          If it’s not a just government, constrained by a constitution, and governing with the consent of the governed who enforces rights, then how else are you going to do it? Mutual respect and kindness? Good luck with that. Might makes right? That makes a mockery of rights. Without some means for enforcing rights, which includes depriving offenders of some of theirs, then you’re living in the land of the infinite amnesty, where in the name of absolute rights for all, all rights are forfeited to the few.

        • My point is if 2A is absolute, it is absolute. If one proceeds from that point, exceptions of any kind are invalid, regardless of “due process” which itself is an exception. If 2A is not absolute, there is no moral superiority to any conceived restriction, only political power to enforce it or not, amend it or not, obey it or not. What we see too often here are claims that 2A is inviolate, or inviolate except……my favorite reason, whatever that may be. The challenge to the no fly/terroist list is not 2A rights, but denial of any rights based solely on suspicion. 2A considerations should be a backdrop to the issue, not the headliner.

          And no, ACLU did not get it right recently. ACLU is OK with denying certain rights (the ones they don’t like) if the list of suspicious persons is accurate.

        • “the government would have no authority to ban weapons in prison.” I was talking about free people having freedom and for some reason you twisted it into non-free people having freedom. That’s the wrong application of reduction to the absurd.

          If you’re a danger to society you should be locked up. If you’re not, you should be out and you should be free. Keep in mind that up until 1968, felons could buy guns at hardware stores and we didn’t have a “gun violence” problem. The prohibition on felons owning firearms has everything wrong with it that all “common sense” gun laws do, they don’t do anything but they’re a gateway to incrementally larger infringements.

          There are plenty of felons out there that have reformed their lives and/or never even did a crime that would hint they’re a violent risk to others. But those people have just as much a chance of being attacked as others and it’s disgusting to me that government can say “too bad, you can’t defend your life.” You know what would happen if felons could own guns? Nothing. The ones that wont attack others are the ones that obey the gun law, and the ones that will attack others disregard the law anyway. Prior to banning felons, we had less gun crime.

        • Not sure where we disconnect. Felons should have full constitutional rights. A person committing a crime should have constitutional rights. My point is related to the notion that 2A is an absolute right (posited by many on this blog). If, if 2A is an absolute right, there can be no exceptions, else 2A is not absolute. If absolute, the talk of deprivation by “due process” means 2A is not absolute. If an exception to the absoluteness of 2A can be made, then we are dealing with ice on the freeway. While many believe “due process” is sufficiently safeguarded to restrict only those “everyone” agrees should be restricted, then when “everyone” agrees on another exception, that exception is valid. Now we have two. Then time comes along and behold, a third exception is supported by “everyone” and now we have three. There is no limit to exceptions. The argument over exceptions is an argument over preferences and opinions, not over some sort of unwavering standard. Logically, no one can legitimately claim that “these exceptions, and no more” is a reliable fence post. In the end, no right can be absolute, and whatever acceptable justification for restricting a right can be sold to the public is permissible, valid and demands acceptance.

    • I was concerned about this too and so went back to that part of the video again – it says specifically that only after conviction of a crime by the jury verdict of “guilty” – “Only then is it appropriate for the government to infringe on my rights.” It says nothing about “stripping” any rights, since a natural right cannot be taken away, only suppressed or infringed.

    • By your reasoning, it’s perfectly ok for a criminal who is stronger than you to take whatever of yours he wants, because there’s no government (or none with any teeth) that can compel him to act in making you whole or can deprive him of anything in retribution? That’s just silly talk and a recipe for anarchy.

      • The right to self-defense is inviolable or it is not. Once you start making exceptions, you are admitting that majority opinion can validly remove your human, natural and civil rights whenever. A person making an exception believes their exception is superior to natural civil rights, but another person’s exception is not. No one has the right to illegally take possessions or life, but all persons have the right to defend themselves against the aggressor. That is not anarchy. That is the very definition of a righteous defensive gun use.

  4. Well, it gets it right in a bit of hyperbole. The basic due process requirement for “depriving of life, liberty, or property” is notice and hearing, basically some mechanism by which the government’s actions can be scrutizined and rebutted. Our firearms are both a liberty interest (the 2nd Amendment right to purchase/own them) and a property interest vis a vis confiscation measures. Stapling either of them to a list that is governed totally in secret by the discretion of a bureaucracy with no reliable or even identifiable means of challenging being on it, totally voids out the requirements of the 5th Amendment.

    • It bears repeating:

      If you agree that the government has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who, in the opinion of the government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of that list?

  5. As soon as this is made law, the number of names on the list will increase sharply. The new purpose of the list will not be to track suspected terrorists, but to take away firearms from anyone the government arbitrarily wishes.

    • “from anyone the government arbitrarily wishes”

      This will be anyone who wants to purchase a gun. No, not on day one of course, but that is exactly what they plan on.

      Obviously, the well connected elites and the super rich will be allowed their second amendment rights, as long as they behave themselves.

      The exact reason the second amendment was put there was to prevent the state from doing this.

      What is most concerning is how this fact is not crystal clear to everyone.

      • Perhaps because so many people believe that the government should be doing everything possible to make sure no innocent life is taken in an accidental shooting, or rage-induced attack by firearms. Rendering life safe trumps any consideration of legal niceties.

        • “Rendering life safe trumps any consideration of legal niceties.”

          Oh good grief, this is the best you can do?

          The all powerful state you so happily give up your rights to is incompetent, corrupt, wasteful and is inimical to your safety. And above all of those facts, the second amendment is perfectly clear, our social contract requires that the state may not infringe on these rights.

          If you don’t like that, then have at it, get another amendment passed.

          My safety, and my families safety, is best protected by me, with a gun, which, by the way, is also supported by direct observation of crime statistics in places where gun control is/is not heavily infringed upon by the state, comma, period. Full stop.

          You don’t like that? Come and take them.

          And by the way, don’t you people ever come up with any new ideas? We’ve heard them all before.

        • First, why present new ideas when the old ones are irrefutable?

          As to whether or not the state or the individual should be in charge of safety, how about going to a young mother holding the dead body of her infant who was just shot by…you name it, and tell her she just sacrificed her child to the absolute right of people to KABA. Go explain to her that, “Well, stuff happens in a free state; it’s the price we all pay (except we all didn’t, she did), Have a nice day.”

          And although “you” have heard all the arguments before, fact is you asked why anyone didn’t see clearly, and I gave you an answer; nothing more. That answer, I believe, is formidable, and the cause for the near even split between gun rights and gun control.

        • “First, why present new ideas when the old ones are irrefutable?”

          First off you presented an opinion, which being an opinion makes it perfectly “refutable”. And you are wrong, the state is incapable of ‘rendering life safe’ and you can present no evidence that it can. I however can present plenty of evidence it cannot, starting with the fact that courts have ruled that police have not even a duty to attempt to protect life.

          “As to whether or not the state or the individual should be in charge of safety, how about going to a young mother holding the dead body of her infant who was just shot by…you name it, and tell her she just sacrificed her child to the absolute right of people to KABA.”

          What the hell are you even talking about?

          “Go explain to her that, “Well, stuff happens in a free state; it’s the price we all pay (except we all didn’t, she did), Have a nice day.””

          If you are somehow trying to say that taking guns away from citizens will eliminate crime, then you are smoking crack.

          You are just rambling, presenting no facts or evidence whatsoever. Go ahead and try and do that for a change, present an actual argument backed up by facts. The problem is you cannot do so and still support your position.

          “And although “you” have heard all the arguments before, fact is you asked why anyone didn’t see clearly, and I gave you an answer; nothing more. That answer, I believe, is formidable,”

          You may belive your opinion is formidable, good for you. But you are wrong.

          “and the cause for the near even split between gun rights and gun control.”

          Care to back that one up with facts also?

          Gwan, take your time.

          *However*, even if you could (which you cannot), the second amendment is not subject to opinion. It is subject to further amendments, which you are free to peruse.

          Go ahead and take your time on that one also. I’ll be in the garage, reloading.

        • – If by removing all the guns from the law-abiding citizenry will eliminate the possibility that an accidental discharge, fit of rage, or argument sparking a shooting, that makes society at least safer (agree, there will never be 100% safety; can’t imagine the criminal element being relieved of their firearms). if all guns are removed from the non-criminal population, there will be no more death by firearm (excepting crime victims) among the law-abiding population; no guns, no gun deaths. Irrefutable, not statistics needed.

          – The pro-gun people love to shout slogans, claim rights, and generally act like spoiled children, but when asked to explain a child’s gunshot death to a mother stand blubbering about who knows what. My point was/is the pro-gun half of the population have no answer for why a child is dead from accidental gunshot by a law-abiding citizen. And I think this is where the pro-gun movement is most vulnerable, because there is no persuasive emotional claim that gun rights trump the right-to-life of the innocent.

          – The answer I gave you is formidable because there is no counter to the position that half the populace wants safety and freedom from inconvenience, hardship and danger. Proof ? Look at the US Senatorial breakdown; 54 is not a strong majority, especially when enough of those 54 who pretend to be conservative are not, and will vote with the opposition. Look at what society has come to be, reliant on government.

          – The latest gun rights victory poll published on this blog website is a 53-47 is not a resounding endorsement, and within the margin of error. Point is, gun rights folks are struggling to amass a convincing majority. And don’t forget the Supreme Court is divided, and only one appointment away from putting strong limits on gun rights

          – Too many gun rights people believe the second amendment is somehow superior to all other provisions of the constitution, immune to alteration or elimination. This simplistic belief ignores the fact that there are 27 amendments to the constitution, one overturning another. Truth is all the constitution is subject to opinion. Once three-fifth of the states agree to remove any of the first 10 amendments, game over. Once the opinion of enough voters (demographic shift already in the making – illegal immigrants/refugees) in enough states decide gun rights should not exist, the politicians will not stand on principle, but accommodate the voters. Gun rights supporters will be left with only one alternative to compliance. Opinions can become amendments. Amendments are a reflection of opinion. So, an opinion that guns are too dangerous can become valid. The job of supporters is to convince more people to have an opinion that gun rights are not to be touched. Ignoring opinions of opponents can lead to disaster for those who refuse to see.

          And again, all I gave you was an answer; no more. Not an endorsement, not an opinion, not a political position. If gun rights supporters cannot defeat the anti-gun segment of the population, addressing the arguments of the anti-gun supporters, then it is only a matter of time, and demographics, until gun confiscation is at hand. Then come the fair weather friends and sunshine patriots.

        • “Rendering life safe trumps any consideration of legal niceties”. Sure–that’s why we free murderers because illegally-gathered evidence was used to convict them. Or because they weren’t properly admonished upon arrest. Or because their appointed counsel was legally ineffective. That’s why we have to convict someone of a specific act before we can put them in prison, no matter how lengthy and fulsome his record of violent behavior may be. I could go on like this forever, but the short of it is, however intelligent the person who made it may be, that was an idiotic statement.

        • You are reading the words of your opponents. The tone resonates successfully (else the split on guns would be overwhelmingly pro-guns). It may not be pleasant to realize that stamping your foot, running in circles, screaming 2A, 2A is not moving your side to a sustainable majority opinion. People in this country do believe in fantasy, and they think any step toward making fantasy reality is a good thing. Shouting at them that “you believe in fantasy” is not a rebuke, but an accolade that energizes them more. RF Kennedy said, “…I look at the world and ask, ‘Why not’.” The why not is a powerfully emotional argument for which the pro-gun supporters have no answer. Law and logic have too often been defeated by emotions in this country. The problem of the pro-gun element is they have nothing to deal with emotions. If you like, the tide is always with evil. The good is evermore fighting a losing rear-guard action.

        • “Sam I Am says:
          December 20, 2015 at 14:39

          – If by removing all the guns from the law-abiding citizenry will eliminate the possibility that an accidental discharge, fit of rage, or argument sparking a shooting, that makes society at least safer”

          It won’t.

          ” (agree, there will never be 100% safety; can’t imagine the criminal element being relieved of their firearms).”

          Ah, so you agree. So then what exactly is your point? You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing, and it’s getting tiresome.

          “if all guns are removed from the non-criminal population, there will be no more death by firearm (excepting crime victims) among the law-abiding population; no guns, no gun deaths. Irrefutable, not statistics needed.”

          Good grief. “no statistics needed”, so you admit, you are arguing from emotion only.

          …he goes on…

          “Too many gun rights people believe the second amendment is somehow superior to all other provisions of the constitution, immune to alteration or elimination.”

          Opinion this, opinion that. You are free to opine on whatever you want. Are you happy now?

          “And again, all I gave you was an answer; no more. Not an endorsement, not an opinion, not a political position.”

          No, you didn’t, you have been presenting an anti second amendment position with a bunch of absurd declarations and accusations, unfounded by facts or statistics. Then you go on to make almost contrary statements in other areas.

          Go ahead and keep arguing with yourself. If you want to pass another constitutional amendment you are free to do so, like I said, take your time.

        • A. If there are zero guns among the law-abiding, there can never be more than zero incidents of unintentional death caused by a law-biding citizen with a gun. Why would statistics be needed when zero equals zero?

          B. If you cannot defeat the anti-gun supporters by destroying their arguments, then what is the point of repeating the pro-gun mantras? Time for new ideas? The old ones are not working fast enough. The game is still a near-run thing.

          C. Everyone posting here is asserting their opinion. Why is one better than another?

          D. Understanding how relentless is the anti-gun wave will lead “you” to either figure out a way to obliterate the threat, or concede eventual loss of gun rights.

          E. The majority of responses to anti-gun statements, beliefs, writings, whatever are continuous repetition of the notion that just saying something over and again makes that something valid, superior, thoughtful, incisive, effective. If it were so, the anti-gun movement would have caved in long ago. The battle is far from over. Rules for radicals demand that when faced with opposition, double-down and press on because the other side will eventually tire of fighting the battle. I don’t see a doubling down of the pro-gun element. In fact, based on what appears on this blog, the pro-gun people hate each other as much as they claim to hate the anti-gun movement. The pro-gun movement is aligned behind a singular proposition: get rid of guns in the hands of private citizens. The pro-gun movement is hobbled by friction, dislike for each other, too many nuanced approaches to protecting gun rights, too much squabbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There are probably three fairly well known organizations opposing the anti-gun evangelists, and those organizations are opposed to each other. This is why the split between pro and anti gun philosophies is so closely measured (53-47% is not a ruling majority).

          BTW, the second amendment sucks for those who wish it to go away.

  6. Look at the history of empires. Where are they? Even the “American Empire” (whatever that may mean” lasted only about 220 years. When empires decline, they are never resurrected (and no, Russia will not be able to buck the trend, or buck it for long). Empires in decline always end up with a docile population because the leadership turns focus inward, toward silly stuff like “microaggression”. “Where there is no vision, the people perish”.

    “If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.”
    “If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.”

  7. It’s quite simple really. If you don’t own a gun, you’re not on the list and you can own one, but if you buy one, you get put on the list and can’t own one. Genius! You’re allowed to do it until you do it, then it’s not allowed.

    • Catch-22

      If you are unwilling to fly on that bomber mission, you are sane, and if you are sane you MUST fly the mission.

      If you are willing to fly the mission you must be insane, and if you are insane I cannot allow you to fly the mission.

  8. I think someone has pointed out that the relevant statute already defines what a “prohibited person” is. The Pres can’t just add another category by EO. There’s a reason he keeps kicking this can down the road, and it’s not because of any Constitutional or legal scruples about gun rights. It’s because someone who works for him is telling him, “This won’t fly, it will be immediately struck down.”

    • I suspect (fear) that at this point in his administration/regime, with just over one year left in his reign, the operative consideration is that they may be able to do any damn thing they please and tie up objections in legal proceedings until after he is a civilian again on the high-paid lecture circuit.

      Any EO will obviously not stand for long against Constitutional scrutiny, but the battle over the election cycle seems to Dem advisers to be a reasonable way to energize their base to come out and vote. It is a very Alinsky political calculation and our only hope against it is that they have miscalculated the response of their constituency and the backlash will defeat them.

      • The EO will not be litigated, because the Supreme Court considers EOs political. The litigation will be in regards to implementation by which ever agency enforces the EO. Litigating EOs is a minefield neither party wants at this time.

        • Do you have some support for that contention? Anybody who is deprived of a right because of an EO has standing to challenge the validity of that EO. Perhaps conceptually the challenge is only to the enforcement of the EO, but so what? The end result will be the same, the finding will be that the agency cannot use the EO to justify its actions based thereon.

        • To do this backward, “standing” is determined by the federal courts to be restricted to an entity with political substance (person, corporation, government agency), and an entity that can identify specifically the harm done by an action. Theory does not have “standing”.

          Next, EOs do not apply directly to citizens of the US. EOs apply only to government agencies. If the agencies do not act on the EO, the effect is null. If the effect is null, no person, corporation, organization can have “standing” to challenge the EO. Once the government implements the EO, published regulations/interpretations, then the effect may be to cause harm, giving “standing”. And right now, there is a mixed situation where the House of Representatives are trying to sue the president in federal court over usurpation. The sticking point is whether Congress (the House) can have standing because the House cannot demonstrate direct damage by the actions of the president.

          Last, an EO is not a law. To challenge an EO is to challenge a non-law. See:

          Standing exists from one of three causes:
          The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
          The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.
          The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney’s fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.


  9. Now you see why Barack Hussein has suddenly started using the word “terrorism” so frequently of late?

    It’s all in an effort to close the “terror” loophole, which when Democrats start talking loopholes – it means your freedoms.

    The bill in Illinois to send the cops out to seize your guns and ammo if your name is on the terror watch list is perilously close to having enough votes for passage.

    We’ve got to educate these political animals. If they are still “squishy” on this issue after education, we must hold their feet to the fire..

    And by hold their feet to the fire, I mean break out the blowtorches.


    • The government in Illinois is acting as agent provocateur. My suspicion is they want an armed confrontation between government and citizens. That event will underline, underscore, highlight and blazingly prove gun rights people are criminals-in-waiting. Sacrificing a few police and citizens to prove a point is not something that will keep the government awake at night (because none of the politicians will join the raids, and will be safe at home). The problem here is the same faced everywhere. The leftists play bare knuckles, smash-mouth, dirty pool. Their opposition is all about decorum, style, logic and reason. The left is engaged in life-or-death warfare; the opposition Harvard debate society.

      • “blazingly prove gun rights people are criminals-in-waiting”

        You sure are full of opinions aren’t you? You do understand that CCW holders are proven to be the most law abiding group of people that there is?

        But don’t let facts and logic get in the way of your ranting now, ok?

        “The leftists play bare knuckles, smash-mouth, dirty pool. Their opposition is all about decorum, style, logic and reason. The left is engaged in life-or-death warfare; the opposition Harvard debate society.”

        Are you high?

        • OK, let’s try this again….

          Provoking an armed response to gun confiscation is the dream of a lifetime for those who want total and absolute removal of guns from the country (setting aside the criminal element as a segment impossible to control). What do you think would be the public reaction to a firefight between police and a gun owner refusing to surrender weapons? A calm analysis of the legal nuances? An outrage that a private citizen refused to accept an unconstitutional law? An endorsement of refusing to bow to a tyrannical government?

          Really ?

          No…the point of the agent provocateur is to setup a condition to do harm in the name of doing good. Think “entrapment” or “sting”.

          What I am saying is that it is possible the Illinois government is attempting to “prove” that gun owners are merely a heartbeat away from being criminals, which can be proven by an armed response to a legal action by police.

          If you haven’t been really focused on the state of politics today, you may not know that the anti-gun people publish statements that there are no law-abiding gun owners, only gun owners who have a high potential for turning into murderers. This is the line of reasoning I commented on regarding agent provocateur.

  10. It is time too Impeach this President, dismantle the IRS, outlaw the Democratic party, have term limits, shut down the borders
    Speak English only, disband the ALCU,

  11. It is just common sense that a person on the terrorist no fly list should also be considered a prohibited person on NICS. It is obvious that the NRA is a terrorist organization. NRA members shouldn’t be allowed to purchase or own guns. Any one that is or has ever been an NRA member should have their guns confiscated. //sarc. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear this type of paint by numbers narrative from a high ranking Administration official uttered in the next few months as a precursor to an AWB that will be hammered into being post election and pre-inauguration. The leftist press is already sowing the fields with the idea.

    You cannot forget that Obama’s true calling is as a radical activist who was elected President by progressive radicals leading a contingent of useful idiots. His recent NPR interview refers to “progress being uncomfortable” and mentions with disdain the “blue collar men who have had a lot of trouble in this new economy” who exhibit fear and anger “because of changing demographics” reveals how he really feels about most of America. The plan is and continues to be to loot traditional America short term by redistributing wealth via entitlement and long term by actively changing political demographics.

    Time is getting short and the Administration is going to go full frontal with gun, environmental, and SJW activism in the next year. They will take it to the line and then just over. They will continue to encourage the FSA and BLM to do the same by handcuffing Law Enforcement and the DOJ. He will let his predecessor and the courts sort out the scorched earth the administration leaves behind.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here