Alexander's Column

Sensible Gun Control Policy?

The Assault Weapons Ban: Fact v Fiction

By Mark Alexander · Jan. 17, 2013
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” –John Adams (1770)

(Publisher’s Note:A message for those who are not gun owners, and may be among many Americans who feel threatened by the possession and particularly the unlawful use of firearms in our country. If you are inclined to approve of the latest political effort to enact “sensible gun control policy,” I invite you to objectively read this brief study on “assault weapons.” It is based on the latest information from the FBI and other aggregators of criminal data. It is not based on political agendas using the genuine emotional response all Americans feel when innocent men, women and children are murdered, as political fodder for their agenda.)

In December, there was a horrible attack in an elementary school, committed by a mentally ill young man. He illegally obtained a rifle and a number of pistols, and used them to kill seven adults and 20 children.

As a parent, I was deeply affected by this loss of life, especially the faces of the children killed in that school. I am always moved by the death of innocents, particularly children.

In the wake of that tragedy, some politicians did what they do best – build a political platform on the caskets of children in order to seize and sequester the emotional response of millions of Americans to advance a political agenda. In this case, they concealed that agenda in emotive wrapping paper, and sealed it with a lot of rhetorical demagoguery, hoping that enough people would remain too immersed in their emotional state to discern the real political agenda.

In a press conference Wednesday, Barack Obama made a broad emotional appeal “for the children”: “Protecting our children from harm shouldn’t be divisive. … I asked Joe [Biden] to lead an effort along with members of my cabinet to come up with some concrete steps we can take right now to keep our children safe. … This is our first task as a society – keeping our children safe. If there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life we can save, we have an obligation to try it. … I think about how, when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now.”

In other words, to counter the fact that his gun control agenda will, in reality, do nothing to “protect the children,” he has now lowered expectations to maybe “one life we can save,” and he insists Congress “must act now” before reason overtakes emotion.

Obama went on to say, “If Americans of every background stand up and say ‘enough, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue,’ then change will come.”

Well, who could disagree with keeping children safe? But is that really the reason Obama is calling for the most restrictive gun control in the history of our Republic?

(Note: Regarding the use of children as “political pawns,” White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized the NRA for referencing the protection of children in a Web ad. Carney protested, “Children should not be used as pawns in a political fight.” This briefing was an hour after Obama surrounded himself with children as pawns in a political fight.)

I don’t doubt that Obama, like most parents, wants to keep his children safe. In fact he surrounds his children with dozens of guns to keep them safe everywhere they go. But there is also no doubt that his agenda to restrict the ownership of guns has nothing, in fact, to do with the safety of other children – or anyone of any age.

There are a few proposals under consideration by Congress, in conjunction with Obama’s ban on defensive weapons, that should be enacted. For example, I support background checks for all gun sales, not just those from gun dealers – with the caveat that legislation for “universal background checks” does retains the current background check provision that all information from those checks is purged once an approval or denial has been issued. Indeed, retaining that information constitutes federal gun registration – and the only purpose for registration is confiscation.

Further, we should have a more comprehensive approach to identifying and treating those with severe mental health problems – though not likely under ObamaCare.

(I note that these measures would do little or nothing to stop unlawful gun purchases for unlawful purposes, other than make it more difficult for unqualified purchasers to acquire a weapon.)

But the centerpiece of Obama’s gun control agenda is a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” I note “so-called” because this legislation is more accurately described as a “defensive weapons” ban since such arms are purchased, first and foremost, for defense and not assault. Some liberal states and municipalities, in fact, are mounting their own assaults on these weapons.

So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?

Because these weapons have been used in many murders, and crimes involving them have increased dramatically in the last 20 years, when gun control advocates coined the term “assault weapon,” right?

Wrong. The 2011 FBI data shows that there were 323 murders committed with rifles of any kind. However, guns defined as “assault weapons” by the federal government are not defined in any subcategory because they are used in crimes so infrequently – less than 0.5% (one-half of one percent) of all murders with guns in 2011, according to best estimates.

By comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives. Notably, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that drunk drivers are responsible for nearly 10,000 deaths each year in the U.S. – far more than the number of deaths involving guns of any kind in 2011. (Should there be “universal background checks” every time someone orders a beer or glass of Chardonnay?)

So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?

Because heavy restrictions on these and other guns lowers the crime rate, right?

Wrong. According to the FBI’s most recent Uniform Crime Report, a summary of all serious crimes committed each year, in 1992 violent crime incidence was 752 per 100,000 people and 9.3 murders per 100,000.

In 2011, the violent crime rate had dropped to 386 per 100,000 and the murder rate to 4.7 per 100,000 – nearly a 50 percent decline in both. This precipitous drop occurred at a time when the number of firearms increased dramatically – including the sale of more than six million “assault weapons.” In 2011 alone, violent crime fell by 3.8 percent from 2010.

In fact, by every objective account, more guns equal less crime.

What, you say, “more guns equals less crime”?

That is correct. According to numerous studies of crime in the U.S., most notably the research conducted by Yale’s John Lott, areas of the country where there are fewer restrictions on guns have lower rates violent crimes committed with guns, than those areas with more restrictions. In fact, there were more than 500 murders in Obama’s hometown of Chicago last year – a city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Most of those murders were tied to gangs and drugs.

Further evidence? After the Supreme Court struck down Washington, DC’s gun ban in the 2008 Heller decision, DC’s mayor proclaimed that “more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence.” However, after the Heller decision, the number of murders plummeted to its lowest rate in 50 years: 2008 (186) 2009 (144) 2010 (132) and 2011 (108). And John Lott notes that the decline in DC was far more precipitous than in other cities.

Moreover, according to the demographic and geographic profile of most violent crimes, the vast majority of perpetrators who murder with guns are associated with gangs and/or drug cartels, which thrive on urban welfare plantations. (The violent culture spawned on those plantations is, of course, the direct result of social and cultural degradation institutionalized by socialist Democrat welfare state policies.)

Additionally, countries that ban guns generally have higher crime rates, and that has been reaffirmed by a recent Harvard study.

So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?

Well, isn’t the Second Amendment about protecting the right of “hunters and sportsmen” to own guns? As Obama said, “I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen.”

Those with the most basic understanding of our history know that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunters and sportsmen, regardless of how often Obama frames it that way.

This most significant of all constitutional prohibitions on government clearly and concisely states, “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.”

In the parlance of our Founders, “militia” meant the whole body of the people, as noted by Richard Lee in 1787: “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves … and include … all men capable of bearing arms.”

And, “being necessary to the security of a free State” meant that the right of the people to bear arms was, and remains, the ultimate barrier to government tyranny.

In the words of our Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” (Federalist No. 46)

So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?

Maybe there’s a clue in the assessment of Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s first “Assault Weapons Ban.”

When Feinstein’s first AWB passed in 1994 under the previous Democrat president, Bill Clinton, the Washington Post candidly opined: “No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

When the Feinstein ban expired in 2004, a Department of Justice study noted, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

Now Feinstein is leading Obama’s legislative charge for “a stepping stone to broader gun control” with the effort to renew the ban on defensive weapons.

So, when Obama claims his intention is not “a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty,” should you believe him?

Really, do you believe him?

There are now more than 60 million armed Patriots across our nation. Those who own the defensive weapons targeted by Obama and his NeoCom cadres do so not first and foremost for “hunting and sport shooting,” though these weapons can certainly be used for those purposes. We acquire defensive weapons like the much-maligned AR-15, ultimately, to defend ourselves, our Constitution and the Rule of Law it enshrines.

Obama is devoting all his political focus on “assault weapons” in order to undermine the Second Amendment empowerment of today’s “Patriot Militia,” much as the British attempted to do in 1775 when they marched on Lexington and Concord to seize militia weapons. As you recall, that intrusion led to the “shot heard ‘round the world,” the first shots of the Revolutionary War, which gave rise to our great nation.

Obama’s effort to launch his “assault weapons ban” is, as the Washington Post surmised in 1994, “a stepping stone to broader gun control.” Disarm the people and you can undermine the vigor of their readiness to defend our Constitution. It is those armed Patriots who stand between the whole body of the American people and Obama’s stated goal of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

So, what constitutes “sensible gun control policy” when by every objective account, more guns result in less crime?

Obama and Biden mentioned “gun violence” six times in their Wednesday remarks, emphasizing that somehow “guns” are the problem, and not the culture producing sociopathic gang-bangers who use guns and other weapons to kill. If Obama, et al., really want to reduce our “national epidemic of violence,” they should focus on reforming the government policies that created the socialist urban poverty plantations where most violence occurs.

The proposed “assault weapons ban” and other efforts to restrict, register and ultimately confiscate lawfully acquired guns used for lawful purposes is both an affront to our individual human right of self defense and our corporate responsibility to defend our Constitution. (Ask New Orleans registered gun owners about the consequences of gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens in the chaos after Hurricane Katrina.)

It is for that reason I have pledged: In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will “support and defend” Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

If you don’t yet understand the consequences of statist gun control agendas, let me offer you 100 million additional reasons to reject socialist political agendas, particularly gun control mandates – reasons that are buried, mostly in mass graves, around the world. During the 20th century, tyrannical socialist governments in Germany, Russia, China, Korea and other nations murdered more than 100 million of their own people. But first, before committing their systematic slaughter, these regimes disarmed their citizenry.

If you are not a gun owner, that’s OK. But I suggest you thank every gun owner you know, because in states with few gun restrictions, violent offenders can’t tell which homes have armed occupants and which don’t. And incarcerated offenders report that the number-one factor in choosing a victim is the ability of the victim to defend himself or herself.

Deciding whether to be a gun owner is a personal decision, but, gun owner or not, you most assuredly should affirm your support for our Second Amendment.

Join the more than 25,000 Patriots who have already signed “The right of the People…”

Sign the 2A pledge!

(Footnote: Regarding the media comparisons between the U.S. and nations like Great Britain, which has already confiscated weapons, clearly, there are few murders with guns in those nations. However, the incidence of violent crime in the UK is almost twice the per capita rate of the U.S., and it affects a much broader demographic swath of citizens. And speaking of British disarmament, I’m reminded of this observation from a man whose name is synonymous with pacifism. In his autobiography, Mohandas Gandhi protested, “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”)


View all comments


Jim Yardley in Rhinebeck, NY said:

My comments are rather extensive. Canada Free Press was kind enough to publish them at the following web address:

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:19 PM

krhealeo in Mississippi replied:

The clock of tyranny is now running. We have thirty days to overturn the Executive Orders before they become the Law of the Land! Do you really think that Congress will do this? I don't think so. Anyone who does is drinking Koolaid.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM

greg in TX replied:

That's not accurate. Executive orders never BECOME laws. They are issued by the president to departments as guidelines for enforcing the laws passed by congress. Any EO that does not refer to a law passed by congress is null and void, as it CANNOT have the intrinsic force of law.

Now... people are so stupid today that the EO may be obeyed AS IF IT HAD the force of law. But, that won't require 30 days. That would happen immediately. (And ANY EO can be rescinded by the next president.)

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM


An executive order can not become a law, that would be unconstitutional.

Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Ted in Maryland replied:

Very good article! Good job!

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Gary Henderson in Houston, TX said:

How much gun should anyone need? See my article today in American Thinker, at And thanks again to Mark and the team for all you do!

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Gary Henderson in Houston, TX replied:

Note: underscores were deleted, so the link just given won't work. Just check for the article, and enjoy.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM

John in Tyler, TX replied:

It is my right to have any semi-automatic rifle of pistol made. It is not a matter of how big a gun or magazine do you need. You need what you want! I have my semi-auto for self protection at home, and for target shooting.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer or other animals, but self protection from others, including an oppressive government.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Gary Henderson in Houston, TX replied:

Exactly right, and there's much more. I hope you'll read the article, and James Madison's comments also!

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM

John Ratliffe in Viera, FL replied:

I am a gun owner, and I own a 30 round clip. I am not a hunter. My four guns are for home defense and/or concealed carry. I don't necessarily need that clip, but if you claim a right to own whatever gun you want, would you please help me justify owning a machine gun and a RPG launcher? Surely those would improve my defensive capability against potential tyranny, right?

Sunday, January 20, 2013 at 7:07 AM

edodaniel in Kentucky replied:

Sure can show you how the founders felt about owning weapons when they came up with the 2nd Amendment that several of the State Ratification Convention delegates required as a condition of ratification.

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania possibly said it best when he said - "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Note the phrase "Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American " which indicates clearly that the founders wanted American citizens to have the ability to arm themselves with weapons equivalent in every way to those carried by soldiers whether domestic or foreign.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 3:40 AM

lysander in New Iberia, LA replied:

Mr. Henderson, during the American Revolution were it not for the PRIVATE ownership of highly-sophisticated military weaponry of the time (i.e. cannon, muskets with barrel rifling, shot.etc.) and ships of the line, today's Americans could very well be speaking with a corrupted British accent, as do today's Australians. And still be "subjects of the crown".

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

R.C. in Colorado said:

And the question of mental illness goes unanswered, because there is no answer. Colorado's mass murdered, James Holmes purchased his weapons leagally, with the STATE MANDATED

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Patrick O'Brien in Richland, Wa. said:

According to several family members involved in Law Enforcement, a number of incidents over past 2 months have been averted or stopped before it became to devastating, by armed citizens. At least 2 schools around nation, a Theater in Texas, and a shopping center in Portland Ore. were targeted by gunmen. However, private citizens with legal right to carry, interjected themselves in the situation.
I want to know why these incidents are not being made ammunition against the media and democrats attack on the 2nd amendment. It seems our nation is being poisoned with media bias and this information needs to be broadcast to those who do not have access to the truth around us.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM

GeorgicMom in Gig Harbor, WA replied:

I heard part of the interview with the 19 year old in Oregon who was instrumental in ending the shooting in the mall. His maturity and judgement in how he handled his weapon was impressive.

What I remember him saying is that he had the shooter in his sites, that he had his finger on the trigger and was milliseconds from depressing when he caught sight of a person behind the shooter and he decided not to shoot because of the possibility of missing. Such wisdom in a split-second decision, not only underscores the responsibility with which this young man regarded his right to carry but also a degree of training he had which served him well.
That story should be held up as an example; many gun owners are equally responsible. I am an advocate of on-going training and practice.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Gerald in Harrisburg,Oregon replied:

You are so right I put 14 years I had guns around me all life and for ever its who we the of the free Ya have keep and eye on the crazys keep them locked up what ever it takes.....

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM

J. Lewis B in Shepherdsville, KY replied:

Pat, your right !, The Obama controled media won't report this. JL

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM

lysander in New Iberia, LA replied:

To the ones already mentioned, one might also add a law school in New York and an elementary school in Pearl River, MS.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Marialyce Weinreich in NY said:

This is Obama's plan. He wishes to disarm the populace and then we the people will have no way to defend the way of life our forefathers fought so hard for.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM

OzzWorx in Fullerton, CA replied:

If even one life can be saved we must arm our citizens.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Gary Henderson in Houston, TX replied:

Perfect. Well said.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Phillip in Marietta, GA replied:

That is a good one. I hope you don't mind, I am going to start using that too. Thank you. We need to protect the birthright of freedom we inherited, so we can pass it on to future generations. In other words, we need to do it "for the children".

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Jack in Schafer replied:

Do you think that Hitler had the same idea? I DO!!

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Libertatem in Illinois replied:

And every other dictator/tyrant in history

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Bettye Isbell in San Antonio, Texas said:

I was offended that President Obama used children's views in his political assessment of gun regulations. Guns and knives do not kill; the people behind them kill. More regulations should be in insurance coverage for mentally ill persons.Most insurance plans have limited coverage for mentally ill persons causing the higher cost to the insureds. Our focus should be on getting them identifed and treated rather than focusing on guns. Children have no concept of mentally unbalanced human beings but think everyone thinks like them. Adults should be making these decisions and trying to pull on the heart strings of Americans this way is wrong. It is the law-abiding citizens that get caught in the middle of this rush to limit arms. It is the killers that don't abide by any laws or rules of the country. When is that ever going to get through the heads of politicians. We need to protect our second amendment rights.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:29 PM

J. Lewis B in Shepherdsville, KY replied:

Bettye, you are right ! What would happen if the children wrote Obama about the obortion laws to save the un-born children, do you think Obama would hold a news conference then and try to use excutive privilege to stop it ? I think not ! JL

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama said:

The Second Amendment is a check against tyranny, no more, no less. It has nothing to do with hunting or self-protection, so let us stop talking about "sensible gun control" when any gun control is aimed at disarming the populous in order to gain total dictatorial control. It is time for us to frame any counter argument that way and repeat the words of Adolf Hitler in 1935 that hailed a new and safer world.

"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!"

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Chuck in Cypress, Texas replied:


I do not need to justify why I have a particular weapon, but if someone wants to modify the constitution to allow them to legally take it from me, they have to make a very good case. When we defend our rights based upon hunting or sports or defense we have already lost the debate.

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Daniel Eric Mossien in ROCHESTER said:

Why don't fists, hammers and knives have to be registered. They commit more crimes than guns.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM

TheTexasCooke in Lockhart, Texas said:

First of all, Barry's Executive Orders are not worth the paper that they are written on. He knows it and I know it, but his minion don't know it [which is why they are called "useful idiots"]. So I just returned from buying a 6 shot 12-gauge shotgun, and several boxes of #4 shot, for one reason only. I fully expect the lawmen of Texas to do exactly what they have always done throughout the history of my State [support the Constitution and defend Texans from the unlawful actions of others], and my shotgun and I will have their back....which makes me part of the Constitution's militia....I ready for when it comes time to tell the feds NO! "NO you will not hide behind the Constitution to defy the Constitution. You will not find peace in your actions, nor subjugation from this country's citizens. And you are a fool if you think otherwise."

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Lisa in MD replied:

I sure do wish I lived in Texas. That is where I want to be. I do believe that will be the ONLY state that protect it's citizens after 4 more years of BHO in the office.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

My sister lives in San Antonio, TX. She says, " I wasn't born in Texas but I got her as soon as I could."

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:


Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Raymond in Texas replied:

Right on brother! I'm with you all the way!

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:42 PM

krhealeo in Mississippi replied:

We cannot allow ourselves to be unaware of the fact that the clock of tyranny is now running. Mr. Obama's Executive Orders are 30 days from starting the process of turning us into slaves. The Executive Orders must be overturned within 30 days before they become the Law of the Land! Do you really think that Congress will do this? I don't think so. Anyone who does is drinking Koolaid. "Our" Congress has not over turned ANY of Obama's previous unGodly, unlawful, and un-Constitutional decrees.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:34 PM

TheTexasCooke in Lockhart, Texas replied:

U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Executive Orders are not law. You don't have to over-turn them, you simply have to ignore them or refuse to comply with them. EOs are policy directives to the Executive Branch...I don't work for Barry...and neither do you.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Mikey in Katy,TEXAS replied:

I don't think so either, but if it does happen it wont be happening in TEXAS. Born and raised here, I love my state...

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 11:46 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I'm a gun owner, I carry for self defense. the problem goes deeper than Obama or living in fear of black helicopters. Pres Reagen enacted a semi auto ban, Pres, Bus, same ban, Pres Clinton, same ban, now back to the other Bush, HLS has a built in ban. the last president I'll comment on. If we do not support the president then we'er aren't patriots. Now we're back to the same method and now we're screaming? To little to late.
Months ago I goave a lists of ERO's, everyone was concerned aobut the Bible. Now were back to EO.s and the point is amlost every president used them to control weapons and no one cared until now. You lived under a ban for decades. It isn't an us or them problem, it is a apathy problem combined with changing attitudes.
I seen a picture of a assault weapon on this blog It is used for what? To kill our fellow Americans so we can keep 100 round drums.
It is a problem, I'm only pointing out it runs deeper and loner than most of you has ever known.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:47 PM

lysander in New Iberia, LA replied:

I'd hate to think what you might write if you were anti-gun. Just take a deep breath and exhale slowly.

Monday, January 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Patriot2013 in novi, michigan 48375 said:


Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:32 PM

James in Rochester NY replied:

Its because Obama has already started to broker deals to sell of American land to the Chinese in an attempt to settle the nations dept that we cannot pay. Once the sale of said lands becomes largely known, the public would revolt. Obama and the Chinese know this, thats why he is pushing so hard and fast to remove guns from American citizens. We would fight tooth and nail to prevent such an action but without our armed citizens, we stand zero chance of preventing it.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 2:05 PM

LTCRWIce in Moscow Id replied:

James please provide proof of your Suspicions

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Richard Peck in Lucerne Valley CA. replied:

3 months ago my reality went to a big meeting and we live in a small town. We have a lot of foreclosed houses and they are presently taking them of the market for private individuals to purchase, so they can sell them to foreign investors. Fact I don't know if you had ever heard of agenda 21 which goes by another name now and is in agreement with the UN and several states and Presidents have signed on to but you need to Google it and get your eyes opened to the fact of what our country has to look forward to.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:34 PM

J. Lewis B in Shepherdsville, KY replied:

James you're so right ! WAIT TILL ALL THESE FOOLS THAT VOTED FOR BO and their taxes goes up ! JL

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:13 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

Interesting. I'm not digging, I'm only curious. How did you arrive at the above conclusion for if you're right...

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Mikey in Katy,TEXAS replied:

Im not the smartest guy, but it makes so much sense now, i read an article the other day about the chinese demanding that americans be disarmed, i didnt understand why they cared but now it just punched me in the face. They dont want us fighting back for our land. Thanks James for posting this.

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 12:08 AM

OzzWorx in Fullerton, CA replied:

You answered your own question.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I concur. Lets get rid of Executive orders and while we're at it, the Homeland Security Act.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Edmund in Hughes said:

No, I don't believe that Obama and most Democrats don't want to ban all firearms. That is, and has always been the goal of Socialist Utopians. The Brady Campaign states on its website that it wants to ban "Saturday Night Specials", e.i. J-Frame S&W snub-nose revolvers, because they are only used to kill people, and are involved in so many crimes. Never mind the fact that they are ubiquitous and also the choice of many legal, conceal carry holders - especially women. Complete disarmament of the citizenry is the objective - period.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:33 PM

John in Tyler, TX replied:

Obama and his government minions are "Socialists, or Marxists:. They are after all of the guns!

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Mikey in Katy,TEXAS replied:

Aint going to happen in TX.

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Henry Bowman in Fernley, NV said:

If, or when, the day comes that you are confronted by one of Obama's SS troopers at your front door, demanding that you surrender the guns that you own, and when you decline this trooper's kind offer to take them off your hands, and when he then states something in effect to "are you really willing to die to keep your guns?", the proper response is "are you really willing to die in order to take them?"

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Raymond in Texas replied:

You damn right! That is exactly the response he/she will get but it may come after they are already blasted and prone on the front lawn.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

I carry 100% of the time. When I get dressed in the morning I strap on my Pistol and include extra an mag. It makes no difference whether I am answering my front door or going to the store. I am always practiced, ready and armed. Bad people and tyrannical government are the only ones at risk by me being armed.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:52 PM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia replied:

I love it. I refuse to be a walking "Gun Free Zone". I cannot image the guilt I would feel if I was forced to react in armed defense of my family, and I had left my carry gun at home, or in the car. I have seen the anguish of the lady who lost her parents in the Texas Luby's, because she left her pistol in the car, trying to obey a Gun Free Zone.

If they really wanted a solutuon - to protect they children - they would at least discuss GUN FREE-KILL ZONES. But they will not even discuss it.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I don't live in fear. What I love to point out is V.P. Cheney wanted to this precisely this but was overruled by President Bush. It;s called HMS. What the writer of this post and most of you don't understand is, we are co concerned about rights, 100 shot drum, a 5.56/223, which can only be used or are designed to take a human life, the problem started under Pres. Reagen and President Bush codified it under THE HLS Act. If you want to kill the problem (So to speak) ditch the crazy Juden laws that are the same as the laws passed by Hitler.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Mark in Florida replied:

What bothers me is this focus on "mental health". I guess I've heard too much about Soviet "psychiatric hospitals" and "mental detentions" to think of this without paranoia. The problem with the statists is that they always take something like a background check, which is a good thing when properly handled, and change it into a man with a white coat and a SWAT team showing up at your door. Link a "federal psych eval" , a statist agenda, and the Obummercare database... tell me there isn't a reason for concern there? And yeah, with a guy in a white coat or not, Molon Labe.

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Edmund Ruffin in Augusta, GA replied:

This is the last thing you want happening. Happy martyrdom. If it has come to this point, that's all you'll be. Any such effort to confiscate must be met with weapons stolen from the US military...because that's what you'll be up against.

Saturday, January 19, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Todd Kreigh in Skiatook, OK said:

I believe almost nothing Barack Obama says. I certainly don't expect him to act in what's in the best interests of America. I expect to act in favor of whatever is best for his predetermined socialist agenda, labor unions, and special interest groups that fund him and the Democratic Party.

As I told a friend recently, I quit reading Wall Street Opinion Journal recently because I got tired of reading five articles every day that said basically the same thing .. "Obama is wrong/lying about .."

Wouldn't it be easier - and save a lot of time and ink - to just write about what Obama is right about, or is not lying about? Assuming there is anything, that is.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Robert N. Cowley in Milton, FL said:

I will never understand the news media or these people wanting to get rid of the "Assault Rifle". First, being in the military and later LEO, these guns that they show are NOT assault rifles. The ones that they are showing are the AR-15's. This gun is only able to fire one round per pull on the trigger. Yes, they can be modified to be an automatic, but alot of work and parts are needed. The Assault Rifle is a M-16 used by military and police. When in auto mode, pulling the trigger will send a burst of rounds out the weapon. When will they get it right, or maybe they don't want to get it right!

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

krhealeo in Mississippi replied:

Robert, Listen to what Ms. "guntotin" Feinstein has to say. She wants to arm herself but disarm EVERYBODY else of ANY TYPE of weapon. The Liberal Tyrannists are just starting with the dreadful and fearful sounding non-existent "assult" weapons. We are 30 days on the clock to the beginning of tyranny in this country. If Obama's Executive Orders are not voted down by the Congress they become the LAW OF THE LAND! Then "our" government can start legally dismanteling the 2nd Amendment. If you think that Congress will vote them down, you are drinking Kool-aid.

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Keith Simpson in amarillo tx said:

If every one carried a gun there would b no violence its as simple as that criminals r not going to try robbing someone who has a gun on them they wont a easy target

Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM