Gun Control

In Gun Sales, Whose Hands Are 'Wrong'?

Obama wants to make it easier for the government to take away people's Second Amendment rights.

|

The new gun controls that President Obama announced on Tuesday include a "clarification" of who is "engaged in the business of selling firearms," the upshot of which is that more gun buyers will be subject to background checks. Obama describes expanding the background check requirement (which Congress has declined to do) as a "commonsense gun safety reform" aimed at "keeping guns out of the wrong hands."

That view presupposes a consensus about whose hands are the wrong hands. Yet if such a consensus exists, it is not based on sound evidence or careful consideration. To the contrary, the government strips people of their Second Amendment rights far too readily, and changes favored by Obama would only compound that injustice.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court finally acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, it cautioned that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." Although that comment seemed to validate the federal ban on gun ownership by anyone who has been convicted of a felony or subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, it is hard to reconcile those lifelong disqualifications with the notion that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental human right to armed self-defense.

This ban is questionable even for people who use guns to commit crimes. After all, someone convicted of fraud or found liable for defamation does not lose his First Amendment right to freedom of speech even temporarily, let alone for the rest of his life.

Even if you think it is fair and reasonable that people convicted of violent felonies are forever forbidden to own firearms, it makes little sense that the rule applies to felonies (such as drug offenses) that may not involve any actual victims, let alone violence. Similarly, why should someone who is involuntarily treated for suicidal impulses permanently lose his Second Amendment rights, especially if the aim is protecting the public from gun violence?

Dubious as those disqualifying criteria are, they at least involve some measure of due process: a guilty plea or proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a felony conviction, "clear and convincing evidence" for civil commitment. But federal law also bans gun ownership by "unlawful user[s]" of controlled substances, including cannabis consumers as well as anyone who takes painkillers, stimulants, sedatives, or sleeping pills prescribed for someone else. It's not clear what evidence is required to disarm people on that basis, although holding a medical marijuana card suffices.

A bill supported by nearly every Democrat in the Senate and cosponsored by more than 90 Democrats in the House—including many self-identified civil libertarians—would make it even easier to take away someone's Second Amendment rights. The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act gives the attorney general essentially unlimited power to block gun sales, provided he "determines" that the buyers are "appropriately suspected" of involvement in terrorism and "has a reasonable belief" that they "may" use the firearms "in connection with terrorism."

If a blocked gun buyer challenges the attorney general's decision, the government need only show it is more likely than not that the statutory requirements were met. If there is, say, a 30 percent chance that a reasonable suspicion is correct, this standard would amount to slightly more than a 15 percent chance that an appellant is a terrorist. Furthermore, the government could avoid showing the appellant evidence against him by claiming that doing so would jeopardize national security.

Last month Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who not long ago received the highest possible rating from the American Civil Liberties Union, defended this bill in an interview with The Washington Post's Greg Sargent. If you want to keep your constitutional rights, Thompson said, you just have to "show you're not a problem." In other words, your hands are presumed wrong until proven right.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: North Korea Claims It Just Detonated a Hydrogen Bomb For the First Time

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …it is hard to reconcile those lifelong disqualifications with the notion that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental human right to armed self-defense.

    Since when have those nine lifetime-appointed lawyers in black robes unconditionally upheld fundamental, constitutionally-protected rights against legislative or executive incursion? Deference is the name of the game at the Supreme Court, deference to either the other branches or the justices’ own ideological whims. The Constitution isn’t even a distant third.

    1. Well,they stood up to Wilson and F.D.R ,what,they didn’t? Never mind

      1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

        Clik This Link inYour Browser….

        ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

  2. Impeach this charlatan and tie him up in knots until his awful term is over.

  3. I’m sure everyone here would be deemed a possible ‘terrorist’. Warty won’t stand a chance

  4. But it’s for our own good. /sarc

    I wonder if firearm sales will be high today.

  5. I support free speech, but I’m also willing to recognize that we need common sense speech control to keep us safe from mass-hate-speechings.

    Does anybody really need to have more than 8 words in a single sentence?

    Why are people allowed to use assault style split infinitives to rudely argue with others?

    Can’t all responsible orifice owners agree that they should safely secure their mouths with a ball-gag?

    1. They’ve been doing ‘common sense’ property rights control for years.Look how that turned out.

    2. Our Universities are already indoctrinating kids into believing that some speech is dangerous and should not be spoken and even prosecuted. Its just the opening salvo that will be completed once they get rid of the 2nd.

  6. Upshot? What’s the fuckin’ upshot of more people being subjected government intrusion into what ought to be a private transaction? Sweet fuckin flying spaghetti monster Sullum, stop with the cranial rectal inversion.

  7. If these common sense regulations had been put in place just four years ago, Sandy Hook, Colorado, and San Bernadino would…….still have happened? Wait, what?

    1. Actual response I received when I brought that up: “Are you serious? You CANNOT be telling me that you think just because background checks wouldn’t have prevented any mass shootings that we shouldn’t have them!!”

      This is the point at which I just walked away.

      1. That must’ve been a depressing conversation.

        1. Conversation or failed conversion?

  8. If the Republicans really wanted to play the “gotcha!” game, they would sponsor a bill to deny voting rights to those on the terrorist watchlist. I mean, you don’t want terrorists voting, do you? Do terrorists really NEED to vote??

  9. Again, just ask any one of these fucking idiots this question. What proposal would have prevented Sandy Hook, Colorado, San Bernadino, Arizona, etc? There won’t be a response and you will have won…..nothing because they are fucking idiots.

    1. “What proposal would have prevented Sandy Hook, Colorado, San Bernadino, Arizona, etc?”

      They would probably admit that none of the proposed laws would have prevented it (while maintaining that they are still necessary because “we have to try” and “if it saves just one child’s life…”)

      They would then insist that we need even tougher laws, all the while denying that any politician in America would ever dream of confiscating a single gun from anyone and insisting that their laws would somehow prevent any deranged person from obtaining a firearm but not inconvenience lawful gun owners in the process.

      1. Damn it. You’re right. That is what is so infuriating with them.

        1. It IS quite frustrating. Someone on this comment section (whose name I don’t remember) said, “arguing with progressives is like playing chess with a pigeon – no matter how well you do, they’re just going to shit on the board and strut around like they won.”

      2. These are people who argue that federally-mandated background checks on private sales would reduce gun crime. You know, just like it has in cities where that’s already the state law, like Baltimore, Chicago, DC, LA, NYC…

  10. Here’s the problem. You can’t have a civil discussion about gun rights with Progressives because on a fundamental level they believe that facts, principles, reason, and logic are all sideshows to the really important thing, which is Making Laws to Do What Feels Right. Hell, you can even catch them unawares and accidentally get them to talk rationally about a topic, but once you blow their particular dog whistle they get hysterical. It’s like talking to someone who’s been brainwashed.

    And this is why I’m stockpiling ammo, and buying guns as fast as I can afford to, and trying to–within the bounds of the law–do it in such a way that I stay under the radar as much as possible. Because, and I believe this sincerely, the number of “common sense gun control” advocates who aren’t just using the discussion as a smokescreen for their ultimate goal of confiscation can fit on the head of a pin. That’s why they don’t care about statistics, or causal relationships, or individual rights, or knowing what the current laws are, or the difference between single and double action, or anything else. It’s irrelevant. We’re arguing about which farm we’re going to send Fido off to “live”, only we’re the kids who actually think he’ll get to spend his days cavorting with ponies.

    1. I’ve heard Chris Mathews say on his show he wants to bad all had guns.His reason is they are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. At least he’s honest.I’m sure Obama and his followers feel the same,they just won’t say the words.

      1. I love that argument. As if waving a magic wand will make all guns vanish, and, lacking guns, nobody will commit any kind of violence against anyone else. Just like before firearms were invented.

        1. He doesn’t mean the agents of the state of course.We know how well that’s worked in history,going back to banning commoners from owning swords in the middle ages.

          1. Oh, of course not. Everyone knows that part of LEO training is the injection of special goodguy serum, so you never have to worry about government agents doing bad things with weapons.

            1. “so you never have to worry about government agents doing bad things with weapons.”

              Cops are evil, trigger-happy racists some of the time. Other times, they’re calm, level-headed professionals who only use their expert firearm skills when absolutely necessary. Switch as necessary to protect the narrative.

              1. I know and have hunted with some sheriffs here,I can out shoot them all.One even asked if I slept with my gun.

              2. I know and have hunted with some sheriffs here,I can out shoot them all.One even asked if I slept with my gun.

                1. Damn tree rats

                2. “I know and have hunted with some sheriffs here,I can out shoot them all.One even asked if I slept with my gun.”

                  WAR ON COPS!!!!1111

                  1. I am Shiva,destroyer the Destroyer,shatter of worlds.

      2. No ban on civilian guns would work,because government would alway shave guns,and they lose them,a lot.

        FEDGOV is “missing” several thousand of their guns,some being full-auto machine guns. that does not include US military arms losses. Then state and local law enforcement have guns stolen from their vehicles frequently. Former Orlando POLICE CHIEF Val Demings had her service handgun stolen from her unmarked SUV in 2009,and years later,it still hasn’t been recovered. OPD has “lost” 2 AR-15 kits,and had 2 machine guns stolen from vehicles.
        Post-9-11,several armed Federal employees have LEFT their loaded handguns on commercial air flights and deplaned,the guns being discovered by other passengers. One guy in Alabama stole rifles (real assault rifles,select-fire) and grenades from Anniston Army Depot.
        guns will ALWAYS be available to those who really want them.

    2. Making Laws to Do What Feels Right

      Unless having drunk sex feels right … That’s also bad for the feels.

  11. Something in his speech yesterday I haven’t heard anybody address..

    He said that 30% of the people who visited a particular website to buy guns (he didn’t name it, I assume it’s Armslist.com) were people with criminal backgrounds. How do they know that if they aren’t already spying on and tracking gun owners?

    Assholes

    1. Tell a lie often and with force,that’s his game plan.

    2. that may be but thats probably just so the criminals can find the market value of their stolen goods.

    3. What he apparently said was this: “A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records — one out of 30 had a criminal record.”

      The most glaring thing to me was that he cites some unspecified study of an unspecified website while providing no methodology or sample size whatsoever. I notice that progressives are quick to question, attack, and (attempt to) discredit the source of any study that conflicts with their narrative, and this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s very telling that most of them will swallow this line hook, line, and sinker.

  12. President Obama’s attempt to expand background checks is understandable and logical. It doesn’t significantly impact anyone’s 2nd amendment rights. Maybe it would help reduce gun violence, maybe not. It is a reasonable experiment worth trying.

    Of course, if the NRA, gun advocates and gun makers had not all successfully blocked federal gun violence research funding since the 1996 ( http://thehill.com/policy/fina…..e-research ), we might already have the data needed to determine if what Obama wants to do would help or not. The amazing, irrational reaction to anything Obama wants to do is astonishing. In terms of guns, all he has done with guns until now is expand gun rights ( http://www.businessinsider.com…..ed-2012-12 ).

    Oh well, when it comes to conservative politics (a liberal politics to a lesser extent), personal ideology crushes unbiased fact and unbiased logic into oblivion. Reality is irrelevant when personal ideological fantasy feels so much better. That’s just a routine example of the human mind processing reality into political fantasy. Its just good ‘ole gas and vapor politics as usual.

    1. President Obama’s attempt to expand background checks is understandable and logical. It doesn’t significantly impact anyone’s 2nd amendment rights. Maybe it would help reduce gun violence, maybe not. It is a reasonable experiment worth trying.

      Your assertions are just that: assertions.

      Your second paragraph is full of lies. And your third paragraph evidences some epic projection.

      Try harder.

    2. My response is as follows yes it does,no it won’t,no it’s not,no they haven’t,and having a armed citizenry is the best defense against a dictatorship.

    3. Oh, and your “do something” stance is an ideology all on its own. You may not care about armed self defense, but most of us do. And it’s a good thing you have liberty-minded people around who are willing to defend the freedoms you value. It would be nice if you and other progressives would return the favor, but alas it is in your nature to tell others how to live.

      My right to own a firearm has killed exactly zero people. Meanwhile, Obama has murdered hundreds of innocents with drone strikes. You, of course, give him a pass. My, what a privilege it is to be the most powerful man in the world.

    4. Liar gun violence research is done by the Federal government all the time. its just not allowed to advocate one way or the other and you should be thankful for that law in fact the federal government should not be allowed to advocate for anything or allowed to give money to any one who does advocate because no one can compete with the government and all governments end up oppressing someone.

    5. “It doesn’t significantly impact anyone’s 2nd amendment rights. Maybe it would help reduce gun violence, maybe not. It is a reasonable experiment worth trying.”

      Making Muslims register in a government database does not significantly impact their 4th amendment rights. Maybe it would help reduce terrorism; maybe not. It’s a reasonable experiment worth trying.

      Requiring voter ID does not significantly impact voting rights. Maybe it would help reduce voter fraud; maybe not. It’s a reasonable experiment worth trying.

      Do you see why it’s a bad idea to make legislation of uncertain effectiveness with a huge potential for abuse based on the supposition that the infringements of rights are not “significant” and simply claiming that it’s “worth trying”?

    6. Whether what Obama wants to do would help or not is irrelevant. Whether it infringes on the rights of Americans is what matters here. Presidents are not elected to legislate. And you must admit Obama is a lying screw up…

    7. Trolls gotta troll.

    8. “The amazing, irrational reaction to anything Obama wants to do is astonishing. In terms of guns, all he has done with guns until now is expand gun rights”

      He has not signed any gun control bills into law BECAUSE Congress, which he often lambasts for “doing nothing” and “obstructing” efforts to impose gun control, has not sent any bills to his desk. You really can’t say that he’s a big buddy of the 2A when he constantly expresses support for “assault weapon” bans, mag limits, bans on private transfers, and even barring those on the arbitrary terrorist watch list from buying guns. Add to this the fact that he has put into action numerous executive orders that are as far-reaching as he thinks he can get away with.

      In short – the fact that someone has been mostly unsuccessful in doing something does not mean that they have no intention of doing it, or that such attempts won’t be successful in the future.

    9. Given that the proposed background check expansion would not have affected any of the mass shootings referenced by the President or supporters, please explain how it’s a logical response.

      And before you abrogate my rights in order to conduct an irrational, ill-conceived social experiment let me save you some time. There isn’t a correlation between background checks on private sales and gun murders, nor seemingly between reported rates of gun ownership and gun murders. The strongest correlation would appear to exist between population density and gun murders. Here’s a chart: Wikipedia: Gun violence in the United States by state. Those are FBI statistics, incidentally, which seem like they ought to be not too biased against the government and certainly funded by tax dollars.

    10. Oh, and incidentally, you know what’s really ironic about Obama, the first black President?, advocating the expansion of background checks and heavier regulation of gun ownership? A lot of the existing gun regulations that pertain to carry laws, background checks, and various handgun purchase permits originated with Jim Crow as ways to prevent African Americans from obtaining guns. As one of the favorite pastimes of the KKK was camping out at polling places with rifles, shotguns, and pistols in order to intimidate blacks and prevent them from voting, these laws had a direct political impact and had a lot to do with the preservation of segregation laws.

      But since the government doesn’t do anything bad any more I’m sure it’ll be fine.

    11. Regarding the ban on research, it banned research being funded by the Centers for Disease Control. The FBI still collects crime statistics.

      1. This. The progressives go on and on about CDC researching gun violence. Violence isn’t a disease it’s part of the human condition. The problem is that the FBI statistics paint a picture that doesn’t follow their agenda: gun violence is down, most gun deaths are suicice, and other forms of violence are more prevalent ways to die than a firearm.

        I mean, let’s ban cars because some people drive distracted or drunk. If we had less cars and limited the access to certain types of cars … The children!

    12. President Obama’s attempt to expand background checks is understandable and logical. It doesn’t significantly impact anyone’s 2nd amendment rights. Maybe it would help reduce gun violence, maybe not. It is a reasonable experiment worth trying.

      I’m sorry, but what is “reasonable” about a national database that contains everything from past mental health issues to whether someone put you on an FBI watch list, accessible to anyone who wants to “run a background check”?

      The main problem with Obama’s bullshit isn’t so much that it doesn’t work or that it makes it harder for people to get guns, it is that it is a massive invasion of privacy, just like his health care, immigration, and financial “protection” legislation. There apparently isn’t a problem that Obama doesn’t want to fix by intruding into our most personal lives.

    13. Nobody blocked Federal gun violence research. FBI does it,DOJ does it. it’s part of their job.
      But we DID block having the Center for Disease Control doing it,because their purpose is to work on DISEASES,health issues,not criminology. Their premise that gun violence is a HEALTH problem is ridiculous. The budget to CDC is for HEALTH research,not criminology. If they spend money on that,they need to have their budget cut.

      Comrade Obama has NOT “expanded gun rights”,SCOTUS has,after lawsuits were brought all the way through the lower courts. The bills passed by Congress that Comrade Obama signed,had items in them that he wanted,so he signed them,not because he wanted to expand gun rights. Or he knew they would override his veto.

    14. ” we might already have the data needed to determine if what Obama wants to do would help or not. ”
      We do, it wouldn’t. Thank you for playing.

  13. Based on everything I have read, “hands” definitely seem to be the problem.

  14. As the commentariat troll above illustrates, the statists control the narrative and the people who respect their rights and the rights of others are in the position of defense. Contrary to Aanold’s claim that the best defense is DEfense, I believe there needs to be a concerted effort to go on offense. Start by promoting law suits in every jurisdiction that challenges ALL laws that infringe on a citizen’s right own, purchase, sell and carry as many weapons as they choose. Then promote legislation in every legislature to repeal all firearms laws regarding ownership and carry. Pound them and keep pounding. When we let the gun-phobes control the narrative we lose, all citizens lose in some unconstitutional way, and our members of congress who believe in the 2nd Amendment should stop worrying what the liberal media will say about them.
    We waste our breath trying to come up with counter arguments to fools who don’t respect civil and human rights except the ones they like.

    1. Anti-gunners refuse to argue in good faith. See here:

      http://tinyurl.com/je7fnh6

      1. Haha, wow. I don’t use social media, but if I saw that posted, I would ask them what the big problem is with owning dildos. The typical dildo owner is either a gay man or a woman who wants to take care of her sexual needs without a man in her life. What’s their big problem with either of those two categories?

        Actually, I can think of a lot of similarities between guns and dildos:
        – They both allow a person to take care of a basic need by themselves (self-defense or sexual urges)
        – It’s nobody’s place to tell another person that they cannot own one
        – Some people own just one for a utilitarian purpose; others like to collect dozens and show them off to other hobbyists, or maybe even share and trade them
        – Statistically, they are extremely unlikely to be used for any unlawful purpose, so it’s not fair to demonize and punish every single person who owns one

      2. Eeeugh, is that an SKS with a composite stock?! Blech! Keep that shit wood, son!

    2. It’s Progressivism. Progressivism is an ideology concerned solely with outcomes to the exclusion of principles. It’s all about emotions, doing what feels good in each situation (and considering each situation in isolation), and not worrying about stuff like consistency, first principles, or consequences. Progressives see conservatives and libertarians at best as absolutists and merciless ideologues, and they get really, really uncomfortable to the point of hostility when they’re engaged in debate because they’re completely unequipped to have a reasoned, dispassionate debate. In fact, they see rationalism as somewhere between naive and immoral.

      The one consistent theme in Progressivism is the moral supremacy of the state. If there’s a first principle of Progressivism, it’s that people require the guidance of the state in order to behave morally.

      So it’s not even that they’re consciously lying about guns in order to get their way, although some certainly are. It’s just that they don’t believe facts or logical consequences are even relevant when the idea of banning civilian gun ownership just feels so damn right.

  15. 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…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

    1. Are you selling guns online without doing background checks?

  16. Of course the left will say ‘if you oppose this E.O. then you WANT crazy people to have guns’. Don’t let them spin that lie.

    I oppose a President usurping the power of Congress and attempting to modify or write a law. That’s not his job. He doesn’t have the authority.

    If his ideas are sound and Constitutional, then let them run the correct process through the house/senate. As I understand it, this order puts a lot of power into the hands government to decide who should or should not have a gun. If there is a way to restrict crazy people from getting guns, that did not hinder the rest of us, or involve us being placed under the Government microscope, I’d like to see it. I don’t want the government to have a database of every “legal” gun and owner, while gangs, thugs and terrorists can get illegal weapons into the US with ease.

  17. I noticed that in Obama’s recent speech about gun control, he threw out the “90% of Americans support this” line again. I just wanted to call that out for what it is: a distortion of the truth, if not an outright lie.

    That figure came from this poll:
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news…..aseID=2057

    … And specifically, this question:
    “59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” (92% answered “support”)

    Looking at that question, it might seem like Obama is right. But like every study, the wording is important. Would the results have been the same if it said “do you support creating a national registry of all gun owners in order to make universal background checks possible?”

    Also, consider that many non-gun owners (who are not familiar with the gun purchasing process) think that we have no background checks at all from TV, movies, and political speeches.

    Finally, just because someone approved of “background checks for all gun buyers” does not mean that they support the bill that Obama was referencing. Obama has taken the question and twisted it into, “do you support the law currently proposed to mandate background checks for private gun sellers?” I’ve even seen some of his speeches where he blurs the line between approval for background checks and approval for mag limits and “assault weapon” bans.

    1. Would the results have been the same if it said “do you support creating a national registry of all gun owners in order to make universal background checks possible?”

      More importantly: “Would you support creating a national database of all mental conditions of all Americans, accessible easily over the Internet?” That’s what he is really doing.

  18. Mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin..

    Deceptive Transformation: The Truth of Soviet Influence in America and Gun Control..

    The idea of using mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin, and the social sciences, or the studying of human behavior has its roots in early twentieth century Russia when Ivan Pavlov developed his “classical conditioning” theories. In fact, Pavlov was disturbed that Vladimir Lenin would use these conditioning methods against the people in order to get them to accept communism. Since that time the social sciences have been used as a means of maintaining control over populations and getting them to accept their own down fall. This is happening today in the United States as our universities and public schools have long ago adopted educational techniques based on the social sciences and classical conditioning methods. Subjects like White Privilege and Multiculturalism are used to demoralize our population, create a guilt consciousness and silence us into accepting a new agenda based on the idea that we have been unfair, and our lifestyles are oppressive, and offensive to others.

    Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

    Freedomoutpost

    1. This agenda dates back to the early twentieth century; however, it saw some of its most major advances in the mid 1900’s after the U.N. was created in 1945. While many people today view the Democrat Party as being made mostly of communists or socialists; the sad truth is that the Republican Party is just as responsible for what we are seeing in education and culture in the United States today.

      As I wrote in “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education,” Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, two presidents that were considered American Patriots, actually signed agreements with the Soviet Union that gave them influence over U.S. education, culture, scientific and technological research, radio, television and finally, medicine. This is according to U.S. Department of Education whistle blower, Charlotte Iserbyt. It is the area of medicine that should draw your attention because as mentioned earlier, Soviet medicine revolved around the idea of mental health, and classifying people that were opposed to communist objectives as being mentally ill. This is where the Surgeon General’s claims about banning guns being a part of medicine comes from. Slowly but surely, they will work to associate gun ownership with mental illness. From the 45 goals of the Communist Party USA

      1. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

        (Note: Many websites are now appearing claiming this list of communist goals to be a hoax. If you read them for yourself you will see many have been accomplished and that they bear a striking resemblance to many things currently happening in the U.S. The claims that they are a hoax could be a deliberate misinformation campaign headed by the Information Regulatory Affairs office led by none other than Cass Sunstein. Just looking at the state of our society, it is clear that these goals are not a hoax.)
        While the move for an Article Five Convention seems to be gaining momentum, you should take heed. There is another constitution waiting in the winds and it won’t protect your rights to keep and bear arms.

        Freedomoutpost

  19. Impossible: rights can’t be stripped, they can only be violated or respected.

  20. “…including many self-identified civil libertarians…”

    No such animal exists. Those sorts of Democrat have been extinct now for about 15 years.

    1. Key concept: “self-identified”
      I’m can identify as a fucking orc if I want to.

  21. If you like your Constitutional rights, you can keep your Constitutional rights.

  22. The great Obama knows best what is or isn’t good for you. Don’t presume to question your betters. Complaints about your rights as a citizen being trashed will not be entertained, you ignorant boob.

  23. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  24. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  25. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  26. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  27. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  28. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  29. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.