Yes, He Hates the Constitution and Doesn’t Abide By It


BREAKING: Obama Announces Plans to Ban Guns for Elderly and Disabled Americans

From the article:

The President and his staff have said it time and again: their biggest disappointment was their inability to further restrict the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms…

What I would really like to see is Obama walking the walk by getting rid of his own security detail. I think they are probably overpaid and unnecessary.
If anyone can “prove” beyond a shadow of a doubt that his life is in danger then he can keep his security detail.
Proof anyone? I want to hear where he has been threatened. I don’t think he should have it just by virtue of his position.

First, they came for the Veterans guns, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Veteran.
Then, they came for the Elderly’s guns, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not Elderly.
Then they came for the Disabled people’s guns, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not Disabled.
Then, they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

So, who will speak for the Veterans, the Elderly and the Disabled who may be at a disadvantage physically, to fight someone. And a gun may be their only defense against a criminal? Some people say stupid things like, “Just give them (the criminal) what they want”… What if what they want is to take your life or, the life or someone you love?


Bob (a different bob) says:

…because we must stop all those octogenarian mass shooters…

Fat Al says:

Maybe Obama will suspend the voting rights of those that “lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs”.

I think that might be his voting base.

Jeremy S says:

Seriously. I’m sure there would be massive outcry from the ACLU and dozens of other groups if these proposals were worded identically but RE voting rights instead of firearms.

…Of course, that’s probably because they all encourage the busing in of senile seniors — no photo ID needed — so they can vote en masse for whomever the bus driver tells them to haha

David says:

being that I’m a disabled combat veteran, I find this very very scary. this guy is like a roller coaster running off the tracks! something has to be done to stop this fella and all of us have to vote in 2016 to make sure another dictator like President Obama is not elected. we all call him Osama down at the VFW. lol

mobrules says:

This is exactly why some disabled vets wont go to the VA for and help. I know quite a few that refuse to go there because of fears of asking for counseling and what they can do.

B says:

The VA has been dumping vets who come to them for financial help into the NICS system. Its been working so great that nearly a 1/4 million veterans have lost their right to own firearms. Why not implement it on that other group that relies on the government for benefits, the elderly? And once Obamacare is in full swing, they can put in bans for people on certain cold medications or undergoing treatments, instantaneously! No stupid due process to get in the way, they’ve been putting in express lines to serfdom.

Criminal Behavior


Woman, 93, Sexually Assaulted in Her Own Apartment by Intruder

‘Shoot him again . . . shoot him again’: 911 call hears moment husband urges wife to keep firing as she pumps five bullets into home intruder to protect her nine-year-old twins

Woman Shoots Rapist Who Returned To Her Home a Week Later to Rape Again

Gun Control by Any Means


House Bill Would Require Gun Owners to Have Liability Insurance

From the article:

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) has introduced a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

Apparently House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney doesn’t understand the criminally minded. Does she really think that they attend gun shows? Seriously? Or, that they are inclined to get liability insurance for their illegally owned gun? In your dreams, Ms. Maloney.

IMO, what she is really wanting….is gun control by any means possible. What do you want to bet that ol’ Ms. Maloney has paid security? You know, people who carry guns. The very one’s that would be most likely be exempt.

Maybe the ability to own a gun for one’s own protection is only for the well-to-do, then? Only for me, not for thee …


“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” she said. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”

Encourage cautious behavior? I can tell she’s never been around gun owner’s in general, because they are some of the most cautious people around.

Victims of gun violence? Is she talking about decent law abiding citizens paying the criminal? What? Who is going to be paying whom?  Because you know darn well the criminal won’t be the one carrying liability insurance. Ain’t gonna happen, Missy.

Since she mentioned “free market”… Ms. Maloney working for the big insurance companies and looking for a kickback? Or, maybe future job security? Are you aware that it is “possible” that people like Ms. Maloney can introduce bills that later benefit them. For instance, say she does get this bill passed and an insurance company benefits. They, the insurance company then hire her, give her a nice salary and a cushy office after she retires from public office. If anything should be illegal it should be this scenario, right?

Understand I’m not accusing anyone, it’s just a few questions and fair ones at that.

Last question….Who are you working for, Ms. Maloney? It’s okay….it’ll be our secret. (sarcasm)

Surviving Numerous Gunshots


One Bullet Can Kill, but Sometimes 20 Don’t, Survivors Show

From the article:

A man in North Carolina was shot roughly 20 times in 1995 and lived to tell about it. The rapper 50 Cent was shot nine times in 2000 and has since released three albums. And in 2006, Joseph Guzman survived 19 gunshot wounds during the 50-shot fusillade by police detectives that killed Sean Bell.

While surviving numerous gunshots could be a miraculous feat, doctors who have treated gunshot victims say that being shot is not automatically a death sentence.

Most Americans Actually Know Very Little About Guns


5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)

From the article:

Even in gun-crazy America, most of us aren’t shooting things as part of our day-to-day routine. So most Americans actually know very little about guns. Hollywood writers realized this a long time ago and, being writers, used it as an excuse to never do any fact-checking ever again.

I disagree with the notion of “gun-crazy” America. You can thank the mainstream media for that notion.

Most gun people are law abiding citizens. Go to the range more frequently than police officers. Have less accidental shootings than police officers.  And the last thing on the mind of legal gun owners is shooting anyone.

Truth is, even the “Wild Wild West” wasn’t the “Wild Wild West”.

It Is Your “Right and Responsibility” to Protect Yourself!


The Police Have No Legal Duty to Protect You

From the article:

You may or may not have heard of the case where three women were brutally raped, beaten, and tortured for fourteen hours because the police wouldn’t help them, and the courts held that the police did nothing wrong.


One of the more prominent cases on this issue is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981).[1] In Warren, the court of appeals for our nation’s capital ruled that the police had no legal responsibility to protect victims of rape, assault and burglary who called to report the crimes in progress, but found the police unable (or unwilling) to assist them, even though they promised to do so.

That’s right folks, in your hour of need (or, your immediate need)….the cavalry may not be coming.  There is NEVER any guarantee that police will arrive in time when you call. Ever. There is a saying that goes….when seconds count the police are minutes away. Remember that.