Opinion: Control the politicians, not the guns

January 16, 2013


If laws were enough to deter criminal behavior prisons would be empty.

The latest effort to “control” guns in America is as likely to deter someone intent on breaking the law as outlawing lust would affect one’s libido. What’s in a heart can’t be controlled by restricting what’s in a hand.

Following the Newtown tragedy, President Obama vowed to seek the passage of an assault weapons ban and hastily assembled an administration-wide gun control task force, an effort that amounts to little more than a political act designed to impress what Rush Limbaugh calls “low-information voters.” Government must be seen doing something to keep mad men from shooting children and moviegoers, even if that something will likely prove ineffective.

“Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” the proverb goes, and someone who has the will to kill with a gun is going to find a way (and a gun) no matter how many laws are passed. Consider Chicago where numerous anti-gun laws appear to have done little to stop gun deaths.

President Obama put Vice President Joe Biden in charge of the task force. Biden calls his gun control effort a “moral issue.” Does Biden suffer from selective morality? For him, same-sex marriage and abortion don’t appear to be moral issues, as they are for his Catholic church, but gun control is.

The loss of liberty always begins at the extremes, but it won’t stop there. Radicals won’t be satisfied with outlawing one type of gun. In 1995, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told “60 Minutes,” “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up (every gun) ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in. I would have done it...” In 2004, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama voted against a bill that affirms the right of citizens to defend themselves against home invasions. The bill ultimately passed.

The Sandy Hook shooter reportedly stopped killing children and killed himself when law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. This contains no lesson for the gun control crowd, which mostly opposes armed guards in schools. Neither does it matter to them that recently a Georgia woman, Melinda Herman, shot an intruder when police couldn’t get to her home quickly enough, thus defending her life and the lives of her two children. To gun control advocates, guns decide whether they are used for good or evil, not the people who fire them.

If President Obama attempts to impose new restrictions on guns by executive order, not Congress, what can individuals do? I asked constitutional attorney John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute, “a nonprofit conservative legal organization dedicated to the defense of civil, especially religious, liberties and human rights.” “Even if the president has the authority to issue the executive order,” Whitehead replied by email, “the order may not violate the Constitution’s guarantees to individual liberty. If the order resulted in restrictions on gun ownership or possession that go beyond what is allowed under the Second Amendment, individuals who are harmed by the order could sue to have the order declared unconstitutional.”

We need to hear more stories of how law-abiding gun owners have managed to thwart criminals. As the predictable assault of anti-gun TV ads begins, the National Rifle Association should create its own ads with gun owners telling their stories of self-defense and crime prevention.

You know rational thinking is lacking when Pravda, Russia’s communist political newspaper, makes sense. In a recent article, Stanislav Mishin writes that after the Bolsheviks seized Moscow in 1917, they promised to leave alone the well-armed citizens if they did not interfere. “They did not and for that were asked afterwards,” writes Mishin, “to come register themselves and their weapons, whereupon they were promptly shot.”

The Second Amendment was written to protect citizens from tyrannical government and to preserve our liberties. It’s not primarily for the protection of hunters and target shooters, though they are included. Those politicians who wish to ignore the Constitution are the ones who need to be controlled, not law-abiding gun owners.

— Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.


Katara 5 years, 2 months ago

I dunno. It seems safer to keep a politician in your pocket than a gun.

Maddy Griffin 5 years, 2 months ago

If laws aren"t enough to deter criminal behavior, why have any? If you think owning a gun is going to protect you from the most powerful military in the world, should it go tyrranical, You're already too crazy to own one. Do what you gotta do Obama. It's waaaay overdue.

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

"If laws aren"t enough to deter criminal behavior, why have any?"

To punish criminals. Laws should have no other reason for existing.

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

So you really believe children should be allowed access to armor-piercing ammo for their machine guns?

Denying me of my right to own fully automatic machine guns is an infringment on my rights, correct?

What part of necessary restrictions don't YOU understand? Why are YOUR limits reasonable, but any other restriction is an infringment?

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

So don't. If you don't realize that the call for unlimited guns is just a ploy of rightwing extremism, then you aren't looking hard enough.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

If the guns are not part of the killing then I am confused.

I say keep one very complete and substantial set of federal laws regarding gun sales and purchases for resale. Make all violations federal in nature. There are too many whacko local politicians in this world who believe guns do not kill people. Too many different rules and regulations in this country regarding assault weapons.

If guns do not kill people why are guns issued to our military? How is it that so many dead bodies are found with bullet holes?

No matter all guns are not included in the so called ban conversation which I will believe when it happens.

beezee 5 years, 2 months ago

Don't be confused. It's quite straight-forward. Think of it in terms of "SPOONS MADE ME FAT."

Cant_have_it_both_ways 5 years, 2 months ago

If the guns are not part of the killing then I am confused.

Good Merrill the confused part is part of the 12 step process.

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

"If guns do not kill people why are guns issued to our military?"

Ideally, small-caliber military rifles aren't meant to kill. They are meant to maim because it takes two enemy soldiers to carry an injured fighter off the field.

Also, if canteens aren't meant to kill, why does every soldier have one?

beezee 5 years, 2 months ago

There presently are, in the USA, at federal, state and local levels, hundreds of laws purporting to regulate firearms. And they are as effective as the Volstead Act was in regulating alcohol.

Once again, a tragedy is being hijacked to advance a purely socialist agenda. If the concern really was for effective intervention, we'd see a lot more being budgeted for effective mental health resources in schools (ESPECIALLY in elementary grades) and later life.

I also have seen zero serious mention of any regulation of immersive and violent video games (online or otherwise). On asking around, I was told flat out that new gamers routinely have dreams involving the game-- shooting, running, etc. But regulate them??? Ohhhhh, NO! What about FREE SPEECH?! Well, I do see the merit in the argument actually. But to go off and lay massacres on the availability of guns makes no true sense. There are literally MILLIONS of semi-auto rifles of various genres in private hands in the USA. Guns that have NEVER been involved in even a misdemeanor.

Try not to get sucked into the hype from the Socialists. And BTW, do read Thomas's next to last paragraph.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

Clearly, beezee, neither you nor Cal Thomas have the slightest idea who Stanislav Mishin is. Or maybe you don't care who you take as allies, as long as they agree with you about guns and socialism. Or maybe you and Cal Thomas agree with Mishin's views in general.

Here is a sketch of Stanislav Mishin. He calls himself a "constitutional monarchist", but in reality he is a neo-fascist. He is rabidly anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, and anti-Semitic.

He called the United States the "Whore of Babylon": "And who is the Whore? Why no other than the twins joined at the hip, Wall Street and DC. Wall Street created the world financial melt down, quit cognoscente of what they were doing and thus giving the spark for the two snakes to start their growth and feeding frenzies, while Washington, the den of inequity, corruption and Satanic power, has armed, and prodded its children forward to swallow the world and extinguish the light of Christ from this world. The so-called Christian nation of America has shown herself to be the true handmaiden of the Anti-Christ."

"As you my dear readers know, I view republicanism and democracy in low esteem, being a constitutional monarchist. Most of all, as I stated in previous articles, Democracy as an ideology is as much a failure for the ills of this world as Communism. America's blind, ideological adherence to it, has wrought havoc on the world, brought us to the brink of disaster in recent years, and has harmed her in blow back after blow back."

"As a race, the race of Hebrews, also known as Jews, ...have as a whole been some of the singularly stupidest people, with a true streak of self destruction, in the game of politics, that have ever walked the Earth. That they still exist after four thousand years of such foolishness is only by the patience of God Himself."

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

You apparently missed the historical fact of NRA-supported representatives barring the CDC from studying gun violence, including in video games and in the media.

The President today directed the CDC to begin studying — for the first time in decades — the possible solutions to gun violence.

And, you keep using that word "socialist" in a manner that suggests you don't know its definition. There is nothing inherently capitalistic or socialistic about guns.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

His first sentence is absolutely correct.

But, it's odd when conservative folks, who are usually so "law and order" focused, argue against laws.

FlintlockRifle 5 years, 2 months ago

Cal, well written story and to the point. Ok lets go one step beyond the gun ban, they make cars with High Capacity Motors, what do we need with these, just put a Four Round Motor in every thing that is sold to the general public, what do we need these for anyway. Yes you say they have race tracks where they are used, same way with the AR'S and several other "guns" we take them to a rifle range to do our shooting in a safe way.Anyway thats my story and I'am sticking -----------well you know the rest, thanks for letting me use the "stump'

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

"A well regulated Militia." That is what the Constitution calls for, rockchalk1977, so there is absolutely no hypocrisy for the President to avail himself of the protection of a well regulated Militia, the Secret Service. Especially since too many gun enthusiasts are ready and eager to engage in shooting with the specious excuse that they would be defending the Second Amendment--by destroying the rest of the Constitution.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 5 years, 2 months ago

Your definition of a Militia looks more like the definition of a Gastapo.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

Tell that to all the patriotic men and women who serve in our armed forces, in our police, and in our Secret Service, Cant_have_it. Tell them that they are really Nazis. Your view, Cant_have_it, is an insult to all of our servicemen and women who are defending our liberties--allof our liberties, not just the Second Amendment--and our safety. Including yourliberty, Cant_have_it, to spew the most offensive insults, and even your right to bear arms.

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

What part of defending the second amendment can be found "destroying the rest of the Constitution"?

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

The gun enthusiasts who have been calling for "revolution" are advocating the destruction of the Constitution. The gun enthusiasts who are calling for the impeachment of the president and the vice-president for advocating ordinary gun control to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of irresponsible and criminal people, which the Supreme Court has already ruled is permissible, are trying to undermine the Constitution. The gun enthusiasts who petitioned to deport Piers Morgan for exercising his rights under the First Amendment to advocate gun control, are undermining the Constitution.

Responsible defense of the Second Amendment includes keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and irresponsible people.

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

"The gun enthusiasts who have been calling for "revolution" are advocating the destruction of the Constitution"

Calling for a revolution is protected speech.

"The gun enthusiasts who are calling for the impeachment of the president and the vice-president for advocating ordinary gun control"

They are just dumb.

Calling for the president to be impeached is protected speech.

"The gun enthusiasts who petitioned to deport Piers Morgan for exercising his rights under the First Amendment to advocate gun control, are undermining the Constitution."

Petitioning the government is covered somewhere in the constitution.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

Not sure that's true, it might very well be treason.

Sure, but petitioning the government to deport somebody because they're exercising constitutionally protected speech doesn't show a great respect for the constitution.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

Clearly, rockchalk1977, you don't know the history of Germany in the 1930s. When Adolf Hitler (notice the correct spelling--even that you don't know) was calling for the control of arms, he was trying to rein in his own Brownshirts, who had brought him to power. The real opponents of the Nazis had already been suppressed--silenced and intimidated in large part by those very Brownshirts. But the continuing disorder in the streets caused by the Nazis' own supporters was undermining public support for Hitler's regime, and by the mid-1930s, Hitler had the entire government apparatus entirely under his control and he could use regular forces instead of his own thugs. Ordinary Germans, inlcuding the vast number who continued to possess firearms, wanted the outer appearance of law and order, and they didn't care that millions of their fellow-citizens were systematically arrested and then murdered.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

Public school. Ivy League college. Flagship public university graduate school. History courses on Nazi Germany. Oh, I "get it," Cant_have_it, In_God; you prefer false and distorted versions of history that say what you like rather than factually-based versions that don't.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

Grades of A+ from internationally-renowned experts on Nazi Germany. Compared to what credentials?

In_God_we_trust 5 years, 2 months ago

We need to impeach President Obama and VP Biden. For violation of the Constitution, infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

The president and vice-president have not violated the Constitution. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, in the Heller case, recognized that regulation of access to certain types of firearms, possession of firearms in certain places, and possession of firearms by certain categories of people is fully in keeping with the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

All the president and vice-president are trying to do is find ways to keep firearms out of the hands of people who will use them irresponsibly. So the question, In_God_we_trust, is why you want to defend the "righ"t of criminal and irresponsible people to have weapons?

In_God_we_trust 5 years, 2 months ago

Judge Scalia was obviously not basing his decision on the Constitution or he was in gross error. The 2nd amendment is very clear what it means.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

He wrote this in the majority report in the "Heller" decision--that is, the Supreme Court case that you are using as the basis for your claims that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. So it is ironic that you deny the legitimacy of Justice Scalia's ruling.

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

Your Constitutional history is incomplete, and your comment not very accurate. The language and the punctuation of the 2d Amendment has been a source of conflicting interpretation since the Bill of Rights was adopted.

"It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an 'individual rights' theory."

The Court threw out 70 years of legal tradition when it ruled that the 2d amendment protected an individual right.

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

Biden is impotent. He can't do anything except give slurred speeches. Obama can't do anything other than by executive order, and I'm not comfortable impeaching a president because he violated the constitution any more than I think we should impeach the legislature anytime an actual law id found unconstitutional.. It sets a bad precedent. If he passes an executive order that is ruled unconstitutional, the court should vacate that decision and nothing more.

I expect the house and the SCOTUS to stop obama, feinstein and the other gun grabbers in their tracks.

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

The only problem with your fantasy is that no one is trying to "grab" guns. Did you read the list of executive orders the President signed today?

Why would you base your world view — and your comments — on a fantasy that has nothing to do with reality?

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

I read the list. I have also read the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation seeks to ban more than a few semi-auto weapons. It doesn't matter because the house is a suitable firewall against the likes of feinstein.

Obama gave you all you will get. Now your doctor will ask you if you like guns. Yay for you.

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

First, "we" can't impeach anyone. Only Congress can. That's in the Constitution.

Please point to a factual "infringement" of the 2d Amendment.

In_God_we_trust 5 years, 2 months ago

Excellent reading for those who respect the Bill of Rights to keep their freedom and their life.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_jpfo.pdf 170,000,000 have been deprived of life from "reasonable gun control" in the 20th century alone.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

It is just plain wrong to attribute 170,000,000 million deaths exclusively to limits on the ownership of firearms, rather than to genocidal and brutal policies more generally. One shouldn't accept an "amicus" brief submitted to the Supreme Court for the purpose of supporting unlimited gun ownership as evidence of historical truth.

For those people who like to insist that only unfettered ownership of weapons can yield a free society, pay attention: Countries that have freedom and security and strict arms control include: Great Britain, Sweden, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. Communist governments were overthrown without violence and without an armed citizenry in: Russia, East Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia.

In_God_we_trust 5 years, 2 months ago

Congressman Steve Stockman TX is threatening possible impeachment of the President if he continues to violate the law and side step the Constitution and Congress. It is good to see a Congressman with some backbone to stand up to this evil attempt at a power grab.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

So that's the Republicans' playbook this time: a specious impeachment charge, in order to prevent any progress on the pressing issues facing this country? They tried that play before, with Bill Clinton. It failed, but it wasted a lot of time, energy, and money.

In_God_we_trust 5 years, 2 months ago

Impeachment is not the only thing available to the Congressman. Lawsuit is also a possible tool among many others. I hope it is not necessary to use because it is disruptive, but this President is extremely arrogant with all his talk of gun control and needs to be humbled, and put his attention back to the business of the economy instead of worthless gun control and gun registration power grab attempts.

msezdsit 5 years, 2 months ago

"but this President is extremely arrogant with all his talk of gun control and needs to be humbled,"

Sounds like a threat against the president to me.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 5 years, 2 months ago

Guess we are not drinking buddies... (Crap...and I was beginning to like you!) sniff....

msezdsit 5 years, 1 month ago

Is that your level or your sister post of in god we trust. Problem with multiple post is you occasionally forget which post you used and you then post your reply under your other moniker. I've seen it happen before. Busted. gandalf=ingodwetrust same person

msezdsit 5 years, 2 months ago

Gandalf, unless your doubling as "In god we trust" my comment wasn't about anything you posted. Sorry if you took it that way.

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

Seems you are upset that the President of the United States is exercising the lawful powers of his office.

You're right: how astounding that a President would do that.

Katara 5 years, 2 months ago

Steve Stockman,

"Voters in his Texas district, realizing their mistake, swept him out two years later — but not before he distinguished himself by demanding a federal investigation of the 1948 Kinsey Report on male sexuality and by claiming that the deadly 1993 assault on the Branch Davidians was a Clinton administration conspiracy to tighten gun control." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-steve-stockman-a-radical-gone-mainstream/2013/01/15/3fcc8d8e-5f6c-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html?hpid=z6

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

Your comment is baseless, Rockchalk. The President clearly "issued a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientific agencies to research the causes and prevention of gun violence -- and he called on Congress to provide $10 million to pay for it.

"We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science from this epidemic of violence," [the President] said.

Why haven't such studies been taken up before in the recent, as other topics were studied (like traffic fatalities, etc.) to lead to sound public policy to reduce fatalities?

Because "in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence."

So, no: in reality, as opposed to your post, it was not "pals out in Hollywood" that blocked research into gun violence, including the role of video games and media images, but rather the NRA and those who take NRA political donations.


beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

I wonder what video game Charles Whitman liked to play?

Oh, wait, that was gun violence before the advent of video games, so it must not have happened.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 2 months ago

"Laus Deo" is latin meaning "Praise be to God" Its written on an aluiminum cap atop the Washington Monument in D.C. Its 555.125 feet high. The highest point in Washington D.C. By law, no building in D.C. can be taller than this point.

msezdsit 5 years, 2 months ago

Yep, it was the politicians that murdered the children in newtown.

Armstrong 5 years, 2 months ago

Remeber, Governments and dictators like unarmed peasants. Dobama is well on his way

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

Republicans have certainly exhibited a strong affection for peasants. They're certainly doing all they can to expand their numbers, anyway. And, by definition, peasants are typically unarmed.

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

It is not "Dobama," it is Obama (D).

I thought the LJWorld was not against all name calling. Guess not. So much for the liberal media conspiracy.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

My parentheses are broken, can I just write Obamad?

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

Umm... Ronald Reagan supported the ban on assault rifles.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

I'm happy that our president cares about children and reminds adults to care about them, too. But I have a question for you:

What type of Demigogues use children, without their consent or that of their parents) to woo the people who bankroll their lobbying efforts?

Mike Ford 5 years, 2 months ago

where do the misinformed crazies get this nonsense information?

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

Cal: "If laws were enough to deter criminal behavior prisons would be empty."

I guess we should have no laws then, since laws don't deter crime, is that really Cal's argument? How silly.

Don't forget, only a good guy with a bazooka can stop a bad guy with a bazooka.

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

So did the murderer in Newtown not listen to heavy metal, is that why we aren't blaming Marilyn Manson this time around?

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

Laus_Deo writes, "the violent games industry, who issued a statement today that they were not responsible for any gun violence in the country, was not the object of a single executive order from Obama – nor was a word mentioned about all the Hollywood movie violence...."

Here are the Presidents words:

"And while year after year, those who oppose even modest gun safety measures have threatened to de-fund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it. And Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.

"We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence."

FOXNews source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/transcript-obama-remarks-on-gun-violence/#ixzz2IFHCVBpr

It would greatly help your argument were you to deal with facts, not fantasies.

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

You are wrong here as well, Laus_Deo, when you write, "Obama Orders Doctors to Help Control Guns."

Nothing in the text of the Executive Orders he signed orders any doctor to help control guns.

In reality, here is what the orders say:

"16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

"17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/#ixzz2IFJSQP1D

Why do you portray the President's actions and words in ways that are flatly inaccurate?

Why do you bear false witness against the President, contrary to Mosaic Law?

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

In Phoenix, one of the largest gun shows in the country is about to take place -- Crossroads of the West Gun Show. It is huge, check it out on line. While there, check out their frequently asked questions: http://www.crossroadsgunshows.com/faqs.php

"Q: Can I bring a gun to the show to sell or trade? "A: Yes, and many folks do. Please be sure the gun is unloaded before you enter the building, and take it to our gun check table at the show entry for verification. They will clear it and secure it with a nylon tie to disable the action. No loaded firearms and no loaded magazines are permitted in any Crossroads gun show. Your personal safety is our number one priority while you are at the show."

Nice to see the people who are the experts on guns take such a stand. Wonder why others don't follow their example to ensure "personal safety." After all, a safe gun in an unloaded gun disabled with a nylon tie.

"Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit. "A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show."

Wow. Honesty there. A safe environment can only be maintained when there are no loaded guns. Wow. Too bad their objective is to then selling guns for people to load and take into other environments, which they honestly feel will create unsafe conditions.

I wonder what would happen had Obama called for enacting such restrictions?

Thanks to reporter A.J. Montini for pointing this out: http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/ejmontini/2013/01/16/obama-should-enact-gun-show-gun-control/

Alyosha 5 years, 2 months ago

Why are commenters —Laus_Deo and Rockchalk among them—so vehemently bearing false witness against the President? It's easy to read the transcript of the President's announcement, and the text of the orders, to see that way they say about it is in no way true:

Transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/transcript-obama-remarks-on-gun-violence/ List of executive orders: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/

How do your misstatements, mistruths and false witness lead to well-grounded public policy and help us keep the peace and secure the public good?

bd 5 years, 2 months ago

Dang! If the administration would put this much effort into the economy and the budget it would be great! I am just pissed that the administration is so reactionary and not proactive!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder what calamity will set them off next???

Commenting has been disabled for this item.