Gun Control Executive Orders Expected Within Weeks

| |

obamaynofly

After countless mass shootings during his time as president, all of which failed to inspire the public to yield on gun rights issues, Obama has had enough with our political system. He’s actively working to circumvent Congress, and instate the gun control measures he’s always wanted by decree. We now have a timeline for when that will occur.

White House communications director Jen Psaki told Bloomberg that within a matter of “weeks, not months” Obama will review the recommendations for executive orders he’s been given by the Department of Justice. The DOJ is currently trying to figure out what options Obama has, which could legally circumvent Congress and survive any lawsuits that gun rights groups are sure to throw at the order.

Psaki further added that gun violence is “probably the issue that has touched him most personally over the course of his presidency.” For now it’s unclear what he plans to do precisely, though he has frequently called for more thorough background checks in the past, and more recently has called for preventing people on the no-fly list from owning firearms.

According to Psaki, Obama is planning a “range of steps that can be taken as it relates to the people who have access to guns [and] how people gain access to guns,” and that he “will not be satisfied” unless some kind of action is taken on firearms before the end of his term.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Joel W

    They can EO all they want, it ain’t gonna get the guns that are already out there. And I guarantee another spike in sales. The gun salesman of the year strikes again.

    • none

      Think of the 1933 ban on machine guns!
      The ban on silencers! (Mufflers on firearms).
      Allowing illegal aliens, Muslims free housing,welfare and free education.
      You don’t think Mr Obama wants anyone to hurt a Muslim terrorist do you?

      • Joel W

        Its well beyond Muslims. They’re just pawns. A means to an end.

        • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

          Good reply, Joe

      • Reverend Draco

        Incoherent much?

      • AtomicMetroid

        Obama momma was jewish

        • wally63

          Drop the “ish”. She was simply a JEW. No apologies.

      • oldjake

        It was 1934.

      • Sunboy Three

        They made you crazy for the Muslims then snuck up behind you with a lynching rope.

        Let’s keep them distracted with the Muslims while we lube their assholes.

        Look up the Clarion Fund and Aish a Torah.

        Google the Arizona anti Muslim protest. It is run by a Jew Jon Ritzheimer. Then there is the hater, Pam Gellar, another Jew who is inciting hate.

        Trump’s advisers are also Jews with Anglicised names.

        • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

          Glad to read the words of people who know.

        • goatman62

          Why is it always Da JOOOOS????
          Oy Vey Is Mir !

    • bill lopez

      Obama is an ass. Writing executive orders like a spoiled little child. Can’t wait for him to go.

      • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

        Amen to that!

      • RE

        NO MORE SCHOOL LUNCHES!
        OH MICHELLE! YOU WILL BE A TRIVIA QUESTION.

    • Seabass120

      If they try, they will run out of cops before we run out of bullets.

      • Joel W

        My point exactly.

      • NonYo Business

        Cops, Military, UN, theyll all be here for the party.

      • James Michael

        1700 meter justice is approaching..

    • Unkel Ruckus

      EO can mean Executive Order or Eek Out (like a chimp).

      • Eileen Kuch

        I’ll go with the Eek Out (like a chimp), Unkel Ruckus .. the Executive Order will be Null and Void, as firearms and ammo sales go through the roof.
        So, instead of seizing citizens’ firearms, those idiots who try will be blown away in a hail of bullets. The 100+ million gun owners will see to that.

  • Stuck_in_Ca

    New world order in 1, 2, 3…

    • AtomicMetroid

      Nope

  • doucyet

    Executive orders…………..isn’t that cute.

    I hereby order by the power vested in me by……….well me! That………….

    B U L L S H I T!!!

  • Enough is enough

    Obama is like the big bad wolf from the three little pigs. He huffs and he puffs but in the end he is nothing but full of hot air. That smells like sh!t.

    • rich

      DO NOT underestimate him!

      • Enough is enough

        If Obama was real going to E.O. any real gun control he would of done it by now. It’s just talk to rile up the American people.

  • Unapologetically White

    EO up – we don’t care, as Executive Orders are not the law.

    • James Michael

      Especially coming from a treasonous murdering scumbag…

  • Vows of Vengeance

    I will not comply to any tyrant or any gun grab.

  • SP_88

    The words of a desperate little man. He can stamp his feet and hold his breath until he turns blue, but nobody cares what he thinks. Our rights supersede his temper tantrums and executive orders. Soon he will be gone and hopefully we can start cleaning up the mess he made.

    • Reverend Draco

      I thought that black people – or part-black people – turned purple when they held their breath? I though only white people turned blue like that! WAHH! You’re confusing me!

      • SP_88

        You are correct, I wasn’t thinking. However I would have thought it would be more of a violet, since he is only half black. Sorry for any confusion.

  • Silverado

    That’s just what the gun grabbers fail to realize…our gun rights ARE written in stone. And how is taking the weapons of law abiding citizens going to make things better? Unless he wants to go down in history as a complete and utter failure even more so than he already is, him and his merry band of criminals in the govt won’t be that stupid to try and do something that’s doomed to fail at the get-go. Talk about lighting the proverbial fuse, I don’t think they’ll do it…

  • old geezer

    The DOJ trying to figure out what options Obama has. I think his list of options have already been laid out, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED……….

  • phdinlogic

    EOs are unconstitional. Perod. This tool of the elite can try whatever he wants.

  • David Stanley

    When Americans are disarmed and defenseless , is when the real thuggery starts

  • frankw

    It doesn’t matter whether EOs are technically legal or not. If the enforcement arms of government choose to apply them at gunpoint, as has been done before, we will still be forced to choose between compliance or resistance. I hope a significant portion of the populace chooses resistance so this tyrannical practice will end once and for all.

    • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

      I’m afraid that this issue will eventually have to be settled with gunfire-and the full implementation of the 2nd Amendment for it’s intended purpose.

    • oldjake

      Ask your local peace officer if he signed up to serve and protect or to bleed out on the sidewalk attempting to seize the legal property of someone who has never broken the law because some commie filth signed a piece of paper with his personal demands on it not voted on by the people’s representatives? It is that simple.

  • Matthew Chen

    Obama can solve the arms control in America very easily. The law says Americans have a right to bear arms. That meant to be only muskets and pistols, not assault rifles.

    • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

      Is that how the Second Amendment reads Matthew? You think the Founders were saying-“The advancement of technology, as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, should only benefit the government, and does not apply to citizens.”?! You do realize that the musket was “state of the art” military technology at the time, don’t you? The musket was the “assault rifle” of their day! The 2nd Amendment was meant to remind both the government and citizens, that the “security of a free state”-or, the protection of the condition of freedom for the People-was to be provided by the People being adequately armed. Thus the saying-“And who is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”. You can play pretend all you want with what you’d like the 2nd Amendment to mean, but don’t expect to float that shit here. Now, slither your liberal ass back over to Salon or HuffPo and get back to reading about manscaping your genitals.

      • Reverend Draco

        “The Militia” is every able-bodied man (I suppose we can add women to this list) between 18-35 – The “Whole People,” as you say.

        • oldjake

          The law already includes female officers of the National Guard as militia members. Also for the libtards, there is this little problem of being required by US Code to show up, if called, with your own weapon chambered for a current military caliber. In other words, 9mm, .45 acp, 12 gauge shotgun, 5.56mm/.223, 7.62×51/.308 Winchester. Didn’t have any of those at Lexington and Concord.

        • Matthew Chen

          Are the insane, psycho, criminals and the jihadists, between 18-35, allowed to bear arms too?

          • Frank

            Yes, but that is part of the beauty of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. ALL men (and women) are equal under the law. When one picks up arms against another, “on the battlefield” in a manner of speaking, that is where the good confronts evil. Anything before that is just TALK (clue: protected under the 1st Amendment). So, Muslims are just folks, until they do something to harm another, which makes them a criminal in the eyes of the law. Like a cat – all cats are just cats until they shit in your sock drawer.
            Learn a little more history about the 2nd Amend before you start trying to have a debate on the issue – especially on this site. Specifically, read about the intent of the Founding Fathers re: “a well regulated militia” and how it pertained to the organization and requirements of the citizen-soldiers who would be called-up to fight and had to bring their own equipment.

          • Matthew Chen

            “a well regulated militia” and how it pertained to the organization and
            requirements of the citizen-soldiers who would be called-up to fight
            and had to bring their own equipment.”

            To fight against who? The US Military, which is the only superpower in the world, with 7,000 nukes? Are you serious?

          • Frank

            You are continuing to miss the point completely. The forest for the trees. If you have the mental ability, consider the CONTEXT of the intent to promote “a well-regulated militia.” Its more about the principle and the readiness to confront an oppressor, whether it be a foreign aggressor or your own government.
            BTW, the US military is not the only superpower in the world – or haven’t you been paying attention for about the last two decades. Ever heard of China, Russia, India? Are YOU serious? Do you read any news about US troop strength, overall Readiness and the material state of the US military forces (all branches)?

          • Matthew Chen

            Frank, “some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a State’s right to self-defense.

            Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens DO NOT have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state,
            and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.” Source: Cornell University.

            Russia and China would not dare to attack America with a preemptive nuclear strike because its MAD or Mutual Assured Destruction.

          • Frank

            As you say, it is a theory, or yet another attempt to interpret the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Was the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole, written to ensure the inalienable rights of the individual citizen, or not? If, as you support, the local, state and federal authorities had the power that you assert exists under the “collective rights theory,” wouldn’t some states have already exercised this authority and banned all private ownership, such as California? Sorry, it doesn’t hold up, and the Collectivist angle is too close to a Socialist effort to deny The People the right to self protection.

          • Matthew Chen

            I think it is reasonable to conclude that the language used to state the 2nd Amendment was vague. It has two interpretations. Even the justices in the SCOTUS could and cannot agree with one another.

            For your info, the US Bill of Rights came from a flawed Magna Carta, which King James *did not* sign. See below

            1) “The Hereford Cathedral Magna Carta will be on display at Supreme Court from Thursday to next Monday. But what significance does this 800-year-old document have today?

            Magna Carta bears an iconic status in legal history.

            “Allegedly” signed eight centuries ago by King John at Runnymede, near Windsor, it laid the foundations for constraints on arbitrary power – the basis for the rule of law, democracy, and human rights.

            From medieval to modern times, it has been invoked by those struggling against injustice around the world, from Mahatma Gandhi to Nelson Mandela.

            In the past two years alone, it has been cited
            twice by a High Court as the origin of liberties protected by Articles 9(1) and 11(1) of the Constitution.

            The only problem with the historical account is that almost none of it is true. ”

            See my earlier post below for the rest of the fraudulent Magna Carta kerfuffle.

            Anyway, the news is that Americans soon will be allowed to own only a single shot gun and semi-automatic guns will be banned. See link:

          • James Michael

            The right is the peoples not the militias and you would be surprised what one man with a rifle and skills can do ….Or we can do like you imply and bend over and take it….

          • Matthew Chen

            The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            “Such a vague language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope.

            On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual
            constitutional right for citizens of the United States.

            Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptuously unconstitutional.

            On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense.

            Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens DO NOT have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.”

            Source : Cornell University.

          • Reverend Draco

            Nice try at deflection, cretin – but ultimately futile.
            Pay attention.

            Criminals are already proscribed, as are the certified insane. So, those parts of your “question” are either a faint attempt at being disingenuous, or you’re about as smart as a sack of hammers.
            I vote for the latter.

            The remaining point, jihadists – how, without violating their rights and becoming a felon, do you propose determining who is a jihadist and who is not?
            He has a beard, he’s a jihadist?
            Prays facing Mecca – jihadist?
            Middle Eastern passport – automatic jihadist?

            If those are your metrics – a sack of hammers is Hawking compared to you.

          • Richard_Throbbin

            Thats why bubba created NICS right?

      • Matthew Chen

        The 2nd Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        You are interpreting that to mean that the militia “is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Care to name the case law that says that?

        Are the insane, psycho, criminals and the jihadist allowed to bear arms too?

        And even if you have a right to bear arms can you bring them to attend court or to the Congress or to the Superbowl or to a cinema or to the gates of the White House? If you can’t then why is the purpose of your having a right to bear arms?

        If everyone and not the militia, has the right to bear arms then to defend yourself you need to up the ante and purchase a more lethal firearm. Where will it all stop?

        IMHO, the militia means the US Military and it is the only superpower in the world today, with 7,000 nukes. Why the need for you to bear arms? To defend yourself against the US military? Are you insane?

        • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

          Let me see if I get this straight-you’re saying the Founders-who drafted, wrote and, with the consent of the People, ratified the Constitution, with a Bill of Rights identifying God given individual rights, meant for the 2nd Amendment to apply only to a standing Army?? The only amendment-and not coincidentally, second only to the allowance of free speech and freedom of religion-to not represent an individual right?! Would you care to name case law that says the 2nd Amendment doesn’t represent an individual right? Incidentally, the quote I provided regarding the militia was from George Mason and was echoed by numerous other Founders. Ironically, Mason was adamantly opposed to the creation of a standing Army due to the threat of it being loosed upon the People by a despotic government, and it was this very point which caused Mason to refuse signing the Constitution.
          The Founders made their thoughts about the 2nd Amendment perfectly clear in The Federalist Papers, and in other writings as well. Moreover, they took great pains to warn future generations of the insidious nature of government, politicians, parties, power lust, greed and the combustible mixture they become when there is too much of any. They used tremendous intellectual honesty in considering human nature as it relates to government, acquisition of power and it’s certain, eventual abuse-even as they made a case for the need of central governance. In doing so, they painted a clear and vivid picture of what tyranny would look like and also warned that there would be many who would not recognize it. They did their part-we haven’t done ours.
          No one is advocating for psychos or “jihadists” to be given lawful access to firearms-but that isn’t the point, it is a distraction. History has borne out that those intent upon doing harm always find a way. In the case of the “jihadists” you’ve invoked, you can thank your very own trusted government, for it was they who armed the scumbag horde. And your “rational” response is to limit the freedoms of those who have done no wrong. You have arrogantly and self righteously appointed yourself as a purveyor of what limitations should be placed upon others because of the actions of a sick few. Apparently, without benefit and consideration consideration for critical statistics of so called “mass shootings” in comparison to other, far more deadly, causes of death for Americans. Which is what this is actually all about-liberals forcing their brand of morality upon the masses, ultimately by threat of force. It has nothing to do with “safety”, nor anything to do with “common sense”. It’s about the forceful destruction of individual liberty to pave the way for the “social justice”-socialism-you claim to desire. The only way that will come about is if people no longer have the capability to defend their rights.
          You ask if I am insane. No-I am perfectly lucid, with a clear understanding of what is at stake. My mind is unpolluted with the direct and subliminal conditioning the masses are subject to on a daily basis. My critical thinking ability is intact and brought to bear where others are directed by misguided emotion.
          You ask my “need” to bear arms, as if I owe you or anyone else a reason. I have no need-I have the right, and until you or your overlords in the government come and kill me to take them-I will continue to exercise that right.

          • sunshine

            He’s Chinese, he wants us disarmed so his countrymen can invade with zero resistance. Such loyalty and patriotism to his race and people! Too bad whites can’t do the same.

          • Matthew Chen

            Nonsense. No country dares to invade America, the only superpower in the world. I love Peace and not war.

            Your enemies are the Khazarian Mafia. Read the link I gave you and you will wake up and not be a Sheeple.

          • sunshine

            Oh I am completely Jew-wise already, but I will read it.

          • sunshine

            Hey, I just found this….thought you might like it :)

            http://thezog.info/list-summaries/

          • Matthew Chen

            Thanks, Sunshine. You nailed it. But don’t blame the Hebrew Jews. They are also the victims of the Khazarian Mafia, as much as the American people.

            It’s time to nationalize the Federal Reserve *Bunk* and make America great again. Trump is the man to do it.

          • sunshine

            Yep, it’s Torah not Talmud Jews that are the decent ones….and I hope Trump does get elected, he’s got my vote for sure.

          • Matthew Chen

            You nailed it again. Have a Happy New Year.

          • sunshine

            Have you ever read “The Creature from Jekyll Island”? Good book about the creation of the Fed….

            Happy New Year to you too 😀

          • Matthew Chen

            For your info, the US BIll of Rights came from a flawed Magna Carta, which King James *did not* sign. See below

            1) “The Hereford Cathedral Magna Carta will be on display at Supreme Court from Thursday to next Monday. But what significance does this 800-year-old document have today?

            Magna Carta bears an iconic status in legal history. Signed eight centuries ago by King John at Runnymede, near Windsor, it laid the foundations for constraints on arbitrary power – the basis for the rule of law, democracy, and human rights.

            From medieval to modern times, it has been invoked by those struggling against injustice around the world, from Mahatma Gandhi to Nelson Mandela.

            In the past two years alone, it has been cited twice by Singapore’s High Court as the origin of liberties protected by Articles 9(1) and 11(1) of the Constitution.

            The only problem with the historical account is that almost none of it is true.

            The agreement at Runnymede was not a constitutional document intended to limit power, but a peace treaty to preserve the king’s rule.
            Despite many paintings and a commemorative £2 coin showing him holding Magna Carta and a quill, King John *never signed it.*

            Oh, and it was not called Magna Carta.

            “The Articles of the Barons”, as it was originally known, did not guarantee freedoms for the English people. On the contrary, those limitations that it did
            impose on the king were primarily for the benefit of the Anglo-Norman – that is, French – aristocracy.

            Such documents outlining the manner in which the monarch intended to govern, known as Coronation Charters, had been issued by kings since at least Henry I in 1100. It is true that these were often disregarded in practice, but so too was the Articles of the Barons. Neither side complied with their commitments and it was soon annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons’ War.

            Even if it had not been repudiated, the text hardly reads like the fountainhead of liberty. Among other things, the 1215 document limited the ability of a woman to testify on the death of anyone other than her husband and included punitive provisions applicable to Jewish bankers.

            So how is it that this misogynistic, anti-Semitic, failed peace treaty came to assume such significance in English and American law?

            For three basic reasons. First, there was not one Magna Carta but several. Second, text that had lain dormant for centuries was later used opportunistically in another English battle against another king. And third, Americans carried the spirit of Magna Carta across the Atlantic – without necessarily bothering to read the words.

            Though the document agreed at Runnymede was a failure, it was reissued the following year after
            John’s death by the regents of his son, the nine-year-old King Henry III. With the conclusion of the First Barons’ War in 1217, the document was issued a third time. A separate Forest Charter (Carta de Foresta) was also concluded, leading to the main document being called “Magna”. Henry III reissued it yet again with further changes in 1225 and his son, Edward I, did the same in 1297.

            It was this last version that was incorporated into England’s statutes and three provisions do
            remain in force today.

            The first two are of marginal significance, but the third does promise that no free man shall be imprisoned or stripped of his rights except by lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. Limiting the protections to freemen, however,
            meant that this was of little relevance to the vast majority of the population who were not “free” but villains or serfs. Nonetheless, this 39th clause of the 1215 version later came to be regarded as the basis for the jury system.

            THE (RE)INVENTION OF MAGNA CARTA

            So the failed peace treaty that started a war was amended and reissued, perhaps explaining its longevity. But its so-called liberties helped only those who were rich and originally French. How did it come to be regarded as the font of English liberty?

            Four hundred years later, Edward Coke revived – or perhaps reinvented – Magna Carta during the 17th century as Britain’s “ancient constitution”. The king might not be subject to man, Coke argued, but he was at least subject to God and to the law.

            This was not the sort of thing that kings liked to hear from their chief justices. After being dismissed from the bench, however, Coke went to Parliament and set about trying to limit the powers of the king through legislation.

            Not everyone was persuaded. Oliver Cromwell notoriously dismissed the argument with a scatological quip: “I care not for the Magna Farta!”

            It took a civil war, the beheading of Charles I, the failed rule of his son, Charles II, and the overthrow and exile of his second surviving son, James II, before the Bill of Rights Act was adopted in 1689. This provided, among other things, that it was “illegal” for the sovereign to suspend or dispense with laws, to establish his own courts, or to impose taxes without parliamentary approval.

            It was in this period, then, that the rule of law really came to mean something. Although Magna Carta might have been an inspiration for Coke and his contemporaries in their political struggle with the crown, it was certainly no precedent on which
            they could rely as a matter of law.

            AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

            So a flawed document negotiated with a weak king is revived opportunistically four centuries later in another struggle with a series of weak monarchs. Yet how is it that the same document comes to be revered not just as a weapon used against the excesses of power but also as a kind of secular gospel for our age?

            Enter the Americans.

            It began in literary form. Two years before the English Bill of Rights, William Penn carried Magna Carta across the Atlantic and printed the first American edition. Several decades later, writing in Poor Richard’s Almanack for June 1749, Benjamin Franklin enjoined his fellow colonists to remember that “On the 15th of this month, anno 1215, was Magna Charta signed by King John, for declaring and establishing English Liberty”.

            In the succeeding years, those colonists were becoming increasingly unhappy with the
            taxes imposed on them. Following Franklin’s lead, some began to cite Magna Carta as authority for their position.

            Note that the Stamp Act was legislation adopted by the British Parliament – not an extra-legal tax – but by now Magna Carta was more symbol than text. When Massachusetts adopted a new seal in 1775, it
            featured a man holding a sword in one hand and Magna Carta in the other. The 5,000-word Articles of the Barons had become a four-word slogan: “No
            taxation without representation”.

            The US love affair with Magna Carta continues today. It is striking that a quick search reveals that the combined courts of Britain have cited Magna Carta around 150 times, including 14 citations by the House of Lords and UK Supreme Court. A
            similar search in the United States finds more than 3,000 references to Magna Carta, including around 200 by the US Supreme Court alone.

            By extension from the US it went on to influence the United Nations and human rights.

            Speaking on the occasion of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
            1948, Eleanor Roosevelt expressed her hope that this new document “may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere”.

            Not bad for a hastily drafted set of demands negotiated under threat of arms by a king
            and his barons.

            A GREAT CHARTER?

            Magna Carta literally means “Great Charter”. As this brief history shows, the document was not born great but instead had greatness thrust upon it.

            Perhaps that is not surprising. Myths have power not because of their ties to the world as it was, but to the world as we might wish it to have been. Magna Carta is one such MYTH..

            And so, through this chain of events, a document crafted to keep King John in power came to symbolize the freedom of English and American citizens to enjoy the rule of law, democracy, and human rights.

            •The writer is the dean of the Faculty of Law.”

            2) The Case Laws you asked on Rights to bear arms: State Militia or Individuals?

            The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            “Such a vague language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual
            constitutional right for citizens of the United States.

            Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

            On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a STATE’s right to self-defense.

            Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not
            have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without
            implicating a constitutional right.

            In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
            milita . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

            This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

            The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years.

            Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as a violation of that right.

            The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose.

            Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

            Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which *prohibited* handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth
            Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

            However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

            While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and
            Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

            However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

            Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property); regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as
            a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of
            handguns did not violate the Second Amendment); regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from
            obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second
            Amendment.)” Source: Cornell University.

        • oldjake

          The founders did not want a standing army. The founders did state it was the whole people. How have 7,000 nukes stopped the jihadis or the terrorists? No one has popped a nuke in 70 years in warfare while untold millions have died in wars. Men with rifles have won many wars and driven out many invaders.

          • Matthew Chen

            But who is mad enough to invade America? I say None.

        • James Michael

          The right of the people to bear arms HAS NO exceptions…Are you a moron?
          The militia is NOT the military moron you like most Americans are ignorant as crap thanks to your “schooling” try the federalist and anti federalist papers and stop licking the treasonous felons boots ignoramus…

          I do not give a rats ass about your opinion….
          Every able bodied man from 16 to 46 was and is the militia….
          and yeah I will take arms to my court….THAT IS MY right…. these maggot traitors have a sworn oath to protect….
          You apparently cannot read English any better than they can….
          This domestic enemy government are the terrorists….

          • Matthew Chen

            1 James, It was Randy J who said “And who is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” It was not me, who mention the restriction.

            2 You said “You apparently cannot read English..”

            if I cannot read English how could I graduate with a law degree?

            3 And you contradicted yourself when you wrote “Every able bodied man from 16 to 46 was and is the militia….”

            What if the able bodied men are 47 and 50? Are they excluded by your definition?

            4 If you can bring your machine-gun to attend court for trial for man-slaughter, you are the exception. It’s not a right. It’s a miracle.

            5 If you think that “this domestic enemy government are the terrorists” then who voted them into power?

            Its the six-packed Joes and rednecks and the ignoramus and evangelists in the Bible Belt. Blame them. The Sheeples voted them into power.

            6 Google “The Hidden History of the incredibly evil Khazarian Mafia” by Dr Preston James to learn who are *your* REAL enemies, who control America’s money supply, the big Wall Street banks, the FED,
            Big Oil, Big Pharma, all Main Stream Media (MSM), even the Pentagon and Academia.

            7 Also Google “Why the FED is not a federal agency’ by the Biblicia Institute.

            Good luck to you for the New Year, 2016.

      • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

        lol, another good one, Randy!

    • Americaislost

      Matthew; Enjoy the read, because this is what you are.

      60 Hard Truths about “Liberals” (My addition to this is, they are goats and not sheep, they are tares and not wheat. They are of their father the devil, and only through Jesus can they change.

      For those of you who do not know,
      especially young people, I am compelled to inform you of the generally un-known truth that the word “Liberal” has a proud heritage and was originally a word that described men who were the political opposites of modern “Liberals.”

      The word “Liberal” was forcibly stolen and corrupted by evil men who intentionally perverted the use and meaning of the word. In the long forgotten past, the word “Liberal” described honorable and principled men who held to a philosophy of government that advocated Constitutional Republicanism. Constitutional Republicanism is a type of government almost unknown to most of the world. America was originally a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic defined is characterized by a very small government with limits on its powers of taxation and whose other powers are strictly limited by rigorously enforced Constitutional edicts. But modern Liberals are nothing more and nothing less than Communists, Socialists and Dictators. Modern Liberals promote, advocate and enforce the centralization of all political power into an all powerful central government. The honorable old Liberals of the 19th century must be spinning in their graves over the outrageous corruption and modern use of the word “Liberal.” Following are 60 Truisms about Liberals:

      At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God. He is an intellectually dishonest, unprincipled, mentally immature, spoiled child who is forever in search of a world without moral consequence. That
      is why the Liberal makes “The State” his god. The Liberal
      worships THE STATE. The Liberal attempts to use his god (government) to eliminate all moral consequences for immoral behavior. In the name of “Justice,” the Liberal also pretends to make his god (The State) “level” all peoples so that the wise or the beautiful or the genius will have no advantage over the unwise, the ugly and the simpleton in the marketplace. The Liberal calls this tyrannical State of Government, UTOPIA.

      The Liberal vainly imagines that freedom from moral consequence can be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.

      Liberals use moralistic platitudes and catchy phrases like “social justice” and “The Brotherhood of Man” to appeal to the naive masses who are duped into believing that the ultimate goals of Liberals are genuinely benign and beneficient. However at the root, like the Prince in Machiavelli’s greatest work, the single moral principle that Liberals adhere to is the continual accumulation and centralization of all power.

      The ideologies of Liberals must inevitably end in
      world-wide totalitarianism.

      All non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by the
      Liberal. Why? Because those kinds of individual freedoms, (such as economic self-reliance) demand moral responsibility.

      The fundamental power struggle of Liberals may be
      classified as the individual versus the collective. The Liberal supports the collective in every contest against the individual. The individual must be relieved of all power in favor of the collective. All power must be centralized.

      Liberals hate Individualism because it demands moral
      responsibility. Liberals support collectivism because they hope to
      eliminate the need for moral responsibility.

      The U.S. Constitution and specifically the support for
      rugged individualism which is evident in the Bill of Rights, is the enemy of the Liberal.

      The Liberal despises the United States because it is
      the premier protector and promoter of individualism in the world.

      In the mind of a Liberal, all institutions and concerns
      schools, environment, courts, etc. – serve no relevant purpose other than the promotion of collectivism.

      In the depraved thought processes of a Liberal,
      abortion becomes necessary to guarantee sexual freedom and eliminate moral consequence.

      The basis of traditional healthy psychology is to help
      individuals take personal responsibility for the choices they have made and to help them make better choices in the future. The basis of modern psychology as defined by the Liberals who are members of the self deluded, isolated and ill-educated Professorial Class living in their government financed socialist Ivory Towers, is the elimination of moral responsibility.

      In order to advance their agenda, Liberals create an atmosphere of crisis and fear that is used to justify their collectivist oppression. Liberals love to go to war against other nations for it is during times of war that they are most successful in getting the most oppressive legislation passed in Congress. Check your history books and you will see that every major war America has fought in the last 100 years was started by a Liberal or a statist who philosophically supported centralized government

      Any religion or religious person who believes or teaches that there are moral consequences for sin, is the enemy of Liberalism and must be oppressed.

      Western nations and Western Civilization have produced
      more liberty and more prosperity for more people than any other culture in History. Christianity is the foundation of the culture upon which Western civilization was built. A genuinely Christian populace will reject collectivism and support individualism. A genuine Christian populace will live moral lives and thus they will support governmental policy that encourages individual, personal, moral responsibility. A genuine Christian populace will reject collectivism and centralized government. A morally debauched populace will look to the government to support them and shelter them from their bad moral choices. Thus for the collectivist Liberal bent on imposing socialism upon a nation, Christianity is the number one enemy above all other enemies. Christianity must be eliminated.

      Despite decades of spectacular failure in nation after
      nation, the Liberal clings to his collectivist dream because it is far
      more than a theory of government. It is a religion.

      The Liberal seeks to dominate any institution that can
      interfere with, weaken or destroy individual parental rights. Thus you
      will note that Liberals completely control and dominate public schools, child abuse agencies, pediatric associations, welfare departments, social service agencies and all NGO’s that feign concern for the welfare of children. Why? Because in order for Liberals to impose socialism upon a people, they must undermine the ability of the people to govern themselves according to God’s moral law. To accomplish this they must weaken the main support of morality. Strong families are one of the greatest threats to the final goals of Liberalism. The total disintegration of the American family in recent decades among some ethnic communities has occurred as a
      direct result of the design and intention of Liberals. Feel the hate. Hate is good when directed at these demonic Liberals who are the avowed enemies of God, Family Values and freedom.

      The Liberal applauds the imprisoning of home-schooling
      parents who dare to raise their children outside the control of
      collectivist public schools.

      Private ownership of guns is the single greatest symbol
      of individual power, and therefore is despised by Liberals.

      All individual freedoms demand the responsible behavior
      of the individual, and therefore demand a moral code. Liberals despise freedom because they despise morality.

      The Liberal loves Bill Clinton because of who he is,
      not in spite of who he is.

      The Liberal despises national sovereignty. Why? Because
      the best protection of individual freedoms is found in small decentralized governments.

      The Liberal promotes the growth of multi-national and
      international governments such as the European Union and the United Nations because these organizations advance the cause of socialism and seek to destroy the very individualism that is best protected by sovereign states.

      The Liberal fears any hint of individualism in any part
      of the world, and is obsessed with the centralized control of all human activity and thought. Thus the Liberal constantly seeks total control over all forms of media. The Internet is driving Liberals crazy with fear that more people will start thinking for themselves and demand limited decentralized governments in nations around the world.

      “Multi-culturalism” is the code word for a single, oppressive, collectivist culture. The root word of “culture,” is the word “cult,” meaning religion. Christianity is the only religion that finds a perfect balance between allowing mankind maximum liberty within the guidelines of clearly delineated moral absolutes, without the need for an oppressive State.
      Because a genuine Christian populace will be self governing in the matter of moral issues there is no need for an all-powerful government to police an unruly populace. The Eighth Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” presupposes the right of individuals to own private property. The Eighth Commandment is therefore the foundation of Western Capitalism and the engine of our prosperity. This is another reason why Liberals hate the Bible. If Liberals are successful at transforming America into a totally
      multi-cultural, i.e., multi-religious, non-Christian society, we will lose
      our freedom.

      Liberals speak often of tolerance, but they only tolerate Liberals and Liberal ideas. For instance, Liberals hate Christianity and conservative Bible believing Christians are persona non
      grata in any gathering of Liberals. Liberals are extremely intolerant
      concerning Christianity because of its insistence upon personal
      responsibility and moral absolutes. Liberals know that a society without moral absolutes and a society without strong emphasis upon personal responsibility will fall like a ripe apple into their greedy socialist clutches because self reliance and rugged individualism are traits that are only found amongst moral peoples who come from strong families.

      The Liberal seeks to criminalize any speech that promotes morality or individualism as “hate speech.” Thus we see Liberal Judges and Liberal Courts outlawing the Bible and gutting the free speech provisions of the first amendment of the constitution. Liberal Judges
      are now declaring that the Bible’s proscriptions against homosexuality are illegal “hate speech” and scripture is now in the process of being outlawed from any appearance in public discourse or the public square. If one speaks in favor of individualism and against affirmative action in a public forum at work, Liberal Judges and Liberal Courts are now saying that such speech amounts to intimidation of minorities and is prohibited by law.

      Environmentalists lie as a matter of course. Why? Because environmentalists have a false god too. Whereas the god of the
      Liberal is “The State,” the god of the environmental extremist
      worships is “the creation,” rather than the Creator. This warps
      their thinking and as a result they become anti-human. They fall into all kinds of error such as elevating the rights of animals above those of mankind. Whereas the Christian world-view teaches men that they are to be “Good Stewards” of the earth and all it’s creatures. The
      Christian world-view instructs men that they are to be kind to animals, but that they are not to elevate anything above the value of human life. Why? Because the Bible teaches that mankind is the crown of God’s entire Creation. The Bible teaches that “Man was created in the image of God.” Thus human life is profoundly sacred and highly valued far above that of any animal or wilderness or wetland (swamp). Thus genuine Christians who hold to a Biblical world-view will know that private property rights trump the claims of the EPA “nature nazi’s” to regulate how a farmer may use his private property. Genuine Christians who hold to a Biblical world-view will know that these “Watermelon” Environmental Extremists have no right to tell a man how to use his own private property unless it can be proven that the owner is doing damage to his neighbors property. (PS A “Watermelon Environmentalist” is a person who is GREEN on the outside (i.e., they claim to care about the environment) but they are truthfully COMMUNIST RED on the inside (i.e.,
      they do not really care about the environment. They are just using the moral cause of preserving the environment as a means of consolidating their power and advancing the cause of Socialism and One World Government.)

      The Liberal’s only method of debate is to appeal to the
      emotions of mis-educated and illogical persons. Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially in the college class-room. Why? Because the facts of logic and history do not support the agenda they are seeking to advance.

      When possible, Liberals oppress anyone who questions
      their beliefs. Is that “Liberal?”

      Liberals despise all innocence – especially the innocence of a child. Thus Hollywood Liberals seek to steal the innocence of our children as early as possible and the public schools assist them in this goal.

      Liberals seek to sexualize our children, eliminate age
      of consent laws and promote the normalization of pedophilia, all in the pursuit of sexual freedom.

      In the Liberal mind, your freedom is their oppression.

      Private property and individual wealth is integral to
      individualism, and the enemy of the Liberal.

      The Liberal hates you.

      The Liberal seeks to replace a moral world-view with an
      emotional world-view. For instance: If you protest that it is wrong for
      them to steal your money (via confiscatory taxes, forcibly collected to
      support welfare programs) against your will and give it to persons that you do not know and do not care about, Liberals will counter your argument with an appeal to the emotions of the listeners. They will drone on about how we are the wealthiest nation in the world and surely we can afford to make sure that THE CHILDREN in the ghettos of America are afforded free dental care.

      The Liberal typically chooses a career in a field that
      produces nothing of value. A Liberal will look for employment in field
      such as public education, an employee of local, county, state or federal government, an “activist,” a lawyer, or a bureaucrat in a tax
      free foundation or an NGO devoted to advancing Liberal goals, etc. Then the Liberal will use government to extract wealth from others by force via the power to tax.

      Liberal do-gooder programs enrich Liberals and do
      little to actually help the poor.

      The Liberal despises masculinity as a symbol of
      individual power.

      Feminists groups are about lesbianism, socialism and
      hatred of men, not equal rights for women.

      Liberals are perfectly willing to destroy you financially, remove your children, and imprison you for what you believe. They are not open-minded and tolerant. They are viciously intolerant of any divergence from the dogma of left-wing ideology. They are perfectly willing to subject you to a Liberal version of an Inquisition and the penalties of this “modern” Inquisition are no less severe than the penalties doled out by the original inquisitors. These modern Inquisitors will use the full powers of the government, the police state powers, without hesitation, in order to enforce the decrees of their priestly class, the justices in black robes. Who are the justice’s in black robes? They are the federal judges who have been highly exalted and lifted
      up, by Liberals, far above all other men as final arbiters of what is
      right and wrong, thus taking the place of God. And that is the real goal, the ultimate goal of all Liberals. They want to dis-place and dethrone Almighty God. Liberal emulate their father the devil,
      in as much as they likewise, want to be god. Just as Satan promised Eve in the garden, “Ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil,” so is
      the Liberals lust for power is driven by their desire to determine good
      and evil for all mankind, apart from and without respect to Almighty God.

      Liberals fear technology and change – because neither
      can be centrally controlled.

      Liberals are not obsessed with sex, but with promiscuity.
      Promoting promiscuity among the masses is the primary mission of the Liberals who control the Hollywood, Television and print media monopoly. Why? Because Liberals know that the twin pillars that support conservatism are family values and faith in God. By promoting promiscuity Liberals know that they are simultaneously attacking both of the main support pillars of rugged individualism. Liberals know that a man of sterling character and discipline who is a moral, God fearing family man has no need of state support in the form of welfare programs. Liberals know that such a man is a dedicated and formidable enemy of those who are determined to foist socialism upon the nations of the world.

      Liberals despise the suburbs as a manifestation of
      individual prosperity, private property ownership, and the independent family.

      Liberals say that they despise marriage and family because they are “patriarchal institutions” that 6op press women and children. But the real reason they despise marriage and family values is because these institutions oppose, disapprove and limit promiscuity thus undermining one of the principal supports for Liberalism.

      Liberals are never satisfied with the current level of
      power they have gained over the lives of individuals. They are compelled, internally driven to control every thought and detail of human activity and they will never stop until they have condemned the entire world to live in a hellish slave camp, under the heel of a socialist bureaucratic boot otherwise known as One World Government.

      Liberals seek to control public schools, and force all
      children into them, in order to foster promiscuity and instill
      collectivist ideology into the minds and hearts of our children.

      Other diseases kill many millions more people, but Liberals
      are obsessed with Aids because it is a moral consequence of promiscuity.

      Liberals are more committed than conservatives because
      their politics is also their religion.

      Liberals are obsessed with demonstrating their putative
      “moral superiority.” Thus even though they live their lives
      without really helping anyone, the political activism they engage in is
      dedicated to convincing themselves that they are truly good people. Liberals are driven by the need to validate the unspoken assertion that “I care more than you do,” which is ironic in the extreme since none of the government programs liberals have designed can be shown to have an overall positive influence in our society.

      Mark this! Whenever a Liberal expresses concern “for the children,” invariably they are using and targeting children to expand their own power, promote promiscuity, advance collectivism and enlarge their personal income at the expense of the taxpayer.

      Because collectivist politics is their only morality, Liberals have no problem with deceit, oppression, or violence in their pursuit of collectivism.

      Liberals are elitists who exempt themselves from the
      oppressive rules they impose on the general population.

      Liberals howl if a homosexual transvestite or convicted
      felon is even slightly offended, but they openly bash Christians.

      Liberals dream of a return to a centralized, 1940’s urban environment. They would have us all ride a bus from a small, dirty,
      big city apartment to an 8-5 union job as it was in the old USSR. Perhaps now you will understand why Liberals support every form of “public transportation” whether buses or subways.

      Liberals believe that wealth is static. Liberals believe that anyone who makes money must be stealing it from someone else. Liberals do not understand that in a free market, wealth is created and is
      constantly expanding. Liberals do not understand the simple dictum that “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Liberals do not understand that
      the free market lifts the economic conditions of all men. Liberals do not understand that it is the creativity, ingenuity and hard work of the
      self-made millionaire’s who creates better products or a better service and thus a better life for all mankind. A rising tide does indeed, lift all boats.

      Liberals claim to be against violence, but make excuses
      for Liberals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro who murder and torture political dissidents. Liberals claim to be against violence, but they seek to disarm individuals and render them powerless before the thugs, thieves and murderer’s who rule the inner cities. Liberals claim to be against violence, but they are liars. Liberals only oppose violence when it fits their agenda, but they are perfectly willing to use violence to advance their agenda.

      Liberals have enormous compassion for criminal predators, but little for the victims.

      In the Liberal world, all problems stem from individualism, and all solutions are collective.

      Liberals believe that passing religious values to children is a form of child abuse.

      For additional information along these lines, please consult the fascinating Ebook written by Ludwig Von Misesentitled “Liberalism”, available at:http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp

      • Matthew Chen

        1 “Western nations and Western Civilization have produced
        more liberty and more prosperity for more people than any other culture in History.”

        But they also practiced genocide, slavery and segregation and they invaded and colonized three-quarters of the world and stole the resources in the colonies. Today the US is already insolvent with a National debt of US$18.8 trillion plus an unfunded Debt of another US$222 trillion. Watch:

        https://www.rt.com/usa/debt-crisis-us-kotlikoff-535/

        2 “A genuine Christian populace will live moral lives and thus they will support governmental policy that encourages individual, personal, moral responsibility.”

        Then by practicing and perpetrating the immoral deeds in 1) most Western states do not have a genuine Christian populace, by your own logic. Enough said.

    • Richard_Throbbin

      And exactly where does the Constitution state what types of arms are limited ? And before you start the libtard BS of “context of the times” remembers that this would also mean people of color are “property” not men and religious freedom would mean just Christian religions…..

      • Reverend Draco

        According to many, in this modern age – religious freedom means the freedom to be christian, only. After all, the US is a christian nation, right?

        The nifty thing about the 2nd (well, all of the first 10, to be honest) is that the Founders used clear, concise language.

        They said “arms.” This makes it easy-peasy.
        Arms are not Ordnance. So. . . if you, in your troll-failing, decide to spout off about howitzers and nukes. . . piss off.

        (not saying you, personally – you seem to be at least somewhat on the ball)

        • Richard_Throbbin

          No the US is not a Christian nation, although Christianity in some form is the predominant religion, there is no state mandated religion. Not sure where you you get your definition of “arms” but the Oxford definition is here http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/arms. Also this debate is not about personal use of ” howitzers and nukes” it is about small arms, i.e. handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

          • Reverend Draco

            The only defining of arms I did, was to define arms as NOT ordnance – which is an absolute fact no matter how you slice it. Oxford can KMMFA.

            The dimwits, the hoplophobes and anti-gun, anti-rights bigots love to trot out the old “artillery and nukes” argument as to why the 2nd is “outdated.”

            Pay attention.

          • James Michael

            Your absolute fact is rubbish…..You are ignorant….

          • Matthew Chen

            I agree with you.

          • James Michael

            You cannot use the Oxford Definition …This is the one that matters…..They were using American English….Not British.
            Arms are anything used for war or defense…
            http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/arms

        • James Michael

          Try again ignoramus…. arms means ANYTHING used for war or defense….Not sure where you are getting your definition?….
          http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/arms

      • James Michael

        Arms means everything used for war or defense and to strike another…..They used that word for an exact reason….

      • Matthew Chen

        By the same token where does it say you can arm yourself with machine guns, M16, SPG, sniper rifles?

        • Richard_Throbbin

          It doesn’t but then it does not have any restrictions either, but various governments (federal, state. local) have placed restrictions on firearms for years. Most of the restrictive laws are in libtard states and cities and amazingly these are the locations of the highest crime rates……

          • Matthew Chen

            Ok you are implying there is no restriction at all. To protect my family and my community in America can I use hand grenades, flame thrower, IEDs, Laser guns, TOW missiles if I could buy them in the future or even armored humvees and tanks? They are all classified as arms too.

            Where will the arms availability end? It’s madness to have such lethal arms as described above in a crowded place where the bad guys can kill hundreds of innocent people in a short time?

          • Richard_Throbbin

            I doubt you know what most of the weapons you mentioned even are, outside of a news story or a computer game, but no the Constitution does not place any restrictions on any of it’s Freedoms. Also if you could understand the last part of my statement government, at various levels, has placed restrictions on various types of arms as well as other guaranteed freedoms.

          • Matthew Chen

            I happen to know all the weapons I stated as I watch the Wars Series on the History channel. It’s a paradox that the US Constitution places no restrictions on such lethal weapons. This is about to change:

          • Richard_Throbbin

            LMAO you know how many times libtards have tried this BS? Election time is coming up so they just trying to prove to all the brain dead dimwitcrats how commie they really are, at least until they are reelected then move back to center…..

          • Matthew Chen

            Ok, when we meet I shall be using a Uzi to protect myself.

          • Richard_Throbbin

            I really doubt you could even afford a true select fire Uzi or have ever even fired one. I also doubt you have ever engaged in a real combat situation where you have taken enemy fire, if not you have no idea what its like. Choose what ever arm you wish as I have several and am skilled with each and have engaged an enemy in live fire………ciao

    • BraveNewWhirled

      Actually no. The law recognizes your human rights. Abolishing the law doesn’t abolish human rights. “Arms” are whatever may be wielded in the defense of self or others. From Webster’s 1828: “Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body”.

      But some people twist words to mean whatever they decide. Such is the nature of the Subversive.

    • Boop Gahev

      The term “assault rifle” is a red herring. Everyone knows what the goal ultimately is. Confiscation.

      I would like to personally thank Hillary, who has more balls than the sissy boy from Kenya, for actually saying it. “Mandatory buybacks are worth considering”. At least now the groveling peasants, who bow low faces in the dirt, can no longer tell me with a straight face. “No one is coming for your guns.”

      Thank you Hillary.

    • loadnup

      I’ve heard of ignorant but you give the word a whole new definition.

      • Matthew Chen

        The silent rule of debate is that when you attack the poster and not his post, then you are a loser. If you have any intelligent thing to say, lets hear it.

    • Reverend Draco

      And the 1st Amendment only covers hand-operated printing presses and unamplified voice communication.

      Pull your head out of your ass before you suffocate.

      • Matthew Chen

        Rev Draco, are you sure you are a man of the cloth or a man with a low education? The 1st Amendment does not mention any type of printing press, silly billy.

        Amendment 1 states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        This explanation is from Cornell University:

        “Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States.

        Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

        On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense.

        Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

        In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . .”

        The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

        This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years.

        Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.

        The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.” Unquote.

        Seems like folks like you should be barred from possession of firearms.

        • Reverend Draco

          Actually – I have 6 degrees – a Master’s, 2 Bachelor’s, and 3 Associates – you see, I refuse to accept what Newscaster Barbie has to say and will go through the gates of hell to learn something about everything.
          That it’s entirely too much effort for the average choad (you, for example), but for me it’s a small price to pay not to be a herd-beast

          The Second doesn’t mention any type of arms, either, dipshit.
          You said, “That meant to be only muskets and pistols, not assault rifles.”
          First – you do realize that there is no such thing as an “assault rifle?” That the term was invented in the late 1980s to foster fear and ignorance among the populace? Congrats – it worked on you.
          Second – my comment about printing presses and unamplified voice is EXACTLY the same argument you just fucking used RE: the 2nd Amendment.
          So, by your own admission, you possess a extreme low IQ. . . which makes me wonder – why the fuck am I wasting my time trying to educate the ineducable?

          The 2nd IS an individual right – always has been, always will be – only those with nefarious intent would ever consider otherwise – criminals of all colors.

          • Matthew Chen

            Rev Draco, Degrees in Divinity don’t count.when we discuss about constitutional issues, which was my favorite subject in Law School.

    • oldjake

      That horse is out of the barn long ago. The government has sold millions of cartridge revolvers, bolt action rifles, semi auto M1 Carbines and M1 Garands to US citizens. No one can buy a new assault rifle. They are machine guns. Best try to learn the definitions Matt.

      • Matthew Chen

        The Congress can make laws and repeal them.

        • oldjake

          When you are talking about the Constitution I believe it would require 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve such a change after it was passed in the Congress. You cannot change the 2nd amendment to restrict it to 1789 firearms when US Code requires all able bodied men and female officers of the National Guard to show up when called with their own weapon chambered in a current military caliber. The follow on regs demonstrate it was never intended to freeze in place the weapons needed by the citizen militia. If we were invaded today would you be able to fulfill your own obligation and report with such a weapon in hand? If not, look forward to being assigned to being the guy digging latrines and burning $hitter$.

          • sunshine

            “We”? Chen is a Chinese last name, I’m sure he’d be handed a gun the second his co-racialists landed and he’d be laughing it up with his buddies, at the stupidity of the Americans to give up their guns.

          • Matthew Chen

            Hey buddy, I don’t live in China.The US military will look after America. It is the only superpower.

          • sunshine

            So? You’re still Chinese and you would benefit from Chinese invasion/domination.

          • Matthew Chen

            Please tell me why did Uncle Sam borrow US$1.34 Trillion from China if Americans like you hate the Chinese so much? When was the last time they invaded America? The Chinese want to live in peace. Americans are the ones making wars all over the world to steal oil.

          • sunshine

            You think the average American has any say in what our elite overlords do? And who said anything about hating Chinese people? I don’t hate them, but I don’t want to live with them as my fellow citizens, mainly because they are so incompatible with our society. But by the same token, we are incompatible with your society in your country and we don’t belong in China any more than you belong in the West. Not hatred, just honesty.

          • Matthew Chen

            The Average American voted for Obama, the killing machine, who started off calling for peace and won the Nobel Peace Prize. You have a say and you can vote out the dead-beat, warmonger incumbents in Congress.

            But Obama is controlled by the Khazarian Mafia. Please Google “The Hidden Secrets of the Incredibly Evil Khazarian Mafia” by Dr Preston James to see that they control America’s money supply, the big banks, the FED, Big Oil, Big Pharma, all major news media, the Pentagon and Academia.

            The Secretary of Energy in the Bush2 administration was a Chinese-American. Many doctors, scientists and professors in American collages & universities are Chinese-Americans. They live in peace in America and contribute to the well being of the community. They are very compatible with American society.

            Deep down we are all the same as we want peace and harmony. If China hates American why lend America US$1.34 trillion? Go figure.

          • James Michael

            Wrong they have ZERO authority to vote or change what is by definition inalienable….

          • oldjake

            Whether or not it would be forcibly resisted is not the point. It is just what would have to happen before we would even need to consider contesting it by force of arms.

          • Matthew Chen

            But the SCOTUS judges changed the law to allow gay marriage, which Chief Justice said has nothing to do with the Constitution.

          • Matthew Chen

            Can any US State object to gay marriage rule by the SCOTUS?

        • James Michael

          Not on things they have NO authority over..treason can never be law….

          • Matthew Chen

            Do the five SCOTUS have the authority to change the Constitution to allow gay marriage? Go figure.

    • sunshine

      Great, a Chinaman telling us what our Constitution “really” means. Yay diversity.

      • Matthew Chen

        Hey, there are 15 million Asian Americans in the United States of America.. In case you don’t know even the SCOTUS judges don’t all agree with the interpretation of 2nd Amendment.

        • sunshine

          Who cares who agrees with it? It plainly says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty straightforward stuff. As for the Asians, so what? Asians put their co-ethnics above the US, just like every other “diversity” in the US. Your nations don’t allow in loads of foreigners, unfortunately we don’t follow your example.

          • Matthew Chen

            For your info buddy, 4 US supreme judges do not agree with your rights to bear arms. Asian Americans are Americans and have the same rights as you.

          • sunshine

            So what? The Supreme court justices can certainly try to re-write the Constitution if they want, we’ll see how well that works out for them.

            Sure, you can call yourselves Americans if you want. Nobody says you don’t have rights, but you don’t have the right to come here and tell us how to live. We don’t go to your nations and tell you what your laws “really mean”, so stop being culturally insensitive and oppressive and show us the same respect in return.

          • Matthew Chen

            Not true. Since WW2 ended America started at least 19 wars around the world and the CIA assassinated the leaders and the US military destroyed countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Serbia, Grenada, Egypt, Congo, Sudan, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc with hundreds of thousands of napalm bombs, cruise missiles and smart bombs, etc. The US funded the US$5 billion coup in the Ukraine and removed a democratically elected President and replace the Govt with Neo-Nazi and Far Right leaders

            So why are you so upset when we are just debating? It’s an intellectual exchange that is all. Peace be with you, Sunshine,

          • sunshine

            I can’t deny any of that, but we the people don’t want it. Voting never changes anything, it’s all rigged so there’s really not much we can do about it. I will say that I can’t believe the US put in “Neo-Nazis” in Ukraine, I doubt the Jews that run this country would have anything to do with real anti-Jewish types. More likely they are puppets that will allow them to exploit Ukraine and fill it full of hostile and incompatible foreigners, like the rest of Europe.

            I’m not upset, and if I have been rude or appear so, I apologize. Most people are so shitty on the internet I suppose it has made me shitty too :(

          • Matthew Chen

            1 Sunshine,Thank you. If you think voting is rigged maybe its true but what is truly happening is that the Khazarian Mafia back *both* presidential candidates except Trump because he does need their funding.

            These mafia people are European Jews by religion only and not by DNA. They are not Semites as the real Jews in Israel. In Israel they look like Arabs, who are also Semites. Please read the links I gave you and you will understand that they control the US money supply via the FED and the US Debt is mounting because war make huge amounts of money for them.

            2 “I will say that I can’t believe the US put in “Neo-Nazis” in Ukraine,”

            Remember the image of Victoria Nuland, the US Asst Secretary of State for European affairs? She handed out cookies to the soldiers in Ukraine and admitted in a Congress inquiry that the US spent US$5 billion to organize the coup, to move NATO close to the Russian border.

            Nuland is a Khazarian and so is Jacob Lew , the Secretary of the Treasury. The Spokesman for Obama is Joshua Earnest.

            The Right Sector people in the Ukraine Govt are Neo-Nazi. The Prime Minister of the Ukraine was hand-picked by Nuland. That guy is a Khazarian too. So is Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan.

            3 When Bill Clinton was ask to disclose the UFO files, he told the reporter that there is another Govt within the US Govt which he as commander-in-Chief, does not control. Now do you get the big picture?

            4 No need to apologize. You are a patriot but you do not know who is your enemy. Please read the links and follow dr James Preston of ‘VeteransToday’ and also Dean Henderson and Ron Paul. They know the truth.

            4 China has no agenda to attack the US which is China’s biggest customer and a customer is KING. That is why China loan the US the sum of US$3.44 trillion.

            Also China saved many American pilots during WW2 after they bombed Tokyo and ran out of fuel and crash-landed in China. The Flying Tigers of the US were based in China, which was an ally of the US in ww2.

            It will be the Khazarian Mafia who will instruct Ash Carter to manufacture a war with China as war make huge sums of money of the Mafia.

            5 Have a Happy New Year, 2016. Read the links and understand who are America’s real enemies.

      • Matthew Chen

        Don’t be a racist. Be civil when you debate with others.

        • sunshine

          Not racist, just truth. You’re Chinese, correct? Why do you feel it’s OK to tell Americans what our Constitution “really” means? Isn’t that culturally insensitive? I’m not trying to tell you what Confucius “really” meant, or what Mao was “really” trying to do with his Cultural Revolution because it’s not my place. The same applies here.

          • Matthew Chen

            I know you don’t intend to be a racist but calling a Chinese, a Chinaman is like calling an African-American a N word. Kapished?

    • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

      I think it meant huge furry bear arms from the halloween shop, personally, I mean, who would mess with a guy sportin’ bear arms, right?

  • Ivan Sanchez

    Unconstitutional laws are not laws.

    • Reverend Draco

      Nope – they’re just toilet paper.

      Unconstitutional law is null and void from the outset – no court filings, no appearing before a judge – just done.

      • Ivan Sanchez

        Yet we have to slave away so the bank doesn’t take everything, lest we decide to do something about the fact that there are so many unconstitutional laws in effect.

  • ramrodd

    The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus
    the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – The Second
    Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.

    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism.
    They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being
    disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.
    The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as
    slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

    Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

    American Thinker

  • AtomicMetroid

    The second they try it then millions storm and coup DC and arrest warrants go out for all the traitors

  • Yul bolsun

    This is not good. 2facebarry trying to start a civil war. He signed eo infringing on gun rights already and nobody did anything. He sign the un small arms treaty and nobody did anything. We had an election and our representative still won’t call him on the carpet. He’s let us arm up so to justify our murder and the destruction of all we hold dear. The illegal immigrants he’s bringing in is our replacements. Or should I say them.

  • Boop Gahev

    Wounded animal.

  • Kerry

    Jihad is just too hard on bitter clingers

  • Ken, Megapolis

    Let me ask you. Why is it that English people are seriously googling how to buy firearms? The answer is simple. They don’t want to die when a Muslim, an abusive policeman, or a corporation mad on profits not service, moves into Town.. I hate it.

    • JustaMan

      Hey the English have now realized, if your gonna die at least be able ta do it spitting back at the enemy with some led.

  • mirageseekr

    Hey Obama, Try and come and get them…I dare ya.

  • JustaMan

    I have and always will own weapons, with Government permission or not. Once they make weapons illegal in the US that’s when I will purchase n own fully auto w/ grenade launcher.

    • AllodialTitle

      Buy it in downtown Detroit?

      • JustaMan

        The Bronx n Crooklyn have some good underground sales as well.

  • jfvw

    “The DOJ is currently trying to figure out what options Obama has, which could legally circumvent Congress and survive any lawsuits that gun rights groups are sure to throw at the order.”

    That is the way this government operates. Do not obey the Constitution. Do not cede to the will of the people (if our Representatives even listened to us that is.). The Police State is complete and in fine working order.

  • bv

    “If guns were outlawed only the criminals would own guns”………. and most American citizens have figured out who the real criminals are.

  • Ray Magarino

    Oathkeepers on watch and the 82nd Airborne are just the tip of the spear!

  • Cowa Bunga

    Got tyranny? When the president dictates the law, you have it.

  • AllodialTitle

    USA is DC, 6.8 miles square – the ONLY place where the counterfeit ‘government’ and it’s puke laws apply. LETS’S REBOOT THE REPUBLIC NOW

  • Unkel Ruckus

    Buy them now. Today. Buy all that you are legally able to purchase. Then give some to your friends and family and hide the rest.

    Their value will rise and they may save your life.

  • Harold Smith

    “Psaki further added that gun violence is ‘probably the issue that has touched him most personally over the course of his presidency.'”

    Is that the same “Obama” that’s funding and arming mass-murdering ISIS terrorists? Is that the same Obama that murders people en masse in drone strikes? Is that the same Obama that doesn’t have a problem with cops murdering people? He’s “touched” by “gun violence”?

  • JCLincoln

    Come and get ’em, Obbie.
    2016 Year of the 2nd America Revolution

  • oldjake

    martial law

    • rich

      M.L. is just around the corner!

  • Sir TuberKopf

    Normally about 8 to 10 million firearms per year were sold in America.

    Since Obama has begun his “Very Presidential Antiguan Rhetoric” of “Gun Control” and other control…., firearms sales have more than doubled. We are talking about seven years of sales at or over 20 million per year. If we assume a percent of those sales are repeat customers accumulating multiple firearms it still implies that there are likely 40 to 50 million new unexpected sales.

    Now the subtle point, Obama has so terrified 50 million Americans that they have taken up arms to defend themselves and their families. What is the definition of a terrorist? The FBI defines it as someone who intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. Islamic terrorists didn’t do this, domestic terrorists didn’t do this, Obama did it to 20% of the adult population.

    Recently the NY Times censored a statement by Obama that revealed Obama’s insanity. Obama’s statement follows:

    Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.

    This statement is incredibly irrational and demonstrates the level of Obama’s narcissism. The man is not fit for office. He actually thinks the correct response to international terrorism is rhetoric rather than action.

    • wally63

      Owning firearms and USING them against a TYRANT GOV’T are two very different things. We have had it TOO GOOD for TOO LONG to even THINK of such a thing. Men have become PUSSIFIED and allow their WIVES to run things nowadays. Women rule the roost and most men are OKIE DOKIE ARTIE CHOKIE with that idea. Women will tell the men to turn their guns into the gov’t and be quick about it.

      • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

        Not me.

      • JustaMan

        Turn my wife in before my guns. Wives are overrated.

      • Sir TuberKopf

        The mere fact that anti gun gov rhetoric is driving an additional 80 million gun sales scares the crap out of libs.

        Progressives are getting a message that even though the economy is in the toilette, Americans are giving up other luxuries to buy firearms in direct opposition to their sick twisted agenda. Americans are voting with their wallets.

        The type of firearms being purchased are changing as well. These aren’t your dad’s 22 or double barreled shotgun that people are currently buying.

        • wally63

          Sir Tuber, let’s just hope that when the heat is really turned up against guns and gun owners, those brave purchasers of AR-15’s and AK’s stand their ground rather than crawl back into the wood works like happened after the OK City Murrah Bldg bombing. After that (preplanned false flag) Gov’t demonization of MILITIAS, they disappeared OVERNIGHT. POOF. GONE. NADA. Really haven’t surfaced since. Likely still underground, though.

  • Helix Powers

    People kill me when they write comments trying to convince people that Obama is the only asshole in this country.

    America is the asshole capital of the world. Most of you guys grew up with insensitive asshole parents……. stop acting like newborns

    • sunshine

      So what constitutes an “insensitive asshole”? Seems to me that Americans are the biggest group of oversensitive pussies ever (and I’m American myself).

      • Helix Powers

        In my opinion its someone who does not care that you have feelings, ideas, and thoughts. Someone who makes decisions based on their own assumptions about how you should feel instead of asking you what you think.

        Its like when politicians get infront of the world and use the term “we” as though we all think the same or that all Americans agree with what is being said. That type of thinking is really messed up.

        No one seems to care about genuine thought anymore most are just looking for reasons to discredit you or call you crazy. And the worst people of all are the ones that take everything you say out of context. Everyday people get weird when they feel they cant control everything around them. ASSHOLE NATION.

        • sunshine

          Thank you for that really well written/thought out explanation. You’re absolutely right….

          • Helix Powers

            Thanks for the positive vibes sunshine

  • wally63

    At the same time, send the COWARD CONGRESS home for GOOD, as they are a spineless bunch of pussies who squat to pee.

  • wally63

    If any of you out there think it’s bad NOW, then WAIT till they HAVE your GUNS! Haha. Then, their masks will come off and you will say hello to MR UGLY. Our only hope is for the US Military to TAKE OVER the Gov’t and imprison our traitorous leaders, following up with trials and hangings. From what I’ve seen, there is little chance of that happening since they are all war mongers and LOVE the idea of KILLING their OWN CITIZENS as well as anything else that moves around the world. Essentially, we have become what we hate, as a nation.

    • James Michael

      You mean like they did on New Orleans and on Boston?

      • wally63

        Yep, I’d say so. The SWAT just marched right thru Boston throwing folks out of their homes, no search warrant, nothing but loud mouths and guns drawn!

  • Guillotine_ready

    Act like a dictator all you want and import people who are used to it. Some out here in the hinterlands are really restless and just itching to do something wonderful and history making.

  • varlog

    There is a lot of incentive to pass anything, right or wrong.
    It only took 35 years to get parts of the Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional gun law off the books.

  • Angelo Jamaica

    He really has no cause to worry about it, just go to the golf course and work on your putin.

  • jeff

    I wished he would Die in a horrible accident.

  • William Jones

    From My cold dead hands as I lay upon the cold dead who did not succeed.

  • William Jones

    My oath was “all enemies foreign and domestic”

  • Badger Badgerism

    COME AND TAKE IT BIYATCH

  • abinico

    Doctors are the third leading cause of death – how about doing something about that – you have far, far greater chance of being killed by a doctor than a gun.

  • James Michael

    Pound sand you American murdering traitor your privilege to govern is revoked for cause…Treason…sedition….murder…..There are many more…. but those charges suffice….

  • goatman62

    I am regularly wrong about things, but somehow I doubt that Barry will do much of anything, but, as usual, give more speeches.
    I’m thinking he will try to throw the ball to Congress for some kind of action, but they aren’t having any of that. They’re already in enough trouble with the voters, as it is.

    My being wrong will simply mean that whatever he tries to do by Executive Order, will immediately be tied up in litigation for the foreseeable future, and nothing gets done.

    This is all about his legacy, and no matter the end result, he will automatically proclaim victory by simply giving it the old “Ivy League” try.

    Just over 12 months and counting……

  • Isa Markane

    Just more problem, reaction, solution.

    Let’s get this over with then. Start the war. I’ve held back long enough. Go ahead send the ATF meatheads to our doors, see what happens. They will be the first to encounter a tidal wave in motion they have never seen before.

  • Ben Watts

    I’ll tell them where they can stick their Executive Order…

  • RE

    IF THEY WANT THE GUNS – THEY WILL GET THEM!
    OK?

    YOU ARE PUTTING A BANDAID ON A GUNSHOT WOUND.