E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn an emotional press conference, President Obama unveiled his "concrete steps" to keep kids safe, asking that Congress restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, make it easier for mental health professionals to report threats of violence and put a limit on ammunition. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
Updated 2:56 p.m. -- President Barack Obama unveiled sweeping new policies Wednesday aimed at limiting gun violence, teeing up a political showdown that will pit the broad public popularity for many gun control measures against Congress’s tepid appetite for approving the most stringent restrictions on gun ownership.
"While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil," Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it."
Acknowledging the difficulty of the Congressional fight ahead, Obama appealed for public support, slamming - as he did in a press conference earlier this week - conservative commentators and the most vocal pro-gun activists for "ginning up" opposition to gun reforms for political reasons.
"I will put everything I've got into this and so will Joe [Biden], but I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it," he said.
Some of the main legislative proposals backed by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are:
- requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales
- banning "military-style" assault weapons
- limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
- strengthening penalties for gun trafficking
"The most important changes we can make depend on Congressional action," Obama said. "They need to bring these proposals up for a vote and the American people need to make sure that they do."
Related Information: Gun Violence Fact Sheet | Gun Violence Executive Summary | Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions
The president also signed a series of 23 executive actions - free from a Congressional blockade -- intended to strengthen existing laws, augment mental health measures and promote federal research on gun crime through the Centers for Disease Control.
The executive actions announced included stricter prosecution of would-be gun buyers who fail background checks as well as new requirements for federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
The president's recommendations also direct administration officials to "clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" and to "release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."
Obama and Biden were joined at the White House event by families of the Newtown school shooting victims as well as by four children who wrote the president after the tragedy that left 20 young students dead.
"This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe," Obama said at the beginning of his remarks. "This is how we will be judged, and their voices should compel us to change."
Biden, who led the presidential task-force on gun safety in the wake of the Newtown shootings, praised the activists who met with his staff over the last week to help build the list of recommendations.
"The world has changed and it's demanding action," Biden said.
While some of Obama's long-expected proposals - like universal background checks - garner overwhelming public support, the outlawing of certain types of weapons may be less of a slam dunk for lawmakers eager to appease constituents.
A recent poll from the Pew Research Center showed that a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- back a ban on "assault-style weapons," with 40 percent saying they don't approve of a ban. But a partisan breakdown shows that only about four in ten Republicans support such restrictions, compared to a broad majority of Democrats.
Democrats in Congress have already voiced doubts about the feasibility of the president's most ambitious proposals.
"We're not going to get an outright ban" on assault weapons, Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York bluntly said yesterday.
"[Senate Majority Leader] Reid has said he doesn't know whether he has the votes (for an assault weapons ban)," she added. "There's heavy lifting, so are we going to waste time on heavy lifting? Or are we going to try to work on doing something that could actually get passed?"
Related: Obama's gun plans spark little enthusiasm with key lawmakers
Supporters are more optimistic about background checks and magazine restrictions.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Wednesday that his panel will hold its first hearing on issues relating to gun violence on Jan. 30.
In his remarks Wednesday, Obama anticipated opponents' reactions to his proposals.
"This will be difficult," he said. "There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty. Not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves, and behind the scenes they will do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever."
The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobby, released a statement Wednesday afternoon in response to the president's remarks.
"We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America's most valuable asset - our children. Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation," the NRA wrote. "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."
That statement was relatively muted in comparison to the group's controversial ad released Tuesday night, which criticized Obama's dismissal of the gun lobby's proposal to increase armed security in schools.
"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks in the short ad. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."
Related: White House calls NRA 'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for invoking president's children in ad
The ad prompted outcry from observers who said the First Family should be off limits for such advertisements, while NRA backers say their focus is on school safety rather than on the president's daughters themselves.
"Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama's daughters are missing the point completely or they're trying to change the subject," said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "This ad is about keeping our children safe. And the president said he was skeptical about the NRA proposal to put policemen in all schools in this country. Yet he and his family are beneficiaries of multiple law enforcement officers surrounding them 24 hours a day."
White House spokesman Jay Carney shot back that the ad is "cowardly."
"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," he said. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the President's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."
NBC's Mark Murray, Frank Thorp, Ali Weinberg and Kelly O'Donnell contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Semi automatic guns are not by definition "assult weapons" and they were not designed for the battlefield and why are you so sexually excited by by this topic.
So what is the design purpose?
Cars kill more people than the people holding guns. What was their design purpose?
they are designed for sporting purposes and self defense. The improvement of body armor has driven the need for more firepower for this purpose. Yes bad guys do wear body armor. As for assult weapons, most are held by the military or passed along to police departments. Also, the sports nature is playing to what people like. I am not personally a big AR or AK fan but support people rights to own them.
there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle". assault means to cause undue harm. assault is a criminal action. therefore anyone who "assaults" is a criminal. it is also illegal for a criminal to own, possess, use or buy a firearm (except muzzle loaded black power rifles for hunting, but only in some states.) so by that only a criminal can "assault" with a gun, or any weapon for the same matter. if they have a prior criminal history then they are already in illegal possession of a gun before they"assault" with it. if a legal owner freaks out and "assaults" someone with his gun, the very action makes them a criminal the moment they squeeze the trigger. only a criminal can assault.
any legally owned gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen can only be a defense weapon, defense is completely legal. the difference between a defense weapon and assault weapon is the hands that hold it.
the term "assault weapon"/ "assault rifle" was created by anti gun groups to make the gun sound more demonized and bad. it gives the illusion that such a thing could only be used for bad criminal things.
a few tactical weapons originally built for the military have the words "assault rifle", "tactical assault weapon" stamped on them. today these are available to public buyers. if you are in the military and at war, defensive action gains no ground in battle. to move forward on the battlefield troops must engage in offensive "assault" actions to gain ground. having the words "assault rifle" stamped on a gun in the hands of a soldier it is a morale booster and re-enforces their confidence. as for many times on the field the only companion one might have is their gun. and the only words of confidence to see are stamped on the gun "assault rifle, Made in the U.S.A."
the "assault" rifles available to public sale are only semi- automatic, one trigger pull=one shot fired. semi-auto is another term exploited by the anti gun lobby. they try to make it sound like it means fully automatic machine gun and offer visions of the valentine's day massacre, an ancient mob slaying inside a warehouse. a semi-automatic firearm is common feature of most firearms sold today. not many manufactures still make single action revolvers other than collectable recreations of older revolvers. and not many companies still produce single shot breach load shotguns or even the classic side-by-side double barrel shotguns that also have to be breach loaded and can only fire twice before the gun has to be split open for a time consuming reload. (even though I can do it in less than 2 seconds). almost ALL hand guns are semi-auto, almost all shotguns are semi-auto or pump, which is just as fast on re-chambering a shell (I can empty an 8 shot pump action shotgun in less than 3 seconds). most ranch style rifles are semi-auto, many sport/hunting rifles are semi-auto. most sporting/hunting rifles are bolt action though. bolt action can be fired at a reasonable rate of 2 shots a second. and most bolt action rifles can accommodate a higher capacity magazine as well. pump and semi-auto action shotguns can accommodate as many as 11 rounds, some can even accept high capacity drum magazines. but none look like an "assault" weapon. the only difference between a sport gun and a tactical weapon is appearence and nothing more.
any gun can be used to "assault" someone, just like a bat, knife, piece of pipe, and fists. but I don't see any upcoming bans of those more commonly used "assault" weapons.
some of our states allow for the purchase and ownership of fully automatic guns and other military quality equipment. the general rule here is a massive application process to gain the ability to purchase them with an extensive background check that not only looks at you but also known associations and close family members. and the full auto weapons that can be legally owned are ones that are manufacture dated before 1986. you can have more modernized full auto guns, but they must be up-graded modified versions of those manufactured before 1986.
besides all of that. a legal owner of any gun has the right to protect and defend. should it not be allowed to have matching or greater firepower than the criminal attacker?
Listen to the Creepy Double talk in the NRA statement....talk about MENTAL.That statement alone will work against them. Most Americans have had enough of this crap.
First assult rifles, than all other weapons from the citizens. Obama is taking our rights, freedoms, and money, changing this country right before our very eyes into something our forefathers would not even recognize.
He will stand up with a bunch of kids for a photo op and announce his gun ban. Using kids as props is sickening, the same tact as other dictators before him used, the likes of Hitler and Saddam.
How can he be stopped. Not by the congress, he simply gives more executive orders to get around them.
This country is done.
I am shocked! Here I thought Barry and Uncle Joe were the Cabelas type. I could envision Barry in a duck blind. LOL
It is time for all the weak-sister Demos to get behind the President on this one and for any Republican who has a heart or an ounce of sense left to vote right on this one. Who runs this country? Elected officials or a**hat gun runners from the NRA?
Given those two choices... gun runners from the NRA would do a better job
A quick reminder: It was the a**hat NRA gun runner type that has created a country with the democracy we have today. It continues to be the a**hat gun runner types that join the military and use a real "assault rifle" to protect this country and help other countries through tough times.
I would put my future in the a**hat NRA gun runner types every day of the week.
Kind of funny that the government wants to know everything about you if buy a gun but doesn't want you to show a ID when you go to vote.
Don't try to equate the Federal Government with State's voting regulations--don't tell me that Poll Taxes and Jim crow laws wouldn't be back without some over-sight by the Feds.
yep, a bit ironic isnt it. or should I say unfortunant.
Let me ask all of you ? Would you rather have a strong southern man protect your country or the weak minded pencil pushing Northeasteners protect you? I mean come on Yankees...you have ten times the population and you still cannot generate a strong competing football team!!!! You know what our county does to gangs in thugs in our Georgia town...deport their illegal butts and swarm and arrest legal thug citizens...that is how it is done..left wing sympathizers...10 million hillbillies strong...YEEEEEEHHHHAAAWWW!!!
Adam Lanza's mother gave him the weapons thinking the guns 'would teach him responsibility. Even worse, he spent hours playing violent video games such as Call Of Duty in a windowless bunker. The mother knew that her son had mental problems, yet still allowed her son to be exposed to weapons, and the tools to use them in the most hideous way. That has nothing to do with the NRA or the second amendment. It has everything to do with a parental situation that was clearly a potential threat to society that fell threw the cracks. Willl Biden address the real problem? No. They will take away yet more rights while letting people who are clearly a danger to society run amuck.
Don't blame a dead woman trying to keep her family together for her F^%ed up sons actions.
Unfortunately, Adam Lanza's mother isn't able to answer for her actions in allowing the guns to be accessible. She knew her son was disturbed. She knew her son played these violent video games that portray scenarios far different from a school shooting. The game Call of Duty is so far fetched (at least the current Modern Warfare games are) that it would take a mental patient to think "hey...this gives me an idea...let me go shoot some kids..."
Mistakes may have been made, but I will also argue that she paid for any of the mistakes she made with her death. Of course we would like answers, but all we could do is guess at this point.
I wonder if Hitler and Stalin started their gun control this way?
The fact is, they sarted gun control. A means to an end for Obama.
Russia and Germany had very few rights to begin with--loony analogy, forgetting the Russian Revolution and WWI?
Germany had very few rights? If that were true Hitler would never have attained the power he did.
gun control the first step the despots took to ensure that no one could stand against their ambitions of genocyde and political cleanzing of political opponets
Steve, that is a common misconception. Hitler did not disarm the Germans. He disarmed the Jews. The Jews, according to Hitler, were "immigrants" that needed to be kept out of the country by whatever means required. In fact, Hitler was quite a proponent of private gun ownership.. for Aryans.
2,700 fetuses would ask this POS why He isn't concerned about them being sucked out of their Mom's womb today.
I'd say there should be a concerted effort to ban the most egregious assault weapon, you know, the one responsible for the murder of 10's of millions of children since 1973.
Wrong platform...wait for the abortion one. Oh and get out of women's uterus's...sheesh.
fetus, zygotes, clump of cells not human, only potentially--how about the 20 little ones that were here, shredded to bits by a Bushmaster? don't thump the bible, nitwit, the Bible is silent on abortion, not one word, paragraph, chapter, verse, nada, zippo, nothing--all man made up hype. Worry about the ones that here.
Keep you nasty head out from under my skirt and bedroom.
so kiling is only objectionable if it is conducted with a gun, but a suction tube is ok?
Yeah, AWC, vaginas are off limits!
But you can pay for the birth control.
Sheesh! The hypocrisy of the left! Late term abortions of viable fetuses are murder, even if it is condoned by the state.
Murder is murder. Period. What makes that committed by a doctor because a woman 'wishes' it any better than that done by a killer with a gun, baseball bat, hammer, or whatever?
All emotion aside........ It goes without saying that I am heartbroken about these tragic losses of life, but relative to a realistic expectations at the end of the day,
“gun control” is a Constitutional issue, not one of what a White House task
force can decide is proper limitation of the weapons WE THE PEOPLE can own. The
2nd Amendment is a pretty short sentence and easy enough to
understand it seems, and while a militia, once being formed or formed can be
“well regulated”, the right of WE THE PEOPLE to bear arms prior to forming such
a militia“ shall not be infringed upon”……….
Arbitrary limits on what capacity a magazine can be (10 rounds? Why not 6 or
why not 12?) or what “style” of semi-automatic arms are allowed (nice wood
hunting rifles “yes”, but sleek “military looking” composite material “assault
rifles no”, revolvers “yes”, but semi-automatic composite material pistols “no”) are obvious and
arbitrary INFRINGEMENTS on the ability to bear arms from a Constitutional point
of view……….. Having said that, I will accept an argument that because of the
evolution of modern weaponry, there has to be an ultimate limit to what arms WE
THE PEOPLE can legitimately bear because of the extreme example of private
ownership of a nuclear warhead, RPG Launcher, 20 mm Cannon Gun, etc., is
probably not a good idea….. In my opinion, I think that the argument needs to focus on a presumably less
arbitrary ”Constitutionally acceptable” cut-off point for legitimate firepower limitation for legal, private ownership.
My thought is that any weaponry legitimately utilized by any Civilian Law Enforcement
(Local/County/State/National Law
Enforcement), and even restricted to
semi-automatic operation, should be allowed. Why for example, should Joe Biden
be offered a level of personal protection to himself and his family that would be made
illegal for my use in protecting my wife, myself and my household and property?
The Secret Service has and will continue to have “assault rifles” and
semi-automatic pistols with magazine capacities well above 30 rounds, but Mr.
Biden’s Task Force wants to assume to not allow these weapons for citizen use? This
hypocrisy coupled with the Constitutional aspect makes the “gun control” debate
a waste of time. I am not an “assault rifle” owner (but aren’t they all if used
that way?), but when people ask “what are assault rifles good for anyway?”, I
reply” for protection” – that is why the Secret Service uses them and
this entity is not military”……….. just my thoughts.
All the scary nutcases that shouldn't be carrying guns will go ballistic over not being able to have their assault rifles.
O you mean the 99.9% of gun owners who do it legally and don't hurt anyone. Or Robin do you mean the F@$ked up evil people who will steal from those law abiding gun owners and go nuts killing people?
How exactly do you define "nutcases"? Because I define YOU as one. I guess ignorant is more appropriate.
Why do YOU, a gun owner need an assault rifle? Clearly you misread my comment ...who exactly is the ignorant one? No where did I say anything about responsible gun owners being nutcases. However, the only people who need an assault rifle are those in combat of some kind, not the average joe who wants to carry a gun for protection.
Of course there are those who feel small and want a big bad ole gun to make their balls feel bigger!
Find someone else to spew your nutty gun rights crapola to. I'm done here now.
@Robin-975149
I hope we can count on that!
Robin, Who are you to say what I want and need. This is America I thought, not when ODumbo gets done with it.
You are truly stupid if you think this will do anything, anything at all. What about the 100k's of clips and guns already in people hands? What are you going to do about those. You have no argument.
5 sheriffs in the Portland area already told MIghty Joe they wont enforce it.
Point is law abiding gun owners don't break the law or kill others unless threatened.
Even if he could this passed and he wont, It wont do one single thing to improve crime. He is just politically grandstanding. Wasting his time and not working on things he should be.
You don't get to tell anyone what we can and can't buy or own.
Assault-rifle, pistol, revolver, muzzle-loader, shotgun, they all do the same thing...launch a chunk of lead to the same spot every time. There's not much use for this outside of personal protection or pounding nails into a board from a distance (one of my favorite games!)
However, I'd like to draw your attention to an article (Sorry MSNBC, this one was reported by NBC):
In this article, a mother who is home alone with her two kids, retreated from a burglar through three locked doors and into an attic crawl space. When the robber decided to change his purpose from robbery to pursuit of the occupants of the home, he went through the three locked doors and to the attic crawl space. At this point, she shot him with 5 rounds of a .38. The guy, although severely injured, he lived and is in custody.
If the mother had more shots at that point in time to protect her herself and her kids, I'm sure she would have gladly used more. If she had a rifle instead of a handgun, she would have been better suited to protect herself and her kids. My point is, in that situation, when you are being pursued by someone who's determined to harm you or your loved ones in some way, you should have every means possible available to you to protect yourself.
Whether or not a person chooses to obtain, train, and prepare to use those means, be it a revolver, pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc., should be up to the person to choose. Yes, I accept reasonable limits, but limits that are not statistically sound such as the elimination of rifles that simply look scary and look like a real assault rifle (one that shoots more than one bullet with only one pull of the trigger), doesn't make sense.
I am a competitive shooter, a former member of the US Olympic Development Team and an Olympic hopeful. My equipment is more specialized and expensive than most others on the market (my competitive rifle costs about $6k) but it does fall under the ban that is being proposed/discussed.
Ironically, I have had someone attempt to rob me of my competitive shooting equipment (I don't think they knew they were robbing me of shooting equipment), including my competition handguns and rifles, all of it done at gunpoint. I calmly withdrew my competition pistol instead of my wallet and at the mere sight of the gun, the person turned a shade of white I have never seen before on a person and immediately turned around and walked away. Pepper spray, tasers, etc., do not have this type of effect on an attacker because it is not as effective. If this were to happen to my wife or any of my friends, I would only hope that they were prepared, trained, and ready to protect their life and the lives of their families.
My heart goes out to those who are negatively impacted by those who misuse these tools to harm others, young and old. Just as you do with a skill saw, a welder, a pneumatic nailer, or other tools, one must respect what these tools can do or else they can be misused and be fatal. However, the guns are not the blame, the brain behind the gun is. Just as the brain behind the knives, fists, baseball bats, or even neglect and child abuse cases that kills is responsible.
Please, help me understand what I'm missing here.
Obama can expand the IRS with 20,000 more agents tasked to enforce Obamacare, but can't put a system in place to monitor gun ownership to make sure mental people can not get their hands on a weapon?
Take the guns away from the crazy people, not the law abiding citizens. Oh wait, 30 states are broke and have closed most their mental hospitals. Where does the money go? Union entitlements.
Just a $20 co-pay on doctor visists would help re-open the state institutions. Will Biden address that? No. He is going to take yet another right from a guy out in the hinter land who has never heard of Shady Brook.
This is political and ugly.
Union entitlements? What are you talking about?
Has anyone completed a correlation between the funding and number of state run mental hospitals and the number of mass shootings by those known to be mentally ill?
Just curious...
Obama needs to do us all a favor and wash his mouth out with a revolver. Please, help Joe do it first, you know he will screw it up.
Obama's Police State has begun- his idea of gun control is more cops.
He dares to speak for "a majority of gun owners" while stabbing them in the back.
Standing on the graves of children while suppressing the people.
Hello folks, despite which side of the gun argument you are on, the question you have to ask yourself is why does the government and their advocates want to manipulate the 2nd Amendment? Remember, a prudent person knows that there are two sides to every argument and issue, right. So if you are with me so far, an intelligent person would look at the evidence on both sides of the argument, review the arguments, weigh it, and base their decision after careful consideration, correct?
Now, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, I don’t think there is much argument there. And the argument by the 2nd Amendment right proponents, let’s call them the hardliners is that there is no need to implement a ban on “assault rifles” because that’s what this is really about. Large magazines are also in the argument but the “assault rifles” is really the target and what’s under fire (no pun intended).
Let’s look at those that want to define the 2nd Amendment as not including “assault rifles”. Their concern stems from the shootings in Aurora, Co, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple shootings and the Sandy Hook school shootings. The concern is that the “assault rifles” were the cause of the deaths of innocent people and that there isn’t a need for “assault rifles” on the streets of America. These shootings are what they base their evidence on and the Sandy Hook shootings with the killing of children as just cause or as the tipping point. The Main Stream Media has flooded the airwaves with information to corroborate their point. You need go no further then MSNBC to see that even “conservative” Joe Scarborough is leading the charge on banning “assault rifles”.
On the other side of the coin, you have those who think that the Constitution and in this case the 2nd Amendment is a sacred document and a right that was fought for by our forefathers and that there is a specific reason why the founders incorporated it into the Bill of Rights. The main argument is that the2nd Amendment spells out that people have the right to arm themselves and remove a tyrannical government if it is necessary. They will also point you to mounting evidence that refutes the MSM’s conclusion of what occurred at Sandy Hook. Many point to this video that has received almost 9 million hits that raises and asks fair questions regarding the discrepancies. Note: The majority of the information comes from the Main Stream Media.
The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed.
I think that one must look at both sides of the evidence to be fair before drawing a conclusion.
This has nothing to do with assault rifles, that's a cop out. I could walk into a movie theater like the nut job in Aurora did, with 20 revolvers strapped to my body and do the same damage. All guns are assault weapons. There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens owning military still rifles. If you ban them, it does nothing. Why? Because legal gun owners don't go on pyscho masacre rampages. People who want to do harm, will find ways. Right now, if you have the cash, you can go buy an illegal weapon in any city of the country. Do you think by banning assualt weapons, you reduce the risk? Absolutely not.
This is another example of sacraficing liberties in an attempt to gain security, very, very little security.
We fdon't need gun control we need polititician control
@!$%# you all anti gunners
Why was there no mention of the Criminal Justice systems part in Gun Control. Too often the felons using guns to kill people receive light punishment and are released into the public to kill again and again.
I guess it is okay for felons to take peoples lives but it is not okay for people to take their lives.
It won't pass because the NRA has a gun locked and loaded pointed at the head of every member of Congress and none of them have the guts to put the NRA in its place.
The very simple language of our 2nd Amendment:
"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."
Those that turn their weapons into plowshares will be plowing for those that did not!
Now gun control is for "children on the street corner in Chicago" --- you mean drug dealers?
job1 you have got to be black.I am a White man and I pack a gun every were I go. I wake up listen to the news and all I hear is some one shot in atlanta. A child hit by a stray bullet. Some one breaking into a home and shooting some one. Smash and grab. They are all black with dread locks and wearing a hoodie. Oh yes I lived in a nice home. I also came out of a housing project were I lived for 19 years.I learn if you want something get out an work for it.
r66shelton@hotmail.com
Some of these Spooks can say anything they want but none of it is being racial.
SECEDE from DC......... the ONLY option
When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.
Good Morning!
Go to www.ruger.com and you can send a pro gun position letter to your representative. They use your zip code to find your rep. Only takes a couple minutes.
AWESOME idea! I went to www.Ruger.com and submitted the pre-filled letter to my representatives. It was well worded and exactly what I would want them to hear.
Thanks for sharing this!