Obama takes on gun violence in Urban League speech
President Obama speaks at the National Urban League convention in New Orleans Wednesday. (Photo credit: Tim Garraty, CNN)
July 26th, 2012
07:43 AM ET

Obama takes on gun violence in Urban League speech

(CNN) - Days after the Colorado movie theater massacre, President Barack Obama on Wednesday forcefully spoke out against gun violence, making perhaps some of his strongest comments yet as president on the issue.
While the president said he stands by the Second Amendment and recognizes the traditions of hunting and gun ownership in the country, he told a crowd at a gathering for the National Urban League in New Orleans that there is work left to be done in tackling the problem.

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.

FULL POST


« Previous entry
soundoff (89 Responses)
  1. JustaGuy

    This man doesn't have a clue! Scary!!
    Owning an AK-47 or AK-74 in the US is already a major felony (unless you possess a special class three weapons permit for machine guns and grenade launchers and such).
    Gun shops have AK look-alikes and AR rifle which are M16 look alikes, but they are nothing more than 7.62 or 5.56 cal normal single fire rifles.

    Telling people we have "AK-47's in the hands of children" is either ignorant or intentionally misleading. Either way, I can't believe a man this dumb about gun basics is going to try to 'tweak' our Second Amendment.

    July 26, 2012 at 8:22 am |
    • Rob

      I love guns and own more then a few, but your comments is not true. We can own Ak 74s and Ak 47s they are the same function rifle as their automatic counter part

      July 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Don

      Agreed

      Some well educatred people here making some well informed posts.

      July 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
  2. tom

    its about time...and now, queue the right wing for vicious comments about how their freedom is being stripped away...because they really need assault rifles to protect their homes...and have target practice...and shred squirrels on their property...and protect them from the gays. ...moving on

    July 26, 2012 at 8:23 am |
    • jcloninger1976

      The right to own and bear arms was bestowed to protect the rights of men from a tyrannical government. If you take away the assault rifles from the population, then how can you expect them to truly defend their rights against a government that is heavily armed with them? Any limitation upon this right is simply empowering a government over its population, thus limiting their capability to revolt. This right cannot be properly understood or applied in a casual or normal daily experience or occurrence. It is in place specifically to ensure that a government would not be in rule because of force, but because it was the will of the people being represented by that government. The following two quotes address this:

      "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

      – Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

      "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

      – George Washington

      Then, Ben Franklin addresses those within our population who feel otherwise:

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

      July 26, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Steven Ortiz

      How ironic he said "AK 47's do not belong in our cities' streets, they belong in the battlefield", yet this is coming from the same guy who just 8 months ago officially declared the entire nation a "battlefield" when he signed the NDAA. Typical liberal hypocrisy. They will literally twist their ideologies in any way necessary to fit their current agendas.

      And for the extremely well informed person who made the comment above that "Americans don't need semi automatic rifles to protect their homes". How about you go down to South Texas where rural farmers have been shunned and mocked by the Obama administration when asking the fed to tighten up security on the border. They have no choice but to patrol their property, sometimes hundreds and hundreds of acres, because of the definite chance that there are drug smugglers and other such thugs trespassing on their property, also carrying high powered semi automatic rifles. One farmer in an article I read last month reported being shot at multiple times by thugs from South of the border, on his own property. Yes, these guns do have a legitimate self defense purpose, you people are just so blind to what is going on in the world that you don't see it. I hope you wake up soon because you have been sleeping long enough.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
  3. Al

    A person from Chicago now wants to take guns off the streets, I suggest that he goes out and tries to get the guns from the criminals first. Then is he talking about the same weapons that were taken over the boarder to Mexico in the Fast and Furious, was that not the same operation that the AG was provided Executive Privileges for. So Obama want to make getting a weapon in the hands of United States citizens harder but not Drug Cartels, not criminals. He has nothing to fear he's protected 24/7 by gun totting individuals, it's the rest of us that have to worry. And if he wants to talk about guns then he need to tell the truth, yea right, about the Fast and Furious or at the least repeal the Executive Privilege and show the requested documents at least one month before the election, let's see if Obama is an honorable person, if he repeals the order and the paperwork is turned over then hes honorable, if not then he's just a Chicago product.

    July 26, 2012 at 9:19 am |
  4. kate

    Yes! God Bless the POTUS!

    July 26, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • Lizzie

      He says he stand by the second amendment, yet he has Hillary Clinton sign a UN gun treaty that WILL make the second amendment null and void. Is he Flip-Flopping or lying.

      July 26, 2012 at 11:05 am |
      • NOT BACKWARD into the GOP FISCAL ABYSS

        @Lizzie – your response is typical right wing "worry".
        NO POTUS – even Obama, despite your unfounded fear – is going to change the 2nd AM. It takes either TWO THIRDS of the FULL US Congress or TWO THIRDS Of the States to request it. It REQUIRES 3/4 of Congress (or states) to approve. That is never going to happen.
        What DOES need to happen is enforcement of controls around assault weapons and handguns. The gun initiated death-rate in the US is 4000% higher than the next "western civilized nation". That alone says it all.

        July 26, 2012 at 11:33 am |
      • Steveo

        @NOT BACKWARD into the GOP FISCAL ABYSS

        This is from US News and World Report:

        Washington Whispers
        Democrats Oppose Obama-U.N. Gun Control Treaty
        By Paul Bedard

        July 26, 2011
        Twelve Democratic senators have joined 45 Republicans in a fast growing movement to halt progress on an Obama-backed United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States and slap America's gun owners with severe restrictions.

        You said: NO POTUS – even Obama, despite your unfounded fear – is going to change the 2nd AM
        What happens when international laws run counter to US law? What then? What happens when international laws are unopposed AND adopted? What then? Open your eyes and ears!

        July 26, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
      • Steven Ortiz

        That's where you're wrong. His signing of this treaty will not make the 2nd Amendment null and void, it will make HIM and his administration null and void. They have been in my mind since January 1, 2012, but were well on their way since the day they took office. I answer to the United States of America and its Constitution before I answer to a tyrant wolf in sheeps clothing.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • Franz

      – I regret dissagreeing with my Pres, but AKs dont kill people, people kill people.
      – Our Military not only use AKs and M4s, but knives, arrows, clubs, hands, etc. If only soldiers are allowed to have AKs for personal or protective use, or use knives, or hands, etc; what are us non-soldiers going to use? The suggetion is non-solution.
      –I agree with NRA efforts to maintain our rights to bear arms. If someone wants an AK protect their family or property, or blast zombies targets at the range, have at it.

      July 26, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • volcano0201

      I really believe the 1's who suppose to carry a hand gun in the street of United States Of America is a retire law enforcement personel or 1 who is still active with the 1's who have serve this country while doing so for at least 6 yrs or more

      July 26, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Steven Ortiz

      Wake up sweetheart, you have no idea how fooled you are.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
  5. Steveo

    I do condemn senseless gun violence but I'm betting hand guns in the wrong hands are responsible for more deaths than AK-47s! I also realize whether AK-47s or hand guns, the results are the same! No law can stop anyone who has their heart set on doing evil. Just take at our drunk driving laws!

    July 26, 2012 at 10:08 am |
  6. bewhiskered

    In a crowded movie theater the bullets spray
    On any human being who is in the way
    Republicans with their mouths mute
    Don't care about the nut jobs who shoot
    Only the President takes on the NRA.

    July 26, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • Steveo

      Really cute but the NRA didn't shoot nor kill anybody! One nut did! Guns Owners did not shoot and kill anyone ONE GUN OWNER DID! BAD GUYS WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO WEAPONS! ALWAYS!

      How many folks die in drunk driving wreaks! Let 's ban alcohol and vehicles while your at it!

      July 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Steven Ortiz

      That is such a foolish comment, it just proves you don't REALLY know what is going on in this world.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • Dan Mathis

      What exactly do you know about guns. If he were unable to get a gun he could got the hardware store in any town in this country and kill just many with some ball bearings and the right chemicals. Every gun can be used in the wrong manner. This assualt weapon phrase is used to scare people. Why don't you look at how many shooting occurred in one 48 hour period in Chicago in March of this year 60 youngest victim was 1 and it is not all over the news. That a city that guns are banned in. Drugs have been illegal for how many years are drugs gone? No they are a billion dollar business and gun will go the same way as drugs just something else smuggled over the boarder.

      July 28, 2012 at 12:19 am |
  7. Steveo

    I hope is also talked about the high (12-15%) unemployment rates, high high school drop out rates, high crime rates, high drug use rates, and high baby daddy rates in the black community as well. Around 75% of black babies are born in single parent households! Let's talk about that too! That is real life! Folks boo'd Bill Cosby when he said it! I expect the hate as well! BUT the hate does not mask, eliminate, or weaken what I just said!

    July 26, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • Cynthia L.

      Don't forget to add that AIDS is MORE RAMPANT in the SOUTH than anywhere else in the country.

      July 26, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
      • Steveo

        Does PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY have any role anymore? lI realize there will always be sad cases like Ryan White, tthe little guy who contracted AIDs from a bad transfusions and later passed on but bad choices lead to bad consequences, even for those who are innocent, in example .so-called crack babies!

        The nut in Colorado made a choice and innocent people paid for it! Every gun owner does not make bad PERSONAL choices.

        July 27, 2012 at 9:26 am |
      • Cynthia L.

        My neighbor who had two young children and a bright future had been gravely injured in a car accident and was given AIDS tainted blood. He died a painful, drawn-out death. So it does happen that people are infused with bad stuff sometimes on purpose like the nursing assistant in the news that has infected patients on purpose with Hepititis.
        PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I wasn't trying to diss you on that, Steveo. Because I have seen all types of folks, rich, middle-class and poor ignore their duty as parents to teach that. Same with responsible gun ownership, sex, and anything else you can name.
        It comes down to the fact that there will always be irresponsible behaviour by some. But we shouldn't look away from recklessness. That we are having the conversation, is sometimes a miracle in itself.

        July 27, 2012 at 10:09 am |
  8. DM

    I wonder if he will talk about the guns he smuggled into Mexico without their knowledge and without tracking devices?

    July 26, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Lizzie

      No those killed Mexicans and is considered collateral damage.

      July 26, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • NOT BACKWARD into the GOP FISCAL ABYSS

      The right wing ignorance displayed in your comment gives conservatives a bad name. Please check your FACTS before spouting. Fast/Furious – the so-called smuggled guns into Mexico under Obama – was the continuation of a Federal ATF program initiated under Dubya called Gunrunner. In June 2012, an investigation by Fortune magazine concluded that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Agents interviewed during the six-month investigation repeatedly asserted that only one isolated incident of "gunwalking" ever occurred.
      So PLEASE CHECK FACTS before displaying your ignorance..

      July 26, 2012 at 11:37 am |
      • Steven Ortiz

        Well that's the thing, we can't check facts we don't have because the Obama administration has invoked Executive Privilege and with held them.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
      • ED

        You should check YOUR facts rather than getting an informed political opinion from the Daily Show. The program under GW never allowed guns to leave the country. That was under Obama. Then one of those guns (under Obama) was used to kill an American border agent. But Obama has nothing to hide... ow wait he sealed those documents. You can tell that you are a liberal because it is always someone else's fault. I bet if those protected documents showed Obama knew that his administration was illegally selling guns to Mexico you would find some way to make it somebody else fault...

        July 28, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
  9. Gimmeabreak!

    It always amuses me how Obama restates the obvious with his usual sickening dramatic bravado, making it sound as though it is HIS idea. What a putz!

    July 26, 2012 at 11:24 am |
  10. B.

    Obama is, and will be, the only candidate discussing The Gun Issue because Romney has to continue his vague noncommittal answer to every question put to him for a reason.
    He, and the Republican party are owned by the NRA and Romney is beholden to them and the corporations.

    Romney is a weak, noncommittal ,and impotent person that cannot stand for anything because is has NO plans and No commitments without support from Moneyed Interests which is his legacy!

    July 26, 2012 at 11:42 am |
  11. Guns in Self Defense

    So today you can't have an AK47. Tomorrow you won't be able to buy .308 because that's in use by the military, Then 45, 9mm...
    Why not go after the person and not the tool? You can't legislate a persons actions:
    Chicago a teen killed another teen with a 4X4, a man killed a woman with a machete this week in Las Vegas. Stabbing and beatings happen more ofter. But then, this is emotional politics at its best.

    July 26, 2012 at 11:56 am |
  12. RomneyCares Less

    Give up your Murder guns gun owners. What are you SO AFRAID of!?

    July 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • Steveo

      Murder guns? You could care less for the Const-ition, huh? You planning to personlly ask drug dealers, gang bangers, pimps, thieves, rapists, and murderers to give up their's? What you fail to even think about is it is all about the person who pulls the trigger! Wake up! I see you also failed to even answer the other issues I mentioned! Now, why would that be? Your entire post = fail!

      July 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Steven Ortiz

      Are you an Obama supporter? Why don't you tell them to give up theirs. Why don't you tell Bloomberg to lead by example and release the armed security detail that has undoubtedly been safeguarding him his entire life? Same for George Soros, Rahm Emanuel, Rosie O'Donnel (my least favorite person in Hollywood) and many others? What are they so afraid of? They've stepped on alot of toes and made alot of enemies in this country, that's what. Me personally, I live in a city where gang violence is an everyday thing, and although I'd never be afraid to take on of these fools out back like a man and beat them senseless with my bare fists, they have guns and I am scared of being shot.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  13. gbab

    AK-47's aren't used by the military. If the President was going to argue against guns, it would be nice if the President knew the facts.

    July 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
  14. Paul

    AK-47's are only for the military?? His own Attorney General Eric Holder seems to think they are also for murderous Mexican drug cartels so they can kill innocent Mexicans AND Americans. Obama speaks with forked tongue again, pandering for votes at the expense of innocent victims of a psycho "Batman" movie fan......

    July 26, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
  15. JOSE-USMC-0311

    VOTES. OBAMA KNOWS THAT NRA MEMBERS ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM, SO WHY NOT PANDER TO GUN CONTROL PEOPLE.
    BUT I DO AGREE THAT AK47 RIFLE SHOULD BE BAN.NO ONE REALLY USE THE AK FOR TARGET PRACTICE.

    NOW THE AR-15 AND 14 MANY GOOD CITIZENS USE THOSE 2 RIFLES FOR TARGET PRACTICE INCLUDING ME.

    IF I KNOW GUN PEOPLE ? IF YOU LET THEM BAN THE AK47 ? THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO BAN THE AR 15 AND M-14.

    July 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Steven Ortiz

      Maybe you should read up on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It's not for "target practice". And if AK's are banned, as you said, it's reasoning would undoubtedly set a precedent that all semi automatic rifles be banned soon thereafter. Think it would stop there? Nope, semi automatic pistols would be next. Next.....Australia. Only we are a much more volatile country than Australia and the killing would not stop.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • Realist

      Nobody uses the AK47 for target practice? Have you looked around? I know people who hunt with an AK47 because the round is similar to the 30-30. The civilian AK and AR are nothing but semi-auto firearms and just because you have an AR, you want the AK banned? Give me a break.

      July 27, 2012 at 4:09 am |
  16. jcloninger1976

    The 2nd Amendment is quite clear, although its interpretation has been drastically altered by our courts.

    We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
    -Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

    The will to do harm cannot be deterred by law or by stripping Americans of their rights to defend themselves and their rights. Removing guns, of any kind, simply disarms Americans from the ability to defend their rights and freedoms. However, I do feel that perhaps more firearm awareness and safety education be mandatory for anyone purchasing a firearm, as well as an advanced class addressing the public aspect for both subject matters for concealed and open carry applicants. Just as I was trained upon the laws of deadly-force in the military, so should each and every person applying for the right to carry a firearm in public.

    NOTE: Had there been lawfully armed citizens within the theater, there would have been fewer casualties that day in Aurora.

    July 26, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Cynthia L.

      Next thing you know we'll be clamoring for tanks.
      Also, more guns in the theater when people don't know who is a bad guy and how many there are = more people getting killed – even the good guys shooting each other in the chaos.

      July 26, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
      • jcloninger1976

        Cynthia – I dead in realism and historical facts, not fantasy. Average citizens will never own "military grade" vehicles or weapons which can fire. However, the 2nd Amendment was instituted for a reason. If you didn't pay attention in middle school, didn't feel a need to ponder upon them growing up into adulthood, and don't care about our rights as they were given to us – and fought for – then you can live the rest of your life in bliss. However, those who understand why our rights exist, and why they are important, will continue to fight for them on your behalf.

        As for the theater, I guarantee that after 5 seconds, probably less, everyone knew who the red-haired, tactical gear wearing, and murderous shooter was – and were clammering to get away from him. All accounts of the shooting presented by witnesses showed that everyone in the theater knew who the shooter was before he finished firing the first barrage. Plus, concealed carry gun owners don't randomly shoot at people in a self-defense situations. They return fire at whomever is shooting at them – in this case the idiot randomly shooting and murdering unarmed people in the theater.

        I guarantee that if John Blunk had been carrying, he would have pushed his girlfriend to the ground and placed 3 rounds or more, center-mass, into the shooter before the shooter knew who was firing back at him. Most gun owners are trained upon gun safety, either by parents, the police or military, or by gun-safety courses required by the state that they are licensed to carry in. They must demonstrate that they can draw the gun safely and fire at a target on a range before their permit is granted. So, the random shooting chaos that you described is neither realistic nor believable by anyone who is not ignorant of firearms and firearm safety requirements for concealed carry. Amazing how you cannot find 1 example of what you decribed in self-defense shootings which take place in states with concealed carry...

        I myself am a veteran and am pissed that a fine young man like Mr. Plunk had to sacrifice himself to save another, instead of risking his life to save everyone as he should have been capable of doing. He died honorably, but needlessly. We should be able to defend our lives, the lives of our family, and the lives of those who are at risk around us. I was trained to think in this manner, as was every cop and veteran before and after me. Had I been there and armed, I may not have survived – but I can guarantee that that the shooter would have joined me before taking the lives of anyone else.

        July 27, 2012 at 10:52 am |
      • jcloninger1976

        I'm sorry, but I don't base my beliefs off of fantasy. I base them off of historical facts and experiences. Firstly, no citizen would ever be capable of owning military grade weapons or vehicles which fire. However, saying that citizens can't own assault rifles is like saying that citizens couldn't own a musket in 1792 – which was the equivalent of the assault rifle at that time. You cannot expect Americans to be capable of revolution should our government become comprimised or corrupt, with shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols. The 2nd Ammendment was instituted to enable our ability to protect our rights by force if need be, as well as protect our lives on a daily basis. Any restriction upon this right is a direct violation of our Constitution, and a violation of our natural rights.

        As for the theater shooting in Aurora, the situation you described would never occur. People who pursue a permit or license to carry a firearm are the most proficient, respectful, and conscienscious of firearm owners. Most of them pursue all of the necessary course-work to complete their certification, or already have had it from military or police service training and experience. They also are required to demonstrate the ability to safely draw and fire their firearm at a target from its concealed location. These type of gun owners are made up of active duty military, ex-military, retired military, retired police officers, or gun enthusiasts who have years of experience with firearm and/or hunting safety. This community makes up the majority of concealed carry owners AND would be the most capable of thwarting any assailant trying to murder innocent civilians.

        Self defense shootings always consist of the person returning fire to the person who fired upon them. Everyone in that theater knew who the gunman was the minute he started randomly shooting people in the theater. He did so blatantly, calmly, and without fear, because he knew that the movie theater did not allow firearms on the premises. So, even though Colorado is a carry state, he knew that non one would be armed. The shooter chose this location specifically for that reason and he executed a plan that he knew that he was walking away from.

        The reason that you NEVER see situations like that which YOU described – concealed carry shooters hitting innocent bystanders instead of the criminal firing upon them – is because it doesn't happen. Instead, you can only find instances where a concealed carry owner killed the assailant, injured the assailant, or was killed while trying to defend themselved from an assailant. It's because the unarmed flee the scene, and concealed carry owners either stand their ground or relinquish it in order to find cover before returning fire. In fact, the chaos wasn't inside of the theater. Everyone knew who the assailant was, and were clammoring to get away from him. The chaos was OUTSIDE the theater where EMS didn't know who was critically wounded or just wounded – were swarmed with patients, and couldn't get to the theater in a timely manner to address those who WERE critically wounded and were immobile.

        I can honestly say that had one or more people had concealed carry firearms in the theater, the casualties would have been much smaller and the shooter would be either dead or in critical condition. The fact that we had to lose so many honorable and good people, some protecting those that they were with by shielding them with their own bodies, is a terrible loss which could have been avoided. An experienced shooter or two would have taken cover, waited until they had a clean shot, and would have emptied a clip into the assailant in a matter of seconds. Then, they would have re-loaded and made sure that he was no longer a threat until the police got there. Even when shot, a concealed gun owner can still draw, return fire, and stop an assault from becoming much worse.

        I highly recommend that you do a lot of research upon CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon permit) holders and self defense shootings. You will see that a lot of times they thwart crimes and violence without firing a round, or save their lives and the lives of others by shooting the assailant involved in a crime. The 2nd shooting in Aurora, CO, which occurred the SAME day as the theater shooting, is a fine example of that. Do your homework, and stop trying to take guns away from us who are trained to use them to defend the public, and who know exactly how important our 2nd Amendment rights truly are.

        July 27, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
  17. Paul

    Of course Obama feels he can take on the NRA......he and ONLY he can change the Constittion whenever he feels like it. And only one incident in gun-walking was THE INCIDENT that led to MEXICAN drug cartels KILLING innocent AMERICANS, which HOLDER, NOT BUSH, tried to hide the truth and have Obama protect him from telling the truth to the American public. Typical....FOUR YEARS LATER, and the TYPICAL RESPONSE.....BLAME BUSH. Obama is quick to take the faintest praise, but still quick to BLAME BUSH for his own continuous INEPTITUDE.

    July 26, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  18. Steveo

    I just thought of something! The president takes on gun violence in a Urban league speech. Did he mention Urban violence like the carnage in Chicago? Or was it just AK-47s?

    July 26, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Steven Ortiz

      Nope, just AK-47's.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Cynthia L.

      Yes he did, Steveo. And he talked about responsiblity, and education and that the youth have a responsibility to do their part when they have been given the tools by this country to succeed.
      Also, Nixon, Reagan and H.W Bush all pushed gun control. Reagan pushed for it after he and his aide Brady were shot while in office. Hence, the Brady Bill. H.W. Bush wanted to outlaw ownership of assault weapons and was very passionate about it.
      (For you other posters, you should familiarize yourselves with Reagan's Iran-Contra Sandal in which his administration made the forbidden sale of armaments to Iran, to secretly raise funds to conduct covert operations in Central America going behind Congress' back because they would not approve or fund his intervention. Which ended up throwing military man Olie North under the bus and Reagan without even a slap on the hand.)

      July 26, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  19. jcloninger1976

    The 2nd Amendment is quite clear, although its interpretation has been drastically altered by our courts.

    We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
    -Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

    Removing guns, of any kind, simply disarms Americans from the ability to defend their rights and freedoms. However, I do feel that perhaps more firearm awareness and safety education be mandatory for anyone purchasing a firearm, as well as an advanced class addressing the public aspect for both subject matters for concealed and open carry applicants. Just as I was trained upon the laws of deadly-force in the military, so should each and every person applying for the right to carry a firearm in public.

    NOTE: Had there been lawfully armed citizens within the theater, there would have been fewer casualties that day in Aurora.

    July 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  20. Free Man in the Republic of Texas

    OBAMA
    "EVOLVES"... AGAIN...

    Just in time for the election

    July 26, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  21. lovemygirl

    It is scary that our Commander in Chief thinks our Military uses Russian guns (Kalashnikov). It is equally scary he doesn't understand fully automatic from semi-automatic, the current laws and what type of gun was used in this horrific crime. The scariest thing is he is proposing laws and does not know the subject matter.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
  22. DEcember 2012

    THE NRA RULES ON FEAR AND PARANOIA. IT IS HEARTBREAKING HOW MANY ARE CAUGHT IN IT. IT SHOWS HOW WEAK WILLED SO MANY PEOPLE REALLY ARE.

    THE PRESIDENT HAS NEVER ONCE RULED IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL DURING HIS FIRST TERM. IN FACT, HE EVEN EASED GUN CONTROL BY ALLOWING GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS. THIS IS FACT. BUT WHAT DO THE NRA CARE? THEY WANT TO PERSIST ON THE PARANOIA AND FEAR THAT OBAMA WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. HOW SHAMEFUL AND HOW UTTERLY STUPID OF THE SHEEP WHO FOLLOW THEM.

    July 26, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • Steveo

      So all this liberal talk about more gun control is not based upon fear and paranoia?

      July 26, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • John C Copeland

      The NRA, of which I am a member, rules on truth. No fear nor paranoia as the wepons we represent are factual. what they are. what they can do, are the tenets of this organization. Politicians would have you believe that even though they have summarily almost destroyed the capability of our citizens to think or do for themselves, they are the first to rally arround an event like Aurora. Co. Colorado may be presented to the public by the press as the most "weapon-free access state, but Michael Moore, the anti-gun advocate will be the last to tell you it is also the most progressive drug consumptiion state, as was witnessed by both Columbine and Aurora. Look closely into ther eyes of our current person killer – Joker Holmes. What you will see is not the picture of a weapons "moron" who could not properly load his AK-47 but a complete "S.O,B" who deserves the ultimate death penalty in Colorado – hanging. The first political "goat out of the gate' who jumps on gun control forgets too quickly that Timothy McVeigh did more killing (per square foot) without any automatic, semi-automatic, or 12 gauge riot gun.....Why has Congress not banned the use of fertilizer (McVeigh's choice of weapons). Every politician who stands up before us and declares the weapons in our country need to come under control has lost his ability to speak through those who elected him/her. If they really wnat to curb this issue they should look into the real face of what has caused our youth to go "fruit-cake banana" and start destroying their felloew man..Not How, but Why?

      July 26, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • DEcember 2012

      YOU TELL THE VICTIMS OF AURORA, CO THAT'S IT'S OK FOR THAT NUTJOB TO HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFLE THAT HE OBTAINED LEGALLY. YOU TRY TELLING THEM ALL YOU ARE FEELING RIGHT NOW IS FEAR AND PARANOIA, NOT THE RATIONAL THOUGHT OF QUESTIONING WHY ANYONE WOULD NEED SUCH A GUN AND LARGE CACHES OF AMMUNITION.

      I'M SURE THAT WOULD GO OVER WELL.

      BUT THAT'S OKAY. EVENTUALLY THIS WILL ALL SWEEP THIS UNDER THE RUG, AND SO ON WITH THE NEXT TRAGEDY BECAUSE THE NRA CANNOT BE OPPOSED.

      July 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
      • Steveo

        What happened was a tragedy!. You think EVERYONE who owns an assault rifle will act in a like manner? How about hammers, and chainsaws, Decemeber? I'm certain they were used by crazy folks to harm others too! So what are you going to to now? Let's ban folks from being carpenters because some nut may use a hammer!.

        July 26, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        ANYONE WHO HAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE SHOULD BE ASKING THEMSELVES, WHY DO I EVEN NEED AN ASSAULT RIFLE? AM I IN A WAR ZONE? AM I HUNTING ARMED DEER? I MUST BE CRAZY.

        HAMMERS AND CHAINSAWS? DID YOU JUST COMPARE AN ASSAULT RIFLE, A TOOL DESIGNED TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO CARPENTRY TOOLS? ARE YOU NRA NUTJOBS THIS DELUDED? YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT BANS ASSAULT RIFLES, THEN THE MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT HAMMERS AND CHAINSAWS MUST BE NEXT? IT WAS NOT THAT LONG AGO THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS WERE BANNED AND NO, THEY DID NOT START BANNING HAMMERS, CHAINSAWS, ETC.

        BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE THIS DELUSION AND MAY THE PERSON WITH THE MOST GUNS WIN. WHATEVER IT IS.

        July 26, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
      • Steveo

        Since you don't understand my point. EVERYONE with an assault rifle is not a nut case! Now do you get it?

        July 26, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        EVERYONE? DID YOU RUN A POLL ON THAT? DID YOU PERHAPS FORGET THE LATEST NUTCASE IN AURORA, CO? THAT EVERYONE?

        PERHAPS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY POINT. SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO AND WHEN THE NEXT NUTCASE IS GOING TO WANT TO SHOOT SOMEONE, PERHAPS THE JUDICIOUS AND SMARTEST THING TO DO IS TO LIMIT THE DESTRUCTIVE FIREPOWER ONE CAN PURCHASE SO EASILY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT IT WILL NOW BECOME HARDER TO VOTE IN SOME STATES THAN IT IS TO OBTAIN A MASS KILLING WEAPON. AS A CHRISTIAN MAN, I HOPE YOU'RE SLEEPING BETTER AT NIGHT.

        July 27, 2012 at 1:35 am |
      • Steveo

        You now concerned about my sleeping patterns? If you must know, yes I sleep well. Thanks for asking. So are you saying EVERYONE with an assault weapson IS a nutcase? Why is it getting harder to vote? For those who are not qualified to vote good! Not only should it get harder, it should be IMPOSSIBLE!

        You understand I said NOT EVERYONE, right? You realize there is a difference between saying NOT EVERYONE and NO ONE? Tell me this December, why are your heroes, Harry and Nancy SILENT on Gun Control? Why is that?

        July 27, 2012 at 9:08 am |
      • Steveo

        December 2012,

        You want to know why I sleep well at night? John 14:1-6. This is why!

        July 27, 2012 at 10:17 am |
      • DEcember 2012

        THOSE NOT QUALIFIED? WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY THAT STEVEO? ALL CITIZENS ARE QUALIFIED TO VOTE! RICH, POOR, OLD AND YOUNG AND YET THESE STUPID VOTER ID RULES THAT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE WILL ENDANGER THE VOTING RIGHTS OF 1 MILLION VOTERS IN PENNSYLVANIA ALONE. THIS IS THE REPUBLITARD MENTALITY YOU KNOW WELL AND LOVE. TRULY RIDICULOUS. THE SAD PART IS, IT DOESN'T AFFECT ABSENTEE BALLOTING WHERE THE POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD IS MUCH HIGHER!!! BUT NO, THE REPUBLITARDS LOVE ABSENTEE BALLOTING SO LET'S NOT GET LOGIC IN THE WAY OF DUMB POLITICS.

        YOU SAY NOT EVERYONE WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS WILL GO NUTS. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK REPUBLITARDS, YOU MAY JUST HAVE MORE OUTBREAKS OF VIOLENCE BEFORE LONG BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPIDITY.

        July 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
      • Steveo

        Why are you so dramatic! Think for a moment! Are NON CITIZENS qualified to vote? Are SOME CONVICTED FELONS qualified to vote? You read way much imore into what I write and are too emotional! Are yo telling me on emillion voters in Pa have absolutely NO form of ID? None of them? Can you drive without ID? Can you cash a check without an ID?

        "YOU SAY NOT EVERYONE WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS WILL GO NUTS. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK REPUBLITARDS, YOU MAY JUST HAVE MORE OUTBREAKS OF VIOLENCE BEFORE LONG BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPIDITY".

        Tell me, smart guy, how many were killed in Chicago last summer by assault weapons vs how many were killed with hand guns. Surely you are basing your rants on statistics. I'm waiting!

        July 27, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        NON-CITIZENS? NOBODY EVER SAID THAT AND NOBODY CAN EVEN PROVE THAT FRAUD EVEN EXISTS! ASK THE REPUBLITARDS OF PENNSYLVANIA. KEEP ON HARPING ABOUT GOVERNMENT OVERREACH UNLESS IT BENEFITS YOU REPUBLITARDS. IT IS BEYOND HYPOCRITICAL.

        AND GOING BACK TO GUN CONTROL. YOU CLAIM THAT NOT EVERYONE THAT OWNS AN ASSAULT RIFLE IS A NUTCASE. DOES THAT EVEN MATTER? ALL IT TOOK IS ONE NUTCASE TO GO OFF AND COMMIT MASS CASUALTIES! THAT IS THE POINT! ONE GUY WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON CAN DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE! THINK FOR SECOND! HOW STUPID CAN THIS ARGUMENT GET.

        July 27, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
      • Steveo

        1 NON-CITIZENS? NOBODY EVER SAID THAT....
        Somehow that did not quite stop you from lecturing me on something I didn't say!

        2. KEEP ON HARPING ABOUT GOVERNMENT OVERREACH UNLESS IT BENEFITS YOU REPUBLITARDS. IT IS BEYOND HYPOCRITICAL.

        So exactly why does the left push goverment overreach, if it is not to their benefit? Why?? Beyond Hypocritical you say? Really?

        3.THINK FOR SECOND! HOW STUPID CAN THIS ARGUMENT GET.

        I guess that depends on you!

        July 27, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
      • Steveo

        You mentioned government overreach. you mean like this? From AOLAuto.com

        California Proposes Tax On Driving
        GPS devices would record mileage and charge drivers accordingly

        The GPS will be capable of tracking where you go, how often you go, how long you go! I see it as a government invasion of privacy. How about you?

        We already have a gas tax for this!

        July 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
      • Steveo

        one correction .it is autos.aol.com and here is the entire story:

        A California transportation agency recently proposed what could become the most unpopular tax of all time: A tax for simply driving your car.

        The Metropolitan Transportation Commission of San Francisco is behind the idea and has said that the tax would work by installing GPS units into cars to track the miles that they travel. The vehicle owners would then be charged accordingly, with low-income drivers exempted.

        The hope is that a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax would cut down on pollution and traffic congestion, while raising funds for things like road construction and surface repair.

        Randy Rentschler, spokesman for the MTC, said that the group knew the proposal could be a longshot and could take a long time to implement. Theoretically, it could take up to a decade before the plan would be rolled out in full force.

        "I don't want to say it's pie in the sky. A VMT charge is really an option for the future to be looked at and considered," he said.

        Given the very low popularity gas taxes have been met with in the past, the proposed driving tax seems like a very bold move. Consumers hate frequently being reminded of taxes when they gas up, but this VMT charge would take that to a whole new level.

        The Association of Bay Area Governments is slated to analyze a study of the proposal on Thursday.

        California residents are sure to watch this one closely.

        ----------------
        The MTC of SF, I'm betting it liberal!

        July 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GOVT OVERREACH OF THE VOTER SUPRESSION AND HOW IT ONLY BENEFITS THE REPUBLITARDS? YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BE COMPARING THAT TO A BAN ON ASSAULT RIFLES? THE REPUBLITARDS OF PENNSYLVANIA HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS DONE TO MAKE SURE MITT ROMNEY WINS. ALTHOUGH ANY IDIOT WOULD HAVE COME TO THAT CONCLUSION ALREADY SINCE IT IS ALL HAPPENING OH SO CONVENIENTLY DURING AN ELECTION YEAR. YOU THINK THIS IS SIMILAR IN ANY WAY TO GUN CONTROL MEANT TO HELP PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE? I HOPE YOU'RE NOT SERIOUS.

        A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING? HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE TAX FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE? I GUESS THAT DEPENDS ON JUST WHERE THIS COUNTRY IS HEADED,

        July 27, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
      • Steveo

        A tax on voting? You serious? How is the requirement for an ID card a tax? States issues IDs for free! My little spill on the Cali proposal was in response to your government overreach spill. You remember/ The one in which you claim benefits the GOP. Well Liberals are introducing a proposal for another tax! how are you going to excuse this liberal ploy?

        July 27, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        YOU DON'T GET WHAT A POLL TAX IS? SERIOUSLY, YOU MUST NOT BE BLACK. THE STATE WAS FORCED TO ISSUE ID FOR A PROBLEM THAT IT CANNOT PROVE EXISTS. GUESS WHO IS PAYING FOR THAT? THREE GUESSES, IT'S NOT MITT ROMNEY.

        NOW, CAN YOU PROVE THAT POLLUTION DOES NOT EXIST? WHILE IT MAY SEEM SILLY, AT LEAST THEY ARE TRYING TO LOOK FOR A SOLUTION TO A REAL PROBLEM.

        July 28, 2012 at 12:37 am |
      • Steveo

        What state has a poll tax? Name the state. Your argument is weak, it needs a nap!

        July 28, 2012 at 1:23 am |
  23. judy

    assault rifles serve no good purpose at all. Cant hunt with them cant target practice with them. If you cant hit what your aming at with a 10 round clip what makwes you think 100 rounds is better. Just asking. I am tired of the NRA dictating to us about gun control. Every one has a second amendment right to bare arms. But assault rifles? And if people in the theater had been armed. How many more would have been shot in the cross fire???

    July 26, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
    • Steveo

      So YOU"RE tired of the NRA dictating to you about gun control? But no worries when the left attempt to dictate gun control policy? Exactly how is life in the twilight zone?

      July 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
  24. jerry

    just a very desperate failed president trying to get some votes... look at the mess in chicago, the murder capital of the world...he sure did some great things for them didn't he? Empty lying shirt with a big mouth and nothing else.

    July 26, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
  25. Donna

    If a tornado or earthquake hit Aurora, Colorado, and causing as many casualties, then it would be decalred a federal emergency and qualify for FIMA funding.

    So I don't know why OBAMA is allowing these injured people to be stuck paying all these medical bills.

    July 27, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • DEcember 2012

      PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ASK THE NRA TO FOOT THE BILL BECAUSE THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS 'NATURAL' CATASTROPHE.

      July 27, 2012 at 1:38 am |
      • Steveo

        Let's also sue Coors and GM for the carnage caused by drunk driving. Why are you so repulsed by the idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? You are sounding ridicuolous now! The NRA is not responsible, the nut who pulled the trigger is. How about you go after Harry Reid and the other Democrat who have been silent on this issue! Since you want to place blame on EVERYONE and EVERYTHING else EXCEPT the shooter! I'm surprised you're not blaming the guy who mops the floors of the gun store! How bout those that make ammo, blame them too? How about the FedEx guy who delivers supplies to the gun store? Most of us blame the shooter and the shooter alone!

        July 27, 2012 at 9:37 am |
      • DEcember 2012

        PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? YOU REPUBLITARDS SEEM TO BE HUNG UP ON THAT WHEN YOU HAVE GIVEN UP ALL PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR REASONABLE COMPROMISE TO THE TEA PARTY AND THE NRA. LET US REMOVE ALL GOVERNMENT IN THE EQUATION AND SEE JUST HOW GREAT YOUR LIFE WILL BE. BUT WELL ALL KNOW REPUBLITARDS DON'T REALLY THINK THAT. ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS TO REMOVE OBAMA FROM DAY ONE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RESPONSIBILITY. PERSONAL MAYBE, BUT CERTAINLY NOTHING RESPONSIBLE.

        July 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
      • Steveo

        Once again not reading clearly but highly emotional rants! Who said remove ALL government? Who?

        It has EVERYTHING to do with PERSONAL RESPONSIBIITY . The president himself, called for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY during his speech to the Urban League! Try again! Regrdless of the TEA Party or the NRA I am PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for MY actions! You are not debating but ranting and raving!

        July 27, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        YOU ARE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE TO THINK FOR YOURSELF INSTEAD OF LETTING LOBBY GROUPS LIKE THE NRA THINK FOR YOU. IT GOES BOTH WAYS.

        July 27, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
      • Steveo

        Again NOT reading! I am PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS! ME! MYSELF! and I!

        July 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  26. Cynthia L.

    Obama wasn't talking about taking away your guns and as far as I can see and hear, he never has. For those of you who did not see his talk with the Urban League he questioned the need for people to have a 100 bullet clip.
    He talked of sensibility, of balance. He addressed the shooting in the last part of his speech because this shooting is on everyone's mind, it happened in an urban setting. He did talk about the gun violence in the cities and put emphasis on the youth of this nation as to becoming responsible citizens, making their own successes from the opportunities our nation has given them for an education. He pointed out that the countries whose children are most academically thriving are not focused on video games and distractions that take them away from their studies and that our youth will be competing in the world economy with them SO they must prepare for that future.
    This the other part of his speech that came before he addressed the issue of violence. And, this is what I would really like to stress here.
    Our nation, cities, towns have been hit by not only by an economic crises that also included the Gulf oil spill, but, by some pretty horrific natural disasters. What has come to be obvious is that people didn't just sit around and feel sorry for themselves, they came out to help their neighbors even when their own houses had been destroyed. Even when the outlook for their own future looked dim. We showed up for each other. WE are our government, and WE the government stepped in to help when the situations were dire and unbelievably hard- when individuals couldn't even begin to scrape for the funds to rebuild some sort of life for themselves in the aftermath and for the necessary funds to aid their community at large. That's the government we should expect and deserve. And WE show up for each other like no other nation on this planet.

    July 27, 2012 at 9:52 am |
    • Steveo

      Cynthia L,

      Not arguing anything you just said. I am just saying peoplel have and sadly will continue to die at the hands of someone with a 10 or 20 clip magazine. The condition of people hearts CANNOT be changed by human law. We as a nation, have told God to go and sit in a corner somewhere . Now these same people are asking where was God!

      Not just that but PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is now punch line! Parents are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE to turn off the video games when the child does.not, they are RESPONSIBLE for what they let in their homes (movies, games, books, whatever). The down fall of our society is we have booted God from society! The REAL answer is not in a political party, never has been!

      July 27, 2012 at 10:13 am |
      • Cynthia L.

        In my experience one-on-one with people, they have not turned away from God and still believe in prayer- they are turning away from religion. I personally feel close to God and personally would NOT join a religion so, I can understand what people tell me in that regard. I am a firm believer that there is more good in this world than evil. The challenge is to see through the eyes of love,.....it isn't always easy.

        July 28, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
      • Cynthia L.

        Just to add to what you said Steveo about PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. TV, movies, video games, phones and computers are not baby-sitters, nor do they take the place of your attention. Your one-on-one help, love and commitment to their independence toward becoming healthy, grown adults depends on the time you spend with them while they are under your influence. If you bring a child into this world, it should be a cross-your-heart-promise to be the best parent you can be no matter what your station in life is – even if you don't live with the child's other parent. Help them in school and if you can't – make sure they have access to those that can. You don't have to buy them everything they want but, you should buy them everything they need to keep them healthly, safe and thriving. LOVE THEM LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIVE.

        July 28, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
      • Steveo

        Thank you Cynthia L,

        I agree with you!

        July 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
  27. Donna

    You know President Obama could luck every guns in the United States and know matter what happens, Guns are like candy, some way they will get it. What does talking do, prove that President Obama, knows there is guns everywhere and talking is going to take them out of the system. I think not. When is this country and the world wake up and smell the roses. As long as men and women are alive there will be guns for one reason or another.There will never be an end to owning a gun, the west had them, we use them in wars, and we use them to eat. God Bless America.

    July 27, 2012 at 10:54 am |
  28. Dan Mathis

    I am amazed at how many people call gun owners ignorant. They use the term assualt rifle to scare people. The same damage can be done with 22, even worse could be done after a trip to any hardware store or Walmart in this country. Wake up I have been a police officer 20 years, the police can't get to you in time to help when something like this goes down you have to be able to help yourself. The average is about one police officer per 500 people in a city. So if it ever really hit the fan do you think the police can get to you to help. The only thing that keeps most of us safe is that everyone wants to live and be left alone people are good. People who own guns legally will normally never intentional hurt some one. If someone is a criminal they don't care that guns are illegal, if someone is insane they are not worried about the law. Drugs have been outlawed, alcohol has been outlawed. What did it do it increased the criminal profit margin and became worse. Do hate that people were killed yes. But over reaction is never a smart choice. Use fear to push an agenda is never good on either side. Look at the two wars and the trampling of rights because of 911.

    July 28, 2012 at 12:44 am |
  29. Gil

    obama has to understand that guns dont kill people .... people kill people and hes trying to make our country into a police state...

    July 29, 2012 at 10:48 am |