Gun Confiscation By Presidential Decree?


President Obama may soon act unilaterally to curtail Americans’ right to keep and bear arms and impose a new national firearms policy without congressional approval.

Spurred on by the Newtown, Connecticut schoolhouse massacre last month that took 26 lives, Obama could restrict, perhaps even abolish, private gun ownership with the stroke of his auto-pen.

Second Amendment backers are justifiably angry after Vice President Joe Biden spoke yesterday about ways to curb violent gun-related crime. He suggested that the president may take swift, decisive action without congressional approval.

“The president is going to act,” said Biden who is heading up a task force that is supposed to make policy recommendations to Obama later this month. The vice president reportedly “guaranteed” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino that President Obama would push through sweeping firearms restrictions before February.

“There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Biden added, “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”

“I want to make it clear that we are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything, we’re going to do nothing,” Biden said. “It’s critically important we act.”

In normal times the prospect of gun confiscation might be next to nil, the stuff of conspiracy theories, but in the age of Obama so many bad things seem possible. With the country in a sour mood, the economy stuck in a ditch, and a transformational Marxist in the White House, terrible outcomes that previously appeared farfetched now could become possible.

Consider that Obama is a devout ideologue who deep down doesn’t believe Americans should be allowed to own guns. He’s a longtime supporter of gun confiscation but when he began running for president he began claiming to be a supporter of the Second Amendment in order not to scare away moderate voters.

He has Freudian-slipped from time to time. In his first presidential campaign he mocked small-town Americans as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion,” paraphrasing Saul Alinsky’s attacks on ordinary Americans.

Consider also that Obama is a narcissistic president with a messiah complex who began his political career in the living room of unrepentant bomb-detonating terrorists.

Since winning the 2008 election Obama has: refused to enforce laws he dislikes including laws cracking down on the voter fraud Democrats often need to win elections; routinely assaulted the Bill of Rights; decreed a partial immigration amnesty after it was rejected by Congress; ignored court orders; recess-appointed high government officials when Congress wasn’t actually in recess; attempted to intimidate Supreme Court justices; kept a Nixon-style enemies’ list and labeled his detractors in the Tea Party movement as terrorists; waged class warfare and encouraged racial animosity; presided over the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal that provided weapons to Mexican drug cartels; nationalized large swaths of private industry; ignored politically-inspired violence carried out by his allies; unilaterally moved to impose economy-killing carbon emission controls; openly disdained entrepreneurs; waged war without congressional approval; accepted illegal foreign campaign contributions; tried to get a governor to appoint his crony (Valerie Jarrett) to fill the Senate seat he vacated; said police “acted stupidly” when they dared to arrest his personal friend; turned a blind eye to rampant corruption in his administration; and forced health care providers to violate their religious beliefs.

Now Obama is apparently considering minting a $1 trillion platinum coin in order to evade the congressionally imposed national debt limit.

This is the behavior of a Third World banana republic caudillo, not the supposed leader of the free world.

Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) said the president’s proposal to go it alone sounded like “dictatorship” to him. “The Founding Fathers never envisioned Executive Orders being used to restrict our Constitutional rights,” he said in a press release. “We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.”

Two unusually insightful posts on the micro-blogging website Twitter summed up the public’s anxiety at Obama’s overreach and imperial approach to policymaking.

“Executive Orders on 2nd Amendment Rights could cascade into revolt,” tweeted @daxtonbrown. “I don’t think Obama realizes how seriously people take gun rights.”

A user with the handle @siftyboones tweeted, “My family will not be reduced to docile livestock at the whim of the government. The End.”

Any executive order taking Americans’ guns away would be a brutal assault on the rule of law. It could also lead to violent civil unrest in a nation founded upon a healthy distrust of governmental power.

Yesterday NRA president David Keene reaffirmed that the purpose of the Second Amendment to the Constitution was to prevent tyranny and deter foreign invaders.

“The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunters. Hunters use firearms. Hunters have every right to use firearms, as do target shooters, as do gun collectors, as do others,” said Keene.

“The fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment has to do with personal and national defense. It was put into the Constitution by the Founders who considered it as important indeed as the First Amendment.”

As Charles Krauthammer waxed eloquent on Fox News Channel last night:

We have a 200-year history and culture of gun ownership. And we have a Second Amendment and we have a system that believes that the rights, the Second Amendment, in other words, predate the republic and the point of having a government, as in the Declaration [of Independence], is to secure the rights. In Britain you have no such right, the government will control gun ownership so unless you’re willing to confiscate, which would be unconstitutional and that would cause an insurrection in the country –Australia did– these things are not going to have an effect, except at the margins and that’s the tragedy here.

Although many law enforcement personnel would probably refuse to enforce something as profoundly un-American as a gun-confiscation diktat, it is not at all clear where Obama would get the legal authority to unilaterally impose new gun control measures. Even liberal constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe concedes that –at a minimum– the Second Amendment safeguards the individual right of Americans to “possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes.”

The Supreme Court has blown away gun grabbers in recent years. In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the high court struck down the draconian ban on gun ownership that had long been in effect in the nation’s capital. The court found for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, affirming what serious constitutional scholars had known for years.

The court followed up in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, making it clear that the individual right to keep and bear arms acknowledged in the Heller ruling applies to the states as well. That 2010 decision quashed a Chicago city ordinance banning the possession of handguns.

Complicating matters further for Obama, it turns out then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was correct when she said to lawmakers in 2010, “we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”

A new report from Breitbart.com indicates that a provision is buried in the Obamacare legislation that protects Second Amendment rights. The clause states that the government is not allowed to collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confirmed that he added the legislative language in order to keep the National Rifle Association out of the legislative battle over Obamacare. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Will any of these legal concerns matter to President Obama who regards the Constitution at best as a living document and at worst as an inconvenience?

As gun and ammunition sales skyrocket nationwide, it is clear the public isn’t taking the chance that Obama will feel restrained by the laws of the land.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Biden added, “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”"

    The essence of collectivism and tyranny. In the name of "one person" they'll do what they want because they're "convinced" they can "affect the well-being" of thousands. Delusional totalitarian tyrants.

    • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

      By the bye, this American-Israeli blogger has been warning of said scenario for some time – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/27/dhs-americas-

      There is little doubt, the thugs-in-suits will NOT adhere to the Constitutional framework. As such, they will eviscerate the second amendment, by any means necessary. Plans have been afoot for quite some time. But they have risen exponentially under the reign of Obama. Is it any coincidence that this is coming down the pike too? – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/07/fiddling-with

      Therefore, an action plan is more than in order – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/09/patriotic-mar

      The road to tyranny is a short step away.

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • UpChuck.Liberals

      How many lives did Hitler or Stalin save by confiscating guns? For those that don't think for one second that Barry and his ilk aren't capable of that haven't been paying attention.

    • Tom

      Interesting phrasing about saving "just one life" Will he ban cigarettes, alcohol, and cars? All of which take far more lives than guns. How will he confiscate guns (Non-registered) in the hands of gangs and criminals? To see Eric Holder and Joe Biden side by side on this issue is horrifying beyond measure! Holder ran guns to mexican drug lords which have been used to kill Americans and Biden could be the poster child for commiting people to mental institutions for irrational behavior!

      • Mary Sue

        oh then they start into the shibboleths about how guns' only purpose is to kill.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Interesting phrasing about saving "just one life" Will he ban cigarettes, alcohol, and cars? All of which take far more lives than guns. How will he confiscate guns (Non-registered) in the hands of gangs and criminals? To see Eric Holder and Joe Biden side by side on this issue is horrifying beyond measure! Holder ran guns to mexican drug lords which have been used to kill Americans and Biden could be the poster child for commiting people to mental institutions for irrational behavior!"

        Of course not. Leftists and their constituents don't expect consistency. They expect harmonic emotions. Saving "one life" is noble when it feels that way, no matter what the cost and how many are dead to "save" that "one life" in theory. They can't ever tell you which life they saved though, because that will lead to a conversation they don't want to have.

        It's funny to think of 0'Bama smoking cigarettes after gay promiscuous sex, pontificating about saving people through his brilliant ideas about engineering morality for the sake of our collective safety. Not funny really though.

        • SDcatowner

          Not many people are interested in the real Barry, member of J. Wright's church "Down Low" Club. It is only a footnote in history at present, but it colors his whole administration. Not many "straight" woment in there. Being in the closet so to speak, he does NOT tolerate much diversity.
          Oh, and this gun-control thing, he knows everything there is to know about that. We don't need to clutter our empty little heads about that matter. NOT THIS 61 YR OLD GIRL! I will be getting a weapon for defense at the next gun show in San Diego…

      • carrie

        The biggest killers in the US are prescription drugs and illegal drugs.
        Drug companies and cartels are big campaign contributors .

    • TOOTHPASTE NexT

      OMG, NOW "YOUR DEAR LEADER" OBAMA WILL WANT OUR KNIVES AND BUTTER KNIVES TOO! AND NEXT….WAIT FOR IT, WAIT FOR IT…HE WILL WANT OUR TOOTHPASTE SURELY BECAUSE OF THE DEADLY TOXIC FLUORIDE! NO? REALLY? I"M CONFUSED THEN.

      TEXAS MASS "KNIFING"….Will GLOBALIST NEW WORLD ORDER OWNERS WANT OBAMA TO TAKE AMERICA'S KNIFES NOW AFTER TEXAS MASS KNIFING!? WHAT? NO YOU SAY? IT ISN'T REALLY ISN'T ABOUT AMERICAN'S SAFETY? SHHHHHH DON"T TELL THE PEOPLE THAT THE NWO GLOBALIST WANT AMERICAN'S DISARMED…and THAT OBAMA JUST SIGNED ANOTHER EX TO GIVE INTERPOL POLICE POWERS IN AMERICA for SOMETHING IN FUTURE? BUT WHAT? WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN AMERICA THAT AMERICAN'S CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES and YET….

      OBAMA'S, YOUR DEAR LEADER'S PRIVATE CIVILIAN ARMY–DHS, DEPARTMENT OF FEDERAL GOV. HOMELAND SECURITY (and you thought it was for your protection tsk tsk not so) DHS HAS PURCHASED with YOUR TAX DOLLARS….NEARLY 2 BILLION ROUNDS OF AMMO, ARMORED TANKS, and a CRAP LOAD OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS—YEAH THOSE SAME ONES YOU CANNOT HAVE, BUT THEY ARE CIVILIANS, A PRIVATE CIVILIAN ARMY.

      AND…OH….DHS HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED WITH NEW PAPER PRACTICE SHOOTING TARGETS OF ARMED AMERICANS—THAT'S RIGHT, THEY ARE YOUNG PREGNANT AMERICAN WOMEN, CHILDREN AND GRANDMA AND GRANDPA IN, and get this, RESIDENTIAL SETTINGS! They are from LET inc. Look it up…and ya just gotta wonder….who does DHS PLAN TO SHOOT!!!!!!!!!!

      DHS REFUSES TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS WHEN ASKED. Hmmm, THAT REEKS eh? DO THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE BESIDE THE FACT THEY ARMING UP TO THE TEETH AND PRACTICING SHOOTING AMERICAN TARGETS? I'm SCARED…and YOU are not Worried…YOU are NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

      SOMETHING STINKS HERE….YOUR DEAR LEADER SAID HE WASN'T a DICTATOR…but if true, then WHY IS HE PLANNING TO ACT LIKE ONE?

      NDAA- and DRONES TO FIRE ON AMERICAN'S IN AMERICA, THE NEW BATTLEFIELD? WHY IS OBAMA ADMIN FIGHTING SO DARN HARD TO ENSURE THIS LAW IS PASSED WITH THAT ABILITY TO FIRE DRON'ES ON AMERICANS IN AMERICA? AND, WHY THE INTERNMENT CAMPS? IF I DIDN'T KNOW BETTER, I'D Say THEY CAN'T DO THAT…BUT "OH YES I CAN" has been GOING AROUND ALL CHECKS AND BALANCES….so What is to STOP WHATEVER MAY COME…Something is HORRIBLY WRONG HERE…

      AMERICAN's PLEASE DO NOT LAY DOWN YOUR GUNS…THEY ARE THEY ONLY THING PROTECTING US NOW, as APPARENTLY some do not Care for OUR CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS…in fact they call them "THAT DAMN PIECE OF PAPER" ~Bush jr. AND ALSO, IF….

      IF THEY CARE SO MUCH ABOUT OUR SAFETY THEN WHY HAVEN'T THEY TAKEN AWAY CARS…they CAUSE MORE DEATHS THAN GUNS–THAT's a FACT… Do you suppose it's because THEY ARE MORE AFRAID OF ARMED AMERICAN's and THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ARMING DHS AND TRYING TO TAKE AWAY AMERICAN's GUNS! MAKE NO SENSE EH…..SOMETHING"s AFOOT, AFOUL…

      YOU BE WARNED AMERICA….I have a stinking feeling the "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING AMERICA" is NOT WHAT AMERICAN'S HAD IN MIND…

      WAKE UP.

  • Rifleman

    The problem with the dp/msm has always been that they will get dozens of innocents killed off to save that single life.

    • Jim_C

      There's tens of thousands of innocents already dead. They don't count?

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        The premise of the question is fatally flawed. The UK and Australia all but banned guns. Violent crime has risen steadily since in those places. The places in the US which rack up the highest body counts from violent crime, are those where guns are restricted, if not banned. The shooter at the Colorado movie theater drove past eight theaters closer to his booby trapped apartment, because those theaters were not Criminal Protection Zones (IOW, they did not ban carry of weapons).

        By doubling down on disarmament, their deaths are dishonored.

        • Eric

          LOL! Where the heck did you get your facts from? The actual truth is, for the UK, that yes there was an initial increase in homicides involving the newly prohibited firearms, however that initial spike quickly gave way and there has since been a steady downward trend (decline) every year since.

      • Mary Sue

        there's also tens of thousands already raped and robbed because they couldn't protect themselves. They don't count?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "There's tens of thousands of innocents already dead. They don't count?"

        Of course. The same math applies. It would have cost many more lives to save each one of those too.

        You just don't get it. Guns are already controlled extensively. Why not work on better car control and make sure people know how to drive better before doing so? Because most Democrats love cars, that's why. There is no other reason for allowing such low standards for obtaining a license.

        Care to continue with more examples of hypocrisy?

  • pierce

    This President and the Democratic Party are out of control. I have never seen anything so utterly asinine as ruling by decree. He thinks he is GOD ALMIGHTY.

    • Jim_C

      Ah, "ruling by decree:"

      Exceutive orders under

      Obama: 138
      Bush II: 291
      Clinton: 364
      Reagan: 381

      So who wins the GOD ALMIGHTY contest?

      • Drakken

        Yes we get it, you love Obummer with all your liberal heart.

      • Mary Sue

        but the question is, what was IN those executive orders?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          You beat me to it.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Exceutive orders under

        Obama: 138
        Bush II: 291
        Clinton: 364
        Reagan: 381

        It's not the quantity, it's the content. Wake up and try to understand the salient points of the comments. You really don't seem that thick-headed, so I have to assume you just don't even try to figure out what the point is.

        • Jim_C

          You tell me, ofm, there's only, what–1200 or so of them?

          Why don't we just assume the democrats' are "draconian" and the republicans' are "common sense?"

      • Dennis X

        People here have a problem when it comes to the facts! Thank you.

    • JacksonPearson

      If he trys to pull this one off, then he should face impeachment by Congressional decree.

  • Spinoneone

    The President may find that taking this action could put all Executive Orders at peril. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. Lots of stuff coming out of the White House, and not just in this Administration, is of questionable legality. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles this one. If they allow it, then, like the "mandate is a tax" in Ocare, we could be in for a very fast ride down a very steep slope.

  • Cosmo

    I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but does anyone think that by issuing an executive order restricting or confiscating guns the president and his minions would create a crisis they couldn't let go to waste; i.e., armed resistance to his edict which would result in bloodshed and the "need" to crack down via martial law? Or does that sound a little far-fetched in the age of Obama?

    • Deerknocker

      I wouldn't put it past Obama. If his executive order trumping the second amendment generates a violent response, well the better the argument for gun confiscation. If there is no response, then his executive order stands. Obama likes these win/win situations. Note please that I am not factoring in any attempt by Congress or the Courts to restrain Obama. Sad to say I don't think there will be any such attempt.

      • Mary Sue

        I wouldn't put it past him either. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, activated the War Measures Act during the FLQ Terrorist October Crisis (The FLQ were Francophone Quebec Separatist terrorists, but not Muslim), after the Trade Commissioner from England (James Cross) was kidnapped and Pierre Laporte, the Quebec Minister of Labour, was murdered. When the CBC interviewed Trudeau asking him about how far he'd go (in regards to using the military for a domestic crisis), Trudeau said, "Just watch me."

        If Obama is going to mirror Trudeau, look for some sort of terrorist action to trigger it.

    • Jim_C

      No one is going to confiscate guns!

      • Drakken

        Yeah, who are we going to believe? You ? Or our lying eyes?

      • Mary Sue

        I'm sure that's what Hitler told the people right up until it happened.

        What, you don't believe that leftist antigunners are LIARS at heart?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "No one is going to confiscate guns!"

        But they'll keep trying. Rolling over because you say so would make it plausible though.

      • welldoneson

        Jim, do you mean nobody is going to confiscate or do you only mean nobody will successfully confiscate?

    • Rebas Thgil

      You don't sound like a conspiracy nut. I would, however, think that it would be a good exercise to play this scenario out at least a few more steps. Who would he have enforce martial law with so many of our troops overseas? Of the ones who are home, here is the crucial question: How many of them are OATH KEEPERS?

      A sideline question: How many of our deployed troops who are OATH KEEPERS would immediately pack it up and come home any way that they could to check a rogue tyrant / Constitutional traitor gone wild?

      • Eric

        The national guard handles domestic issues. They are mainly reservists (since they are usually only needed for disaster relief situations and such), but they are specifically trained for domestic issues and are well capable of getting the job done. They are trained a bit differently then regular forces, more of a police-type of training, where they focus on protecting innocent lives, whereas regular forces is more of a shoot-first, ask questions later, when it comes to combat.

    • Donna

      We need to leave behing the notions of being politically correct, conspiracy theorists or nuts, or anything that we might have considered 'far-fetched' in the past which could be our demize. We are living in a very troubled, challenging, and threatening time. Thank God more of us are realizing the 'TRUTH' about Obama, those who have promoted his presidency, his supporters, his associations, and all of their aspirations and goals which include the subjugation of the United States citizens. Being prepared for the worst scenario is what is necessary at this point. I, for one, am not ruling out any possibility. With God as 'our leader', we will prevail against the evils we face.

    • elizabeth

      http://youtu.be/1pJkRuQAPRE

      Not on our watch
      WHERE? In support of our 2nd Ammendment: a peaceful demonstration, February 8, 2013. Where: Every State Capital, Nation wide, time 10:00 am

    • DHS IS COMING

      Yep yep yep.. ALARM BELLS RINGING ALL OVER AMERICA…..each pres has been "INCREMENTALLY" taking away whatever they can and "LETTING NO CRISIS GO TO WASTE IN ORDER TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA AND PASS UNPOPULAR, UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS".. yep yep yep…while taking guns away from the people

      THEY ARE ARMING DHS a PRIVATE CIVILIAN DEPT ARMY—THAT PROTECTS THE GOV–FED. HOMELAND….that are PRACTICING SHOOTING NEW TARGETS OF ARMED AMERICAN CITIZENS. SOMETHING IS HORRIBLY WRONG AMERICA……

  • logdon

    Is Obama ginning up an Alinsky style insurrection a la 'never let a crisis go to waste'?

    And if not, why this?

    DHS Purchases 200 Million More Rounds of Ammunition Alex Jones …

    http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-200-million-more-r...

    18 Sep 2012 … Additional purchase includes bullets designated for snipers … concerns over the federal government purchasing large quantities of ammunition …
    The big media lie about the US government's purchases of over …

    http://www.naturalnews.com/036847_ammo_purchases_governm....

    18 Aug 2012 … The big media lie about the US government's purchases of over one billion rounds of anti-personnel ammunition.
    Federal Government Ammo Buildup: Social Security …

    theintelhub.com/2012/08/16/federal-government-ammo-buildup-social-security-…

    16 Aug 2012 … Alex Thomas | As word of the Department of Homeland Securities purchase of over 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition in the last three years …

    • LibertarianToo

      Thank you for these links. I hadn't been aware of any of this.

      The question is, what do we do about it?

    • Ray Burke

      The fat lady is onstage and ready to sing.

    • Something NOT RIGHT

      HIS ASSOCIATE—-BILL AYERS—– LOOK THAT ONE UP! WANTED HOW MANY MILLIONS OF AMERICAN' s DEAD AND OTHER's TAKEN TO "RE_EDUCATION CAMPS" aka INTERNMENT CAMPS as in NDAA….

      DRONES SHOOTING AMERICANS in AMERICA…AND AMERICAN MILITARY VETS LABELED "ENEMY COMBATANTS" and and and ….COME ON AMERICA…. YOU SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL

      MR. "I'm NOT A DICTATOR" YET! THE LAWS ARE IN PLACE FOR COMPLETE TAKEOVER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMERCE AND FOOD, WATER, UTILITIES, and PRIVATE PROPERTY.

      COME ON! YOU SAID IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE… OTHER'S WARNED…..WITHIN, THE WRITING WITHIN THE WALLS…. MARTIAL LAW DOES AWAY WITH CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO THEM…. BUT NOT ACCORDING TO AMERICANS. WHAT HAPPENS THEN? IS THAT WHY INTERPOL GIVIN POLICE POWERS HERE AND DHS IS DOMESTIC…and is ARMED TO THE TEETH NOW. WAKE EM ALL UP..

      OF COURSE THEY WANT YOU UNARMED—EASIER That way

  • davarino

    Hey dictator in chief, you can take your executive order and shove in your a$$

    • olivia

      um… well obama sucks duh he is ruening are lives!!!!!he is an a$$!

  • cedars

    When one is doing a full court press doesn't one get all the players rushing to the goal? Consider the items listed in this article. It's all together fitting and proper that to think Obama will issue a raft of EOs, each more confiscatory than the prior one and watch the side show of the courts having their hearings and rulings and appeals. And the media will keep Sandy Hook and Boulder and Columbine replayed week after week. They'll feel they'll win. And win big.

    It's a campaign. It's all he does. There's no stopping him campaigning. And, as he's stated, he'll just keep on campaigning the rest of his life.

    There are really only three solutions.
    1. Impeach him in the House — that will change the playing field for the 2014 cycle; be a surprise and fought over issues the GOP investigates as charges – not the issues and battleground Obama has dictated. Oh, and who cares if the Senate keeps him. BFD what Reid does.
    or
    2. The States get serious and convene a Constitutional Convention. Same benefits as 1 since it moves the 2014 elections onto a different battlefield.
    or
    3. Have a100 million man march on DC.

    If the last 12 years are any use to predict the future, I don't think any of the above will work or even be mentioned by the GOP in Congress. Nor will any measure(s) short of those have much of an impact.

    What's happening is, with all Left Revolutions, the left grows to the point were they "come out in the open". It occurs when they feel, collectively, that it's safe and that they've won or have won enough to win the final battles. Coinsider him the American equivalent of Mao or the Lenin or Castro.

    Obtw, the Reid change of the filibuster will be used to ram through Obama's appointments provided Reid holds his 51 votes needed together. So you'll end up with an administration that looks like a leaf from the org chart of the USSR. After all, the next two and four years are endgame period for the left's revolution.

  • Edward Shick

    Most of these Shooters have been on some type of drugs , Maybe gefore prescribing they should look at sie Effects ,, Responsible people deserve guns and it would be agood Idea if every one had a gun and knew how to use it as Crooks will have them,, Take the body guards away from our politicians and see what there thoughts are then!!!

  • OldmanRick

    I would suggest that a presidential decree regarding 2nd amendment rights would be an impeachable offense. However reid, holder, and the rest of the dims in the senate would do everything in their power to protect the narcissistic brat.

  • Snorbak

    Correct me if I am wrong however, is this not the reason why this ammendment to your constitution was written?

    • Sprinklerman

      Our Second Amendment is only a statement of a God given right and limits the government from violating that right. However if no one stands up to someone who violates this supreme law of our Country, what's to stop him or anyone else in that position from do so. Our constitution also has separation of powers, Executive, legislative and judicial, which is meant to restrict the power of any one branch so that a tyranny of a single branch or person isn't possible. He is also violating our 10th Amendment which states that those duties and authorities not specifically defined in the Constitution as duties and authority of the federal government are reserved to the individual states and the citizens. Obamacare is one such legislation that violates this amendment. I don't remember if the 10th amendment was part of the case recently decided by the Supreme Court or not.

    • TruthOUT2u

      YEP…EXACTLY WHY THE 2ND WAS WRITTEN. FOR TIMES LIKE THESE…THEY HAVE PLANNED FOR THIS ALL THESE MANY YEARS….AND HENCE THEY HAVE NOW ARMED DHS TO THE TEETH. THEY ARE GOING TO PUSH AND PUSH AND PUSH TO GET THEIR WAY FOR THE NWO….AS BUSH SR. SAID ONE SEPT. 11…"WE WILL HAVE NWO WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, WHETHER BY CONSENT OR CONQUEST"

      OBAMA, IF YOU HAVEN'T FIGURED IT OUT YET, WAS THE ONE TO BRING IN THE LAST OF IT, TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA INTO SOMETHING WE NEVER EVER WOULD AGREE TO, AND BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY AND WHATEVER CRISIS THEY CAN USE AND NOT LET GO TO WASTE, BY GOLLY THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO DO IT TOO"…..

      THEY JUST ARE NOT SURE HOW AMERICAN'S WILL REACT, AND SO…THEY HAVE TAKEN YOUR TAX DOLLARS AND ARMED DHS TO THE TEETH AND GIVEN THEM PRACTICE TARGETS OF ARMED AMERICANS TO PRACTICE ON, PROVIDED BY LET INC.

      BEST WAKE UP—YOUR COWARD AND BOUGHT AND PAID FOR COWARDS IN OFFICE WILL DO NOTHING AS THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING YET TO STOP WHAT APPEARS TO BE …A COUP EVEN FROM WITHIN ACCORDING TO HOW SOME OF THOSE IN OFFICE ARE ACTING—OWNED AND PAID FOR BY THE GLOBALIST NWO AS THEY THINK TO KEEP THEIR LITTLE POSITIONS OF POWER IN THE NWO…THEY HAVE NO ALLEGIANCE TO NATIONS…NOT EVEN THEIR OWN. THEY ARE A BROTHERHOOD OF SECRET GOONS. BUT YOU KNOW THEM NOW FOR WHAT THEY ARE.

  • usamom

    How can people so intent on murdering unborn babies, be so intent on saving one life?

    • Ray Burke

      Very nicely put.

    • Mary Sue

      because to them the unborn aren't alive!

    • UpChuck.Liberals

      Because they don't vote.

      • Mary Sue

        the irony is, if said aborted babies grew up, they'd be voting for Obama, no question.

    • welldoneson

      they're not intent on saving one life.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "How can people so intent on murdering unborn babies, be so intent on saving one life?"

      They're not concerned about any life but their own. They're liars.

    • Dennis X

      So people should have a choice to own a gun or not, I agree, but a woman shouldn't have a choice at what to do with her body? If you really believe in God you would understand that everyone will be judged one day. And that will be between God and that person.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        " I agree, but a woman shouldn't have a choice at what to do with her body?"

        The dispute is not about her body but the child's. Can I kill you while claiming I'm doing something with my *own* body?

        " If you really believe in God you would understand that everyone will be judged one day."

        And so will you. Did you advocate for the helpless? That's between you and God with regard to judgment, but it's up to us to advocate for those who can't protect themselves.

      • Chooch

        Does the child get to choose what to do with his or her body? Do you think that God will appreciate your choice to murder an innocent child who was never even given a chance, because it is inconvenient to the mother? What will God's judgement be on those who kill innocents?

    • Adolf Hitler

      They have nothing but ill will toward americans. Taking guns only adds to lawlessness. period.

    • TruthOUT2u

      Their Intention is NOT TO SAVE LIVES, BUT THEIR OWN…HENCE DHS HAS NOW PURCHASED NEARLY 2 BILLION ROUNDS OF AMMO AND HAS PRACTICE SHOOTING TARGETS OF ARMED AMERICANS PROVIDED THEM BY LET INC.
      NDAA= INTERNMENT CAMPS FOR AMERICANS…DRONES OVERHEAD. MASS GRAVES IN THE GROUND AND WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO PROVE SOMETHING IS HORRIBLY WRONG HERE, AND WE ALL KNOW IT…THEY ARE JUST HOPING TO HURRY AND DIS ARM EVERYONE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE BEFORE THE SHTF. THEY ARE CONCERNED FOR ANYONE, BUT THEMSELVES.

  • Asher

    People have been planning for Os tyranny for 4 years…send out the UN globalists and find out where it gets you! Remember, anyone who you send out will be called enemies and everyone will defend themselves.

  • dodo

    Since almost all violent crime in America is committed by Obama voters (plus a very few lunatics), Obama should sign a decree taking all guns from Obama voters and giving them to conservatives. The violent crime rate should go down to zero!

    • usamom

      excellent idea!

      • Dennis X

        You agree with someone named" do do ", that says alot.

    • Sprinklerman

      There's actually data on that. 2011 FBI crime statistics show that the majority of murders and violent crime happen in metropolitan areas of 200,000 or more people; a rate of 754 violent crimes per 100k and a murder rate of 10.1 per 100k.
      Violent crime overall in the US in 2011 was 386 per 100k and the murder rate was 4.7 per 100k.

      • Mary Sue

        Not to mention, a poll I saw once put the prison population at over 80% self-identified as Democrat.

  • Adheeb

    In this country we have a Constitution. That Constitution can be amended as prescribed by the Constitution itself. Prohibition was the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and that Amendment was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment. Every few years someone will propose a new amendment to repeal the amendment which limits presidential terms to two. So why not propose the repeal of the 2nd Amendment? The reason is it would never be ratified and would be a political embarrassment to Mr. Obama. It would be interesting to hear if Mr. Obama would publicly endorse the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

    Funny thing is, in a few days Obama will once again swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. One must ask, does this man ever tell the truth.

    • Sprinklerman

      No he doesn't, and neither do any of his administration or staff.

  • Johnconrad

    The Reds took over Moscow with around 10,000 men. There were PLENTY of armed citizens under the Czar who could have stopped them – along with the military – but they were complacent with the assurances of a militant minority hell-bent on setting things right.

    After consummating the Revolution, they requested citizens come in and register their firearms. When they showed up to register them, they were shot.

    They didn't have an internet.

    We need to make sure we keep it open and free.

    • Adheeb

      A group of organized men will always be able to contain and control a large mob. The Communists were organized but the people we're simply armed individuals.

      Hopefully the Supreme Court will knock down this notion of banning guns by executive order. It certainly IS NOT constitutional. But Obama has stacked the court and even so-called conservatives find making their mark on history irresistible.

    • Fritz

      The Tsar was already gone by the time Lenin came on the scene, the revolution happened in the spring of 1917, Tsar Nicolas abdicated the throne, and a provisional government headed by Alexander Kerensky and the Russian parliament, the Duma, took over. What Lenin and the Bolsheviks did was to stage a coup over that rather weak provisional government, and to win support of the masses he promised peace as opposed to the provisional government who wanted to continue the war. It happened in St. Petersburg not Moscow by the way.
      Contrary to popular belief the old order didn't simply lay down and let the Bolsheviks take over, there was a three year long civil war for control of the Russia between the Bolsheviks "Reds" and the "Whites" who were a loose coalition of parliamentarians, monarchists, mensheviks, and just about everyone else. So they had a civil war, followed by a famine, and about two million dead, the Bolsheviks prevailed because they were literally the last ones standing because they were the least disorganized.

  • Arlie

    I saw this post yesterday on a different website and had to laugh:
    "cocked, locked and ready to rock you gvmt toolbag PO$; MOLON LABE!" (one of the oath keepers) People should be going to their local police departments and government officials and straight forward asking them.

    Sir or Madam: If it comes down to it…you took an solomn oath to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION from enemies BOTH foreign and DOMESTIC. Where do you stand? By your oath or the corrupt gvmt that is paying you with MY tax $$?

    TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF YOUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. Will they protect the Constitution?

    Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch
    Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote……Benjamin Franklin

    • wordsofwisdomfromanoldfart

      Great response Arlie. Your blog needs to go viral!

    • Adheeb

      My question isn't about the local cops, it's about the military. I believe enlisted men swear obedience to the Commander & Chief but the officer corp swear to defend the Constitution. How would that shake out? If the military sides with Obama, any mob of armed citizens will be squashed, quickly.

      • Mary Sue

        considering it's long been the case that the military sides with Republicans, I think it's far more likely that Obama will let a bunch of potential Acorn recruit thugs out of jail instead.

        • Walt

          Please repeat after me: THE US MILITARY (other than the National Guard) CANNOT BE USED IN THE CONUS! There is a law call Posse Comititus (sp) that forbids it. And the National Guard would never be enough to stop a civil insurrection. As a retired service member, I cannot believe that any service or Guard member would follow orders to quash those persons supporting our 2nd amendment anyway.

      • Drakken

        Most military folks won't go against their own people, and since they took an oath to the Constitution and not President although they do take orders from the commander in chief, you would have complete chaos in the military if those orders were to come down from on high, most would refuse to follow those orders.

      • http://twitter.com/CatDaddyJCT @CatDaddyJCT

        You don't know anything about the Oath. I was enlisted. My son is enlisted. We both took an oath (a no-expiration date oath), to defend this country/Constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic.

  • wordsofwisdomfromanoldfart

    A response from the real representatives of the United States of America (THE PEOPLE), to the pres. and the rest of the run-its (RUNTS), our answer to you about giving up our protection from a tyranical government :

    NO

  • Winston

    This illegitimate "el Presidente" has been testing imposing his powers (having his strings pulled by global socialists) a little at a time. If the cowards in the House of Representatives just sit on the fat hinneys and do nothing, the will of the people should make a run on Washington…and it should be a Five Million Patriot March… and remove them all and put Sheriff Joe Arpaio in as Obama's replacement.

  • bsteadman

    'ObamaFraud.5x' can seriously disrupt the tyrannical plans of the Elite Establishment and the Obama Regime!

    This matter has become extremely critical now that Obama is threatening to enact Executive Orders to accomplish additional gun controls, which will inevitably be followed by gun confiscation.

    Learn more about 'ObamaFraud.5x' at:
    http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-o

    Then, get busy!

  • whitesheperd

    What we have is a "INNER CITY" Cultural, Criminal.Drug, Problem: The amount of people killed at Newton, is like a week end in Chicago. We don't need large capacity mags, for deer, we need them for the criminals, our society turns their back on, for God forbid if you say anything you are a racist or some other lame reason, the people who run this monster problem, will call you. It should be called MONSTER CONTROL, because that's whats bred and let lose to intimidate the general population….CONTROL THAT: than you will prove you have a constructive answer….BUT YOU DON'T>>>we all know what the problem is, coincidently it's in the cities who have ALL LIB MAYORS>
    Fess up to it, you cowards, we need the high capacity equipment for MONSTER CONTROL!

    • Mary Sue

      Now I have this mental image of all the gangs actually being a "terrorist sleeper cell" so they can be the brownshirts if crap goes down.

  • Deerknocker

    A president who does not accept the restraining role of the Constitution in our republic is a tyrant. If a president can override the Constitution, then what law can he not override? If Obama attempts to trump the 2nd Amendment with an executive order, he subjects the law to his whim.. In doing so he declares himself a tyrant. Those who value their freedoms under our Constitution must now ask themselves some very serious questions.

  • Richard

    I don’t think that a draconian gun law would be enforceable. For one thing, resistance would be widespread, and both overt and covert. My guess is that many millions of Americans would refuse to comply. I have read that at any one moment there are about 750,000 policemen on duty in the U.S. Given the fact that they are already spread thin, they simply couldn’t enforce this. Besides that, many police forces, particularly in rural areas, would simply look the other way. Plenty of police on the streets believe in gun rights. I’m not sure that calling up the national guard would work out so well either. The guard is composed of citizens and it would be divided on the law. I can even see conflict between law authorities over this, up to and including violence.

    It is true that the army could crush any attempt to seize a city hall, for example, but our armed force are not vast in number and there are 315,000,000 Americans. The military don’t have the personnel to control the whole country, and I think that using the army against the American people may run into real legal problems besides. Faced with widespread resistance, particularly peaceful, the Army might refuse orders to attack our own citizens. Obama is not popular in the military. I have heard that he lost the vote in the Armed Forces by 40 points.

    Even if resistance is covert, I don’t see how confiscation or severe restrictions could be made to work, if the people really want guns on a broad scale. A black market would spring up, gun owners would do their business off the books, and gun and ammunition running would become a gold mine for the enterprising, including organizes crime. Many millions of felons would be created out of American citizens exercising their second amendment rights. The courts right now are so jammed and underfunded that they are turning cases away. Prisons are compelled for the same reason to let dangerous people go. Can the system really stand a huge access of arrests for people that many would see as innocent of anything but constitutional behavior? I don’t think this is workable, and it might really burn at least some politicians who support it.

    We all remember how successful prohibition and the war on drugs has been, right?

    Best,

    Richard

    • Fritz

      There is also the uniform code of military justice which basically obliges you to ignore any order that could constitute a criminal act, most military organizations have something similar, this was how they nailed Nazi war criminals for the "I was just following orders" plea. There are already several laws on the books forbidding the use of military personal for civilian law enforcement not to mention the sketchiness of an executive order blatantly attempting an end run around the second amendment. I suspect when it comes down to it the only law enforcement entity that would enforce gun ban and confiscation without question may be the ATF, and we all know what happened when they rolled into action in Waco.

    • Smitty

      Well said, Richard. IMO, your predictions would hold true, and you and I would become instant criminals. I am not one to protest, and I have never joined a band of street protestors, but if Obama and his henchmen think that they can put my life and the lives of my family in danger with the stroke of a pen, they had better do some deep re-thinking.

      As you stated, guns would go black market. Although guns would be more costly and difficult to obtain, they can be constructed on CMC machines, etc., or smuggled into the country. What makes the government geniuses think they can completely wipe out gun violence by removing guns from decent law-abiding citizens? Where would guns most likely originate? In a country that starts with an "M."

    • Ghostwriter

      Richard,I fail to see the difference between banning guns and the war on drugs. Guns are legal to keep and with the right training,they can be used and stored safely. Drugs like marijuana,cocaine,crack and other like them are dangerous and shouldn't be used at all. You're living in Fantasy Land here,Richard.

  • Roger Dewhurst

    He had best be buying himself a bullet proof suit. He will have more than half of the US population wishing to put it to the test.

    • http://twitter.com/CatDaddyJCT @CatDaddyJCT

      From your lips, to God's ears.

  • Jim_C

    "Obama could restrict, perhaps even abolish, private gun ownership with the stroke of his auto-pen."

    This is what I love so much about FPM and other rightwing outfits: "Why, he might even ABOLISH private gun ownership with the stroke of a pen!"

    Except he won't. Ever. Abolish the right to own guns, to bear arms.

    Oh sure, he might just ask for a level of regulation on par with, say, the sale of baby furniture.

    But abolish? or even take away? Nope. Never. Wouldn't even think of it. Sorry to bring you the good news–I know you were enjoying the image of yourselves and like-minded patriots camped out in wait for Obama's gov't jackies!

    Get a grip, my friends.

    • Mary Sue

      he'd enact restrictions that violate the spirit of the second amendment, don't kid yourself.

      • Jim_C

        In what regard would they violate the spirit of the Second Amendment?

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          For starters: would it be a violation of the 1st, that you must register with the federal government, and obtain its approval, before you express your opinion on teh interwebs?

          • Jim_C

            Yes.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Then you have your answer.

          • Jim_C

            Your turn!

          • trickyblain

            If he loses his mind one day, can Jim use his online opinion as a tool to kill a bunch of people in a matter of seconds?

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            No. Shall we regulate his freedom to assemble, as well? He could run over a bunch of people on his way to the local meeting of Crazies Anonymous.

            Best to put every person in a cage with a toilet, and pellet dispenser, and an internet feed (provided you are registered, of course).

          • Jim_C

            "Best to put every person in a cage with a toilet…" In a sense, we already are. We are incarcerating people all over the place. Now there is a bill to cross-train teachers as police. There's some irony to the notion that in order to keep from becoming a police state, some propose to turn us into a police state.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            In a sense, we already are. We are incarcerating people all over the place.

            Trying to muddle the issue with an unrelated matter. Noted.

            Now there is a bill to cross-train teachers as police.

            O Rly? How are teachers being trained as police?

          • Jim_C

            Did I go on a riff after you went on a riff? Yes. Not trying to "muddle" anything anymore than you were.

            I said there have been some bills proposed:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/guns-for

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            It's the difference between relevant, and irrelevant. However, citing examples of how the government allegedly unjustly incarcerates some, is hardly a sound rhetorical basis for arguing in favor of giving it more power < — Free Tip

            As far as police, proposing that teachers have police power, hardly amounts to the creation of a "police state" (riff. riff. riff). That said, it is wrong-headed and statist to suggest that teachers should need such status to go armed. It is a citizen's right. The notion that they need to be police is a big government one.

          • Jim_C

            I said nothing about "unjustly."

            If teachers are armed and trained "as police," they are, for all intents and purposes, police.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Wrong again. "armed as police," is a non sequitor, because any citizen has a right to go armed. "Trained as police" is similarly irrelevant, as having knowledge does not convey authority.

            But I'll accept your "for all intents and purposes" backpedaling for what it is.

          • Jim_C

            I understand–you enjoy semantic games.

            First, the teacher is already an "authority" in a school.

            Second, that teacher will be trained and will carry arms. For what purpose? In what world is giving a teacher the training a police officer receives, then entrusting that teacher with a weapon in school not according that teacher "authority?"

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            I understand–you enjoy semantic games

            On the contrary. It is you who plays the semantic games, i.e. "well-regulated."

            First, the teacher is already an "authority" in a school.

            Who's playing semantic games? What a laugh. We were speaking of status as police. Sharing a subset of the knowledge conveyed to a police officer trainee, does not bestow upon one, the authority of a police officer. Understand now?

            Second, that teacher will be trained and will carry arms. For what purpose?

            For the purpose of self-defense, and those around her, especially those who have little hope of defending themselves.

            In what world is giving a teacher the training a police officer receives, then entrusting that teacher with a weapon in school not according that teacher "authority?"

            It is this world. We are reminded in concealed carry training, on numerous occasions, that although we carry firearms, and have the right to defend ourselves, and come to the aid of others in imminent threat to life and limb, we are not police officers, and if we act as such, we will likely quickly find ourselves in prison.

        • Mary Sue

          effectively using weasel lawyerese language to deny law abiding people access to firearms. Red tape up the hoo-hah.

      • trickyblain

        Did the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulates automatic weapons, violate the spirit as well?

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          Yes, it does, as it all but bans legal access to small arms used by our military forces. That's what a "well-regulated militia" means. But the NFA has to stand in line with the myriad other laws and departments which are extra-Constitutional.

          • Jim_C

            Actually, back up a bit (if you don't mind), and tell me what you believe "a well-regulated militia" means.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            I'll wait for you the answer the question I posed first, thanks.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Always nice to have visitors, btw.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Well-regulated, in this context, means well-trained and practiced. At the time of the Second Amendment's writing, soldiers were expected to provide their own arms. The 2nd explicitly states "keep and bear arms." (emphasis mine).

            One cannot be well-trained or practiced in such arms, when one is denied access to them. Further, the justification provided in the 2nd ("…being necessary for the security of a free state") precludes restriction of arms which would be inadequate for the purpose.

          • Jim_C

            All right, but the reality we are dealing with is that one can have all the arms he wants, without being well-trained and practiced. So either "well-regulated" means something else, or else this statement is compromised by this reality; i.e., there is something not "secure" about the state when those who keep and bear arms are not "regulated." No?

            I'm trying to get your view on this as applied to the present day.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            there is something not "secure" about the state when those who keep and bear arms are not "regulated." No?

            Yes, it is true that a free state is less secure, when the people are denied arms best-suited to ensure its security.

            (I answered your question based upon the real meaning of "regulated" in this context, not the meaning you are trying to co-opt it toward.)

          • Jim_C

            But you have to be able to apply the meaning of all of it–not just some of it. You give me the meaning of "well-regulated" in context. And the historical context is very clear to me. But you seem loathe to apply that context to the present day.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            The words and meaning of the text of the Second Amendment do not change with time.

            You asked me to explain what "well-regulated" means, with regards to the Second Amendment, and I did. Pretending I didn't not provide a complete answer does not change that fact.

          • Jim_C

            So…you are perfectly willing to discuss the ownership of muskets during a time when we did not have a standing army and relied on a citizen militia to be called upon by the president to defend the country in keeping with the Constitution's use of the term "militia", but you are unable–or unwilling–to apply that meaning to today's context. Do I have that right?

          • Drakken

            There is no modern day context period, the 2nd Amendment means what it says. Obviously your Civics classes didn't cover the Constitution or bill of rights or how the branches of govt work.

          • Jim_C

            Ah! A constitutional scholar! Thank goodness. Here's the thing: I can apply the meaning of the Constitution and every amendment in the Bill of Rights to ANY modern context. All of them are applicable in any contemporary context, and very clearly and necessarily so.

            All, that is, except the Second Amendment–that has "no modern day context, period"–according to our constitutional scholar!

            For Drakken, the 2nd Amendment is more of a vestigial appendage–the relic of another time!

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Once again, you twist words. It's OK. People who know they have no rhetorical leg to stand on often do just that. We understand.

            When Drakken says there is no modern context, Drakken clearly means that the context does not differ from then to now. The Second Amendment says what it says. The words have not changed.

          • Jim_C

            Then we, as gun owners, are part of a well-regulated militia?

          • Drakken

            The milita that the 2nd Amendment refers to, means we the people of the United States.

          • Jim_C

            But if we, the people, are the militia, are we well-regulated, and if so, in what regard?

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Already covered.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            What Drakken said. The militia is, as a Founding Father put it, "the whole people."

            The Second Amendment agrees, too, for it says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

            Note, too, the wording acknowledges the right. It does not grant it.

            You clearly think you've got your argument tied up, based upon one word in a subordinate clause, but you can't even accept what the word means in context.

            Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

          • Jim_C

            Let me tell you where I'm coming from: I think we have enough gun laws and the Constitution is clear on the right to bear arms. Our "gun problem," as I've stated on this site before, is really a societal sickness.

            But you're right, I am hung up on those clauses–I don't think it's possible to read that text as cut-and dry. Are the clauses independent? Or is one contingent on the other? Because it seems to me the Constitution means something specific when it refers to "militia," even more specific when it specifies "well-regulated," still more specific when it says who's in charge of that militia. It is not an astonishing leap of logic to say there is some relation between "regulation" and "infringement."

            Bottom line: no one is coming for anyone's guns, but if there is will among the people to regulate firearms, it is not unconstitutional to do so.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            But you're right, I am hung up on those clauses–I don't think it's possible to read that text as cut-and dry.

            Well, perhaps others’ reading comprehension is better than yours. But of course, it is possible to read the Second Amendment, and determine the original intent.

            Are the clauses independent?

            Yes

            Or is one contingent on the other?

            No

            Because it seems to me the Constitution means something specific when it refers to "militia…"

            Article 1, Section 8. In addition, many of the Founding Fathers went on record, with regards to what they meant, when they used the word. There is so much evidence and clarity on the question of their original intent, yet people like you keep trying to muddle a clear matter.

            …even more specific when it specifies "well-regulated…"

            Already covered.

            …still more specific when it says who's in charge of that militia.

            Read paragraph 16 of Article 1, Section 8

            It is not an astonishing leap of logic to say there is some relation between "regulation" and "infringement."

            Non-sequitor, and just so much handwaving. What do you mean?

            Bottom line: no one is coming for anyone's guns…

            “No one?” You are in deep denial, ignorant, or lying. Shall we list a few politicians who are seeking to do exactly that?

            …but if there is will among the people to regulate firearms, it is not unconstitutional to do so.

            Denying the militia (or as George Mason put it, “the whole people”), access to those arms which would make feasible the defense of a free state (not a government, mind you, but a state), is clearly unconstitutional.

          • Jim_C

            Is it unconstitutional to regulate firearms, then, when we, the people, are the militia, and that militia is specified as "well-regulated?"

            In other words, regulation is not infringement.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            It looked like you were asking a question for a second, there, but instead you were just continuing to make the same old assertion.

            Let me ask you a real question. Does the word "bear" mean the same thing in the following phrases?

            "Bear arms"

            "Bear fruit"

            "Bear discomfort"

            You see, the rhetorical slight of hand you are employing won't further your argument. "Regulated" doesn't mean what you are pretending it means, as it is used in the Second Amendment.

          • Jim_C

            "Bear" with me, RW&J.

            If we, the whole people, who have the self-evident right to bear arms, ARE the militia–in what way are we "well-regulated?" Procuring a firearm does not require me to be practiced and ready to boot up and suit up.

            You can call the clauses independent, but they are part of the same sentence and therefore the same intent of thought.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            It not a matter of me calling them dependent and independent. They are dependent and independent.

            The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

            This is a complete sentence. It stands on its own. It is independent. (I will also note at this point, the wording does not grant, but acknowledges a right. The wording parallels the wording of the First Amendment in this regard.

            The remainder of the Second cannot be made into a complete sentence. It is a dependent clause.

            See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_clause for remedial assistance.

          • Drakken

            If useful idiot leftist are willing to do away with the 2nd Amendment because according to you it is a relic, how would you feel then if they did away with the rest because according to your logic, they are just relics of the past and don't really mean what they are really saying because gee golly we have to interept them from a modern standpoint. I see our education system is an epic failure.

          • Jim_C

            No, I'm saying your explanation defines it as a relic because it was written during a time when the notion of a standing army was mistrusted and individuals were expected to be called upon from their private lives to form up and defend the country. We live in a time where standing armies are a given, as well as the various levels of law enforcement.

            Think of this as helping your poor, indoctrinated liberal brother, Jim C, understand what conservatives have long settled amongst themselves.

            The notion of militia becomes problematic when you say we ARE the militia, but that the right to bear arms protects us FROM that militia. Are we the militia, or is the militia something else?

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            No, I'm saying your explanation defines it as a relic…

            Keep playing pretend. That's not what Drakken meant, and you know it.

            The notion of militia becomes problematic when you say we ARE the militia, but that the right to bear arms protects us FROM that militia. Are we the militia, or is the militia something else?

            We are the militia. In its role to "ensure the security of a free state," it protects us from anyone who seeks to compromise that freedom.

          • Jim_C

            No play pretend about it. You are relegating the "well-regulated" part to the original intent and saying that specific bit really does not apply today in the same fashion. Or worse, you are saying that qualifier "well-regulated" really doesn't matter and I should stop harping on it, likely because it is inconvenient to your argument. Therefore, you are saying it is sort of a "relic"–it means what it meant at the time it was written when there was no standing army (the part of my post you chose not to quote).

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Try again, and this time stop attempting to put words in my mouth, or manipulate the meaning of those I did use.

          • asdfjkl;

            If you think the Consitution is a "relic because it was written during a time when the notion of a standing army was mistrusted," you need to join the 21st Century. Because the more I listen to people like you talk, the more I understand the reason we need the right to bear arms–to actually defend ourselves from people who are trying to take away our rights.
            And you keep harping on the militia thing (seriously, you are a semantics FREAK). No we (the average American)are not currently a militia, but I am starting to visualize a time when we will need to become one.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            No, you are wrong. I have applied it in "today's context." The words mean the same thing now, that they mean then.

            I will discuss muskets, when muskets are mentioned in a portion of the Constitution's text.

    • http://twitter.com/vadum @vadum

      Not with a pen. With an auto-pen.

      • trickyblain

        Because, like teleprompters, Obama is the only president to use one, ever.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          Who said that? One of the voices in your head?

    • vladdy

      Hey, hate to let the cat out of the bag, but the allinsky-type-ridicule doesn't really work anymore. We're onto ya and have been for a while now

    • Ghostwriter

      I don't own a gun. That's my choice. I don't want to force my choice on to others. A lot of people think President Obama wants to take their guns away. He'd be foolish if he tried,but I think will try something like it,what do you think Jim_C?

  • Anonymous

    Isn't this lawlessness…to put ideology in front of everything, including the system of governance? If so, then should not others do the same? Why playing by the rules if the others are not? A civil war in the making?

  • Atlas_Collins

    Omnes Tyranni Sunt Delendi!

  • BLJ

    I really wish Barry Soetoro and his doofus sidekick Biden would come to my home to take my guns. Come on over fellas……pretty please.

    • downeastdiva

      I would love to do it myself BJ, what cha afraid of?

  • Duke

    Let him act…this may be , in the longer term a positive for the country…if he pulls his "i'm the boss" Frank Nitti
    act perhaps he will finally be exposed to all for the naked petty tyrant he is…and then the country will wake up and be energized.

    That said I prefer G-D strike him down with sudden illness..

    • Brontyard

      Does that mean that you'd rather have Joe Biden as President? For my part, Joe is a progressive while the President is a moderate – and an incremental one at that.

      • Mary Sue

        Biden is still the kind of idiot you wouldn't want as Prez. Even in place of Zero. After all, who picked him? He picked him for a reason!

  • Larry

    Now just who are going to collect 300 million firearms from good tax paying legal citizens who do not wish to part with them. Not your local Lawmen. not our Military. not the CIA or FBI. These guys will not carry out an illegal action against law abiding citizens. ObUma Reid Pelosi and the liberals must have been into some potent stuff.
    These guys can't get rid of the known illegals handle the known mentally ill idiots that hurt innocents. Their brains have stopped working—IF they ever did.

  • Tan

    I think what Obama and the Left are asking for is civil war. If they do abolish the 2nd amendment enormously or even totally, are they going to establish martial law all over the US on the same day or the next day in order to steal people's guns? Will states like Texas draw away from the US immediately? I think such events are more than likely, and it's going to be very ugly. Is Obama putting his life in great danger because of this (if you know what I mean)? More than likely, I would say. If that happens (and I pray it never happens), all conservatives and Tea Party members will be blamed for it and they will be persecuted like never before. Plus Obama will be labeled as a martyr in history books, and that is something conservatives never want. Instead conservatives and I want to expose Obama as a fraud while he's still alive. As long as he's alive and he continues to do bad things, it gives conservatives justification to expose him, leading to a possible impeachment. But if something bad happens to him (God forbid), then exposing him will be over and won't matter because we will be finger-pointed by Leftists as "Obama killers" or any horrible name they can think of. Other questions to consider if the 2nd amendment is abolished is this: will radical Muslims take advantage of this situation to harass and convert more people (since they will be the ones with the guns)? Will the Left try to abolish conservative thought next once we are disarmed? Like I said, such events are likely to happen, but I hope that things can turn out better, but at the same time I'm skeptical.

  • UCSPanther

    If Obama does try something like this, it will have to go before the supreme court and face overturning.

    I suspect Obama is basically trying to act like he is doing something to satisfy his voter base, but probably knows that getting carried away will cause a political backlash.

    In short, messing with an executive order in such a far-reaching way will have a backlash, both legal and political, and doing door-to-door confiscations will create a huge mess of problems, such as the personal safety risk to LEO and military personnel tasked with that job, huge expense and widespread alienation that could ruin the democratic party politically for years to come.

  • BrianYYC

    195,000 people die every year as a result of hospital related errors. Should we ban hospitals?

  • fanlad

    Yes, where is the outrage that over one million unborn babies are supposedly legally aborted every year in this country. Where is the outrage from the liberal left on this? You will not hear it, it's the platform of their believe system. The culture of death. God help us.

    • Mary Sue

      Yeah, not at all, because while they deny it publicly, secretly they believe Tom Leykis when he says that one aborted baby means one less Future Carjacker Of America.™

  • Adolf Hitler

    What makes this president different from all the others? Ah ha! Is that why you are in this big mess?

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Those who voted for the dictator Obama may be having second thoughts or not, maybe with
    no second amendment there will be no second thoughts allowed…………Confiscation of
    all guns and the mandatory purchase of prayer rugs will go together, you see you turn in
    your gun and kneel down and bend over…………………………William

  • rightwingcanadian

    as one of the few Canadians who likes guns I pray to god that America's gun laws don't change.

  • welldoneson

    This quisling President has no right to ban any guns by decree. Read the 2cd amendment.
    And if he and his blame-America-first cronies want to save “even one life” why did he roll over and go back to sleep while Americans were being murdered in Libya?

  • Brujo Blanco

    This thing with the guns is a.test by the left. If they can take the guns they can take anything. With the elimination of the second amendment we will see the first amendment on the hit list. Obama is.trying to be an all powerful dictator. I hope he relenys. I do not want to see the people fighting the military. The evil following such an event will be horrible.

  • Ken

    This is not a gun problem alone. We have a constitutional right to own guns. We are trying to save lives with another law which will not work. The worst massacre in our history occurred at Virginia Tech and could have been prevented with out political correctness which kept the shooter from receiving help.See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shoote… We must study the real problem and it is not guns. The real study is why do people kill other human beings.

  • misternatural13

    Since we’re playing the “some Bill of Rights amendments are better than others” game let us try this out, it’s guaranteed to make the anti-gun zealots (more) crazy.
    Proposed:
    Step 1= Pick a city with strict gun laws and a high rate of gun violence. How about Chicago?
    Step 2= Select the section of the city that has the highest numbers of shootings and/or the section in which the largest # of convicted shooters lived prior to conviction
    Step 3= Do house to house/apartment to apartment searches of every residence in that section to seize illegal weapons
    Step 4= Warrants? We ain’t got no warrants. We don’t need no stinking warrants! (We do have these badges, though.)
    To hell with the 4th amendment if it’s for the good of the community. What’s so unreasonable about that?
    Step 5= sit back and enjoy the spectacle emanating from the lib universe

  • tagalog

    I thought the President was a Constitutional scholar, having taught Con Law at the University of Chicago. Surely he is aware of the rule of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case.

    Since the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case is from the Truman administration, is over 50 years old, and is fundamental "hornbook law" taught in Year One of law school, one hopes Mr. Obama has a Constitutional provision to cite for his claim of authority to exercise Presidential power over the seizure of private property, otherwise, a decent case could be made for the claim that President Obama is knowingly and intentionally committing one of those "high crimes and misdemeanors" that could, if the political array of powers were different, get him impeached.

    Given that the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to advance many, many causes over the past half-century, that particular Constitutional provision might be used by gun rights advocates to fight any movement, Presidential or Congressional, to exercise legislative or executive power over gun ownership. Suspect classification, deprivation of a fundamental right, strict scrutiny, and all that, eh? Why not have a little fun with this Constitutional stuff?

    • Jim_C

      Can you point me to a source that shows Mr. Obama is advocating seizure of firearms?

      • tagalog

        I can't do that yet. But the administration is saying very clearly that they want to go beyond what has been done in the past with regard to gun control, and if necessary, they'll do whatever they have in mind via presidential order, circumventing the will of the people as expressed by their elected legislators.

        • Brontyard

          Isn't the will of the people also expressed by the significant majority who actually voted for President Obama?

          • tagalog

            President Obama's job is not to make law; that is a power expressly delegated to the lawmakers, the legislative branch of government, to wit: Congress. If the people who want gun control expect it to come from the President, they're barking up the wrong tree; they need to influence Congress.

            For the chief executive to make law is the kind of thing they do in monarchies and other authoritarian power structures, not what they do here.

            President Obama is the chief law ENFORCEMENT officer of the United States, not the chief lawmaker. Congress makes the laws; the President enforces them and the Supreme Court interprets them.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            You are obviously unclear on what the phrase "rule of law," means. What you are describing, is a tyrant. Look up the word's original meaning.

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        I can show you where he expressed his opinion, with regards to the issue of whether or not you can use a handgun, in your own home, to defend your life. Guess what that opinion was.

  • Smitty

    Taking my self-defense firearms by force will have to be just that: by force. If this narcissistic President and his Congressional henchmen think that they have the right to make a unilateral decision to virtually castrate anyone and everyone, well….they had better think again. Obama and Reid, et. al. will make a very, very serious lapse of judgement if they think they can bypass the Constitution (and Congress). If for any chance he happens to try it, thus making gun ownership illegal, I plan to meet Bubba head-on in the nearest prison. And that, folks, is not an idle boast.

  • http://FRONTPAGEMAG Adolf Hitler

    I disarmed the germans way back when in the 30′s. I had to first disarm the people so i could then kill lots of em. I think this new fascist has plans for a m e r i c a n s. ;(

  • Adolf Hitler

    Americans must fight now before they light up the ovens! That will follow gun collection by barack hussain obama usama.

  • CO Defender

    Just something to think about…WHO is going to confiscate these weapons? Do any of you really believe they can find enough agents/officers/officials who are going to put their lives on the line to enforce what is clearly unconstitutional?

  • Linda Rivera

    Barack Hussein Obama told the UN General Assembly: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    England Warns America: Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns

    England grabbed its citizens guns in 1997. Crime skyrocketed as the law-abiding were disarmed. The English citizens have a message for Americans — Don’t give up your guns!
    http://conservativevideos.com/2012/12/england-war

  • poetcomic1

    Do it, Zero! One stroke of the pen and ban guns… while your at it stick your head in a giant wasp nest.

  • Fat Robert

    Do you have ANY idea what this means?! It means that WE are going to end up going to actual WAR with FEDERAL GUN CONFISCATORS!!! Probably the TSA… That's HOMELAND SECURITY!!! They are the ones that can detain you "indefinitely" under the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA!)! This stuff's no "joke", man! They supposedly have internment camps, possibly run by FEMA solely for the purpose of detaining large numbers of rebels ( like us dangerous second amendment nuts with even so much as "special education" in our mental history! ) If you have recieved ANY type of counselling "AT ALL" regardless of the type, under obama's latest "executive order" ( I WARN you right now… obama is about to blossom into a brutal dictator who will not tolorate rebellion – or ANY type of political dissent – ), it will be an actual FELONY for you to own even a hand-gun!! Man, I guarantee it, the impending "gun grab" is only the FIRST STAGE in the "war on freedom!" Hey hey hey. What's MY opinion on all this bad news legislation? My opinion is that it's time to WAKE THE —- UP!!!

  • Fat Robert

    Hey hey hey! I got a fun little "riddle" for you: who were the very first people convinced under Hitler to hand over all their "defenses?" 1. The gypsies? 2. The Jews? Or 3. The Stewarts? If you answered " the gypsies, "you're mistaken. If your answer was #3, you're either being a smart —, or you've got head injuries! If you answered "#2", you're right. It was the jews! My advice to you is " SNAP OUT OF IT!" The false Right/Left paradigm has split this once great nation ( nation or "notion" at this point!? ) of ours! The so-called "elete" and their "media-mind-control machine know PRECISELY what they are doing! obama ( no I will NOT spell his name with no capital "O!" ) is truely a diabolical evil genius psychopath!! The george washington of the New World Order! The globalists are singing "praises" to this new rising KING, but nobody knows what's going on due to the global media's false portrayal of realty! Even the Jews ( pe0ple who should clearly "know better!" ) are mostly decieved! Normally, there'd be no "excuse" for it,.. but the media's "psychedelic-effect" seems to be just too powerful. Too many subliminal messages… too much "propaganda" ( that's just a dressed-up term for B.s!! ) hey hey hey, it's a very "troubling" day.