Gun Control

6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns

The president's townhall and New York Times op-ed piece illustrate his slipperiness.

|

CNN

During last night's CNN "townhall" on "Guns in America," President Obama ruefully noted that "I've been very good for gun manufacturers," because fear of new firearm restrictions under his administration has repeatedly driven up sales. Yet he expressed dismay at Second Amendment supporters who do not trust him on this issue, who buy into the "imaginary fiction in which Obama's trying to take away your guns." At the same time, he demonstrated, both in his comments during the CNN special and in a New York Times op-ed piece published the same day, why he is not trustworthy. Here are six reasons:

1. The mass shooting bait and switch. As he did in his speech on Tuesday, Obama last night repeatedly invoked mass shootings to justify policies that would not have prevented them. He presented "sensible background checks" as a way to make sure that families "don't have to go through what the families at Newtown or San Bernardino or Charleston went through." But in those and the other recent mass shootings—as the surprisingly skeptical moderator, Anderson Cooper, pointed out—"none of the guns were purchased from an unlicensed dealer." That means background checks were performed and demonstrably did not stop the shootings. Obama himself conceded that "the young man who killed those kids in Newtown, he didn't have a criminal record, and so we didn't know ahead of time, necessarily, that he was going to do something like that." Given this reality, offering background checks as a solution to mass shootings is patently dishonest.

2. The argument from emotion. As I noted on Wednesday, Obama's policy proposals are all about showing that his heart is in the right place, which is why he so easily shrugs off questions about whether they would actually work. The implication is that people who oppose his proposals simply do not care, or at least do not care enough. In his New York Times essay, he appeals to "the vast majority of responsible gun owners" who "support common-sense gun safety" because they "grieve with us after every mass shooting." You either grieve with us, or you're against us. If you feel bad about murdered children, you have no choice but to support Obama's gun control agenda. A CNN survey suggests that focusing on intentions rather than results can be an effective strategy: While "67% of those asked [said] they favor the changes" Obama unveiled this week, "57% of those polled also said that the measures would not be effective in reducing the number of people killed by guns."

3. The false crisis. "The epidemic of gun violence in our country is a crisis," Obama declares in the opening line of his op-ed piece. But as he was forced to admit at the townhall, the murder rate in this country has reached historically low levels after declining for years. "Every year," he writes, "more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns." But as he mentioned during the townhall, two-thirds of the "30,000 deaths due to gun violence" are suicides. If the "gun violence" problem consists mainly of people taking their own lives, why does Obama keep talking about mass shootings, which account for a tiny percentage of homicides and an even smaller share of gun-related deaths? Presumably because they are scary and get a lot of attention. Yet the gun control solutions he proposes have nothing to do with mass shootings and little to do with preventing suicides, except to the extent that people who kill themselves have previously undergone court-ordered psychiatric treatment.

4. Cost blindness. In the Times, referring to the gun-related "executive actions" he announced on Tuesday, Obama says, "These actions won't prevent every act of violence, or save every life—but if even one life is spared, they will be well worth the effort." This formulation completely overlooks the other side of the ledger, which includes not just the dollars spent (money that potentially could save more lives if it were spent on something else) but the burdens imposed on law-abiding gun owners and on Americans unjustly deprived of their constitutional rights by expanded background checks.

5. Skepticism of armed self-defense. "I respect people who want a gun for self-protection," Obama claimed during the townhall, but that clearly is not true. Later, in response to a rape victim who keeps a gun at home to protect herself and her family, he questioned the value of keeping a gun at home to protect yourself and your family. "There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence," he said, warning that "there's always the possibility that that firearm in a home leads to a tragic accident." He conceded that "there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant" but claimed "what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves." On balance, in other words, owning a gun for self-protection—a right at the core of the Second Amendment, as recognized by the Supreme Court—is a bad idea, and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

6. Support for gun bans. Obama supported Chicago's handgun ban, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2010, and claimed it was consistent with the Second Amendment. He favors a new, broader federal ban on so-called assault weapons, although he does not seem to know what they are. Last night he said the Newtown massacre would have been less lethal if its perpetrator had not been able to obtain "a semiautomatic," an observation that suggests he joins New York Times columnist Gail Collins in supporting a ban on a category of firearms that includes many hunting rifles and almost all modern handguns aside from revolvers (which Collins claims "are totally inappropriate for either hunting or home defense"). And as Cooper pointed out, Obama admires Australian-style gun control, which features mass confiscation of guns and tight restrictions that would be clearly unconstitutional in this country.

If the idea that "Obama's trying to take away your guns" is an "imaginary fiction," it's not because he does not want to take away your guns. It's because political and legal realities prevent him from doing so. But for anyone who cares about the right to armed self-defense, the understanding that Obama does not like guns and reads the Second Amendment so narrowly that it has no practical meaning colors everything he does or proposes in this area. When he talks about "universal background checks," for example, you have to wonder how that requirement could be enforced without a national gun registry, a prerequisite for the sort of mass confiscation that Obama has repeatedly praised. That's not paranoia; that's logic.

NEXT: California Poverty Plan Offers a Wealth of Bad Ideas

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. 3:24am? Taking Friday off Jacob? 😉

    1. It’s the PM PM Links, they get to catch the people who work second shifts, and maybe Agile Cyborg.

  2. “You either grieve with us, or you’re against us.”

    This is a terrible rhetorical device that Obama has used countless times. It’s divisive and ignorant. Remember his “no red America, no blue America, just the United States of America”? Who the fuck thinks this is leadership?

    1. Hell,it always used by the left.Don’t want to raise taxes,you want old people to die and children to starve.Think the E.P.A. needs reined in,your for dirty air and water.It’s the go to in their play book.’Why do you hate the children’?

    2. The beautiful thing about Obama’s presidency is all the racial healing it has produced.

      1. More like a torn off scab.

        1. You forgot the part where salt is rubbed on the previously scabbed flesh. With sandpaper.

          1. A wire brush works better than sandpaper.

      2. If this is health, I’d hate to see what sickness is.

    3. The other day when referring to how gun-grabbers have to be patient and that they will prevail in time, Obama referenced the vote for women, the vote for black men, and gay marriage. The people who have “opposed” all these things to the liberal mind are universally “evil, white men, who fear others.” Nice divisiveness from the great bridge builder.
      This is a rhetorical battle to change the mentality of the culture and it has been working for decades. People in significant proportion believe we need MORE background checks for firearms. I encourage everyone who hasn’t done so to go through the process of purchasing a firearm and experience for themselves how intrusive and insulting it is. We don’t need more intrusion into the exercise of a fundamental right. Even if you abhor firearms, allowing the state to perpetuate it’s power over all our fundamental rights is a threat to all those freedoms . . . yours included. When you cede authority to the state to infringe on my gun rights, you encourage them to shit on others, and sadly most citizens today are woefully unaware they even have natural and civil rights.

      1. Obama referenced the vote for women, the vote for black men, and gay marriage.

        I suppose he didn’t notice that those were all political movements to increase individual freedom, whereas gun control seeks to limit individual freedom.

        1. Gay marriage is in no way about increasing individual freedom. It’s all about using it to destroy religious freedom and strangle freedom of association.

          1. Suicidy… that kind of assertion just astounds me.
            I can not conceive of ever coming to a less rational conclusion, and it startles me that so many other people seem to have no trouble making such an illogical, emotional jump.
            Gay marriage does not Take Away Anyone’s Religious Freedom or Strangle their Freedom of Association”!
            Gay marriage, in fact, ENABLES Freedom of Association which you apparently oppose, and the only religious effects of gay marriage tend to be The Freedom To Marry without Religious Constraints or Limitations (or, in other words, Freedom FROM Religion.)
            I hope some day you can see the fallacies in your ‘logic.’

            1. I think it would have been more accurate if he had said the “gay marriage ‘movement’ is in no way…”. For that I agree completely.

              If it had only been a question of personal freedom, same-sex ‘marriages’ would have been legal 20 years ago during the Clinton Administration. There was progress then, but it was squashed because it was going in the direction of civil unions. Few would have argued against civil unions and it would never have been a wedge issue. and thus unacceptable to the “movement” as it couldn’t be a level for social change.
              Listen close to the rhetoric and observe the legal actions and it becomes obvious that the “gay marriage movement” is focused on bringing low conservative Christians far more than it is about providing fair rights for gay couples. I think there is an argument to be bad that gay couples have suffered greatly because of the hijacking of the gay marriage movement by activists.

              I’ve always support equal rights under the law and am nothing but happy for gay friends who can revel in the state of legal marriage, but the movement has been hijacked by twisted evil aholes and it should be recognized as such.

        2. Guns aren’t a civil right that’s based on what group or category you belong to, so it’s not a right that progressives like Obama recognize.

    4. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

      1. Obama is too much of a pussy to be a Sith.

        1. Yeah, he’s no Paltpatine.

          More of a Jar Jar Binks?

          1. Hillary is closer to being Palpatine.

            1. On further consideration, if Hillary ascends to the White House, does she become Darth Cunt?

              1. Lol and what might we call Bill in such a situation?

  3. Well,I’m up,just having my first cup of coffee and I see the liar in chief right off. The goal is to ban semi autos and most,if not all ,hand guns.Always has been.Still,you’d think a person protected by armed men 24\7 would know better.Of course,those same armed men,and other like them ,would be enforcing any laws and bans this idiot wants.

    1. Always has been.Still,you’d think a person protected by armed men 24\7 would know better.

      Oh, but those armed men are trained agents of the State. You know, the only people qualified to handle firearms. Top. Men. IOW.

      And their job is to protect your “betters”. You don’t need protection, either through self defense or armed body guards because you’re just a peon. /sarc

      1. Anytime an “elite” steps up to a podium, while surrounded by armed guards, to tell you how you don’t need a gun for self-protection, you can only come away with one impression, regardless of the content of their message. That is, that they truly believe only people they deem of value are entitled to protection, and you do not qualify.

        1. And yet, those elites do not have have an idea…

          1. But why is it that, being a trained agent of the state, when I don’t have my uniform on I can no longer be trusted to carry the same grade of firepower that I do while in uniform? I am the same person in either case. Much of my conduct even out of uniform is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice – so why am I dis-armed? Why should such a distinction be made?

            And in fact, any other able-bodied person is only a few weeks away from being a similarly trained agent of the state. The change doesn’t involve any really significant change to that person. And as far as US Code is concerned all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 (and up to 60 for veterans) are members of the militia – so really should be allowed access to similar weapons.

  4. Obama has repeatedly praised Australia’s gun control, which included gun confiscation.

    Then he turned he turned around and complained that the NRA was stoking paranoid theories that wants to wants to confiscate all guns.

    1. I’m just gonna go full Canadian, I went out duck hunting and dropped my shotgun in a lake. Whoops. That happens sometimes.

        1. I’m not your buddy, pal.

          1. He’s not your pal, guy.

            1. I’m not your guy, friend.

              1. Can’t we all just get along?

                1. OK, the bit has gone long enough.

                  1. Chomping at the bit, eh?

                    1. He’s not your A, B.

        2. Hey hoser, go get me some back bacon and beer while I roll my own.

    2. Even this is completely dishonest. There are still a lot of guns in Australia. The mandatory buybacks only netted a small estimated percentage of the privately held arms.

      Then, the circumstances of the ban are also dishonest. Australia is not the US, the social makeup of the nation is different, the problems are different. Obama thinks the problem with Chicago is guns coming from Indiana? How about the fact that violent criminal gangs run the streets of many Chicago neighborhoods? Most of our major cities (particularly the progressive run ones) have violent street gangs that account for or contribute to the environment of violence. Australia never had a crime problem like we have. Yet, after the ban, crime rates rose, across the board, including violent crime involving guns. Many of the crime rates in Australia are at or above where they were pre-ban. (Despite the fact that their crime rates were falling before the ban.)

      The US doesn’t have a gun violence problem, the US has a violent crime problem. There is every reason to believe that violent crime will rise with the removal of privately owned arms. Worse yet, the prosecutions for using arms in legitimate self-defense. Privately held arms contribute to legitimate acts of self-defense between 1.2 and 1.9 million times per year. Is it reasonable to assume that some of those will become victims? Is it reasonable to surmise that the murders involving guns will rise?

      1. “The US doesn’t have a gun violence problem, the US has a violent crime problem.”

        What violent crime problem?

        1. There’s only room in this town for one Hercules impersonator, and I have better hair.

          *Menacing closeup shot before commercial break*

        2. Exactly.

          The media has created this monstrosity by framing the discussion where they choose.

        3. What violent crime problem?
          … the one where a majority of the citizens appear to DEMAND a Perfectly Safe Environment Under ALL Conditions and Situations All The Time.
          I think it started with seat belts and 5 mph bumpers and ramped up from there to include Everything That Is Remotely Hazardous.

      2. the US doesn’t have a violent crime problem….it has a racial problem.

        Gun crime and violent crime is so disproportionately skewed toward inner-city black neighborhoods that it’s become a sick twisted joke. Black leaders are unable to fix it. White leaders won’t touch it because anything bad will label them a racist. Cops avoid the areas because anything they do will either label them a race-traitor or a white racist.
        Obama had the ability to make headway on this. To break through barriers and use the gravitas of the office to find a solution to problems. But he squandered that like the utter loser that he is and is trying to save face by blaming the catch-all of urban lefty causes….guns.

    3. “Obama has repeatedly praised Australia’s gun control, which included gun confiscation. Then he turned he turned around and complained that the NRA was stoking paranoid theories that wants to wants to confiscate all guns.”

      Next time I hear a leftist throw out the “nobody wants to take your guns away” line, I’m going to say this:

      “I respect women’s rights and everything, but I think we should be more like Saudi Arabia. They’ve put some wonderful common-sense laws in place that really ensure harmony between the genders. We can learn a great deal from Saudi Arabia.”

      “I respect gay rights and everything, but I think we should be more like Uganda. They’ve done a great job of balancing the scourge of homosexuality with the rights of heterosexuals. It makes me sad that we can’t be more like Uganda.”

  5. The simple answer is that Obama is untrustworthy on *any* issue.

    1. This. I was going to sarcastically say:

      “6 1,000,000 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns everything

      1. Or ……..

        “1,000,000 Reasons Why Obama is Pure Evil”

    2. This. I was going to sarcastically say:

      “6 1,000,000 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns everything

  6. They love to argue from emotion, so that they’re immediately primed to declare you unempathetic, feelingless brute of you don’t agree with them.

    See, you’re spending too much time thinking about policy, and not enough time feeling about policy. If only you would feel, and stop thinking so much, you’d understand why they need… whatever.

    And if you don’t start feeling and stop thinking, then you’re really a sociopath with no empathy. And why should a person who gets the feels care what you think?

    1. The left’s followers do get led around by their hearts, but leadership is very much crafting policy not from feelings but cold calculation. The empathetic argument is just a tool to sell their policies to an unthinking public.

      1. It’s not their hearts,they believe anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Those of us here are the worst of the lot.

      2. I kind of doubt that is what happened. There’s no cold political calculations going on. I think that Obama and his entourage truly believe that gun control is a winning issue for them. There are no purple state Democrats left that can point out that gun control isn’t a hill to die on.

    2. Emotional appeals are a winning strategy. So why not use this tool to advance-protect freedom?

      “People who ban guns want that elderly widow to be defenseless against the hoodlums that break into her house!”

      See how easy it is.

  7. The bottom line is that, yes, Obama does very much want to take your guns. Without roadblocks in legislatures and found in the Bill of Rights (and the lack of a national registry), you would have been watching dump truck loads of private guns being destroyed long before now.

    1. And melted down to make wind mills .

      1. Right. He also wants to take your magazines and ammo. People forget that, so while you are buying guns, buy some ammo and mags as well.
        And we get treated like paranoid whack-jobs for stockpiling this stuff. *sigh*…

        1. Just the shells I need to hunt dove,grouse,ducks ,geese and ring necks every year would be a ‘stock pile’. Add in trap loads and rounds for the 22 and I’m a militia.

        2. Excellent time to buy magazines; check out web site slick guns. You can get good ones for $8-$10 a piece. They will probably make a great investment when you can sell them for 10 X that much…

        3. It’s amusing how anti-gun people think that two guns and a thousand rounds of ammo is some kind of dangerous stockpile that only a psychopath would possess when in reality, that’s getting dangerously low, even for casual recreational shooters.

          1. I shoot a thousand rounds at the range every week between all my different weapons.

    2. I am sure Leland Yee will take them.

  8. Thanks for clarifying how much of a mendacious dick Obama is.

    “what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”

    What a mendacious dick.

    Additionally, I consider everything about Gail Collins to be totally inappropriate.

    1. IT is amazing to me how often these fucking libtards that know nothing about guns project that same ignorance onto law-abiding gun owners that probably train with their weapons much more than cops do.
      “Oh, well you wouldn’t really know what to do in case of a self-defense emergency…” REALLY?!? So that EIGHT YEARS in the Army and those two deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t prepare me for how to defend myself with a firearm?!? Me qualifying expert with a pistol and weekly range time don’t prepare me for someone breaking into my home?!?
      See: The “comedian” Jim Jeffries. “Well, if I couldn’t use a gun to defend myself from a bunch of machete-wielding home invaders, I don’t think anyone could!!”

      1. The easiest way to stay safe is to live in a building that has a doorman.

        1. Or in the country with a long drive,a big dog and guns.

          1. In the country with a long drive, fences, gates, solar powered motion detectors, a pack of big dogs and signs that read: “You are exactly 100 yards from my front door”.

            Oh yeah, and put bullet holes in the signs.

            A reputation for being a grumpy old man never hurts either.

        2. Like Carlton. Carlton will protect you.

      2. Jeffries is hilarious, but I can’t watch ANYTHING he appears in because he won’t shut the hell up about American gun ownership. Every single time he gets in front of a camera or a microphone, he starts up with the same garbage.

    2. “what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”

      This is an outright lie. When you remove deliberate acts of suicide the statistical analysis tips dramatically the other way. This is one of those bullshit numbers that Brady cunt came up with to sway public opinion emotionally.

      1. No, it’s true! I caught my thumb in the action of my friend’s M1 Garand and it hurt like hell. Then another time, I was picking up my M92 lever-action and I nicked my finger on a sharp edge of the front sight.

        It’s things like this that cause people to become the victim of their own guns all the time!

        1. Well, if we’re being honest, how many people have a stupid mark from the first time using a scoped rifle?

          1. I wish I could say it only happened the *first* time I sighted in my rifle…

      2. Yeah, I have been a victim of my own guns several times.

        Every time I am on line looking at shooting equipment I hear voices from my gun safe telling me how lonely they are in there. And all too often one pistol or rifle will mention how I haven’t finished that upgrade I promised them months ago. And then I notice that I am getting low on one caliber or another and have to buy more.

        I am becoming an economic victim to my guns. It gets to the point that some months the only purchases I make other than living expenses is on guns and ammo.

    3. Ah, the good ol’ “You’ll shoot your eye out!” argument. God damn that pisses me off.

      First, as someone else notes below, removing suicides from the equation changes you’re left with accidental deaths. Then, if you weed through those, the number of accidental deaths or deaths occurring as a result of using a firearm in a self-defense scenario is minuscule.

      Second, let’s say it’s true. Let’s say I’ve got a 50/50 shot that I’ll accidentally shoot myself in the face in a self-defense situation. If the two potential victims are myself and the guy trying to kill me, don’t I have the right to take that risk?

      Third, they’re projecting their own distaste for guns on to others. If you buy a pistol, never shoot it, stick it in a drawer for ten years and then decide to become Dirty Harry upon hearing someone kick in your door, you very well may injure yourself–although even then, I think it’s more likely you’ll forget to chamber a round or take the safety off rather than get that far and then shoot yourself. That’s a moot point, though, because the overwhelming majority of gun owners actually enjoy guns and take great pride in honing marksmanship and practicing CQB, etc. I know several police, and I easily spend more time at the range than they do.

      1. “I know several police, and I easily spend more time at the range than they do.”

        One minute, progressives will be lecturing you about how police are weapons experts who only fire when absolutely necessary and never hit innocent bystanders (like you stupid civilians would) but in the next minute, they’ll go back to screaming about how police are madmen who can’t be trusted because they just fire wildly at everything that moves.

        1. Progressivism eschews consistency.

          1. This is why I despise them so much. They are truly enemies of America.

  9. Oh, and Amherst professor believes that the 2A gives the government the right to arm itself:

    http://www.politico.com/magazi…..ion-213507

    And thinks Obama should be as hostile to it as he is towards free speech… er, I mean the Citizens United decision….

    1. So ,the bill of rights is not what it says huh.The only way to get to his opinion is to lie and say all the words mean nothing.You also have to ignore the writings of the founders on the subject.

    2. Monty Crisco|1.8.16 @ 6:06AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

      “Oh, and Amherst professor believes that the 2A gives the government the right to arm itself:”… Because no Government has ever had the “right” to arm itself in the entire history of mankind. THAT must be what the whole 2nd amendment thing was REALLY going on about. This level of fucktardation really only tends to reinforce the idea that the word “Professor” next your name no longer has any association to being intelligent or educated in any real world sense.

      1. From Charles C. W. Cooke:

        “Consider: In order to argue with a straight face that the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked with “service in an organized and sanctioned militia,” you would have to believe the following unbelievable things: 1) that the Founders’ intent in codifying the Second Amendment was to protect the right of individuals to join an organization over which the federal government has constitutionally granted plenary power; 2) that unlike every other provision in the Bill of Rights ? and every other constitutional measure that is wrapped in the “right of the people” formulation ? the Second Amendment denotes something other than an individual right that can be asserted against the state; and 3) that every major judicial figure of the era was mistaken as to its meaning ? among them, Joseph Story, William Rawle, St. George Tucker, Timothy Farrar, and Tench Coxe, all of whom explained the Second Amendment perfectly clearly ? whereas a few judges and politicians in the 20th century have been bang on in their comprehension.”

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/…..right-guns

      2. Hey is that any way to talk about todays contestant in the “Punchable Face” contest?!

        http://tinyurl.com/hezzv7s

    3. It should be clear what it says. But I wish they’d left out the “well regulated militia” part. None of the other BOR amendments try to explain why they are necessary.

      1. Re: Zeb,

        It should be clear what it says. But I wish they’d left out the “well regulated militia” part. None of the other BOR amendments try to explain why they are necessary.

        Sounds like they needed to place a justification in there to explain their actions to their wives: “You see, dear, the boys and I have to go out this weekend to, you know, drill. It says so in the Constitution!”

      2. Yeah, I often wish that if they really felt a need to state why they had stated something along the lines of “Because a well-armed citizenry is the best defense against the state or other nefarious individuals attempting to encroach on liberty, the right of each individual to possess and carry any and all small arms of the same capabilities as issued to contemporary military shall not be infringed.”

  10. Have articles of impeachment been drawn up yet? And if not; why? If this type of blatantly unconstitutional executive power grab is allowed to stand with nary a peep from our Congressional representatives I say it is well past time for them to come home ASAP. As they clearly serve no useful purpose anymore. This shit may fly in a few states like New York,Cali.Illi and so forth. Here in Idaho,{ like most of the rest of the country that is evidently off of the DC radar and unrepresented}, this will have severe political consequences for the timid and cowardly politician who can’t or won’t take a stand. And the precedent that will be set by allowing the Chief Executive to become the de facto Emperor,King, and Lawgiver will mean such things as elected representatives and Constitutional checks and balances are no longer a thing. Get ready for “Interesting Times” ahead. Unfortunately these are unlikely to be remembered as particularly fun or profitable times for the vast majority who will live through them.

    1. The Republicans got burned trying to impeach Clinton.

      If you take a shot at the King you better not miss. The Republicans took a shot at the king and missed.

      1. Bullshit. Blow-job-gate or the perjury associated with it was indeed an impeachable offense but it didn’t resonate with the common man nor have a tenth of the toxic slippery slope that this does. And the people that take this seriously take it very seriously indeed.

        1. Here’s a fun trivia fact I just learned today. In 2014, according to the shooting sports trade association, the AR-15 family of arms represented 20% of ALL firearms sold in the country. The number is probably higher as we speak right now based on personal observation and very recent spikes in the price of parts and complete guns. Still very reasonable a few weeks ago, Cabelas had excellent quality 16 inch carbines for around $550. Look for one of those now.

          1. Those are generally the no frills “bottom end” of the market, but unless you are planning to go to war and put over 10,000 rounds through, they work just fine.

            Also a good time to stock up on magazines; you can buy good mil spec or Magpul for $8-$10 each now.

          2. It makes me cackle with glee that every time Obama opens his mouth about “weapons of war on our streets”, more guns fly off the shelves than would have been sold in five years otherwise. Maybe he has a stock portfolio made up of Cabela’s, Gander Mountain, and Smith & Wesson.

      2. they don’t have to go after Obama they just have to go after the executive orders which they can sue in court to stop of course they won’t because they are useless or also approve of what he is doing. silence is that same as aggreing

      3. they don’t have to go after Obama they just have to go after the executive orders which they can sue in court to stop of course they won’t because they are useless or also approve of what he is doing. silence is that same as aggreing

    2. Mr. Obama will never be impeached for two reasons that I can see:

      1. He has only one year and twelve days left to his term. (I’m writing on 1/8/2016). The process is unlikely to play out in that time frame.

      2. More importantly, he will never be impeached because he has the Media in his pocket. When Richard Nixon was being hounded from office, it was largely in part because the press at the time absolutely despised RMN. They loathed him. Can you imagine a Sam Donaldson getting all up in Mr. Obama’s grill?

      This isn’t to say that the current POTUS doesn’t deserve impeachment, but it will never happen without the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CBS, CNN, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, NBC onboard. My recommendation is to put any impeachment fantasies to sleep.

      1. “One year and twelve days . . . ” Music to my ears.
        The problem with impeachment is that if successful it can become a regular joke process, and conviction would just shift the power in some future situation to socialists who don’t like a fiscal conservative. That this shitstain got re-elected is a sad comment on the electorate that impeachment will not change.

        1. Yeah but if Hillary is the next one, Obama might not seem so bad. Which is sad.

        2. His re-election says as much about the atrocious state and reputation of the Republican party as it does the intelligence of the electorate. Nobody trusts the establishment Republican candidate to make any difference in office. Look at Trump’s popularity as proof of that.

      2. You missed #3:
        “President Joe Biden.”

    3. Republicans are giant pussies. And they want their next president to have that kind of power too.

      1. They’re not pussies, they’re power-hungry narcissists.

        When Romney and co. avoided ripping BHO to shreds over the killing of American citizens, gate rape, or literally any other abuse perpetrated by the Obama administration, that wasn’t an accident. Like you said, it was the world’s biggest reminder that the GOP wants to have the same unjust powers that the current Democrats wield.

        At least Candidate Obama bothered to lie about how much effete distaste he had Bush’s overreach. Romney and co. wouldn’t even do us the decency of lying about how much they would screw innocent Americans.

        1. Yeah, maybe not so much pussies. Good to be reminded that neither party is going to put up a candidate for president who will give up those executive powers.

      2. Maybe they are but I think they would be stupid to try to impeach him. Impeaching the first black president would play into the narrative the democrats want. Obama is untouchable. They can just wait a year and revoke his executive actions.

      3. Unless it’s Trump. That motherfucker is crazy. Even the Repubs are scared of the shit he’d do.

        1. They’re frightened of losing power, and that’s all.

    4. The Democrat party has known Obama is impeachment-proof since his election for one reason. How do you think “First Black President Impeached” would come across as a headline?

  11. If I remember correctly Anderson Cooper was a fairly impartial debate moderator, too. When did he become the only mainstream newsperson who at least pretends to be judicious?

    1. Anderson Cooper got a job with MSNBC and went full on team blue several years ago. What made you think he would be judicious?

        1. Cooper is clearly a heretic!

  12. No no no. You just don’t understand. Obama has slipped back into professor mode from his Chicago days, and he’s teaching Introduction to Logic. This is a helpful list of examples of logical fallacies. Study, there will be a quiz later.

    1. ‘The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few’. Just one reason I hate Star Trek.

      1. Yeah, it’s a bad line if read as a reflection of the writers’ philosophy, but consider that Spock sacrificed himself to save the others of his own volition, and they then turned around and resurrected him at the loss of the Enterprise and Kirk’s son. I don’t know if it’s intentional, but writers (not just on Star Trek) seem to enjoy undermining obnoxiously preachy lines and thinly veiled “morals” through the events of the story.

        1. Roddenberry was a socialist, but most Trek writers have not been and probably weren’t even back then. You’ll notice as the ST shows continued, especially following Roddenberry’s death, the writers dropped that utopian future bullshit pretty quickly.

  13. OT: STEVE SMITH IMMIGRANT DRIVEN BY CLIMATE CHANGE!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..o-america/

    1. MANBEARPIG,he’s coming for all of us.

  14. In NYC, “Broken Window Policing” gave many young and mostly minority people criminal records,it destroyed their upward mobility, and destroyed the relationship between the community for generations.

    Police officers would arrest anyone for every petty crime. Yet, the police themselves could get away with driving drunk as they would simply show their badges to a fellow officer. Having the cops go after petty crime while the cops had card-blanc to commit misconduct made the community-police relationship much worst.

    Community policing is a better approach.

    What I will say significantly lowered muggings and murder in the ghettos and hoods of NYC are the following:
    1. The ATM and use of Debit Cards.
    2. The Direct Deposit of Salaries…no more set Payday on Friday where muggers can have a field-day on workers.
    3. Food Stamps and welfare Benefits on Cards as oppose to trade-able stamps and coupons.
    4. And the BIGGEST thing that significantly lowed gun violence “The STOP and FRISK Program”. I can tell you that this program made everyone in the hood that is not a responsible gun owner afraid to walk around with their illegal guns.
    5. The additional ten years a drug dealer would get if caught with a Kilo of Cocaine and a Gun. The Kilo will get you three years in Riker’s Island. The Gun with the Kilo will get you an easy 12-life upstate. The drug dealers themselves would stop walking around with Kilos and Guns.

    1. # 4,it’s a violation of your rights,why not just random search of houses in poor areas? # 5 the drug war is a failure by any metric and these laws punish people who do harm to no one. Oh,and in NYC there can not be responsible gun owners due to the laws keeping honest people from owning a gun.

      1. Not true. Any NY State resident can get a handgun with a clean record.
        In addition, carrying a loaded hand-gun is a NO-NO in NY State. But, one can get a consealled carry permit. They are harder to get and the local Sheriff can deny with no cause.

        These REASONABLE gun laws protect the 2nd amendment and have been very effective.

        Mr. Smith, I agree that the drug war was a tragedy. But in NYC Ghettos, pretty much the only people carrying illegal guns were drug dealers. Adding the additional 12 years-to-life to a sentence for being in possession of Guns and Coke/Heroin at the same time SIGNIFICANTLY lowered our Murder Rate. And, at the same time, protected the 2nd amendment right of responsible gun owners.

        1. . . . with a clean record. Who decides what a clean record is? Who decides what watch list you’re on?

          1. You are right Greg, perhaps we should just get rid of the police and government altogether.

            Each and every one of us will just be armed and manage by ourselves. That will make it all better.

            1. I would rather have no police than live in a police state.

            2. Mama La Pinga|1.8.16 @ 11:15AM|#
              “…perhaps we should just get rid of the police and government altogether.”

              Perhaps you could learn to argue with some minimal degree of honesty. But I doubt it.

            3. That’s fine with me. If you think I’m letting the State do whatever the fuck it wants because it makes you feel better, you’ve lost your fuckin’ mind,

            4. Well, way to go full retard with that comment.

              You’ve made it clear that the ends justify the means. Violating civil liberties is okay if you meet a stereotype BFYTW.

        2. Really? Because John Stossel was denied a gun permit.

          1. Yes, but he’s one of the ill begotten, so we aren’t al-Shit, I’ve said too much.

            Proceed with your application, citizen!

        3. I don’t know if you actually live in NY, but you don’t have a clue. Yes outside of the city, gun ownership is not that difficult (but still harder than most places). But it is still a may issue state regarding Concealed carry. And in NYC it takes several years, an attorney and several thousand dollars to navigate the law to attempt to get license to carry in NYC. And it is likely that you still will get denied. And it has been that way for decades. The crime rate was out of control until Guliani became mayor.

          Stop and frisk is completely unconstitutional.

    2. Just an FYI, Mama La Pinga ls a commie cop apolgizer, She thinks everything is good as long it’s in service to the the state. Fuck you Mama La Pinga you statist.

      1. A cop sucker aye,yuck ,yuck,yuck

    3. I can tell you that this program made everyone in the hood that is not a responsible gun owner afraid to walk around with their illegal guns.

      I know, don’t feed the trolls…I just thought the “trust me, I know from experience” vibe from this was funny

    4. re #4

      Why don’t you just be honest and come out and say what you mean – “When blacks folks are scared is the only time white folks are safe.”

      Racist POS.

      1. Black people had 100s of years of people like YOU to learn how to be racists.

        I actually give them a PASS.

        1. Mama La Pinga|1.8.16 @ 10:37AM|#
          “I actually give them a PASS.”

          So you admit to being a racist.

    5. If you were a responsible gun owner you would also fear to walk around with guns.

      I don’t doubt that overzealous policing (I mean broken windows) and draconian punishment for victimless crimes “lower” the crime rate. Similar brutal dictators get the same results. Running a thug squad of police and keeping the populace in fear can change their behavior. I don’t consider that a worthy goal. Justice would be the goal.

      Add in that locking people in cages and violating their rights to make good statistics is criminal in my book and what you’ve really done is just improve statistics, but not improve justice. Now the statistics don’t include the biggest criminals and harassers on the street, the police and bureaucrats it looks like less crime, but it isn’t.

      1. Mr. Social Contractor,

        I think we agree. I posted that Broken Window Policing is NO GOOD.

        Selling cocaine is a victimless crime. Selling Heroin is NOT. Not that I like Coke better than Dope.
        I’ve seen people do Coke and come out of it. I’ve never seen anyone escape DOPE.

        The NYC Street dealer is also a victim of the Drug trade. Today, the street-dealer is doing great going to Titty Bars and driving fast cars. Tomorrow, he is either killed, becomes and addiction himself, or goes to prison until he’s 55 years of age.

        In the meantime, while the street-dealer goes down, the corrupt law enforcement people, and government and military officials which PARTNER with the Drug Cartels continue making money behind the scene.

        So in some weird way, I think we generally agree. I’m no stooge to law enforcement.

        1. Mama La Pinga|1.8.16 @ 10:41AM|#
          “Selling cocaine is a victimless crime. Selling Heroin is NOT. Not that I like Coke better than Dope.
          I’ve seen people do Coke and come out of it. I’ve never seen anyone escape DOPE.”

          Your anecdote is not worth shit.

  15. Nice try Sullum but everyone knows the real story is how our brilliant president was set up by CNN and a bunch of gun-loving kooks, asked ridiculous silly insane questions, and handled it all with grace and composure. That and the fact that the NRA are a bunch of scaredy-cats with small penises who couldn’t even bother show up and defend their child-killing ways.

    1. GOOD username. We could use more of such truth in advertising wrt usernames.

      That said, you left out direct fawning, like “Cooper sounded like a Rethuglican wingnut and Obama handled his attacks with grace and intelligence. What a great man.” (

  16. “There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence”

    I’m sure he misspoke – what he undoubtedly *meant* to say was “don’t worry, I’m just proposing common-sense measures to keep crazy people and terrorists from having guns, it won’t affect your right to defend yourself in your home!”

    Because his actual answer gives the impression that his proposed policies will interfere with the ability of the people to keep guns in the home for self-defense. Otherwise why denigrate the usefulness of guns in the home in a meeting held to discuss the need for new gun-control measures?

    1. Mask slippage.

  17. “Second Amendment supporters who do not trust him on this issue, ”

    Is he serious? Is he this arrogant and disconnected – or both – to say that? HELLO, YOU LIED ABOUT OBAMACARE!

    Obamacare is THE single example of where gun control will lead.

    Man people are stupid.

    Also, kudos to Anderson. I want to like that guy. He seems like a decent fellow and good at his job.

    1. Is he serious? Is he this arrogant and disconnected

      Yes…to both.

      Also, kudos to Anderson. I want to like that guy. He seems like a decent fellow and good at his job.

      I thought he did an excellent job as moderator in this debate. He didn’t call out Obama for all or even most of his fallacies, fabrications, or logical inconsistencies, but it he had wouldn’t have left time for anyone else to speak. I hope it’s a trend with him, though, because it’s at odds with his previous career.

  18. I dont understand why this is even worth talking about. How many bald-faced lies does this guy have to be caught in before everyone realizes he can’t be trusted on any issue?

    No one wants to make you helpless for your own good. Keep that in mind when you hear anyone, especially this POS, talking about ‘common sense’ gun control.

  19. The obscene spectacle of the single biggest mass murderer on American soil, head of the single biggest arms dealer on the planet, crying over the death of children at Sandy Hook should have revolted everyone who watched.
    The man wants to reduce gun sales? Stop selling guns to both sides of every global conflict.
    Everything that moral incompetent attempts is an attempt to extend and expand American empire and the power of the presidency.
    He is beneath contempt. We need to be considerably more vocal and focused in our pushback.
    The man who arrogated to himself the power of extra-judicial murder of anyone anywhere on his sole say-so thinks innocents are being murdered? Of course they are, at his direct and indirect order.
    The blood is on his hands.

  20. You forgot reason number 7. Because Mr. Obama is untrustworthy on everything.

  21. “6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy On Guns”
    Will the next article be titled: “6 Reasons Air Is An Untrustworthy Hook For Hanging Hammers.”?

    1. Good one. I will borrow and use appropriately.

  22. A CNN survey suggests that focusing on intentions rather than results can be an effective strategy

    That’s how the road to hell is paved.

  23. Sullum is so good. Never stop writing.

  24. “These actions won’t prevent every act of violence, or save every life?but if even one life is spared, they will be well worth the effort.”

    This, in a nutshell, encapsulates everything you need to know about the alleged intelligence of this man.

    This is the party of reason and science?

    It’s quite possibly the most disturbing sentence he’s uttered yet. Think where this kind of logic can lead.

    And it’s not pretty.

    1. O/T, but kinda related.

      The results of this “invaluable life” calculation already include the discontinuation of manned space exploration, which, while it lasted, was a corrupt boondoggle of a contractor/vendor pig trough, but far from the worst corrupt boondoggle of a contractor/vendor pig trough in our government. We could not afford to provide perfect safety for the invaluable lives of the astronauts in the harsh environment of space. So we discontinue the unsafe, scary effort. (The money saved to be distributed along the slippery slope from “if even one life can be saved”, to “if even one hungry child can be fed” and “if even one child can be educated.” Yay).

      Had mankind’s progress towards civilization been in the hands of those using this economic manifestation of the Precautionary Principle, we might be posting these comments on a cave wall in France.

  25. While “67% of those asked [said] they favor the changes” Obama unveiled this week, “57% of those polled also said that the measures would not be effective in reducing the number of people killed by guns.”

    Emphasis added. Apparently 57% of those polled are mentally challenged, have a different agenda, or both.

    1. Or the poll used a lot of leading or carefully-worded questions. There could be a poll that asks, “do you support gun safety?” Who could answer no to that? They’d get a huge percentage of “yes” answers – say, 90% – and then declare in a big bold headline that “90% of Americans Support Gun Safety Laws”.

      This clip sums up the entire process rather nicely:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

  26. 7. Crocodile tears

  27. Slightly OT, but the Harvard mag/rag, which is basically a dim, Harvard-centric version of the New Yorker with shorter, less substantial articles, featured a profile of William Posner this month. Posner, you may recall, is not only the most prominent Reagan appointee and American jurist this side of Scalia (and that would be a push if Scalia weren’t on the SC while Posner kicks around in the Court of Appeals), but he’s also a long-time member of the Mont P?lerin Society.

    Long story short, Posner believes that the Constitution is an interesting relic much like the Magna Carta, that they only role it has to play in today’s society is to serve as a kicking off point for the system of “common law” (guffaw stifled) created by the SC and lower courts over the past two centuries, and that any attempt to heed the bounds it places on the state is the result of a dogmatic and fundamentally foolish train of thought. He calls this approach pragmatism. The worst SC decision in recent years according to Posner is the Heller ruling, where Scalia laid bare his foolish originalist heart to the world.

    Again, this is what a highly respected “conservative” intellectual who was appointed by Reagan and a member of the MP Society believes. And they wonder why gun owners and classical liberals tend to have a siege mentality.

  28. Great job, Mr Sullum.

    I’m increasingly convinced that many progressives understand, at least subconsciously, that implementing their most favored policies would require a disarmed, and maybe docile, populace. They talk of “gun safety” but all their proposals lead to lists of gun owners that could be used only for confiscation. They rarely talk of eliminating illegal guns. Their proposals seem to focus only on reducing the number of legal guns. They have to know, at some level, that these “solutions” could serve only to disarm law-abiding citizens. Progressives know that most Americans oppose their ultimate ends. Deep down they know they must disarm the people to reach their collectivist goals. Obama is lying. He wants to disarm America.

    1. When it is impossible for a law abiding person to legally have a gun, then gun ownership is a sign or criminality. Which is what they want.

      1. Even in NY State, a law abiding citizen with NO CRIMINAL RECORD can obtain a hand-gun permit.
        However, once you leave your home, the gun must be unloaded, locked in a case, and locked in either the trunk or glove compartment of your car. We don’t allow people to walk around with loaded hand-guns.

        The Second Amendment is still in effect with a rather reasonable gun law.

        1. The Second Amendment is still in effect with a rather reasonable gun law.

          No. It’s not. An unloaded gun is merely a blunt object. New York gun laws are for fascists.

          You know who else registered and then confiscated guns…

        2. The Second Amendment enshrines the right to keep and bear arms. If you are forbidden from doing either, then it is not “in effect”.

        3. Mama La Pinga|1.8.16 @ 11:17AM|#
          “The Second Amendment is still in effect with a rather reasonable gun law.”

          “…shall not be *INFRINGED*”.
          You do know what that means, I hope.

        4. It’s only a “rather reasonable” gun law if you’re a totalitarian shitlord.

        5. An unloaded handgun is a very expensive paperweight. What exactly would be the point of carrying it, and how in god’s name do you make it to work everyday when you don’t have the sense to pour piss out of a boot?

        6. I like how you specify NY State. You knew it’s a misdirection as NYC ignores most of the State gun laws because of weak state preemption. You’re a mendacious pile of shit and you know it. Further, there is nothing “reasonable” about disarming law abiding citizens in public or in their own property (car), or tell them how many rounds they can load into their magazine in their own home. Do the world a favor and go play on the Belt Parkway.

  29. 7.) He’s a politician. He’s fundamentally untrustworthy on everything.

  30. Why the push for gun control now? Isn’t the consensus that this issue guarantees losses for team blue (like govt ‘shutdowns’ are team red killers?). These people don’t do anything that isn’t calculated specifically to get re-elected. I don’t buy the Bulworth angle, but am not seeing the upside to riling up your opponents base w a fundamental issue. It’d be like Cruz proposing a ban on abortion.

    1. Good question. He must believe that it is a good way to “rile up” the progressive base to elect another democrat and then continue his Legacy?. To me, it seems a good way to “rile up” the many Americans in flyover country that he misunderstands to then defeat any democrat put forward.

      I hope I’m right.

    2. “Why the push for gun control now?”

      A: He really isn’t all that bright. Seriously. Listen to him trying to articulate… well, anything, when he doesn’t have prepared remarks. He has shown himself to be profoundly ignorant on a wide range of issues, and he’s an absolutely execrable speaker when he isn’t being led by the nose through a TelePrompter.
      B: He’s a statist asshole.
      C: See B.

    3. He’s an ideologue.

      Say what you will about Slick Willy, but when the will of the people, via Congress, was clearly against his agenda, he recognized he was stepping out of bounds and backed off.

      Obama has no such regard for the will of the electorate. He has an agenda, and he will get as much of it enacted as he can.

  31. I used to be good at counterstrike and can therefore confirm that IRL nobody needs more than a semi-auto handgun and bolt action rifle.

    1. The “nobody needs” standard is ludicrous when considering rights.

      Nobody needs a free press. Really, of all the news articles we could read today, how many people would die if the government censored 100% of them? 0? Who really needs a free press?

      Do we really need trials by juries of peers? Many people go their whole live never setting foot in a court house. Do they really need a jury pool somewhere, just in case?

      Who needs a right to privacy? Would someone die if the government could ease drop on every piece of communication?

      1. What’s really fun is to spin that line onto a right that the leftists claim to care about.

        “Does anyone need to have an abortion after the first trimester? If you know you’re pregnant, why don’t you just terminate it as soon as you find out? We have birth control, condoms, and abstinence anyway, so there’s really not even a need for abortion at all. You just don’t need it.”

        “What’s the problem with requiring voter ID? Nobody wants to take away your right to vote; we just want some common-sense voting regulations to make sure that nobody is abusing the system! No right is absolute! Blah blah blah fire in crowded theater”

    2. That’s more logical argumentation and evidence than Obama has managed to marshal on the issue. Scary.

  32. Gun confiscation. What do people imagine? Jackboot feds with a big black dump trunk going up and down the streets picking up everyone’s guns and using gun-sniffing dogs to justify warrants. (Something like that.)
    But the reality is much more subtle. As it stands anyone convicted of a felony is disallowed from possessing a firearm. All you have to do is convict everyone of some felony (which is NOT that difficult) and then when they don’t turn in their firearms . . . more felony, and the state can crush you like a bug. Most people will be docile and comply. Divide and conquer.
    It won’t be neighborhood raids and trash trucks. And if you think you can hide your guns, think twice cause the technology exists to find them anywhere.

    1. What is this technology you speak of?

      1. Metal detectors, internet/email/sales records of references to firearms, ground penetrating radar for guns buried in the yard. And fido-warrants – you’re on record as not being permitted a firearm and the officers looking for you come on in because fido says he smells a gun.

        1. GregMax|1.8.16 @ 12:41PM|#
          “Metal detectors, internet/email/sales records of references to firearms, ground penetrating radar for guns buried in the yard. And fido-warrants – you’re on record as not being permitted a firearm and the officers looking for you come on in because fido says he smells a gun.”

          Yep, this sort of tech has absolutely prevented anyone from possessing illegal drugs, so it’s bound to work here, too!

        2. Ground penetrating radar finds bodies. It’s not particularly good at anything else, and if you really are that worried about it, bury your guns close to the water main.

    2. Spot on. Between felony convictions and mental health issues, the government could prohibit pretty much everyone from ever owning a gun if they wanted.

      1. They could certainly try. We wouldn’t have to make it easy on them.

    3. “At this point, while the homeowner was refusing cooperation, our K-9 member alerted, giving us grounds to search…well, actually to tear the house to rubble as part of our search, this being due to the known deviousness of your typical gun-hiding right-wing militia terrorist.”

      Yeah, that’s pretty predictable. Under the headline “Court Rules Search “Troubling but Legal””

  33. did he mention compromise at all? i’m sick of progtards demanding compromise but offering nothing in exchange for their ‘common sense’ reforms.

  34. That’s not paranoia; that’s logic.

    There you go, talking logic when there’s children being gunned down in the street*. WHY DO YOU HATE TEH CHILDRENZ!!11!!11!!!!!!11!!!!! /sarc

    *Oftentimes by cops (see: Tamir Rice)

    1. See Longtail below.

  35. he appeals to “the vast majority of responsible gun owners” who “support common-sense gun safety” because they “grieve with us after every mass shooting.”

    Only if you define “responsible” as “someone who entirely agrees with me with my wanting to take away their rights”

  36. For all the leftists’ talk about equality, it’s really sickening to see them attempt to relegate firearm ownership to the rich and well-connected.

    Asking voters for ID is somehow an unconscionable violation of a human right; an attempt to silence the voices of the poor… But somehow, the hundreds of dollars in non-refundable fees for the CHANCE of getting a CCW permit in many localities is not only acceptable, but a model system that should be adopted on the federal level.

    Obama bemoans how there are “two Americas”, how the rich and powerful play by different rules than the average people… But he’ll stand at his podium and lecture us about how guns don’t make us safer – and all the while, he is protected by throngs of armed men and snipers on the rooftops.

    1. Rich and well-connected Ferguson cops? DEA agents? IRS Agents? Asset-forfeiture looters?

  37. What struck me about last night’s town hall meeting, is how libertarian Anderson Cooper seems. He’s already an awesome reporter, but he was kinda needling the president over guns.

    I loved every minute of it, too.

  38. The only thing we can trust Obama to do is be a left wing demagogue. The rest is so much hot air.

  39. Only 6 Reasons?

    1. “6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns”

      That’s all they really had to print.

  40. Do Libertarians really not mind when children are murdered by insane gunmen? Is it just collateral damage?

    1. Do progressives every argue in good faith?

      1. Not unless they absolutely must. Most are stupid enough, like longtail, to presume the readers are as imbecilic as they are.
        Hey, longtail! You’re insulting us and, if you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you’d be embarrassing yourself!

    2. I actually cheer, and try to arrange to get some of the body parts to put in my soup.

      1. We throw a little party in the garden with the theme “Lightening Humanities’ Burden on Mother Gaia”.

    3. Considering more children will drown in swimming pools than will be gunned down by the criminally insane, pretty much.

    4. Do liberals and progressives really not mind when unborn infants are crushed and extracted from the womb?
      Or are they just “products of conception”?

      1. GOP birth-forcer intruder alert! Infiltration warning, life-begins-at-erection movement activist helping looters grab our guns!

  41. Reasons #7-999: He’s a Democrat.

  42. “There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence,” he said, warning that “there’s always the possibility that that firearm in a home leads to a tragic accident.” He conceded that “there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant” but claimed “what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”

    And that means you are worse off… how? Exactly?

    If someone can overpower you when you have a gun – can’t they overpower you if you DON’T have a gun? So if you have a gun – maybe you can stop them. But if you don’t have a gun – you have no chance at all against this hypothetical assailant.

    Personally – I’ll take the “risk”.

  43. We could reduce the rate of gun-related homicides in the US by 5% overnight by moving Chicago to Canada.

  44. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ???????????www.HomeSalary10.com

  45. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  46. Gun laws do not prevent gun violence. Only the irrational liberals (sorry didn’t mean to be redundant) fail to grasp the simple fact that criminals don’t obey laws.
    Emotion rules when the liberals go into action. A common liberal comment would go something like this” I don’t know what to do but we have to do something” and the results are predictable, punish law abiding citizens and leave the criminals untouched.

    In every single mass shooting when there is an armed response to the shooter the murderer does one of three things:

    Stops and surrenders
    Kills himself
    Is killed, incapacitated, or captured.

    This is an indisputable fact without exception and no liberal will ever admit it. Guns DO stop and prevent violence.

    Imagine if this sign or a similar sign were in front of every school, university, church, business and public place.

    ” THIS STAFF IS ARMED
    AND TRAINED
    AND ANY ATTEMPT TO
    HARM ANYONE
    WILL BE MET WITH
    DEADLY FORCE”

    Instead the shooter in every incident looks for this

    “THIS IS A
    GUN FREE ZONE
    ANY VIOLATION WILL HAVE
    SEVERE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
    PENALTIES”

    And the carnage continues even in the face of “Severe federal, state and local penalties”.

    1. Liberals aren’t irrational, just kinda gutless. Its the socialist looters who call themselves liberals who cannot see see the violence of law because they subscribe to an “invisible gun” theory. Government guns are invisible to looters, but visible to producers who are held up for tax money.

    2. “THIS IS A
      GUN FREE ZONE
      ANY VIOLATION WILL HAVE
      SEVERE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
      PENALTIES”

      I can easily see any number of the deranged lunatics who have committed mass shootings seeing this message and cackling to himself after replying : “Deal”.

  47. The liberal’s answer is not only dangerous but criminal in its intent to disarm Americans and leave us defenseless to the criminals and our government.

    Never forget that Governments throughout history have been responsible for more homicides, genocides and exterminations than any other by a factor of millions. Everything you have as an American, your liberty, personal wealth, our national wealth and our freedom has been secured at the end of a gun and that gun was almost always pointed at a tyrannical government and the blood of those tyrants were shed by Patriots.

    To this I would add next time someone says that more guns can’t possibly be the answer to gun violence make them do the following thought experiment.

    They are in the principal’s office at the Sandy Hook elementary school on 12-14-12 and on the monitor in the office they see Adam Lanza shooting his way through the locked and barred doors of the school. Now in a locked cabinet behind you is a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine …… how different could this event have turned out?

    You might have to remind them that this sick, demented, coward killed himself at the first sight of the police on the grounds with their weapons.

    I wish someone had put this question to Obama at the so called town hall meeting.

  48. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.buzznews99.com

  49. 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

  50. Deaths due to mass shootings are far fewer than those shot and killed by cops for things like minor traffic violations.
    I think we should take guns away from cops.

    1. Tea-Party-GOP antiabortion clinic shooter or looter infiltrator: Abe Froman
      Nobody here but Abe wants to send men with guns to force women to reproduce, got that?

  51. This is horrible. I also found out Texas didn’t even make the Ten-Best-Armed States list. Makes me ashamed of mah Texas heritage!

  52. The last two words in the title are unnecessary.

  53. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ???????????http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  54. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ???????????http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  55. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ???????????http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  56. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ??????????? http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  57. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  58. 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

  59. I take issue with the headline out of the gate. That’s like saying the fox and the hawk are untrustworthy on chickens or that pimps are untrustworthy on chastity. It’s an absurd time-wasting argument. The crime issue is a red herring, always was, always will be.

    Even if ‘gun control’ could be proven to lower common crime it would still be evil.

    All ‘gun control’ is propaganda designed to condition the sheeple to more ‘control’ until full civilian disarmament is achieved. Thus all gun control is an act of war. All who forward it should be arrested, tried for treason against Human Liberty and executed.

    The Marxist mutt like all who forward ‘gun control’ are waging war on the Bill of Rights, human Liberty and those who truly value those principles. Every time the evil creatures and their ignorant dupes vote they vote to kill us.

    See further posts for the rest of this since Reason is so stingy with their space…

    Don’t understand my bad attitude? Start here: http://www.freekentucky.com/th…..atch-page/

  60. What will we do when when a commie SCOTUS rules it’s OK for the “Liberal”(commie) trash, our real enemies, to demand we ‘turn them in?’ How many cowards will comply? Those are the questions that matter.

    They’re not ‘leftists,’ ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive.’ They’re communists/globalists. They want us disarmed so we can’t kill them when enough finally wake up to the necessity of doing so.

    Free Kentucky Column: What must be done – A manifesto of the ‘isms.’
    http://www.freekentucky.com/ba…..t-be-done/
    Governments will always be able to get guns so we must always be better armed than them.
    Act politically but prep for what history shows will have to be done. It’s way past time to prep for what will be required: http://www.freekentucky.com/what-will-be-required/

  61. You allow all this spam on how to make money but limit real readers to two links. Reason must not be as interested in Liberty as they claim. The net is about links, that’s what it was designed for…

    Don’t understand my bad attitude? Start here: http://www.freekentucky.com/th…..atch-page/

  62. There’s only ONE reason that I need, and that would be that obutthesd is a KNOWN, proven, pathological, compulsive, habitual, constant, consistent, blatant LIAR. No other reason necessary.

  63. Hussein al-Obama is either a pathological liar or profoundly stupid, as in organic brain damage.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.