Screw You Obama

You Shall Not Infringe On Our Second Amendment Rights, Obama

I have no intention of obeying any of your illegal executive orders concerning the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

You have no right to usurp the Constitution, which you have already done on several previous occasions, you are nothing more than a punk criminal that occupies the White House, do Benghazi, Fast and Furious and Crony Capitalism sound familiar to you.

You and your criminal cabal think you are above the laws that apply to the rest of us and you depend on your useful idiots in the Lame Stream Media to cover up and downplay your criminal activity.

Enough is enough! WE have to make a stand here and now, you will not take my guns, my magazines or my ammunition. You will not tell me how rounds I can load in a magazine or make other restrictions on my legal gun ownership, you don’t have that right.

For four years we have watched you chip away at our rights and freedoms, spend us into oblivion just so you can appease your voter base who are addicted to the money flowing from the government teat, rather than work and support themselves.

You have racked up enormous debt and turned us into slaves and ensured that our unborn generations will be born in servitude paying off possibly hundreds of trillion of dollars of future debt. You need to be stopped, my personal preference is impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate and imprisonment. I want to see you in handcuffs and a prison jumpsuit doing the perp walk to your 8X8 prison cell, nothing less will suffice.

I’m just your everyday average American, a patriot and a law-abiding citizen, but I am also the worst enemy to liberals  and if I continue to be pushed, I will fight back, and you know the best part…there are millions more in this country just like me. We are willing to engage in civil discourse, civil disobedience and if necessary civil war.

Molon Labe!

Tom in NC


53 responses to “Screw You Obama

  1. He signed something that he didn’t really explain, all behind the cover of Children. It was just vague enough to be troubling. However, I think these were Executive Actions and not Executive Orders. Is there a difference? I have paid attention to all of it to the point of nearly being sick and I still don’t know what he was ultimately doing. I don’t trust him, for sure, but did he perhaps back off somewhat knowing the possible consequences of this in the mid-term elections?


    • I saw 3 EO’s and supposedly they have a total of 23 points between them…very little was said regarding them, touching on a few points and leaving the rest unspoken…all the while, playing on the emotions of the people, using children to help with those emotions…if I weren’t a moral person, I could use some unsavory expletives to describe his behavior….Watching him caused me to have to lay down afterward as my head was pounding, and I was just starting to get better after dealing with a massive head cold that has had me sleeping most of the days…he is trying to use emotion from the people so that they will believe he is doing the right thing, he spoke of only a handful of things, intentionally leaving out most of his 23 points…I don’t think he backed off, other than backing off from speaking about his proposals…Fox News DID state however that 6 states are considering legislation to defy anything the Fed passes…trying to find some serious info on that right now…Fox also listed the 23 actions: … haven’t checked to see if any other MSM has done so, been too busy trying to recover from being sick and want to find the 6 states that are threatening legislation to effectively void ant new Fed laws within their states..I DO remember, however, that TX and Wyoming are 2 of those states…


      • I believe KY is another, maaaaybe Montana? Tho I heard they lost their gonads somewhere between Waco and now. Pffft!


      • Australia has 69% more ARMED Robberies – after laws were passed to give up ALL weapons; an increase of 21% for Home Invasions – while people have no way to defend themselves, their family or their property.

        After BRITAIN’s Gun Ban – caused more Harm than Good, the British want their guns back.

        Leaders in both countries have issued “warnings” to Americans – and America = fight gun control – do not give up your right to defend yourself.


  2. I believe leaving the ‘details’ to big sis will have some serious implications…Mark Levin says some of these exec actions are illegal like having CDC do a study on Gun Violence…all I know is…we need this jerk out of our WH…asap…yesterday…


  3. Well said Tom! I sit here and think about where we are in history right now and it makes me want to puke! Did I hear that a senator was going to take a stand and try to impeach the anoited one?? Who can stand up to the machine? We the people……..


  4. The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.

    The freedom to bear arms is the fundamental liberty guaranteed by the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from denying or intruding on a citizen’s right to own and bear arms, and our Founding Fathers considered this right paramount to the preservation of our republic. Any discussion regarding regulation should focus on criminals not guns. Prohibiting guns will not solve the problems facing our society.

    Anti-gun organizations and morally corrupt are seizing on the opportunity to push for more gun control and trample our constitutional rights. In reality, this push is about controlling “We The People”, not controlling guns.

    Gun control laws only affect lawful citizens who respect and obey the rule of law. Criminals who commit crimes using guns neither care nor respect our laws and would commit these crimes regardless. Gun control unfairly affects our lawful citizens and not those who we should be punishing. We must stop treating our law-abiding citizens as though they are criminals simply because they choose to exercise their Constitutionally-granted rights.

    Just because some people disobey the law does not mean people who don’t should lose their freedoms. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Evil always exists – it can only be vanquished with vigilance and due force. Evil cannot be “legislated” away.

    Nearly every case of mass murder by government has been preceded by gun control (citizen disarmament). Those who argue for gun control seem to fail to understand that disarming the citizens leads directly to a concentration of power in the hands of government officials.

    The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution” to write an executive order for gun-control. I don’t care how old this law is it still stands and so does the U.S. Constitution.


  5. Many voted for Obama because of race and/or party, and Obama won the election. 1st battle lost … Sorry for us aka USA!

    Obama aka communist/dictator is threatening to use presidential executive privilege and our three branch government that prevents one dictator rule. I really don’t think he knows, executive privilege is ONLY used for Withholding Information from Congress or Judiciary.

    Why we have “Three Branches of Government?
    To prevent tyranny!

    Our Founders fought to eliminate tyranny and studied all known forms of government with the idea in mind of preventing tyranny.

    What they knew: Our founders were aware of the fact that Power Corrupt. They knew that a government in charge of all the powers would become corrupted so they broke up those powers to prevent that inevitability.

    No single individual or group of individuals was to be allowed to have enough power to dominate all the areas of government.

    They further broke up that power structure by giving the states more power than the central Government.

    Finally they gave inalienable rights to the citizen to prevent the government from dominating their lives.

    The Bill of Rights was written to express what the Government can NOT do.

    They wisely placed the restrictions on the Government, not on the citizen.

    Lesson: Never vote for anyone who wants to raise your taxes. Money is power. Taxes take your power and places it in the hands of someone who may use it against your wishes.

    Never vote for anyone who wants to grow the size and power of Government. That person is a tyrant.

    It is time for America to return to those Constitutional principles.

    Stand up for our 2nd Amendment and our Constitutional principles


    • Too bad the other two branches of the gov’t have turned into snivelling little lap dogs, begging for their master’s attention. Rolling over and surrendering.


    • “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA– ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” –Heinrich Himmler

      Gee, how’d all that work out for the Germans?


      • You know the Fed, they ignore history while trying to make their own….or they just rewrite the parts of history they don’t want people to see and understand….pathetic…


  6. Does anyone remember the Manhattan Declaration?

    I signed it in 2009. I have every intention of being true to the Declaration. It’s time for civil disobedience.


  7. I think this is going to be the straw that breaks the people’s backs. I don’t know a single gun owner who will comply with this traitorous frauds’ demands regarding gun ownership, and cries for Impeachment grow louder by the minute. We are truly repeating history: being forced to face down a control freak government to preserve our precious freedoms. May God forgive our blasphemies and guide us in our efforts to proudly reclaim our glory as “One Nation, Under God!”


  8. These guys have been waiting for a crisis to make more gun control and now he has it.. The media needs to bring back this fast and furious issue and wear us out with it, maybe people will see what the the communists are trying to do, it is nothing to do with saftey, if it was they would make the courts do something with repeat felons, , this is just pure and simple , gun ownership and another takeing away of our ability to keep the govenment in control by being a armed nation
    The strongest reason for the people to retain the the right to keep and bear armsis, as a last resort, to protect themselfs against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson


  9. You Forgot the most important thing: HE HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO OCCUPY THE OFFICE!!! And everyone of our members of congress, the judiciary, the presstitutes in the media (including O’Reilly, Hannity, Limboob), knows it and did nothing to stop it. TRAITORS ONE AND ALL. I refuse to comply with the illegal, unconstitutional and by virtue of the fact that he is inelligible to serve, CRIMINAL dicates of this professional grifter. Screw him. LET THE GAMES BEGIN.


  10. Recently Breibart’s Project Veritas, the same people who exposed Acorn, went around to the neighborhood where the newspaper printed the gun owner house’s map. They offered local citizens not on the map, as well as the newspaper employee’s, an opportunity to receive a sign for posting on their house that said “Gun Free Zone”. They kept track of the results and noted also those houses that had already had obvious armed security. There were few if any takers, so they also went to the U.S. Attorney-General’s house in Washington D.C. The armed guard there told them the family was not at home and sent them away.

    Their idea is the kind of action we need to expose the left wing’s hypocrisy, by resulting in news that is hard to suppress while putting the left wing on the spot. So following in this vein here is a suggestion for the immediate fight against the Administration’s attempt at new gun laws, as well as the parallel fight against the U.N. Treaty on Small Arms coming soon.

    Before any consideration of any change in the gun laws, all U.S. Government personnel must surrender the Government supplied personal security for themselves and their family members and must not arm themselves or their families. This is completely fair, since the people making new rules must live in the threat regime that their rules will force on us, and test it for at least a few years.

    Certainly the Government should prove the efficacy of any reduction in the ability of the average citizen to protect themselves by putting the Government personnel and their families at the risk they are proposing to force on the average citizen. No Government person or their family member is any more important then each of us and our family members. We are all equal before the law, are we not?


  11. Executive Orders were created as administrative orders for that branch and do not and cannot create law. The Executive Branch only has the Constitutional authority to administer the laws congress passes. “Skippy” as Steve calls him, which I kind of think is appropriate, can only tax imports of guns or ammo under the constitution. The problem is the Skippy has been acting like his EO’s are laws and the press has been a very willing cheerleader and promoter of his ideas. But if you pause, you will notice that the press has now turned to attacking members of congress for gun control as even they know that only congress can do this constitutionally as too many have screamed bloody murder about it. The 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That means they cannot limit the right in any way at all. They have though because people willingly submit to unconstitutional authority because of cultural peer pressure. There are obviously reasons that we would all agree that certain individuals should not be able to have 2nd Amendment rights like mentally insane individuals, or children, or Felons. Be God fearing, Be Safe, Be Aware, Be Armed.


    • Richard, your right. They make us out to be a bunch of loons wanting to give a gun to everyone. We all agree there are certain people who should never own a weapon. No prob on background checks.
      We have enough laws, try enforcing them first. All these laws they are trying to push will only take guns out of law abiding citizens hands.
      You think a guy who is ready to kill is worried about some
      dumb new Exec Order from butt-head.?


  12. These EOs will do nothing to stop criminals. It’s all about control. Makes me sick.


  13. huzzah tom great article.. if your head is pounding after listening to obama you should probably get your blood pressure checked i would guess that your blood pressure spikes listening to the crook. anyway saw the “the patriot” or patriot whichever was the name the movie with mel gibson again yesterday and it seems we may be at a cross roads again in history and freedom is never free


  14. A member of the Cabinet can inform the president that he is no longer qualified to occupy the Oval Office on the grounds of mental illness. Describing the actions of Barack Obama as those of a mentally ill person would give that member the right to have him disqualified.
    Calling the actions he has taken the work of a mentally unstable person is actually polite. He is either mentally ill or a criminal, bent on desroying the republic and it’s Constittution. Either way, a Cabinet member can have him set down on these grounds. Hillary Clinton could redeem herself if she felt so inclined, after she has been made out to be a mental retard herself, by having it broadcast everywhere, thereby wrecking any chance she might have to serve in any official capacity in the futurel She will be testifying before Congress before John Kerry is elected the new SOS, so hopefully she will see fit to spill the beans, so to speak. Just thinkin’….


  15. I really don’t care what that islamist, commie bastard signs or says and that goes for dumbass Joey boy too. Neither one represent me nor are either one doing anything or have done anything for the betterment of this country.
    So if those two clowns want me to listen and agree with (I will never obay as
    they are not my king & queen — or should that be the other way around) any idea they float, they will have to first earn my respect. And that has as much chance of happening as a snowball lasting in hell.

    Both have gone so far overboard I am sure they could be found guilty of an impeachable offence or two. Maybe it is time to just march on D.C. and literally throw both there funcky asses out in the street and let them and the world know it is the people that run this country and not the fat cat poiticians.


  16. Strong piece here…Keep in mind the ramifications of Obama asking doctors to turn in patients who appear dangerous. That in itself is not bad, but if you hold doctors legally responsible for not passing on info they had after a shooting, you are bullying them into sharing EVERYTHING.
    This means if a doctor doesn’t like that you listen to Rush? He can put you on a watch list. Told your doctor you went duck hunting last weekend? He can report you for that as well.


    • And if the doctor doesn’t report you, will he be held as an accomplice if you commit a crime with a gun? Or what about a crime w/any other weapon? Ramifications could be huge.


    • Not sure how this will play out here in Fla.. Fla Statute 790.338
      Basically says it’s none of their damn business and don’t ask .
      Unless of course there is a reason to be concerned for safety.


  17. Gun Control nuts don’t want to have a “meaningful” conversation on guns and gun control. They want to have a conversation that they finally get to win. What they don’t realize is that taking guns from law-abiding citizens protects nobody since criminals are not likely to hand over their guns. Look at Australia. They chopped up most of the guns collected from non-criminals and now crime has skyrocketed. It is paramount that “We The People” not only need to be able, and have the right to, protect themselves from criminals but also to protect ourselves from “All Enemies, Both Foreign and Domestic”. Unfortunately, rights also come with responsibilities. And sometimes consequences. Still, more people are killed with blunt instruments and fists than handguns and long guns combined. Not to mention drunk driving. And look at Chicago and Washing D.C. – Most restrictive gun laws – Highest levels of crime. And the Gun Control Nuts still don’t get it. We don’t need gun control. We need to go back top personal responsibility and consequences for our actions. We need to put God and religion back in the public eye. And we need to remember who got us to this point. The SAME PEOPLE that want to further restrict our rights. The SAME PEOPLE that have taken God out of our schools and God out of our political process. The people that value the Rights outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be vigilent because once lost Those Rights may not regained in our lifetime.



    The 6 states considering legislation defying any new gun control laws are Alabama, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, Wyoming….as of Jan 16, 2013….

    I have seen bills in Wyoming, and I think Montana regarding the state government pushing back against the Fed, looking for more as they come up….

    The video here is from yesterday, I watched it live as Napolitano spoke

    A few more articles to read:
    I have actually read this bill online
    Former Judge Napolitano on Fox, awesome words he speaks…
    Article about Texas and pushing against the Fed, still looking for the actual bill, IF it has been introduced yet…

    Napolitano on Biden’s remarks…

    In a sense, it is almost like a Revolution, and indeed, I seriously hope it is…


  19. Now, the latest I have come across regarding New York’s latest new law,

    “What guns are banned in New York? The NY Safe Act of 2013 bans semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols purchased after Jan. 15, 2013 that have more than one prohibited feature – such as a pistol grip, a folding stock or a flash suppressor. This is the state’s new definition of an assault weapon. The ban does not cover pistol grip shotguns.”
    ***Semi-auto pistols with a pistol grip? That’s EVERY SINGLE ONE! This limit wipes out virtually every gun made…the only gun one can own after this is bolt action rifles and revolvers (5 and 6 shot cylinders instead of magazines)***

    “What about semi-automatic guns bought before Jan. 15? Those weapons must be registered with the New York State Police by Jan. 16, 2014. After that, those who don’t meet the deadline could face a misdemeanor charge for failing to register. Those who knowingly possess an unregistered gun could face a felony charge. The registry is supposed to be up and running in the next 90 days.”

    “What about magazines? You have a year to get rid of any magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (typically the 30-round magazines grandfathered in under the 1994 state law that previously defined assault weapons and gun restrictions). Under the new law, you can still use 10-round magazines, though legally you can only load a maximum of seven bullets at a time.”

    “Are there required background checks now for ammunition sales? Yes, through New York’s NICS.”

    “Can I sell a gun at a garage sale or another type of private sale? Yes, so long as the buyer passes a background check before the transaction takes place. The buyer is now required to get NICS clearance for gun transactions. The seller must keep the paperwork and can charge $10 to the buyer for the task. Failure to obtain the background check is a misdemeanor. The background check for private sales does not apply to transfers among spouses, domestic partners and children.”
    ***The seller can charge the buyer $10 for what? The background check? The way it is worded I would expect the buyer has to bring such paperwork with him and then be charged again by the seller? Not very clear, not to mention, idiocy at it’s finest***

    “Will the law stop severely mentally ill people from having guns or ammunition? The law requires mental health providers to report patients who pose a serious risk to self or others to local county mental health officials. The county then can report the concerns to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services. DCJS then has the authority to suspend any pistol permit and can require the person to surrender all firearms to law enforcement.”
    ***This sounds eerily similar to Obammy’s idea for the mental health info sharing with law enforcement***

    Just some of the info I am coming across about NY’s latest new law, which I hope will be challenged in Federal court, which means it will halt any implementation of the law until the court decides the legalities…of course, we all know just how overstepping these laws are and how much they actually violate the Constitution….



    – New York: – Done
    – Massachusetts: Governor Deval Patrick will seek tougher gun restrictions this session, such as limiting gun purchases to one per month and enhancing background screening.
    – Maryland: Gov. Martin O’Malley plans “to propose limits on assault weapons and high- capacity magazines, as well as tougher licensing requirements for handguns.”
    – Illinois: There are proposals to ban assault weapons, after a similar measure died last year due opposition from the NRA.
    – Colorado: Gov. John Hickenlooper used his state address to call for background checks on private gun sales, currently exempt through the “gunshow loophole.”
    – Arizona: In the Republican-controlled Arizona legislature, Democrats unveiled a plan for universal background checks.
    – Delaware: Lawmakers are seeking background checks on private gun sales, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.
    –Oregon: State Sen. Ginny Burdick (D) is backing bills that would ban or limit assault rifles and and expand background checks.
    – California: State Sen. Leland Yee (D) will reintroduce a bill from last year prohibiting gun owners from outfitting semi-automatic weapons with devices that allow them to shoot more rounds.
    – Florida: Florida has a new bill introduced by the Democratic House minority that gives local governments authority to ban concealed weapons from public events.


    • When you read this list, Oregon has Sheriff’s that will refuse any new law that they believe to be Unconstitutional, and then we have the Sheriff in Arizona that I know would do the same, yet both states have legislators wanting to pass more laws….crazy…

      It’s not how many new laws we pass, or what such new laws prohibit, it is enforcing the existing laws…we already have laws on the books about illegal carry or possession of any gun, yet that does not stop the criminal…how is it that most, not all, liberal-minded, and progressives, just can’t seem to grasp this fact? Limiting law-abiding people does nothing to curb the crimes that would be committed by the criminal….or the mentally unstable…it only puts the law abiding more at risk of being accosted/assaulted/killed by those criminals or mentally unstable since they have less resource to protect themselves…If there was a cop on every street corner 24/7, and others walking down every street as well, then maybe we wouldn’t need a gun in the home, wouldn’t need the opportunity to carry….if you saw 2,3, or 4 cops in every direction you turn, would you be willing to commit a crime? Heck no, I sure wouldn’t…And neither would virtually any criminal…but we don’t have this, we have to wait sometimes up to 10 minutes, in the city, up to 30 minutes, in the country, for law enforcement to arrive….gun limitations in law only limit the law abiding and empower the criminal…


  21. For those that are Conservative, be aware that Thinkprogress is a LIBERAL website that are anti Conservative…they don’t hide that fact, it is plain as day in their words….


  22. In South Carolina, a bill that has been worked in since 2007 has been pre-filed in the state legislature .. the bill is designed to allow concealed carry by teachers and faculty of all schools…

    Texas Lt. Governor is proposing similar…


  23. Robert, in Fla we have SRO’s at all middle and high schools
    (School resource officer) Anyway I know her pretty well and we were talking and that’s what she wants. She says there are 3-4 ex-military teaching and they would all love to carry.
    I said I hated coming up to school and leaving my friend home. Can’t carry on school property. She said “Hypothetically (LOL) if it was in your car and something happened I’d love the help and you would be a hero.LOL
    I said well “Hypothetically I may have had to come up on a few occasions where I just may have had to leave in car” LOL
    I think she’s telling me to commit a felony..LOL


    • There is nothing wrong with faculty, whether it be teacher’s or other staff, carrying concealed in school. In fact, since it costs more to hire enough law enforcement to adequately patrol the school grounds, this is the most cost effective method…The training, as would be required in Texas should it pass and become reality, is greater than what is required for concealed carry, as it would contain other training to allow them to handle the situations…I am a Veteran and would love to work for the school district here in this manner, it would be a great job to have…

      As for your friend, I would agree with her…it makes no sense that you have to leave your ‘friend’ at home just to go to the school…leaving it in the car is a decent alternative to carrying on the school grounds…where I live, the closest elementary school, parents line up outside the school, never get out of their car, and some live miles away from the school…Not that we live in a dangerous area, it’s rather peaceful, but then, guns are in the majority of homes here, too…

      I am hoping the state also finds a way around the ‘gun free zone’ that exists in federal law, hoping they find a perfect way to get around that and allow license holders to carry on school grounds without fear of arrest…

      Time will tell…The biggest thing is the new legislation we are working on regarding any new gun control laws by the fed and how to make it air tight so that even the ‘supremacy clause’ of the Constitution can’t over-rule it…

      The one thing nobody seems to pick up on in the 2nd Amendment is the last 4 words “…shall not be infringed.” By limiting a style of gun, one that may be more comfortable than other rifles for example, to me, is an infringement. The Constitution doesn’t limit the weapons and specifically states the right shall not be infringed, therefore, we should use common sense….and in common sense, since the soldier doesn’t use, and is not trained to use, 3-round burst on their M16/M4, (full auto M16 was removed from the Army’s arsenal years ago) they are trained to make every shot count, ‘1 shot, 1 kill’ is the training for a soldier for combat, then I can see not allowing full auto for the public, not a problem there…full auto is nothing more than waste anyway and the military has specific soldiers that use specific full auto weapons only when necessary, the M249, which is not a small gun and is belt fed usually requiring 2 people to operate…otherwise, any other infringement on the rights, limited style/design (AR), limiting magazine size, pistol grips, etc., I would consider to be in violation of our Constitutional rights…people like to argue, the anti-gun people, that the founders never knew we would have such guns as we have today…but the problem with that is that the founders didn’t specify the gun because even in their day there were many variations and styles of ling rifle and pistol…they refused such limitations for many reasons, from militia use to hunting to home security, etc…you can’t specify just one type of gun for all the people…that would be ludicrous…

      It never ceases to amaze me how lawmakers think new laws will stop the criminal when they don’t even bother abiding by current laws…it’s just plain ridiculous…throughout history, we have always had guns, and the criminal has and will continue to disobey laws, but never in the history of this nation have we had such ignorance about guns as we do today and the effectiveness of law-abiding being armed and prepared in counteracting such lawlessness…

      Some people are more comfortable with a certain gun design, I know I am more comfortable with the AR design, and H&K’s medium frame handguns than I am with say, a 30.06 or the Colt 1911, though I am decently comfortable with the 1911, and I don’t care for the Glock, overall, though it is a decent gun…and this comfort is one of the things that must be considered when buying a gun for carry or home use…the more comfortable someone is with their weapon, the more accurate they will be if and when the need arises that they should use it….so, that also is reason to not limit the style or design that people can own…

      New York’s new laws effectively stops any handgun sale that is not a revolver, which is limited to 5 or 6 shots, usually 6 shots today…by using only 1 criteria for ‘assault weapon’ claim, they effectively stopped sales of all but hunting/sport style rifles…this means, in New York, you will be limited to guns available 100 years ago (roughly) by design, not counting the full auto guns that existed then, such as the Thompson…instead of leading the way, they have taken their gun laws and moved the state backwards 100 years in self defense….

      Time to step off my horse and relax, all this mess does is give me a headache, hahaha…..


  24. Might be interesting to note, in Chicago, a city of 2.6 million and some of the toughest gun laws on the books, between 2003 and 2011, latest numbers, less than 1% of homicides were committed with what the Chicago PD classifies as a “rifle”…of course, that includes the AR in this classification…2012 murders numbered 512.

    Less than 1% !!!

    By comparison, totals for the other 3 of the 4 largest cities in the U.S…

    Houston, Tx (population around 2.1 million) recorded 216 murders
    New York City has recorded 414 murders in 2012 (as of Dec 28, 2012)
    Los Angeles claims 297 murders in 2012 (as of Dec 27, 2012)

    Nationally, violent crime has continued to drop by about 3.8 percent per year for the past 5 consecutive years…More and more gun owners and violent crime keeps dropping….Interesting how liberals always see that crime will go up with the more guns the citizens have…


  25. “Teachers Can Carry Guns in Texas School; Is This the Solution to Newtown, Connecticut Shooting?”


  26. Only a Totalitarian State Disarms Law-Abiding Citizens and These Agree Gun Control Works: Communist, Muslim Brotherhood Criminals

    The US Government has ordered 1.5 billion rounds of hollowpoint ammunition for DOMESTIC USE this year. If Americans are left with single-shot long rifles whereas the military has automatic weapons, the American citizens will lose, the #1 cause of mass murder and death throughout world history has been tyrannical government. The COMMUNIST/GLOBALISTS are in control of the Federal Government control the Military and they want your guns!

    Tragic if law abiding citizens can’t protect themselves when needed

    Those who argue for gun control fail to understand that disarming the citizens leads directly to a concentration of power in the hands of government officials. Nearly every case of mass murder by government has been preceded by gun control (citizen disarmament). What the naive do not realise is that disarmament of the citizens would be the beginning of the end for democracy. The USA safeguards democracy in the rest of the world; it does not necessarily even have to act, its very existence exerts a strong effect deterring other democratically elected governments in other countries from seizing power away from the people.




    • Cheryl, please take a breath and don’t blow a blood vessel. LOL
      It does sound frightening the way you have laid it out. You are right about every mass slaughter ( Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc..) Have first removed the guns.
      Then the slaughter began.
      Trust me that will not happen here.
      Check these stat’s out

      No one knows the exact number of firearms owned by private citizens in the US, In 1995, the BATFE estimated that there were about
      223 million firearms owned by individuals in the US. The number has increased since then. .. You betcha they have increased. 😀
      there is no definitive answer, because most states don’t require registration Now ain’t that interesting?. LOL

      That’s a hard question to answer. It’s probably between 20 – 50% of the adult population of America, depending on what study you are referencing.

      Many experts claim that it’s at least 1-in-4 Americans. Which would be 76,751,637 peopleaccording to US Census Bureau Data for 2009

      Do you think all these people , who have been stocking up for years are just going to hand them in? Register them? Not happening.
      The Military will be interesting. I’m sure they will find some to fire on citizens.
      Most will not and will fire on those firing on us.
      Oh and praying could not hurt. 😀
      PS 76 million armed people would probably be more then all the army’s in the world…just saying. No smart ass’s picking that statement apart pls. 😀


  27. Guys,

    After reading Whiskey’s post and the comments, here are my thoughts on what will happen. I don’t think gun owners will resist en masse; I think that they’ll meekly go along for the most part.

    One the character of America now vs 1775 (Lexington & Concord) is greater than the difference between night and day. Lexington & Concord were sparked by a British attempt to seize weapons from the colonists. Modern day Lexington & Concord, Massachusetts are enclaves of white, liberal elitism now. Another thing to consider is that we put up with ten times more gov’t abuse than the colonists ever did! Do you think they would go along with a gov’t telling them what kind of light bulbs they could buy? Do you think the colonists would tolerate a government telling them what toilets they could have in their homes? No, they would not; however, we see Americans meekly going along with this rampant gov’t intrusion without so much as a whimper.

    Secondly, gun owners have, for decades, tolerated assaults on the Second Amendment, and they have done so with little or no opposition. They didn’t dig in their heels when the Sullivan gun law was passed in NY in 1911; they didn’t object to the Firearms Act of 1934, which prohibited fully automatic weapons; they didn’t protest the Gun Control Act of 1968; they went along with the Brady Law, which took away our Second Amendment-more about that later; gun owners didn’t vigorously protest a multitude of other infringements on the Second Amendment over the years. Do you really think that they’ll object to registration? Do you really think that they’ll object to the gov’t confiscating their guns? I don’t.

    At this point, I’ll interject a personal story, since I recently tried to buy a gun. I went to a local gun shop, filled out the forms, and they did the check. It was denied, I suspect, because of a false accusation of domestic violence from years ago. I don’t even think about that most days; it’s not something I think about during my daily life, but it’s come back to haunt me. Well, since I can’t guy a gun from a shop, I’ve gone about trying to procure one privately. One avenue I tried was

    I tried procuring a rifle, since they’re not, according to my local state law, subject to mandatory transfer at a firearms dealer. In my state, when one buys a handgun, whether from a shop or private dealer, one has to have the background check done; one has to go through an FFL to transfer a handgun. When one buys a rifle or shotgun (a ‘long arm’), one does not; you can buy a rifle or shotgun the same as you would a car: hand over the cash, take the merchandise, and you’re done. Well, the one guy I contacted on Armslist would not agree to doing a straight up, private transfer of ownership; he was adamant about going to the dealer to have it done, even though local state law does not REQUIRE him to do so. Even if I were an ATF or state agent, I couldn’t have nailed the guy for anything, because doing a private transfer of a rifle is legal where I live. It struck me as a fearful, submissive attitude.

    I’ll give you another example. I know a guy (who’s a conservative who owns his own contracting business) who’s into guns. I asked him about going outside legal channels to own a gun. I explained to him that, after gun owners in NY State were outed by a local newspaper recently, I didn’t want a record because I don’t want the same thing happening to me. A few of those folks have already been robbed, thanks to the NY Journal-News map. Secondly, it’s none of the government’s BUSINESS whether or not I own a gun! Thirdly, after studying the Second Amendment and its history (mainly what the Founding Fathers said about it), it’s my understanding that any FREE MAN is allowed to keep and bear arms-end of story; anything that gets in the way of that is an infringement on the Second Amendment. That means that the Gun Control Act of 1968, which first prohibited convicted felons from owning guns, is an infringement on the Second Amendment. If they’ve served their time and have been released, they’re free men, are they not? So, isn’t the prohibition of convicted, but released, felons (who are now FREE MEN) an INFRINGEMENT on the Second Amendment? Finally, since the Constitution is SUPPOSED to trump all; since it’s supposed to trump all laws made; we’re not obligated to obey them, because they infringe on a key amendment of our Bill of Rights. IOW, the Second Amendment gives all free men the right to keep & bear arms-simple as that.

    Anyway, this contractor I know (who I’ll call Dan, not his real name) got all concerned, saying that what I was wanting to do (try to buy a gun on the black market) was a felony, that I could go to jail, etc. He said that, even though he knew things about getting guns outside of official channels, he would not tell me. His attitude was fearful and submissive, or so I thought. If he’s an example of your typical gun owner (and I believe he is), then I don’t expect our gun owners to put up much of a fight for when the gov’t does come to take away Americans’ guns. They can cry ‘molon labe’ all they want; they can talk about gov’t officials prying their guns from their cold, dead fingers; when push comes to shove, they’ll turn in their guns like the good, little sheep that they are.

    One particularly dangerous piece of legislation that gun owners and the NRA went along with was the Brady Law; that law first instituted the waiting period, followed by the instant background checks. This is bad, because it amounts to prospective gun owners, in effect, asking PERMISSION from a gov’t bureaucrat to exercise what is their right; oh, please, please, please let me have my rights, Massa! The sad part is that gun owners and the NRA went along with this, thinking that they’d won a victory back in the 1990s; it was anything but! The Brady Law, in effect, turned our Second Amendment rights into a privilege. If we have to ask permission to do anything, then it is not a right-end of story. The Brady Law did more than anything else to gut the Second Amendment. No, it effectively REMOVED our Second Amendment; thanks to Brady, we no longer HAVE a Second Amendment!

    Before I close this out, let’s look at how most gun owners talk these days; let’s look at how they’ve adopted the language and terminology of the left, shall we? When listening to the conservative pundits (Rush, Hannity, and Levin); when reading these discussions here and elsewhere; many talk about how they’re ‘legal gun owners’. Stop and THINK about that for a minute. In effect, they’re saying that they’ve jumped through all the government’s hoops (read restrictions, which are BS); that they’ve gotten permission from the authorities; and that they’ve now been allowed to own their guns. Stop and think about that! The very fact that most gun owners talk like that means that they’ve bought in to the numerous infringements on the Second Amendment; it means that they’re okay with said infringements; finally, it means that they won’t OBJECT to further restrictions on their Second Amendment rights. Why? Because they’re good, little, ‘legal gun owners’, that’s why! If they’ve already bought into surrendering the Second Amendment (and they have, because they anxiously seek permission from ‘the authorities’-a fine, totalitarian phrase), then why would the fight and die for their right? How can they when they’ve already SURRENDERED that right? As I’ve stated above, when you have to seek permission to do something, it is no longer a right; at that point, it becomes nothing more than a privilege.

    In closing, since gun owners have gone along with the already numerous infringements on the Second Amendment; since gun owners have done so for years; since they’ve done so with nary a whimper; I don’t expect gun owners in America to resist en masse. They can cry ‘molon labe’ all they want, but they don’t really MEAN it. They may hide their guns, but they won’t point them at gov’t agents in an open act of defiance. Those gun owners who I have personally encountered as of late are fearful of the gov’t; they’re fearful to the point of being submissive. Since gun owners went along with the Brady Law with little or no protest; since they ACQUIESCED to basically asking permission from gov’t officials to buy guns; they will NOT stand firm and die for their right to own guns. No, when the gov’t comes for our guns (and make no mistake about it, that IS their ultimate aim), most gun owners will meekly turn in their weapons, and our subjugation will be complete.



    • Markymark,

      While i agree with most of your post, I think there may be a few unaccounted factors at play here now that have not been in consideration in the past erosion of the 2nd amendment. As you pointed out, prior infringements have been incremental and included various degrees of compromise that most citizens viewed as acceptable because they did not effect the majority, and, at the time these infringements seemed reasonable in the name of public safety and did not seem to pose a great threat in consideration of the value of the 2nd amendment as a defense against tyrannical actions due to the fact that the vast majority would never have considered our beloved government could pose such a threat. I also submit that citizens in all probability subjected themselves to the “hoops” as a necessary means to acquire defense instruments because they did not want to associate with the very subjects that necessitated such, or simply fearing becoming a criminal element by refusing to comply with said laws. In doing so, i think this falsely indicated that people would just accept the unlawful degradation of our 2nd amendment, but more so, to me it demonstrated the determination of people to use their 2nd amendment without fear of loosing other freedoms regardless of the actions of those who wish to destroy it in form of an inherit flaw with the majority rules system and/or the corruption of representation.

      This is where the story changes though, as many seem to be taking note of the alarming and evident changes this and previous administrations have introduced, and people seem to be taking action in defense of themselves and their 2nd amendment rights.
      The first and foremost indication as it deals directly to the hardware in question is the notable mass purchasing of firearms and ammunition clearly evident when you walk into any gun shop across the nation with visible clues in the form of empty shelves not to mention the staggering fed. statistics regarding N.I.C.S. request and the huge backlog of permit request.
      The second indication I see right now is the massive support of lobbyist groups supporting the right to bear arms which in and of itself would not weigh so heavily in support of my argument without noting the financial state most of us face today, as its hard enough to scrape up enough money to pay the bills let alone donate a sometimes sizable contribution to an organization that does not contribute to the monthly sustainability of living.
      The third contribution to the defense of our rights comes in the form of protest most notably the recent 2nd amendment confrontation at Oak Harbor where the citizens pretty much forced the city council to overturn the unconstitutional ban of firearms in two public locations and with the blessings of the mayor, city attorney and the majority of the council were able to preserve their rights of bearing arms at the council meetings.
      While not as widely publicized and again considering the cost of doing so, many have shown support of our rights as well in the form of public protest at many city, town, state, and national capitol buildings in various locations, though the numbers of people at any one location did not seem to be mind boggling by any means, one must consider the numbers in total to appreciate the scope of such a statement.
      In the same concept of protest, we may also want to consider the 8 state sherifs organizations and the 279 independent sherifs who have stood up with statements in defiance of the unconstitutional actions of rape against our 2nd amendment as well as the numerous states who are proposing and in some cases passing nullification laws on a state level as well, though there seems to be some questions regarding the size of the teeth on these statements and laws, the movement is never the less supportive of we the people and seems to be at the very least motivation in the right direction.
      And, last but not least, there is the mere act of criminalization of the masses as suggested by the proposed federal level ban and the now state law of New York which inherently drew the line in the sand for it’s citizens. I think at this point by restricting most types of modern firearms thereby criminalizing masses of citizens by passing such a law, there will no more reasonable avenues usable to circumnavigate the ability to be a law abiding defender of your rights there by leaving most no choice but to un arm, and at that point what is the use, if you have lost everything, what more do you have to loose?

      In conclusion, I feel that most gun owners have indeed gone along with such infringements of the 2nd amendment in the past as stated above but only because there have been loopholes left to circumnavigate to the constitutional rights guaranteed by said amendment, never have we been faced with total disarmament. By removing any feasible means to legally posses the instruments necessary to defend ourselves from any threats foreign and or domestic, I think most would agree that will be a very tangible line drawn into the sand of which not all but most will not cross, after all, your last line of defense is one rarely surrendered. I concede history would prove me wrong in most all cases throughout the world, but i still consider the U.S. to be united under the premise of liberty and justice by the majority of god fearing good “we the people”. In either case, it would seem we shall soon find out…


  28. Pingback: Obama’s XXXecutive Order Scheme: The Exorcism Of Barry Soetoro ~ Impeachment. | Political Vel Craft

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s