ABC: Only “Black Helicopter” Crowd Paranoid Of Background Checks

On ABC News, host George Stephanopoulos was moderating a discussion about background checks for guns. Karl Rove was a guest, and he was explaining that universal background checks wouldn’t have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre, the crisis that politicians would not dare let go to waste. According to the official media narrative, the guns that Lanza used, as Rove reminded the panel, were legally obtained with proper background checks. So, even on a purely pragmatic level, getting a background check would not prevent a criminal from stealing those legally obtained guns from someone else.

ABC’s Terry Moran tried to lump gun-owners in with the paranoid conspiracy theory crowd:

 “You're scaring people with this Orwellian sense that black helicopters and the government, if we register guns, they're going to confiscate Americans guns.”

 He went on to say that this “paranoia” is fueling opposition to gun control. First of all, we’re not paranoid. If anyone is paranoid, it’s the government who feels safer assuming without a shred of evidence, that every citizen is a potential terrorist. They feel more secure presuming that every American civilian is in conspiring with other lawless civilians to commit some crime against the government. We’re not innocent until proven guilty anymore. We’re just guilty. And there’s nothing we can do to change that.

Unfortunately, history is on the side of those “paranoid” civilians who don’t trust their own government. We don’t trust them to protect our Constitutional rights. We don’t trust them to make sure our 2nd Amendment rights are not infringed upon. They’re already infringing on all our Constitutional rights, and yet, even many conservatives trust them with the universal background check issue. The government’s ideal is for no civilian to have any gun or self-defense weapon except for maybe a pair of scissors or a Swingline stapler. Yet, people will trust our government to decide who shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.

We shouldn’t trust them with background checks and defining mental illness. They are going to impose stricter and stricter rules and regulations on background checks that will continually expand the criteria for those that will not be allowed to purchase a firearm. Until no one owns a gun anymore. And even by that time, they will have convinced most people that no one’s rights were infringed upon; that they were just preventing crimes by making sure guns didn’t end up in the wrong hands.

Does that mean we should be in favor of a murderer or rapist going to a gun store and being able to buy a gun? I think that’s a moot point. If someone was convicted of murder or rape, they shouldn’t be on the street at all. In most of those cases, they should be six feet under.

The government-approved media are appealing to emotion when they put universal background checks, gun registration and mental illness on a pedestal as the solution to stop violent crimes. America is not exception to the historical rule. Our government will use those tools as avenues to complete civilian disarmament, and they’ll do while “championing” the 2nd Amendment.

Are we paranoid if they really are out to get us?



  • Randy Renu

    Absolutely. There is no paranoia here...just self preservation.

  • Friscolady

    The very fact that we are having a gun control debate whatsoever is proof to me that the Founding Fathers were correct in their assessment that the citizenry needs firearms to insure that the Government will not remove all of their rights.

    We the people need to make it very clear to both to the various state governments and to the federal government that we will not tolerate any further limitation to our 2nd Amendment right and that we are quite willing to use the object of our 2nd Amendment right to defend ourselves if they do try more limitations to the 2nd Amendment and our other rights in general.

    It is far better that the government fear the people than for the people to fear the government.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Friscolady........What is startling to me is that so-called investigative journalists, like OReilly, have had absolutely zero discernment about this and who, in fact, mock those of us who do. He is slowly beginning to wake up to the horror that is Obama, and is only now starting to question his motives.

      That so many ridicule the idea that a government......our government....could turn on its own people tells us that history repeats itself when it's ignored. OReilly, et al, have been mesmerized the artificial glow of the Obama persona, but they are being jolted from their stupor by a crashing economy and the evidence that the Liar-in-Chief doesn't give a da** about America.

      • Randy Renu

        By the time people like OReilly and the others pull their heads out, it will too late; eternity will be on their front door step. Then they will be really mesmerized.

      • Remington 870

        O'Reilly is too much a Harvard man to get paranoid about this renegade government. Only Glenn Beck and Michael Savage have been on target about Obama and his neo commie grab for power leading to a dictatorship. O'Reilly thinks 'we' are too paranoid and probably belong in rubber rooms. Lock & load..see you on the battlefield.

      • 7papa7

        I don't trust O'reilly at all. I think he is an arrogant self centered agenda driven idiot.

    • 7papa7

      Very well put. The government is the most dangerous entity in America when it misuses its power and this administration constantly misuses its power or should I say invents power they don't have. The population must be armed so that they can defend themselves against a tyrannical government and that is what we have. I don't worry for myself, but I do for my children and grandchildren. In my almost 70 years this is the first time in my life that I have seen a government that so completely ignores the Constitution and hates all the things that made America great. We the people need to start getting serious about a second revolutionary war. We need patriots that puts country before self.

  • John

    Hahahah. He was talking about you guys!

    "If anyone is paranoid, it’s the government who feels safer assuming without a shred of evidence, that every citizen is a potential terrorist. They feel more secure presuming that every American civilian
    is in conspiring with other lawless civilians to commit some crime against the government. We’re not innocent until proven guilty anymore. We’re just guilty. And there’s nothing we can do to change that."

    The government doesn't consider every citizen a potential terrorist, that is a totally PARANOID claim to make, further showing the truth behind the claim. Not innocent until proven guilty? Come on! Bunch of drama queen paranoid babies!

    And what solution does the article give? Do away with background checks and let criminals and mentally unstable people legally buy guns. What a joke! How can you people take this seriously? You want to give criminals easier access to guns and you complain about violent crime and how crazy people have access to guns? That makes no sense, as usual.

    • J. S. Bach

      Criminals and crazy people will always have access to guns whether there are mandatory universal background checks or not. As cited in the article, Adam Lanza proved that. What are you ranting and raving about?

      • John

        The question is this: Do you want to make it easier or harder for them to obtain weapons? Right now I can buy a firearm online with no background check. If I were a criminal, I could ask my friend to buy a firearm for me. At gun shows, undercover agents told private sellers that they couldn't pass background checks and were still sold firearms. All that was required was an Arizona ID. Is this not cause for concern?

        • kimberwarrior45

          No, the question is why do you want me to give up my freedom just so you can feel safer? Harder or easier only obfuscates the true issue. You will not BE safer if law abiding individuals do not have firearms (I cite Australia and Great Britain the real figures). You will only be safer when you can depend on yourself for protection from the evils other want to try to do to you, your family, and to those around you including your community. Your own example demonstrates that those who are not allowed to have firearms will still get them. You can purchase a firearm online but unless you pick it up in person from an individual you will have to go through a FFL and background check. A vehicle can be a weapon just like a firearm so when do you want a background check to be able to purchase it? Cars kill more people in the United States than firearms.

        • John

          For the billionth time, no one is trying to remove all firearms. If you don't know what the gun control debate is about in the US, you should read a bit more before posting.

          I'm fine with having the same restrictions on vehicles apply to guns. You need a license for owning one, you need insurance, etc. Do you know how heavily cars are regulated? I don't think you do, otherwise you wouldn't try and draw the comparison.

        • DontTreadOnMe11

          Driving a car is NOT a Constitutional right, period.

        • John

          The poster above me brought it up, not me. Direct your comments toward her.

          Marriage is a constitutional right too, yet you need a legal contract and it is regulated. There are many things that are a constitutional right that have licenses, regulation, contracts, etc associated with them.

        • kimberwarrior45

          Again, John you are mistaken, Marriage is not a constitutional right, it is best described as a legal contract, ordained by God just like natural laws, between a man and a woman that is then registered with the prevailing government so as to provide contractual protection to the union. You do not have to have a license to be married in this country but need a license to have the marriage be valid and receive the recognition and protections of contract law. As you put it so eloquently in another of your posts ".... you should read a bit more before posting".

        • John

          You were saying?

          The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:

          The right to interstate travel
          The right to intrastate travel
          The right to privacy[10] (which includes within it a set of rights) including:

          a. The right to marriage[11][12]
          b. The right to procreation [13]
          c. The right for a woman to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability [14][15]
          d. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices) [16]
          e. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

          The United States Supreme Court has in at least 14 cases since 1888 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right:

        • kimberwarrior45

          John- Wikipedia really? Copy and paste at it's best. Well to copy and past for you why did you not add the first sentence from the Wiki page "Fundamental rights are a generally regarded set of legal protections in the context of a legal system ..." You again seem to have confirmed my statement with your post that it is the legal standings. You do not need permission of the government for a man and woman to get married. You only need to get a license, register, certification, ect... if you wish to receive protection and recognition in that legal system. So if I can understand you, you have no problem with the Supreme Court expanding fundamental rights beyond what is enumerated in the Bill of Rights but want restrictions of what is enumerated as "shall not be infringed"? Why don't you answer my question? I have asked several and you just keep avoiding answering any of them. Here is the one I am most interested in hearing-Why do you want me to give up my freedom just so you can FEEL safer?

        • John

          Wikipedia gives you the sources. That is what it is good for. I'll be glad to copy and paste them if you can't look at them for yourself.

          You need to get over the "shall not be infringed" thing. The second amendment, like the first amendment, is NOT absolute and has restrictions. Read up on supreme court cases, they all say confirm this.

          I am TRYING to answer your questions. That is why I am asking that freedoms you think the government is asking you to give up. If you explain that, THEN I can answer your question.

        • liliq

          The same freedoms that Germany asked their citizens to give up in the name of keeping the children safe in 1938. Take a look at a well researched notorious firearms confiscation scheme that is remarkably similar to Feinstein/Boxer/Obama/Biden's:

          "An innovation of the 1938 law was to ban .22 caliber rimfire cartridges with hollow point bullets, ... ."

          Halbrook, P. (2000) "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews" 17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, No. 3, 483-535 at p. 513. Retrieved 2/13/13 from:

        • John

          Germany had total gun control as of 1919. Hitler didn't come into power until 1938 when he relaxed the gun laws. So they went from a total ban to Hitler relaxing them and allowing certain people to have them.

          Jews had zero rights. No property rights, no citizen rights, nothing. What is the point of saying they had no gun rights when they had ZERO rights.

        • Randy Renu

          Answer kimberwarrior45

        • Friscolady

          John as usual your history is really off base. First of all Hitler came to power in 1933 not 1938. In fact there was no right to firearms included in the the 1919 Weimar Constitution. Though firearms were retained by civilian population though that point. And the Law on Firearms and Ammunition was introduced in 1928 and extended by the 1938 law. Now all you had to do was a little research - however I have the benefit of parents (my Dad has been deceased since 2011) that lived through the entirety of the period - since Dad was born in 1914 and Mom in 1915. So I double checked with my very cognizant mother (even at 97 almost 98 she has a fantastic memory for dates and events) and she assured me that the way it is related above was the way it happened. However, Hitler never relaxed the firearms, the 1928 law was an attempt to disarm private armies such as the Nazis and Communist had.

          In fact, my Grandfather then a ranking Officer in the the follow on to the Imperial Navy was involved in the efforts to put down the Communists.

          As for Jews not have any rights having property rights,, or citizenship - in the Hitler period that was true. However, prior to the late 20s and then the 30s Germany was the most accepting of European Jews of all the nations.

          My husband's family is Jewish. His family were landholders and held in high regard in Prussia for their military service since the middle of the 18th century. His Grandfather and mine grew up together and were best friends. Both served at Jutland on the SMS Konig. Both remained in service after the war and his Grandfather was my Dad's favorite instructor at Wilhelmshaven. He retained his property and rank until I believe right before Dad received his commission in the Kreigsmarine. Then he and his family disappeared and my husband's Father was the only survivor.

          Oh and by the way though it happened in all the services but the SS there were Jews in service to the Third Reich all through that time even into the war. Serveral died on the Bismarck. Most were mischling however the Navy in particular was very good at hiding those of it's personnel that were Jewish.

          As for any further gun control now - I do not believe that there should be registration and I especially do not believe that we the citizens should allow confiscation - if it comes to that we should do what the Founding Fathers intended us to do in regards to the 2nd Amendment - fight.

        • John
        • Friscolady

          I have read that article. However many of my relatives and friends parents were there, and they say something entirely different. I am not discrediting the article, I am simply saying that the practice as my loved ones and friends experienced it was in fact far different.

        • John

          Yes, but do you not see that it would be easy to say "my friends and family say this" when there is no way to prove it? Why do all historical records reflect the same thing shown in the article I posted?

        • Friscolady

          Believe what you wish. You apparently are a fan of that comercial: "If it is on the internet it's gotta be true." crowd.

        • John

          I don't say that. I can find you any number of citations, on or offline.

          But see what you're doing is trying to say that since it's on the internet, it must be wrong.

        • Friscolady

          I have seen various things over the years concerning this subject. However, since I have no reason to suspect that those that I know who were there are lying - I choose to believe them. Nor can I be certain that this was not a local case, though every single individual that I have met and discussed this with from other parts of Germany have echoed my parents.

          You can believe whom ever you wish, however in my loved one's experience what was stated in those various source was not the case.

        • medivac

          I'm sure he has a male French model for a "friend", also !!

        • medivac

          Friscolady, this john troll thing makes a 24/7 habit of sticking one thumb up his rear and the other in his mouth and swaps every five minutes !! He only has cyber knowledge because he has no real knowledge !!

        • kimberwarrior45

          John, I am sorry for any name calling towards you that has occurred from these posts. They are not what people should participate in when discussing and exchanging views and ideas, unless done in jest and pointing out they are in jest. I am not able to discern the question you are asking "That is why I am asking that freedoms you think the government is asking you to give up." I will gladly answer your question but I believe my question was first and very understandable plus is not dependent on more information from me. Again -Why do you want me to give up my freedom just so you can FEEL safer?
          To let you know I believe you are being hypocritical with your demand that I get over the "..shall not be infringed". Are the restrictions legal since "..shall not be infringed" was written into the 2nd Amendment? No where else does the Bill use such language. I guess then it should be OK and I should get over 'Thou shall not murder' and view murder as acceptable when pursuing my interests? Both use the same language, and for the same reason. If you want me to accept the expansion of fundamental rights that are not written then you must acknowledge what is actually written in the same document. The Supreme Court argument is a red herring because several of their past decisions, slavery & Jim Crow as examples, were not later correct. There is also the Court's view of "utterances of the penumbra" that is totally unacceptable and now they seem to be looking toward international law to make internal rulings.

        • John

          Thanks for that kimber, I agree, we are all passionate but we need to be kinder and more civil to each other. I also apologize if I offended you in my posts.

          I will answer that the government is not asking you to give up your freedom. If you can tell me what you mean by "freedom", I might have a better answer for you.

          Yes, those restrictions are absolutely legal. The Supreme Court has decided this many times. In the 2nd amendment there is wording that says "well regulated" as well as "shall not infringe". You can see why people argue about it.

          If you want to take a completely literal reading of the 2a, then background checks and barring criminals and mentally unstable people from buying guns would be unconstitutional too.

        • kimberwarrior45

          First I was never offended by your posts and hope that I am able to explain my view and back up that view. In reference to loss of freedom-because since the restrictions on firearms now being proposed are not based on logic nor are they legal and the passing of restrictions set precedence that the government has proven to abuse. As an example what is the operations difference between a semi auto and a full auto firearm? The only difference is the sear, in the semi it allows only one round to be fired with each trigger pull. There is no logical or legal reason to restrict me from owning a firearm based on the way the firearm operates. The 2nd Amendment does not list reasons for restrictions, nor do any of the Amendments. Since the feds have done so in the past (The Gun Control Act of 1968, 1994 ) and are trying to do the same again with the new restriction this is the how and why they are infringing on my freedom. Without the same weapon used by the military how can I resist and enforce the 3rd Amendment? By basing the restrictions (infringement) on cosmetic or operational elements instead of on the individual they demonstrate that they infringing on my rights for they are not treating me as an individual but to be subject to their whim. Now onto the hard stuff. You are correct in your reading of the 2nd amendment when taken literally. Some find it hard to support this view but nowhere did the Founding Fathers limit the other fundamental rights based past or present conditions of the individual. Can you imagine any of the other fundamental rights you listed in the above restricted to you because you were a criminal or mentally unstable? You can't ever see your family because you are called mentally unstable or had a criminal conviction? You can't marry or reproduce because in the past you were convicted? You can't speak you opinion because the government said you were a criminal? For firearms or any fundamental rights the price of freedom is eternal vigilance (able to protect yourself and family), not being a vigilante. In answer to your support of the Supreme Court I though I showed they are not always correct. One last thing that may help explain my view is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not grant me rights but limits what government can do to me. If it is not listed there then government can't do it, especially if they are told that right cannot be infringed. Government is always trying to do more than they are allowed and if that were not so why would we need a check and balance system.

        • John

          "In reference to loss of freedom-because since the restrictions on firearms now being proposed are not based on logic nor are they legal "

          That is your opinion. You don't decide on legality or logic of the law. Look at NY, many new gun control laws have been passed there.

          "Without the same weapon used by the military how can I resist and enforce the 3rd Amendment?"

          I don't understand your statement here. The third amendment says this:
          "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

          This is a ridiculous thing to cite. Why do you need access to military weapons for this? When was the last time this was applicable?

          "By basing the restrictions (infringement) on cosmetic or operational elements instead of on the individual they demonstrate that they infringing on my rights for they are not treating me as an individual but to be subject to their whim"

          No, that doesn't demonstrate they are infringing on your rights. Yes, you are subject to US laws, if that's what you mean by "subject to their whim". Also this sentence doesn't really make much sense.

          Next section-----

          So are you a literal interpreter? Are you against background checks and enforcement of laws that limit criminals and mentally unstable to buy guns?

          "Can you imagine any of the other fundamental rights you listed in the above restricted to you because you were a criminal or mentally unstable? "

          Many fundamental rights are restricted if you are a criminal or mentally insane.

          For example:

          "Rights denied convicted felons vary in each state. Common denials include the right to vote, sit on juries, and run for or hold public office. Persons convicted of felonies may also be denied access to state employment or contracts, though this depends on the exact nature of the felony conviction. For example most persons with sex offense convictions are barred from employment in teaching or child care. Many states limit felon's access to state professional licenses, such as attorney, beautician or private investigator licenses.

          Federal Rights Denied
          Felony conviction results in loss of federal rights to vote, sit on juries, run for or hold office, as well a numerous other serious impacts. A 2009 American Bar Association report lists dozens of federal law and regulatory consequences of felony convictions in 11 categories ranging from inability to enlist in the military to ineligibility for federal public housing, from disqualification for receiving numerous federal contracts to inability to obtain federal student assistance. Felony convictions present substantial bars to that person being able to lawfully obtain education, employment, housing and other necessities.

          Federal law prohibits firearms possession by anyone convicted of a crime with a potential imprisonment of one year or more. This includes many state misdemeanor convictions.

          Travel and Immigration
          Persons with felony convictions can usually not obtain a passport, and many countries will not allow entry to persons with certain classes of criminal convictions. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently, but generally speaking a conviction for a felony as well as numerous classes of misdemeanors is likely to result in the deportation of persons in the United States who are not American citizens, even if that person is in the United States under wholly lawful immigration circumstances."

        • kimberwarrior45

          John you are using a dishonest tactic when you only quote part of my answer and take sentences out of context, please include my whole sentence or at the minimum show there is more to the sentence. Rather than go back and forth with cut and paste and your attempt to deflect my questions I will try to make it easy for you. The federal government has proven over and over again that they will not limit themselves to the enumerated powers written in the Constitution and will not respect the Bill of Rights, which is the affirmation of natural law that traces their roots to God's ordination and law. Since they will not abide to these limits and the Constitution states that all other powers then resides with the individual as primary and States secondary how do you suggest we force the federal government to abide by the Constitution and respect the Bill of Rights? I am not a subject, I am a free man. The difference is a free man has the ability to defend himself with the personal weapon of his choosing and does not need the permission of the government to the how or what to defend himself. Why would a founding father make a statement that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots and the other founders of that time agree? With what would the blood be spilled? I believe that they knew and understood the hearts of men better than we do (every thought being evil and desperately wicked) and wrote a document, in the plain English of the time that everyone would understand, to protect people from the abuses that would occur from the overreach of government power by those elected, no matter how noble the desires or goal of the elected/appointed official. It is obvious your view is that government is there to look after me and provide me security whereas my view is what is written in the plain English of the documents. I am responsible for myself and protecting my freedom from what the government wants to do that is beyond the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution and affirmed in the Bill of Rights. I will never be able to define freedom to you because you do not seem to understand what freedom is or means since you keep asking me what freedom I am referring to. John I have enjoyed this exchange but I see there is now no point in continuing the conversation. A line from a movie seems very appropriate here-Do not try to understand them and do not try to make them understand you for they are a breed apart and make no sense. I thank you for the polite discussion.

        • John

          It's not dishonest at all - you don't touch on all my points either. I address the most important ones. Anyone who reads the post can see your entire response for themselves.

          The bottom line is that you can not defend yourself with any weapon of your choosing without having to follow the proper channels - for example having the necessary paperwork if you want a fully automatic.

          You need to understand the historical context of the document. You can't just go read it and apply it to 2013 without taking many things into consideration.

          Your last response is a perfect example of why this country is split up. Even though your views are very different than mine, I would never state something like that or give up on someone who is able to hold a rational conversation by accusing them of just "not getting it". I obviously think that most people on this site "don't get it", yet I'm here to do my part to have a somewhat open conversation.

        • glock 19 fan

          Your comment on the Third Amendment bears a more detailed answer I think. At the time the Constitution was written, soldiers quartered in private homes were there as royal spies. If anyone in the household criticized the king or his family or his court then it was the soldier's job to report it. With predictable results. As for comparable firepower, think: the idea of a citizen armed with a Brown Bess flintlock trying to face down a determined soldier carrying an M-16 would be laughable. That's an extreme example but that's the idea. I don't own an M-16; it would shoot too fast for my budget but an AR-15 would suffice.

          As for lifetime prohibitions of firearms by a person who may have made a mistake as a teen but has been a straight arrow ever since, that seems excessive and a violation of the Eighth Amendment as well as the Constitutional (main body) prohibition on Bills of Attainder. That has not been argued AFAIK and it's about time somebody did.

        • liliq

          Fundamental rights are those rights that are inalienable and need not be set out in legal protections because those rights are inherent in the individual. Government naming of rights are those that may flow from fundamental rights, but because a government may chose to either name or not name fundamental rights does not alter their fundamental and inalienable character.

        • liliq

          getting a license from a government entity is getting permission from that entity--that is the definition of license.

        • Phillip_in_TX

          Marriage is NOT a U.S. Constitutional right.

        • John

          It is covered by the 14th amendment. Check the case Loving vs Virginia.

          "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

        • Phillip_in_TX

          The first case was Pace vs Alabama (1883). The Supreme Court upheld Alabama's law preventing whites & blacks from marriage, cohabitation, or sexual relations.

          Then in two cases McLaughlin vs Florida (1964), and the one you mention Loving vs Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court said that the laws barring interracial marriages were Unconstitutional.

          Now, this brings up a very interesting point.

          "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

          Therefore, there is and can be no such thing as, "Gay Marriage." Two men cannot produce a child, and neither can two women. If a country only had "gay marriages," it could not survive.

        • John

          What about people who get married and don't have children? Should they also not be allowed to get married? Since that doesn't produce a child?

          Considering the homosexual population is something around 4-5 percent nationally, how do you think it's possible that all of a sudden we would only have gay marriages?

          10 percent of the population is UNABLE to have babies even if they wanted to. Should they not be able to get married? Is that what you are saying Phillip?

        • Phillip_in_TX

          Now, if a man & a woman do not want to have a child, that is their choice. They are not compelled to do so. If "nature" prevents them, that is natures choice.

          Nature will never allow a man & man, or woman & woman, to produce a child. God frowns upon this too.

          My point is, if a country only had gay marriages, it would perish.

        • John

          Your point is a non-point. It's just like saying If a country only had marriages with infertile people, it would perish. Or, if a country only had marriages with people who didn't want children, it would perish. Neither of those are going to happen, just like gay marriages would never become the only type of marriage.

          You have nothing to back your bigoted opinion that gays shouldn't marry. You try and fail every time.

        • Phillip_in_TX

          Have a nice tall glass of Kool Aid, you've earned it.

        • John

          Ah, yes, the great kool aid response. Once you run out of meaningful things to say, or once you've been proven wrong, this always comes up. So predictable.

        • Phillip_in_TX

          First, how was I proven "wrong?" Oh, I guess you calling me a "bigot" proved it.

          Now, riddle me this Batman. With "electronics," you have a "male" plug and a "female" receptacle. And, the "male" plug fits into the "female" receptacle. (I don't want to loose you here, so I'm typing slow).

          Have you EVER heard of a "male" plug fitting into a "male" plug, and the device working? Or, a "female" receptacle placed against a "female" receptacle, and the device working?

          The same applies to the "male" and the "female" of the species. You see, when I mentioned both God and nature, YOUR predictable response, what to call me a "bigot." I personally don't care what someone calls me, as long as, it's not later for dinner.

        • John

          oh-my-god. When I thought you couldn't get any more retarded, you went there.

        • Phillip_in_TX

          This is too good! Now, I'm a "bigot" and a "retard!" Wow! What other names am I going to get called? Hey, how about a "homophobe?" Come on, I bet you've got a million of them!

        • John

          Well, yes, you are a homophone, because you are unable to explain to me why gays shouldn't get married. You tried and attach procreation to the definition of marriage and it failed, because then you would be outlawing marriage for infertile people, those who don't want children, and elderly who can't have them.

          You try and attach a moral reasoning to why they shouldn't get married but then you are fine with murders getting married in jail. You pick and choose your morals, which shows that morality has nothing to do with your views on homosexual, it is purely an emotional reaction based on being scared of people who are different or of those whose lifestyle you don't like. Too bad, I don't like your lifestyle but I'm not trying to limit your freedoms.

          Are we not created equal? Do we not get equal protection under the law? You are going against what the founding fathers have put forward.

        • John
        • medivac

          Not to worry about this john troll thing !! He sits with one thumb up his rear and the other in his mouth and switches hands every five minutes !!!

        • kimberwarrior45

          You do not need any license to purchase a vehicle, nor a background check, and only need insurance if you drive on a public road. Why don't you explain exactly how heavily regulated cars are in comparison to firearms? The difference with vehicles involves the word "infringed". I now know you do not know what the word means by your reference to 'removing all firearms'. Infringe, the root word, means "Act so as to limit or undermine". This combined with another pesky phrase in front of that word of "shall not be", and I seem to remember a whole list of thou 'shall not' that are not followed either, makes it very clear and without any possible argument the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. So since you have not answered my question here it is again- Why do you want me to give up my freedom just so you can FEEL safer?

        • John

          The 2a also has "well regulated" in it. Where does that fit in? You pro gunners always quote the second part of the second amendment, never the first. Weird, don't you think?

          What freedom do you think the government is asking you to give up? Honest question.


          "Well Regulated" meant runs or operates well, as in "Well Regulated Clock". Check your Websters Dictionary, that was written by Daniel Webster "so that the words of the Constitution should not be misconstrued" as you so repeatedly do!

        • John

          Take your own advice, this is from Webster:

          What does number 1 say? Can you read it out loud to the class please?

          a : to govern or direct according to rule
          b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning
          : to bring order, method, or uniformity to
          : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

        • ch2801

          And the illegal person who totaled my Taurus did not have insurance and split, leaving her fathers car at the scene.

        • Phillip_in_TX
        • Phillip_in_TX

          So do hospitals.

        • J. S. Bach

          Your opening question is a false bifurcation and a red herring. I'm sure in your and in my own ideal world, there would be no criminals at all. But there are, and you have your explanations as to why, and I have my own. Making it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns sounds good, but it's impossible to implement. Regulating an instrument is not going to cut down on violent crime. Because there are criminals out there, they will use whatever means they want to threaten, harm or kill an individual. Regulating firearms "off the streets" only means that the innocent will be left defenseless. Governments can't prevent crime. Unless they physically restrained every citizen in America. All they should be doing is punishing those who commit crimes. They shouldn't be letting convicted murderers and rapists go free to commit more crimes.

        • John

          "Making it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns sounds good, but it's impossible to implement."

          Impossible to implement? It has BEEN implemented already. That is why we have background checks. Look at the NY SAFE ACT, they have some of the strongest gun control efforts. Proof that your statement about being impossible to implement is wrong:

          "Because there are criminals out there, they will use whatever means they want to threaten, harm or kill an individual. "

          Yes, very true. So what do we want to do? Allow them dangerous means like guns? Because that is what our current laws do. Would you rather they come at you with a knife or a gun?

          No one is claiming that we can prevent crime. Gun control efforts want to reduce the harm that comes from crime when it does occur. Laws like the ones I posted above contribute to this idea of harm reduction.

        • ch2801

          The .22 pistol my husband gave me in 1962 was purchased by him at a flea market as as an anniversary present. So it would probably not be a legal gun now, especially since it was stolen from under my bed in 1996 and no telling where it ended up. The boy 2 doors down belonged to a gang in a neighboring city and the police found out he did the robbery and sold the gun to a gang member in Lubbock.

        • JimRed

          So, more laws affecting MY right to keep and bear arms (by giving the regime a database from which to perform confiscations) will make criminals less likely to obtain firearms? How about this: anyone who cannot be trusted with a weapon should not be running around loose! Even a felon who has served his time has a right to self-defense.

        • John

          The answer to your question is yes.

        • John Illinois

          I don't know where you live, but I have to have a Fire Arms Owner Identification card just to possess a firearm, and show it to buy ammunition, ANYWHERE!! Including on line. I also have to provide a picture of both sides of my drivers license and my FOID card to a buy a firearm online, it has to be shipped to a Federally licensed Fire Arms dealer, and he does the background checks before he delivers your purchase. The post office, and FedEX and UPS will not ship firearms or ammunition except between federally licensed fire arms dealers.

        • Phillip_in_TX

          I can take you to Home Depot, Lowe's, or any other home improvement store and build you a gun.

          The last gun show I went to was missing the "undercover agents" apparently. Especially telling "private sellers" that people can't pass background checks.

        • John

          Yea, I bet. I'm sure your gun will be very effective.

        • Phillip_in_TX

          Yes, it will be very effective. Maybe not as "pretty" as some others, but still lethal.

        • medivac

          If we had wanted to make it easier to obtain weapons, we would supported "Fast and Furious", the crown jewel of obama and holder ----kind of like what you are suggesting you can do !! You are a troll !!

    • Randy Renu

      Hey "smoken John. I see you were number 3 in today's post. Slipped a little, UH. We have new people posting, so they don't know of your condition....I'll help you out by informing them that to discuss topics in a logical and meaningful way with you would be like trying to get a ride on the next Space Shuttle to outer space....which is by the way where your brain is.

      This is all about government control...plain and simple. I know you under stand the word "simple" but perhaps even at the 6th grade level, you still don't get it.

      For today's project, submit a 2-400 word SA on: "How To Best Stop Crime In the US" Now you haven't exactly been cooperating with the other SA's I've asked you to submit. I guess you really aren't interested in making a is your chance to change everyone's opinion of you.

      • Phillip_in_TX

        Maybe I can answer the question? "How To Best Stop Crime In the US." Have criminals assume room temperature. That is 5 words, and will take care of the problem. No "expanded background checks" needed. ; )

    • rivahmitch

      Poor John!! You're obviously in denial, like the Germans as Hitler came to power, telling yourself "It'll NEVER happen here".

      • azrt1

        don't get trollie john john going on comparing his master and giver of nickels to hitler. yes definitely the parallels are there, only magnified by about a kazillion, as my 6 yr old (who is a kazillion times smarter then toilet head john, would say). obama is comparable to all the dictators and wannabe's through the recorded history of time, but truly he is probably the most evil and insidious that has ever risen. and such a perfect timing, with morons like jon jon out there, willing to sell their soul and aid in the destruction of a great Country.

      • John

        What am I in denial about? The conspiracy theories which you lack any proof for?

    • glock 19 fan

      You think that government doesn't consider every citizen a terrorist? You have your head in the sand. Have you forgotten that DHS head Janet Incompetano said as much, arbitrarily declaring that al vets, 2nd Amendment supporters, Christians etc. (IOW< anyone who won't march clapping and singing into communist slavery) to be a potential terrorist. And she had Obama's blessing to issue that statement. When officials really **are** out to get us, and have said so, we are not being paranoid. As the late survival writer Mel Tappan once said, "Show me a bureaucrat and I'll show you someone who wants to know your business."

      • John

        She never said this. Show me some proof for your claims.

        • glock 19 fan

          Yes she did; it was in every newspaper worthy of the name. As for the "anyone who won't march clapping and singing into communism," those who would are about the only group she didn't include in her smearing screed. BTW, why does she need 2700 MRAP's? And why did the TSA division feel a need to take over the Amtrak station in Savannah for a day in February 2011 and search anyone and everyone entering the building -- including passengers who had gotten off the train and were there to collect their bags?

        • John

          No, she didn't. If so many papers ran this story, couldn't you show me one piece of evidence?

          The MRAPs are for the Marine Corp. Here is the contract:

          I don't know the answer about the Amtrak station, but it seems you don't either, yet you speculate that they had evil intentions even though you have no answers.

        • glock 19 fan

          My computer was on the fritz for awhile so I'm now playing catch-up. The story was during Obummer's first term and we don't keep our papers that long. I am an old geezer who didn't get into the Internet until I had passed 70 and I'm not skilled at researching archives that old. She said it, I read it and that's that.

          As for the Amtrak incident, the reporter who wrote it opined that it was an attempt by the world's most useless organization to make itself seem useful. Also that we need to fight back lest we find ourselves being stopped on the street by TSA or its parent DHS demanding to "see our papers." An airport screener once told me that the airport style screening would eventually spread to rail and bus travel. I don't know if you saw "The Great Escape" but spreading airport screening reminds me of the scene (set in Germany) in which passengers were all standing in line after de-training and having to show their papers to the Gestapo officer at the door before entering the station. I also suggest that you read the book review in the April 2013 issue of REASON mag titled, "Manufacturing Terrorists" about the book "The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism" by Trevor Aaronson. It details how the FBI uses corrupt **agents provocateurs** to fabricate putative "acts of terror" by recruiting dimwits who couldn't organize a one car funeral procession, supplying "planted" evidence and then arresting them with great fanfare.

          I don't know if you ride Amtrak but I do and, while I -- as yet -- have not encountered it (knocking on wood), ICE inspectors have full access on any train within 100 miles of the border. That includes Michigan service even though Lake Michigan is entirely within the U.S.

  • slypuffers

    George, you and your ilk are the ones truly paranoid and afraid. Progressive Democrats in general feel threatened, if not in power and control. Democrat voting substantiates this over and over......sweethearts.

  • NewCreationDave
  • /.murphy

    "Black helicopter crowd?" Stephanopoulos is way out of touch. We know they're not black, but pink-and-green camo to match and appease the fuzzy alien allies Obama keeps holed up at Area 51...

    They're the ones he's going to release into the streets when it's time to seize all our guns.

  • Ann Wilson Kingsley

    Of course, background checks lead to confiscation. Every country that registers guns comes back later to confiscate them from their owners.

    • Big Dan

      Not only that, but my background is impeccable, I passed through on a Top Secret - Nuclear while in the Navy. I had a Top Secret - Crypto when on a surface ship in VietNam and there were no problems. What would happen today, they would put something in there to discredit any Conservative Christian who is also a Missionary in a muslim area. There is not many in Washington that I can trust anymore.

  • George Wentzel

    A good start would be a background search on obama. To quote the malodorous dog himself, "only those with something to hide have anything to fear".

  • Paul Leslie

    Of course the progressive dems have given everyone reason to fear the government. The democrat party has a history replete with tyranny - there's that whole slavery issue (the dems' last KKK senator expired not too long ago), the eugenics programs (continuing today with a body count of more than 50 million innocent babies), then there were FDR's concentration camps and the confiscation of citizens homes, savings and businessess. That comes right up to today because we're listening to them assault the Constitution and explain it all on the basis of an ideology that was shared by Stalin, Mussolini, et. al. And then this lefty "consultant" wants us to relax when she says "there's nothing to see here, just move along."

  • tantalus24

    Like I really care what ABC - ie., the All Barack Channel - has to say. Any you wonder why no one believes the media anymore. What a bunch of clap trap.

  • JimRed

    The black helicopter crowd has morphed into the little gray drone crowd- for good reason!

  • Jim Buzzell

    Start a background check on Obama, starting with his SSN, and Draft Registration documents.

    • Remington 870

      Obama is a Kenyan who emigrated via Hawaii and could not pass a basic state level background check. We know the truth about Obama the fraud, but as long as there is a whore media, the truth will be hidden.

      • sablegsd

        I don't think the baby daddy was the kenyan commie. He looks NOTHING like ANY of them.

  • SammysDad

    It's not paranoia, ABC. We know and you know their "background checks" will be used to register guns. The only psycho stuff going on is in the WH.

  • Al

    I was in the military and higher ups threated my group with the black helicopter scare tactic if we spoke of our mission.

  • Radman414

    So far, nothing that has been proposed by the knee-jerk reactionists would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy; and, It's NOT paranoia if a charter member of the "gun grabber" sect actually reveals the true goal of their Diane Feinstein did when she wanted to tell Mr. and Mrs. America to "turn 'em all in." Background checks, if records thereof are maintained by the government, are the "camel's nose" under the registration/confiscation "tent." In Texas, we are working today to pass 10th Amendment-enabling legislation to circumvent ANY federal effort to infringe upon our individual right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. However, on the other hand, Texas has HAD a "gun registry" for many, many years; it's called "the White Pages!"

    • Phillip_in_TX

      : )

  • fideux

    I'm not afraid of background checks; let's start with the president's background. He should lead by example!

  • Radman414

    Doesn't the incredible quantities of ammunition purchased by various government agencies lend a lot of credence to the "paranoia" of those Americans who are actually paying attention? This all started with some VERY SCARY RHETORIC: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” -- Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

    During the last 10 months, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, including millions of hollow-point bullets. The department also has purchased 7,000 fully- automatic (real) assault rifles, and it has overseen the retrofitting of more than 2,000 light tanks, which, of course, were originally designed to resist the mines and ambushes of the battlefield. Why does DHS need such offensive and defensive firepower?

  • Ole SC

    ABC hasn't gotten anything right yet, why would anyone expect them to now? They will twist every conservative stance into a liberal knot. Streptococcus is an idiot anyway!!!

  • WhiteFalcon

    The fact is that our Government has killed far more innocent civilian people than any one else in the world. So, using their logic, they should not be trusted with any guns at all and it is the people that should have all of them.

  • Benjamin Fox

    criminals don't buy guns, they steal them, so no reason to have background checks for honest citizens. Where do gang members get guns, not at the gun store unless they are robbing it, the Newtown killer stole and killed to get his guns, the guy in Colorado got government aid to buy his and don't think he got them from a legal dealer. Any right the government think they give you, they can take away so tell them our Constitution says our rights are not to be over turned by this or that government. Not to be infringed on means what it says.

  • Erroldean Andrews

    the government would have no reason to be paranoid if they were doing right for America and her citizens.

  • Felina Flash

    Of course the American federal government intends to confiscate all privately owned firearms. It starts with mandatory registration so they know who has them and where they are. Then they buy a couple of billion bullets and hundreds of armored vehicles for three or four agencies. Then they go door to door to pick them up after several failed amnesties where they prod you to simple hand them over or be prosecuted (or shot in your driveway) for resisting.

    All this is well underway. It worked well for Hitler, but we are a lot less naive than the German Jews of 1938. This will blow up in Obamas face. I pity what America is about to go through.

  • Whisper Atnight

    They are already making SURE that NO VET will be considered OK to own a gun. They are setting up VETS for the fall as we speak.


    Well now....
    If you consider that Liberalism is a mental disorder.....
    And that ALL of the recent "massacres" have been perpetrated by 'Liberals"....
    Maybe "background" checks aren't such a bad idea!
    All Liberals (Democrats) should not be allowed to own weapons...
    Jus Sayin'!
    "John" are you listening?

  • Carl Stevenson

    If gun and magazine bans are passed, registration, and/or any/all of their other unconstitutional infringements of our rights, I will not comply. Millions more will not comply.
    DHS and other alphabet agencies have recently purchased over 1.8 BILLION rounds of hollow point ammo – enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 5 times or more – ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law, and have just ordered more and an additional 7,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC "personal defense" weapons. They have also recently purchased almost 3,000 armored fighting vehicles, in addition to the many already obtained from DoD. How does anyone with the capability of rational thought escape the conclusion that our government is preparing for a war on its own citizens?
    Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and their whole gang are tyrant wannabes. To them, anyone who does, or might, oppose their control over every aspect of our lives, is “a criminal” because they said so.
    To quote a few of their heroes, with explanatory comments in ( ):
    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao
    (They revere Mao and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a “feature,” not a “bug.”)
    “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. … The only real power comes out of a long rifle. … Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. … We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? … The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” — Joseph Stalin
    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler
    (These psychopathic sociopaths in our government – and THEY ARE PRECISELY THAT, never make the mistake of doubting it – believe that they are anointed to be our rulers and that we are the equivalent of Hitler’s “subject races.” And we know what they did to "them.")
    Don’t tell me, “It can’t happen here in America.” To borrow a quote from Mike Vanderboegh,
    “Anyone who tells you that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no ‘house rule’ that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos.”
    Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered millions
    Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered millions
    Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.
    The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.
    Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.
    Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.
    The list goes on … about 262 MILLION people murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments to disarm them. See:
    They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you.
    The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    “A tyrannical rule cannot in any reasonable construction be accounted lawful, and therefore the disturbance of such a government cannot be esteemed seditious, much less traitorous.” – Thomas Aquinas
    When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty – Thomas Jefferson
    Take the pledge:

  • sablegsd

    Background checks, registration = Forced confiscation. Every time. So Georgie, put on your elevator shoes and take a hike. Come and get it yourself, you little piss ant.

  • Jeff Horton

    The people would not be paranoid if the back groung check dosent have model or serial of gun. just that you were looking at a gun. To see if the person was ok. for a gun but if the sale was or wasn't completed the government dosen't have to know that. All they need to know is a person cleared a back ground test. So we shou;ld ask what happens to the paperwork after the person is cleared.

  • Phillip_in_TX

    Not paranoid. It is the truth. Watch "Innocents Betrayed." It is amazing how people don't learn about history.

  • sicandtired

    Only lying, left wing, marxist, progressive media types and the demigods they prop up are "paranoid" of people "NOT" getting background checks.

  • Brabado

    Everyone knows that Gun Control leads right into Gun Confiscation.
    What part of the exercise, people do not understand?
    Obama and his radical socialist minions are taking advantage of how ignorant, an uninformed American Voters have become: Obamites just love every miniute of it.

    Yes, we were once a Great Country, respected by all.... Not any more since 2008!


  • Margaret B. Audette

    If you think Tammy`s story is great..., 5 weeks ago my
    girlfriend's mum basically got paid $8332 putting in an eleven hour week from
    their apartment and the're co-worker's aunt`s neighbour has been doing this for
    10-months and got more than $8332 part time at there computer. the information
    available on this page, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • Jim C Coppock

    Whaaaaaat? - Are you anti-gun folks trying to tell me that, if a drug-crazed maniac is kicking in your door to rape, rob and kill your family, all that you would need to do is tell him that you have called the cops, and please wait 20 minutes for them to get here? - Or that Julius Ceaser would not have been assassinated if Brutus didn't have tha Uzi ? ..........DUH!!!-

  • Johnny Geetar

    Paranoid? Perhaps so. But being that we "paranoiers" own the vast majority of the guns in this country, OUR judgement prevails. They can pass whatever illegal edict they WANT in DC; WE control the guns in our posession, and they get doo-dah unless WE SAY SO! Period. And at the moment, it AIN'T looking to good for the "Progressive" federal government.
    If they foolishly continue to pursue this, they will be FORCED to PHYSICALLY come and try to take them. And when they do, they will go home looking like they were hit in the face with a crap sandwich. Smart people do not poke sleeping bears.......

  • Tanner

    black helicopter crowd debunked