Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on January 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said…

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda…

In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action, according to interest-group leaders who have discussed options with Biden and key Cabinet secretaries. Possibilities include changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

***

The White House and gun control supporters are gearing up for a whirlwind month, with plans to pass reform legislation before outrage over the Sandy Hook massacre has a chance to fade

Boston mayor Thomas Menino, co-chair of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told the Boston Herald this week that an optimistic Biden had assured him that Obama would sign legislation “by the end of January.”

“We had been led to believe their report would come by end of January, but we’re hearing they may want to have something out by January 15, even quicker than expected,” Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told TPM…

Glaze acknowledged the NRA has long held an advantage not only in its cash resources, but in its large and active grassroots membership, which has rallied in the past to whip members of Congress against gun control bills. For gun control advocates, they’ll have to offer a compelling case that lawmakers who squelch reforms will pay a price in the midterm elections and that means building their own active network of supporters. Glaze is confident they can do so, citing recent polls showing restrictions on extended ammunition clips and an expansion of background checks to be popular nationally.

***

“It hit me in a way that the others didn’t, and that’s terribly unfair to those other families, but I would not be honest if I said otherwise. This hit me in a way that no other incident has in years,” Casey said in an interview. “I found myself being more emotional about this than virtually anything I’ve ever worked on.”…

Casey’s introspection isn’t a unique tale among normally pro-gun Democrats. Across Capitol Hill, lawmakers ranging from Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky are acknowledging that the Sandy Hook tragedy has, at least for now, left them open to reconsidering measures they once staunchly opposed

It’s not just congressmen who have reexamined their opinions, according to Rep. Tim Holden of Pennsylvania, a normally pro-gun Democrat whose campaign received a contribution from the NRA’s political arm during the 2012 cycle. “I was just talking to my brother a couple of hours ago, and he’s a much more avid hunter than I am; and he was, like, something’s gotta happen here,” he said.

***

I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.

Despite the ubiquitous presence of “good guys” with guns, countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world…

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

***

“The argument against gun-safety provisions is always, ‘Because it doesn’t solve everything, we shouldn’t do anything.’ And I don’t subscribe to that,” Van Hollen said. “Just because a particular effort won’t prevent … one particular incident, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do anything that might help in other incidents.”…

In a heated exchange, Van Hollen challenged Jordan to join him in support of background checks for all gun purchases, not just those conducted by licensed dealers. Jordan declined.

“I support it for concealed carry,” Jordan said.

“No, I’m talking about before you can go out and buy a semi-automatic weapon,” Van Hollen said.

“You have to remember what the Second Amendment says,” Jordan responded. “It’s about freedom.”

***

Strengthening mental health checks is obviously important, and a national database of gun sales could have some use, particularly for post-shooting investigations, and closing the so-called gun show loophole, as I’ve written before, would at least place a stumbling block before unqualified gun buyers. But unless and until the government comes up with a plan to radically reduce the number of guns in civilian hands (roughly 300 million, and that number is most likely growing at a torrid pace, because discussion of stringent gun control measures sends gun buyers flocking to stores and gun shows), then not too much will change. Which is why I believe law-abiding, screened and trained citizens should be allowed to carry handguns, if they so choose. It’s an unfortunate, but realistic, response (not the only response, of course) to the tragic fact that criminals and the dangerously mentally ill have fairly easy access to weaponry…

The population of concealed-carry permit holders in the U.S. now exceeds 9 million, and this group is responsible for very little crime — they commit crime at a rate lower than the general population, and lower than police officers, and they certainly, as a rule, don’t open fire on anyone who looks threatening. They are not the problem, and concealed-carry generally is not the problem. It may even be part of a solution, until such time as a giant magnet appears over the continental U.S. and sucks into the sky America’s civilian-owned weapons, or until the gun control movement convinces the majority of Americans who believe in private weapons ownership to open a debate about the 2nd Amendment.

In the meantime, I can’t get two Newtown numbers out of my head: 26, the number of people, mainly small children, who were murdered in the school; and 20, the number of minutes it took the police to arrive.

***

People will tell pollsters that the widespread availability of certain types of weapons makes the nation more dangerous rather than safer, but they don’t support measures to curtail their use. If Newtown hasn’t pushed the numbers much, why not? One plausible explanation is a lack of trust in the people who would be doing the regulating

We are now approaching four years since the U.S. Senate enacted a budget. The last was in April 2009. And bear in mind that federal law requires an annual budget. Imagine the ire of the senators toward a private firm that treated legal requirements so casually.

Amid such ineptitude, “Trust us, we’ll protect you,” isn’t a very persuasive case to make to the tens of millions of Americans who have guns — often very powerful ones — in their homes. And directing fury at gun owners for their lack of trust isn’t likely to increase their faith in government.

As a general proposition, arguments born of emotion are not likely to be well thought out — or to persuade those not already on board. Yet anger has been very much the style of the case for gun control over the past few weeks.

***

The shooter stole the guns from his mother, who passed a background check (Connecticut has that); the guns, being stolen and used rather than resold, would have been effectively invisible to a hypothetical database; the guns were not in fact owned by a mentally unstable, violent person who used them to murder children (they were stolen by somebody who used them for that); and penalties for possession of firearms around schools or by minors obviously had no effect on the shooter (who was, by the way, a legal adult).

Now, I’m not going to tell you that Nothing Will Ever Pass. Politics doesn’t work like that. What I am saying is that initiatives like this reveal pretty comprehensively that the Democratic party is, at bottom, uncomfortable on an institutional level with the very concept of guns. That this tracks pretty well with the march of the New Left through the Democratic party’s institutions is no accident. In 2013 we are going to see the New Left put lots of pressure on recalcitrant Democratic politicians to renounce their affiliation to the basic civil right of self-defense; and while I do not expect Congress to pass any serious legislation along those lines while the GOP controls the House, we are going to see some notable defections among the Democrats. If Obamacare taught us nothing else, it taught us that a Democratic politician is a Democrat first, a Democrat second – and, say, pro-life a distant third.

So I recommend that nobody trust anybody in the Democratic party to keep from mucking with the Second Amendment. They’re a weak reed that will break in your hand. Simple as that.

***

Gun control has been a central preoccupation of President Obama’s career ever since his time in the Illinois State Senate (where he famously missed a crucial vote while he was on vacation in Hawaii). During the 2008 campaign, Vice President Biden was dispatched to quell fears of Obama’s agenda on guns: “I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey…If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem,” Biden told a Virginia crowd, touting his own gun ownership.

President Obama has also been careful to avoid direct confrontations with those he once referred to as “bitter clingers”–white, working-class, gun-owning, and religious Americans. He voiced open support for gay marriage, for example, only when it had become a sticking point with irked liberal donors in his 2012 presidential campaign.

Now, with re-election out of the way, President Obama has the “flexibility” he boasted of to former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. And he is prepared to exploit the Sandy Hook killings to the fullest to enact a gun control agenda many decades in the making.

***

The Californian picked to lead congressional Democrats’ efforts on gun control says the positions held by some gun rights advocates are unnecessarily divisive, and that government action should go beyond simply outlawing certain weapons…

The phrase “gun control,” Thompson said, is not comprehensive enough for the discussion.

“A lot of times when you talk about gun control, you turn off more than half of your audience,” he said in the interview. Possible solutions can include “everything from the background checks to the assault magazines, the assault weapons, the mental health (system) capacities that we have, our culture of violence that seems to be so overwhelming right now.”

***

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D, told me this morning on “This Week” that while all options should be on the table to address gun violence, President Obama’s reported plans to curb shootings are ”way in extreme” when I pressed her this morning on the kinds on measures she could potentially support.

“I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration – and if the Washington Post is to be believed – that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not going to pass,” said Heitkamp, a member of the National Rifle Association.

Heitkamp, who has an “A” rating from the NRA and was elected in a state that Gov. Mitt Romney won by nearly 20 points, stressed the importance of addressing mental health as part of the effort to curb violent shootings.

***

Asked if there was any new gun legislation he might be willing to approve, Cruz replied, “I don’t think the proposals being discussed now make sense.” Senator Dianne Feinstein, he said, is proposing a national gun owner registry, which he disagrees with. “I don’t think the federal government has any business having a list of law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms,” Cruz added.

However, he said he would support an improvement in the quality of the federal gun database. He also noted we need “common sense” measures like ensuring criminal conviction barriers and mental health barriers to gun ownership.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Bueller

22044 on January 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM

“Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.”

- Senator Walter Mondale , one-time Democratic nominee for President and the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 20 April 1994

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:14 PM

strengthen mental health checks

…Biden should be the first one checked!

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible.”

- Vice-President Hubert H Humphrey, two-term Democratic Senator and one-time Democratic nominee for President, 1960

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM

and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Will they use Obama’s and Holder’s Fast and Furious model?

VorDaj on January 6, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Universal background checks for firearm buyers,

Umm… just where does the Feral government get the authority to control transactions between the citizens of one state?

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM

“Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It’s quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you’re being robbed.”

- Lt Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief, President of the Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, 22 March 1996

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM

In the meantime, I can’t get two Newtown numbers out of my head: 26, the number of people, mainly small children, who were murdered in the school; and 20, the number of minutes it took the police to arrive.

…discussion is over!

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM

6 shooter…
Not enough..

Bad guys have more..

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Lets start the Pilot Program in CHICAGO -FIRST- and let’s see how we’ll that works……..you freakin idiot politicians.

FlaMurph on January 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Slow start..

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 8:22 PM

The White House and gun control supporters are gearing up for a whirlwind month, with plans to pass reform legislation before outrage over the Sandy Hook massacre has a chance to fade…

Then they’ll just wait for the next massacre to implement their next step in destroying the right of self-defense.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“I sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can’t agree with them. We have to be careful in our zeal to abolish guns that we don’t wind up with counter-productive legislation that will leave armed only the people most likely to do harm with them.”

- Hugh Downs, veteran ABC newsman

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Galt- the same place they get the power to tax sales between individuals,, say like if you sell your car.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible.”

– Vice-President Hubert H Humphrey, two-term Democratic Senator and one-time Democratic nominee for President, 1960

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Yes, even the great liberal Hubert Humphrey was infected by the foolish, reckless and subversive thinking of the Founding Fathers

VorDaj on January 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Glaze acknowledged the NRA has long held an advantage not only in its cash resources, but in its large and active grassroots membership, which has rallied in the past to whip members of Congress against gun control bills.

Gun Organizations Unite to Stop Gun Ban
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/gun-organizations-unite-to-stop-gun-ban/

A collaborative effort of 27 pro-gun state and national organizations has formed to fight against any federal gun bans. The group is referring to themselves as the “National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban” and has announced the formation of the coalition January 3, 1013.

The Nebraska Firearms Owners Association website http://nebraskafirearms.org/ states:

The objective of the coalition is to kill the proposals.
All coalition members have agreed that “compromise” is not an option

Southern by choice22 on January 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM

How it could come down: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/

davidk on January 6, 2013 at 8:31 PM

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

They may not get all they want (for now anyway), but be sure they’ll get something…I imagine in some kind of pork-filled, 10,000 page monstrosity full of legalese (that no in Congress will even read) or some kind of Executive Order that nobody understands but will in effect mean weapons control of some kind.

They learned to play the power-grab game loooong ago. We’re rank amateurs who are not even allowed to interpret the Constitution on our own.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

“Prohibiting law-abiding people from owning guns because they might be stolen by criminals is like prohibiting women from going out at night because they might be raped.” – Unknown

“If the Government doesn’t trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?” – Unknown

Achtung, 99%’ers!

Just so that you are aware, your government — in the form of Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Biden — is contemplating a sort of “stamp tax” for gun ownership, ie, you’d have to pay $200 per gun, perhaps, per year. This fee could go much higher. Before you say, “Yeah!,” just remember what your “Soak the rich!” rhetoric got you earlier this week.

That’s right! Your taxes went up and your paycheque will take a bigger hit than those in the $200,000 to $500,000 bracket. So, what would a, sort of, stamp tax on guns mean for you?

Only those that could afford it would be able to own guns. Everyone else would be at the mercy of the government and remember that the police, for example, do not have a duty to come to your aid and assistance, under Supreme Court precedent.

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Oh, and there’s always the U.N. thingy coming up, but, of course, that’s all just conspiracy theorist nonsense.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Galt- the same place they get the power to tax sales between individuals,, say like if you sell your car.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM

That’s a vestige of the States.

Where would the Feral government get the authority to control transactions between the citizens of one state?

Bottom line: They have no authority to do so.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses.

Isn’t this illegal? Telling employers support our agenda and we’ll give you a payoff.

Didn’t Clinton try this with Smith and Wesson? Telling them to support his gun scheme and the government will give them first choice on gun sales to law enforcement.

The corruption of this government is sickening!

JellyToast on January 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

The White House Is Planning A Major Push On Guns, And One Democratic Senator Is Already Calling It ‘Extreme’
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gun-control-biden-task-force-heidi-heitkamp-assault-weapons-ban-2013-1

The White House’s task force led by Vice President Joe Biden is considering expansive proposals to tackle the nation’s gun violence, something that is already drawing early condemnation from even Democratic lawmakers.

But on Sunday, newly sworn-in Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from North Dakota, called the reported proposals “way in the extreme” and cautioned that they would not pass if brought together in a comprehensive bill.

“But what I hear from the administration — and if The Washington Post is to be believed — that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not going to pass.”

Southern by choice22 on January 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Bottom line: They have no authority to do so.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

They’ll merely grant themselves that authority.

Hey, they did it with the Federal Reserve, the Great Society, the New Deal, undeclared wars, and the Income Tax…and probably a bunch of other stuff.

I’m trying to get out of this mentality of what they legally can and can’t do and simply try to prepare myself for what they’re probably going to do.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 6, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Now THIS is a quote of the day…….and ahemmm, no follow up from the Chief Justice.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/06/Cruz-On-Debt-Obama-Scaring-People-Apocalypse

Sorry boys and girls. OUR new President in Possum Holler is Ted Cruz.

Libs/Progressives want our guns so when they finish looting the treasury and most people discover it……we’ll be like the helpless Chinese guy in front of the tanks.

We’ll just have shopping bags like he did…..and be as successful as he and the thousands killed at Tianemen Square in 1989.

PappyD61 on January 6, 2013 at 8:41 PM

‘National database’ on gun sales part of Obama anti-gun game plan
http://www.examiner.com/article/national-database-on-gun-sales-part-of-obama-anti-gun-game-plan?

“National database” just might sound like “national gun registration” to some firearms activists. The concept is almost certain to be toxic to the firearms community. Fear of impending gun restrictions has fueled a buying rush across the nation, and is reportedly swelling the ranks of gun rights organizations with thousands of new memberships.

It appears he also wants to drive a wedge between firearms retailers and gun shows.

“For instance,” one source reportedly told the Post, “Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.”

Warning: There’s a a big Ol’ picture of the Dear Liar at the link…

Southern by choice22 on January 6, 2013 at 8:44 PM

until such time as a giant magnet appears over the continental U.S. and sucks into the sky America’s civilian-owned weapons,

yes, liberals. this is your answer!!!! please devote all your monetary resources, political capital and media whores to this solution…

Firefly_76 on January 6, 2013 at 8:45 PM

The same pro gun logic still exists, still strong, still right.

Sandy Hook was a failure of government not the right to keep and bear arms.

What entity has consistently diminished our right to defend our lives while claiming to offer all the protection we need? Government.

Which entity has demonized pro second amendment rights supporters?

Liberals, using government to create the opportunity for every mass murder.

But NOW government will keep us safe? If only we allow lawmakers to take more of the freedom we cherish, and use to insure our own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? They sure did very horrible job at Sandy Hook.

We can’t afford much more government provided safe gun free zones, in which murderers do their work.

Speakup on January 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

They didn’t have the authority to tell someone how much wheat he could grow to feed his own chickens, either. Just sayin’

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

And, why do I go through two background checks when purchasing a gun (federal and state)? Shouldn’t the state just be able to key into a federal check without the feds having to run it?

The background checks are already “the database” I’m afriad.

Firefly_76 on January 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Bottom line: They have no authority to do so.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

They’ll merely grant themselves that authority.

Hey, they did it with the Federal Reserve, the Great Society, the New Deal, undeclared wars, and the Income Tax…and probably a bunch of other stuff.

I’m trying to get out of this mentality of what they legally can and can’t do and simply try to prepare myself for what they’re probably going to do.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 6, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Ultimately they want to control the constraint over them that is affirmed in the 2nd amendment.

With the Constitution being the limiting legal authority over them, they would just love to see that constraint over their tyranny removed.

Are there any moderate leftists out there that can see the extreme danger this poses?

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:50 PM

`Firearms have been around for over 400 years, yet it is only in the last 20 years that people have begun shouting “gun control”. Why then, only recently, has this become such an issue? Moreover, why are there more mass-murderers than at any other time in our known history?

It is not because weapons are more powerful — 200-year-old muzzleloaders have a much greater force-per-round than today’s “assault rifles”.

It is not because weapons are semi- or fully-automatic — rapid-fire weapons have been available for most of the last century.

It is not due to a lack of laws — we have more “gun control” laws than ever.

It IS, however, because we have chosen to focus on “gun control” instead of crime control or “thug control.” It IS because only recently has the public become complacent enough to accept, by inaction, the violence present in our society.’

- Kevin Langston, 29 October 1991

”These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.”

- Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

“How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”

- Dr Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost both parents in the 1991 Luby’s cafeteria massacre.

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM

“backed by key law enforcement leaders”

Giant pieces of statist excrement in the direct employ of that evil turd Bloomberg.

rayra on January 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM

And, why do I go through two background checks when purchasing a gun (federal and state)? Shouldn’t the state just be able to key into a federal check without the feds having to run it?

The background checks are already “the database” I’m afraid.

Firefly_76 on January 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Yeah, too bad there’s has been a rash of boating accidents…. Which is kind of strange up the northern reaches.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Umm… just where does the Feral government get the authority to control transactions between the citizens of one state?

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Wickard v. Filburn. May FDR get raped in Hell three times a day for what he did to the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Archivarix on January 6, 2013 at 8:57 PM

“Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

And I would say that David Hemenway is a bald-faced liar…with an agenda.
And there is ample evidence of that.

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Umm… just where does the Feral government get the authority to control transactions between the citizens of one state?

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Wickard v. Filburn. May FDR get raped in Hell three times a day for what he did to the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Archivarix on January 6, 2013 at 8:57 PM

That would be a stretch even for that – it’s would hard for the Oppressives to rationalize the selling of a gun to a quantity of wheat on the market.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM

They didn’t have the authority to tell someone how much wheat he could grow to feed his own chickens, either. Just sayin’

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Do they have the authority to tell me how many solar panels I can have per acre?

Green is the Thing…

Until someone else has to pay more in electricity because I choose to “grow” my own..

Gotta Luv America..

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM

I like those quotes – would by any chance have the links to their source?

They would be well worth posting in other places.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Of course, this is all misdirection…

“The giant, gaping hole in Sandy Hook reporting”

Seven Percent Solution on January 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Yeah my Gophers pulled it out.

Next three games should show if we are for real or not.

gophergirl on January 6, 2013 at 9:03 PM

I read two interesting articles on this subject today……

This is a follow-up to his first article:
http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/what-youll-see-in-the-rebellion-a-nation-of-sarajevos/

http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/

Both are worth a read.

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Ultimately they want to control the constraint over them that is affirmed in the 2nd amendment.

With the Constitution being the limiting legal authority over them, they would just love to see that constraint over their tyranny removed.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Maybe…but I’m leaning towards them wanting to force open confrontations. I believe that only a small minority of gun owners would ever take up arms against them, and they will be immediately labeled as criminals and the rest will shy away from them.

We didn’t travel large distances to help out Randy Weaver’s family, or Gordon Kahl, or the Branch Davidians or Bill Cooper. If there’s a kerfuffle up in Michigan, I don’t believe anyone from Arizona’s going to drive up there to assist…even if they did, they’ll be stopped long before then.

If this goes down according to worse case scenario, it’s going to be a few “gun nuts” here and there who the rest of us don’t know who will be crushed and the rest of us will get the point of these examples that will be made and back down…the way we always do.

China and Russia didn’t tolerate mass dissension, why would anyone think the world’s greatest superpower would?

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 6, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Cruz says pols exploiting school shooting
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/01/cruz-pols-trying-to-exploit-ct-shooting-153434.html

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a fierce National Rifle Association ally, accused gun control advocates of trying to “exploit” the December shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, arguing they had tried to use the tragedy to advance their policy agenda.

Apparently ThinkOppression has a big problem with Senators expressing views on Unconstitutional tyrannical legislation:

Igor Volsky / ThinkProgress:

New Republican Senator Says Gun Safety Is ‘Unconstitutional’ — Newly-elected Sen. Ted Cruiz (R-TX) accused politicians of exploiting the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut to advance gun safety legislation and argued that efforts to limit assault weapons and high capacity magazines are unconstitutional.

Why do Oppressives have an issue with the Constitution?

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 9:06 PM

via Betsy Woodruff at “The Corner”:

Representative Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.) had strong words on Face the Nation for gun-control advocates who seems to promise an end to gun violence. “Let’s stop placating the American people and telling them we’re doing something when we’re really doing nothing.” He recalled the congressman from Columbine, Colo. coming into his office and weeping over the tragedy of that shooting, which happened while the assault-weapons ban was in effect.

onlineanalyst on January 6, 2013 at 9:06 PM

According to them, yes, they can make you buy solar panels, and health insurance, and broccoli.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Average police response time to a 911 call: 23 minutes.

Average speed of a fired round from a gun: 1,400 feet per second.

Any questions?

TXUS on January 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Yeah, let’s have more laws banning guns near schools. That’ll do the trick…

joejm65 on January 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

can_con on January 6, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Ultimately they want to control the constraint over them that is affirmed in the 2nd amendment.

With the Constitution being the limiting legal authority over them, they would just love to see that constraint over their tyranny removed.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 6, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Perhaps that would be the case were they try to go at it incrementally – getting rid of private sales to get to registration and then Confiscation.

But they seem to have gotten ahead of themselves – Andrew gun confiscation Cuomo being a prime example.

The people now know what’s in store and just like the long gun registry up in CA, people aren’t going to submit to registration because they KNOW it will lead to Confiscation.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Average police response time to a 911 call: 23 minutes.

Average speed of a fired round from a gun: 1,400 feet per second.

Any questions?

TXUS on January 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM

No questions…

Just that..

How many cops can you stuff into a Duncan Donuts?

How many rounds can you stuff into a semi..?

Which one is being restricted today?

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Maybe you’ll be able to register your incandescent light bulbs at the same time.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:17 PM

I feel a Charlton Heston comming on .

Lucano on January 6, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Maybe you’ll be able to register your incandescent light bulbs at the same time.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Strange you brought that up..

Our local newspaper published all of us that have CF Bulbs…

We are now UV offenders….

And on the IRS hit list…

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 9:20 PM

FAIL of the Day—-Twenty-five Percent of the Journal News’ Rockland County Gun-Map not Accurate
http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/01/04/fail-of-the-day-twenty-five-percent-of-the-journal-news-rockland-county-gun-map-not-accurate/

The intentions of the Journal News’ editorial board in publishing a highly controversial “interactive gun map” are further occluded by an inconvenient fact.

According to Rockland County Clerk Paul Piperato, in Rockland County a large number of the names and addresses on the map are not even correct.

Piperato said, “I’d figure about 25 percent of the addresses are not accurate.”

Southern by choice22 on January 6, 2013 at 9:21 PM

1.6 gallons/ flush is too much.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Gun Control? Pfffft! How ‘Bout Some Government Control?

M2RB: The Clash

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM

1.6 gallons/ flush is too much.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Ditto..
By the OWS person that squatted a deuce on a police car..

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 9:23 PM

How about this map, Journal News? Awesome pic shows map of criminals with guns
http://twitchy.com/2013/01/06/how-about-this-map-journal-news-awesome-pic-shows-map-of-criminals-with-guns/

As Twitchy reported, the Journal News gave a Christmas gift to criminals by publishing personal information of residents with gun permits in Rockland and Westchester Counties, in a shameful, and dangerous, attempt at intimidation and agenda-pushing. The paper attempted to release more personal information of residents in another county, but Putnam County has denied the paper’s request for information.

What about another map, Journal News?

do you know why we don’t have a map showing where the criminals live who have guns ??? #rightotbeararms—
grandmapitz (@gmapitz) January 05, 2013

Oh, that’s right. Criminals, you know, don’t obey laws and don’t register their weapons like law-abiding citizens who just seek to protect themselves from harm.

Southern by choice22 on January 6, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Both are worth a read.

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Thanks. Good stuff. I’m realizing that guns are going to THE major issue, the great prize to Obama. I’m a former Leftist: I always know the worm is turning in the Leftist collective psyche. It is turning right now. They want the guns — badly. Mitch McConnell harrumphed recently that gun control was a sideshow and the upcoming legislative concentration would be on fiscal matters. Mitch McConnell is an idiot. But we knew that. Fiscal matters will be the sideshow, the distraction.

What I’d be interested in is an article not on the predicted outcome of Obama’s machinations (as Owens’ was) but on the A to Z process, the machinations themselves — i.e., how we get from here to there, what actions Obama takes, how the media plays it, what the Republicans do or don’t do, until we end up at the place Owens is talking about or somewhere therabouts.

rrpjr on January 6, 2013 at 9:25 PM

How many cops can you stuff into a Duncan Donuts?

How many Dunkin Donuts can you stuff inside a cop?

Too easy… :P

22044 on January 6, 2013 at 9:26 PM

58 mpg highway isn’t enough.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Didn’t Clinton try this with Smith and Wesson? Telling them to support his gun scheme and the government will give them first choice on gun sales to law enforcement.

The corruption of this government is sickening!

JellyToast on January 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Indeed.

And shortly thereafter, S&W just about went belly-up and that’s why they have new owners and are headquartered in Arizona now.
Screwing over 80million+ gun owners is liable to have adverse consequences.

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Our local newspaper published all of us that have CF Bulbs…

We are now UV offenders….

And on the IRS hit list…

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Next up: Anyone who purchases toilet paper in amounts that belie the fact that they’re using more than one square per, er, “sitting”.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Wickard v. Filburn. May FDR get raped in Hell three times a day for what he did to the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Archivarix on January 6, 2013 at 8:57 PM

That would be a stretch even for that – it’s would hard for the Oppressives to rationalize the selling of a gun to a quantity of wheat on the market.

Galt2009 on January 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM

They’ve already tried that whole Commerce Clause thingy with gun control. It was an EPIC FAIL.

Case: United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Held: “Possession of a gun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity.”

Result: The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was struck down as unconstitutional, in whole.

“To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

- William Rehnquist, CJ, writing for the majority

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 9:29 PM

The Hagel Nomination: Will It Survive?

M2RB: Gloria Gaynor

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM

This Ted Cruz guy is starting to worry me.

It sounds like he may want to be president, or something.

cozmo on January 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM

“There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

Except, of course, the plethora of evidence that it does. You show me evidence that some gun ownership in foreign countries (which, regardless of the jurisdiction is much less than in the US); but ignore the contrary evidence in this country. What a hack.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

– Ronald Reagan

“To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. … For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.”

– Jeff Snyder, author

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

- Winston Churchill

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

How many Dunkin Donuts can you stuff inside a cop?
Too easy… :P

22044 on January 6, 2013 at 9:26 PM

:)

Not enough for another visit…

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Wal-Mart’s CEO is an uber-lib. If Simon sticks his oar in this on the side of the gun-grabbers, I may have to consider looking for a new job.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2013 at 9:38 PM

“For instance,” one source reportedly told the Post, “Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.”

I have already emailed Wal Mart and told them that, if the supported anti-gun legislation in any way, there will be consequences.
They may be able to laugh off a “walkout” by union supporters; and they may not be effected by a boycott by homosexuals, or any other group that isn’t counted in the millions…
but a boycott by gun owners and their supporters would definitely hurt their bottom line in every store in America. And that a boycott would definitely happen if they support obama’s un-Constitutional violation of the Second Amendment.

I would think that there are probably more than a few others who have emailed them, as well.

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 9:38 PM

If I come to work one day and find a ‘gun free’ statement on premises, I will quit then and there.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM

This Ted Cruz guy is starting to worry me.

It sounds like he may want to be president, or something.

cozmo on January 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM

I’m trying not to get my hopes up but WOW!

gophergirl on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM

What stops them from just classifying whatever they want as a class III weapon?

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Republicans need to ask these Democrats during the gun debates: “Does the government have the right to infringe on citizens’ right to keep and bear arms?”. Then you repeat the question after their non-answer. They hate that.

Now, if you’re a Republican who does feel the government should have the right to infringe on citizens’ right to keep and bear arms to some degree, then you need to consider an amendment that modifies the 2nd. There are some big trade-offs that Democrats would have to agree to before that could happen. The new amendment would clarify that the federal government can’t infringe on state gun rights laws, for starters.

Buddahpundit on January 6, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Republicans need to ask these Democrats during the gun debates: “Does the government have the right to infringe on citizens’ right to keep and bear arms?”. Then you repeat the question after their non-answer. They hate that
Buddahpundit on January 6, 2013 at 9:43 PM

.

Exactly. Cut to the ideological chase. But we won’t. We never do. It would piss off the media. They’d call you an “extremist.” Can’t have that.

rrpjr on January 6, 2013 at 9:46 PM

What stops them from just classifying whatever they want as a class III weapon?

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Me…
You…
And our class III weapons…

Look…

They can do what they want..

Ain’t changin’ a thing on the home front..

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 9:50 PM

The more you talk about Ted Cruz the quicker
they’ll try to destroy him .

Lucano on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Not suggesting for a minute that I would comply.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Wal-Mart’s CEO is an uber-lib. If Simon sticks his oar in this on the side of the gun-grabbers, I may have to consider looking for a new job.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Yeah, WM has been swimming with the libs ever since the passing of Mr. Sam, most notably with the Clintons back when they were soiling Arkansas, and it’s only gotten worse since. (This relationship has always been a bit confusing for me, by the way, as WM is constantly a target of the left.)

Anyway, I wouldn’t doubt for a moment that WM will go for anything gun-control-wise so long as it applies across the board to all of their competitors. Why? It will serve their liberal cause, keep their foot in the door with Obama, and they already have market share, which won’t suffer as long as every gun seller has to play by the same rules.

In the end, additional gun regs will hurt their far smaller competitors worse, meaning that WM will be able to increase market share that much more. A win-win for them. It is what it is.

TXUS on January 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Such disheartening news…

I wish I had a crystal ball and could predict which way this is going to go… (need to ask SP/PS to ask his 8 ball) ;-), I don’t like anyone giving them ideas (Buddahpundit on January 6, 2013 at 9:43 PM)

I would boycott Walmart if they chose to belly up with the control nuts…

Things like this are always a wait and see situation… and once we ‘see’ it’s typically too late to do anything…

It’ll be another, read the bill to find out whats’ in it…

I am amazed by the nations/countries that allowed themselves to be disarmed, is it really that easy?

Scrumpy on January 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

What stops them from just classifying whatever they want as a class III weapon?

wolly4321 on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM

…this government can classify your benis as a bagina…and the MSM would let them get away with it!

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2013 at 10:02 PM

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

– Winston Churchill

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

^^^^^THIS!!!^^^^^

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 10:06 PM

…this government can classify your benis as a bagina…and the MSM would let them get away with it!

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2013 at 10:02 PM

kardashian status…

Electrongod on January 6, 2013 at 10:06 PM

…this government can classify your benis as a bagina…and the MSM would let them get away with it!

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2013 at 10:02 PM

I know one thing sir. From reading the headline thread re Obama’s “negotiatin”, Boehner definitely has a bagina.

arnold ziffel on January 6, 2013 at 10:06 PM

If I come to work one day and find a ‘gun free’ statement on premises, I will quit then and there.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM

I’d hate to see you unemployed…but very proud to know you and of the stand you took.

Let’s pray that it doesn’t come to that…for any of us.

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 10:09 PM

I would boycott Walmart if they chose to belly up with the control nuts…

Scrumpy on January 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

When shopping, my first stop is usually Walmart. But I’ll boycott them too if they lend their brand to Obama’s gun grabbing operation.

petefrt on January 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM

I’m trying not to get my hopes up but WOW!

gophergirl on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM

I saw the honorable Mr. Cruz on several occasions at some of tea party events around Houston before he got the nomination. He rarely missed an event and always stayed and shook hands. After he won the nomination (already a lock for senator), my area opened a new Rep Party HQ and he was on hand for the opening, along with our congressman, etc. I waited in the heat and when I when I finally worked my way up the line, I told him congratulations and asked one thing of him, not to go squish like all the others have. Paraphrasing, he said he was going to D.C. to do what we elected him to do and he wouldn’t forget the people that made that happen. I’m trying not to get my hopes up either, but so far, he hasn’t forgotten.

TxAnn56 on January 6, 2013 at 10:13 PM

petefrt on January 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Unfortunately we have 2 walmarts and one other good supermarket, and a Save-a-lot…oh and the commissary on post…

I shall shop elsewhere…

Scrumpy on January 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM

-

Lt Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief, President of the Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, 22 March 1996

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Last seen as senior Corporal of the DC bus inspection team.
Just kidding but would not surprise. No points for candor in DC.

arnold ziffel on January 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM

TxAnn56 on January 6, 2013 at 10:13 PM

We have a need of more people like Mr Cruz in the party!! I have ‘boned’ up on him and he does sound very very sincere and promising!!

Scrumpy on January 6, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Sandy Hook was the wet dream of many liberals, including the trolls at HA.

bw222 on January 6, 2013 at 10:16 PM

The new amendment would clarify that the federal government can’t infringe on state gun rights laws, for starters.

Buddahpundit on January 6, 2013 at 9:43 PM

County sheriffs can block federal gun control…

http://wethearmed.com/general-firearms-discussion/gun-control-did-you-know-this/

From the article:

But did you know that no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be.

Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs. This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States. Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.

The case involved new federal regulations involved with the Brady Bill and gun control. FBI agents went around to the various county sheriffs and demanded that they follow the new federal guidelines. Then Graham County (AZ) Sheriff Richard Mack and several others saw the Brady Bill as being unconstitutional and refused to impose the new federal guidelines. Part of their defense was that the county sheriff was the supreme law enforcement officer over their county and that the federal government could not supersede their legal authority.

In the court’s decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
“. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P.920)

Justice Scalia then quoted the man considered to be the Father of the US Constitution, President James Madison, when he wrote in the decision:
“[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.

Scalia then referred to Gregory, 501 US at 458 when he wrote:
“This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .”

Referring once again to President Madison, Scalia wrote:
“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922).

In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.”

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Its Scrumpy-Time, lala falala

SparkPlug on January 6, 2013 at 10:18 PM

”, Boehner definitely has a bagina.

arnold ziffel on January 6, 2013 at 10:06 PM

… Republican women are not as emotional…and don’t cry as much…AND have better leadership skills!…Boneless is a Democrat DragQueen!

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2013 at 10:19 PM

This would be a good time for conservatives to attempt to re-ignite interest in “Fast and Furious.”

bw222 on January 6, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Solaratov on January 6, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Thank you for posting that information!! Kudos!! :-)

Scrumpy on January 6, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5