• http://twitter.com/cmdorsey cmdorsey

    Communist/Marxists don’t like that word “FACTS” – They will soon be banning it. Right, MARXINE Waters?

    • http://www.facebook.com/randolph.goeman Randolph Goeman

      “FACTS” means TRUTH. & some people can’t tolerate any kind of truth.

  • Interested Canadian

    I’m leaving these questions here, hoping to hear a variety of responses, because I don’t fully understand how Americans interpret their own second amendment: Am I to understand that you (the creators and readers of this website) believe that there ought to be no government control over weapons whatsoever? Would you support any citizen of the United States owning, say, surface-to-air missiles? Rocket-propelled grenades? Or, is there general consensus that there needs to be some limit, but where that limit lies can be debated?

    • reggiec

      Read this entire post and pay special attention to the definitions of “arms” and “ordinance” and the word meanings at the time our Constitution including the Second Amendment were ratified.
      ***
      I have posted the following several times on different sites because I feel it is the most powerful argument that can be presented to our members of congress and other public officials at all levels. I have added one more sentence to the emails or letters I send. Actually a letter sent by snail mail is more effective as many emails are just deleted by some staffer. Loads of envelopes piling up are hard to ignore. Feel free to cut and paste it into an email or preferably a snail mail letter.
      Sorry it is so long but I felt the meaning should be absolutely clear.
      *** Added sentence:
      If you, as one of my representatives in public office, do anything to negate any portion of my unalienable rights as contained in the Second Amendment of The Constitution of These United States of America; I will do everything in my power to make sure you are never elected to any public office in the future. If you are still not convinced of the true meaning of the Second Amendment, “MOLON LABE”.
      Second Amendment meaning:
      “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison
      Second Amendment in context:
      ***”The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” – George Washington in address to the 2nd session of the United States Congress.
      ***“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” (George Washington)
      ***”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone’s 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England.”, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court & U.S. Dist. Court of Virginia

      ***”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.” – Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
      Those who argue that the Second Amendment was written just for militias are completely blown out of the water by the following quote from Thomas Jefferson.
      “The strongest reason for “people” (My emphasis) to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
      James Madison is credited with the writing of the “Bill of Rights” and was pretty clear about the meaning on the Second Amendment.
      “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the “PEOPLE” (My emphasis) with arms.”
      Here are a few others who help define the true meaning of the Second Amendment. It becomes very clear upon the examination of the meanings attached to the Second Amendment by our Founding Fathers that the original intent of the Second Amendment is being attacked in order to eventually disarm the American people.
      ***”I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
      George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
      ***”Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
      – Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
      ***”Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
      –Tenche Coxe, an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
      ***”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
      – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
      ***”That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
      – Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
      ***”Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
      –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
      ***”No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
      – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
      ***” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
      – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
      ***”The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
      – Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
      Then there are politicians who insist in taking our Constitution out of context of time and original meaning. Once again, James Madison warned us against this.
      “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
      Second Amendment:
      “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
      Arms, in the context and time when our Constitution was written meant the usual arms carried by militia members, everyday citizens or light infantry in the Continental Army. Many of these arms were supplied by their owners for militia duty and were personal weapons initially used for hunting or home defense. They came in all types and calibers; from a 30 cal. squirrel rifle to a 75 cal. smooth bore musket, pistols and shotguns of all types, calibers and gauges. They also included a huge variety of other arms including: knives of every conceivable shape and size, bayonets and swords. Many early citizens also carried tomahawks.
      Attempts to control the type and or caliber of arms Americans’ can possess are absolutely against The Constitution and the Second Amendment as it was written and intended. By the supreme law of the land (The Constitution), an American citizen should be able to keep and bear any weapon now used individually by our light infantry soldiers.
      Larger weapons such as cannon and mortars that required more than one person to operate were considered to be “ordinance”.
      Words have meanings! If those meanings are bastardized all becomes chaos.
      Definition of to keep: to hold or retain in one’s possession; hold as one’s own.
      Definition of to bear: to carry, transmit, transport, have a characteristic of and exhibit.
      Definition of INFRINGE: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
      Why is this so hard to understand? The meaning of the words in the Second Amendment have not changed since the amendment was ratified.
      I am not aware of the Second Amendment being repealed or amended.
      In reference to arms control by the states; the Fourteenth Amendment Section .1. is crystal clear.
      Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (My emphasis) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
      Many in politics and or judges cite “precedent” as a justification for the violations of our rights as contained in The Constitution of These United States of America. Precedent only describes what has been done, not if it was done in compliance with the supreme law of the land or in accordance with the oath of office to uphold The Constitution.

      • http://www.facebook.com/pizzed.off Pizzed Off

        Wonderful explanation, supporting documentation of original documents and intents. But pointless when you deal with those who will not either listen to, nor reason, with another. And that by it’s happening is what we deal with when confronting anyone whose purpose is self-centered and deceitful. In short, we are dealing with unreasonable lying persons. And as such they should be given no leeway or quarter when defending the rights of freemen.

    • http://www.facebook.com/pizzed.off Pizzed Off

      Hopefully you read the answer supplied you by “reggiec” below. It is clear and directly explains not only (some of) the reasoning behind WHY the 2nd Amendment was written, but it also should to you, an “Interested Canadian” be something that you can relate to since you were taught British history as a student- as one who still is, at least titularly, ‘subjects’ of the Crown. Might want to compare the events leading up to the Revolution first, as it will help put everything regarding our Bill of Rights into proper perspective.
      As for the, to me, ridiculous comment about SAM’s or RPG’s, why SHOULD there be a restriction on a law-abiding citizen? If I had either or, I’d certainly not have any reason to use one-unless an enemy, foreign OR DOMESTIC, sent something against me that would necessitate it’s/their useage.
      A similar comparison might be, why should your government prevent YOU from owning whatever you want? Providing that you are a legal, sane, competent individual? It is NO accident in wording when the following paraphrase is said: ” If weapons are outlawed, only outlaws (and governments) will have weapons.”
      As for the rest of it, use your intellect to insert where needed. OUR current problem in the US is we have far to many who are LACKING it.
      As Santayana said: “Those who do learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.” Apply that to ALL 20th Century countries who have registered and, ultimately, lost them.
      Then come back and inform of us of what you have concluded. THEN we can begin an open discourse of import.

      • Interested Canadian

        Thanks for your reply — I really am curious the extent to which Americans believe that there should be no limit placed on stockpiling of military weapons by citizens. You believe there should be no such limits, and that’s fine. I respect your opinion, although I suspect you are in the minority. Yes, a sane, law-abiding citizen might be trusted with such weapons. I think those that object would be worried that the more such weapons are cached around the country, the more likely that insane, non-law-abiding citizens may have access to them. And that the likelihood of that happening is much more likely than the need for citizens to use the weapons to defend themselves against future government tyranny.

  • squeak

    No, there is NO reasoning for banning guns other then to have the American people without protection & control them… what is this Administration afraid of ? Take a guess !!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1268319957 Doug Schexnayder

    IF truth mattered and IF the pawn media was real journalism…two huge IFs

  • Mr. Wally

    Hey Mr. Canadian,
    Kind of missing the point here –no? How did all weapons get involved in the conversation ? You forgot that each citizen has the right to a nuclear weapon. The conversation is about handguns and rifles. The government has too much control already over everything that is why Americans want their guns for personal protection.

    • Interested Canadian

      Ok — so the government is allowed to limit possession to handguns and rifles. I get that. Can there be a limit to calibre? Magazine size? Rate of fire? Can the government force the firearms to remain locked safely? Can we not agree that a democratically elected government has some role to play in answering those questions? I would just like to see this debate start intelligently, instead of a polarized America with each half distrusting each other so immensely.

      • http://twitter.com/NYTexan67 Heather MacFarlane

        You can thank the president and the corrupt pols for that, and I’m sorry, but you give them an inch and they want a mile. At the end of the day, I don’t care what kind of gun it is, how many we want, how much ammo we have, the founding fathers did what they did and the 2nd Am exists to protect us from a TYRANNICAL govt. Of which, they are. It is no longer by the people, for the people – it’s ‘control the people’ and those of us who are informed and not sheep, will not comply! They are out of control, as they continue to SPEND out of control – signed: law abiding, tax paying (28 years), gun/chl carrying, citizen of America who does not have “property of the government” stamped on my arse.

      • http://www.facebook.com/pizzed.off Pizzed Off

        Had to look long and hard for where I put this.. but read it and maybe you’ll get it.
        The Gun is Civilization
        Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)

        Human beings have only two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. Ifyou want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me todo your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without
        exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
        In a truly moral and Civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing ‘that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm,
        as paradoxical as it may sound to some. -
        When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
        The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger,a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential. attacker and a defender.
        There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad “force equations.” These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
        People who argue for the banning of arms, ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living
        in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
        Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically
        superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
        When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it
        enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … And that’s why carrying a
        gun is a civilized act

      • big wyo

        Dear Canadian

        I wouldn’t expect you to understand up north where they tried gun control and are now sliding away from it.

        You should at least understand that our ancestors and many Vets here fought and died with their guns protecting themselves (and the rest of this PLANET) from Tyrants. Most outsiders and a good portion of liberals will never have an understanding of our relationship between freedom and our guns. SO MUCH THE SADDER FOR YOU.

        Your boy Barack (well maybe not yours), has never told the truth and is controlled by foreign American hating criminals. He has done more too divide this country than any other President including Lincoln. He probably is not even a citizen and despite running on the quote that he would be the most transparent president ever will not release his records.

        I have fought this fight with D frankenstein since 83. I have every right jump right in the middle of this Tyranical crap.We have earned it.

        Because you’re new to your liberalism does not discount the fact that Looney fiendstein has been after every firearm from everyone for years.
        We have already in the past given our inches to turn around and find we forfeited miles.

        Gun crime is significantly down- drastically when you consider gang and drug crime. Gun ownership is drastically up.

        None of your suggestions would have saved a single person at Aurora or Sandy hook.

        Don’t give me the democratically crap Obummer was not elected democratically.

        Get it in your passive liberal mind ounce and for all -the second amendment is not a right given us by the government.!!!!!!!!!!!

        It is a confirmation of unalienable rights given us by god or nature. It is a right confirmed by the amendment toprotect we the people from a tyrannical government.

        It is not open for discussion and overturning by 51% of the takers of our society. It is a right – not well lets change it to preserve some old hags delicate sensibilities. It simply would not matter if 90% of population of takers in this country would support it. The majority wants gun laws equal to or less than we have anyway. Many places you will find 90% gun ownership. So these states should live under your Tyrants rules to abide your delicate sensibilities and unfounded and wrongheaded fears.

        If you feel it should not be a right, get 75% of the congress and senate to agree to calling for a constitutional amendment and then get 2/3rds of the states to ratify it.

        Then try and get past the Dick Act which makes it now non amendable.

  • http://blaze.com/ mathchopper

    “Stick to the facts”??? What does that hafta do with insane liberalism?

  • Seymour Kleerly

    The poor simpleminded Righties are falling completely for the NRA’s propaganda. Nobody wants to takes away hunting rifles or weapons for home defense. It should and could never happen.

    • http://www.facebook.com/pizzed.off Pizzed Off

      So YOU say, Lefty.
      Or are you deaf as well as dumb?

      • squeak

        You hit the nail on the head…my sentiments also !

    • big wyo

      Yyeah and I have just been Imagining since 83 that the wicked witch of Gun Banning isn’t out to get Mr and Mrs turn em all in’s guns.

    • Derek Schneider

      The 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting or self defense. It is about the right to defend oneself against a tyrannical government…just as our forefathers did when they created this nation. If the government limits your ability to defend yourself from it…this can only be in the interest of the government and not of the people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/randolph.goeman Randolph Goeman

    I still would like to know—When a person shoots another person they blame the gun, BUT when a person runs over another they blame the person but not the car? Why is that??

    • http://www.facebook.com/pizzed.off Pizzed Off

      Stupidity?

      • Black Rain

        The idiots think guns are not an necessity and cars provide a needed function.
        When I hear the president is an illegal person to hold the office of the United States. Several dictators around the world advocate how much they love this president. Congress goes against the citizens of the US population ram Obarry care through congress. You really began to think firearms are a necessity.
        Contrary to what the lame stream media will tell you, the 2nd Amendment is not about gun control. The 2nd Amendment is about keeping government in check. If the 2nd Amendment was written today, the founding fathers would being meaning, arm yourselves with the M-16. The firearm of choice of the army. The US representatives are preparing to disarm the citizen to set up a dictatorship in the US.
        God help the citizens of the US for we are about to engage in civil war.

  • freedomringsforall

    For public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution to work against it is treasonous.

    They are sworn to uphold our rights and freedoms not to eliminate them.

  • Combat Vet

    O’bummer and his corrupt Media Liar’s are using the GUN GRAB as a “Huge smoke screen” to
    take away any, and all Attention away from Benghazi where those at the top commited treason!,
    and they have the blood of Four Americans on thier hands! ( They run America w/ DECEPTION!.)
    Taking your Amendment rights away is nothing less than a Act of TREASON.
    And dont forget O’bummer’s criminal gun running during “Fast & Furious” to mexican drug cartels,
    where a US agent was killed with those BO/Holder guns!. O’bummer has broke his oathe of office
    since day one!, and has walked on our Constitution like a door mat, the 2nd Amendment right was
    designed to secure the rest of the Amendments from the tyrrants we face currently!.
    the Solution is “Demand Charges of Treason”.

  • Joanne

    Weren’t these tragic events committed by mentally unbalanced people, why should that affect guns that are legally issued? Why isn’t this being discussed? Because it’s a political liberal excuse to control guns.

  • http://twitter.com/NYTexan67 Heather MacFarlane

    I have an idea, why doesn’t congress pass a law that makes it unlawful to STEAL your mother’s guns to murder people? That should fix it, along with all of the other laws criminals and murderers, break.

    • big wyo

      Hear’s one—— let’s make it a law that anyone who is about to commit murder must commit suicide first.

  • Bob Marshall

    The second amendment is not only the citizens protection against criminals, it is a protection against a tyrannical government takeover as stated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

  • Moose

    Per the 2011 FBI Crime Statistics, there are more murders committed by blunt force trauma (clubs, hammers, pipes, etc.) the my all rifles. Does that mean we need a “ballpene” hammer ban?

  • dad666

    From these facts we can see the OBOZZO is responsible for the high level of violent crime as are the Dumocraps and they want gun control. I have a better idea lets ban Dumocrpaps and there by remove all the violence from our society.
    “STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES”

  • redwolf6911

    No surprise for any of this. Criminals will hesitate to attack in areas with a lot of gun owners. They simply do not know who has one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/edward.p.cox Edward P Cox

    It is a fact that most of murders committed with a gun are committed by people who vote Democrat.

  • 1_Eddie_1

    Now if only the clueless will read this and understand it.

  • save_the_nation

    Get it through your heads people, the SOB COMMIE in the white house is going to order you to surrender your 2nd amendment rights, through executive order. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE! THINK TOTAL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE! NEVER, EVER SUBMIT TO THIS SON OF A B*TCH! …………………..NEVER!

  • OtherStalin

    I’m all for facts but a little confused. What does the trend over the last twenty years prove? Violent crimes dropped since 1992, did gun ownership increase? It just seems weird to use a trend in a situation where the trend doesn’t prove anything. All you need is the final numbers to compare to Britain’s current numbers.

    If it’s part of the comparison why don’t we have Britain’s violent crime rate from 1992? That could be a huge boost to the argument that’s just missing.

  • 2013 Watcher

    Before retiring, I made several attempts to identify the youth who were most likely to become a statistic, based on three things: youth’s home and community environment; youth’s willingness to learn; and youth’s most common behaviors. Any attempt to share my observations with those who needed to know was met with accusations and threats against my skills and knowledge, and disdain for my show of uncaring for our youth. The percentage of youth who fit the observations was less than .001 of several years of practice. The most heeded point to make, however, is not just the percentages of occurrences, but how a mass killer evolves and the need for society to closely monitor and follow the progress of the individual to the ultimate behavior of violence. Mass murderers are not born, they are taught and learn to evolve into one. Any who cares to inquire of this thinking needs only to graph, much like the FBI did with its findings, the background of elementary, high school, and youth of mass murderers, and analyze and reason the commonalities and heritage. The discussion for gun control would vanish to embarrassment, and new laws (hopefully at State level) would, with great care and concern for the potential offender, development accordingly. As this is so strong a conservative point-of-view, it will meet with the same disdain of my work.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Kaity927 Dorothy Duda

    Amen

  • CoonOkie

    The only reason to ban guns is to control the citizens. Gun related crimes will increase by a minimum of at least 30% if government actually gets guns banned. Then only criminals will have guns. And I say that congress is the largest organization of criminals in this country.

  • TruthandFreedom

    Obama uses children to achieve his agenda to disarm American citizens. Meanwhile, NBC news admits their was no assault weapons used at Sandyhook, the pathologist was just saying what he was told to say.

    Likewise, while trying to disarm Law Abidding citizens Obama arms his private army with over 7,000 automatic weapons. Not the semi-automatic he is taking from civilians but AUTOMATIC!

    Currently purchased over 7,000 5.56mm Automatic weapons! These are civilians being brainwashed to kill americans!! If you want to disagree why a private army?…. regular Army, National Guards who are military trained won’t work? The truth is real military will defend the Constitution not Obama! Thus, his need to arm a force faithful and obedient to him, not the constitution!! I want, no I demand to see that everyone of those individuals are cleared for gun ownership, that a lock is installed on those weapons, and that all 30 round magazines be turned in!

    Don’t forget the white house under his control has been involved in at least 3 cases of supplying weapons to known terrorists! Florida, Benghazi, and Mexico. So get it right.. supplying weapons to our known enemies while trying to disarm America.

    Now add in that we are in financial distress as a nation and he is buying 7000+ not semi, but automatic weapons for his private army, along with millions of rounds of ammunition.

    Why is it that all of you in the media are afraid to speak the truth to the public? Are you all owned by Obama?

Mobile Theme