Sunday, February 7, 2016

New York Times clucks its tongue in collectivist pique. "Obama’s Lofty Plans on Gun Violence Amount to Little Action."

The centerpiece of a plan for stemming gun violence that President Obama announced to great fanfare last month largely amounts to this: an updated web page and 10,000 pamphlets that federal agents plan to give out at gun shows. In a tearful display of anger and sadness in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama ordered a series of steps intended to limit gun violence and vowed to clamp down on what he called widespread evasion of a federal law requiring gun dealers to obtain licenses. But few concrete actions have been put in motion by law enforcement agencies to aggressively carry out the gun dealer initiative, despite the lofty expectations that Mr. Obama and top aides set. Obama administration officials said they have no specific plans to boost investigations, arrests or prosecutions of gun sellers who do not comply with the law. No task forces have been assembled. No agents or prosecutors have been specifically reassigned to such cases. And no funding has been reallocated to accelerate gun sale- investigations in Washington or at the offices of the 93 United States attorneys.


Anonymous said...

REVOLUTION: US Sheriffs Tell Americans DC Is Worthless… Here’s What They RECOMMEND

Are you with these Sheriffs? They just made a huge announcement that every American needs to hear.

Local governments have been frustrated by President Barack Obama and his administration’s liberal policies that have crippled this great country.

One group of lawmen, known as the “Sagebrush Sheriffs” have decided that they won’t sit back and watch their country ruined. Instead, they have banded together to stand up to the big government that has tried to run them over.

The “Sagebrush Sheriffs” are also known as “constitutional sheriffs,” and they use their positions as the ultimate local law enforcement authorities to fight detrimental environmental regulation, run federal officials out of their counties, and, when necessary, break the law themselves, according to High Country News.

“The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope,” written by Richard Mack and published in 2009, argued that because sheriffs are the “last line of defense,” it’s their duty to protect individual liberties from being choked away by an out-of-control federal government. Mack was one of the prime leaders of a movement that later transformed into the “Tea Party.”

Anonymous said...

Minnesota…Another State with Soaring Concealed Carry Permits

rexxhead said...

It took all this time for the NYT to figure that out? Heck, I understood it the same day, as did almost ebverybody in the '2nd amendment community'.

Anonymous said...

Yeah well, there's a couple of problems with Barry and his BS......they're called The Constitution and Title 18 USC......this "professor of constitutional law" (he was a teaching assistant, never a full professor) would rule by edict (as in "dictator") if not for the separation of powers....

What a despicable excuse for an American this spoiled brat man-child is.

Anonymous said...

They keep 'hip checking' us to the left...towards a cliff! Do they actually think they can win the armed conflict they are pushing us all towards?

If that happens, God forbid, we need to vow to each other that the country will be purged of all leftists either by loss of citizenship and deportation or death.

Bad Cyborg said...

I for one am glad that the NYT's observation is so. The only effect of Obama taking more aggressive action to disarm the populous would have been to hasten the start of revolution.

I've been doing some reading on the LOAC (so-called Laws Of Armed Combat) and I am convinced that when the revolution starts we should expect levels of savagery from Federal troops that would make an ISIS fighter jealous. Since insurgents do not belong to a "proper" army and do not wear uniforms of same, they would be considered "illegal combatants" and thus would not fall under the Geneva Accords. I would expect the Feds to go after the families of fighters (when known) if nothing else as a means of attacking the morale of the insurgents. The Redcoats were known to do this in the 1st Revolution. Once the Feds have embarked upon such a campaign, would that not free the insurgency - which heretofore had been working hard to hold the moral high ground - to modify their ROE and thus engage in similar activities? I can see where the THREAT of such activity might induce at least a modicum of restraint on the part of Federal troops. But once such a rubicon has been crossed I expect things would go downhill rapidly.

During the American Revolution the Redcoats had no fear of reprisals against their own families since said families were protected by the "moat" of the Atlantic. Unless I am mistaken, the Redcoats did not scruple to go after families of known rebels as well as villages of 10%-ers.

Dutchman, I would respectfully request that (in your copious spare time) you share your thoughts about how the insurgents ought to act in such a situation.

Anonymous said...

I saw it as obama paying off those that lobbied for "smart" weapons and micro-stamping. he promised millions through the pentagon. everything else was camoflage

Anonymous said...

Bad Cyborg
February 7, 2016 at 4:17 PM
Once the Feral bastards engage the Patriot "extremists", all RoE's become meaningless.
If you happen to have been placed on someone's list in the last three years, you're chances of survival are slim.
Most will be spending their time looking for food, fuel and toilet paper after those systems are minimized by the insurgency.
The real war fighters won't be seen or heard from and there will be no individual with enough influence to end it.

Anonymous said...

Civilsation still exists ... as long as there is a supply of toilet paper!

Ma Duce