Anyone Who Would Use Terror as an Excuse to Subvert the Second Amendment Should Be Tarred & Feathered

Loading

Charles C. W. Cooke:

Fans of mindless authoritarianism are having a pretty good month. The New York Times reports:

Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory.

The Democratic push seems likely to fall victim to opposition from the National Rifle Association and congressional gun-rights backers, chiefly Republicans, who have smothered firearms curbs for years. If the Republicans who control Congress block votes on the proposal, Democrats hope to profit politically by winning sympathy from angry voters.

As the Times implies, the bill’s proponents are quite open about their intentions. “Under current law,” Chuck Schumer explained over the weekend, “suspected or known terrorists who are on a no-fly list can legally purchase firearms in this country.” “Slamming this appalling loophole,” he argued, “ought to be a no brainer.” His colleague Harry Reid has made similar comments. “It’s outrageous,” Reid argues, “that dangerous individuals who are known terrorists can waltz into a gun show and buy any weapon they want.” In a Twitter conversation with me over the weekend, Reid’s deputy chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, put it even more clearly:

Let us avoid gloss or euphemism and speak plainly: This idea flies directly in the face of every cherished American conception of justice, and it should be rejected with extreme prejudice. You will note, I hope, that Reid, Schumer, Jentleson, and co. are not proposing to place restrictions on those who have been “accused,” “charged,” or “convicted,” but upon those who are “suspected.” They are not referring to those who are working their way through the judicial system, but to those who remain outside of it. They are not seeking to limit the rights of those who are out on bail or awaiting trial, but those who have not so much as been handcuffed. Loudly and proudly, they are arguing in favor of removing fundamental rights from anyone whose name has been written down on a list. Because they hope to confuse the public, their talk is peppered with references to “Paris-style” “assault” rifles and “automatic” weapons. But this is a red herring: Their proposal applies equally to guns of all types, not just those that give Shannon Watts and Diane Feinstein the willies.

In times past, officials advocating the simultaneous undermining of a range of constitutional rights would have been tarred, feathered, and dumped into the sea, along with their staff, their press agents, and anyone else who saw fit to acquiesce in the scheme. A little of that spirit might be welcome here.

However the press might cast it, there are not in fact “two sides” to this issue. It is not a “tricky question.” It is not a “thorny one” or a “gray area” or a “difficult choice.” It is tyranny. Somewhere, deep down, its advocates must know this. Presumably, Chuck Schumer would not submit that those on a terror watch list should be deprived of their right to speak? Presumably, Harry Reid would not contend that they must be kept away from their mosques? Presumably, Diane Feinstein would not argue that they should be subjected to warrantless searches and seizures? Such proposals would properly be considered disgraceful — perhaps, even, as an overture to American fascism. Alas, there is something about guns that causes otherwise reasonable people to lose their minds.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
31 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Upon my return to the United States, I was detained at the airport (after I had flown in!) because I was on the Terror Watch List.
My name is common- I share it with one of the wealthiest men in America, for example- but because it is common, I also share it with a suspected terror supporter.
I found that once your name is on the list, it is impossible to get it removed, as there is no provision in the system for removal of names.
So I should lose my second amendment rights?
Have my property taken away from me by force?
So anyone can lose their second amendent rights by an anonomous clerk typing their name into a database?
This is getting ridiculous…

If they did not want terrorists to get guns they should not have run them through an Embassy ahh..er outpost or that place in Libya that Clintons’ and Obamas’ garmin couldn’t find.
Accountability is just them a counting your money to tax, fee, invest for you, ROI kinda poor.

Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory.

Do you think terror suspects should be allowed to purchase guns? Protecting the 2nd Amendment does not mean you have to become irrational.

Recently it was suggested that the Social Security database of beneficiaries who have been determined to be mentally incompetent by a court of law should be used in screening prospective gun purchasers. The NRA characterized this as an effort by the Obama administration to give the Social Security Administration the power to keep you from purchasing a firearm.

This was nothing more than an attempt to make good use of an existing database. Here’s a news flash: People who are mentally incompetent are far more likely to be people who should not be able to purchase firearms. Does this actually need to be explained to somebody?

@Greg: The NRA characterized this as an effort by the Obama administration to give the Social Security Administration the power to keep you from purchasing a firearm.
Because thats exactly what it is, so soon all will need a doctors slip to purchase a gun. Just back off the 2nd amendment the 1st the 3rd and so on and so on.
My daughter had a very difficult time trying to purchase a gun for her husband, because she told the truth, the gun was not for herself. They accused her of being a strawman buyer, until my grand daughter ran to hug her grandpa my son-in-laws dad, who worked in the archery dept of the sporting goods store. A marine and avid hunter/sportsman will not have his Christmas surprise ruined.

@kitt, #4:

The Social Security Administration doesn’t make determinations that anyone is mentally incompetent. The judges of local courts who have reviewed evidence in the course of guardianship petitions make such determinations . The Social Security Administration has a database only because such determinations have sometimes been submitted to them in connection with representative payee applications. SSA is bound to honor the decision of the local court. They’re generally required to appoint payees for mentally incompetent persons. A legal finding of mental incompetence by a judge goes beyond a routine SSA determination that a person needs help managing their Social Security business.

Do you honestly think it would be wise or responsible to sell a firearm to a person that the judge of your local court has already determined to be mentally incompetent?

Would you not find fault with the federal background check system if there was an easily checked federal record that was totally ignored, and the incompetent person then went on to kill a close friend or family member?

@Greg: How much further should that be carried? Should someone that was treated for depression be on your list, PTS, manic depressants,panic attacks, alcoholics, drug users, stroke victims where does it stop cause I can tell you anti gun people do not stop they are relentless with the march against guns. Mentally incompetent can mean they cannot handle financial affairs does that make them all dangerous?
A man can get drunk out of his mind pee on the sidewalk get arrested and convicted of indecent exposure and ends up on a sex offender list. Laws get carried way to far in some circumstances and not far enough in others. This is a constitutional right and taking any one persons right away has to be on a case by case basis not a catch all blind law.
And how many people have you heard of that have been killed by these dangerous social security recipients ? Back off the 2nd your unreasonable fear does not outweigh my right.

How much further should that be carried? Should someone that was treated for depression be on your list, PTS, manic depressants,panic attacks, alcoholics, drug users, stroke victims where does it stop cause I can tell you anti gun people do not stop they are relentless with the march against guns.

That all goes beyond the issue at hand, which was simply a proposal that SSA’s database of those that have been found mentally incompetent by local courts be used as a screening tool. This seems appropriate to me, since many of the senseless mass shootings are committed by people who are later discovered to have had mental issues that were already known to someone other than law enforcement. The Social Security Administration just happens to have a useful database. Receipt of Social Security isn’t in any way the relevant point. Any similar databases could also be useful, but there really aren’t that many options. Local court determinations of mental incompetency probably aren’t routinely recorded anywhere above the county level. I suppose the VA might have some database similar to the SSA’s in connection with VA benefit payments.

It’s entirely obvious that there are people who shouldn’t have firearms. Mental incompetence definitely gets my vote.

And how many people have you heard of that have been killed by these dangerous social security recipients ?

Receiving Social Security isn’t the red flag any more than AARP membership or belonging to Rotary or VFW. A finding of mental incompetence by a local judge is the red flag. A judge has made a formal determination that a mentally incompetent person is not responsible for their actions; that, for whatever cause, their thinking and judgment have become seriously impaired.

@Greg: Because grampa has sent a couple of thousand to Dubai in order to collect the lottery prize and fell for the scam twice doesnt mean he is about to open fire at Thanksgiving. Many families can tell when its time grandpa should not be in the woods hunting anymore thats the time they take advantage of one of those “loophole purchases” for firearms and buy grandpas Browning. No government Data base unless its a list of convicted criminals should be used to restrict the rights of an american citizen, the law would stop you from buying a firearm from family or friends without the filtering of a federal firearm dealer sounds like the fed wants tax money and control. I get the NRA news letter this is another intrusive law, that wont prevent any mass killings.
How many of these shooters have been previously been found by a court of law incompetent can you cite 1?

Sorry, but I don’t believe the 2nd Amendment should protect the right of mentally incompetent people to purchase firearms. I’m guessing most reasonable people share that opinion, or the N.R.A. leadership wouldn’t have felt the need to misrepresent a proposal to use a preexisting database as an effort to empower the Social Security Administration to suppress 2nd Amendment rights.

This is the sort of position that has convinced me the leadership of the N.R.A. is either crazy, irresponsible, in the pocket of the firearms industry, or some combination of the foregoing. I figured out they weren’t really about individual rights when they lobbied to keep smart guns off the market, depriving firearm buyers of the option to choose or reject such a potentially useful feature themselves. Not to mention police officers. Seventeen percent of all law enforcement personnel killed in the line of duty are shot with their own service weapons.

Riding the train yesterday and looking at Facebook on my phone, I ran across a story about a man in California that had his gun collection confiscated under the new law there that allows for confiscation when a gun owner poses a threat to society. As I usually do when a story sounds too good (as proof of a point) to be true, when I got home, I researched it further. Turns out, it’s true.

http://www.guns.com/2015/11/20/attorney-argues-ca-mans-seized-541-gun-collection-is-legal/

What turned they guy into a “danger to himself and others”? He was having a tough time and went to find someone to talk to about it. That’s it.

When I went looking for this particular story (I thought it was an isolated case) I found many others. It turns out, the left cannot be trusted with our liberties.

I too was pretty disturbed to find that 91% of those on the no-fly list are able to purchase weapons… even explosives. However, do we need a new law to cure that or is it that those carrying out the existing laws simply are not doing their jobs? Even worse, if there are people on this list (Ted Kennedy was on it) that don’t belong there, how good a job are those charged with building and maintaining the list for its intended purpose doing?

Hell, we’ve had people working for the TSA on the terror watch list! The people working these lists are the people we expect to keep terrorists from infiltrating along with Syrian “widows and children”, by the way.

Hey, I’m all for keeping a terrorist from buying a gun (or, at least let him/her spend their money, THEN kill them) but we cannot trust a government that changes every 4 or 8 years to safeguard our freedoms via lists of our personal information. Whenever the left has power (remember the publishing of the names and addresses of CHL holders in New York), everything but what THEY value is free game. The ends justifies whatever means.

@Greg: You and the rest of the left dont think the 2nd should protect anybody nor any other rights contained in those old documents for the founding of this country. Since this is such a constitutional hell hole let us invite you and all the rest that are afraid of self governing to kindly move out of this crazyville.
You never answer direct questions or back your opinions with cold hard facts, never admit when you are dead wrong, typical democrat.

@kitt: Perhaps you should challenge him to come to your house to take away your firearms. 10 to 1 he cowers away or doesn’t respond.

You never answer direct questions or back your opinions with cold hard facts, never admit when you are dead wrong, typical democrat.

People around here say that frequently, while ignoring any and all facts presented. They then believe whatever the hell they want without requiring any supporting evidence.

Trump, for example, repeatedly makes a public claim that there were riotous celebrations in the New Jersey Muslim community as the Twin Towers came down, and it’s believed without question; no matter that there’s absolutely no documentation that any such thing ever happened. Republicans repeatedly claim criminal misconduct on the part of the Obama administration in connection with a laundry list of topics, repeatedly investigate the hell out them and find not a shred of supporting evidence, but continue to repeat the bullshit accusations, and people believe them. Obama’s efforts against ISIL for over a year have been utterly pointless and totally ineffectual, DoD reports of ISIL fighters being reduced by 1/3 and a list of ISIL leaders exterminated notwithstanding, while Vladimir Putin works magic in a matter of days, because a state-owned Russian propaganda outlet says so. All of that, but it’s the left that’s lying—the left apparently being anyone who isn’t somewhere to the right of Ronald Reagan.

To use a favorite expression of my late grandfather, It’s just pathetic.

@Greg: Seems you’ re just as guilty of believing leftist propaganda as the right is to theirs, I would challenge you to read 1 book Ameritopia. You may or may not feel a bit different about the constitution. There are gun laws I would like to see reformed at federal level. The city of DC has the most stringent gun laws and is at the top of gun related crime, as is chicago more laws dont make us safer dont stop anyone who intends on breaking laws. They do restrict lawful citizens from defending themselves. I am totally against this new legislation using mindless data bases to steal rights away from lawful citizens, require all gun sales to be done through a licensed dealer.
The bad guys used to wait til you left your house, now home invasions seem to be the new norm, I am lucky enough to live in an extremely low crime area, that may be because so many of us are very well armed, hunters and sportsmen are very common.

@another vet: I just wonder his reaction if confronted with a dangerous criminal, would he jump in front of me to my defense or behind me and my gun?

@kitt: What is your definition of a “sportsman.” Do you consider killing a human animal sport? How bout killing a non human animal? Is that sport?
Hunter—of what? Would you hunt a dog for sport? An elephant or a lion?
Many enjoy eating dogs–do you?

Semper Fi

@Richard Wheeler: Whoa, what analogy is this?
” Do you consider killing a human animal sport? How bout killing a non human animal? Is that sport?
Hunter—of what? Would you hunt a dog for sport? An elephant or a lion?
Many enjoy eating dogs–do you?
I own a firearm for personal protection in the woods while walking my dogs. My son in law hunts whitetail deer, fishes, and turkey. all which go to feed his family.
The lions do have a very small breeding population here no legal tags for those. Elephants OMG my poodle is in charge of keeping them off my land and I have never seen one he rocks at that. Sport with guns is skeet shooting, friendly competition at the range.
Do you have an issue with the 2nd? too bad so sad its my right.

@kitt: Most likely run and hide or submit. This all a control issue to him. Ask anyone who has ever debated him and they’ll tell you that in addition to being a left wing ideologue who seems to believe the function of government is to shove his beliefs down the rest of our throats, he is also hellbent on control be it guns, money, speech, or whatever. If he wasn’t a bully at some point, then he probably feels as though he was “wronged” or that certain other people owe him something and because of that, he wants to see them controlled and punished so he can “get even”. He has bemoaned the Constitution more than once and has referred to conservatives and Republicans as the biggest threats to the country on multiple occasions as well. So to him, you and the rest of us here are his enemy. He neither respects nor likes any of us who don’t agree with him. Hence, I stopped debating with him and stopped reading his posts. There is no reasoning or trying to get along with someone like that.

@kitt: OK A sportsman is skeet shooting or friendly competition on the range?
It is not killing for sport and mounting the heads of these beautiful animals to offset having a small dick.
I’m good with that.

@another vet: I know I just thought it was my turn to feed the pet troll.

@another vet, #18:

Most likely run and hide or submit.

Gratuitous insult noted. I would suggest that if having a handgun in a person’s pocket or purse makes them bolder, that person probably should give more thought to the wisdom of carrying it in the first place. I don’t expect this observation will make sense to those it most applies to, of course.

This all a control issue to him. Ask anyone who has ever debated him and they’ll tell you that in addition to being a left wing ideologue who seems to believe the function of government is to shove his beliefs down the rest of our throats, he is also hellbent on control be it guns, money, speech, or whatever.

This from someone supporting a political party hellbent on depriving women of sovereign control over their own reproductive function? How’s that for wanting to shove a set of beliefs down someone’s throat?

The right supports constitutional principles only to the extent that doing so serves their agenda. The other side of the coin is that when a principle does serve their agenda, they’ll support it to the point of absurdity and beyond. For example, to the point of asserting that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a mentally incompetent person’s right to purchase a firearm, or the right to keep a weapon of military-purposed design in a crowded apartment building, complete with high-capacity magazines holding 100 rounds apiece.

@Greg: The left is using the threat of terrorism to stop people on their enemy lists from buying guns, fool, no due process no crimes committed and some ass suggested all members of the NRA should be on this list. Its all about who they decide should have a firearm, lets put all donors to the republican party on our list as the IRS. Mental health is an issue the sheeple wont question. It has nothing to do with due process confirmation that you might be batsh*t crazy.
Are they saying you must be a US citizen to purchase a firearm are they saying refugees cant buy a firearm.
Dont we deserve due process before our rights are revoked? They dont tell you if your name is on the list. Why is it so important that health records are in a data base. So if you lose your job the dog runs away and you feel the need to talk to a councellor maybe you get on the list.

@kitt, #22:

You’re getting all of that from a suggestion to use an existing database of people adjudged to be mentally incompetent by local courts as a screening tool?

Due process was afforded by the local courts that made the findings of mental incompetence. Hearings were held at which evidence and medical opinions were submitted and evaluated by a judge. The person in question had a right to contest the testimony and evidence, and to have representation to assist them in doing so.

Some people should not be able to purchase firearms because of disordered thinking or impaired judgement. Many people who commit mass murder fall into that category. If a person who does so has been previously determined to be mentally incompetent by a court of law, you’re going to have a one helluva time keeping any defense attorney from using that fact to minimize his client’s sentence, or to get him off altogether. The question could quickly become Why was this person, known to be mentally incompetent, allowed to purchase a firearm? Who is at fault for this?

The fact that a person has had counselling or been diagnosed with a mental problem doesn’t mean that they’re mentally incompetent. Mental incompetence goes beyond simply having a problem with anxiety or depression. Those problems are very common, but don’t keep most people having them from behaving in a responsible, fully rational fashion. Mental incompetence means that a person has a problem of some sort so severe that it has rendered them persistently incapable of making sound decisions and rational judgments. They’re not responsible for their behavior.

@Greg: The liberals want to prohibit all guns. link at bottom
This bill would expand federal hate crime laws, including a provision allowing a person to be sentenced up to life imprisonment if a gun is involved.
This bill would make it a ten-year felony to “knowingly” carry a firearm within 250 feet of a building where you “know” a member of Congress is. Thus, the bill would create an incomprehensible series of moving “no-gun” zones. And while, for example, you would be exempted for a gun in your house, if you lived next door to a congressman, you could not carry your gun to your car parked on the street.
This bill would create a new class of “prohibited persons” consisting of persons convicted of a “misdemeanor sex offense against a minor.” It is hard to imagine what sex crime against a minor would be so insignificant that it would be classified as a misdemeanor, but the most likely example would be, in some states, kid-on-kid sex.
This bill would establish a Department of Peace.
This bill would allow the Attorney General to outlaw the possession of a firearm by anyone whom the administration, at its discretion, decides to put on a “watch list” — i.e., anyone “known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.” In addition, the government may withhold information concerning why it put someone on the “watch list.” Take into consideration that the federal definition of “terrorism” is very broad, and could, under some circumstances, be used by a hostile administration to go after Second Amendment organizations. For instance, militia action against terrorism might be held to be “related to” or “in connection with” terrorism.
This bill would impose a gun ban on any person who committed an act as a juvenile which (1) would be a felony if committed by an adult, (2) involved at least the “threatened use” of physical force, and (3) involved a “substantial risk of physical force.” Thus, a playground fight in kindergarten might subject an adult to a lifetime gun ban, which, unlike an actual crime, could not be expunged.

withhold federal crime-fighting funds from states which fail to provide a sufficient number of names to the FBI’s Instant Check system (with penalties possible for states that fall as little as 10% short of providing all names) [sec. 101];
require federal agencies to turn over the names of all prohibited persons (which would presumably include the names of all persons admitting to having smoked as little as one marijuana cigarette) [sec. 102];
redefine “adjudicated as a mental defective” (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)) to impose a gun ban in any case in which a “lawful authority” (including, presumably, a school or a Medicare-funded doctor) prescribes counseling or medication in response to “subnormal intelligence, mental illness, or incompetency” [sec. 103];
require colleges to set up a procedure for investigating students who are acting strange and “reporting” them [sec. 103];
ban all private person-to-person sales of firearms, requiring that all sales go through federal firearms licensees or the police, who would conduct a background check [Title II].
require colleges to set up a procedure for investigating students who are acting strange and “reporting” them [sec. 103]; -allow a person to be put on the FBI’s drug abuser list if, among other things, he admitted to “possessing a controlled substance unlawfully within the last five years” (thereby, humorously, removing current law’s theoretical gun ban for large numbers of unadmitted pot smokers) [sec.104];
http://www.gunowners.org/112bills.htm

Your reference doesn’t provide links to any of the bills in question. Pardon me if I’m disinclined to accept the accuracy of the summary characterizations of many of them without question. Those characterizations are most definitely not being made by an unbiased source.

It’s also worth noting that bills are often introduced by members of both parties solely for political reasons, when they have no chance whatsoever of becoming law. Their only function is to make a statement on record. The vast majority of bills fall into that category. According to the Library of Congress’ Thomas reference, the total count of bills for the 112th Congress presently stands at 3,715. The number of laws actually made by the 112th Congress totals only 283, and most of those deal with matters trivial, non-controversial, or both. You won’t find any gun control legislation on the list.

The “Obama is going to take your guns” meme has been complete b.s. Nothing along those lines has happened during his time in office, even when democrats had controlling majorities in both the House and Senate. What that meme has actually been is the centerpiece of most successful firearms and ammunition marketing campaign in American history. It’s astonishing that people can’t seem to figure that out.

They’re still at it. They’re doubling down. The NRA is running a new ad suggesting that their organization and members are all that’s standing between America and sharia law, or some such b.s. Buy more guns! Support the NRA! Islamic terrorists will soon be climbing through the bedroom windows of America’s heartland!

@Greg: Never trust the government thats the basis of our constitution. Question everything, be self sufficient. Thats what I could find, I openly shared my source. I and other conservatives will protect the constitution even for those that would trade their rights for a false sense of security that the nanny state would promise them.

Since when has Obama waited on Congress?
Obama is getting ready to issue some kind of executive order on gun control, going around Congress to do so and violating his own admission that he can’t.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/09/obama-reportedly-considering-executive-action-on-gun-control/?intcmp=hpbt1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-weighs-expanding-background-checks-through-executive-authority/2015/10/08/6bd45e56-6b63-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html

The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns….
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns/
Then Obama adds the UN in:
Obama helped the U.N Arms Trade Treaty get enough signatures to enter into force — as much force as the U.N. can muster.
If the US respects this UN treaty we all must give up our guns, almost everyone, almost all of them.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/14/christmas-eve-to-deliver-u-n-gun-control-treaty-and-it-has-some-pro-firearm-advocates-in-the-u-s-worried/

The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns….

Only the ones that county judges have formally determined to be mentally incompetent. I think maybe “mentally incompetent” might be the danger flag, not “collecting Social Security benefits.

The so-called “gun control treaty” is actually a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, trying to get a handle on the arms exports that supply firearms to half of the lunatic extremist armies on the planet. This isn’t being targeted to protect 2nd Amendment rights. It’s being targeted to protect access the lucrative international arms market.

“Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans citizens to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution,” Secretary of State John Kerry said a few months after the passage of the treaty.
DUH ok I believe you

“If you like your gun you can keep your gun”

@Greg: Please link you source on a court ordered, not just a medicare doctor treating a patient for a mental illness (ie depression )or incompetency.

@Greg:

You’re getting all of that from a suggestion to use an existing database of people adjudged to be mentally incompetent by local courts as a screening tool?

It isn’t the concept, Greg; it is the potential for abuse. While a corrupt Republican is in no way impossible, what we HAVE seen is corrupt liberals abusing every possible utility they can get their hands on to limit personal liberty (of those other than themselves).

As I show above, your little common sense suggestion has great potential for abuse. First, the target must be identified (someone that posts facts about liberals on discussion websites, for instance) then the pretext is created: claiming a sitting President would be actively trying to erode national security by several demonstrated means is CRAZY. Therefore, put this person on a list and show up at his house one day and confiscate his guns. Someone is a member of the NRA… since the left considers them responsible for ALL gun crimes, designate them a terror organization. Seize their membership roster and BOOYAH! 5 million gun owners disarmed, without ever having committed a crime.

Unthinkable? Look at how Operation Choke-point is being abused by none other than the DOJ. Why did we never get to the bottom of Fast and Furious? Luckily, there was not a smidgen of corruption within the IRS scandal… yeah. Right.

As long as a far-left administration is possible for the White House, any level of registration or gun ownership identification should be fought vehemently. Liberals are NOT to be trusted with anyone’s freedom. They simply put no value in it… for others.

This from someone supporting a political party hellbent on depriving women of sovereign control over their own reproductive function?

How about an example?

The question could quickly become Why was this person, known to be mentally incompetent, allowed to purchase a firearm? Who is at fault for this?

Well, in the case of Adam Lanza, it was the ACLU. They blocked laws that would have allowed him to be institutionalized and it not only cost his mother her life, but those of his 26 other victims. However, Obama feels that he and he alone has the unilateral power to change whatever law gets in his way with an executive order, so what would stop him from declaring ME mentally incompetent for merely writing this?

The “Obama is going to take your guns” meme has been complete b.s.

No it isn’t. As I showed, it is a real and present threat, and that is by the laws that have been passed in liberal wastelands. That does not take into account the lunacy that resides in Obama’s imagination. The NRA, through its members, is a powerful force that stands between leftists stealing the rights of people for whom they have no regard and our freedom… it’s as simple as that. The threat is people such as yourself who have no regard for anyone else’s values or rights, especially when they impede an agenda.

The so-called “gun control treaty” is actually a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, trying to get a handle on the arms exports that supply firearms to half of the lunatic extremist armies on the planet.

Why doesn’t the UN just target Russia, which is the largest proliferate of arms in the world? Well, because public safety is not the goal; CONTROL and disarming citizens is the goal.

Blame yourself and everyone that votes like you, for supporting such scoundrels as Obama (who begat Holder), Hillary, Bernie, Pelosi, Franken, Reid (who was once supported by the NRA… what does that tell you?) and others shows those who value individual freedom and their own safety that we cannot trust lying, corrupt, criminal liberals.