Tag Archives: gun control

Obama doesn’t want to take your guns…honest!

By Doug Book, Editor

If Americans have learned anything about the zealots who claim to seek “common sense” solutions to the non-existent epidemic of gun violence it’s that they will never be satisfied until Big Brother has stripped every law abiding gun owner of every weapon.

Last week, Coach is Right published “Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns,” an article which reveals the true intentions of 2nd Amendment foes from the late Senator John Chafee to Handgun Control Inc, prior to its transformation into the Brady Bunch. And GUN CONTROL SHEEPthe agenda of the left has not changed over the years.

During a recent appearance on Boston Public Radio (WGBH), Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans said:

“For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle and… especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern.”

Evans puts the arrogance of the left on full display as he presumes to decide what gun owners need and what, if anything, they should be permitted to have. Imagine the outcry should a conservative GUN REGISTRATION AND CONFISCATIONclaim the authority to decide whether liberals need to speak and what, if anything, they should be permitted to say! What? Treat First Amendment rights with the same degree of contempt liberals have for our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?

Most Americans have caught on to the fabrications of our Liar in Chief as he declares his respect for the 2nd Amendment. During his campaign against John McCain, Obama said “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” Some three weeks ago, the left succumbed to a state of rapture over Obama’s shedding of crocodile tears as he announced his Executive Orders against gun ownership. Even so, few Americans were fooled when he told his audience, “I believe in the 2nd Amendment.”

Yet Obama never tires of proclaiming his appreciation for the right to keep and bear arms. Do his actions mirror his words?

During his political life, Obama:

supported legislation to “close the gun show loophole” which would have imprisoned show organizers if a single person at a show offered a gun for sale privately.   GUN CONTROL AND CHICAGO

opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have protected homeowners from weapons charges if they used an “illegal” gun in self-defense.

voted to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which would have eliminated most gun stores in America.

proposed to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which caused harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.”

supported a federal ban on concealed carry laws. As a Presidential candidate he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review “‘I am not in favor of concealed weapons,’ as ‘I think that creates a potential atmosphere wGUN CONTROL 9here more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.’”

Obama also said he believes in the “common-sense” gun laws of Australia and England, which required mass confiscation and gun bans.

Examples of Barack’s deeds not supporting his pro-2nd Amendment claims go on and on. Yet he keeps telling the same obvious lies. Does he really believe the American people are that stupid?

Sure! After all, they elected HIM twice.

Obama’s “Common Sense” Gun Control Targeting Social Security Recipients

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

Once again, Barack Obama believed that the American People were not paying attention. After all, much of what he spoke about “correcting” at his tear-stained, anti-gun press conference was already law. The women of “The View” were predictably apoplectic about automatic weapons–machine guns–and outraged that they have not been banned. This was before Sen. Rand Paul patted their hands and told them not to fear, that such automatic weapons are available to the public only after obtaining a special license from the ATF. Just another straw man propped up by our Socialist in Chief to cause the American People to fear the NRA and oppose the private ownership of firearms.

Most Americans have caught on to the inescapably phony claims of our Liar in Chief and will no longer buy any of his firearm fear-mongering. Again and again Obama promises that he does not want to confiscate America’s guns, all the while creating ways to GUN CONTROL AND GEORGE WASHINGTONprevent certain citizens groups from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

The latest of these is directed at social security recipients. Bob Owens, Editor of Bearing Arms.com writes, “…the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs.” The president’s goal is to have the Social Security Administration begin reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the “…system which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.”

As Owens explains, “a potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or OBAMA AND GUN CONTROL AND OBAMACAREdisease.”

BUT, “according to Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money, ‘someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe.’”

Although nearly 3 million Social Security recipients have mental health problems, the L.A. Times reports that “…1.5 million others have their finances managed for others reasons, yet would still be targeted by Obama’s gun grab.”

Owens sums up Obama’s scheme beautifully, writing:

This ‘broad brush’ approach appeals to the Obama Administration because it will deny gun rights to the largest possible segment of Americans possible by executive fiat, with little recourse for those affected. It amounts to extortion, telling people they must give up their Second Amendment rights, or else loose government beneOBAMA AND GUN CONTROL HYPOCRISYfits.” (my emphasis)

And again, this assault on a specific section of the gun owning public is being directed by Executive Order only. Congress is deliberately left out of the equation as Obama can be certain that his high-handed approach would not earn the legitimate force of law.

Whether it is his unlawful use of tax dollars to support the administration’s anti-gun agenda or his assault on Social Security recipients, the president’s schemes have one thing in common—none are directed at criminals. Rather, their purpose is to create criminals.

How come, Mr. Obama?

Obama’s “Common Sense” Gun Control will Outlaw Owners, rather than Guns

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

Barack O’Hamlet

There was a press conference last week during which our President, that paragon of emotional sincerity, used crocodile tears, straw men and outright lies to excuse his continuing, unconstitutional assault on the 2nd Amendment. The performance, delivered before dependable White House sycophants, was that of a “soft dictator;” the words, those of a demagogue. Obama even had the gall to use Communist China as an example of “common sense” gun control.

Barack discussed the ever popular “Gun Show Loophole” which, contrary to the lies of the progressive left, does not exist. Sales between private individuals residing in the same state are legal, whether they take place at a gun show or in a living room. No background check is required. Licensed gun dealers who attend gun shows must, by law, do a background check before selling a firearm, just as if the sale were being conducted in their place of business.

The purpose of the left lamenting the dangers of the “gun show loophole” is simply to outlaw private sales between two people. Were liberals actually interested they would find that “…less than 1% of guns used in crimes were boOBAMA AND GUN CONTROL TEARSught at a gun show.”

In order to keep up with the times, the gun show loophole has evolved into the “Internet Sales Loophole.” Once again liberals claim that there is no background check of the buyer. The fact is that all weapons purchased on line may only be delivered to the prospective buyer by a licensed gun dealer after a background check has been performed.

In January of 2013, Obama introduced 23 Executive Actions to “reduce gun violence.” Five of the 23 involved “…a new federal reliance on the sharing of information gleaned from background checks.”  This shared information was to be provided to the Centers for Disease Control, the federal bureaucracy chosen by Obama to oversee a study of gun violence in the United States. It was the idea of the gun control culture to transform gun ownership OBAMA AND GUN CONTROL AND OBAMACAREinto a question of public health. “The academic community chose to study gun violence as a public health problem, partly because, according to the [CDC directed] study, ‘Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious. Therefore, gun violence is being studied in the same manner of a contagious disease.’” 

This “common sense” approach of equating the 2nd Amendment to the common cold will transform your doctor into a member of law enforcement, requiring and empowering him to inform the federal government about the state of your mental health. The opinion of a physician will now guarantee that your name “…makes its way into the NICS as prohibited.” 

Here in California the state legislature has gone even further, allowing any family member or acquaintance to notify law enforcement if they feel you are “mentally unstable.” Officials will then have license to confiscate your firearms. Can you imagine a young man breaking up with his girlfriend, or a grown man divorcing his wife and this nonsensical law being used for revenge!

Smart Gun Technology. What could possibly go wrong!

Not surprisingly, Obama also returned to the “common sense” advantages of the “Smart Gun”— a pistol designed to work only for its designated owner. Of course, the technology involved places the price of a handgun and necessary accoutrements at $2500 to as much as $4,000. The manufacturer of the most “efficient” Smart weapons can only guarantee that their pistols will fire about 90% of the time…more or less. The State of New Jersey passed legislation in 2002, requiring Smart guns to eventually replace all regular, privately owned pistols. For some reason, however, police officers are exempt from the law!

By the way, Smart weapons will feature a microchip embedded somewhere within the weapon. These chips can apparently be deactivated at any time—either deliberately or accidentally as the case may be. Gives one trying to protect home and family quite a feeling of confidence knowing that a neighbor’s garage door opener could deactivate his pistol. Does anyone doubt Big Brother would “turn off” all of the privately owned firearms in the nation should he have the ability?

Much of this is old stuff.

What’s not old is the “Fact Sheet” released by the White House on January 4th which makes it clear that Obama intends to outlaw gun owners, not guns. The left has generally failed in its attempts to do GUN CONTROL 3away with “Assault Weapons,” .50 Caliber rifles–the list grows with each passing year. Well the agenda has now changed:

Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent…”

Once placed on the NICS list as “mentally incompetent,” not only will be impossible to purchase a weapon but all weapons currently owned must be surrendered to the state under penalty of—well, GUN CONTROL, CANNONS, FREEDOMwhatever Big Brother can dream up! Perhaps your bank account will be seized; wages garnished; an IRS levy means the government could confiscate your home and any other owned property; Social Security checks can be stopped dead…

Don’t for one moment believe that a government which is supposed to serve you, will hesitate to destroy you. And all because Aunt Margaret, whose apple pie you insulted, chose to report you to the local sheriff as a “danger to yourself and others.”

Obama’s Gun Jihad

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

As gun owners know, our Muslim, Marxist President has been doing his best to take guns away from the American people. He has tried for six years to force Congress to do his bidding and violate the 2nd Amendment. To its credit Congress has pushed back, not interfering with the law abiding exercising the right given them by God and protected in the Constitution.

After San Bernardino, a city 30 miles from my homGUN CONTROL IDIOTSe and the hometown of my wife, it did not take long for Democrats to respond as they always do, by claiming: The killings were the fault of the guns and therefore, no one should have one. Yet not even a front page, Guns are Evil editorial in the New York Times could convince Americans that they should abandon the right to keep and bear arms.

Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post has decided that “Evil Republicans” are to blame for gun crime because they respect the 2nd Amendment. According to Ms. Dvorak more Gun Free Zones are the answer. Posting a sign apparently affords a guarantee of safety to those behind it; just ask any assortment of progressives GUN FREE ZONESand socialists. But maybe we should ask the children at Sandy Hook, the writers at Charlie Hebdo, or the county workers in San  Bernardino how well that works. Barack Obama, our resident scholar of constitutional law has proclaimed that these attacks take place more often in the US than in any other nation. But that isn’t the case; Norway is first, followed by Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland. Sorry, Evergreen, but your numbers lie again.

Democrats have spent decades trying to separate law abiding Americans from their guns. Just after his re-election, Obama issued 23 executive actions designed to prevent the American people from owning firearms. The National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS) is being used by the federal government to create a national database–a registry of gun owners along with the weapons they’ve purchased. Although GUN REGISTRATION 2strictly illegal, this activity has been admitted by federal officials and openly reported in the news.

Obama’s latest scheme involves an attempt to destroy gun manufacturers. Because gun sales have skyrocketed, Obama has decided to issue a vendetta against Smith and Wesson, his weapon of choice, the Securities and Exchange Commission. He is using the public advocate of the state of New York to investigate whether Smith and Wesson has made adequate disclosures in its financial statements. The public advocate, Letitia James has stated that the SEC “should investigate whether Smith and Wesson misrepresented or omitted information about how often its products are involved in crimes and what it has done to keep its product out of the hands of criminals.”

I would appreciate someone explaining to me how any company can be made responsible for the deliberate misuse of its products! Smith and Wesson does in fact provide training and a gun lock with each gun sold and no one can realistically explain what more they should do.HILLARY AND GUNS

This is, of course, nothing but a witch hunt; an attempt by this President to intimidate those who manufacture products of which he does not approve. Barack has one year remaining in which to post royal proclamations, targeting anyone not sufficiently subservient to his wishes. I wonder if Hillary appreciates The One creating even greater determination throughout the country to prevent another dedicated leftist entering the White House?

Gun manufacturers need to be held accountable for gun crimes

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

During the October 11 airing of Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd asked Democrat presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) where he stands on allowing shooting victims to sue gun manufacturers. Sanders made it clear that he is opposed to holding gun store owners liable, but he believes there is room to hold   

Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders

manufacturers liable to some degree.
Todd’s question was based on the fact that Sanders voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2005.”

Holding gun manufacturers liable because a crime has been committed with a weapon made at their place of business? Thankfully, the PLCAA was written and passed to protect manufacturers and retail sellers of firearms from lawsuits anticipated by liberal politicians for the obvious purpose of ending the sale of guns and ammunition throughout the nation. 

Bernie Sanders, the only admitted Marxist in the 2016 race for the White House, has decided that filing suit against the little   GUN CONTROL 3 guy–owners of small gun stores–isn’t “fair.” Interesting how Bernie and other members of the far left have come to decide what the American people may do, say, believe and even how they should be permitted to earn a living based upon the definition these celestial beings apply to the word “fair!”

In any event, it appears that gun manufacturers should bear the cost and responsibility connected with any misuse of their products. It’s only fair.  But Bernie failed to mention whether Sears may be sued because one of its hammers has been used to bludgeon someone.

And Hillary Clinton is even more determined than Sanders to pursue the backdoor decimation of 2nd Amendment rights via the “legal” liability lawsuit. She would encourage victims of gun crime to sue everybody and anybody, including the owner, the seller, the  GUN CONTROL HILLARY HYPOCRISY guy who provides the bullets, the manufacturer and the importer of these evil weapons. “What is wrong with us that we can’t stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby and the gun manufacturers they represent,” screeched Hillary.

When it comes to the liability of those who actually do the shooting, Mrs. Clinton was silent. It would undoubtedly depend upon the shooter’s race, religion, sexual orientation, political persuasion and whether they have contributed to the Clinton Foundation.

Longtime writer, firearm enthusiast and 2nd Amendment supporter AWR Hawkins observed that Clinton “…did not mention any support of suing the politicians, municipal leaders and school boards that render Americans of all walks of life defenseless via  GUN FREE ZONES  gun free zones.” It’s possible that Ms. Clinton missed an important email on the subject.

Will this particular approach succeed in ending 2nd Amendment rights? Well liberals will have judges that are “progressive” enough to permit this unconstitutional nonsense; leftist members of the Supreme Court will eagerly follow the same, socialist line and remember there is always Obama’s pen. He has ignored the law and the Constitution so far; why would he change now!

Lock and load.