Obama and Biden pledge to end private sales of used firearms

Across America, radical left-wing pundits are screaming for Obama to go full dictator and take away 2nd Amendment rights.  During Obama’s press conference yesterday he called for outlawing the private sale of used firearms. Obama calls these “loophole” gun sales.

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Communist, media bias, Potus Gun Ban, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Obama and Biden pledge to end private sales of used firearms

  1. 22tula says:

    Crisis to Control – Art Thompson – December 17, 2012

    Chinese State Media Demands US Citizens Be Disarmed

  2. LouDaJew says:

    the problem is that Romney wanted to give the millionaires tax cuts. the term small business has always been misrepresented by Republicans, by calling Type S corps (which are multinationals that are broken into smaller businesses). Romney took corps and took advantage of the trade policies which gave him an advantage to outsource labor. we need PROTECTIONISM now. that’s what libertarians also don’t understand. Obama is 100% right on his economic policies. Dems are just fools though when it comes to race relations, the Second Amendment,, and giving African Americans an advantage which lets them contimue being perpetual victims while still committing violent crimes against whites. oh yeah, we need to put these welfare recipients to work(no more free ride). if we want to come together as a nation, all this must be implemented. if not, we will always have sorry candidates on both sides. and yeah, Libertarians need to read up on Alexander Hamilton. our biggest problem in this country is our trade policy.

    • michellc says:

      Obama is 100% right on his economic policies?

      • LoudaJew says:

        yes, he wants to tax the outsourcers. if you don’t produce in the US, you don’t get a tax break.

        • michellc says:

          How about not taxing the heck out of the insourcers so they don’t move to other countries? Unions and liberal policies are the biggest culprits of why so many companies outsource.
          I love that economic stimulus policy of Obama.

          I’m sorry I can’t take anyone seriously who says Obama is 100% right on his economic policies. Obama has one economic policy, taxes and spending.

          • Thumbs up Michellc.

            @ daJew: Romney did not outsource jobs like the laimstream media wants you to believe. He was gone from Bain Capital ( which he helped start) for 2 years before Bain started outsourcing. And as far as giving tax breaks to the rich, where do you think most of the jobs come from in this country? When was the last time that you got a job from a poor person? And Type S corporations are not multinationals. I’ve had to Type S corporations and was just an independent owner. What we need to do is get rid of the Unions. They were necessary when they first started, but now they add an excess cost to everything. And I bet the ‘PROTECTIONISM’ you want is for the overpaid, overpriced, overprotected, overpensioned, underproducing UNIONS???

    • John says:

      The problem is too much government by people who do not know the definition of the word ‘fair’. Yes, Romney wanted to cut the tax rate on the highest levels of our progressive tax rate system. State of California did the opposite. They raised tax rates on the higher levels AND saw an immediate drop in tax revenue. Who would have guessed that might happen? (Answer: Ronald Reagan)
      Romney also wanted to begin cutting the tax code to eliminate the tax deductions and tax shelters that are available to those with lots of capital. Result of that would have also increased tax revenue – not only without raising tax rates but also by itself.
      Fair means we are all working under the same rules. That is not the case when it comes to the tax code. And, it is not rational to think only one political party is responsible for the bloated tax code. Democrats and Republicans have always taken care of their ‘big campaign contributors’ with tax loop holes. No one is clean in this fight.
      As for Obama being right about his economic policies, I would like to see some basis for that statement. We have never had a budget from Obama to show what his economic policies are. Money goes into the black hole and we are supposed to believe it is being well spent. On what can that conclusion be based?

      • LoudaJew says:

        if a large corp produces in the US (California included), they should receive a subsidy. the problem is a lot of the major corps produce in China.

        • jordan2222 says:

          Why should we subsidize ANY business? Isn’t that interfering with free enterprise? That’s the problem. We no longer have true free enterprise. The FED makes sure of that by manipulating interest rates under the auspices of “helping” the economy, when, in fact, they are trying to “control” the economy.

          • LoudaJew says:

            the Federal Reserve is a different issue.the government should have never bailed out the banks. they were irresponsible to give out those loans they knew buyers couldn’t pay. this was all due to deregulation of Glass Steagall(letting investment banks collude with commercial banks). it was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

        • texan59 says:

          Like Apple? Check with Google and their Bermuda tax havens. They produce elsewhere because of the taxes and EPA and obamacare and OSHA, and I could go on. It’s not just been obama, but he ain’t makin’ it any easier. They don’t need a subsidy. In the US we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD. You do realize that for every dollar in taxes a corporation pays – that you and I are the ones who actually pay that. Corporations do not actually pay taxes. They factor it into the price we pay for their goods and services. :roll:

      • John VI says:

        Didnt the last budget included a clause that allowed for any current spending increase to be automatically paid for until the NEXT budget is passed? That means that by NOT producing a budget, ANY president or politician can guarantee his pet projects continued funding by not passing a budget. (And we be just a little bit honest and admit that both sides would jump at that chance.) But it causes this massive ballooning of debt we have observed. The problem is not one of these guys seems to have ever taken a math course in thier life past the minimum class requirements to graduate. Statistics Probably ;)

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I’m not sure what this has to do with Crazy Uncle Joe trying to ban private sale of used guns…?

  3. michellc says:

    Let’s see the Aurora shooter bought his guns through a dealer passing a background check.

    In CT he took the guns from his Mother and I doubt she bought at least her handguns from a private seller because the CT law says: Handgun transfers may not be made until the person, firm or corporation making the transfer obtains an authorization number – following a background check on the prospective purchaser – from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.2 Moreover, the state prohibits any person, firm, or corporation from transferring a handgun unless the transferee has a permit to carry a handgun, a permit to sell handguns at retail, or a handgun eligibility certificate.

    That pretty much eliminates private sells of handguns unless they go through a dealer to perform the background checks.

    Not sure about the Mall shooter.

    Ol’ Joe and the dictator-in-chief sure are right, prohibiting private sales would have prevented both of these shootings.

    • Coast says:

      Lets be totally honest (and by the way, great post above)…its not really about solving problems…its not about public safety….its an agenda…of disarming America. Thats the agenda.

      • tara says:

        Yes. It’s about achieving another one of their goals. “Crazy” gun owners (like Biden!) will be controlled.

      • texan59 says:

        Neither party is actually interested in actually solving problems. If they began to do that, they would outlive their usefulness to their high-falutin’ cronies.

  4. John says:

    I wonder how they would ban private sales. It would require a gun registry… Just like the one Hitler mandated – just before the confiscation of guns.
    Will they also outlaw ‘gifting’ a firearm? Can I not give a firearm to someone in my family? If I gift a firearm to you and you felt generous enough to remember me at Christmas time – would that be illegal and if so, how would it be known by anyone else?

    • mung says:

      Along these lines, when I bought my shotguns from Walmart, I had to do the normal background check. I just assumed that they had to report that I had purchase said guns and I am on a list somewhere. Is that what happens? I am in Florida if it makes a difference.

      • Coast says:

        I think it performs a background check…I not even sure it provides info as to what make/model was purchased.

      • mooney1el says:

        In Florida, I believe the gov’t is prohibited from keeping a list of gun owners, the data is used only for the background check, then is supposedly destroyed (790.??). There is no requirement in FL for gun registration.

        • ackbarsays says:

          790.065 (4)(a) Any records containing any of the information set forth in subsection (1) pertaining to a buyer or transferee who is not found to be prohibited from receipt or transfer of a firearm by reason of Florida and federal law which records are created by the Department of Law Enforcement to conduct the criminal history record check shall be confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and may not be disclosed by the Department of Law Enforcement or any officer or employee thereof to any person or to another agency. The Department of Law Enforcement shall destroy any such records forthwith after it communicates the approval and nonapproval numbers to the licensee and, in any event, such records shall be destroyed within 48 hours after the day of the response to the licensee’s request.

    • tara says:

      Excellent question about gifting.

    • jordan2222 says:

      Such a law would be damn near impossible to implement, particularly if a weapon has never been registered. My guess is most private gun transactions, whether traded or purchased, involve unregistered guns.

      I have never read any reliable statistics about how many private citizens have been arrested for violating gun laws but what’s the big deal? Does anyone believe that otherwise law abiding citizens in Chicago do not own firearms?

      When federal officials start door knocking to check out whether or not you have firearms, then we will have a problem.

      Question for everyone: Realistically, what would you do if federal agents came to your home, demanding to see and/or seize your firearms?

      • mung says:

        Refuse to let them in.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Question for everyone: Realistically, what would you do if federal agents came to your home, demanding to see and/or seize your firearms?

        If they came without a warrant, I would hand them a copy of the Constitution, with the Fourth Amendment highlighted.

        And then I would tell them to go pound sand.

        • Bongo says:

          I would never answer any questions at the door about my personal gun ownership. It’s nobody’s business but mine and that’s what I’d tell them. Then I’d slam the front door in their faces and lock it.

        • Sharon says:

          I agree with the perspective each of you expresses here, but isn’t it a given that if the “authorities” have already made the decisions you are portraying, they will have also made decisions about enforcing those decisions? There is no way they will just go away no matter what you do at that point. And I’m not even saying “Don’t do it”….I’m just saying — don’t expect them to go away when you do.

          They’ll arrest you for resisting their “lawful orders” and it’ll all hit the skids from there.

          Hadn’t you heard? We are no longer a nation operating under laws applied to everyone, and we are no longer a Constitutional Republic, and have not been for some time. I use those phrases frequently, and I do not use them as way of “being angry”–I use them because they actually are true. IMO.

          They might be demanding paperwork from you that you don’t have, but they sure aren’t going to produce paperwork in answer to your demands. We’re way past that point.

          • Wraith says:

            Sharon gets it…

          • michellc says:

            Yep it’s like I said, we can shut the door in their face but that doesn’t stop them from killing us or as you said arresting us, but they’ve clearly shown killing us is just as good of an option to them as any other.

            Some ask about the women in Texas why didn’t they stop them? Besides being afraid, if they had refused there was nothing stopping them from arresting them, impounding their car and doing a cavity search at the jail.

            We talk about there is going to be a war and the other side likes to make the claim about the 2nd amendment that they were talking muzzle loaders, but rarely do I hear they were talking about us having what the government has so we could fight back. We can protect our lives with guns against those that want to do us harm with the exception of the government and they now have all the rights, because they have all the power and the most powerful weapons.

            • jordan2222 says:

              Military technology was evolving when the Constitution was written and it never stopped advancing. Surely the Founders knew that weaponry would continue to change. Why was the issue not addressed long ago? Just asking..

              • michellc says:

                I think they thought it was addressed, but then others came along who don’t understand English. Of course that’s just my opinion.
                I’m not really advocating us all have bombs in our backyard, I’m just saying no matter how many guns we have, if they wanted to bomb us into oblivion they could and probably would do it.

                I told my husband I honestly don’t see a good solution to stopping them from doing whatever they want to do. He said he did, “starve the beast.” If everyone stopped paying all taxes then they couldn’t pay the salaries. That is our greatest weapon but getting everyone to do it is the problem.”

                I told him if that’s what it takes, it won’t be long and they’ll starve themselves.

                • jordan2222 says:

                  It is not necessary for citizens to have the same weapons as the military in their direct possession. A successful revolution will require defectors from within the military. Soldiers will have to choose sides just like all other wars.

                  You could not realistically expect success without military support. Can it happen here? Well, look around at the rest of the world. What does history tell us?

                  Remember the officer’s oath is different than that of enlisted soldiers.

                  Officers DO NOT swear allegiance to the President. They swear allegiance only to the Constitution.

                  “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

                  If you are an enlisted soldier, whose orders are you going to follow? 

                  Just saying..

      • michellc says:

        I think the bigger question is what could you do? That’s the scariest thing about this so called free country we live in, they’ll just mow you down in the name of the law. Haven’t they already proven that before?
        I would probably slam the door in their face but then they’d probably have their sniper pick me off or blow up my home with my family in it.

        I would think though seeing how treacherous it’s getting for gun owners, everyone would be smart to have an alternate place for some of their firearms, so if they do start busting down doors to take your firearms they can’t find them all.

    • kadar2012 says:

      There is already a gun registry. And they share that info with a few dozen countries under the illusion of gun tracing.

  5. tara says:

    This is going to sound weird, but I feel like it’s a shame that the CT massacre didn’t occur before the election, because I think it would have had a great impact on the result. Also, I’m wondering how many people who voted for Obama are kicking themselves now, thanks to immigration raids and proposed extreme gun control legislation. Time to buy my guns.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I can’t go along with politicizing a massacre by wishing it had happened at a different time so as to effect a different political outcome.

      As to your later point: I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who voted for Obama and later experiences buyer’s remorse.

      • tara says:

        You reduce my comment to “politicizing”, why think the worst of me? You missed my point, maybe I was too subtle. The President is leveraging this horrific shooting (more horrific than the other 18 mass shootings which occurred while he’s been President) to attempt to implement new laws which he wouldn’t have dared to implement prior to the election, unless he was willing to lose. I wish I could have seen what he was made of. Would he have had the b*lls to do what he thinks is right (emphasis on what he thinks)?

        • Chip Bennett says:

          You reduce my comment to “politicizing”, why think the worst of me?

          I’m not assuming the worst of your intentions. Rather, my point of view is that anything other than wishing that the massacre had never happened at all implies that there is some circumstance by which such a massacre could have provided some net benefit.

          The President is leveraging this horrific shooting (more horrific than the other 18 mass shootings which occurred while he’s been President) to attempt to implement new laws which he wouldn’t have dared to implement prior to the election, unless he was willing to lose.

          That’s the thing: his response to this crisis is no different from his response to any other crisis. He has always operated under the principle never let a good crisis go to waste.

          I wish I could have seen what he was made of.

          Obama is who he has always been. He published his policy views on his campaign website in 2008. I knew then that the Obama we have seen post-2008 election and post-2012 election is exactly who he would be.

          He is, and has always been, a liberal, totalitarian, socialist, statist.

        • Coast says:

          Tara, I think we understand your post, but its hard for anyone to think about that event without simply wishing that it had never happened. If there was anyway that I could turn back the clock, I would stop that SOB before he ever got to the school parking lot. But I can’t. And no one else can. And it angers me greatly for people to be “using” this tragedy for political purposes…which they are.

  6. Over 400 people have been killed by a gun in Chicago this year. Since 2001, there has been more than 5000 gun-related deaths. Where is the outrage? Where is the Federal Government passing laws to restrict gang membership? Or where is a law being passed that gives police the right to enter and search known gang hideouts?
    My point is, any criminal can get and carry a weapon. The proof is in the numbers of shootings each year. The Government wants to protect the public but the only way they see to do that is to take the guns out of honest peoples hands. How this will take the guns out of a dishonest persons hands who is getting his weapons illegally, is a mystery to me.

    • tara says:

      What’s ironic is that the vast majority of gun violence in Chicago occurs in a small number of neighborhoods. Most of Chicago has minimal or no gun violence. Where I live there was one murder something like 4 years ago. Chicago implements gun laws which affect ALL citizens when only a portion of the population really needs controlling. And of course, the criminals will buy and carry regardless of the law, the laws only affect law-abiding citizens. It’s truly crazy.

    • mcfyre2012 says:

      “Where is the outrage? Where is the Federal Government passing laws to restrict gang membership?”

      No, no, no! Didn’t you get the memo? We can’t oppress gangs because they’re made of up minorities from the lower socio-economic segment of society.

      And according to the liberal/progressives…Chicago is its own thing and has nothing to do with Obama or the rest of the country.

    • Coast says:

      Sorry, but protecting the public is not really the agenda. Think again.

    • Sharon says:

      They are ok with hundreds of (mostly) black young people being murdered. Why is that? How do they think about this? I’m convinced that, even if it’s all twisted, they DO think about it….morally and ethically, they are so messed up.

  7. mcfyre2012 says:

    Our country’s Founding Fathers created a government of the people, by the people, for the people. They crafted the federal government so that it has a system of checks and balances. The federal government is made up of the executive branch (President and his cabinet), Legislative (Congress), and the Judical branch (Supreme Court). These three branches are too keep each other in check, or in other words to keep one branch from becoming all too powerful.


    When you read the first ten amendments to the Constitution, you should realize that the “unsaid” fourth part of the federal government’s check and balance system is you…the Citizen. Those amendments are there for you to NOT be persecuted or minimized be the feds. That’s why they were written into the Constittion.

    We’ve seen already how Barry/Barrack has been leading the country…and virtually ignoring Congress. When Congress doesn’t agree, no problem…just write an “Executive Order” appoint a czar, and make “regulations” instead of formal laws. Stack the Supreme Court with progressives, such as Elena Kagan (who was never a judge before or practiced law).

    Gun control, along with the massive voter fraud we saw in November, is nothing but an attack on the Constitutional rights of the Citizen…and a great step to disarm and nullify the fourth part of the check and balance system.

    Ask yourself…how do gun control laws stop criminals and the mentally-deranged from illegally obtaining guns, which the vast majority of the time is how they obtain guns in the first place?

    And doesn’t it seem ironic that Barry/Barrack is suddenly concerned with gun control, even though he has been busted…twice now…smuggling the very weapons he is suddenly concerned about? And both times (Fast & Furious, Benghazi), Americans were killed.

    Gun control only favors the progressive movement. It does nothing to curb violence, as can be seen by the strict gun control laws in Chicago, DC, and NYC.

  8. goodkathie says:

    OT — but Ann Barnhardt hasn’t blogged on her site since Dec 9…pray all is well for her.

  9. Gary Chadwick says:

    Are they going to ban the giving away of firearms from the evidence rooms too?

  10. tara says:

    The Dems have become experts at exactly what they hated the Republicans for in the 80’s and 90’s. Framing. Forget that most people didn’t notice that Obama didn’t take action after any of the other mass shootings which occurred during his Presidency. This latest one is so ripe for leveraging because most of the victims were small children. It could only have been worse if Lanza had gone into a nursery school or a newborn wing in a hospital. Obama has already begun the framing by declaring that extremely restrictive gun laws are “intelligent” and “common sense”, and those who don’t spend much time thinking will buy into it, especially the ones who already belonged to the Obama cult. Like I mentioned in a prior post, I’m almost surprised Obama didn’t say “cool” too during his press conference, because that’s another part of their framing of the gun issue. You know, gun owners are crazy and people who don’t own guns are cool, which doesn’t explain why so many of the people who don’t own guns watch violent films where people are shooting each other up, but I digress…. The CT massacre now allows the Dems to expand the framing, now it will not just be intelligent, common sense, and cool to make it extremely difficult for people to purchase, sell, or even keep guns, it will now have to do with caring for kids as well. If you buy or own a gun you will be an uncaring crazy person who doesn’t mind if little kids get shot up. And the Republicans will have a hard time fighting the legislation because the framing will be so successful they will look just as uncaring and crazy to the stupid masses. THEY NEED TO STAND FIRM. They need to represent their citizens.

    • aliashubbatch says:

      Yeah, I’m gonna call bull on how not supporting new gun laws makes you uncaring of chirrens. These cretins would just as soon choose to have them aborted if those kids were still in the womb; so they can take their faux self righteousness and shove it up their collective asses.

    • mung says:

      I would be interested to know the percentage of gun related crimes that were committed by gun OWNERS vs gun POSSESSORS.

      • Coast says:

        Excellent point…the creep in CT did not own anything.

        • mung says:

          Most of them don’t. I would be willing to bet the number of gun crimes committed by the person who legally purchased the gun from a retailer or wholesale is very, very low. I would also be willing to bet that the gun crimes committed with guns in private sale where the purchaser also had purchased guns either retail or wholesale is very, very low.

          Now the number of gun crimes committed by people who stole or purchased the guns where the purchaser would not be legally allowed to purchase said firearm from a retail store, is most likely very, very high.

          • howie says:

            The solution to a couple nutz shooting innocent kids is to take all firearms away from the citizens. How simple is that. Damn the constitution. Full speed ahead. Amazing. Ripley’s will have to expand. Do not try to makes sense out of nonsense. Preventing the shootings is not the reason for this. Not even a little bit the reason. They care less about the kid’s.

  11. Eric says:

    I thought this would be something good to post up for all to see:


    Does someone see the hypocrite in this article?

  12. Don P. says:

    I posted this on the wrong thread earlier.
    I have some thoughts on this debate that we seem to miss. I am not the best at word or idea articulation, but here goes. If we take a school bus full of children (lets say 25). How many armed protectors would be on this bus? Now remember these are our most cherished and invaluable thing that we can think of, our innocent children. The answer would be ZERO! Now take that same bus and fill it with inanimate paper (MONEY$$$$) pound for pound. How many guards with full auto weapons would there be? I know a lot people would say that is apples and oranges but is it really? Most people visit a bank and check their accounts more times in a year than they visit the school where your child is every day. If your bank had lousy security you would move your assets. Why not the same attention to the security of our children. I hear folks blaming God for this and say this is proof there is no God. We seem not to see the very gifts the almighty gave us because we have become to comfortable blaming our short falls on others. God gave us the gift of superior intellect. The ability to see a problem and create a tool to help us overcome and to rule over our environment A gun is not but a tool. It has no mind. It gives us the ability to neutralize a threat before it can get close enough to do us physical harm. It is a tool that much like the pen or computer can only do the harm that its user intends. And the pen has done much more harm than the gun throughout history.

    • michellc says:

      I don’t really think people are blaming God because anyone who claims to blame God imo probably doesn’t believe in God and is using this tragedy to try and prove to us crazies there is no God.

      The farther we get from God, the more evil that will exist until God says okay enough.

  13. ottawa925 says:

    Can’t remember which thread where I did a heads up to SD re: last night’s Dr. Drew. The first person to speak (a Teacher) says 80% of kids in Special Ed is either AA, Latino, or Male, and that this is a problem that is racism, but more sexism than racism. There’s much more, too much to sum up here:


    • dizzymissl says:

      They want as many kids in special ed as possible because one, the school gets money from the feds, and two, the parent gets money.

      Quite a little racket. I was shocked when I found out about it.

  14. akathesob says:

    When Obama and Biden and their AG stops selling guns to Mexican Drug Lords and stops running guns to America’s enemy’s such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quida I might then listen to any gun conversation he wants but until then it is moot on the Second Amendment issue with myself and family…

  15. Pingback: The Sands Of America’s Hour Glass – Pt 2 | LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar – OH!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s