Biden: My task force will have some gun-control recommendations on Obama’s desk by Tuesday

posted at 3:21 pm on January 10, 2013 by Allahpundit

The task force was supposed to have suggestions for O by the end of the month but that plan was kiboshed when the political reality of attention spans after mass shootings began to set in. So, new plan: The national lecture “conversation” on gun control will begin officially on Tuesday.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told sports shooting groups Thursday he would send his recommendations on preventing gun violence to President Barack Obama by Jan. 15, according to a White House pool report.

Biden mentioned several measures that he said he has heard supported repeatedly — universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, and the government’s ability to do research on gun violence. Biden clarified that background checks would go beyond closing the so-called gun show loophole.

He compared the current limits on federal data gathering with the 1970s restrictions on federal research over the cause of traffic fatalities. He said there is a need to study which weapons are used most to kill and which tend to be trafficked.

The One will issue some sort of executive order too, likely tightening reporting requirements for federal agencies related to gun ownership and mental health and directing the DOJ to bump up prosecutions of gun traffickers. Eric Holder himself will be sitting in on Biden’s meeting today with major gun retailers like Wal-Mart, during which the veep will remind them that requiring universal background checks means fewer sales for private sellers and therefore more sales for them. Corporate buy-offs: They worked for ObamaCare with the pharmaceutical industry, why couldn’t they work for this?

Just one question: Whither the new assault-weapons ban? That’s a glaring omission from Biden’s list of new measures on which he senses a consensus. There’s no doubt they’re going to propose one but there’s also no doubt that the House will sink it. I think the AWB is really more of a negotiating tactic than an earnest demand: They’ll put it out there next week as their unrealistic opening offer so that they can drop it later in favor of more “reasonable” feasible measures like universal background checks and banning high-capacity magazines. Background checks, in particular, enjoy massive support, with one recent poll showing 92% in favor of requiring them at gun shows and a CNN poll taken last year finding 94% support for checks on all potential gun buyers. That’d be a very tough vote for congressional Republicans and of course Biden knows it, which is why he’s talking it up today. If you can’t get your policies passed, you might as well use them as a way to make the opposition squirm.


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

If you have not read Atlas Shrugged, yet, and if you love your freedom, it is a must read.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM

My wife checked out the DVD from the library – haven’t watched it yet.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Inextricable discombobulation resulting from constant colonoscopy attempts using no optical aids.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Other than tax my Texas patudy for abortion pills in New York, and the possibility of men-in-pink-chiffon deciding my 2nd Amendment rights I think 2013 is going just peachy.

Limerick on January 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM

My wife checked out the DVD from the library – haven’t watched it yet.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Must read.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Here are two words no one has uttered yet on these threads: Commerce Clause. That’s how they’ll do it and it will past judicial muster. Mark my words boys and girls.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

I look forward to seeing RWM’s reply to this.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Step one….

Make your legal illegal.

Step two….

Now that you are a criminal you are disqualified for government approved weapons.

That’s the ticket.

Limerick on January 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Must read.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Indeed…all the movies don’t even come close.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Here are two words no one has uttered yet on these threads: Commerce Clause. That’s how they’ll do it and it will past judicial muster. Mark my words boys and girls.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

That hits on the topic my carpool was talking about yesterday (one of which is a DoD lawyer). They don’t necessarily need to BAN anything. If they can’t get away with bans, what they will likely do is make the background checks and purchase process so difficult and time consuming, and perhaps add taxes to everything, that we won’t reasonably be able to buy anything. All of our guns become nothing but fancy clubs.
As the volume of gun purchases has pushed background checks from 15 minutes to 2 weeks (in Colorado) – imagine what would happen if they required a background check for every ammo purchase (as some libs have suggested)?

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Yeah, I got $38.62 a pound for my scrap too. I donated it to the deficit.

Limerick on January 10, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I don’t like paper trails so mine went in the trash can.

“Here are the directions for finding the local landfill, Mr. G Man, be sure to brink a facemask and some rubber gloves.”

Bishop on January 10, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Must read.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Ya, I know – we have the book in our home library – but I just don’t have the time to get through it now.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Biden’s solution. Everyone gets to keep two arms, unless you only have one, or none, then Obamacare will get you the missing one(s).

Limerick on January 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Obviously the answer is to ban all magazines over 10 pages – and no aftermarket “custom” additions of any kind.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I know, right?

No one needs more than 10 pages to kill a deer.

Lily on January 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

“Sheriff Joe” needs to talk about security and the 2nd Amendment with the guys who have to PAY rent to keep him safe.

They’re right on his property, aren’t they? Joe and Silly Jill sleep well at night because we pay for their security.

So, Joe….. phuck off. You’re not terribly important, and no one really respects you.

Taxpayer bloodsucking idiot.

Cody1991 on January 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Ya, I know – we have the book in our home library – but I just don’t have the time to get through it now.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:35 PM

In truth, you don’t really need to; you’re living it. :) But if you do get a chance, it’ll be a little weird. It’s not a Nineteen Eighty-Four; it’s truly right outside the door.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Courtesy of letget

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Comically, I just heard on the radio that Obama restored lifetime Secret Service details for presidents and their families today.
 
You know. People with guns. For protection.
 
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/obama-grants-himself-lifetime-secret-service-protection-153854.html?hp=f1

rogerb on January 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:33 PM

This is where the word “infringed” becomes so important.
If any check is designed to disuade or make it more difficult to purchase a gun; that would be “infringing” on your right.

The founders used “infringed” for a very good reason.

Jabberwock on January 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM

No one needs more than 10 pages to kill a deer.

Lily on January 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Is that 10 pages to kill a deer or kill a BEER?
Works either way for me….

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM

One thing I don’t get. They want universal background checks, apparently even on private sales. OK, if I want to sell a gun to a buddy, how are we supposed to do that? Even if they come up with a way, nobody is going to do it. Am I not seeing something?

kam582 on January 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM

I look forward to seeing RWM’s reply to this.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Me too. As one lawyer to another, I find her legal analyses very elucidating. Don’t mistake my post for being in favor of infringement. I am merely predicting the path which they will take, assuming they are smart enough to, to ram further infringement through. Given the liberal make-up of the courts, I don’t have much hope for a strike-down once those sacred words “Commerce Clause” are uttered.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Universal background checks are just plain idiotic. All person to person sales will go underground and people will just simply ignore all gun laws. For those gun grabbing idiots around here who don’t understand this imagine having to perform a background check on any prospective buyer for anything you want to sell privately.

NotCoach on January 10, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Universal background checks are just plain idiotic. All person to person sales will go underground and people will just simply ignore all gun laws. For those gun grabbing idiots around here who don’t understand this imagine having to perform a background check on any prospective buyer for anything you want to sell privately.

NotCoach on January 10, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Hence the reason they want to ban private sales of guns. You know, person-to-person sales. That should make the big retailers happy and all the black marketeers as well. Stupid politicians.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Obviously the answer is to ban all magazines over 10 pages – and no aftermarket “custom” additions of any kind.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I know, right?

No one needs more than 10 pages to kill a deer.

Lily on January 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

10 pages is more of a pamphlet than a magazine, although I strongly doubt if you can drop a deer with even a magazine. I think you need to adjust to a lengthy novel, or perhaps something even thicker such as the Obamacare law.

Mo_mac on January 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM

In truth, you don’t really need to; you’re living it. :) But if you do get a chance, it’ll be a little weird. It’s not a Nineteen Eighty-Four; it’s truly right outside the door.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Ya that’s another reason I haven’t read it recently – the identical real world we’re in is enough.
The libs are forcing us into far too many aspects of Atlas Shrugged, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, and even Idiocracy for them to be “enjoyed” as simple entertainment now.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Ya, I know – we have the book in our home library – but I just don’t have the time to get through it now.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:35 PM

In truth, you don’t really need to; you’re living it. :) But if you do get a chance, it’ll be a little weird. It’s not a Nineteen Eighty-Four; it’s truly right outside the door.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Problem is, conservatives have viewed 1984, Animal Farm, Atlas Shrugged, and Brave New World as warnings; the left has viewed them as friggin’ How-To manuals.

AZfederalist on January 10, 2013 at 4:47 PM

The founders used “infringed” for a very good reason.

Jabberwock on January 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Which of course is why the libs keep trying to deny that word exists in the 2nd Amendment – or that it means what it actually means.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:48 PM

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Not mistaken, good one, not to worry.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I’m sure this probably takes place in all states, but each and every gun I’ve purchased from a local gun store OR even the ones that I’ve purchased on the internet, in EACH case I have to pass a background check. It’s a state not federal check, which is exactly where it should be.

So people that are yelling for background checks, as is becoming more and more widespread, are low information (moron) respondents. I guess this would also apply to the low information (moron) media organizations that are conducting the polls as well.

And people calling for background checks on ammunition, you’re delusional. Not going to happen. And the reason I say it won’t happen, is because ammunition, by itself, is harmless. Unless of course, you happen to be bucking for a Darwin award and standing in a fire with a bunch of rounds in your pockets.

Meople on January 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Wanna bet that his recommendations have been sitting Barky’s desk for 4 years awaiting re-election and the right tragedy to capitalize on.

Dingbat63 on January 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM

My thoughts exactly – The whole thing was already set up and ready to go, just needed the right opportunity.

Speaking of scripts that are “ready to go”, notice that Morsi has started making noises about the Blink Sheik again? I’m putting my bets down that we’ve got another “wag the dog” (a la Benghazi) set up and ready to launch. Hopefully the insurgents will remember to kidnap instead of shooting whichever diplomat Obama has decided to make a pawn this time.

2nd Ammendment Mother on January 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM

One thing I don’t get. They want universal background checks, apparently even on private sales. OK, if I want to sell a gun to a buddy, how are we supposed to do that? Even if they come up with a way, nobody is going to do it. Am I not seeing something?

kam582 on January 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM

They won’t like that you caught on to what they’re doing.
Of course – you won’t be able to make that sale – all part of the plan.
You will have to go through a middle man who can do the paperwork and document the sale (for the federal gun registration), pay taxes, etc – or you’ll just have to turn it in to the gubmint directly.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Any EO infringing upon the second amendment is Treason.

Anyone attempting to enforce or act on this EO is an accessory to Treason.

wildcat72 on January 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

This is a huge diversion from the economic and jobs+ woes of the era which is Obamatimes.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

The law would also bar you from GIVING your guns to a relative, say your child. When you die the guns would become property of the state.

Laughable, but they will try it anyway.

Bishop on January 10, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Yes, I am sure he will. Especially after the shooting in California today.
Since the gunman was “talked into surrendering” by a teacher, look for this as more fodder for the anti-gun proponents to say, “See? Teachers don’t need guns, they just need to “talk” the gunman out of it.”

Sterling Holobyte on January 10, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Problem is, conservatives have viewed 1984, Animal Farm, Atlas Shrugged, and Brave New World as warnings; the left has viewed them as friggin’ How-To manuals.

AZfederalist on January 10, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Ya got that right!
Brave New World – the other one I couldn’t remember.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I want to know how many people were murdered after calling 911.

Limerick on January 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Universal background checks,,,,,execpt for illegals, that would be racist don’t ya know.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 10, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Wanna bet that his recommendations have been sitting Barky’s desk for 4 years awaiting re-election and the right tragedy to capitalize on.

Dingbat63 on January 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Yep.. Nearly every atrocity against the Constitution that has been enacted have been sitting in a drawer waiting to be pulled out when something happened enabling it to pass. The PATRIOT Act was one such law, and not because I expected Bush to abuse it, but because I knew one day we’d have a President like Obama.

wildcat72 on January 10, 2013 at 4:54 PM

10 pages is more of a pamphlet than a magazine, although I strongly doubt if you can drop a deer with even a magazine. I think you need to adjust to a lengthy novel, or perhaps something even thicker such as the Obamacare law.

Mo_mac on January 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Well, obviously, the Founders could only have meant that citizens would use pamphlets for hunting since the Obamacare law hadn’t been enacted yet, on account of Pelosi and Reid having not gotten out of diapers yet.

Lily on January 10, 2013 at 4:54 PM

The “talking out of it” idea does have merit. In fact we could probably abolish the military and simply talk our enemies out of attacking us.

Bishop on January 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Here are two words no one has uttered yet on these threads: Commerce Clause. That’s how they’ll do it and it will past judicial muster. Mark my words boys and girls.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

They tried that in the Gun-Free School Act of 1990 and got smacked down in an EPIC FAIL by the Supreme Court in United States v Alfonso Lopez, Jr, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for the majority:

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.

Also, it will be even harder to use the Commerce Clause to infringe upon an actual right spelled out in the Constitution and in the wake of that right being recognised in District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

And people calling for background checks on ammunition, you’re delusional. Not going to happen. And the reason I say it won’t happen, is because ammunition, by itself, is harmless. Unless of course, you happen to be bucking for a Darwin award and standing in a fire with a bunch of rounds in your pockets.

Meople on January 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I wouldn’t count on that not happening with the way the libs are talking – and the way the Repubs are not arguing against them.
A gun is also harmless without ammo – except as a fancy expensive club.
They win if they can make ANY or ALL parts of the gun unreasonable to buy.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Pelosi / Reid / Obama all you need to know to be in mortal fear of our Constitutions life being taken page by page day by day.

The mad glee seen on their smug faces is the tell.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 10, 2013 at 4:58 PM

This is a huge diversion from the economic and jobs+ woes of the era which is Obamatimes.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Very good point. And a good portion of the increased gun sales over the last 4 years is because we all live in Obamaville. Economic malaise for the last 4 years, an increasingly dismal outlook for the future and a “President” and his Ministry of Redistribution that only wants to make it all worse, this all tells me one thing, buy more guns and LOTs of ammunition.

Meople on January 10, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Also, it will be even harder to use the Commerce Clause to infringe upon an actual right spelled out in the Constitution and in the wake of that right being recognised in District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Hey, there’s always time to change their minds. I knew you would give me the case law to scuttle the Commerce Clause argument for the time being. I won’t count on that changing in the near future if Obama gets any more appointments to the SCOTUS, though. Thanks, RWM.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Gun-Grabber’s Q: Why do mass shootings always happen in schools, malls and movie theaters?

Honour the 2nd Amendment A: For the same reason that they never happen at shooting ranges.

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Any EO infringing upon the second amendment is Treason.
Anyone attempting to enforce or act on this EO is an accessory to Treason.

wildcat72 on January 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Agreed – but who in the federal government is going to make the charge?
Do you really think Boehner or any of the other Repubs have the balls to even try it?
If there’s nobody willing and able to enforce a law, it doesn’t really exist – at least not for anyone willing to try to get away with it.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM

The “talking out of it” idea does have merit. In fact we could probably abolish the military and simply talk our enemies out of attacking us.

Bishop on January 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Why not? As I recall, it worked quite well for Prime Minister Chamberlain. “Peace in our time” and all….

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Honour the 2nd Amendment A: For the same reason that they never happen at shooting ranges.

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM

It’s “Honor” :)

Thanks for being here, in all ways.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Agreed – but who in the federal government is going to make the charge?
Do you really think Boehner or any of the other Repubs have the balls to even try it?
If there’s nobody willing and able to enforce a law, it doesn’t really exist – at least not for anyone willing to try to get away with it.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM

It wouldn’t even have to go that far. All the Republicans have to do is let someone very publicly float the suggestion that it’s a treasonable offense. The media will pick it up and run with it, thinking it’s an embarrassment for the GOP, but it gets everybody talking about it. Suddenly, 0bama’s faced with a Susan Rice situation where he can double down on stupid and humiliate himself later, or pull his punches and humiliate himself now.

Of course this all hinges on the GOP growing a set, and we know that ain’t happenin.’

CurtZHP on January 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Also, it will be even harder to use the Commerce Clause to infringe upon an actual right spelled out in the Constitution and in the wake of that right being recognised in District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

But how does all of that reconcile with what the SC decided on Obamacare?
I would suggest the possibility that this liberal leaning court (thanks Roberts) might just change that direction.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Of course this all hinges on the GOP growing a set, and we know that ain’t happenin.’

CurtZHP on January 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM

That’s my key point right there.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Hey, there’s always time to change their minds. I knew you would give me the case law to scuttle the Commerce Clause argument for the time being. I won’t count on that changing in the near future if Obama gets any more appointments to the SCOTUS, though. Thanks, RWM.

totherightofthem on January 10, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Tru dat, especially if he gets to replace one of the 5 cons.

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM

:-)

But how does all of that reconcile with what the SC decided on Obamacare?
I would suggest the possibility that this liberal leaning court (thanks Roberts) might just change that direction.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM

The issue was the Commerce Clause, which Roberts, as well as Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia, rejected as a basis for Obamacare. In fact, he specifically held that it was unconstitutional under a Commerce Clause theory.

Unfortunately, Roberts “found” that the IM in Obamacare was constitutional under Congress’ taxing and spending powers pursuant to Article I, Section 8. It was here that he was his most egregious since he not only found a new tax in the COTUS, he expressly ignored the fact that Democrats had replaced the word “tax” to “penalty” 19 times to describe the IM before passage and it was not covered in the revenue-raising section of the legislation.

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 5:23 PM

In truth, you don’t really need to; you’re living it. :) But if you do get a chance, it’ll be a little weird. It’s not a Nineteen Eighty-Four; it’s truly right outside the door.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 4:39 PM

You’re right. Substitute fracking for the energy source and drones for the death ray and we’re fairly close.

wolfsDad on January 10, 2013 at 5:25 PM

The issue was the Commerce Clause, which Roberts, as well as Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia, rejected as a basis for Obamacare. In fact, he specifically held that it was unconstitutional under a Commerce Clause theory.

Unfortunately, Roberts “found” that the IM in Obamacare was constitutional under Congress’ taxing and spending powers pursuant to Article I, Section 8. It was here that he was his most egregious since he not only found a new tax in the COTUS, he expressly ignored the fact that Democrats had replaced the word “tax” to “penalty” 19 times to describe the IM before passage and it was not covered in the revenue-raising section of the legislation.

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Understood – but how does that potentially change if Obumble gets a chance to put someone on the court – especially if its one of the “right” side who retires or dies?
I can see a majority left court declaring the commerce clause covers anything and everything the government wants it to cover.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:34 PM

“The public wants us to act.”

I don’t think that’s what we are saying.

Bmore on January 10, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Restrict magazine size? How? They have no serial numbers, sales are not tracked or registered, they’re a bent piece of metal easily produced in garages or imported illegally, and there’s a zillion of them already in private hands. All you can do is prosecute any poor sap caught with one, like David Gregory. (Which is exactly why he should be prosecuted, just to show how stupid that idea is, and probably exactly why DC’s Attorney General is not.) Effectiveness in stopping mass-shootings? ZERO.

I have a bit more sympathy for expanded background checks, but don’t fool yourself thinking this will help. All you have to do is look at the states that already do this, which have average or worse violent crime and murder rates. Again: ZERO effectiveness against mass-shootings, or even average ones.

Question to ask you legislator: When (not ‘if’) these new laws fail to help,

then

what will you do?

Socratease on January 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM

He said there is a need to study which weapons are used most to kill and which tend to be trafficked.

Huh? They don’t know this already?

As for ‘trafficking’……….ASK OBAMA AND HOLDER. They know all about it. Just ask 200+ DEAD Mexican citizens.

GarandFan on January 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Okay boys and girls! Let see which story you will hear about on the news and which one will be blacked out:

15-Year-Old Boy Uses Dad’s AR15 to Fight Off Intruders (video)
http://www.fishgame.com/webnews.php?p=16038#.UO3eb4njn0h

The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

The teenager grabbed his father’s assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

“We don’t try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”

The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.

Student, teacher shot at Taft High School
http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/report-at-least-one-person-shot-at-taft-high-school

TAFT, Calif. – Officials have said that at least two people were shot at Taft High School and the shooter has been arrested.

Make you choice and place your bets – can you guess which story line the BSM will want to push and which one they will bury?

Galt2009 on January 10, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Pres. Obama fool that he is has put more guns and ammo into the hands of Americans than any one from all the History of the U.S.A..

Thanks ya fool tools.

He may single handed make the U.S.A. and its citizens able to withstand any attack from within.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 10, 2013 at 5:42 PM

“The public wants us to act.”

The public wants to act by getting rid of the gun-free killing zones where these massacres, predictably, keep happening over and over again. Statistics show that rampage killers are drawn to gun-free zones, yet these anti-gun zeolots insist on creating more of them. Aside from the killers themselves the anti-gun zeolots are most to blame for these massacres. It is their hippie policies that promote these massacres in the first place and then when the inevitable occurs they use it as a pretext to expand their efforts to disarm the good guys who are the bane of every rampage killer. That is why rampage killers are attracted to gun-free zones, because there is nobody there to stop them. The anti-gun zeolots claim to represent the moral high ground but in fact they are detestable political vultures that feed on the flesh of their many dead victims.

FloatingRock on January 10, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I have a bit more sympathy for expanded background checks, but don’t fool yourself thinking this will help. All you have to do is look at the states that already do this, which have average or worse violent crime and murder rates. Again: ZERO effectiveness against mass-shootings, or even average ones.
Socratease on January 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Colorado requires background checks for gun purchases at stores AND gun shows. Didn’t prevent the Columbine or Aurora theater shootings. HOWEVER, the New Life Church shooting was ended at 4 shot, 2 of which died.
What were the differences in those 3 events?
The first 2 were in gun free zones – so nobody there to shoot back.
The New Life Church was/is NOT a gun free zone, and a member with concealed carry stopped the shooter.
So IF they really wanted to stop these mass shootings (which I doubt they really do), what factor do these 3 events in Colorado show might actually have an impact?

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:51 PM

It’s the Government that’s saying the public wants some action on the gun laws. Has any politician informed the criminals that ignore all the laws about the possibility of new gun laws? Maybe the Government should think about the wacko’s who turn guns on the innocent and let the public know where they are and treat them like sex offenders. The ACLU would go ballistic cause it’s not fair. GMAB!

mixplix on January 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM

By Tuesday?

Get the budget and the sequester done by then too, it’s long overdue.

Fleuries on January 10, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Pres. Obama fool that he is has put more guns and ammo into the hands of Americans than any one from all the History of the U.S.A..

Thanks ya fool tools.

He may single handed make the U.S.A. and its citizens able to withstand any attack from within.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 10, 2013 at 5:42 PM

And demand is still accelerating…it’s trending up.

The dope really let the genie out of the bottle.

And I couldn’t be happier.

Tim_CA on January 10, 2013 at 6:00 PM

It’s the Government that’s saying the public wants some action on the gun laws.
mixplix on January 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Nobody has asked me what I want…..

Maybe they should look at the gun and ammo and “high capacity” magazine sales figures to get an idea of what the people want….

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM

So IF they really wanted to stop these mass shootings (which I doubt they really do), what factor do these 3 events in Colorado show might actually have an impact?

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:51 PM

They don’t, they use the massacres generated by their gun-free zones for fund raising and to promote more gun-free massacre zones and other anti-American policies.

FloatingRock on January 10, 2013 at 6:05 PM

And demand is still accelerating…it’s trending up.
The dope really let the genie out of the bottle.
And I couldn’t be happier.

Tim_CA on January 10, 2013 at 6:00 PM

I’ve bought 4 guns since early November – and my background checks have gone from 45 minutes to 2 hours to 1 week – and they are now saying 2 weeks – all because of the backlog from the large numbers.
And I’m having a heck of time just finding .223 ammo.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 6:08 PM

“The public wants us to act.”

.
I don’t think that’s what we are saying.

Bmore on January 10, 2013 at 5:36 PM

.
They’re (we’re) not.

But that won’t stop the Democrat Leadership from ACTing as if the majority of citizens do.

In fact, Democrats (and some RHINOs) have been keeping up this ACT since the late 1960s.

Hell, our National level politicians are probably the best ACTors in the world.

We pay them to practice ACTing continuously, and they’re too happy to oblige!

You might even say most everything that happens inside the D.C. Beltway is one BIG ACT.
.
HEY … JOE ! . . . . . What’s the DIFFERENCE ?

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I’ve bought 4 guns since early November – and my background checks have gone from 45 minutes to 2 hours to 1 week – and they are now saying 2 weeks – all because of the backlog from the large numbers.
And I’m having a heck of time just finding .223 ammo.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Sadly – every one of those guns fell out of my truck and into a lake on my way home from the store (cough cough)……

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Understood – but how does that potentially change if Obumble gets a chance to put someone on the court – especially if its one of the “right” side who retires or dies?
I can see a majority left court declaring the commerce clause covers anything and everything the government wants it to cover.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Well, ANYTHING is possible. In the past, the Court has held that people were property and upheld FDR’s order that 110,000 Japanese-AMERICANS, along with thousands of German-AMERICANS and Italian-AMERICANS, be disarmed, deprived of their basic constitutional rights, have their property stolen from them and be interned for years in “relocation camps.”

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Well, ANYTHING is possible. In the past, the Court has held that people were property and upheld FDR’s order that 110,000 Japanese-AMERICANS, along with thousands of German-AMERICANS and Italian-AMERICANS, be disarmed, deprived of their basic constitutional rights, have their property stolen from them and be interned for years in “relocation camps.”

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Precisely. I see Obumble getting the chance to stack the court heavily to the left in the next 4 years – and then watch out – the Bill of Rights will come under serious attack.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM

How times have changed.

How many have seen this? A gun rights piece from… Pravda.

Some excerpts:

Americans never give up your guns

“These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.”

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

JellyToast on January 10, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Conservative “Leaders” are rising up to this attack on the Constitution I hear!!!!

Oh wait…..they aren’t?

Is that crickets I hear?

PappyD61 on January 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Such as what? Can you cite examples?

Drew Lowell on January 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Firearms
ammo
and ready?
high capacity magazines.

Imagine the horror of seeing those.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM

“Hey Norman, I caught Walter!

A+

Del Dolemonte on January 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Precisely. I see Obumble getting the chance to stack the court heavily to the left in the next 4 years – and then watch out – the Bill of Rights will come under serious attack.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM

This is where the GOP establishment has failed so miserably. They only want to talk about jobs, taxes and the economy. Words like liberty embarrass them.

I honestly believe that a lot of Republicans would be cool with a police state and loss of liberty.. as long as they were in charge and people had good jobs. Who needs freedom? Property rights? Free speech rights? Gun rights? Religious freedom?

Those are all embarrassing issues.

Yeah.. every inmate in every prison in America can get a job if they want. America is so much more than a job. Liberty will bring a roaring economy but every slave labor camp in the world offers the inmates work.

I still remember the videos of the people fleeing East Germany just before the wall came down. All those people were fleeing a government that made the “worker” king! In every communist nation you had a right to a job, to a vacation, to health care and cheap housing and nobody was allowed to own a gun… and yet they all fled.

JellyToast on January 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM

If they want to put conditions on my exercise of my Constitutionally protected rights (notice I said protected, not granted) to own guns, then they should consider putting conditions on qualifications to vote. I don’t know…rudimentary knowledge of economics, U.S. history, and a tax receipt.

freedomfirst on January 10, 2013 at 6:29 PM

I’d really like to know what does “consensus” mean to Senile Idiot ans just who on the pro gun side has agreed its a good idea to limit mag size as well as have national database of gun registration. More lies from this cheating, lying bunch of scum.

Have no idea why no one puts the idiot on the spot and asks him to produce the “consensus”, name by name.

And while we’re on “mental health” issue as part of this debate, who is the moron who put an obviously “mental health” patient in charge of this panel. And why are we even going along with that. Senile Idiot more likely than not gets his early morning Rx dose as well as a reminder of his name and title, no other way he remembers that.

riddick on January 10, 2013 at 6:34 PM

and directing the DOJ to bump up prosecutions of gun traffickers.

Eric Holder must prosecute himself for fast and furious?

Dollayo on January 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Sadly – every one of those guns fell out of my truck and into a lake on my way home from the store (cough cough)……

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

lol…

Oddly…same thing happened to me.

Tim_CA on January 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM

They just had a piece on ABCnews on this. It was all about how “powerful” the NRA is, how much money they give to politicians, how the politicians are all afraid of them. What a hatchet job! You can bet they NEVER talk about the fearsome power of the Sierra Club lobby or the environmental lobby. The MSM is so biased!

Paul-Cincy on January 10, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Sadly – every one of those guns fell out of my truck and into a lake on my way home from the store (cough cough)……

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

.
lol…

Oddly…same thing happened to me.

Tim_CA on January 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM

.
There’s a lot of that going around. Very strange.

At this rate, I’m concerned there won’t be any left for the Gestapo to confiscate . . . . . : (

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Universal background checks,,,,,execpt for illegals, that would be racist don’t ya know.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 10, 2013 at 4:54 PM

The same with voter ID

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Oh, that was great!! LOL We could send that to Biden, but he probably wouldn’t get it:-)

bluefox on January 10, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM

.
Oh, that was great!! LOL We could send that to Biden, but he probably wouldn’t get it:-)

bluefox on January 10, 2013 at 6:55 PM

.
I just “back-paged” to see what the excitement was about.

Yep, it’s GREAT ! … : )

Nope, Joe wouldn’t “get it”.

listens2glenn on January 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM

And that just maybe the problem is that law abiding civilians cannot have guns in those zones while the perps do. A real conversation would address the fact that gun free zones don’t work. We won’t get that conversation.

AZfederalist on January 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Exactly. This is so clear, but that’s not their agenda. Can you imagine if a house had a sign in the yard-”Locked Doors Free Zone?”

bluefox on January 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM

The shotgun shooting at Taft High School in CA today pointed the way as clearly as possible.

Having an armed guard is the only way to keep that gun out of that school.

What – are they going to ban shotguns?

lol

That’s beyond even Zero.

cane_loader on January 10, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Gubmint Task Force? Bwaahh.

These are the same clowns that have FUBARd everything beyond recognition.

Sleezy Beltway insiders trying to stay in power doing CYA 24/7.

Morons.

SparkPlug on January 10, 2013 at 7:11 PM

My God, you people are just aching for the opportunity to start shooting cops and National Guardsmen. Question: In your feverish fantasies of yours, what’s the endgame? Do you keep shooting until all law enforcement officers are dead? If your children survive these shootouts you dream of, what kind of country would they grow up in? Will it still be a free country, or will America be a land of armed camps?

Drew Lowell

I was born in Colton, California, which is sixty miles east of Los Angeles, in San Bernardino, Riverside, Redlands area. And we had a grocery store in Colton, my parents were barbers, and we ran a pool hall and a bathhouse, for the railroads that ran through the opposite city of Colton, Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads.

I finished my high school in Redlands, and in December we just had opened the store and I listened, heard on the radio that Franklin Roosevelt says that Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor and I couldn’t believe that happened. This affected us through the fact that, we had a curtailment that we could not travel within three miles of our area. We had to just stay home and do what we could, and then we had orders that we had to either, prepare to go to relocation centers, or, actually it’s just a barbed wire fence all around the camp. It had guard towers on each corner, and machine guns were pointing in to camps.

I volunteered for the Air Force in 1943. But my draft card says 4C. 4C was listed as enemy alien. Cause they wouldn’t take me, so then when all of the campaign finally started, and the hundredth battalion was in such a good job, therefore President Roosevelt, crossed off the decree of 4C and classified it as first draftees, and so I was able to join the Army again, so I volunteered for the Air Force again. 1943, end of 44. I was called for duty, and I was on a train going east and came to this camp landing Florida. And I looked out, and I was looking for the airplane, and there was no airplanes in sight. No, this is the infantry. You are now in the infantry.

And President Roosevelt came to visit the camps, and the, all the Japanese soldiers, American soldiers, put them in a barracks, had machine guns around them, ’til the President left. Now, they’re already in the Army, why should they do this? I figured this is my country, I’m an American, I should be allowed to join the Army. So therefore that’s why I volunteered, to show my loyalty to the United States, this is, when my, kids, when I do have kids that grow up, at least they can be, looked up to, rather than downgraded as being a Jap. And I figured well, this will help to build our country up. Not only this for, Italians, Germans, they were, they didn’t go to camps, but some of them did I hear.

So, in order to prove our loyalty, I volunteered into the service. And my parents said, just don’t bring disgrace to the family. If you’re gonna fight for your country, you fight for your country. But don’t do anything, like, doing extra bombing things – or things that you shouldn’t be doing. And, so respect your country, and everything will be all right. So, this is why we tried to do, to show our loyalty. This is America. I’m an American and I want to be respected as an American, even though I look like the enemy. But, this is what we tried to do.”

- George Sakato

Remember: It’s Already Happened Here!

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 7:13 PM

The shotgun shooting at Taft High School in CA today pointed the way as clearly as possible. Having an armed guard is the only way to keep that gun out of that school.

cane_loader on January 10, 2013 at 7:06 PM

The school usually has an armed police officer. He was snowed in today.

Coincidence? Unlikely.

Resist We Much on January 10, 2013 at 7:15 PM

The public wants you Gubmint and MSM clowns to jump off a cliff.

SparkPlug on January 10, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Wasn’t Adam Lanza unable to purchase a gun because he couldn’t pass a background check in time to proceed with his mayhem?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM

They really, really want to pass sweeping historic new restrictions. They end up with “small ball” like more background checks, more propaganda research on “gun violence,” and smaller magazines.

This is going nowhere, except to add a little harrassment on top of law-abiding citizens exercizing their Constitutional rights. The left won’t be happy, because they want so much more, and they can’t get it.

The only way this becomes a feasible strategy for more gun control is if they keep pushing it every time a shooting happens. But the media only cares if it’s got the right kind of victims to be shocking. They won’t care about some guy getting shot when he’s mugged. They only care when it’s a mass shooting and everyone is shocked.

I don’t buy that Congress will have to squirm on an assault weapon ban. We had one before, and it didn’t make a nickel’s worth of difference to anything. The time for pushing gun control has passed.

The only real danger right now is the creative use of executive orders to create mischief for ordinary citizens even though the president has no authority to make new law.

tom on January 10, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Joe, would you do us all a favor, and just email them to the S.H.O.T. Show at the Sands Expo in Las Vegas?
It opens at 0830PT on Tuesday, Jan. 15th.

There will be thousands there who are vitally interested in what you have to recommend.

Another Drew on January 10, 2013 at 7:43 PM

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”

That was a bumpersticker on a neighbor’s truck when I was a paperboy in the 60′s. The man was running for County Sheriff. It needs to be updated to: When guns are outlawed only the lawless will possess the right to have guns.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 10, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Can someone have an anti-assault weapon? A defender weapon? We have to insist upon a change in the language which the Left has turned upside down, backwards and inside out because they shout the loudest and with a most maniacal incoherence so that most people back off and let them say what they want because there’s no reasoning with them. No more. If you have an AR-15, tell them it’s not an assault weapon, it’s an anti-assault weapon which you would never use to assault, only to respond to and stop an assault.

VorDaj on January 10, 2013 at 7:58 PM

The only real danger right now is the creative use of executive orders to create mischief for ordinary citizens even though the president has no authority to make new law.

tom on January 10, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Dear God, I hope you are right about everything you said in your comment, but I am afraid. Very afraid. Because I understand too much about this president and his cabinet, and what their goals and aims for the United States are.

Dear God protect us….

theotherone on January 10, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3