As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Video || Gun Control and Tyranny

An armed citizenry has a subtle effect on our government’s ability and willingness to control us. It’s something liberals don’t understand at all. Fortunately, our Founders did.

By our friend, Ronniebuss.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

38 Responses to Video || Gun Control and Tyranny

  1. Well done Keith!
    I find it ironic, for lack of a better word, allow the cutting of a living human being from the womb, and sell the parts…have mercy on us Father. What’s the number? 1 or two million a year?
    Yet ” they ” bitch and moan about people possessing the only means of protection from crimina predators, religious fanatics and more importantly, tyrants, foreign and domestic.
    ” Shall not be infringed ” Dig?
    Musket handy and powder dry, that is all, thanks for listening.

  2. Wooooow – so uninformed and just plain false.

    When has any presidential candidate or even our president said that guns would be “outlawed”? Gun sales have increased drastically under this president.

    All Dems want (and many Republicans too for that matter) is for the mentally ill, terrorists and criminals not to be able to buy guns “legally”. For automatic rifles to be restricted. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the sale of military-grade weapons – please explain.

    Republicans in Congress prefer to allow terrorists to buy guns than lose their next election.

    • While MrObama didn’t actually say the words, he indicated that he approves of Australia’s confiscation of firearms from the public.
      If you or anyone thinks that the “reform” is what the progressive Dems want, then you aren’t paying attention.
      No firearms for veterans, no firearms for anyone “accused” of mental illness or depression, no firearms allowed in certain cities or venues – the No-Gun Zones where every mass shooting has occurred.

      cite:
      http://www.infowars.com/obama-claims-gun-violence-off-the-charts/

      • …..Kalifornia allowing a family member to state aunt Jennifer is mentally ill & they can confiscate any weapons she legally possesses.

      • Oh, people have seen this coming. Since February 2009, there have been a LOT of firearms applications.

        Now, as far as the actual number, the FBI says that applications don’t correlate one-to-one with individual sales.

        Reasonable enough, as not every application would get approved, private sales aren’t tracked, blah de blah de blah.

        But since February 2009, Americans have applied for enough guns to outfit the entire US military, active and reserve…are you ready for this?…

        SIXTY. TIMES.

        Talk about praemonitus, praemunitus!

        • OK, AfVet…

          When has any presidential candidate or even our president said that guns would be “outlawed”? Gun sales have increased drastically under this president.

          –They don’t say it, but they are expanding reporting so they will know where the guns are. Yes, sales have increased–BECAUSE people think guns may be outlawed, despite the Second Amdt.

          All Dems want (and many Republicans too for that matter) is for the mentally ill, terrorists and criminals not to be able to buy guns “legally”. For automatic rifles to be restricted. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the sale of military-grade weapons – please explain.

          Republicans in Congress prefer to allow terrorists to buy guns than lose their next election.

          –You must know this is silly–the terrorists rarely buy guns through tranditional channels–or at gun shows, if you were thinking of that throwing that in. As for winning elections, most of the Reps running are conservative in some sense and thus support the Second Amdt, as it has been quite judiciously tweaked with background checks.

          As for military grade weapons, I know professional pistol shooters and other gun lovers enjoy shooting such weapons and do not wish to be prevented. I come from a family of such people. Yes, often the police are outgunned in the streets–and I suppose you could make that argument against that happening. But I tend to see the incremental chipping at gun rights as a plan and a threat to the Constitution.

          • I left out the mental illness portion of your comments. This is very tricky. More reporting of every visit to a psychiatrist or stay in a mental hospital or prescription for SSRIs is an infringement of someone’s right to privacy. It may prevent a gun purchases in a tiny number of cases, but it would also prevent a job in many more. On the other hand, there is a need to make it easier for family members to commit someone acting dangerously–it is such a gray area–tradeoffs. Mental illness is so difficult to deal with in families–getting “holds” put on people to protect them or others is so hard…It is not enough to say mentally ill people should not have a gun. Of course, they shouldn’t…but this is a murky area. Penning some EO won’t do it.

          • Well done, Star! You’ve given him something to think about, assuming he has any ability to think after all the programming he’s been through.

          • And, about mental illness drugs, Star, there are legitimate uses of certain anti depressants for inhibiting auras for migraine sufferers. So even just checking on drugs prescribed, knowing exactly what they are used for needs to be considered.

          • Thank you, Star. I deeply appreciate your comments. It’s refreshing to hear someone who disagrees with me taking a methodical approach to responding to my points.

            I contest the point that there is a big movement to take away everyone’s guns. That is just not the case, if it were, we’d hear much more about it. Our president may invoke the Australian gun laws, but he knows it’s not feasible, as do any thoughtful Democrats (which I’m sure many of you will think is an oxymoron).

            Regardless, there is strong evidence that stricter gun laws lower the incidence of gun-related deaths. Especially when it comes to suicides and accidental deaths.

            Harvard study: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/new-statistics-indicate-gun-control-works
            And for consistency: http://gun-control.procon.org/

            I personally have absolutely no problem with someone owning a gun, or many guns for that matter. The problem I have is invoking the constitution as some unmalleable document. The 2nd amendment question is also not entirely clear, as I’m sure many of you (and certainly Star is) are aware of. If we look at the first Amendment there are many, many types of speech and organization that is illegal, in apparent contradiction to the text. Why not get up in arms about that!?

            Regarding the background checks issue, I’d like an argument against using them. When you buy a phone you have to do a credit check, when you buy a car you have to have a license and pass a test.

            Thanks for indulging me guys. I understand I’m stepping hard on some toes, but I’m sure it’s at least little fun to take some shots (no pun intended) at me. And best of luck with your exciting primary, we’ve got pretty sad candidates this time, so take advantage!

    • How about maybe we enforce the laws we have now? Also, if terrorists can’t buy guns, they will make bombs. None of the lefties gun control measures will do a damn bit of good. The facts prove it again and again and again.

    • Restriction is the first step to confiscation. Obama and his fellow leftists are like the proverbial camel sticking his nose in the tent.

    • “When has any presidential candidate or even our president said that guns would be “outlawed”?”

      Your precious Boy King of a president has stated several times he wants to mimic the laws in England and Australia. And those laws are confiscation.

      To which I say, come and take them.

  3. If the German citizenry were armed, they could protect themselves from the roving, vicious packs of “immigrants” that are accosting German females.