Obama to Enact New Gun Control — Should You be Worried?

Barack Obama

President Obama is expected to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch this week to discuss new proposed actions on gun control. According to several news reports, it is expected that Obama will enact the new executive actions soon. Believe it or not, that last sentence may be good news, but only because executive actions do not carry the weight of executive orders.

Barack Obama
No longer relying on his phone, Obama plans to enact gun control with his pen through executive action.

Of course, the best news would be no news at all. I had the keyboard all warmed up and my reporter’s notepad ready when Obama held his end of the year news conference. The press conference ended and there was no mention of new actions on gun control. That gave me a glimmer of hope, but it seems Obama was just in a hurry to get to his vacation. With the vacation over, new executive actions on gun control look to be at the top of the agenda, but what is an executive action?

Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted. Essentially, an executive action is an informal proposal or move by the president. however, the term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do.

However, most executive actions carry zero weight in court. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress. Fortunately, we currently have a Congress that is friendly to the Second Amendment, and given that this is an election year, few are likely to risk the ire of the Second Amendment voters.

On the other hand, executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register. The courts and Congress can also reverse executive orders, which make the coming elections critical to undoing any action Obama may attempt in the coming days or weeks. So in the case of gun control, executive actions are better than executive orders, although neither is a great option of course.

Senate Judiciary Committee
Unable to sway the Congress to enact his gun control agenda, the president is trying to upset the Founding Father’s system of checks and balances by going it alone.

Threat Assessment

So, what is the current threat? Likely low, but I hate to give anyone the impression they can become complacent. However, we can look a back a few years for an informed comparison.

Heading into his second term, Obama made headlines going into in his second term by issuing nearly two dozen executive actions designed to prevent gun violence in the United States as one of his primary agenda items. Obviously, we have not lost our Second Amendment rights since then. In fact, few probably remember the executive actions at all; even less could name a handful of them.

For those who are curious, the previous executive actions ranged from universal background checks (what they like to call the gun show loophole) to another assault weapons ban to cracking down on straw purchases. Last week, The Shooter’s Log reported on a new Assault Weapons Ban that is already before the house, but has little chance of passing.


The devil is always in the details, and I am always concerned until I see the potential ramifications of each detail. As of now, I am apprehensive as a minimum, if not downright terrified. I do not like the president’s sabre rattling, or the fact that he wants to go around the other branches of government with his pen.

However, if he takes the path of past and sticks to nonbinding executive actions, the damage should be minimal, but that remains to be seen.

How much danger do you see in the president’s coming action? Weigh in with your opinions and analysis in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (50)

  1. He wants to be an anchor? SUPER! I’ll let him pick which ship he wants to be the anchor on as it sinks to the bottom of the sea. I doubt anyone, including his most rabid supporters, will miss him. They will already be on to the next POS that will promise them the moon.

  2. I only read the first several comments Dave, has anyone mentioned the theory that he will declare marshal law, just so he can stay in office? That’s something I heard a couple of years ago, disregarding it. But now, I’m wondering if he is trying to trigger it in some way, inflaming the masses.
    I’ll ne 63 next week, and half my childhood and all my adulthood have been spent hunting, and using firearms. An old single action revolver gets used for a hammer in camp, or to open a beer, and I have known quite a few reaaly nice long guns over the years, but I never thought I’d be concerned with owning, much less needing to carry semi-auto, assault type weapons litterally anywhere I may need to go, such as is the world today. I guess, with all that’s happened with Obama this week, that’s partially what I reflect from it.

    Also, I reflect about how people gave of themselves, so we CAN have and use guns.

    If guns had just neen invented, and the masses were buying them, we would need some sort of regulatory laws, but that’s not the case. Guns aren’t new, and we’ve had laws for years.

    1. Bill,
      I am sure that has come up in the comments somewhere, if not in this post then certainly others. I look at it like this. I am old enough to have served in the military during the Cold War under President Reagan. I first remember those accusation being leveled at Ronnie (and every President since toward the end of their office). Most likely, every President before Reagan, I was just not old enough to remember it. Some claims have went so far as to claim the President proposed legislation to ensure they would remain in power forever, blah… blah… blah…

      I am not fearful, but always vigilant. The military in this country would never support a coup such as that nor would the people in my opinion, so I regard it as a very low threat compared to a natural disaster event such as a solar EMP. ~Dave Dolbee

  3. I have wondered the about the same thing but, with the oval office up for grabs next year I am thinking that no one wants to make any waves in the Reflective Pond. Then again. I can’t help to wonder why the Congress has not taken steps in the past seven years to put Obama in check.

    P.S. What is happening with the bill that Rand Paul has submitted to congress which would make any executive actions, orders, memorandums illegal and thus reversing said actions, executive orders, memorandums making them advisory only?

  4. Did you see Mr. O’s fake tears at his gun control news conference today. I am not saying that the loss of little children is not something to be upset about. It’s just that this is the same guy that sees an American beheaded and then goes out and plays golf. Or has no emotion when hundreds of women and children are killed because of their faith by ruthless terrorists that then recruit fools here to kill Americans in the U.S. He only does a fly by stop on his way to his vacation.
    But, I figured it out. His emotions today was practice for his next job after the presidency. He wants to be an actor.

  5. I’ve been wondering that for a long time (as in decades), and not just about firearms.

    The SCOTUS is supposed to rule based on the Constitution, not on their own interpretations of it. After all, the words of the authors still exist to explain what they intended.

    POTUS openly rejects the Constitution when it does not conform to his personal views, and rejects the voice of the people when that voice does not fall in line with his views.

    The Legislative Branch promises much but delivers little (that’s both sides of the aisle). So many of them are so involved in their own power struggles and power plays that they forget why they are there and who is supposed to be serving who.

    This is not new by a long shot. With regard to firearms, it goes back at least to FDR and the National Firearms Act. For the first 158 years of the nation, firearms were not restricted, and the people adopted every new firearms technology to evolve. In 1934, shortly after the assassination attempt on the newly elected FDR, Congress enacts the NFA in the interests of “public safety”.

    I am reminded of a state legislator (Ye) here in California who was prolific in writing 2A restrictions, and then was nailed for gun running. I have to wonder how much money Obama, and many others, makes every time there is some new reason he originates for the people to buy, buy, BUY guns and ammo.

    This is not our fathers country anymore. It was supposed to be passed on, and instead it has been stolen/hijacked.

  6. Since online dealers require firearms sent to an FFL, there’re no reason for them to do background checks. That’s what an FFL would do. At every gun show, they do background checks. There are no gun show loopholes.

    I’d tell Obama he can stick his EO’s. They are unconstitutional

    1. Your statement is not entirely true. Gun sales between individuals at gun shows or on the internet can be made without background checks in some states. In Florida where I live, all you need to know as a seller is that the buyer is a state resident. This is what fuels the liberals argument.
      As gun owners we should work to stop the Gun show/ Private sale argument by promoting a reasonable alternative. We should promote a gun advocate non-profit to process private gun sales and friends and family transfers. For a minimal charge, say $10 or so, this entity would run a federal background check and provide the transfer parties with a printout to record the transfer, but in no circumstances keep a digital or paper copy of the transfer. This should be able to be done online for internet sales and maybe a booth setup at gun shows. This could require some laws to be changed. I personally would like a way to know that when I am selling a gun, the person that I am selling it to is legal to own a gun. And I wouldn’t mind a printed copy as proof that I at least made a good faith attempt to make a legal gun sale. I do not trust the cops or the government to operate a program like this. But some one like the NRA or other gun advocates group. What if the neighbor in California that bought the ARs for the terrorist had not been a terrorist himself, but just a guy like me or you. Put yourself in those shoes, would you not at least like to have something saying you made an effort to make a legal sale. I know that I would.

    2. Your statement is not entirely true. Gun sales between individuals at gun shows or on the internet can be made without background checks in some states. In Florida where I live, all you need to know as a seller is that the buyer is a state resident. This is what fuels the liberals argument.
      As gun owners we should work to stop the Gun show/ Private sale argument by promoting a reasonable alternative. We should promote a gun advocate non-profit to process private gun sales and friends and family transfers. For a minimal charge, say $10 or so, this entity would run a federal background check and provide the transfer parties with a printout to record the transfer, but in no circumstances keep a digital or paper copy of the transfer. This should be able to be done online for internet sales and maybe a booth setup at gun shows. This could require some laws to be changed. I personally would like a way to know that when I am selling a gun, the person that I am selling it to is legal to own a gun. And I wouldn’t mind a printed copy as proof that I at least made a good faith attempt to make a legal gun sale. I do not trust the cops or the government to operate a program like this. But some one like the NRA or other gun advocates group. What if the neighbor in California that bought the ARs for the terrorist had not been a terrorist himself, but just a guy like me or you. Put yourself in those shoes, would you not at least like to have something saying you made an effort to make a legal sale. I know that I would.

  7. The NRA accepts anyone’s money? So would I if it helped advance my goals. The Progressive Party, which was formed to oppose Truman, was originally financed by the Communist Party. The membership rebelled at the thought and the funds were returned. However, the Progressive Party leadership professed that they had the right to accept funding from anyone.

    The NRA states they have 5 million members. That’s like about 2% of the population. There are an estimated 300 million guns in private hands. If we take an average of 5 guns per legal gun owner to account for various uses (plinking, hunting, etc), that’s about 60 million gun owners. So, who represents the 55 million that are not members of the NRA?

    At this point, I don’t care what they know as long as they keep fighting for my rights.

  8. In addition I wish to warn folks by distinguishing further executive action types not mentioned in this article, and also point out several deceitful highlights of Obama’s last round of 23 gun related executive actions to look out for this time around.

    For starters the mainstream media clearly knew the differences between executive actions versus executive orders and yet intentionally labeled these 23 executive actions as executive orders to help Obama appear more powerful on gun control issues.

    Likewise, even the official White House website has a misleading caption under his signing picture which states Obama “signs executive orders initiating 23 separate executive actions”. That misleading statement right there would make any legal scholar do a double take.

    But of most importance we should understand there are several types of written actions a president can take which include – executive orders, executive actions, presidential policy directives, and executive memorandums.

    It is imperative that folks understand that executive memorandums carry the same force and effect as an executive order and are also published into the Federal Register to ensure legitimacy and enforcement.

    So in all fairness to his majesty’s testicular burden, 3 of Obamas 23 executive gun control actions were actually executive memorandums as opposed to the remaining 20 unenforceable executive actions he signed. I make this distinction so that readers can be on the lookout for any detrimental effects resulting from these 3 memorandums as well as any future deceptive memorandums which are every bit as significant as any executive order.

    That said, most citizens are unaware that Obama has used more executive memoranda than any president in history and does so in lieu of executive orders so he can keep his executive order count below that of prior presidents. He does this because he knows we are keeping count. But make no mistake, an executive memorandum is every bit as powerful as an executive order and doesn’t even require an order number to be federally registered.

    In case anyone is interested, these are the 3 executive memorandums that were hidden amongst Obama’s 23 executive actions:

    1.) Direct federal law enforcement to trace all guns taken in federal custody in the course of a criminal investigation.

    2.) Direct the Department of Justice to ensure that all applicable information from federal agencies is made available for background checks.

    3.) Direct the Department of Health to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”

    1. @G-Man:

      Thanks for your analysis of how Obama does things. I’ll look for you to weigh in after he has made his new executive actions this week.

      Also, I’m curious about something with you, but I’m not sure how much you can explain. If you really do work for the federal government, do you worry at all about your posts affecting your career? I’m assuming that the feds have ways to trace the identity of any poster on any website, excluding people with sophisticated cloaking skills, like hackers.

    2. @ ss1,

      Thank you for paying attention. I will very much be weighing in on Obama’s next set of executive actions, whether it be here, or in a new Shooter’s Log article – which I’m certain will be written after the dust settles.

      Your question about my employment is a very reasonable one. To an extent I have answered this question for others in posts over the years and will do so for you now as well.

      First and foremost I have no problems admitting that I have always been considered a thorn in my agency’s side regarding my rogue and alternative attitude. They have even tried over the years on several occasions to take action against me, but I have always prevailed because of my exceptional service record, high positions I’ve held, and admittedly political friends in high places that support me and think alike.

      But most importantly I have prevailed because I’ve always taken the time to know the law and the written policies better than anyone that ever goes up against me. Simply put, I am very careful to never do anything that actually violates my position or oath of office.

      As for the things I reveal in this forum, I have never violated any secrecy agreements or released official use only information. There are many wannabes that attack me here claiming I have, but the fact of the matter is they have no clue as to what they are talking about and are just trying to look like a bigshot.

      I will admit that I may from time to time use my federal experience to reveal internal workings of the U.S. government, but those things are not protected, rather they are just not commonly known unless you work inside the federal Government on a regular basis.

      Other information I reveal may not be in the public domain yet, but is still authorized for release because it has been deemed unrestricted due to approved Freedom of Information Act requests and will be out shortly anyway.

      And finally, though I have been on this forum for years, I have been increasingly more vocal lately in part because I have never seen this Country in such a shambles or in more danger than since Obama became president. This makes me feel even more dedicated to ensuring the public be armed with as much correct information about their internal government as possible.

      Add to this, the fact that I am coming up on retirement which provides me more time to post, respond, and feel more free to speak my mind given they usually don’t waste the resources to discipline someone so close to retirement.

      I hope this has adequately answered your question.

    3. @G-Man:

      Wow, that was a more intricate answer than I was expecting. It sounds like you really have everything in the proper order and fully organized as far as what you’re doing in your career and your personal beliefs.

      I’m glad you’re a part of this forum!!

    4. Excellent post.

      We all need to remember that there are two parties in America,

      the Democrats and the Americans and to vote accordingly.

    5. @ G-Man

      I find it interesting that of the 23 Executive Orders/Memorandums issued, that NONE have been Overturned by Either the House/Senate/US Supreme Court. Make’s me wonder if THEY Actually Want Them Overturned.

    6. @ Michael,

      Interesting indeed, but Congress’ failure to take action is not for the reasons you’d suspect.

      Of Obama’s 23 executive decisions, 20 of them were categorized as executive actions which have no force in law. The sheer nature for titling something an executive action serves as nothing more than a formal way for a president to address Congress in writing about ideas he’d like implemented.

      However, such ideas are usually something only Congress has the legal authority to carry out. So for those 20 items, there is nothing for Congress to overturn as they are not legally binding and all Congress has to do is ignore the written executive actions and they essentially fade away.

      In contrast, 3 of Obama’s 23 executive decisions were given the status of executive memorandum which is enforceable because it carries the same legally binding weight as an executive order. However, the Courts have no authority to initiate a hearing on the matter. It must first be brought by an aggrieved party with actual damages and be filed as a petition before a Court will consider its standing. To my knowledge, no citizen has yet to step forward.

      For Congress to take action, they must first determine whether presidential overreach or abuse of authority has actually occurred by the issuance of such executive memorandums. Thereafter Congress has 2 options:

      1.) Congress can pass a law in an attempt to override and counteract the executive memorandums. The reason it will only be an attempt is that Congress knows there is now way in hell Obama would sign a bill that would kill his own gun-control memorandums. In addition Congress also knows there wouldn’t be enough Democrat votes to overcome the veto either; and thus explains why Congress won’t waste time attempting to overturn his executive memorandums with a new law.

      2.) The final option would be for Congress to determine that Obama’s executive memorandums constituted such an overreach of his powers and move to impeach him. The problem there is that no one in Congress wants to go down in history for impeaching the first black president.

      In conclusion, I have no doubt there are many in Congress that do actually want Obama’s executive memorandums overturned, but the fact of the matter is that Obama remains untouchable based on the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.

    7. @ G-Man

      How do you go About Fading Away A Law. It will be a New Print Copy, Sitting on EVERY Judges Desk. In ALL 50-States and Territories?

    8. @ Michael,

      I don’t wish to insult your intelligence so please forgive me if this comes off that way… I am detecting you don’t fully understand how our government works.

      The three branches of government are:

      **Legislative Branch (Congress) – The only branch allowed to make laws.
      **Executive (President) – The only branch allowed to enforce the laws that Congress makes.
      **Judicial (Supreme Court) – The only branch allowed to interpret if a law conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

      Taking the above branches into account and then if you go back and carefully re-read and try to fully comprehend what I wrote, you should come to the realization that Obama (as the president of the executive branch) has absolutely no authority to make laws – only Congress can.

      However, they do allow presidents to make recommendations to Congress for new laws, and that can be done by a president writing up executive actions and submitting them to Congress as an idea. But those are NOT LAWS, they are only recommendations to Congress.

      So once these written executive actions reach Congress, there is no obligation for Congress to do a thing with a president’s “wish list” of laws, and thus without Congressional action they simply fade away. This is actually what happened with Obama’s 20 executive actions he wrote back in 2013. That’s a fact.

      Now, as for the other 3 written executive directives which were titled as executive memorandums rather than executive actions, those are still NOT LAWS either because a president cannot make laws, but rather they are additional guidance sent to agencies beneath Obama, and which are only allowed to enhance or re-direct the way in which affected agencies will enforce THE SAME laws already on the books.

      In other words, a president’s executive memo or order (same thing) cannot ever make law or change it in any way, it can only direct a better way of carrying out the SAME EXACT LAW that Congress previously passed and with the SAME EXACT INTENT Congress had for creating the law in the first place. Obama is NOT allowed to change the INTENT of Congress’ laws.

      So, here’s what the hoopla is all about – Did Obama’s executive memorandums effectively CHANGE Congressional laws or did it just direct a better way for Obama’s agencies to carry out the SAME law but in a more efficient manner.

      Most believe Obama broke the law, by changing it with executive memorandums rather than re-directing the way it is enforced. I hope this has cleared things up for you.

    9. @G-Man:

      I’m currently selling a gun on a local website, and I’m not sure if I can or should be selling it myself after hearing Obama’s speech AND studying the information on I’m considered a hobbyist, and they are closing that loophole by lumping hobbyists in with dealers.

      I’m suspending my sale. Do you agree?

    10. If I were you I would do it and not suspend the sale because they cannot possibly have the mechanism in place by the time you sell your gun. A little civil disobedience right now is a good thing.

    11. @ ss1,

      On face value my answer is NO, I do not agree that you should suspend your sale.

      First and foremost it would appear that you had already placed your ad prior to Obama’s announcement and thus it would be grandfathered.

      Furthermore, it will take some time before Obama’s new guidance gets translated into policy and sent down channel as a Directive which agents would need before they can even begin to start enforcing prospective changes.

      Even after things settle, your sale would still be legal as long you are not engaged in the business of selling firearms to make a living.

      Yes I am aware of Obama’s intent to redefine even collectors and hobbyist into criminals if they sell without a license. I can guarantee you that just as Obama’s immigration action was successfully blocked by the appeals court, so too will this.

      Granted, Obama states he is not changing the law, but rather he claims he is only “clarifying” the existing rules already in effect. That is remarkable BS given that only Congress can make laws, and only the Courts may make “clarifications” thereafter.

      Obama’s job is to only enforce the laws as established by Congress, not “clarify” them. These laws have been in effect for years without Obama’s so-called need to suddenly “clarify” them. I am certain this time around will lead to plenty of lawsuits against Obama’s overreach of executive authority.

      The only thing that remains to be seen is whether any Judge is willing to back Obama in his lie which apparently claims we’ve been misunderstanding the law all this time and it took his sudden wisdom to “clarify” it for everyone else in the Nation.

    12. @G-Man and Dprato:

      Thanks for your assistance and advice. I’m trying to contact the guy who was ready to purchase my gun before I cancelled yesterday.

      BTW I’m so frickin upset with all media on TV and radio. I tried so hard yesterday and this morning to get some analysis of what this means to the average Joe trying to sell his gun, and all the media is talking about is Obama’s tears. They keep playing that sound bite over and over. What a circus all this is!!!!!!!!

    13. ss1,

      We agree, There is a lot to consider and we are actively seeking legal advice so we can give you some solid analysis. Currently, Law Shield, the Second Amendment Foundation, NRA, NSSF etc. are all looking into it and we will bring The Shooter’s Log’s readers the information as soon as it is confirmed. ~Dave Dolbee

    14. ss1,
      Always a pleasure. Thanks for the loyal readership and regular contributions to the blog! ~Dave Dolbee

  9. Whichever way Obama goes, All freedom loving American’s must not abide by his anti gun policy’s.
    Don’t give in to him or you will lose guns and more rights.
    Stand up to him!
    Disobedience to Tyrants, is obedience to God.
    Benjamin Franklin.

  10. I expect Obama to close the mythological gun show loophole in order to claim that he did something to stop the “carnage”. He may also do the “No Fly List” action. That would be his having done something to stop suspected terrorists from getting guns.

    One or both of these would be the least he could do and claim a victory, and possibly suck moderate voters into believing he is the most Constitutional POTUS.

    This also leaves him an excuse in the event someone like Hillary takes things further. He could then claim to have tried to protect our rights while protecting our persons but whoever took things further were not the great American that he was.

    Political smoke and mirrors from the greatest gun salesman ever, and another way to distract the voters from what is really going on..

    At the same time, we must all be wary of whatever politicians say, and not jump too soon. The opposition uses those leaps to conclusions against us.

    Personally, I have a feeling that he knows that he can’t go too far or he will lose the moderates who support him. That people will follow the examples of people in CN who still have not registered, turned in, or gotten rid of their black rifles. Same thing with the LA high capacity magazines which, last I heard, was still being ignored.

  11. yes I would like to see Ted Cruz Control as President but he also needs to place the others , Trump , Rubio , Christy and a few more . Trey Gowdy would make good AG after they boot out Lynch .

  12. HUH, Isn’t that a Kick to the Head? Our Current President Barrack Obama, is a NRA Member! Since at least 2011!!

    1. How best to make an anti-gun president appear to support the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment than to have him become an NRA member?

      Remember the pictures of his shotgun use where he said he shoots often? I took one look at the photos and instantly recognized a novice.

      Then we have “Smokin'” Joe Biden who instructs his wife to ‘just go out on the balcony and fire off a couple of shots from a double barreled shotgun’ to scare the perps away. Of course, if you listen to his other comments, his guns are locked in one safe and his ammo in another, not to mention his favorite defense weapon holds two shots.

    2. @ DaveW.

      It just shows you that the NRA will take ANYBODIES “MONEY”, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, TOO. Kind of Make Me Wonder, How Much ELSE the NRA “KNOWS”!!

  13. It is 100% sure Obama will do something to degrade our Second Amendment. There is no glimmer of hope even if it is only an executive “action”. That being said, on the issue regarding background checks, which will probably be a major feature of any action, it may cause a rush by Americans to get a Concealed Handgun License (where they can). There is only one background check required for a background check with a CHL and that is when it is acquired. After that the holder can buy a gun and take it home with out a NCIS check; however, the buyer still has to fill out a 4473. I am pretty sure that is the case in most states. A CHL is something of an unnecessary BATFE reg but there is an up side. That is the holder usually gets a level of respect of law enforcement because he/she has been investigated and shown to be a good citizen. In some cases a CHL will have perks at retail stores that sell guns and ammo. I guess this is trying to put a smiley face on a bag of dirt. We have to hope anything O does gets undone by the next President and it had better be Cruz, Trump, Carson, etc. in that order.

  14. I marvel sometimes how lightly the people view

    the out right unconstitutional acts of their government officials.

  15. The gun rights organizations should take obama to court if he ties gun purchases to the no fly or terrorist watch list. There is no due process associated with being on those lists and even Senators like Ted Kennedy have been on them by accident. Being on those lists and having your gun rights infringed should be UNconstitutional.


    1. @ sniper.

      Congress has been aware of this EO since 2013 with HR 141 “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013”. They can’t claim that they were “Blindsighted”, if they knew it was “Coming”.

  17. Dave, excellent discussion of the matter.

    I guess the part that I see as cause for concern is the weight the anti-Second Amendment crowd will think this gives their unending campaign to strip us of our right to self defense. I’m sure they, and their pet liberal media, will be crowing about this for a week or so as if it somehow validates their agenda.

    1. Mikail,
      True enough. They seem to think if they just say it enough times and reinforce each other untruth by saying the American people want it, that it will somehow be true. The sheeple need to stand up and pay attention. ~Dave Dolbee

  18. I think the prez ought to ban trillon dollar wars in whocaresitstan, cutting va care, oneway tade deals and tax free billionaers among other real problems . Violating the bill of rights is not an honorable legacy.

  19. Any time the current (and temporary) occupant of the White House threatens to use his pen and phone on gun control there is cause to worry. The man is a master at bait and switch a skill gained during his evolution from the cesspool of Chicago politics to the White House. I’m sure the BATF did come up with the attempted ban on M855 ammo by itself. I agree Executive Orders or Actions can be overturned by the courts; but, it takes time to get them in front of a court and time for the court to make a decision – even if only to issue a temporary injunction to stop the action. It would be better to support Senator Paul Rand proposed legislation in the Senate barring the President from issuing any Executive Action or Order without underlying legislation. The other thing that needs to be done is to vote a strong conservative into the Office and back him up with a conservative majority in both the House and Senate.

  20. So it begins. The Lame Duck empty suit begins to set out his plan to create new divisions in the citizens and foment revolution! This way he can establish Martial Law and become Dictator in Chief. There isn’t a law that can stop “violence ” it is human nature. We kill each other with whatever is handy- rock, stick, spear, gun, ? It IS about disarming the citizens. It has NOTHING to do with safety or the illusion thereof.

    1. I am at the very least utterly and totally disgusted with a wanna be leadership that thinks it can become a dictatorship and not be held accountable for its actions. I am fed up with, as all of America should be, with leadership “Obama” who’s honesty, American values and integrity have always been in question. If there were any doubt as to Obama’s dedication or ability to lead America I am sure that 94% of America would agree that he “Obama” has with his pen erased those doubts. Obama has done nothing short of dividing the congress after pledging to work with congress. He has shown the American people how little he actually cares about the people’s freedom as guaranteed by The Constitution of the United States of America. He has shown the world how weak and incapable, inept and ineffective he is as a world leader as is his leadership of the United States. A qualified leader would stand by the oath he has taken to defend the Constitution of the United States and rather than try to re-write the Constitution to fit their will and agenda. I often wonder why we consistently hear about in-equality, unemployment, racial tensions among cultures and yet nothing is ever done to resolve theses issues until these issues have reached the point of boil. When that boil burst out spews the violence and destruction and becomes the arsenal of tools used by the government to argue the ban of what is a right of the American people as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not believe that anything will ever be done to quell these issues or that any individual or group or organization truly cares enough about these issues to bring an end to the poverty, the racial indifference, the unemployment or the multitude of other issues, ” I believe are caused by Washington”, which lead to that boil bursting. Without these issues there would not be the necessary tools for for government to use against the American people. Administrations such as the Obama administration do not lead. They incite disorder and violence and their agenda is to divide, conquer and control the people.

  21. thanks for writing this. i’ve noted way too many pieces being written where the author conflated the two terms using them interchangeably, defining neither in the process.

    1. My pleasure Bill. I am not opposed to beat the drums when there is a clear danger, but this hasn’t risen to that level yet. I believe it is important for gun owners and voters to be educated on the facts so they do not fall prey to “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” syndrome. ~Dave Dolbee

  22. Yep, It is time to elect Ted Cruz to the Office of the President. He is the Anti-Obama and the cure for this current Administration.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.