Gun Control Down Under

This video was sent to me by an Aussie friend, pleading with me to not allow ourselves to go the way of OZ.  It has gotten so crazy there, that legislators are quibbling over the definition of a home invasion, so as not to admit that gun control has made Australians less safe.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • The most important aspect of that video was that unarmed citizens are now forced to live in homes behind bars, gates, and big fences that are “protected” by expensive electronic security devices (such as “ADT”). Now the average citizen has to live like a prisoner behind bars to feel secure, while criminals roam freely around the countryside. Doesn’t anybody else see anything wrong with that? Seems to me, the cheapest form of protection for your home is either a shotgun or an AK-47. Something tells me a home invader would think twice if he knew you had one of those loaded and ready to use against them.

    • TonyToye

      Like a prisoner in your own home… that should be unacceptable to any freedom-loving Patriot (American).

      • Jazzee

        should be…..unacceptable
        but God help us because the dictator obama says otherwise
        will this wake up the sheep?????????????? or will we just wait until they come to our doors??????? God help us ……cannot believe this man is still in the white house

  • Kordane

    Liberals will just argue that any increases in crime is a justification for a) more public spending on policing and b) stronger sentences for criminals.

    Don’t expect Liberals to ever accept the truth, no matter how self-evident it is. If their ideology results in bad outcomes, they just double down on the ideology. Liberals don’t learn from experience – Even after all the horrors of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist North Korea – Liberals STILL push onward, even more emboldened than before.

    • sDee

      Liberals know the truth. They know where gun control leads and why it essential that they get there.

      They just use the loss of innocent lives to obscure that truth.

      • 1endtimes2020

        Whether it’s in North America, Europe or Australia, etc…there does seem to be a conspiracy going on on all the topics we discuss on TRS. What is a conspiracy? I define it as the same thing that happens at the same time, everywhere. Where is the direction coming from. Probably just a handful of people who also control the money. A handful of people seeking total power. They just don’t realize they are being influenced by the devil. They will eventually self-destruct. Too bad those types always cause so much suffering.

    • Don

      A perfect example of that is The Journal in New york publishing the adresses of gun owners in an attempt to embarrass them. The result was to let criminal elements know what residences were unarmed and easier targets. In their petty minds they were being vindictive, but instead exposed the vulnerability of those unarmed. Just another example of liberalism being a mental disorder.

    • aposematic

      Hmmm…. I question your part b)… Maybe stronger sentences for those the Libs turned into criminals through the taking of their Rights.

      • Kordane

        Liberals love to ban things and to control people’s lives, and strong sentencing is a way to enforce all that. If they can use crime statistics (post gun control) to argue for stronger sentences, it’ll only empower and solidify their choke hold on the throat of the individual. Eventually, strong sentences will become de facto martial law, which is part of what would be necessary for the Liberals to go full force into establishing yet another Communist state.

        • Good post!

        • 3seven77

          Problem is “strong sentences” are NOT the norm and even if a strong sentence is handed down it is rarely enforced. How many murderers and home invaders have offended multiple times?

    • TMZ2

      “Liberals STILL push onward”

      into the gas chambers.

    • PatrickHenrysBody

      Leftist global authoritarians can slice it any way they want to. Sure, they can spend more money on policing; however, our law enforcement agencies suffer the same maladies as the Australian law enforcement agencies do. Plus, the police are constantly bogged down with over-regulation stemming from laws and policies created by know-nothing bureaucrats who have never had a real law enforcement job in their lives. Our law enforcement officials spend more time filling out paperwork (again, due to bureaucracy) than going out and doing actual enforcing of the law. Not to mention that if a member of law enforcement so much as sneezes in the direction of a criminal, haters of anything dealing with law enforcement make sure that said member of law enforcement gets raked over the coals, ruining careers in the process. How anybody would want to pursue a career in law enforcement in this country is baffling to me. They must have an elevated sense of duty and really want to try to make a difference in their community. Criminals are not afraid of our judicial/penal system. It’s a win/win for them. If they kill people, they know they will spend years in prison at taxpayer expense, eating three squares a day, sleeping in relative comfort, lifting their weights, watching their TV shows, and getting an education (some even studying law to learn how to cheat the system more). As I have said before, the victims are victimized and the criminals are treated like they are the victims. All of this being caused by our judicial system. If our guns are confiscated and our Second Amendment rights violated, we may as well throw out the welcome mat for all criminals everywhere to come into our country and rape, pillage, and murder. Unfortunately, some of those criminals will be members of our own government.

  • Rocco11

    Has anyone visited online gun retailers lately? Do they have ANYTHING left in stock? lol Barack Hussein Obama, gun salesman of the year! (4 years running)

    • sDee
      • Rshill7

        I saw an online illustration yesterday. It was a picture of an AR-15 saying:

        “It’s because I’m black isn’t it?”

        • LOL!!! Can’t stop laughing! 🙂

        • PatrickHenrysBody


      • It’s too bad that isn’t true in a literal sense. Could you imagine a president who was an avid gun promoter? That would be awesome.

        • tinlizzieowner

          That day will come. I might not live to see it but it will. 😉

          • I was thinking about how I phrased that. I should have said “an avid gun promoter for the general public”. As it is, Obama gives guns to drug cartels, Al Qaeda, and who knows who else. I suppose that gun manufacturers will do well either way. Even if they takes guns from the general public, they still have a police state to run, and terrorists to support.

            Sorry to be so serious, but it would be hard to make these things up.

            • tinlizzieowner

              Oh yea, Obama is a ‘gun promoter’ all right but you and I will never see any of them, except maybe from the wrong end.

      • PatrickHenrysBody


    • The only thing that I could find in .357 caliber relaoding bullets was FMJ flat nose. All brass is out of stock. All of the popular gun models are out of stock nationally. There is no powder available in most common types either. It sucks. Good thing I stocked up months ago.

  • sDee

    As the man says at the end, once they take our guns, our rights erode, and we’ve not a chance in hell of getting those rights back.

    This is exactly why the citizens of this new Nation refused to ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights prohibited the government from interfering with our inalienable right to bear arms.

    Those who plan to rule us know this well. Does the rest of America?

    • Kordane

      It’s too bad that the bill of rights didn’t prohibit the government from interfering with the countless number of other rights that are implied by the unalienable individual rights. Even the handful that it does prohibit the violation of, the government is actively trying to violate. This is truly a government seeking tyranny over the individual.

      • sDee

        It is what all governments ineivtiably evolve to seek. It is of what both genocide and revolutions are made.

        It is why disarmament of free men is always the beginning of the end.

        • Beginning of the end, end of the end, it’s all a matter of perspective, but it is still the end. We really need to make sure that there is some kind of movement to refuse registration before it hits.

    • I don’t see this as a partisan issue. The liberals are the ones the we expect to do it, but conservatives lay tend to lay down when it matters the most. Conclusion: Both parties want gun control.

  • M E

    Thanks for this film!

  • ApplePie101

    ‘If I hadn’t handed them in, I was going to jail.’
    That was the point where they made the decision to surrender their liberty. How could the Australian government jail every gun owner who refused to turn over their weapon, especially if they were united? There are worse things than going to jail. Slavery is one, genocide is another.

    Many thanks to the ‘voices of experience’ who are trying to warn us!

    • sDee

      Civil disobedience, but will we even be offered that chance? I do not think our statists will bother with registration. They will instead go for laws that make 10’s of millions of us outlaws. They will ensure that owning, transporting or using a firearm or magazine will carry significant risk of arrest and/or loss of rights to own weapons. Patriots who resist will be made an example of so the state media can can spin tales of right wing extremism.

      • aposematic

        Everything Government does is intentioned to reduce their subjects ability to oppose Government. The biggest threat from Government is the stealing of the peoples wealth, the economy/debt. Guns are at this point a side show as we the people are showing the usurpers of Rights in DC a solidarity against them on gun control. However, that does not mean we may not “compromise” on yet another small infringment of that Right; in fact I believe yet another “compromise” on our Constitutional Rights to be inevitable at this point. The bad thing is, in that loss, we will be told we won and many will go back or continue to sleep.

      • Yep…have you google’d “concentration camps in USA?

  • Here are just a few countries that have slaughtered millions in the past century:

    China (PRC) (1949 – 1987) — 76,702,000 people killed.

    USSR (1917 – 1987 ) — 61,911,000 people killed.

    Pol Pot’s Cambodia (1975 – 1979) — 2,035,000 people killed.
    Pol Pot was funded by U.S. government.

    First step: REGISTRTION
    (“now we know who has ’em and where to go when we decide to take ’em”)

    • tinlizzieowner

      First step, registration. Second step, confiscation.

  • notebene

    This film should be shown at EVERY hearing regarding gun control! The liberals have ZERO intention of locking up the criminals or heaven forbid putting them to death, yet they want to take away the rights of the law abiding citizens to defend themselves! This film proves the fallacy of their argument that a gun-free environment is a safer one! This is not about our safety, it’s about our government running out of control and over our Constitutional rights in an effort to put all citizens in peril to push a weak and failing agenda that only ruins the lives of those forced under it!

  • Biggbear52

    Just sent this URL to a niece that lives down under. She said to me the other day that Aussie’s had no gun problem because of gun control. So sent this I did. Lets see if her mind is open or not.

  • Sober_Thinking

    The only “gun control” we need is for the government to control gun owners less.

    This is all so avoidable and unnecessary. Suddenly because we have an opportunistic monster in the WH, it’s now the most important thing we’re dealing with? It’s something that needs to be “fixed”? I think not.

    We own guns legally and have a right to do so according to our laws. Gun owners have helped to prevent and control violence. So… what’s the problem you liberal statists?

    • Gibson17

      The 2nd amendment does not give citizens the unfettered right to own as many guns as they want without any regulations or controls. The same way that the 1st amendment does not give citizens the right to say whatever they want wherever they want (ex. you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater).

      No one is confiscating guns…stop with that nonsense. Stricter gun control is sensible, necessary and responsible and it is going to happen.

      • How much do “media don’t matter” or “Huff&Puff” or “Movealongalready” or one of their lackeys pay you to troll here? Inquiring minds would like to know.

        • Gibson17

          So you aren’t actually interested in citizens rights to speak their mind and disagree with you…you only want to hear things that you agree with. That is part of your problem. You think that your views are what the majority of Americans believe, but you are way, way out of the mainstream.

          • MiketheMarine

            Actually, featherbrain, you are the uneducated one. I bet you believe in a one world order, don’t you?

          • PatrickHenrysBody

            Sure we are interested. However, we can also speak our minds and vehemently disagree with you. As far as our views being way, way out of “mainstream” is concerned, I couldn’t care less. You’ll find that our views specifically dealing with firearms aren’t that far out of the majority of what Americans believe after all.

      • Nukeman60

        ‘The 2nd amendment does not give citizens the unfettered right to own as many guns as they want without any regulations or controls.’ – g

        2nd Amendment – ‘A well regulated militia [meaning a civilian militia that is well-armed and well-trained] being necessary to the security of a free state [meaning to defend against tyranny, both foreign and domestic], the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [meaning shall not be compromised in any way].

        I’m curious as to what portion of the 2nd Amendment you were referring to when you implied that it wanted regulations and controls on our gun rights.

        ‘No one is confiscating guns…stricter gun control is sensible’ – g

        It happened in Canada in 2001 (using the gun registry of 1934), in Hitler’s Germany (using the gun registry of 1928), in Australia in 1996 (over 660,000 guns confiscated), in California using the gun registry of 1989 (and then cleverly shifting the definiton of assault weapon), and in New York in 1991 (using the registry of 1967).

        If the gun control we already have isn’t working, why do you think more of the same will be any better.

        • hes referring to the portion where it says LOOK A SQUIRREL…..

      • MiketheMarine

        The 2nd Amendment guarantees that the federal government has NO SAY in how many or what type of weapons we own. Go back to huffpo you ignorant schmoo.

      • jim Asherman

        The 2nd amendment does not give citizens the unfettered right to own as many guns as they want without any regulations or controls. ”

        A unique interpretation of the words “Shall not be infringed “.

        “The same way that the 1st amendment does not give citizens the right to say whatever they want wherever they want (ex. you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater).”

        The 1st Amendment also does not confer the right to publication on electronic media, either, but you have that don’t you ?
        How will you feel when that one is “infringed” ?

      • colliemum

        “No one is confiscating guns…stop with that nonsense”

        Yeah right.

        There was a politician once who said “nobody is going to build a wall” – and two weeks later, the wall cutting through Berlin went up, separating the communist East from the free West Berlin.

        Never ever believe what socialist/communist politicians say!

      • There are already gun control laws on the books. More laws won’t stop criminals.
        The 2nd Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms. If a law abiding citizen wants a collection of a thousand guns- that’s their right.

      • Sober_Thinking

        Nonsense is treating this like it’s nothing. Obama all but confessed he was going to bypass the 2nd amendment. He disregarded congress’s “no” vote on amnesty for illegal aliens right before the election… Obama is an imperialistic monster and he will likely side-step congress and the U.S. Constitution (again) to do whatever he pleases… especially because the criminal media supports him and gives him a pass every time.

        The gun laws we have now are sensible enough (even too restrictive in some cases – see Chicago’s situation and the Illinois State Supreme Court’s recent ruling) and all that is necessary.

        I recommend you read this:

      • PatrickHenrysBody

        You really haven’t learned anything from history, have you? It won’t stop with gun control or stricter gun laws. It’s not about our safety and security. It’s not about protecting us. The words “safety”, “security”, “protect” as they pertain to gun laws and regulations are only used to give one a false sense of feeling that the government will do those things to and for us. As has been the case throughout history, whenever a government says they’re passing a law or crafting policy for “our own good” or “to protect us”, that is the time to be very afraid of what the government is really trying to do to the masses. The Second Amendment doesn’t put a limit on how many guns one can have with or without regulations or controls, either. As far as the First Amendment is concerned, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You just won’t like the results of uttering the exclamation. The First Amendment does not protect one from the consequences of saying or in these days “expressing” something offensive, inflammatory, or hurtful.

  • forgottenpatriot

    The state is its own worst enemy. Defend your rights!

    • StandProudNow

      Sometimes I feel that WE are the enemy of the state….

      • Orangeone

        The gov’t wants us to feel that way so we simply give up and give in.

        • tinlizzieowner

          As I keep saying, we have been ‘liberally’ programmed in the last couple decades to cower in fear and wait for somebody ‘qualified’ to come and ‘defend’ us.
          In this and many other cases by the liberal’s way of thinking, the ‘Gangsta’s’ would still be out on the street and the people in the store would be most likely dead.
          I’ll take my chances in the court system and dead ‘Gangsta’s’ tell no tales. 😉 😉

      • tinlizzieowner

        Guess what? Under this liberal administration, we are. The Libs always used to say “Question Authority”. Well now, they are ‘the authority’ and I plan to question everything they do.

  • ryanomaniac

    The media will have none of this. We need to focus on disrupting the media to get these kind of messages to the public. Otherwise this is nothing. Every time a media dip$hit has a pro gun person on their program this person should have all the instances of people with guns saving their families and the many other instances. Have a looooooooong list. If the media will not ask the question then this person should bring it up on their own. This will work and you’re on live TV so no editing and the public gets to watch the interviewer squirm as they have no comebacks when presented with facts. They have to wait till the interview is over and tweet some BS trying to save some kind of face. You HAVE to break through. This is one example

  • Sandra123456

    Gun control can only work if a giant spaceship traveled the earth and sucked up to its cargo bays all the guns from everyone, and every army in the world and with lasers blasts destroyed all gun manufacturing plants, and made future gun manufacturing impossible then traveled far, far away to another galaxy with its cargo.

    Then knives would be next…

  • aposematic

    It can and is happening here (These U.S.). Hear about Senator Chucky Schumer (D-NY) sending letter to the major gun retailers asking them to voluntarily (no intimidation there, no, none at all, right) break America’s Laws and stop selling guns.

  • CapeLady

    The Brits are marching in the streets demanding their gun rights back because they cannot protect themselves from the massive increase in violent crime!

    • I bet Piers MoreGun-s will talk about that for the next 3 years….. 😉

    • cabensg

      Chilling to say the least. No guns for law abiding citizens and a never ending influx of Muslims but all we see is on TV is how wonderful Williams wedding was, isn’t Kate’s dress beautiful. Oh! look Kate’s pregnant.

      Either we find a way to bankrupt the lying press or make them give us some semblance of truth or we will go the way of Britain. I know there are millions more people who would be on our side if the press was forced to be truthful.

    • colliemum

      I hate to say this – because it was a great demo, and it was about more of our rights being taken away by a socialist government – but this dem was not about guns, it was about the Labour Government introducing a law banning fox hunting with hounds.

  • marketcomp

    Liberals and their misguided policies!

    • StandProudNow

      Not misguided. Deliberate.

  • The best form of gun control is a steady aim.

    If you surrender your weapons to the government… You’re not just surrendering your guns, you are exchanging them… For from that moment on, you have switched from being a Free Citizen to being a “Servant of the State” You have exchanged your guns for chains! Refuse these chains! Stand for Freedom! They can’t take us all out!

    • Gibson17

      This is ridiculous. Gun control is not taking your guns away. You aren’t battling a tyrant. You are sounding so delusional that you are making the case FOR gun control much, much easier.

      • YEY!!! I caught a Libtard troll ! LOL! 🙂

        • throw it back. don’t forget to tag it first.
          we need fodder.

        • colliemum

          One troll, trying to impress his paymasters, by spewing the same stuff his troll comrades have been spewing over at Breitbart for days now.

          Make the going tough for this little trollie!

      • Nukeman60

        Gun control is not taking your guns away. – g

        Please explain how that is true. Every form of gun registration has led to gun confiscation (from Nazi Germany, to Australia, to Canada and California). Taking away AR-15s from law-abiding citizens doesn’t stop the criminals from having them or using them freely. Most guns crimes are committed with illegally obtained handguns and not rifles.

        The 2nd amendment states clearly that we have the unalienable right to own guns to defend against a tyrannical government. Are you saying the founding fathers were delusional? That doesn’t help make the case for gun control. Neither does passing one more law to add to the 20,000 already on the books.

        • Gibson17

          The 2nd amendment does not state that you have a right to own assault rifles. The 2nd amendment was written when a proficient militiaman could fire approximately 3 shots from his musket in 2 minutes.

          You also conveniently leave out the “well regulated militia” part of the amendment. The founders were concerned about a full time army, so citizens were a part of the militia. We don’t have a militia today. We have professional soldiers. Citizens do not need to defend against tyrants abroad, the US military does that. This idea of some tyrant at home like Hitler or Stalin is preposterous and doesn’t help your stance. It makes you look more unbalanced.

          • MiketheMarine

            The second amendment was to guarantee American Citizens could be armed to overthrow the federal government when they become tyranical. They have crossed that line. The feds have two jobs. Defend the USA and pass a budget. They are doing neither.

            • Gibson17

              The federal government is not tyrannical. You just don’t like the party that has the White House and the Senate. It makes you feel better to say you are being a “patriot”. Were you this up in arms when the Bush administration falsified information to push us into Iraq, engaged in illegal wiretapping, sat by and let 9(!) embassies be attacked in foreign countries and used countless executive orders to go around congress??? Yup…I didn’t think so.

              • Nukeman60

                Oh, good. Another “blame Busher”. Are you any different than the birthers and truthers? Nope, I didn’t think so. Let Obama do 10 times worse than what Bush did (and many of us complained about Bush doing much of what he did), and that’s okay. Why? Because Bush did it (You sound like Alan Colmes. Nice company you keep).

                I’ll bet you were one of those wanting to hang Bush, weren’t you? But that was okay back then. Now, don’t speak poorly of this messiah, ’cause it might be racist. Unbelievable.

                I’d be interested in seeing you use some facts for a change, rather than your constant smears and accusations. Don’t you know any facts, for God’s sake? Never mind. Stick to your one fallback – “but…but…Bush did it!”

              • MiketheMarine

                Passing laws by executive order is tyranical. That is the job of congress. Spending recklessly while REFUSING to write a budget is tyranical. Holder REFUSING to prosecute black panthers for voter intimidation caught on camara is tyranical. Trying to disarm the populace is tyranical.

                This government, Maobama specifically is doing exactly what Hitler did in the beginning. Taking over the auto industry, the banking industry and the health care industry were the first three things hitler did. So did your boy.

                You know what, maroon, go read a fukcing book.

                • Gibson17

                  Obama was elected twice by significant majorities. He is the President and his term will be over in 4 years. Other people will run. He is nothing like Mao. You are exagerating wildly and are completely factually inaccurate. You don’t like the party in power so they are tyrants and you have to defend America against them…that is pretty far out there. Chinese citizens have always had very few rights and freedoms. A domestic tyrant is not going to take over the US…just stop. That is not helping your point in the gun control debate. It is making people feel more nervous about people (like you) with guns.

                • MiketheMarine

                  The only way someone like me with a gun being a threat to you is A)you come to my property and attempt to rob me and B) you attempt to assault me. Your President would not have won without voter ID’s and you know it. He won by illegal immigrants voting, out of state people voting twice and the incredible dead who always seem to vote democrat.

                  This is a tyranical government. Hell, they even want to name Maobama king for life. Do you work and have a job and pay taxes or do you live off of the public teat?

                • MiketheMarine

                  And as far as George W. Bush goes, here are some FACTS for your little tiny brain to consider.

                  Some people have short memories…..
                  DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?

                  I’ve been saying this for years, but this email probably explains it
                  better and more clearly. This is NOT a political message, but rather
                  a clarification to remind us all of the correct facts.

                  Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our “economic
                  crisis” occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest
                  point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day
                  level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were
                  already being put in place to create the havoc
                  we’ve all been experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains,
                  on January 3, 2007. –LFL

                  I’m sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences
                  because I believe it is something you may not have considered.

                  This tells the story, why Bush was so “bad” at the end of his term.

                  Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let
                  it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

                  The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was
                  actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over
                  the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the
                  110th Congress.

                  The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the
                  first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

                  For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy
                  that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this: January 3rd, 2007
                  was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

                  At the time:
                  The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
                  The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
                  The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
                  George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

                  Remember the day…
                  January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
                  Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate
                  Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months
                  later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL

                  Unemployment… to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping
                  5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie
                  Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

                  Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in
                  2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

                  And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie
                  Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA
                  and the Democrat Congress.

                  So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007….

                  Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and
                  the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

                  Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 &
                  2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

                  In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused
                  them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough
                  on spending increases.

                  For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
                  entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running
                  until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a
                  massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

                  And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that
                  very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
                  signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

                  If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the
                  last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five
                  years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After
                  that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that
                  includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

                  If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a
                  nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted
                  for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since
                  January 20th.

                • Nukeman60

                  Thank you, Mike, for bringing that up. I have said many times in the past that it’s the Democratic Congress that started the fiasco, caused the failures, and continues to hamper this whole situation we have endured for 6 years.

                  It’s nice to see someone else put pen to paper on it. I’m so sick of the Democrats always blaming the President (when he’s Republican and Congress is Democrat) and then blame the Congress (when it’s Republican and the President is Democrat) and never really look at who actually caused the whole mess.

                • MiketheMarine

                  That’s our job, to educate the clueless. Problem is, you could smash them over the head with truth and they’d still not believe it.

                • Nukeman60

                  That’s true, they wouldn’t believe it. But then you at least got to smash them over the head with it. 🙂

                • I love you myMarine.

                • MiketheMarine

                  Ditto, Angel PLUS I like the way our troops coalesce around trolls and trounce them

                • unclesamnephew

                  do you care to explain the 99 voting poles that voted 100% for the big ear a$$ clown in philly without 1 vote for Romney? or 100% in cleveland, ohio. fraud FRAUD.

                • Gibson17

                  Sure…these were smaller pieces of voter districts that were comprised of several blocks in a much larger area. They were each very few votes, some a couple of hundred and many others less than 100 votes. But the right spun this as some huge conspiracy because they rolled them together.

                  I am sure that if you had a several block area in a precinct in Utah that they broke down into a voter block it would be quite easy to find numerous examples where people voted 100% for Romney. It is just a group of people that are trying to deceive you and you have fallen for their lines hook, line and sinker.

                • Nukeman60

                  ‘I am sure that if you had a several block area in a precinct in Utah that they broke down into a voter block it would be quite easy to find numerous examples where people voted 100% for Romney’ – g

                  I’d love to see you find that. It’s fascinating that people like you say there is no voter fraud and each and every time someone brings up legitimate examples of that ‘nonexistent’ voter fraud, you dismiss it by claiming it is only a small portion.

                  Well, one vote is a small portion of the total, but it’s the one votes added up that make the total. There was massive voter fraud across the country, especially in the swing states (including double voting, illegals voting, ballots disappearing, and the most important part – electronic hacking, which swapped the votes from Romney to Obama).

                  There is an effort in progress right now gathering all that data and I’m sure you will be willing to speak out once it has been disseminated. I’m sure.

              • PatrickHenrysBody

                We do have a tyrannical government. It has increased in its tyranny with Obama and his administration. They will not stop with mere gun control. They want confiscation. If you have no problem with the government telling you what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and how frequently you must do it; you are exactly who Obama and other authoritarian politicians (political affiliation does not matter) are counting on. The other parts of your comment are off-topic.

          • Nukeman60

            The 2nd amendment addressed the state of the art weapons of the day. They wanted us to have the weapons our military had (I don’t think an AR-15 is even close to that). Muskets are not addressed in the Constitution, only that our right to own guns ‘shall not be infringed’.

            You need to give me your definition of ‘assault rifle’, ’cause you don’t have a clue, it appears, what that term means.

            “Well-regulated militia”, in our founding fathers’ time meant well-armed and well-trained. You need to read some of the founding fathers’ words before you make your own interpretations of their words.

            ‘This idea of some tyrant at home like Hitler or Stalin is preposterous…’ – g

            Gosh, that’s exactly what the Germans said back in the 1930s. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t address giving us guns after a tyrannical government takes over. It gives us the unalienable right to prevent one from taking over.

            If you wait till it’s too late, it’s really too late. But you liberals never understand that. When your arguments fail, you always resort to words like ‘delusional’ and ‘unbalanced’. We are well aware of Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ and they don’t work anymore. Try using sound arguments and the truth once in a while, and when your story falls apart, try not to resort to accusations and smears.

            Edit: BTW, people usually mistake comparing Hitler at the end of his reign with Obama now. If you compare Hitler at the beginning of his rise to power, he is exactly like Obama at the present time. But don’t let that get in your way.

            • I love you too Nukefriend.

              • Nukeman60

                Hi, Duckie. Long time no talkie! You finally getting some spare time? (let me give you the definition of ‘spare time’ as I’m sure you haven’t seen it for a long while, lol). <3

                • I need longer days than 56 hours Nukefriend. Still busy, but came by to keep the peace 😉

                • Nukeman60

                  As you do ever so well. I hope I’m being civil. I’ve posted a lot on this thread, but I’ve tried not to choke-slap the opposition (just the facts, ma’am).

                • lol. Everyone’s behaving pretty well. The odd little character pinch, but nothing too bad. 🙂

          • colliemum

            The 1st Amendment was framed when the Founding fathers only had ink, pen and paper, and printing presses.
            So let’s ban TV, the internet, iPods and iPads – you can still write letters to express your opinion, right?

            • unclesamnephew

              when the patriots went to war with the brits, the brits were using the state of the art weapons of war.

          • You keep telling yourself that. Some day you might be grateful to a gunowner for saving your life.

          • KenInMontana

            This is from an earlier post I wrote on another thread, however it applies;
            Many will ask, “So, just who is the Militia?”, there are several answers depending on just which militia they are referring. Under current Federal law;

            U.S.C.: Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311;
            (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

            The reference to section 313 of title 32, refers in more detail to ages of “enlistment”, for the sake of disclosure here it is:

            Title 32 › Chapter 3 › § 313;
            (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
            (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
            (1) be a citizen of the United States; and
            (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

            Back to the militia, many opposed to private ownership of firearms will assert that the word ‘militia’ refers to the National Guard, in this case, they are mistaken. The founders referenced military units akin to our modern National Guard as “Select Militias”. When they used the term “militia” they were referencing the “unorganized militia” comprised of citizens, townsfolk, farmers and frontiersmen. Even current Federal law bears this out. § 311 continues and points out;

            (b) The classes of the militia are—
            (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
            (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

            This was not a new concept, even at the time of the founders, it traces its history back through the English Yeomanry back to the Fyrd of the Ancient Anglo-Saxons. The ‘Standing Army’ was a tool of monarchs and tyrants, “a boot on the neck of the people” (now there’s a familiar turn of phrase). The use of a permanent standing military did not take root in this country until the time between the Korean and the Vietnam Wars, prior to that time our ‘Regular Forces’ were de-mobilized at the end of hostilities. National Guard units were regularly called up in time of war until the Federal forces could be trained and filled out, this practice was discontinued due to horrendous casualties suffered by under-trained Guard units in Korea.

            Further, as to the term “Well-Regulated”, this term does not refer to regulation but to “leveling the playing field” (there’s a term a liberal like you should grasp) to give a parity of arms to the militias putting them on an equal footing with a “regular”. By the way the term “arms” in the Second Amendment has been defined as referring to “ordinary military arms” (i.e. rifle and sidearm as an infantryman would carry) this came from the SCOTUS decision of United States v. Miller ~ 1939.

          • unclesamnephew

            hey buddy! they are not assault weapons. THEY ARE DEFENSE WEAPONS! get over it libtard

          • PatrickHenrysBody

            Neither does our Constitution state we have the right to have electric lighting, own automobiles, fly airplanes, and use computers. Those things didn’t exist when the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution. Where’s the specific amendment pertaining to those things in the Constitution? I don’t hear anybody bellyaching about those things as being unconstitutional or deserving of regulation, simply because they didn’t exist over 200 years ago. Going by your logic, our military (specifically, the National Guard, considered being part of a state’s “militia”) and law enforcement personnel shouldn’t have machine guns. Heck, they shouldn’t even have any of the weapons they use. As it stands, we do have the Second Amendment that says we can keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say how many we can have or what types or variations of arms they must be.

          • joe

            No Gibson you have it wrong. Regulated militia is wrong and this has nothing to do
            with muskets, dont you people understand this. I guess not or you would not said it.

            The second amendment of our Constitution says very clearly that ‘A well regulated Militia’ is ‘necessary’ for the ‘security of a free State,’ and that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

            What we heard this morning was an effort to infringe upon that right. Some–even of my colleagues–will read what I have just quoted from our Constitution quite differently. They might read ‘A well regulated Militia,’ and stop there and declare that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ actually means that it is a right of our Government to keep and bear arms because they associate the militia with the government. Yet, under this standard, the Bill of Rights would protect only the right of a government to speak, or the right of a government to criticize itself, if you were taking that same argument and transposing it over the first amendment. In fact, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of people from being infringed upon by Government–not the other way around.

            Of course, we know that our Founding Fathers in their effort to ratify the Constitution could not convince the citizens to accept it until the Bill of Rights was established to assure the citizenry that we were protecting the citizens from Government instead of government from the citizens.


      • MiketheMarine

        You, sir, have the intelligence of a pear.

        • colliemum

          That’s dissing pears – I won’t have it!


          • MiketheMarine

            As delicious as they are, Madam Ambassador, you must admit that they are a bit short on personality and humor, no?

            • colliemum

              True, dat … sigh …

              • MiketheMarine


      • you are a good person to have around. see when the shit hits the fan we’ll need people like you to slow it down while we sight in.

      • PatrickHenrysBody

        Go on. It’s folks like you who this current system of government we have relies on to roll over and take what they dish out. We already have gun control laws. They don’t work. Other countries of the world already have gun control laws and gun bans in place. They don’t work. If our own government cannot even stop illegal immigrants from coming over our southern border, what makes you believe that they can stop weapons from coming over? The only people who are going to be harmed by more gun control laws are the ones who legally possess guns. Meanwhile, criminals are happy as clams with their guns, most of which they obtained ILLEGALLY.

  • “gun control down under” Is that putting a gun in your ankle holster? 😉

    • Rshill7

      Yes, and under your pillow…with the safety on of course 🙂

      • Every wake up in the morning panicking… Wondering where it went? LOL! Only to find it fell off the bed. Good thing for the safety! 😉

        • Rshill7

          No, I actually have a 12-gauge loaded with 8 slugs propped up right by the light switch, which I can also reach from my dream-location.

          • 🙂 Just be careful turning on that light to find out what time it is in the night! 😉

            • Rshill7

              The tip of the barrel is near the switch. The trigger is closer to the floor 🙂

          • tinlizzieowner

            My .32 cal revolver is right next to the TV remote on the head board of the bed and only a liberal would be stupid enough to shoot out the TV, so I’m not concerned. 😉

  • bjohnson55

    Unfortunately we are being pushed into the position of “Use it or lose it” by Sheriff Joe “Dufus” Biden and his gold plated dog and pony show.

  • Rshill7

    Question: Why Jen?

    Answer: Kuz Nicki rocks!


  • Orangeone

    This robber wasn’t so lucky. The Madera pharmacist is a competitive pistol shooter and Veteran! Move over Fido, guess the 1911 .45 is man’s best friend.

    • tinlizzieowner

      “Toxicology tests will likely establish whether Bailey was under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the robbery attempt.”

      Well ‘Duh’, what do you think? And some liberal, ‘criminal’s rights’ lawyer will try to use that as an excuse for his actions.

      • Orangeone

        You are correct. The lawyer will sue the drug company because it will be their fault! Too bad the other perp wasn’t killed, so much cheaper for society and recidivism is 0%

        • That’s how I feel about child molesters as well… Execute them.. Save the innocence of a future child or children! They have (in a BIG) way destroyed the child’s happy life… The scum that chose to do so should forefit his miserable life ASAP!

        • tinlizzieowner

          Right after he sues the Pharmacist, the store and the store chain, that is. 😉

          • Orangeone

            Right because the pharmacist should have just given the thugs what they wanted, isn’t that required under ObamaCare?

            • tinlizzieowner

              If he came in the door already firing, he wasn’t planning on ‘asking’.

              • Orangeone

                Can you believe that?  And it was the 3rd robbery attempt

                • So tell me again… Who’s side is the law on? The Law Abiding Citizen or the Scum of the Earth Criminal? These reports seem like they actually are on the side of the latter when they should be championing and defending the former.

                • Orangeone

                  The scum of the earth criminal.  Take the illegals. They commit felony every day they remain in our country, more felonies when they don’t report income and pay taxes on that income, more by using someone else’s workpapers.  They will be given the gift of citizenship yet you and I would go to prison if we did the very same tax evasion. Oh wait, Barky Boy wants to make it easier for illegals to buy guns but take ours.  Hummmmm

                • How the mighty have fallen.

  • Conservator1

    Obama’s fundamentally changing America began 4 years ago and continues today.

    The first way to get control of any economy is to take over healthcare. Obamacare thus far has put us on a road to universal healthcare that will increase costs while delivering awful healthcare – especially seniors. Next, use executive orders and new regulations to force changes the messianic Obama can’t accomplish with legislation passed by Congress.

    Take the guns away from freedom lovers in America and we will see what life is like with tyrannical rule.

  • Gibson17

    You are not delusional, that line of thinking is delusional. You are making huge assumptions of the 2nd amendment that are not what the majority of US citizens believe. You are shouting out a minority and extremist position. There is no sensible reason to vote against stricter gun control laws. Backgroud checks, registration of weapons, limits on size of magazines and no further access to assault rifles and other automatic weapons is responsible. It is what the majority of our great country wants and it is going to happen.

    • Nukeman60

      ‘Backgroud checks, registration of weapons, limits on size of magazines and no further access to assault rifles and other automatic weapons is responsible’ – g

      Background checks, registration of weapons, limits on size of magazines all fail to stop criminals from getting weapons and magazines illegally. Access to automatic weapons is already regulated. Assault rifles is a made up term. Any weapon can be an assault weapon when used to assault someone. It doesn’t require a particular size and look.

      Taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens, who are responsible does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes that are irresponsible.

      ‘You are making huge assumptions of the 2nd amendment that are not what the majority of US citizens believe.’ – g

      You, of course, are part of that majority of US citizens. Take a look at the amount of gun sales going on right now and try to tell me what the majority of US citizens are thinking. Or do you think that the sales are all going to a small wacko, fringe of the right. You’re not reading your polls right. But then again, you must be getting them from your leftie sources, that are known to be false.

      If it was what a majority of our great nation wanted, then it would have happened already, with public demand and legislation of our representatives. Obama wouldn’t have to go behind Congress’s back with Executive Orders to accomplish this goal.

      Why don’t you start talking about what the problem really is and not try to pass a gun control agenda every time there is a horrific tragedy (caused by things other than gun ownership by law-abiding citizens)

      • tinlizzieowner

        You’re wasting your time Nuke. It’s already obvious this ‘cool aid drinker’ doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he would know that the National Firearms Act of 1934 banned the ownership of “automatic weapons”, by the general public.

        • Nukeman60

          Yeah, I know, but I never consider it ‘wasting my time’. A lot of the times, the comments are for general perusal and not the poster that it was directed at. If he sees the truth, so much the better, but the facts need to be posted for all to see. I guess that’s why I confront so many trolls. I don’t want their BS to be the last word in a thread, without any rebuttal.

          I do like the fact that his last three comments to me were not addressed to me, but rather as seperate posts. I saw them anyway, lol.

          • tinlizzieowner

            I know where you’re at. The comment was addressed to you as an off hand comment to him, (much in the manner you’re doing) because I get tired of wasting my time trying to explain things to the uninformed.

    • Django

      People in every poll are in favor of the second amendment period!!!
      1.Assault weapons are and have been illegal for years, An Ar-15 is a semi auto, a military battle rifle is an M-16, M-16’s are full and semi auto with the aid of a switch or button!!!!! Do not confuse the two!!!
      2. Background checks have been part of the Brady bill for 30 years!!!
      3.All guns are registered federally , through FFL licensed dealers,they are then entered in the ATF (the burea of alcohol,tobacco,firearms, and explosives) a federal data base of LEGAL LAW ABIDING gun owners. Why would you have to register locally, this is a scam no crimes are solved in local registrations, shit CANADA STOPPED DOING IT! The only reason to register it local is for tax revenue, and to tax the shit out of it to make it so expensive that it hurts you economically so you give up your firearms!! Look at Europe it is afortune to register yor guns it happens all the time through out history. It is a form of gun control. Also a newspaper in Ny published the local reg.’s including those of police, ex police, judges, and corrections officers!!!!
      4. Standard size magazines work! Especially when your dealing with multiple assailants, L.A. riots, Katrina, ETC!!!
      5. Know what the hell you are talking about, because you are extreme, and dangerous 911 is a joke in my town!!!

    • Django

      People in every poll are in favor of the second amendment period!!!
      1.Assault weapons are and have been illegal for years, An Ar-15 is a semi auto, a military battle rifle is an M-16, M-16’s are full and semi auto with the aid of a switch or button!!!!! Do not confuse the two!!!
      2. Background checks have been part of the Brady bill for 30 years!!!
      3.All guns are registered federally , through FFL licensed dealers,they are then entered in the ATF (the burea of alcohol,tobacco,firearms, and explosives) a federal data base of LEGAL LAW ABIDING gun owners. Why would you have to register locally, this is a scam no crimes are solved in local registrations, shit CANADA STOPPED DOING IT! The only reason to register it local is for tax revenue, and to tax the shit out of it to make it so expensive that it hurts you economically so you give up your firearms!! Look at Europe it is afortune to register yor guns it happens all the time through out history. It is a form of gun control. Also a newspaper in Ny published the local reg.’s including those of police, ex police, judges, and corrections officers!!!!
      4. Standard size magazines work! Especially when your dealing with multiple assailants, L.A. riots, Katrina, ETC!!!
      5. Know what the hell you are talking about, because you are extreme, and dangerous 911 is a joke in my town!!!

  • physicsnut

    Dont talk to me about home invasion. I heard junkies breaking windows for an entire summer. At first I thought it was kids breaking bottles – nope, it was junkies CLIMBING into your apartment. Did you ever hear any Mayor of NYC ever speak of this ?

  • this has been pulled from youtube before so I self hosted it a few weeks ago

  • colliemum

    I hope you notice that the victims are the elderly – just as here in the UK.

    I hope you’ve also noticed in the stories now being published that the elderly in the USA are shooting back and defending themselves because they can – thanks to the 2nd Amendment!

  • Gibson17

    Polls from the left…you mean the ones that were 100% right about the presidential election? This is another example of a group of people with extremist views choosing to not believe the truth because it isn’t what they want to hear. That’s okay. Disagreement is a good thing, as it spurs dialog, which spurs greater ideas. The echo chambers you have been visiting have given you the false impression that there is some huge swell of support for your views on gun control. There isn’t. The groundswell is in favor of much stricter gun control legislation, but nobody is going to come and confiscate guns. That is fear spread by the NRA…you know, the lobbyists for the manufacturers of guns.

    • Nukeman60

      Show me one area of the US where gun control and banning guns was beneficial to the populace. I’m curious to see your facts. Perhaps it was Chicago? Or maybe it was Washington, DC itself? No? How about any liberal center of gun control? How is that working out for you?

      Let’s take a liberal poll in Chicago. Or maybe get the citizens viewpoint in DC? I’m sure they are part of the majority that don’t want anybody but criminals to have guns.

  • Gibson17

    This is the funniest post I have seen in some time! Right, Obama won because of voter IDs, and illegal immigrants and people voting twice and dead people voting…so funny!!!

    I hope you are kidding…because if you aren’t…wow!!! So funny!

    • Nukeman60

      What’s interesting is that Obama won with 30% of all eligible voters (much of that through fraud, which will be proved in time) and you call that an overwhelming victory.

      It’s funny to you, because your side is in the administration. However, when an administration goes too far to suppress the population, you’d best hope that you have a friend or two that owns guns, for you are merely a sheeple otherwise.

    • joe

      Yea, its a shame Obama was re-elected, it just shows where America’s mind is at.
      and Gov Coocoo, who the heck voted these people in. And Biden, I would rather have
      my dog as VP. These idiots dont have the stature of JFK, no where near it.

      Back in the true, real America like when i was a kid and growing up, I would think
      we would have had real leaders whom opposed measures against our 2nd amend
      rights, instead of trying to take them by exec order if needed. Problem is 2nd amend
      is an inalienable right, it was put there for that reason. And that is why we need to
      fight this tooth and nail. I did not serve during Vietnam for this to be going on. The
      integrity of what America and of you is at hand. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

  • DDM2

    @Libertyship46, What you say makes perfect sense. That’s why the government won’t ever see that way it. They don’t care about our safety, they care about their power! That’s it!

  • vfrtower

    Buncha old white people.

    And, I support every one of them.

    God bless’em.

  • When you only have 30% of the population that backs you, that leaves 70% of the population that is against you. Sure, you might have some of the police and “special civilian defense force” that will try to take your guns. I believe that the majority of the police and military will do the right thing.

    All the liberals that are screaming about gun control will be trying to beat down the doors of the gun owners to save them if there’s ever any serious crisis. They will all be huge fans of guns when their homes are robbed, they are beaten and raped if everything goes crazy. The real fear on the left is that the reasonable, average person will finally have enough, and that they still have the means to defend themselves.

    • Gibson17

      No one is trying to take your guns.

      Also, the 70% of the population that you speak of is IN FAVOR of gun control.

      • Django

        New york Governor Cuomo just passed legislation the toughest in the country. In this legislation if you DON’T register your semi auto guns locally at $200 dollars each. In one year they will be confiscated!!!!!!!!! Yes, they are taking your guns away, soldiers who served their country with honor,and are honorably discharged, if they are diagnosed with PTSD are not allowed to possess firearms!!! They make it very difficult to own handguns and semi autos, you know the stuff that can make you defend yourself more efficiently when your life is on the line!!!! What else in the Bill of Rights does the government make so hard to possess?

        • Gibson17

          These are all good things. If you have PTSD you shouldn’t have a weapon. Do you know anyone with PTSD? I do…and no way should they have access to weapons and they agree with me.

          • Django

            I thought they weren’t taking your guns away, which is it?
            Who are these people in your head that you keep referring to, that agree with you? Are you mental? In New York any form of mental health implied or otherwise can and will be wrongfully diagnosed as PTSD if you are a veteran! They wrote the law that way!! This is common knowledge.Once you are WRONGFULLY diagnosed it is impossible to correct, or argue? It is big brother!!!

            • Gibson17

              Not everyone gets to drive a car. It is a right AND a privilege. Not everyone should be able to own a gun…felons, mentally, children, etc. This is mickey mouse stuff. You aren;t going to get more than 20% of the population to agree with you on this.

              You also know very little about mental health and New York, so don’t try to speak as if you do.

              • Django

                Driving a car is NOT a RIGHT, you can not be serious?!!!!
                Dude the only thing Mickey Mouse is you and your lack of Knowledge go play fantasy football!!!!! Again KNOW your FACTS before you write !!!!!! As far as mental health and new york, they go hand in hand, you have to be nuts to live their!

  • Django

    We should be more like Switzerland as far as gun control is concerned. Every adult is required to own a firearm, yes with a large capacity magazine. They are also required to train with it regularly, the consequence the lowest crimes and homicides in the free world!! It is funny the only thing we don’t copy from the failed E.U. is the only thing they got right? Don’t be a slave to government!

    • Gibson17

      That’s because, and ONLY because, they do not have a standing army.

      • Django

        What a joke, this is the same guy who doesn’t know what an assault weapon is, an AR 15 is not an M-16!!!!
        Numbers don’t lie, we have a national guard, reserves, and militia. They are civilians who hold full time jobs!!!A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Switzerland has a militia, and so do we, we had one since 1637!!
        Know what the hell you are talking about!!! I take my freedom and my sovereignty serious. This isn’t a game of fantasy football!!!
        What is the 3rd amendment for? It would be kind of tough with 7 round magazines, I would prefer STANDARD round mags personally, 20-30 rounds!!!

  • 12grace


    Anonymous — Response To Obama’s 2013 Gun Control Policy

  • 1endtimes2020

    The only time people won’t need to be armed is when Jesus Christ rules the world for 1,000 years. He said all ‘swords’ would be turned into ploughshares. My sister said “I don’t want one”.

  • Quote-“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun” – Chinese Communist Dictator Mao Zedong who Mass Murdered 50 Million Chinese people

    Quote- “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future.” Adolph Hitler 1938 Dictator and Mass Murderer of over 11 Million people- particularly the systematic genocidal extermination of a whole race of human beings- aka, the Holocaust

    Quote- “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
    Joseph Stalin- Russian Communist Soviet Dictator and Mass Murderer of 20 Million people

    NOTE- In 1929, the Leninist Marxist Stalinist Communist Soviet Union established gun control from 1929 to 1953. About 20 million dissidents- political prisoners, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up, sent to Gulags and exterminated. By 1987 within the Soviet Union’s sphere of control, that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 
    ~Benjamin Franklin~

  • DINORightMarie


    This needs to go VIRAL – and people need to WAKE UP because it IS happening here. Just look at the screaming rant of Quomo and the actions of the NY “Republican” legislature.

    Obama is the imperial president. We MUST stand against tyranny!

  • Gibson17

    You are so easily misled about voter fraud because you don’t want to accept reality. Too long to explain. Click the link and learn something. You are all being fed lie after lie by the right and you eat them up. You are all being used.

  • Father of three

    This and other flak surrounding Sandy Hook and other recent, similar situations are really gaining traction. Makes me want to throw up. Do you agree with further, more restrictive gun laws, many of which (like the Brady Act) are unconstitutional? Come and discuss this and make your opinions known here:

  • In my first term as President, I plan to implement the Assault Weapons Tax Credit. By purchasing an assault weapon, you are contributing to the defense of the nation.

    “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” — Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

  • In my first term as President, I plan to implement the Assault Weapons Tax Credit. By purchasing an assault weapon, you are contributing to the defense of the nation.

    “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” — Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.