Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, February 18, 2018

As President Barack Obama prepares to announce his plans to fight gun violence, Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) is warning that he will move to impeach the president if Obama issues executive orders that regulate guns. Stockman’s concern may be one of self-interest, however; due to his checkered past and criminal record, stricter gun laws could impact Stockman’s own ability to purchase a firearm.

Although the most commonly discussed gun safety measures (such as renewing the assault weapons ban or limiting high-capacity magazines) must be enacted by Congress, President Obama can take several important steps on his own. These measures could include strengthening the database that the FBI uses to conduct background checks, or restoring funding for gun safety research.

To Stockman, these moves would represent a criminal offense.

“The White House’s recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic,” Stockman said in a statement. “I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”

It’s hardly surprising that Stockman — who claims to be “100 percent pro-gun, 100 percent of the time,” is backed by the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and Texas State Rifle Association, and has sponsored legislation banning all background checks, waiting periods, and registration of firearms — would be outraged by Obama’s gun control efforts. But his impeachment threat may not just be a continuation of the GOP’s Clinton-era political strategies (or of Ron Paul’s legacy of launching absurd conspiracy theories from Texas’ 36th District.) It could also be an attempt to preserve his own ability to buy a gun.

According to a July 23, 1995 Houston Chronicle article by Richard Stewart (which is currently behind a pay wall), in 1977 Stockman was charged with a felony for drug possession. Stockman claims that when he reported to prison to serve a two day sentence on a driving violation — something that happened “more than once” — his girlfriend stuck three Valium tablets in his pants. The charge was eventually reduced, and Stockman served probation.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo

170 Responses to Would Rep. Steve Stockman Pass A Firearms Background Check?

  1. I can’t help wondering if Stockman was equally incensed when the Supreme Court passed that piece of trash called Citizens United.He seems so very concerned about the perversion of the Constitution.Should we assume that he merely likes to pick and choose?

    • according to the Supreme Court ruling the only guns that are covered by the Constitution are the type guns usedat that time which means that the NRA and Stockman and all others are all wet because the only guns at that time had to be loaded after each shot. So this means the NRA and others don’t have any idea what is in the Constitution other than what they want it to say!

    • Well, he had to cool his heels until there was a new, gerrymandered district formed… lost a bunch of elections, including that of railroad commissioner until that happened… just sayin’…

      And I’m beginning to think the fool got tired of Gohmert stealing all the spotlight as one of the more stupid members of the House…

  2. Let the gun owners pay for some of the costs we bear for the consequences of the gun violence in the US. Why not impose 100% excise [Federal] tax on all arms and ammunition manufactured and/or sold in the US, to pay for the emergency room and health care costs associated with gun violence? They can have their Second Amendment rights as long as they are willing to pay for it.

    • What next???? Have the auto industry collect an excise tax to cover costs associated with car wrecks? Come on let’s not get any more ideas to transfer responsibility to something else…it’s the idiots and mental morons fault for their transgressions. I’m tired of someone always saying ‘let’s tax this or that’. Think about what else could come back and bite us.

      • Since car wrecks are caused mostly by speeders, the fines collected do cover emergency room costs for taking care of those injured by these accidents. The society’s costs from gun violence should be paid by the gun owners. Since mass murderers often kill themselves, the gun owners of those guns used in the crime should be held liable for those costs.

        • “…the gun owners of those guns used in the crime should be held liable for those costs.” Absolutely!! See my past comment above. Negligent storage having severe penalties.

      • Large Insurance liability coverage for possessing a gun, the same as all other insurance weighted by neighbourhood, age, experience, secure storage equipment and past record. This would make it much harder to be getting high powered weapons a s a 21 yr old novice and cheaper for a 40 yr old with a good record. A large portion of the monthly dues to go to projects to help educate people.

      • You ignore the fact that a firearms primary purpose is to cause damage, whereas a motor vehicles primary purpose is to transport things. Motor vehicles have a ton of mandatory safety features, with new ones coming every year. Firearms?!? Not a one. Therefore your comparison falls flat.

        Yes, we need to tax the hell out of firearms and ammunition AND require mandatory insurance for firearms.

          • You’re not pointing out reality, you’re stating far left ideas, while other people state far right ideas. Legislation will only come from the middle not the far left or right and trying to tax gun owners out of existence will only make agreement for anything impossible.

          • I have stated moderate ideas, far from “far left”. I do not want to tax anyone out of existence, I just want to tax them into thinking twice, just like luxury taxes. Very few gun owners *need* guns.

          • And who are you to tell anyone what they need? Millions of Americans hunt and use guns for recreation, how nice of you to tell them what they need. 80% of gun related crime is committed with illegal guns , tell me how taxing legal gun owners stops that?

          • The voice of reason.

            “Millions of Americans hunt and use guns for recreation”

            Really? They use AR15 assault rifles with 30 bullet magazines to HUNT?!?

            “80% of gun related crime is committed with illegal guns”

            How do you know this? And where did these illegal guns come from?

            “tell me how taxing legal gun owners stops that?”

            Less guns and less bullets means less carnage caused by said guns and bullets.

          • No, it is comments about “personal responsibility” that bothers conservatives so much. There is absolutely nothing controversial about my comments, except to a right-wing fanatic.

          • Crazy rant #2. Tell me, do they get issued the gun when they become criminals, or does mere possession of a firearm indicate that they are criminals. And the gun laws apply to all, in case you were wondering.

          • I said, where are your laws for the criminals that have stolen guns, bought them off the streets,. What laws do you suggest for them?

          • There are no laws on the books for illegally purchased/owned firearms?!? How could they be illegal if there are no laws that deem them illegal?

            Really, lana, I am waiting on a cogent argument/comment from you, and all I read so far are histrionics.

          • Why do you think I want to punish law-abiding citizens? Are law abiding citizens punished because they cannot by assault weapons and 30 round magazines?

            And in what way would I be changing the constitution?

          • Why is omuslim so hell bent on taking these weapons?? Why is he planning on going around congress to do so? These weapons had no part in the school shooting

          • 1. Why do you refer to a Christian (not that I really care, you are just another fearful conservative, but I get curious) as “omuslim”?

            The AR15 assault rifle is what Adam Lanza used to shoot 20 innocent children and 6 innocent adults. Also what was used in Aurora, CO to shoot the innocent film watchers.

            And why would President Obama want to use all legal means to get around a do nothing congress and the Party of NO! (GOP, for the slow to comprehend)? Geez, I got no idea…

          • Presidents’ don’t go around congress when they don’t get their own way, but a spoiled brat, always gets his own way communist, pompous little bitch would!!

          • How quickly you forget. Bush Jr did it constantly. Your comments have truly devolved into absolute ridiculousness. Again, not surprising…

          • Bush wasn’t going against the constitution,omuslim is–that’s why he will be impeached if he does

          • Her is the amazing thing, young ignorant one, you truly have no idea what you are talking about. Obama has done nothing “against the constitution” and has no chance of being impeached. Please do your homework before trying to converse with adults.

          • omuslim IS NOT a Christian. He’s a muslim communist and is against everything Christians believe in and stand for

          • Well, apparently you believe that you can read minds. I hate to break it to you, but you obviously cannot.

            Your arguments are sophomoric, I feel like I am trying to have a conversation with an ignorant teenager.

          • Answer the question. If omuslim is a Christian, why does he make Christians go against what they believe in?? Why is he always putting them down while up lifting and giving muslims their way on everything???

          • Shall I point out the obvious fallacies in your comment?

            1. Obama cannot force Christians to do anything but comply with national laws.
            2. Obama has done nothing special for Muslims, unless you mean that he has specifically told Muslims that they too are Americans (literally the same thing every other president has said when asked)

            Grow up, young immature undereducated one. Goodbye.

          • More poor blacks were gunned down last year in Chicago than in ALL the mass shootings over the past decade. Why does the MSM and the WH have no interest in banning the hand guns responsible for those murders?? If banning guns save lives, why not those guns????

          • “Why does the MSM and the WH have no interest in banning the hand guns responsible for those murders?? If banning guns save lives, why not those guns????”

            I don’t know. Have you asked them?

          • Wow, has this conversation devolved. Shocking. I certainly voted for President Obama. Your keen interest in guns makes me think YOU should be asking these questions of the Obama administration.

          • You’re the one that wants the 2nd amendment taken away. You should want to know why omuslim hasn’t done away with that amendment yet

          • Where did I write that I want the 2nd amendment taken away? Again, at this point, I have to assume that you are an undereducated teenager who never has learned how to have a real conversation or debate.

          • Hey, every state has laws against murder, robbery, assault, fraud, and other crimes, yet all these things continue to happen. Why don’t we repeal all these ridiculous laws, since criminals will always violate them? Think how much we could save by laying off all those unnecessary and obviously failed law “enforcement” moochers. And think about how we could save if we closed all those silly prisons and mental hospitals (I know the existence of the latter must add lots of worry to your already worried mind, what with all the money going to the Muslim brotherhood from Omuslim, and those UN helicopters coming to impose Agenda 21 on you at any moment). We could get rid of those threats to our “liberty” and cut the deficit at every level of government besides!

          • They certainly will, so long as they can buy them legally or steal them from people who have so many it might take them awhile to notice if they weren’t so obsessive about it.

          • More poor blacks were gunned down in Chicago last year than ALL the mass shootings over the last decade. The MSM and the WH have no interest in banning the handguns responsible for those murders. If gun bands save lives, why doesn’t omuslim band those guns???

        • Not to mention that all automobile owners are required to buy insurance by state governments. We tolerate this restrictions because of the damage that car accidents cause and the desire to protect ourselves and our property. With regard to guns, I would propose that all gun owners undergo testing and licensing procedures, and that they thereafter be required to carry liability insurance on their weapons. All weapons sold would have to be insured, as with cars, at the time of purchase. All private sales would also have to be bound by the same requirement, and the seller and his/her insurance company would be liable if this requirement wasn’t followed. Once insurance companies were on the hook for disasters like Newton, you would see significant change in firearm possession laws.

        • It is also important to point out that many people get their right to drive taken away for irresponsible use of a deadly weapon. In addition, to even get a driver license in the first place you have to prove you know the rules to follow and that you are capable of driving the car safely. Why not have the same requirements for guns.

          • driving a car is NOT a Constitutionally recognized and guaranteed right that shall NOT be infringed. Too effing bad for you gun haters.

            Have a nice day!

            “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

          • Do you recognize the difference between a “gun hater” and someone who recognizes that firearms are, by design, dangerous?

            Nope, didn’t think so. You stopped actually *thinking* a long time ago.

          • Hey moron…. guns are SUPPOSED to be dangerous. That’s the point. That’s what makes them effective. That’s what makes them good defense and deterrents.

            Have a nice day!

            “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

          • Hey moron, if guns are SUPPOSED to be dangerous, then they need SERIOUS regulations and laws protecting society from those carrying them, as well as SERIOUS safety regulations.

          • Bozo gets very touchy when you attack his right to have a semi-automatic gun with a high capacity clip. He believes he needs it to protect himself from those imaginary forces coming after him.

          • Hey moron, they already have that but you anti’s choose not to see that. You would rather concentrate on legalizing weed and releasing the criminals that commit non violent crimes. Guy in Maine just committed a non violent crime, burglary, turn him loose after all, he only stole several firearms from the homeowner. Puff, puff!

          • So, if guns are so great that they should be allowed in Churches, Schools, Parks, Bars, Restaurants, Sports Arenas, and nearly every where else, why are they banned in Legislative Office Buildings and Political Convention Centers?


          • I’m with you Jim. No restrictions on law abiding citizens. The outlaws don’t obey the laws anyway. That’s sort of the point.

            Have a nice day!

            “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.” — Mark Twain

          • So you think that the 2nd Amendment’s purpose is to shoot people you disagree with in public?? Statements like that are exactly why some people are advocating for tighter controls.

          • Sometimes you really worry me. What is it with all this talk of “defense and deterrents?” I thought you mainly had guns for sport. I have had several guns and in my 74 years I never had to use one for defense. Is that a regular thing with you? If so maybe you should quit calling people morons and effing gun haters. In fact, I just discovered I still own a firearm. I found it in the back of a closet. A pellet-shooting air rifle. So would that be deterrent enough? Say if I stuck it in the bad guy’s ear and pulled the trigger?

            Have a great evening, OMG!

            And don’t worry about me, I have a deterrent.

          • Metro, you know as well as I do that the best scenario would be to never have to fire your weapon. The problem arises when people with ill intent are armed and you are not. But that’s not the point of the 2nd Amendment, now is it. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is that the citizens be as well armed as the government to prevent the advances of tyranny. That’s it. That’s why it’s there, and that’s why the Constitution specifically states that the government cannot infringe upon those rights. So much for that idea under Mien Furor Obozo who thinks he can just trample the Constitution with his executive orders. I hope he is impeached.

            Have a nice day, Metro!

            “The problem of the distribution of the power of a society, so as to be most favorable to liberty, cannot be solved so long as too much power is given to a single man.” – Charles de Montesquieu, “Spirit of Laws”, Book XI

          • I was under the impression that the right to vote was to be the primary method of stopping advances of tyranny. If you don’t like who was elected, then you get out and try to convince the people to vote for someone else the next time. Or, the method you mention, impeachment. Shooting them because you think they are tyrants is definitely against the law and would be sure to get you discussed unfavorably in the neighborhood. Now, I know you know better than to call executive orders unconstitutional, OMG. They are not, you know, nor are they an impeachable offense. They are commonly used. And as Obama has stated himself, some of the things in these orders still have to pass through the senate and the congress. Equating them with trampling the constitution is just so much hyperbole. You can rally some of the troops with that. Not me. Sorry.

            Get Well!

            “If it’s natural to kill why do men have to go into training to do it?”
            — attributed to Joan Baez

          • Metro, how many evil tyrants have been voted into office? Most of them, my friend. To think that tyranny cannot come at the hand of democratic elections is ignorant of recent history. When Obozo writes EO’s that clearly violate the Constitution, that’s when he must be impeached as a duty of a responsible Congress that took the oath to uphold the Constitution. We’re not talking about an EO that orders HUD to share housing data with Treasury, Metro. Clearly, there are degrees of EO that are normal and ordinary and those that are downright insideous.

            Good question by Joan.

            Have a nice evening, my friend!

            “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

          • Now we know what EOs you consider insidious. You are perfectly within your rights to consider them insidious. But they are not insidious to everyone. As to their unconstitutionality, that’s not so clear to everyone. Only to those who want to interpret them as such. That’s where the impeachment process comes into play. It has to be proven beyond a doubt that it is unconstitutional, just like any other alleged infraction of the law and/or the constitution. It can’t be used against someone just because you don’t like what they have done. But shooting the president because you don’t like them will still cause you way more trouble than it’s worth. You would be much better off just proving, under the law, that an EO was unconstitutional. And, I believe, just proving an act unconstitutional is not grounds for impeachment. It is only grounds for overturning the act. That’s how it’s done.

          • I’m not sure where you get this idea of shooting the president, Metro?????????? I am puzzled by that. Nevertheless, I would like to see Obozo impeached for a multitude of reasons. His EO’s have been used when he cannot get his agenda through the legislative process. Like he’s some sort of king that can just thumb his nose at Congress and hence, at the American people, to shove his agenda down our throats. That’s the only reason he’s doing it, Metro. And you know it. Just like cap and trade. When he couldn’t get that through the people’s house, he just wrote and EO telling EPA to regulate carbon as a pollutant by fiat. Because he said so. That’s what tyrants do, Metro. I wish you all on the left could see that you may like your tyrant today, but when the political winds shift as they inevitably do, your oxen are the next to be gored. This is why you can’t even let your guy have his way now. Just like the Patriot Act. You all (and I) screamed about it’s unconstitutional provisions and you guys on the left attacked Bush incessantly and viciously for years over that. Then, what did we hear when Obozo reauthorized it? Or what did we hear from you guys when Obozo passed the NDAA? crickets……. crickets……. crickets……. crickets……. crickets……. crickets……. crickets……. Not a single mention of that on this site or on leftist controlled TV. I don’t mean to get off on a tangent, but my point is all related to the above. If Obozo wants the gun control laws passed, he needs to be smart enough to get them through Congress. If he doesn’t like the 2nd Amendment, then he can lead the charge to repeal it. Beyond that, he cannot infringe on any of our rights just by executive order. He is NOT a king.

            Have a nice evening, Metro!

            “In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.” — John Adams

          • Don’t include me as a fan of the NDAA. Or the Patriot Act, either. And Bush was never attacked as viciously or as often as Obama. I say that without claiming that the attack were warranted or not. I know I am overstating when I say you would shoot the president. But when you insist that the 2nd amendment was only to protect us from our own government, what alternative are you proposing if you overlook the legal process and go right to a final solution. Obama is quite aware that he has to get gun control through congress. He has stated that quite clearly. But sometimes, to get congress to act requires a swift kick in the ass. You are aware of that as well as I am. If they find it unconstitutional, then they have the ability to reject it and take their fight to a court of law if they can’t reach an agreement. As I have said, not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If Obama did nothing he would be criticized for that, too.

            Have a great evening!

          • I would not criticize Obozo for doing nothing. In fact, if he came out and said what we all know to be true that we have a cultural decay problem, and instead of blaming inanimate objects for violence, place blame right at the feet of the pertetrator only, then I’d cheer him on. But instead, his true colors come out and his anti 2nd Amendment ideas have a crisis through wich he can market his brand of tyranny. Look how he used the children to market himself. Just like a whole bunch of other dictators have done. He is in lousy company with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, PolPot, Castro, Il Jung, Chavez, and every other thug that’s done the same thing.

            Have a nice day Metro. Signing out for the night.

            “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.” — Mark Twain

          • Good Morning, OMG. I hope you are feeling some better.

            Now you bring up cultural decay. Something else we can agree on. Absolutely! We are witnessing cultural decay from top to bottom. And guns are just one weapon the decadent use. Which makes it very difficult for those who use them for what they should be. Sport. And to those who need it, for protection. I would never argue that they can’t be used for such a purpose. But there are flaws in that premise as well. People are all different. Not all people are able or do not want to handle guns. And from my own experience, they should not be encouraged to. They will either shoot an innocent person or themselves. Some people, such as myself, may well find it very difficult to aim a gun at a human being and pull the trigger. Cops and military are trained to do that. The rest of us aren’t. Criminals with a gun most often don’t have any qualms about shooting a human any more than they would hesitate to shoot a dog or a cat or a squirrel. It would be difficult to pass gun laws that cover every situation, admittedly. But I am pretty confident some laws, if they were actually enforced might stem the tide just a bit. It would be even more difficult to try and round up all those who are mentally unstable enough to be barred from owning weapons as the NRA stance goes. We all know people who function reasonably well in society but harbor such hatred and paranoia that they could easily snap at any time. What can be done about them unless they have a history of mental instability. Unless they are somewhere in a data base where they can be identified, what can be done? I look at some of the posts on this site and think, “God help us if they have a gun!” There is no way I can see, at this point, the Obama can be classified a dictator. Comparing him to Stalin, Hitler, Mao . . . that’s rabble-rousing talk. That’s the kind of talk you need to save for when you’re rallying the troops to storm the White House. Get ’em snorting and hollering and foaming at the mouth, ready to storm the barricades. In other words, the very tactics that Stalin, Hitler, Mao et. al. would use. At this time I’m not ready to join the rally, OMG. I did my rallying and shouting about the Vietnam War. For the present, I’m retired from that, too. But not to worry. If I think Obama or any other president, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist . . . is trying to make us a dictatorship, I’ll be ready to man the barricades again. I used to be on security duty. Spotting and weeding out the agents provocateurs the cops would send in as well as those who got a little too radical on the left. It was our job to “separate” them from the crowd. We would hook them through the arms and “escort” them out of harm’s way. Surprising how many were undercover cops. Well, I hope it doesn’t come to that again. I’m just too damn old for that now. I would just be another old gray head, waving a sign and shouting.

            Have a great day!

          • What the hell? You’re a little behind in your reading jimmie58. This discussion took place a year ago.

          • “You betcha,” as Sarah would say. Still here, another year older and I still don’t rely on Depends 🙂 I don’t get the National Memo anymore, though. Is OMG still hanging in there?

          • They are not dangerous “by design.” They are dangerous when the need calls for it to be or when in the wrong hands. “Wrong hands” being key here, uneducated or criminal, the same as automobiles. Man is the one that perverts the usage of tools not the other way around.

          • Curious to know WHY you need and Uzi or AK-47 with 100 round clips and copper tipped, hollow nosed bullets? KEEP your hunting rifles, target pistols and hand guns for home security, however, NOBODY needs an Assault Weapon to hunt ANYTHING but people!

          • Sarge… who is the “well regulated militia”? Here is the answer…. The fact of the matter is that we the citizens ARE the militia. That’s the intent of the 2nd Amendment and why it is written as it is. Read the quote below to learn more about what was really meant during the process of trying to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. By the way, it NEVER would have been ratified without the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment.

            Have a nice day!

            As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution: “The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

          • Bozo again you are wrong. A constitutional amendment, even one of the Bill of Rights , can be repealed. We are not gun haters we just feel sorry for you little-minded people who see boogey men coming to get you and want to have a gun to protect yourself from these imaginary people.

          • It can be argued as to whether the Constitution protects gun ownership for individuals or for the Militia. What can no longer be argued is the Supreme Court has ruled since 1939 that guns can be regulated.

            In 1939 The Supreme Court essentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated (United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939]).

            In June, 2008, (District of Columbia v Heller); The Court, wrote that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right but was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns.

            So Sir, too effing bad for you, your guns can be regulated as per the highest Court in the land.

          • Like the SCOTUS is so infallable…. yeah, right. Sure, sure. That Dred Scott decision was awesome jurisprudence, wasn’t it? The fact of the matter is that we the citizens ARE the militia. That’s the intent of the 2nd Amendment and why it is written as it is. Read the quote below to learn more about what was really meant during the process of trying to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. By the way, it NEVER would have been ratified without the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment.

            Have a nice day!

            As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution: “The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

          • You might want to consider the question, “would the constitution pass today with the second amendment in it?” We live in a very different world today than we did in 1788. Most people would not consider an argument made in 1788 that refers to swords and free commonwealths as relevant today. Much has changed since then; our militias are much more formal they are called police, highway patrol, National Guard, Harbor Control etc. But, clearly you fail to see that. Our Constitution was never meant to be carved in stone. The founding fathers were wise enough to know that societies’ change and the needs of the people in the society changes along with it, so they included a process for changing the constitution and interpreting what it means. No SCOTUS is not perfect, but it is what our founding fathers gave us, so sorry you will have to live with it.

          • I love how you leftist freaks discredit the Constitution because it was written 2020 years ago. As if sound principles of government and human freedom don’t really exist. As if there is no truth except that which you define as truth today. Too bad, elw, the American Constitution is the longest reigning constitution in the world and has laid the groundwork for more human freedom and prosperity than any other organizing document in the history of mankind. And yes, there is a process to amend it. If you don’t like the 2nd Amendment, then follow that process to get it repealed. Until then, STFU!

            Have a nice day!

            “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

          • I love the way people like you start calling names when they are confronted with something they do not want to hear. I laugh at how quickly you are willing to disregard the 1st Admendment. Sorry I will not STFU the first Admendment gives me that right.

          • And so it does, elw…. and so it does. Keep on speaking. Even if I don’t like it. But I can still tell you to STFU if I want [sticking out my tongue at you] LOL 🙂 🙂

            Have a nice day, elw!

            “In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.” — John Adams

          • So, what you’re saying, OMG, is that because driving a car is not constitutionally recognized (I do believe there were very few cars at the time the constitution was written) one’s right to drive can be infringed. And drivers must be licensed by taking a driver’s test and have liability insurance. But because, as you interpret the constitution, guns are a constitutionally guaranteed right, no such restrictions are allowed to be applied? And why do you use the old ultra conservative trick of calling anyone who would call for some common sense restrictions a “gun hater?” I would say, without too much fear of contradiction, that most of the people posting here are gun owners or support the right to own a gun. I think you could back off a little with the “effing gun haters” crap.

          • Metro, you know better than that. I’ve addressed the matter of the 2nd Amendment in a prior response to you. You guys on the left love to discredit the Constitution by saying things like “cars were not around when it was written”, but that is a ruse. They had their modes of transporation like horses and carriages. Why did they not put a method of transportation in the Constitution? Because it was not a matter of liberty like your right to self defense against others who wish to harm you or your property, or from tyrants that aim to take your freedoms. Nice attempt to draw equivalency, but it won’t fly with me, Metro.

            Don’t be such a gun hater, Metro.

            Have a nice day!

            “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.” — Mark Twain

          • Not so fast, OMG. My reference to cars was just a bit of humor. It’s not me who keeps bringing up cars and equating them with guns. That comes from some of the wingnuts who post here. They are the ones who make that argument, not me.

            My question to you was why you persist in equating gun regulation with “effing gun haters?” Or, worse, morons? Why do you equate regulation with wanting to take your weapons away? And, as I have said before, when I hear the argument that we have weapons to defend ourselves against a repressive government, we part ways real quick! If that’s your primary reason, I find that really worrisome. If you want to argue that guns are used for hunting, fine. As an ex-hunter and rifle and gun owner, I’m all for that. I have never had to use a gun . . . or a knife or a club or a car . . . to defend myself or deter anyone. And it’s not because I have lived a sheltered life. Using a gun as a deterrent? That’s just how many people get shot. While they are deterring an attacker, the attacker is shooting them. I, for one, would probably hesitate too long before shooting at another human being and I think a lot of other people would have the same problem, if you prefer to call it a problem. You may think you wouldn’t now, but what would you do in reality?

            Get well, OMG! And quit calling us “effing gun haters.”

          • Metro, the point of the 2nd Amendment is NOT self defense or hunting. The Bill of Rights is a listing of God-given, inalienable rights which our government is instituted to protect and insure. Your right to stay free and/or stay alive is God given. To acknowledge that right, the Founders included the 2nd Amendment and the took away government’s power to limit it by stating that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, as a part of that same Constitution, they did include a process through which the people can amend it. If you and others don’t like the 2nd Amendment, just like people didn’t like Prohibition, you can follow that process and try to get it repealed. Until then, there is no argument. You cannot defend the parts of the Bill of Rights piecemeal because you like one Amendment, but don’t think others rights are as important as yours for Amendments that you don’t like. The fact is that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Too many feckless Americans do not recognize that their rights are not taken away all at once, but instead are taken away incrementally and always for their own good. I, and others like me, who know the history of gun control, recognize what is happening when it is happening. And for you to say, Metro, that America can never turn into a tyranny, I say don’t be so naive. The dust bin of history is littered with tyrants that took over and for the good of the people, they took away their arms. You guys on the left are so easily manipulated and “nudged” along toward bigger and more oppressive government. Little by little, you keep giving in, and the slow and inevitible march toward tyranny continues.

            Have a great evening, Metro!

            “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” — Charles de Montesquieu

          • OBOZO IGNORANT AS USUAL driving is a constitutional right, “freedom of movement”
            the constitution states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
            What militia are you associated with?

          • Gump… you have not read my other posts. Driving is but one mode of transportation. It is NOT a constitutions right, however. Find “driving” in the Constitution and tell me where it is. The Founders were smart enough to know that new and different modes of transportation would be invented but certainly did not regard riding a horse as a God-given right. And they were smart enough to know that more advanced weapons would be developed in the future, as well. That’s why the 2nd Amendment does not say specifically that we have the right to keep and bear muskets only. It uses very general term, “arms”, to recognize the right.

            I’m not afraid of anything. It’s you leftist freaks that are afraid of law abiding citizens possessing firearms. It’s leftist freaks in schools that suspend 6 year old boys for playing cops and robbers or using their fingers as play guns. That aint conservatives, Mr. Paranoid Leftist Freak. It’s you leftist freaks always sticking your noses in everyone else’s business telling everyone else what they can and cannot do. What they can and cannot say. That’s not conservatives, pal! That’s you paranoid leftist freaks. Got it?

            Have a nice day!

            “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

          • You have made my point for me, elw. It’s not that not all gun owners are crazy… it’s that 1 in 1,000,000 might be. So why should those of us that are not crazy (I’ll assume for discussion sake that you are not) give up our liberties because of a 1 in a million chance that someone is crazy? We should not. Besides, this is all nothing but a bunch of radical leftist politicians who are stirring up the public hysteria for their own political goals of control over the people. Gun control is not about guns, it’s about control. Case in point. Are you aware that more people die each year from auto erotic asphyxiation (that’s suffocating themselves while masturbating) than die from rifle shootings? It’s actually not even close. So all this hysteria over semi-automatic rifles is pure bullsheet. That’s my point.

            Have a nice day!

            “Demagogue: one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” – H.L. Mencken

          • First of all no one, not one person is talking about taking your guns away. The question is about what kind of guns are reasonable (which is Constitutional). There is logic in asking if it is really necessary for any non-military person to have automatic weapons and large capacity magazines; Other than that, most of the discussion has been around how better to enforce current regulations, improve registration and deal with mental illness.

            Comparing death by bullet to masturbation is ridicules. It also says a lot about where your head is. There is no such thing as complete freedom. This is no longer the wild, Wild West when neighbors were miles apart and you needed a gun to eat. We live very close to each other and everything you do affects the people around you. We all have to give up some freedom so we do not tramp on the rights and freedoms of the people we share our space with. As a Community, we have limited people’s right to smoke because it is a safety hazard to those around them. We follow rules while we drivein order to limit auto accidents and the morbidity and mortality that come with them. Most communities have regulations on noise, dogs, home capacity, and many other things that are for the greater good of the community. It is your opinion that the demand for restricting automatic weapons is hysteria, an opinion that is not shared by the majority of people – even gun owners. Once more rates of mental illness in this Country are about 25%, so that is much higher than your made up statistic of one in a million. In the end the majority will win, it may take time but it will happen. I suggest you adjust to it or you are going to be a much more miserable person than you already are

          • elw… as usual for leftist freaks, you have revealed your own ignorance. For you, and for all of you other leftist freaks out there reading this that have NO CLUE what you are talking about, I will enlighten you…

            1) There are almost NO automatic weapons available out there. To own one requires an extremely difficult/impossible permit. What you morons fail to understand is that an AUTOMATIC weapon is a gun that fires repeatedly as long as the finger holds the trigger pulled in. Such weapons are referred to by many as “machine guns” and they have been outlawed since 1934.

            2) What you morons fail to understand is that a semi-automatic weapons require a trigger pull for every shot fired. A revolver is a semi-automatic weapon, you moron! Any common handgun is a semi-automatic weapon.

            3) The guns you morons on the left are talking about are regular old rifles. But they do look mean, now don’t they? And if they look mean, well they must be worse than the other guns.

            4) Semi-automatic rifles ARE used in hunting much more than you think. They are the common weapon when hunting bears or large wild boar or moose or other large wild game that can be significant threat when wounded and more than 3 or 4 shots are needed in many cases.

            You morons that have no clue what the hell you are talking about should keep your effing mouths shut until you know better…. which is almost never for a leftist freak, by definition.

            Another point… only a leftist idiot actually thinks 1 of every 4 people are mentally ill. Look around you. If that’s the case in your world, you probably are typing on a computer in the institution’s library where you live. Other than that, if you are a normal person (can a leftist freak be normal???) you do not live and work with 1 in 4 people who have mental illness.

            The mental illness issue does bring up an interesting point. If we use the existence of “mental illness” as the deciding line of who should and who should not own guns, then who exactly decides who is and who is not mentally ill. How do we actually define that? The problem is that politicians will be left to decide what is and what is not “mentally ill” and now it’s a political issue that will lose all touch with sanity and common sense. Further, while the DemonRATS are mostly in control today, what happens down the road when the political winds change as they always do? What happens if some right wing nuts decide that being liberal is a “mental illness” condition? Actually, it is a mental illness, but I don’t want to take away your Constitutional rights because of it. Do you see where I am going with this, elw? I don’t think we need to open up that Pandora’s box by giving politicians more and more power over our lives. You like the idea now because you are caught up in the hysteria following a tragedy. But that does not mean we just begin turning over more of our liberties.

            And finally, your rant on this whole we live in a “collective community” crap is just that…. crap! But it’s the common leftist mistake to envision a community utopia where we all sacrifice individuality for the greater good of all. That’s horsesheet fantasy, elw. The truth behind such socialist thinking is that, in reality, the greater good always seems to be for the elite who are in power, not the common man who is enslaved by their grand designs and bureaucratic rules and dictates. You have obviously bought the lie of socialism.

            Certainly, our liberties are not unlimited. The right to free speech does not give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theater, or slander someone else’s reputation. But you see, liberties become limited ONLY at the edge where they infringe or harm the liberties of others. And we have plenty of laws that cover such matters. I don’t see how your liberties are harmed by another law abiding citizen owning a semi-automatic rifle that hold 30 rounds. The fact is, your liberties are NOT harmed by private possession of a any kind of gun. And don’t give me the garbage excuse that your liberties MIGHT be harmed, because “might be” is NOT any sort of infringement.

            Good discusssion, elw.

            Have a nice day!

            “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” ― John Locke, Second Treatise of Government

          • Being able to drive is NOT a right, it is a privelege afforded by each state. Comparing apples to oranges.

          • Ah, another pithy well thought out response. You are quite impressive.

            BTW, I’m too rich to be a communist, so there’s that…

          • Your comments and those of others just made my point, foolish remarks like these will only put roadblocks up to stop reform and make the gun industry more money. To rich to be a communist, give me a break, I’m through talking to fools.

          • Lana Ward is just a bitter little woman, all she ever writes is that President Obama is a Muslim, a Nazi (Hitler) a Princess (??) and now a communist. She is just some pathetic little woman who has nothing better to do with her sad patheric life.

          • Oh, Lana, just STFU and go away…we are so tired of you and your moronic comments. Muslim?? Communist?? WTF?? Stupid c&nt!!

          • You STFU!! Spouting your lies all over. If you numbnuts would quit lying, I wouldn’t be here, brainwashed fools!!

          • Drop dead, brainless bitch…you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the ass. Moron!!
            Sent from my iPad

          • Not dead yet?? Just your “brain”, moron slut?? Go find some blind person to screw you…also deaf and mute. That’s your only chance, c–t.
            Sent from my iPad

        • Type in,–The United States program for general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world,–and –freedom from war 1961, see what Obama has in store for all Americans

          • Do your work for you, you lazy a$$?

            Hmmm, how old was Obama in 1961? How much did he contribute to this as a juvenile?

            Please gain some more education and maturity, then start responding. I’m hoping that your responses will then demonstrate both maturity and intelligence.

          • I didn’t say he had been born yet, did I?? What is going on right now is where he fits in. Read it!!, coward

          • The ignorant juvenile with the sophomoric responses is now calling me a “coward” because I refuse to do her work for her?!?

            Young child, when you learn how to interact with adults, THEN try conversing with me.


      • Until guns are regulated as much as owning and driving an auto, there is absolutely no comparison. Btw, there already exists a means to cover costs associated with car accidents – it’s called auto insurance , whether mandated or not, and responsible owners have it. When all the misinformation, paranoia, and idiotic conspiracy theories are laid to rest, then maybe we all can have a sane discussion about gun safety.

      • You forget that it is the idiots and mental morans that have guns that are responsibile for the killings. You can be a mental moron or an idiot without a gun and cause a lot less damage. I am tire of other people destroying lives because they think their needs are more important than the greater good.

      • The insurance industry does not have to collect an excise tax to cover auto accidents and wrecks (or even vehicular homicide). That is why all drivers are required to have auto insurance (or demonstrate financial responsibility to pay for accidents.

        Put an insurance requirement on all gun owners. Let the private insurance companies calculate the risk. If you are a responsible person with safety training the premiums would be low. A criminal or mentally unstable person would be unable to get insurance.

        Yes, I know criminals will not buy insurance. That is when the government steps in and the criminal pays the penalty. Insurance has worked for fires for hundreds of years. It has worked since the invention of the automobile.

      • People are required to have auto insurance in order to operate an auto. Maybe gun owners should be required to have gun insurance in case their guns get into the wrong hands.

      • In nearly every state of the union drivers are required to carry car insurance for exactly the purpose of costs associated with accidents. So I’m still not seeing a problem here.

      • there are hundreds of federal regulations that car manufactures have to abide by,, something tells me your ok with the plastic guns too ..

      • The argument against taxing the rich 1% by the gun toting Republicans is that the rich are job creators and that taxing their wealth will reduce the investments. So, using their own logic, it is clear that if we want to reduce the availability of guns and ammo in the market, higher taxes must be imposed. And, as you have stated, this should be treated just like taxes on tobacco products. I agree, ATF should be given the responsibility to enforce gun and ammo regulation.

    • Just absolutely refuse to consider personal responsibility for such actions, don’t you. Instead of making the offender responsible, we must make people we disagree with responsible. You need a little Jeff Foxworthy:

      If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one. If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

      If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

      If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

      If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Democrats demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

      If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

      • There are three groups of people who belong to the Republican Party.
        Paliniots- Their IQs are equal to or lower than Sarah Palin’s
        Newt-wits-Their IQs are higher than Sarah Palin’s and lower than Newt Gingrich’s
        Murdochites- They directly or indirectly work for Rupert Murdoch, and his ilks, and brain wash the other two groups. Choose you group.

  3. And people wonder why and how criminals end up with assault weapons and other firearms, with GOP and gun lobby idiots out of obscure southern districts like this bozo its a wonder that we haven’t had more mass shootings than was reported.

  4. You do understand that Stockman is correct. He also would stand a better chance of passing a background check to purchase a firearm than 0bama would pass a top secret security clearance. Stockmans offense was not a violent crime or a domestic abuse crime.

    On the other hand considering Barack Obama as a candidate for a top secret security clearance status with a full array of compartmentalized clearances, one has to be cognizant of the fact that there is considerable evidence of associations and even assistance from individuals with past criminal records or who have expressed anti-American beliefs. Obviously admitted domestic terrorists William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, as well as recently convicted felon, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, fall into this category.

    There is no possibility that a Top Secret clearance would be awarded to a member of the Armed Forces whose background included such associations. An intelligence service clearance for the handling of highly classified material would be totally out of the question.

  5. Your drivers license and ability to drive is a state controlled privlege and not a right like gun ownership…perhaps if the right to gun ownership was as well regulated as driving the point would be moot, and by the way I am a democrat and NOT a member of the NRA but I own guns and do not defer any individuals right to gun ownership . Please read the paper work you must fill out when appling for gun ownership. With over 180 million Americans owning firearms it’s strange that in only takes a handful to cause impunity in the ownership of a firearm.

  6. Rep Steve Stockman of (R-Tx) word of ignorance, he doesn’t even know when is the right time to use impeachment, provably he got a lot of dollar from NRA. You know what you can possibly win the sympathy of 98% american if you can apply that to the predecessor of President Obama for bringing this country to unnecessary war in Iraq.

  7. There’s allot of ways the Government can get around State Jurisdiction. Minimum age to drink alcohol.
    I live in NYS.
    When I grew up it was 18, now it’s 21. How’d they pull that one off? no Federal money for roads and highways unless it’s 21.
    They didn’t “claim” jurisdiction, but they won.
    It did work, there’s a lot less alcohol related automobile accidents.

  8. Just shows how unqualified the man is. I do not see using established Presidential powers is impeachable. He is just another looney-bin Republican with a low IQ.

  9. Obozo should be impeached for Fast & Furious, or the Benghazi cover up, or any host of other reasons for his illegal activities and unconstitutional actions.

    Good luck Rep. Stockman. You have all my support.

    Have a nice day!

    “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency…Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung

    • Bozo as usual you have no idea about what you write. The President can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes. Fast and Furious was carried out by the ATF not the president and is not an impeachable event. Likewise the Bengazi incident is not impeachable, Obama never denied what happened there, he even took responsibility for anything that happened there though it was a State Dept. issue. As for your host of illegal activities and unconstitutional actions please provide some provable examples. You know you like to make ridiciulous statements without any factual backup. You did state President Obama was the worst president in the last 100 years, foregetting about Harding, Collidge, Hoover, Nixon, Ford and last but least W, or the 6 people you accused of being pro Muslim Brotherhood or part of them based on an article in an Egyptian magazine or newspaper. An article you stated was unsourced but still referenced.

      I’m glad you support a guy who was arrested for possession of drugs, I guess he is your example of a law and order guy.

      • I like how you hypocrites put down Stockman for having been involved with drugs, but somehow forget Obozo’s own admission of being a pot head and major cocaine user. Oh, that’s right. If your messiah does it, it’s OK. If your political opponent does it, even if it’s only a couple of vikadin, than that is beyond reproach, right? Regarding impeachment, Obozo has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, not trample on it, Trampling on it IS treason and is impeachable. God willing, Obozo will be tried and suffer the consequences of treason.

        Have a nice day!

        “When Obozo called the SEALs, they got Bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obozo, they got denied.” – Navy SEAL’s Facebook posting that was censored and then later uncensored

  10. I’d pay to see an episode of Judge Judy with Stockman telling the court that his girlfriend stuck drugs in his pocket.

  11. I started to comment that, in the midst of all the positive feedback for POTUS for what he is recommending about gun control, the Congressman from Texas steps forward to add his crazy thoughts to the mix! Then I read some of the comments made earlier and realized that insanity resides in places other than Texas. How sad that people cannot see the real forest for their own personalized trees! The President is right about gun control; it’s too bad there are so many who cannot see that.

  12. So Ronald Reagan was surrounded by the best trained, heavily armed Secret Service Agents and he STILL GOT SHOT !!! How much help would an armed 62 year old Teacher be when confronted by a heavily armed gunman wearing body armor and carrying multiple high-powered weapons be?

  13. Gun owners must have insurance. The insurance companies can bid on policies. When someone is shot with a gun, they can file a claim. If people don’t have insurance, they should be fined.

  14. No wonder we have this BOZOO representative in the congress wasting our tax dollar to pay for this texan bozoo salaries and healthcare benefits and any benefits you can name it, who does no work for the good of people only for the money he is receiving from gun corporate or what ever they call.

  15. I wonder if obozomust go is a Texan, maybe that’s where they got te idea for the song,”All my Assholes live in Texas” and that’s why they keep harping about losing their right to bear arms, here he’s agreeing with a Texas asshole that has been convicted of a felony which in the majority of the states would get his ass thrown in jail for just having a gun in his possession and favors a Texas law that allows convicted felons to purchase and own guns is that a beautiful state or what. It goes to show you we just had 26 children and adults slaughtered in a school and people unless you’ve seen what a uzi or other weapon can do to the body of a human being you don’t want witness a massacur it looks like a thrashing machine got ahold of them this is the type of weapons tey are against banning, Unless you keep your uzi on the kitchen table or on top of the television, if someone bursts into your house to cause you nd your family harm your in a world of trouble because you’ll never make the closet. To start with they don’t send out invitations they wait until everyone is relaxed and probably enjoying a refreshment when they burst in their modus operandum is surprise. But what really galls me the most is the balls these people that are constantly knocking the President for doing nothing are the first line to critizise his when he tries to do something and all the while they are the very ones that have been thwarting his efforts, so he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I would call a real rotten ass hipocrite the man was legally elected let him do his job without interferrence, then if he falters crusify him. Make those bastards in Congress do their job instead of sitting on their asses all year long doing nothing make them ear their pay or impeach them for failure to live up to to the Oath took when they went into Ofiice or get them out, I would love to receive 175,000 a year plus all the perks and their benfiit package for sitting on my ass and my greatest achevement is to Obstruct someone who is trying to move the country ahead. Now they can accuse him of all kinds of bullshit but unless he has a chance no one will ever know, he surely can’t fuck it up any worse than he found it..

  16. The Presidents proposal is logical and preventive without infringement. republicKKKans are ginning it up – do not trust their unbelievable lies. what fools would let everyone in a country walk around with AK-47’s? hunting/protection = SURE anything else = NO! America get smart!!!!!

  17. I am against the nra plan. Why put more guns in school by police or security officers. What if schools did put more security in their school, the children will not be any safer. Because if some comes in with assault guns and security fired back how do you know that the children would not be in the way. And second of all this guy who is against it should not have asset to them type of weapon. He is just looking out for himself. If they banned them, he will be up the creek with out a paddle.

    • Obozo sends his daughters to a school that maintains 11 armed guards…. Why?

      Have a nice day!

      “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

  18. Did any of those GOP guys get background checks? They act unconscienable in their positions. The safety of people is more important than being able go get an assault rifle or gun.

  19. What would you expect from a shit hole state of dumb asses? Heck, it looks like they only let idiots or drug addicted felons govern them.

  20. the only reason people will not subject themselves to a background check is because they can not pass one. Besides there is no reason any one should have the need for an assault rifle, if they are worried about the fathom menace coming to town and taking over stop watching fox news and get out into the real world. I have traveled this country over working construction and have lived in some of the most shady places and have never had the feeling of the need of a gun of any type. If you still feel so afraid that you feel safe only with the knowledge that you own an assault weapon, then join a “WELL REGULATED MILITIA ” and store your weapon in their armory not your house where your idiot son or daughter can get access to it!!!!

  21. If America is going to Impeach somebody let’s Impeach EVERY stupid Republican on the hill.
    Let clean house with them. Have a nice day.

  22. This guy is a congressman; you have got to be kidding me. What earthly reason do you need a gun for, except to hunt and/or for personal defense. Given that, wouldn’t a simple rifle, shotgun or hand gum (with limited magazine capacity) be sufficient.

  23. This guy is a congressman; you have got to be kidding me! The only reason one needs a gun is to either hunt and/or for self defense. And for those reasons I think a hand gun, rifle or shotgun (all with limited magazine capacity) would be sufficient. I sense there is this underlying paranoia that some feel they need to be able to have the capacity to confront our own government in a revolutionary type of standoff. To put it mildly, those individuals are delusional.

  24. I see you are using the liberal standard personal attack mode when there is a threat to your socialist agenda. He is a true American hero story and you rag about typical spin BS. You people can not even read the Constitution much less understand it. Your ignorance of history is sad to the point of damage to our freedoms and amount to aiding tyranny. If you are so stupid as to think bearing arms is about just home protection and hunting, there is no hope for you.

  25. Oh, my, I can see this is a Looney Liberal site! Good grief, will these people EVER learn or they just going to stay stupid for ever?

Leave a reply