Joe Biden: Like It Or Not, Barack Obama Is Coming For Your Guns

FORGET CONGRESS, FORGET THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THIS ADMINISTRATION “IS GOING TO ACT” “Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws …” And forget that crusty “relic,” the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says the administration of Barack Obama will not wait for Congressional action to commence its assault on…

obama biden


“Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws …”

And forget that crusty “relic,” the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says the administration of Barack Obama will not wait for Congressional action to commence its assault on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

“The president is going to act,” Biden said prior to a meeting in Washington, D.C. with anti-Second Amendment advocates. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help (of) the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action we believe is required.”

Wait … the Attorney General? Does Biden mean the same guy who ran a botched government-funded gun-running operation? That guy?

Amazing … didn’t all of these elected officials swear oaths to preserve, protect and defend our rights? Including the right to bear arms? Yes … but that was before they decided it was more important to demonize gun ownership as part of their plan to exploit a tragic school shooting for political gain.

This has been a silly, circus-style debate up to this point, so allow us to boil it down for everyone clearly and concisely:

The day government starts using its power to come after our guns is the day we should start using those guns on the government.

Any government that tries to ban guns no longer enjoys any constitutional authority over us – and accordingly we are not obligated to obey any of its edicts. Is that a whack job thing to say? Maybe … but make no mistake: Of all the leftward lurches our government is currently making, this is easily the most dangerous.

And be real for a moment … we’re only “radical” because government won’t stop pulling shit like this. Oh, and with all due respect to Joe Biden – who was tapped by Obama to lead his administration’s gun control efforts – he should probably stick to something he’s good at.


(Banner: via)

Related posts


Embattled South Carolina Sheriff Spars With Challenger

Andrew Fancher

Palmetto Political Stock Index – 5/28/2024


Prioleau Alexander: Debate Is Back, Baby!

E Prioleau Alexander


L I'll Be January 9, 2013 at 1:28 pm

You really trying to get the crazies stirred up today…….

BigT January 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm

Yeah: It will be much better to just lie, like Obama did about Taxes, and come after the peoples’ rights w/ no warning…

If lying has worked for these leftist NAZIs so far…why be honest…right?

Bard Dough January 9, 2013 at 1:34 pm

I was about to say that Fits must have put this piece out just for BigT!

BigT January 9, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Yeah: he D@*n sure would not post anything true for a Liberal Dumb@$$ like you….

Brigid January 9, 2013 at 2:53 pm

It’s all over every news outlet, try reading and you will see this is issue number 1, and has little to do with FITS.

Saluda Rapids January 9, 2013 at 3:57 pm

Nazi fetish.

Smirks January 9, 2013 at 1:38 pm

The day government starts using its power to come after our guns is the day it becomes permissible for us to start using our guns on the government.

Have at it, Willie. You’re starting to sound like Alex Jones.

While I don’t agree with the assault weapons ban, that is likely all he would implement via executive order. Big deal. All it does is jack up the price of assault weapons because new ones can’t be manufactured until it is lifted.

lollie January 9, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Big deal, indeed…

MeadowMuffin January 9, 2013 at 2:55 pm

With all due respect, that phrase is the real reason behind the enactment of the Second Amendment. [The British were better armed than we Revolutionary Americans, and we learned from that].

I will admit that I’m not too sure about EVERYONE having a tank, battleship, or atom bomb in their possession, since we no longer use the old Bull Street campus for its original intent. But, it’s not the trruly sane among us that are creating the problem.

Leon Trotsky January 10, 2013 at 10:02 pm

But, but, we’re doing this for the children, comrades.

junior justice January 9, 2013 at 1:44 pm

I’ll take potus’ comments seriously when he removes his secret service details and the weaponry from around the White House.

junior justice January 9, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Add his armored cars to that list, dismiss the Marine guards and helicopters, and get rid of his food taster.

junior justice(for real) January 9, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Hey! Those weren’t my posts! Joe Biden slipped those in.

? January 9, 2013 at 1:44 pm

An executive order gutting the 2nd amendment would be pretty rich and really say everything that needs to be said.

It will be interesting to see if there’s a mob response or simply whining/crying.

Bill January 9, 2013 at 2:19 pm

I don’t agree with taking people’s guns, I don’t think there is any plan to do that, and I don’t think its necessary. Proper regulation can give us what we need. You should have to be licensed to own guns, and you should be required to have a special license to own an assault rifle. You should be required to take a course on gun safety and securing your gun. You should be required to take a test showing you know how to safely use your gun and how to secure your gun. If you own a assault rifle you should be required to store it in a gun safe when its not in use.

You should not be eligible for a license to own a gun if you have been convicted of certain crimes, if you have a mental illness, or if someone convicted of those crimes or with a mental illness lives in your home. For example people convicted of violent crime, drug use or distribution, domestic violence, breaking and entering, etc.

It should be a crime for anyone to sell a gun to any person who does not possess a current license to own a gun.

These are common sense things that can protect the rights of people to own guns without infringing on the right of other people not to be the victim of gun violence.

The Colonel January 9, 2013 at 3:40 pm

”I don’t agree with taking people’s guns, I don’t think there is any plan to do that, and I don’t think its necessary. Proper regulation can give us what we need. You should have to be licensed to own guns, and you should be required to have a special license to own an assault rifle.”

Your statement shows that you know absolutely nothing about the issue.

You are, far more likely to be killed with a bat, hammer or club than you are by an “assault rifle”. You’re twice as likely to be beaten to death with hands or feet and nearly five times more likely to be stabbed to death with a knife. Assault rifles are not the issue – rifles of all types accounted for exactly 323 of the 12,664 murders in 2011. Shotguns killed more people.

We have cities with incredibly restrictive gun regulation – wanna guess where the US’s highest gun murder rates are? New Orleans, Detroit, Las Vegas, Miami, Baltimore, St. Louis, Richmond, Memphis, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Chicago and DC all have two things in common – they have the most restrictive gun laws in the country and the highest per capita murder rates in the country. NY has proven that a serious focus on crime can lower the murder rate – as they have lowered it across the board but with their incredibly restrictive laws, they have simply skewed the numbers into the beating, stabbing and clubbing categories. Murders of all types are down by significant numbers having nothing to do with gun control (in fact, they have continued to fall since the “evil assault weapons” ban lapsed)

”I don’t agree with taking people’s guns, I don’t think there is any plan to do that, and I don’t think its necessary…..”
Your thought isn’t germane nor is it correct no less a “planner” than Joe Biden stated today that the President would be using executive orders to accomplish his goals – what is his goal?
OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. My belief is that we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.
The President is correct, they’re using handguns in the vast majority of all gun murders but he’s defaming “assault rifles” because they sound “evil” even though they’re used in less 3% of ALL murders. The “militia” part of the second amendment specifically authorized “military weaponry”.

Obama: So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
The President identifies gun owners as “bitter clingers” out of touch with the main stream when the truth is that better than 45% of US citizens are gun owners

OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Scandal? Really – even when the evidence is that the AWB accomplished nothing but forcing manufacturers to modify their designs? All murders are headed down, gun murders are down significantly.

We already inspect the background of all legal gun purchasers, there is no evidence that a special license would accomplish anything and you wouldn’t know an assault rifle from a watergun.

Oh, before you describe me as a “bitter clinger” – consider this, my “assault weapon” was built in 1917, is a bolt action and only holds five shots. Alvin York killed 32 Germans with one in about as many shots in just over 5 minutes of shooting.

Bill January 9, 2013 at 4:09 pm

Do you really believe people who have been convicted of violent crimes, drug dealers, and mentally ill people should be allowed to legally acquire guns? Do you really believe that it is unreasonable to ask people to take a gun safety course and prove they know how to use a gun before they own a gun. Do you really believe we should not try to prevent mentally ill people from legally obtaining access to high powered assault rifles. Do you really believe people should be allowed to legally sell their guns to criminals and mentally ill people.

This would require no more effort than obtaining and maintaining a drivers license. There does not seem to be any objection to that.

Stephan January 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Colonel – good points. How about we let you keep assault rifles, and ban shot guns, hammers, bowie knives and hand guns. That way you can keep your assault rifles.

Smirks January 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm

You should have to be licensed to own guns

What? Owning a gun is a right, a constitutional right. You don’t have to “apply” to be able to exercise your rights. All government needs to be concerned with is checking to make sure you are not a criminal or a crazy, which it can do without issuing licenses.

You can argue a permit/license for assault rifle owners if you want, but requiring a license for any gun whatsoever is absolutely stupid.

Bill January 9, 2013 at 4:42 pm

With all due respect, there is no way to regulate the sale of guns by private citizens unless you license gun owners or require registraion of each gun. The licenses is the less intrusive form. This is not a permit per gun. This is a reasonable accomodation to show you are eligible to own a gun before anyone sells it to you. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation, like most constitional rights. Some states and municipalities already have similar laws on the books.

Does not our own SC requir you to obtain a picture ID prior to exercising the most fundemental right, the right to vote.

The reason there is a lot of objection to this, is that frankly a lot of gun owners have criminal records that may prevent them from owning a gun if they had to go through a background check to acquire a license.

This would actually speed up the purchase of gun from a gun shop. You could walk in, show your gun license and walk out with a gun. Your backgroud check was done when you acquired your license.

The Colonel January 9, 2013 at 4:46 pm


Do I “…really believe people who have been convicted of violent crimes, drug dealers, and mentally ill people should be allowed to legally acquire guns…. No, I don’t and in fact, every category you name is already prohibited from owning weapons.

Do I “…really believe that it is unreasonable to ask people to take a gun safety course and prove they know how to use a gun before they own a gun…? Yes, I do. I am an NRA certified coach and have taught weapons safety and marksmanship for almost 30 years – but I have never taken, nor would I ever take, a nationally mandated course for the privilege of owning something I have a guaranteed right to own “without infringement”.

Do I “…really believe people should be allowed to legally sell their guns to criminals and mentally ill people…”. No, I don’t, see above. Does it happen? Yes. Would it happen if you close the “gun show loophole”? Yes – but now we have a way to redress the criminal act rather than the private citizen. Should the seller of the weapon be liable as an accessory for actions taken by the nut or criminal – yes, address the crime or the criminal not the law abiding citizen. Do you want the federal government involved in every car you sell of garage sale you have?

Bill January 9, 2013 at 5:38 pm

First of all I am not in favor of the federal governemnt doing any of this. This should be done by the states. Just like a drivers license. The state already imposes restriction on the right to own a firearm. No constituional right is absolute. The government has the right to reasonably regulate the exercise of a constitutional right if they can show a compelling need and the regualtion is rationally related to fulfiling the need.

This no different than the Voter ID law SC just enacted. In that case you must prove you are eligible to vote. In this case you must prove you are eligible to own a gun.

Second, in SC it is not legal for people who have been convicted of certain crimes and people who have been declared incompetent to own guns. It is not illegal for 90%+ of mentally ill people to own guns because they have not been declared incompetent. It is not illegal for people who have criminals and mentally ill people living with them to own a gun, and it is not illegal for a private citizen to sell a gun to any of these people no questions asked. I can legally sell my gun to the wife beater next door. Can he legally own the gun. I don’t know, and I don’t have to ask.

The Colonel January 9, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Bill, don’t sell a gun to the wife beater, it’s already against the law for him to own one, ever heard of the Lautenbeg Ammendment?.

The Colonel January 9, 2013 at 6:17 pm

It’s also illegal for any person to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to a person excluded by the Lautenberg Ammendment.

Tom January 9, 2013 at 6:18 pm

Colonel, as I recall you supported a licensing procedure on the Constitutional Right to Vote.

The Colonel January 9, 2013 at 6:19 pm

That means that canon you sold to Will was probably illegal…

Bill January 9, 2013 at 6:27 pm

Colonel, you presume I know he is a convicted wife beater or a drug dealer or a bank robber. The point is I am not obligated to ask; and if I did and he said no. I am free to sell him the gun. I have broken no law.

The Colonel January 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm

In the case of the Lautenberg Ammendment, technically, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO ASK. The law says “…any person…who gives or sells…”.

Sort or makes point though, if you put the onus on the seller, he’ll be a bit more diligent in who he sells to and those of us who might occasionally want to privately sell a gun would be a hell of a lot more careful who we sell to.

Jan January 9, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Wow, I do love this shoe is on the other foot stuff. As I recall the Colonel told me, he did not want everyone to vote so he was OK making it more difficult to vote. I am not sure how that same argument would not apply to gun ownership.

Also as I recall the Colonel was in favor of taking the constitutional right to vote away from non-property owners. I suppose he would agree we should not interfere with their right to have guns. At least he is in favor of leaving non-property owners a way to kill the people trying to take away their right to vote.

The Colonel January 9, 2013 at 7:20 pm

Tom and Jan,
I did and do support the requirement to prove that you have a right to vote and have on occasion submitted evidence that I can legal possess a firearm. I have no problem with that either. What I have a problem with is further unnecessary infringement of my rights.

I don’t want criminals or mentally ill people buying firearms and that’s already illegal and we have a good system in place to assist in enforcing that law. I further don’t want people who do not have a right to vote voting and we have no system in place to prevent that.

As for stupid people, I’d just as soon they not vote or own firearms but that’s my preference, not a Constitutionally mandated rule…

The Colonel January 9, 2013 at 7:25 pm

my discussion of property ownership as a requirement for voting was largely in the form of providing historical background though it probably wasn’t a bad idea, something about voting oneself largesse from the public treasury….

BigT January 9, 2013 at 2:26 pm

Remember what happened to Trayvon (Baracks’s would-be son) when he showed disrepsect for G. Zimmmerman’s gun rights…

Also: Will Obama try to gt the guns back he and Holder gave to the Mexican Gun Lords…to kill American Border agents…just askin’????

Saluda Rapids January 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Please tell us you don’t own any guns.

BigT January 9, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Please tell me you understand he US CONSTITUTION….and you know your lord and savior (Obama) does not have the right to over-ride it….

ron January 9, 2013 at 2:31 pm

Ironic–from an administration which ILLEGALLY ARMED Mexican Narco-terrorists with military-grade automatic machine guns, grenades, and ballistic body armor…

moron January 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Not irony…Intention. Fast and Furious failed to disarm Americans so the “Fundamental Transformational President” is outright disarming law-abiding citizens. It’s the Nobel Prize Way of rendering Americans defencesless…little by little.

junior justice January 9, 2013 at 3:00 pm

You’re not a moron.

Common Sense January 9, 2013 at 6:01 pm

Ron they didn’t sell a single automatic rifle..they are illegal..perhaps some facts would aid your argument in the future?

Common Sense January 9, 2013 at 6:02 pm

nor grenades but hey don’t let that stop ya..fact-less spewage of Hannity talking points are the bread and butter of many on this site so why not join the gang?

Kirby January 9, 2013 at 2:49 pm

you can pass all the new laws you want, make all of the presidential decrees, etc, etc, but the only effect will be that law abiding gun owners will ne punished for the actions of the non-law abiding gun owners who will not follow any new gun laws or presidential decrees any more than they follow the current gun laws.

Bill January 9, 2013 at 4:26 pm

A significant percentage of people killed with guns are killed by legally acquired guns. The number of deaths could be significantly reduced by restricting legal access to guns to sane non-criminals who are trained in their use.

Further, there will be fewer guns in the hands of criminals if people secure their guns better.

sid January 9, 2013 at 7:31 pm

Please support your claim, Bill. What is the source of your “information”?

Bert January 9, 2013 at 2:57 pm

There is a big difference between banning guns and gun control.

Lawn Sharts January 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm

these folks are the worst sorts of con men – convening a panel led by le plus beau chapeau of all ass-hats, VP Biden – including families of victims – only to send Steadman Holder out to scour the law for precisely the limits of executive order.

this is false pretense, nothing more. the appearance of security is not security, and it is amoral to imply a fix to evil is possible.

tehee January 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm

When will we ever get to see this guy’s college transcript?

? January 9, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Really, I could give a rats ass about his college transcripts, his birth certificate, who he smoked coke with, who he smoked mary jane with, or who he might have blown.

All I care about is what edicts he’s going to enact via executive order. At that, I wish I didn’t HAVE to care.

daryl January 9, 2013 at 3:54 pm

4.0 in Fascist Studies; 1.o in Freedom Studies…

Stephan January 9, 2013 at 4:12 pm

Guns. Another thing Sherman should have rounded up.

reason January 9, 2013 at 4:22 pm

In Colorado and Connecticut? I didn’t realize that Sherman invaded Connecticut…

Original Good Old Boy January 9, 2013 at 5:55 pm

He should have shot your great-great-granddaddy before paps procreated, that’s for sure.

norman January 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm

The problem is not gun laws. The problem is criminals who have been allowed to proliferate like roaches. Our nation is overrun with drug dealers,illegals from all over the world with criminal organizations. Libturd lawyers, Judges, courts and candy ass wipes called politicians who will do an say anything to get a vote. NY has had the Sullivan act for 75 years and has it stopped violence. A couple of hundred in NYC will buy you a top of the line hand gun and any type of long barrel you want.

Original Good Old Boy January 9, 2013 at 5:56 pm

The bigger problem is the War on Drugs, which incentivizes gang activity.

CoolAireHeights January 9, 2013 at 7:59 pm

Norman, you are correct. This action is nothing more than a blatant attempt to criminalize the law-abiding gun owner… got to even up that horrendous incarceration ratio that exists among different American groups, no?

reason January 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm

Absent from the debate is the need for better mental health care. Schizophrenics should be institutionalized and not released amongst the general population. These mass killings would have been prevented if the psychotic, deranged gun men had been in the looney bin where they belonged. Will the President re-institute funding for the asylums?

JC January 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm

I’m more concerned with the growing acceptance of the President beign a Unilateral Executive who “doesn’t need Congress” than I am with the Federal Government trying to take away guns.

hack January 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm

I know some other government agents who could “round” people/things up in Europe and Asia from the 30s onward. Ironically, most of the leftist welfare queens who are screaming for gun control are of Hebrew descent. Were they not told by their grandparents to not let the government take their means of defense or else be herded into the gas chambers and ovens?

hack January 9, 2013 at 4:54 pm

correction, instead of “Hebrew descent” it should read “Jooish” per the PC guide to language.

KV January 9, 2013 at 5:16 pm

The Second Amendment gave us he right to bear arms. That right is still ours. We can still bear arms, but why put them in the hands of the unstable. Why do we need high capacity assault weapons.

If everyone, even the unstable, have the right to bear any type of gun or assault weapon, then Iran has the right to build a nuclear weapon. Who are we to dictate what another country can or cannot do. Who are we to take away another countries right to do as they please. I don’t see it written anywhere in the Constitution.

Gillie January 9, 2013 at 5:31 pm

Comments here would be not-so-tolerant if the next elementary school shoot-up occurred in S.C.

huh? January 9, 2013 at 6:11 pm

Could the prez issue an executive order banning abortion? How many kids die in SC due to that murderous “procedure”?

BradWarthenSucks January 9, 2013 at 5:46 pm

I believe if they do anything from an Executive Order stance, Obama will have his Secret Service detail immediately ask to be reassigned.

Ahab the Arab January 9, 2013 at 5:51 pm

Thank you thank you thank you for getting distracted with pet knee jerk liberal issues like gun control. When congress is tied up with this, it can’t raise taxes or start wars or spend money it doesn’t have.

BTW, how many innocent Afghanis, Iraqis and Pakis has our military accidently vaporized? Opps, sorry. We apologize.

How about THAT?

Plus if we banned assualt weapons, we would be overrun with deer -they are everywhere and they eat my flowers.

why January 9, 2013 at 6:40 pm

–vaporized by drone strikes, aerial terminations authorized by a president on the golf course you say?

SCBlues January 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm


“They” (and we know who “they” are) have been screaming for the past four years that Obama is “coming for your guns”.

Trey Gowdy held all of those townhall meetings on “protecting your second amendment rights” when there has not been a single action by President Obama to take away anyone’s guns.


BigT January 9, 2013 at 6:37 pm

Hey Blues:


You’re the F*#kin idiot…

That said: because of the election, Obama thinks he’s s god. And the media does too…

I CANNOT wait til he tries to take guns…and he finds out what we do to the British Monarchy, the democrat slave-owners, the NAZIs and Facists like him…


Robert January 9, 2013 at 6:39 pm

Just another bullshit story that has no substance. Come on FITS, you’re better than this.

Or should be.

jimlewis,owb January 9, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Everyone said upon his graduation from Clown College he would not amount to anything.

Way to go Joe, you are fulfilling expectations.

Isotope Soap January 9, 2013 at 6:43 pm

Jesus, people. Fits is just making his advertisers happy. I’m willing to bet any idiot on here that all the fuss will come down to is common sense solutions like a harder core Brady Bill.

Isotope Soap January 9, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Wanna bet, Biggie?

Isotope Soap January 16, 2013 at 1:16 pm


BigT January 9, 2013 at 6:49 pm

FITS (per usual) has AVOIDED reporting on the Rally to Nullify ObamaCare…The State was scared to death of it, too…

People are marching in the Streets..and this move to take Guns by the Facists in DC is just Gas on the Flame…

I think Obama’s ’bout to overplay his hand, and F&*k up BAD…

When it comes down to freedom, those illegals who put him in office, gone haul @$$ back to Maa-hee-co….and the Thugs in the Hood gone go underground…they ain’t ’bout no heavy lifting…or they would not be in the shape they are in…

Obama’s ride may be coming to an end, just when he thought he was going to rape us for 4 more years…LMAO…

Isotope Soap January 9, 2013 at 6:59 pm

Like my Granny said: ” You’ve gone and done it now, son…that boy will not sleep for a week now that you got him all riled up…”

BigT January 10, 2013 at 8:11 am

IS: You’re really trying so hard, you’re embarrassing yourself.

You actually make me look brighter and more creative…and that’s in front of people who hate me…

Isotope Soap January 10, 2013 at 9:49 am

With your track record, I’ll take my chances. I will say, if mental illness (I dunno, paranoia) and gun ownership comes up, you might be in jeopardy. I’d suggest you start building that bunker…

Original Good Old Boy January 10, 2013 at 11:46 am

I listened to that “rally” from my office. I heard Tom Davis blather like a fool and a rabble rouser.

Big Cock January 9, 2013 at 7:32 pm

I got the biggest gun between my legs! it doesn’t shoot blanks either!

TontoBubbaGoldstein January 9, 2013 at 8:50 pm

Well, you better quit sqeezin’ it, cuz it’s not yours!

Big Cock January 9, 2013 at 7:33 pm

I hope they dont plan to take mine! the women like it

tomstickler January 9, 2013 at 11:26 pm

The 2nd Amendment preserves your right to keep and bear arms. OK.

However, there is no Constitutional right to fire guns, so how about a requirement that anyone firing a gun has to have a license to fire a gun and an insurance policy with some minimum level of liability coverage?

You are out in a field shooting at ducks, you had better have a hunting license, right? Perhaps some minimum amount of training would be necessary to obtain a firing license.

Gun rights organizations seem to have no problem with training and “licensing” requirements for concealed carry permits, so this should be OK.

huh? January 10, 2013 at 8:23 am

Lawyer? So many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

what? January 10, 2013 at 8:51 am

Technically, the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion, so I guess we shouldn’t fund it either, right?

bogart January 10, 2013 at 10:15 am

“Obama is coming to take your guns”…..what a dumbass neanderthal headline.

Bonner January 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm

“Obama is coming to take your guns”…..what a dumbass neanderthal.

Leon Trotsky January 10, 2013 at 10:06 pm

Comrade Obama is doing this for greater good of our socialist nation.


Isotope Soap January 10, 2013 at 11:19 am

BigT: The only man that could turn Gomer Pyle into a viable sperm donor.

Bard Dough January 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm

Where is the professor today? He must be getting them bunions shaved; or God forbid, he’s home schooling his kids.

darksied calling January 10, 2013 at 4:53 pm


D January 11, 2013 at 12:23 am

Ok, this is just going too far! The health care plan was justified by the Supreme Court as a “tax” and now our rights and congressional authorities are being openly challenged. This is either a legitimate challenge by the President or posturing to get congress to violate them. This seems to be the Chicago style tactics that are serving as government by the people, for the people, and of the people. That is as long as the people buy whatever is being sold by elected leaders and forget their rights as delineated in the “bill of rights”.
The bill of rights do not give us our rights, it communicates and protects them. Our leaders normally take an Oath where they swear or affirm to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. At last I checked the Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution, or more specifically the amendments to the constitution. How is it that those who have sworn to support and defend our rights are the main challengers to them?
I’m not recommending overthrow of the government or anarchy. I am challenging Americans to stand up and do for themselves. That includes recognizing when people are suffering mentally and require assistance even if that assistance is being recommended to the authorities or mental professionals. The answer to the violent shootings is not gun control because criminals never have a problem acquiring arms and implementing restrictive measures only increases the street value of arms sales. Maybe we should think about our actions and actually put some thought into the steps we take vice rushing into counterproductive actions that will only lead to more problems in the long run.

Hugh January 11, 2013 at 4:51 am

All this talk of gun control and executive orders….. I may be off base, but I think this is where the President got his agenda for gun control. It’s Michael Douglas’ speech in “The American President”


Fast forward to about 4:15

mph January 11, 2013 at 11:23 am

Raise your hand if you think the Federal Government is going to take your guns.

Okay, if your hand is up, you’re a moron.

noseitall January 13, 2013 at 7:12 pm

Only a fool would trust government.

Ashton January 12, 2013 at 12:41 am

The war starts for our freedom, let the revolution begin.

MajorC January 13, 2013 at 6:23 pm

Most Americans in today’s society do not have the guts to start a revolution and Obama knows it. We are a nation of feckless citizens. No backbones just cell phones. Roll over Beethoven will be our new national anthem sung by a fat lady from Connecticut.

Ron Jeremy January 14, 2013 at 6:57 pm

American citizens really don’t need guns, I believe only the police and military should have guns. If someone breaks into your house, just run away. If someone tries to rob you, give them what they want. All guns are just bad, unless in the hands of police or soldiers. Everyone should turn in their guns to the local Sheriff and pray for peace.

We Don't Get Fooled Again January 15, 2013 at 9:21 am

People!!! What you don’t understand is that all this focus on “guns” is just a red herring put out by the Government to keep you from focusing on the real issue. The 2nd amendment provides citizens individual rights to bear “arms” comrades, not just paltry pea shooting guns. Please contact your congressman to make it known you want your full rights as provided for under the constitution. You know what I’m talking about, right? Nuclear arms! Why? Because its my goddamn right, that’s why. When those criminals start breaking into the garage, imagine their surprise when they trip a trigger to a dirty nuke!!! Ha Ha Ha. Plus how in the hell are we going to shoot down gov’t drones with a rifle? We need surface-to-air missiles brothers. And you know what? The constitution says we are entitled to them. Don’t get sidetracked by all this ” gun” talk. Instead focus on getting the full rights provided for you under the second amendment!!

cherish53 March 28, 2013 at 11:37 pm

FLASHBACK: Good Ol’ Uncle Joe “Malarky” Biden in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBCQXWMOqV4&feature=player_embedded

cherish53 March 28, 2013 at 11:37 pm

FLASHBACK: Good Ol’ Uncle Joe “Malarky” Biden in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBCQXWMOqV4&feature=player_embedded


Leave a Comment