President Obama Threatens Executive Action to Go After Guns:

President Obama has yet again confirmed that the White House will be launching a full frontal assault against gun owners as they get ready to announce their new proposals sometime in the coming week.

In a press conference earlier this morning, the President said that they will be going after guns through legislation, and through his so-called “executive powers”. While there’s no doubt that any attempt to go after guns through an executive order is Unconstitutional, the President doesn’t seem to care about our Constitutional rights.

He told Reporters:

My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” said Obama. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then i want to go ahead and take it.”


  1. bubba musftafa
    January 14, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    Going ‘after guns’ via an EO is FAR from unconstitutional.. You might want to read, and *comprehend* a little better. The BTAFE, sets the rules. They don’t allow machine guns, C4, without special licensing. I guess that is unconstitutional..

    Now banning all guns via an EO is unconstitutional, but that is NOT what he said, and you CONVENIENTLY cut him off as he went to state what he’s about to do.

    Granted things are a bit shaky, but a full ban will never happen. You’ll see the old AR ban with a few tweaks. (which wasn’t much then anyways)

    But did you hear him? This is all a HUGE scam to drive up profits. THAT is the main focus.

    • MolenLabe
      January 14, 2013 at 3:35 pm

      Your a retard. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand

    • Jamie
      January 14, 2013 at 3:43 pm

      Wow these Obama supporters really do have mental problems. The hit comes out and says live on tv that he is going to take executive action, which is very unconstitutional, and they still can’t come to terms with who this guy is.

      Read the 2nd amendment; SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED doesn’t say anything about except by executive orders.

    • Joe Ochoa
      January 14, 2013 at 8:18 pm

      The house needs to de-fund the BTAFE..

    • Ken
      February 6, 2013 at 2:30 am

      And what makes you an expert on the Constitution? Please share your degree in Constitutional law with us.

  2. Steve Cianchette
    January 14, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    When he said lots more people buying guns I was hoping he would say and crimes with guns is going down!

    • DEB
      January 16, 2013 at 8:37 am


  3. Chant
    January 14, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    @Sol… basically because he doesn’t believe that this course of action will come back and bite him in the ass. This has been Obama’s plan all along. Too bad for him he doesn’t realize that the American people won’t stand for it.

    • Sol
      January 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm

      i hate to say it but you’re right. but the difference is i’ve talked to too many people, heard from too many that this is a different time. if even 1/10th of the people follow through then its gonna be hell in a handbasket. i hope they wake up before its too late.

      • Runner
        January 14, 2013 at 6:20 pm

        Unless he wants civil unrest. A few uprisings here and there would let him paint those patriots as dangerous extremist militants out to destroy America and endanger all the other obedient citizens. Then it’s time for martial law.

        I’m not saying it will go down that way, but it could. If he wants to do it, he could actively incite rebellion through gun control or by tanking the economy. The question is, is that what he wants? And is he fool enough to do it?

        • DEB
          January 16, 2013 at 8:41 am

          Civil unrest would become maeshall law, this would suit him just fine, as for he would become a Dick-tater, oops misspelled.

  4. Falcon
    January 14, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    Bubbam, what part of “Shall NOT be infringed” do you not understand? Going after guns in any way, shape or form is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It violates the 2nd amendment. PERIOD. The current laws and regulations, by even the most MYOPIC definition are un-Constitutional.

    • Randy
      January 14, 2013 at 12:55 pm

      Something I want to add;
      Up until 30 or 40 years ago American Citizens where allowed to own (with out jumping through hoops) automatic rifles. Putting the restrictions on those was Unconstitutional then, and still is now. People are just used to it now because you have a whole generation that grew up with it as law, and are taught “Thou shalt never break the Law.”

  5. JAS
    January 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Bottom line–he can do anything he wants and the people of this country will let him get away with it. We have been moving in this direction for a long time now. There are very few gun owners willing to stand up and die to protect their rights. They will bow their heads and turn in their guns, just like they have done everytime the government makes a new rule that goes against the constitution.

  6. I Gassman
    January 14, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action.” I have absolutely no use for obama, but he’s undoubtedly right with that statement. The problem: he’ll more than likely go well beyond what he should with executive powers.

    • JoeB
      January 14, 2013 at 6:51 pm

      House Government Operations
      Committee in 1957:
      Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President. When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may
      have the force and effect of law…. In the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations are written documents denominated as such…. Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. They usually affect private individuals only indirectly. Proclamations in most instances affect primarily the activities of private individuals. Since the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President’s proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.

  7. Sol
    January 14, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    wow. he’s really going to do it. i don’t understand this. he has to have people monitoring websites. and even moles out in society. he has to know that he’s poking a bear thats ready to strike. i just don’t understand why he’s keeping on this course.

    • Deb
      January 15, 2013 at 10:35 am

      Read about adgenda 21. It will open your eyes to alot that this president is trying to do.

      • steve
        January 16, 2013 at 7:07 am

        watch obamas decption and find out thr truth and who is behind it

    • Ken
      February 6, 2013 at 2:28 am

      Another possibility is he’s trying to provoke us all into a revolution so he can declare martial law. Martial law would then allow him and his cronies to take control.

  8. JAS
    January 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    One thing you don’t see discussed very much, that I think is a very real probability is a ban on certain caliber ammo. Just like in some of the African countries, you will not be allowed to have any military caliber ammo ( 9mm, 45acp, 223, 308). It would render most of the guns useless.

  9. Bubba musftafa
    January 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    “a WELL REGULATED militia” The founding fathers (ALL but one left the bill of rights OUT of the constitution, Tommy J got it in, HE is the hero, not the founding fathers. The FF left out voting for women, blacks too. They also ONLY wanted congress to vote for the prez. The FF are NOT the golden boys but elites.)
    The ‘well regulated’ is the *intentional* loophole for the elites.

  10. JAS your right
    January 14, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    lotta talk, lotta thats unconstitutional,off grid has been saying this for a while, hell obama has stated his intention months ago. oh well iam sure most of you will be on her bitchen after you handed your firearms over, still talkin, blah,blah,blah.
    Talkin tall walkin small is the motto
    ya me too i would like to say i would go in a blaze
    of glory, I am sure my greatest uncle Nathan Hale
    would have stood up, but me here Iam talkin
    What is a Patriot ? please save the cheap ass reply
    and honor that question with an action

  11. JAS
    January 14, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    Pay close attention to the news this week and be thinking about where you would stash most of your good guns and ammo. Keep a couple of guns and ammo at home, that you would not mind giving up. If you have a CCW permit, you can bet they will check you out if certain pistols are banned. I have switched to carrying a basic 5 shot 38 S&W. Yes sir officer, this is what I carry and I have about 300 rounds of ammo for it. Other than that, all I have is an old Mosberg shotgun for hunting birds.

  12. Phillip
    January 15, 2013 at 7:54 am

    Does this man and congress not realize they are fixing to start a civil war you know how many state governments are against this. I am embarased to be an american we have no rights people. Jackie Chan hit the words when he said the U.S. was the most corrupt country in the world

    • DEB
      January 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm

      Phillip it seems that you have gave up before the first shot has been fired,sure we have hit some bumps but don’t be embarased for something that you didnot do.
      As far as an answer to your question,,,people that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,,,,1776.

  13. jkloop
    January 31, 2013 at 7:16 am

    The government officeials (president) need to be selected by the people not electorial votes.

  14. Matt Gunther
    June 24, 2013 at 11:52 am

    “There are no coherent arguments for why we didn’t do this,” Obama also said.

    Sure there is. If you wanted to pass a law that might help, it should have addressed the issues that are very apparent in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.

    A few points. Gun shows weren’t the issue as there was no illegal purchase from a gun show.
    And, background checks do not matter because the person who purchased the firearms could pass a background check, even the US Senate’s ‘universal’ background checks.

    What might help includes 3 things and has to happen at the state level.
    1. Make involuntary institutionalization available to those who are dangerously mentally ill. Ms. Lanza was trying to have her son committed when the mass murder occurred.
    2. Strengthen the requirements to report the dangerously mentally ill to the background check system. Mental health professionals need to help prevent crime, not enable it.
    3. Remove the ‘free fire zone’ designation from schools and other public places. It is already against the law for anyone under 21 years of age from possessing a handgun and anyone under 18 from having a long gun without adult supervision, so students are prohibited. Some teachers and administrators could be trained … or not. When you remove the free fire zone status, the crazies, who are not stupid, won’t know if there is armed opposition to them at the schools and will likely choose other targets or give up on the idea all together.

  15. Adam Rifle
    August 23, 2014 at 2:35 am

    First, disband unconstitutional US domestic surveillance – or is the actual ‘terrorist’ purpose of illegal NSA recordings to determine “potentially dangerous hands” and their threat to federal graft, control, and power?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.