Second Amendment

"Tomorrow We Should Do More" and Other Reasons Gun Rights Folk Mistrust President Obama

Obama's announcement today uses public mass gun murder to buttress irrelevant policies, with vague promises of "more."


As Jacob Sullum has already pointed out today at Reason, most of the specifics of President Obama's lengthy and emotional announcement of various executive actions allegedly intended to curb gun violence, which he framed specifically as a reaction to a series of public mass-shooting tragedies, would have done nothing to prevent those tragedies.

Sullum has also pointed out that the combination of encouraging more mental health treatment along with tougher attempts to keep a class of people who seek that treatment from exercising their Second Amendment rights is likely to discourage people from seeking treatment.

With its core content irrelevant to its framed political purpose (about a political problem that the vast majority of the American people consider very low on their list of priorities), the rest of Obama's gun speech today nonetheless devolved into a political rally. He called for people to vote for politicians who will, like Obama, advocate for tougher access to guns, whether or not we have reason to believe doing so will deal with the problem of gun violence. That problem is not a growing epidemic but something that has shrunk in half in the past 23 years.

The parts of the speech about better gun safety technologies also obviously have nothing to do with all the tragic tales with which he buttressed the alleged purpose of the speech. Such technologies may well be a great thing for those that want them. If gun owners overwhelmingly want better computerized trigger locks, child safety devices and the like, and perhaps they do, they will eventually have them, if they are willing to pay for them.

But people who want guns for instant emergency self defense might not want a weapon only as easy to use instantly as a locked iPhone. People who can't afford high-tech gadgets might want access to a self-defense weapon that is not an expensive high-tech gadget.

And when this constitutional-law-professor-and-don't-you-forget-it president rhetorically deals with the issue of pre-emptively denying a core constitutional right to people based on pure government suspicion by merely saying that "that's not right…that can't be right" that the government should be denied this power when it comes to terror suspects buying guns, he's arguing from a position of pure desire to accrue more raw power to the government.

Obama also made calls for more (government-funded) research into gun violence, while at the same time showing exactly why those who respect gun rights are skeptical of such research: it is often incredibly shoddy and tendentious and used to back political proposals to restrict gun access that the "research" doesn't actually support.

Obama claimed today that "research" had proven that tougher gun access and permit laws caused a 40 percent gun homicide reduction in Connecticut and that easier gun access laws cause a huge gun homicide increase in Missouri.

Both studies are discussed in my February Reason feature "You Know Less Than You Think About Guns," and neither conclusion is proven true. When politicians use research to make untrue claims to back up their call for tougher legal access to guns, those who respect gun rights understandably don't trust them.

They also don't trust it when politicians like Obama make it clear their political target is not people killing people with guns, but rather people having guns. His whole quasi-sophisticated "rights balancing" talk about how our freedom of religion and freedom to assemble are harmed by people who wander into churches and gatherings and kill people with guns makes this clear.

Because the government has already made it illegal to do such things. There do not need to be more laws making it clear that such behavior isn't tolerated in our constitutional republic. What Obama wants to do is make it harder for more people to get guns, a whole different matter, as the vast, vast majority of the people affected by such laws will not use them to "violate freedom of religion" by shooting up a church.

But the key giveaway, the reason why this gun issue that seems so common sense to Obama and his fans is so politically contentious, is because Obama makes it very clear (though perhaps inadvertently) that in a game of positing gun violence as always, in whatever amount, so unacceptable it demands more laws, and then positing laws that will likely have almost no independent effect on gun violence, that the game of ratcheting gun laws more and more has no foreseeable end.

Obama kept nodding to how hard it is to stop gun violence, or maybe to pass gun laws, it was unclear which, though admittedly both are hard (and they are not the same thing). And he concluded: "tomorrow we should do more, and do more the day after that."

President Obama, that attitude is exactly why the politics of gun control—sorry, "common sense gun safety"— is so hard. Because we see you are seeking a goal that is unreachable in a world where guns and the legal right to own them still exists, and you want to do "more" and "more" to reach that goal.

NEXT: False Confessions Like Brendan Dassey's Are Common Among Exonerated Juveniles

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You mean to tell me we put a man on the moon, but we can’t find a suitable replacement for oil create a suitable gun lock?

    Fucking corporations, man.

    1. What shitstains like Obama don’t realize is the gun “lock” is the deadbolt on my front door, the locks on my car doors and the snap keeping my gun strapped inside my holster. Once somebody breaks through one of those “locks”, (or in the case of the holster, once I’ve been forced to unsnap it, then they have violated the sanctity of my private property to the point that they are subject to being shot in self defense.

      Piss on this turd.

      1. A locked up gun is worthless for self defense. They know that I think and view people not being able to defend themselves as a good thing.

        1. I wish you were exaggerating, but that’s literally the law in Canada – self-defense is not a valid reason for handgun licence.

          There are a few purposes for which individuals can be licensed to acquire or possess a restricted firearm, the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection.

          In limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use in connection with one’s lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life.

          (protection of life is for Protectors of The Worthy, of course)

          1. Nothing like outsourcing self-defense to a union member. Whose best interest is (a) not doing anything, (b) letting you die and (c) blaming it on “lack of public funding”.

            1. Oh yeah? Who are you gonna call to protect you shoot your dog when the bad guys come to your house? Huh?

      2. The only reliable safety is the one between your ears.

    2. My wife and I were talking about gun locks last night; we recently had a child and will, very soon, have to deal with him being mobile, curious, etc. We want to keep him safe, but we also don’t want to prevent ourselves from using a tool when it is needed. We came to the conclusion that our best bet was education.

      1. From a parent- you can’t educate a 1-year old not grab something that’s sitting out. They grab everything. Education is fine when the kid is older, but when they’re little, make certain the gun is not accessible.

      2. I’m in a similar situation. I was raised around guns, as was my wife, so we have a little bit of experience from the child’s end. In any case, we agree that teaching proper gun safety from as early as possible (never touch a gun without an adult’s permission, never point a gun at someone you’re not going to shoot, all guns are loaded unless you’ve personally cleared the action, etc.) is the best bet, but in the meantime just keeping guns out of reach is a pretty easy win. Once my daughter’s old enough to climb on a chair to reach something she’ll also be old enough to learn about guns.

        1. This, ours is completely out of reach from our eldest (and unloaded) while still being quickly accessible by the parents. By the time he is remotely close to being able to figure out the logistics of getting to that object he doesn’t even know about he will also be old enough to be taught correct handling, safety and not to ever touch it on his own.

      3. Your best bet is probably to just buy a high quality gun safe that you can get into quickly if necessary but that your kid can’t open. You’re not going to be able to educate a little kid about guns…they’ll pick up just about anything just because they’re kids.

      4. Don’t they have pretty cheap gun safes that can be activated by thumbprint now? This would seem to give you quick access to the weapon while you need it while preventing anyone else from getting a hold of it.

      5. One solution is to just wear it if you aren’t gonna keep it in a safe.

        A tiny pistol in a good holster is light enough that while you’ll know its there, it won’t be uncomfortable.

      6. Keeping it unloaded and out of reach was what I first did when my child was born 7 years ago.

        I bought a safe last year. I live smack dab in the middle of a pretty safe subdivision in a very safe suburb, so I’ll take the trade off between less accessible in the case of emergency for more peace of mind.

        Now that my daughter is 7, I’ll teach her the basics of marksmanship and gun safety with my BB gun, once the snow melts.

    3. I figure he was talking about ‘smart guns’

      For that I would say that ‘smart guns’ are ready for prime time when the Secret Service purges its stock of dumb guns, and exclusively uses smart guns for Presidential Protection (I seriously doubt they would ever agree to that), and technology of the same reliability that is used for Presidential Protection adds negligible costs.

    4. No one wants either….

    5. Nobody claimed that technology can’t create a wide variety of gun locks that would appeal to some gun owners. The issue is “who chooses?” The gun owner or the government?

  2. President Obama, that attitude is exactly why the politics of gun control?sorry, “common sense gun safety”? is so hard.

    The politics are not hard at all. They are in fact very easy. I can’t imagine anything easier than “fuck you, you are not getting your superstitious bullshit gun control”. What is so hard about “no”?

  3. How about this –

    (a) If you can’t be trusted with a gun, you certainly can’t be trusted delegating power to a bunch of soldiers and cops with guns, so you should be stripped of the right to vote.

    (b) If a citizen is qualified to vote, that citizen is qualified to bear arms.

    Laws like this will shut the Dems up, since the people they want to disarm are either Democratic voters or targets of Dem campaign appeals.

    Their ideal is a bunch of disarmed sheeplike followers pulling the lever for them at every election and then doing as they’re told.

    1. Eddie, that’s a good talking point.

    2. Their ideal is a bunch of disarmed sheeplike followers pulling the lever for them at every election and then doing as they’re told.

      That is, roughly speaking, the state of the modern Democratic party. The Democratic party, today, is essentially composed of an poor, uneducated, class of kept clients overseen by a overeducated mandarinate that fancies itself intellectually superior.

      As long as the clients remain loyal and don’t interfere with the internecine battles of mandarinate (and, of course, stay out of their neighborhoods, they’ll be provided panem et circenses.

      1. Um, we speak Merican here. So, “they will be provided McDonald’s and Merican Idol.”

    3. So basically you support the Robert Heinlein model of citizenship (from the book “Starship Troopers”). I’ll admit that it does have a certain appeal and I’d love to see a politician try that as an epic troll.

  4. I can barely believe that the Democrats are going into a presidential election promoting gun control and Syrian immigration. Do they not listen to their pollsters at all? I don’t get it. The Clinton administration learned its gun control lesson the hard way, and gun control is even less popular now.

    And beyond the bleeding-heart liberals, the “let’s destroy white Christian America” sort, and the open borders types, there’s no real constituency in favor of Syrian refugees.

    And then there’s Hillary’s idiocy about “all sexual assault victims should be believed.” That has got to be in the top 10 of own-goal statements by American politicians.

    It’s as if they are trying to hand the election to Trump.

    1. It is like he is some mole created to destroy the Democratic Party. Gun control has always been a political loser and it is if anything a bigger loser issue now than it was 16 years ago when it was costing Al Gore the Presidency.

      1. Wasn’t Trump encouraged to run by Bill Clinton?

        1. I don’t know. But i fail to see how Trump running is going to undo the damage Obama has done to the Democratic party.

          1. Agreed, at the state level Obama really wrecked the party.

            Trump could help Hilary get the White House though and Dems running for senate could squeeze in just by virtue of the ticket – plus the possibility of appointing new Justices. However, I think the plan may be backfiring, he may have a real chance to beat her at this point.

            1. When my coworker from Hong Kong put up a Trump sign in her yard and a Trump sticker on her Prius, I knew something was amiss . . .. or afoot . . . . or weird . . .

            2. I wish he would destroy the gems in WA. We have a commie governor and even my city of Spokane is run by leftist traitors that have turned it into a sanctuary city.

        2. That could mean several things. It could mean Trump is a Democratic mole, intending to throw the election. But I don’t see an egomaniac like Trump losing the biggest election in the world as a favor to a golfing buddy.

          I think it’s very likely that Bill wants Hillary to lose. Some of the things he said in 2008 sure sounded like subtle sabotage. Why would he want to have her overshadow him? Plus, being the First Husband would put a crimp in his babe-chasing. And he’s got plenty of emotional reasons to want to take her down a peg.

          1. Bill knows the minute he’s back in the White House, 1) the party’s over and he can’t go chasing tail for a while, and 2) he’d end up being expected to run the country again because no one really likes his wife outside of a gaggle of bitter cat ladies.

          2. I can’t imagine Bill has gotten any off that broad he’s married to in many years. What better revenge than to screw up her chances of winning the election?

    2. Maybe the media just wanted a challenge.

    3. I can barely believe that the Democrats are going into a presidential election promoting gun control and Syrian immigration.

      It seems like electoral suicide.

      I’m curious to see how the Repubs fuck this golden opportunity up.

      1. They won’t. What they will actually do once in power is another question. But regardless of what happens in the Presidential election, the Democrats are doomed in every other election except in a few dark blue states.

        1. They won’t.

          You have faith in Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan?

          1. Which part of “regardless of what happens in the Presidential election, the Democrats are doomed in every other election except in a few dark blue states.” did you not understand?

            And yeah, I think love him or hate him Trump is likely to win the Presidency. I would have never believed it but every day it looks more and more likely to happen.

            1. I didn’t read your entire statement. My mistake.

              I think the leadership in the Republican party is capable of screwing anything up, even this gun control issue, which should be impossible to screw up.

              1. If the Democrats have anything to do with it, they’ll challenge the Republicans on abortion and gay rights and the R’s will promptly self-destruct.

          2. They’ve been known to fail to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before.

            1. But sometimes they don’t. It was an article of religous faith around here that they would not take the Senate in 2014. The party line on Reason is that the Republicans will always lose any election no matter what. Since they do lose, that is sometimes right but not always

              1. That’s what i was saying, what with the double negative. The Republicans seem to be trying to lose, but the Democrats may well be trying harder, and might end up doing a better job of losing this time around. Lord knows both sides deserve to lose.

                1. But no matter who loses the election, it is never going to be the Libertarian Party who wins.

                  A reality that has infuriated me to no end.

                  1. Libertarian Moment!!!!111eleventyone!!

                  2. Given that Rand Paul is the most Libertarian major party candidate, it speaks volumes about Reason that it has not really gotten behind him. Compare the number of Rand Paul articles compared to the massive onslaught of Trump articles over the last six months. Negative or not, Trump is getting sometimes multiple articles posted per day. I’m not sure if Rand gets one per week on average.

                    If this is the big Libertarian publication, it doesn’t give libertarians much hope.

                    1. Abandon hope, ye Libertarians who post here

                    2. I think they give an appropriate level of coverage to a candidate who is only semi-libertarian who is polling around 2-3%.

          3. I Ihave full faith in Cruz. Why should anyone not ?

            We elected him here in Texas and he has done exactly what he said he was going to do in Washington if he was elected. It’s the first time in my life I’e ever seen that happen.

            He called out the Republican leadership by name on teh Senate floor and esxplained what kind of dirty tricks they were playing on the voters who sent them there. Check it out on you tube.

            He successfully argued a gun rights case before the SCOTUS.

            Google a few articles from different people about his time in the FTC. How could anyone expect more from a leader than that.

            He is as libertarian as anyone can be who stands any reasonable chance to actually get elected.

            The man could turn out to be one of the best Presidents in history based on his track record and if you will look into it past the click bait headlines you might just agree.

            He is both brilliant and principaled.

            1. Thanks, Mom!

            2. You mean principled.

              I remember another president who was considered brilliant, principled, and an outsider, and who was disliked by the Washington, DC establishment. It was always said that being considered an outsider severely hampered his efforts to get much of anything done. That was Jimmy Carter.

        2. Certainly, if the election is decided on gun rights, the Republicans will maintain control of the Senate,

          Those Senate seats up for grabs seem to be mostly in flyover country.

          Meanwhile, Republicans hold both houses in 31 state legislatures–which was already historically unusual. That number may be set to increase if gun control becomes the issue on which this election is decided.

          If a Republican actually won the White House, the stage might be set to get a Constitutional amendment ratified to balance the federal budget or something else useful–like limit the power of public employee unions.

          I hope they don’t squander that opportunity on Trump.

          1. Federal public employee unions are only allowed because of an executive order by JFK. They can be banned by another one. Too bad Reagan didn’t do it. I have no idea why he didn’t.

      2. It rhymes with Ronald Rump?

        Or better yet, do a coup at convention and acclaim Jeb, then wonder how you lost…

        1. “…do a coup at convention and acclaim Jeb, then wonder how you lost…”

          I think that is exactly what they have in mind. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen.

          1. I think that would be suicide for the GOPe. The uproar would be incredible. It makes more sense for them to swallow hard and make nice with Trump.

            1. I would be forced to visit my rage upon them. Through strongly worded letters of course. No woodchoppers involved for the DoJ pricks being paid to read these comments. None whatsoever.

      3. “I’m curious to see how the Repubs fuck this golden opportunity up.”

        His name is Donald Trump.

        1. I think Trump beats Hillary in a head-to-head in November.

          I’m beginning to think that, in the environment we have this year, he is almost the perfect candidate to beat her like a rented mule. He will not adhere to the pieties and indulgences that the Clintons have coasted on forever. He has shown that he is perfectly willing to call her husband a degenerate who abuses women, and to call her age and health into question. As a candidate, what he says cannot be ignored by the media, so it will be out there. And once it gets out there, she can’t deal with it worth a damn, because she is a terrible candidate who cannot think on her feet or get most people to give her the benefit of the doubt.

            1. You mean YUGE?

          1. I was waiting to see if Trump would start spending his own money before I’d take him seriously.

            Then I saw this today:


          2. He’s now calling her age into question? I hadn’t heard that one. Someone should probably tell him that’s he’s older than Clinton.

            1. Yes Adam, but he had that doctor’s note saying how awesome his health was. Hillary has no such note.

          3. I never thought Hillary was a shoe-in as many claimed, but yes, Trump beats her. Trump puts a number of “safe” blue states in play, including New York.

            Plus there’s the rarity of any party holding the White House for three terms in a row. It’s not like there is a groundswell of swing voters wanting four more years like the last eight.

          4. Can you imagine how pissed she would be – losing to Rubio is one thing, but losing to Trump is like karma and schadenfreude and Monica’s revenge, all rolled into a neat little package. 🙂

          5. He would crush her. He knows how to play the media and so far has gotten away with saying shit that would end the career of any other GOP candidate ten times over. He also isn’t playing into that ‘nice guy’ crap that cost McCain and Romney their elections. They both ran bad campaigns. Trump is running a good one.

            The DNC has never encountered someone like Trump as an opponent. Their consultant weasels have no idea how to stop him. Just like all the consultant weasels for the other GOP candidates have no idea how to stop them.

      4. One word: Trump.

    4. “And then there’s Hillary’s idiocy about “all sexual assault victims should be believed.””

      Well, not all.

      Only the one’s who weren’t assaulted by her husband should be believed.

      1. She said “victims” not “evil agents of vast right-wing conspiracy”, man.

      2. Hillary was talking about “normals”, not obvious political actions by shadowy conservative groups.

      3. They wrote an $850K check to one of those whom she didn’t believe to keep from going to court against her. That’s a larger settlement than a nusisance case usually seems to get.

        Maybe she wavered a little on that one.

        1. Which one was that?

    5. “And then there’s Hillary’s idiocy about “all sexual assault victims should be believed.”

      My wife is convinced that The Hildebeast has brain damage.

      Someone come up with a better explanation, I dare you.

      1. She’s a lefty. Lefties emote. They don’t resort to logic, reason, or concern themselves with consistency or principles. They emote. She sees the opportunity to resonate with women – she emotes. Somebody goes after her husband, she emotes and attacks them.

        1. And it’s not even actual emotion, because that would require some sort of inner self to react, rather than spaghetti-code narrative programming.

          Instead, it’s like those scenes in Star Trek when Data was trying to imitate some human reaction and it just came off as fake and really uncomfortable.

        2. Hillary isn’t a real prog. She is a complete sociopath that uses progressivism to attain power. As is her husband. She has no real emotions, other than maybe rage when she does;t get what she feels she is owed. Which is everything. This is why she comes off as being so insincere. Because she is. She has zero conviction. If she could be empress for all eternity tomorrow by turning evangelical republican, she would do it.

          Someone recently said (Ed Klein I think) that there are three major political parties i the US. Republicans, democrats, and Clintons. As there are not enough Clinton votes to get elected, they use the democrats as a vehicle for their power. I believe that.

    6. “And then there’s Hillary’s idiocy about ‘all sexual assault victims should be believed.'”

      Except for that one case when she, as a lawyer, got a rapist she claims she knew was guilty found innocent by repeatedly lying and attacking the character of the teenage victim. In that case the victim should not be believed, and the story, when told by Hillary to reporters, is hilarious and worthy of eliciting laughs from Hillary as she recounts that time she got a rapist found innocent.

      1. That is going to show up in an independent ad. The girl has since grown up, and is still ticked off that Hillary slimed her in court.

        1. I really hope she stands up, whoever she is, and gets this add crowdsourced. I would send money for that.

          1. I’d buy that for a dollar!

    7. Obama hates the Clintons.

      1. It’s the only thing he and I agree on.

        1. To be fair, he had on on mic moment where when asked what he thought about Kanye West grabbing the microphone from Taylor Swift. He called him a jackass. I agree with Obama on that too.

        2. Obama also hates Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. So, I think that’s TWO things.

          (don’t tell me you’re a fan of Medusa-the-Snake-haired Congresswoman; I know better).

    8. I can barely believe that the Democrats are going into a presidential election promoting gun control and Syrian immigration.

      Because they know it won’t matter. The Dems have a very big advantage in the Electoral College, and an even bigger advantage from the MSM.
      I am starting to believe that the Dems have a long term lock on the Presidency, while they will continue to lose every other office.
      This is actually good news, as a permanent Republican Congress might decide it’s time to limit the power of a permanent Democrat Executive.

  5. But remember kids, if you tax abortion services gun sellers for the purposes of funding safety studies, it’s perfectly reasonable because everyone knows that a tax is merely there to raise revenue.

  6. There exists not one single reason to trust this lying POS to do other than lie. It’s breathing for him.

  7. “”tomorrow we should do more, and do more the day after that.”

    Libertarians by contrast think Incrementalism is ‘selling out’.

    1. The overtone window has moved steadily to the authoritarian left for decades. There is no incrementalism possible to libertarians unless progressives move the window for them. Libertarians are fellow travelers to progressives on social issues (or, used to be until progressives became fascists). Never does government get smaller – never.

  8. “The game of ratcheting gun laws more and more has no foreseeable end”

    Well, it ends for Obama when he is no longer in office, and it’s especially a good thing in Obama’s eyes that the damage he’s done to our legal gun rights probably won’t be undone.

    It seems unlikely that the next President will reverse an executive order in his or her first term when doing so will open up that President to criticism the first time someone with a mental health issue kills someone else with a legally acquired gun.

    The permanence of the damage Obama has done to our rights makes him the worst President we’ve had since before FDR. certainly can’t think of a better way to rank Presidents than the extent to which they’ve damaged our Constitutional rights.

    1. It seems unlikely that the next President will reverse an executive order in his or her first term when doing so will open up that President to criticism

      Sadly, this is true.

    2. But these particular executive actions aren’t executive orders, so they can be withdrawn quietly.

      1. Yeah, maybe the Democrats won’t bring it up?

        I hope you’re right.

    3. Lord knows president Trump will be deeply worried about criticism.

      1. It terrifies me that this thought came to my mind, too.

      2. Once president, his attitude may well be “I’m president. Don’t like it? Fuck you.”.

  9. I could do without the weeping. I thought we were done with that when the orange man left.

    1. Maybe I missed it but I have yet to hear anyone point out his deadpan, tearless delivery of his addresses after the paris attack and the SB attack or his joking around before his address after the Fort Hood attack.

      1. I don’t remember his response to Fort Hood, but there has been some chatter about how he’s just going through the motions on these statements now.

        1. Of course he is, but it is telling to me that he couldn’t be bothered to even do that before. He can conjure up tears when it helps him politically, but not for actual murder victims.

          1. It was reported that he referred to himself 76 times in his speech today.

            It’s about him, not you and I or the Country.

            I just hate for him that 6 soldiers were killed in December and intruded on his vacay.

  10. So, in the same speech he said ‘tomorrow we should do more’ and ‘this is not a slippery slope’.

    I see.

    Mr. President – Fuck you. No.

    *I leave aside the fact that these unconstitutional new ‘laws’ written and signed by the president actually change nothing. They will not affect the sale or transfer of guns one whit. The answer is still a resounding NO.

    1. I remember Billy Clinton insisting that whatever gun control he was arguing for wasn’t a camel’s nose under the tent. There’s no need to invent new lies, I guess, when the old ones are good.

      1. I like this guy better; “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” – Sen Howard Metzenbaum.

        1. The best politician on guns, though? R. Budd Dwyer, hands down.

          1. Well now I’ll have that crappy Filter song in my head all day. I’d say, “Thanks, dick”, but it’s quite a bit better than the Daniel Tiger theme song that’s been in my head for weeks.

        2. How the hell does someone that honest get elected in America??

  11. Obama doesn’t care about mass murders, he cares about the monopoly on violence. He thinks it’s important that the State be the only entity able to do violence. And from what I can tell, a significant subset of progressive fucks are smart enough to understand this. The whole “gun safety” nonsense feels remarkably cynical to me.

    1. Obama cares about inflicting his personal will on the American people. He feels he’s justified in doing that for a number of reasons, including righting historical wrongs, but in addition to that, he also despises the American people for being racist and capitalist. He hates the American people for who we are, what we do, what we’ve done in the past, and what we want, and he sees himself as justified in inflicting his will on us because he hates us.

      In his mind, if you were a decent person, you’d hate yourself, too.

      1. I hate Warty. Does that count?



    2. “Don’t it make your brown eyes blue?” reporter asked Obama. “Well, yes, yes it does. Particularly when I dice the yellow onions”, Obama replied.

  12. But he cried, man. Obama cried. Doesn’t that count for SOMETHING?

    1. Yeah, Obama crying makes people who never wanted an AR-15 before queue up to buy them.

      SWHC was up 11% today.

      1. Funny how that works (grin). It’s almost as if Obama is a double agent or somethin’ . . .

        1. Honestly, I can’t think of a better way to register disgust with Obama’s order than for people to go out and buy an AR-15 tomorrow.

          You don’t even have to buy the whole thing. I think you can just get the lower for less than a couple hundred bucks.

          1. Obama has been the best thing for gun sales ever.

  13. When the president orders a drone strike that kills a bunch of kids in Sandistan, does he cry for them?

    Or does he only cry for kids who die from something he can use for political points?

    1. No, that was Bush’s fault.

      And let’s never forget that Barack Obama has killed more children than Adam Lanza.

  14. Did you see SWHC today? Up 12%.

    1. Great minds think alike, Juice.

      No one’s done more to put guns in the hands of people who never had them before than Barack Obama.

      Colt and S&W should start putting him and his speeches in their advertising–without comment.

      Just a picture of Obama, the text of his speeches, and their name brand.

      1. *cue scary music* “Buy a gun today… while you still can.”

        1. Not to mention all of the new NRA members . . .

          1. I would argue that joining the NRA is probably the worst way to fight for gun rights. Wayne LaPierre is basically the NRA version of John Boehner…he’s an abrasive asshole who comes off to those who don’t pay attention like he’s pro-gun rights, but the NRA under his leadership hasn’t put up much of a fight for gun rights anywhere. His method of “fighting” is “issue a sternly worded press release and do nothing further”.

            The money that’s given to the NRA via membership dues doesn’t even go towards their political outreach.

            1. Yes, but it drives Obama bat-shit crazy, so I’m signing you up.

              1. I posted before reading this post. =D

            2. Well here is teh thing. You buy NRA memberships for your gun grabbing progressive friends. =)

          2. I know at least three dozen people personally that joined. Never thought most of them would. A few of them don’t even own guns.

      2. Next model change, I suggest they name it “Barry”. (yes, I once worked in the auto industry). Toyota Camry and S&W Barry.

  15. I dislike Mr. Obama as much as most here. But, I think it helps to remember, he’s essentially just a front man. The modern left has essentially been conquered by the authoritarian progressives. He’s not spouting this bullshit to appeal to the country as a whole. He’s trying to appeal to what is the major base within the Democratic party.

    This is why I tend to urge libertarians to look to work with the right (at least where we can without selling out on principle). The left is pretty much captive to the authoritarians.

    1. I’ve never met a Lefty who doesn’t believe in Big Government. Not even on “social issues”. However, the Right can at least be guilted about their flirtation with FDR.

      (And don’t argue with me about this, Matt and Nick. You should have learned after your fiasco with Jared Polis).

      1. I was always skeptical of Polis, but even by my low expectations he really turned out to be a disappointment.

        1. Whatsamatta – you don’t like that on-line school Polis made you enroll in (grin). Next time, remember – No Means No.

          1. Nah, my online schooling has been pretty good…probably because Polis had no hand in any of it. 🙂

            1. He’ll get to yours later, Cupcake . . . 🙂

              1. My school has a popular enough football team that he wouldn’t dare mess with them. 🙂

          2. Next time, remember – No Means No.

            or “Okay” means no. Or “Geez, he looked so much hotter last night…” means no. Or “Ohmigod, my boyfriend wants to get back together with me…” means no.

            1. Or “he gave me crabs”, means no 🙂

      2. Yeah, I understand where a lot of (especially older) libertarians might not tend to get it. For a long time, conservatives were happy to use state power to push traditional morality and social standards. Both progressives and libertarians were opposed. But, libertarians made the mistake of assuming that the progressives were like them in that they didn’t believe the government should be pushing morality or social standards. They weren’t. They were happy to have the government pushing these things. They just wanted their own morality and social standards to be the things being pushed.

        1. Yup. The problem was never really about morality or social standards, no matter who was in charge…it was always about the willingness to use force to push them on other people. And that’s been a problem with both parties.

          1. And that’s been a problem with both parties.

            True. But, I tend to think the facts on the ground have changed such that now, it’s hard to argue that it’s still six of one, half a dozen of the other. Regardless of what some conservatives might want, the government isn’t going to be getting back into the “push traditional values and social standards” business. It is in and is only getting deeper in the “push progressive values and social standards” business. And the right seems to be picking up on the fact that they’ve lost the Kulturkampf. A lot of conservatives are no longer really even giving it all that much lip service. The proggies, on the other hand, only seem to be ramping up their authority boners.

            1. I disagree. Look at the current slate of GOP candidates…every one of them polling in double digits is a social conservative running on some variation of “traditional values”. So are many of the Republicans who won in the states in 2014. So are many of the “Tea Party movement” Republicans (Thomas Massie, a favorite with libertarians, was strongly in favor of Kim Davis’ abuses of power).

              As much as I hate it and wish that the GOP would stay out of social issues, that doesn’t seem to be the way they’re going.

              1. Well let me put it this way

                Who do I have to worry about more attacking me for watching porn, the right or the left?

                Who’s giving us speech codes, the right or the left?

                Which side is getting people fired from their jobs for saying the wrong thing, the right or the left?

                Which side is demanding other people sell them stuff when they don’t want to, the right or the left?

                Which side is pushing to get rid of due process when there is an accusation of rape, the right or the left?

                No, the GOP isn’t staying out of social issues, but when it comes time to pull out the old coercion bat, the GOP isn’t in the left’s league anymore.

                1. Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s AG, was actually quite active in cracking down on legal porn. Not child porn or some weird fetish stuff…he sicced the DOJ on legal porn.

                  The left and the right have forced us to give money to corporations (insurance and car companies under Obama, insurance and banks under Bush). Neither has been a fan of due process when it gets in the way of what they want. I see both as threats.

                  That said, I did agree with Ted Cruz that literally every Republican candidate (including Trump) is more competent to be President than Hillary.

  16. I’ve found that the contemporary definition for the term “common sense”, as employed in political debates, is basically a euphemism for “I’m too lazy or stupid to do any research so I’m going to make a fallacious appeal to perceived popularity”.

    So basically whenever you hear someone make an appeal to “common sense” in a debate, the proper response is call them out on their ignorance and then to treat them like a fucking idiot. It won’t win them over, but then they’re not really interested in hearing facts or logic anyway and the angrier you make them, the more likely they are to actually do some research just to try and discredit you.

    1. Yeah, “common sense policies on XYZ” are just a euphemism for “obviously I am right and only an evil moron could disagree with this.” It is purest noise.

      The funniest thing is that “common sense” apparently changes all the time. In 1967 apparently nobody had any common sense because nobody was suggesting things like magazine size limits. Hell, in Britain up until 1964, there was no legal bar to a convicted felon owning a gun. I guess nobody had any common sense then. And in ten years, “common sense” will tell us something else that nobody is proposing now.

    2. If it really was common sense, then there would be little to no discussion of changing or amending the laws or the Constitution, and no need for politicians to stump on common sense. After all, it’s common sense.

  17. The reason gun rights advocates don’t believe these clowns is because they advocate policies that don’t make sense about a subject of which they’re totally ignorant without even knowing the status quo. And then they call it “common sense”.

    1. Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by (“common to”) nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.


      The existence of common sense itself is something that only an arrogant person incapable of recognizing their own ignorance would accept.

  18. The purpose of all gun controls is reducing freedom, not crime. Otherwise liberals would admit that getting rid of gun-free zones is a good idea. But every little change shifts the Overton Window leftward a bit, bringing closer the day when they can finally prohibit ordinary citizens from owning guns and even confiscate them. (They’re already just one SCOTUS Injustice from eliminating our Second Amendment rights.)

  19. Well that speech was cringe worthy. What an ass.

  20. Enough

    Impeach this charlatan.

    1. He’s The First Black President, didn’t you notice? He’s impossible to impeach without histrionics about “racism!!1” being the real motive.

  21. I miss Bill Clinton: he made himself feel good by getting blow jobs from White House interns; sure, it was sleazy, but it was pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things. Obama, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be able to get his jollies other than by passing useless progressive legislation and expanding the power of the executive branch.

    1. You are aware that Bill Clinton also supports gun control and socialized medicine? HillaryCare? Assault Gun Bans? Paul Begala? Jim Carville?

  22. Again Reason is being very pussy-footed with regards to this. Obama and the rest of the Dems want more gun control and any ratchet will help. If they could operate by executive action then they don’t need to worry about Congressional majorities or popularity since they supposedly have the White House “locked” for the time being.

    1. This is true, Obumbles is a lying sack of shit.

      Though he won’t admit it he and his acolytes won’t admit it there end is to take people’s right to defend themselves. Hildog is even worse than chocolate nixon.

      It’s not even close, they lie, their purpose is to get our guns.

      And the choco nixon is doubling down. Most staist asshole ever to hold the presidency…no brainer. Barry and we thought Booosh was bad. Barry makes BOOOsh look like an amateur

  23. I wonder what his position on “common sense bomb control” was when his pal Ayers was setting them.

    1. I’m sure that also Bush’s fault, somehow.

    2. Obama was still a little kid when Ayers was setting off bombs, so he probably didn’t have much of a position on the subject.

  24. Common sense,… How about guns are used in self-defense 1.9 million times per year. Contrast that with the 8000 murders committed with guns, 230 times as many violent crimes prevented. Not to mention the common sense that some of those 8000 are also legitimate self-defense. Reducing private ownership of guns WILL increase the number of innocent victims, common sense. But that doesn’t make headlines and doesn’t make Mr. Unprecedented more famous. Fuck the hell out of Obama and the circus act he rode in on.

    1. Exactly…this guy is a doofus…that he has been the face of FedGov for 8 years is fucking embarassment.

  25. If we make murder double-illegal then there will only be 50% as many murders.

    Can I have that Nobel Peace Prize cash now?

    1. double SECRET illegal!

  26. Forget guns! I’m worried sick about golf! I don’t know anything about it, but i don’t see why you should be able to carry around 14 clubs in public! CLUBS for god’s sake! And i’m told you can buy them anywhere w/o a background check! COMPLETELY UNREGULATED! & why would you need a huge pocket on the bag full of balls? 2 or 3 should be plenty (in case you lose one). & i’m told alcohol is often involved as well. This looks like a tragedy in the making! ‘Just a matter of time. & they take these clubs to ranges. & to courses, both of which use an immense amount of land & precious water resources to maintain. & when they’re done, they’re out on public streets, all liquored up, with all those CLUBS that are allowed to be transported in an unsecured bag with all those balls in the same bag. Blatantly irresponsible! We need to close the loopholes! Limit the clubs to 1 driver, 1 iron, & 1 putter at a minimum. They can only buy 3 balls/month w/their fingerprint. We just need some common sense regulations!

    1. Nice reply

  27. Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised that this was all Obama had in his arsenal (pun intended). I think this leaves him with an empty chamber for the rest of his term (pun intended). Yeah, it will create government bloat without solving a damn thing; yeah, the mental health aspects are a little worrying. But what I really picked up from this is that the staffers he has dedicated to finding any possible way to get around that pesky Constitution weren’t able to find a single thing he could do that could actually restrict gun ownership on anyone who wasn’t already disallowed from owning a gun.

    1. Yes. Obama, in his zeal has prematurely shot his wad on what was supposed to be a dry run. And now will be left with something of a mess on his hands. Puns intended, and many thanks to that Funke I’ve been hearing about.

  28. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  29. since a person is pretty directly responsible for mass shootings it seems like they should be more controllable than a hurricane or earthquake or something, but that’s how we should think of them

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.