President Obama

During a private meeting with some of America’s major mayors on Tuesday, President Obama said he would use executive action to promote his gun control agenda.

President Obama

As you may remember, Obama failed to pass gun control measures through the Senate last spring. Most notably, the president was pushing for background checks for gun purchases.

A White House press release said that during Tuesday’s meeting Obama “vowed to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action and to press Congress to pass common-sense reforms like expanding the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking.”

Attorney General Eric Holder was also present at the meeting; he spoke about “strategies to reduce youth violence,” according to the press release.

It continued, “The president reiterated that government alone can never fill the void that causes a child to turn to violence, but that we all have a responsibility to do our part to create safe communities and save lives. The president applauded the mayors for their local efforts to combat violence, solicited their input about proven methods, and pledged his Administration’s partnership.”

According to the Washington Post, those present at the meeting included “Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, N.J., a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate; Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter; Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray; New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu; Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, Calif.; Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo.; Mayor Molly Ward of Hampton, Va., and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed.”

The Post pointed out, however, that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was not at the meeting. This comes as a surprise, since Emanuel represents a city that struggles with gun violence.

What are your thoughts on this? Would bypassing the Senate to push gun control be a proper use of executive order? And would it represent what the American people want?

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Kristin Tate
Kristin Tate is a multi-media reporter for Breitbart News and to fearless journalism, she regularly works on undercover stings with James O'Keefe to reveal government waste, abuse, and fraud.Tate was a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter President and Founder. She will continue to fight tirelessly for individual liberty and free markets through new media. Visit Kristin's website at

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • Daniel Sheffield Sr.

    “and cracking down on gun trafficking” unless it’s his administration doing the trafficking. This guy is so full of lies and BS it makes me sick to read the FEW things I care to waste my time reading.

    King Obama has spoken though. He will do what he is told to do, what he has always done up until now, for as long as he is the Poster-Boy-in-Chief. We shouldn’t expect anything else nor be surprised by it.

    Taking away our weapons IS the agenda. It IS coming and it WILL happen without a massive response from the public. Aside from taking away people’s freebies or Internet access though, much doubt that will happen. Gun (AND ammo AND magazines) ownership is the largest domino and the rest of our freedoms will topple along with it. Get prepared for it now and stop wishing for the alternative.

    • swansend

      Personally, I believe what they Truly covet are the children.

      • Rob Alexander

        I would tend to agree with this… this is why they want amnesty for illegals, who won’t be able to vote but they’ll have many babies who will be legal US citizens, and also the way the schools are trying to essential replace parents in the role of raising kids.

        • usaok59

          I was hearing about the government takeover of the kids via early education (get the kids into pre-school programs as young as possible) back in the 1960s. People thought it would not happen; it was a conspiracy theory. Huh…jump to 2013 and see what we have going on in our public schools.

    • Rob Alexander

      Absolutely. Hitler did exactly the same thing as Obama is trying, he sold his gun confiscation as a crime/safety issue and then we all know what happened next…..

      • g.johnon

        doesn’t anyone see the preciousness of how a man who sends killer drones all over the world to rain down death on the unsuspecting can be so dang gleefully against gun violence?

        • Rob Alexander

          Don’t forget about how he arms terrorist organizations while at the same time trying to disarm the American people….

  • Lord Mannyrossa

    There is a subtle irony to the masterminds of Fast & Furious talking about the need to end gun trafficking.
    America doesn’t want this. The constant ‘common sense’ labeling is a sham we all see through already. The idea that he thinks a Constitutional issue can be resolved via executive order should truly give people pause about the level of evil, delusion and criminality that run through this man’s head. Impeach.

  • Joe Eckstein

    Best strategy = mandate firearms safety courses.

    • skip

      Because showing someone to shoot will make them less violent

      • Kimber_TLE

        Equating violent tendencies in those who take shooting lessons is like saying anyone who takes a drivers education course intends to drive while under the influence.

        • skip

          o sorry that was sarcasm

          • Kimber_TLE

            Yeah, I’m familiar. It’s too bad neither XHTML nor DISQUS comes with a “sarcasm” tag.

            Down-vote removed. Up-vote added! And smiling…

    • Jackal81

      This also doesn’t address the source of the vast majority of gun crime. Criminals already get their guns illegally. Do you really think they’ll go to those ‘mandated safety courses?’

      • Shin

        The problem they’re trying to stop–mass shootings–isn’t even a safety issue.

        A typical government “fix” – find a solution to a problem which doesn’t exist, but “looks” kinda relevant to the real problem, implement that “solution”, declare victory. Then go back to the beginning and repeat when the same problem occurs again.

    • Rob Alexander

      There is no mandate that will have a positive effect on anything. The people who would follow a mandate are not the same people causing the problem the mandates attempt to address…. This is an abstract reality, not only applicable to the (phony) gun problem (because the numbers show huge reductions in gun crime happening at the same time as massive increases in gun sales.

  • Mark

    Polling suggested more than 75% supported background checks. Politicians would not support these checks because they are weak and afraid of upcoming elections. Therefore an executive order may be the only way to give the people what the polls say they want.

    • Jeremiah Cress

      If the people want background checks that bad they need to hold their elected officials accountable and demand they vote for them. That would mean a lot of politicians out of a job (if the people were really that adamant). Going around congress via executive order every time you want something done that hasn’t been voted in is not how the presidency operates.

    • swansend

      Polls really? Are they anything like the fraudulent elections? I mean seriously, as if the politicians who enact All of this mess are mandated to drug testing, like the rest of America? Come to think of it, maybe that is what is needed since, they are clearly criminals with intent.

      • Shin

        Hahaha! Could you imagine the likes of The Criminal Al Franken (cheated in his election), Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid having to pee in a jar for a drug test? HAHAHAHA Good idea!

    • jazzwitherspoon

      Executive Order is a euphemism for rule by fiat.

      Please point to the part of the Constitution that allows the President to bypass Congress and rule as a king…

      • SilaSez

        What does an Italian car maker have to do with an executive order? Leave the italians out of this discussion (j/k)

      • Rob Alexander

        It is now.. Executive orders are legitimately supposed to be only applicable to the executive branch, which the president is the head of.

    • Jeffrey

      Good thing our Constitution cannot be overruled by the democratic process.

      • Milton Billingsley

        It already has – abortion. And before long the UN Troops along with Obama’s Private Muslim Brotherhood Army will start trying to take our guns. We still have a fighting chance.

    • Rob Alexander

      Why would they be worried about voting for something 75% of the people were for? That’s completely asinine. The only reasonable conclusion if they are afraid of voter repercussions, is that the real number in favor is nowhere near 75%.

  • Jeremiah Cress

    Great article.

  • AngryA
  • mike

    We need to use them for what the second amendment intended us to have them in the first place. After all we live in a target rich country of constitutional traitors.

  • Aw

    I’m so sick of hearing about background checks. I live in Michigan and have a cpl. They do background checks and still do a federal background check every time I buy a gun. Leave law abiding citizens alone and enforce the rules, regulations, and laws we already have. More gun control only hurts law abiding citizens and impairs them from defending theirselves from criminals that are going to get their illegal guns anyway.

    • Fast ED

      NO Background Checks Do Work At Keeping Guns Out Of Criminals Hands NOT All But Definitely SOME… If You Are Law Abiding You have Nothing To Worry About…

      • usaok59

        How often do we hear about “law abiding” citizens being detained, threatened, or beaten because the police got over eager to show their power? We all need to be worried about the decline of our rights in this country, but I am happy to see people debating these issues in a mostly courteous manner.

  • Alexander Paulsen

    Yeah well Chicago Mayor Emmanuel didn’t attend. The city struggles with gun violence indeed. But Chicago has already effectively outlawed the private ownership of guns. I imagine Rahm failed to show up in case someone at the meeting was brave enough to ask the obvious question. A question whose answer might be an unwelcome one.

    • Ken Berns

      Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the US but its judicial system fails to enforce them and criminals walk with a slap on the wrist. What’s the point of another law if the Judges won’t enforce them ?

    • Shin

      Oh, “Rahm” and the gun thieves already have an answer for that: The guns came from a few miles away outside of the city.

      These people aren’t afraid of a debate on this topic – they actually think they’re correct. The deluded don’t shy away from a challenge.

  • 1Finngal

    He’s working on marshall law. It’s a lot easier when the people don’t have weapons.

    • Milton Billingsley

      The first thing Hitler did was confiscate privately owned weapons. The only reason Islam hasn’t taken over America by now is because of the Second Amendment. We still have guns so we still have a fighting chance.

  • luchia

    He’s clearing the way for the muSlimes to take over the USA.

  • Kimber_TLE

    The number of murders/nonnegligent manslaughters have dropped from 17,309 in 2007 to 14,612 in 2011 according to the FBI. That’s a 16% drop in just 4 years.

    Obama signed several Executive Actions back in January. He made a really big deal of it on TV, using a group of kids and parents from Sandy Hook as a backdrop. One of the results of those Actions was a “new” report.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, working with others, released their report titled “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.”

    After “We the People” paid good money for the report, the report has been ignored by Obama, the gun-control crowd and the media. It seems the report didn’t come to the conclusions Obama was expecting. Feel free to read the report – it has a little bit of support for both sides, so whichever side you’re on it might be worth your time.

    Note you can download the report for free! Ignore the “Buy It” button and click “Download!”

    • Rob Alexander

      And on top of the drop in deaths, gun sales have soared at the same time… Which leads any reasonably intelligent person to conclude, this anti-gun push is not really about safety at all.

  • PJ McFlur

    We dont have a president. We have a dictator. Syria and this proves it. No regard for the rule of law at all. No accountability in his top offices: AG, SOS or head of the NSA.

    This is not the America I grew up in anymore.

    • Kevin

      I agree 100%

  • SilaSez

    Sounds like these mayors were all democrat? I will choose to ignore his executive orders if they are in conflict with the constitution’s “…shall not infringe…” guarantee.

    • Fadt ED

      Executive “Actions” NOT “Orders”!!!

  • Milton Billingsley

    No one has the right to change the Constitution except ‘WE THE PEOPLE’. Anyone trying it should be considered a traitor to America and be shot on sight. No government State, Federal or otherwise can do this. No policeman can come to your door and say the Constitution has been invalidated so turn your gun over. My only question is – why hasn’t our Congressmen done something about this? Because they also want the power to change the Constitution without taking it to a National vote by ‘WE THE PEOPLE’.

    • Fast ED

      What Part Of A Background Check Violates The Constitution???

      • Rozwaldino

        How does one do a background check on all gun owners without establishing a national database of all citizens who possess firearms? By recognizing that such action creates the foundation for a solid military dictatorship, you will have your answer.

      • g.johnon

        the part where it is used to infringe upon the bill of rights.

  • Dude

    What about the background checks for syrian rebels mr. president?

    • Fast ED

      Our Laws Don’t Even Extend To Other Countries Like That…

      • Shin

        You really are dense, aren’t you?

      • Dude

        It has been proven these rebels can’t be trusted. We are handing out guns and ammo like candy to these violent people.

        May 27,2013
        U.S.-backed Syrian rebels reportedly massacre Christian village
        Members of the Free Syrian Army reportedly attacked the Christian-dominated al-Duvair village in Reef on the outskirts of Homs on Monday, where they massacred its citizens, including women and children, before the Syrian Army interfered.

        This reported attack comes shortly after intense fighting in the city of al-Qusseir over the weekend, in which Bashar Al-Assad’s forces inflicted heavy casualties on the rebels.

        The U.S. and other Western governments that are backing the FSA have acknowledged the presence of jihadists but insist that they’re only a small part of the rebel movement. However, al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups have been at the front of the rebel movement since day one of the Syrian war that began two years ago. According to German intelligence, 95 percent of the rebels aren’t even Syrian.

  • Truth from Idaho

    Just in case you missed it he said; ‘You are either with us or you are against us!’ and the reason you never heard of the penalties for owning “One of these guns” As they put it. Is simply because the penalty is death as they will consider you a terrorist and you better believe they are all about stripping all guns that is why they are bringing russain and chinese troops that are trained in the art… “As they call it” of “urban warfare”. Simply because they will have nop problems pulling a trigger upon you your mother, your father and even your children.So there ya have it now ya know why they are training in the cities because they will be coming for your guns but not only your guns really they will be coming too wipe out the Christians as they hold all the guns within this great country of ours and are now considered the largest terrorist group in the country and that is above the Jehad anybody’s… Sad…sad indeed! God have mercy upon our souls! ‘Amen’…

    • Shin

      Where do you conspiracy nuts come from and why are you HERE? Go back to Alex Jones and stop discrediting real libertarians – the ones with normal, functioning brains.

    • g.johnon

      awww truth,

      in case you missed it. what was really said was: “you are either with us, or you are with the enemy.” and the “he” that said it was George w. bush. on at least 2 occasions.

  • bonalu1

    Tell his excellency he does not have the power to overrule the Constitution of the United States, this guy is out of control, he believes no one can overrule him. Our elected officials had better start doing instead of talking or they won’t be there come next election.

    • Fast ED

      Obama: “vowed to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action and to press Congress to pass common-sense reforms like expanding the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking.”

      Which part did he say he was going to use more powers than He is given by his office???

      Do you even know the difference between “Executive Actions” & “Executive Orders”???

      What part of the Constitution does a background check violate or doing things to catch illegal gun trafficking???

      You are jumping on the “Obama Want’s Our Guns” bandwagon & he has never said he wants them nor done anything to try to take them from legal law abiding citizens…

      • bonalu1

        Funny, just yesterday Congressman Bill Pascrell and the “only reason I was elected” Carolyn McCarthy both filed a bill to add a 50% tax on all purchases of ammunition and guns in order to stop gun violence. As both are Democrats with a long history of anti gun backgrounds I would think they were acting with Obamas blessing. It just seems logical to me that since criminals steal or buy their guns illegally, they sure as hell are not going to the store to purchase ammo. So who is this bill aimed at only law abiding citizens. You may spout that Obama bullshit line that he’s really not after your guns, but he has always been after taking guns away from the private sector. How else will he take complete control of govt.

  • Kevin Merck

    “press Congress to pass common-sense reforms like expanding the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking.”

    You mean he wants his own administration to stop running guns into Mexico, (fast and furious) as an excuse to blame the second amendment? Come on, who could question Obama’s “good intentions” on this?

    “Would bypassing the Senate to push gun control be a proper use of executive order? And would it represent what the American people want?”
    First of all, it would be a crime for this fraud to use executive power this way, which is something this criminal promised people he wouldn’t do.
    Second, who cares what the American people want? I know I don’t. We need to abide by the Constitution if we want to avoid a civil war.
    There are no “good intentions” when it comes to criminals like Obama, just the lies of a criminal bent on destroying America.

    • g.johnon

      had me going there for a minute kev, nice turnaround.
      democracy = majority rule.
      constitutional republic = protecting the sovereign individual from the will of the masses.

  • Ken Berns

    Let us NOT make the same mistake again come election time – We must bring back a conservative leadership if not for ourselves then for children.

    • calebgrayson

      conservative?! allowing guns is liberal — Libertarian!
      controlling people is what conservatism does. we need liberal leaders for both social and economic issues — smaller government and less intervention. its the ‘conservatives’ in the GOP that got us in this 2-term mess.

      • Ken Berns

        Well I guess we’ll disagree on the definition but I agree with you in principal and also agree with you on Smaller Government –

        • calebgrayson

          in that case, bring back a (constitutionally) conservative leadership in 2016!!
          (i’m only afraid that by then it will be more totalitarian for the sake of order.)

          • Jim Pappas

            This comment I can fully agree with.

          • g.johnon

            bring it back? when was it ever here?

      • Jim Pappas

        Liberal does NOT mean libertarian. Modern liberals call themselves that because in the late 50’s people understood what communism and socialism were and knew they could not be honest about what they believed. Conservatism does what the name means, “conserves”, as in conserves the freedom of the people and limits the government as the Constitution requires. And again, it is not the conservatives in the GOP that got us in this mess, it is the RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) who continually call themselves Republicans, but are actually Progressives of the industrialist variety (as opposed to the populist variety in the Dem. Party). The difference between the progressives in the Dem. party and the Rep. Party is that the Progressives in the Dem. party are like the socialists of communism (populists), always claiming they are for the little people, or the working class; notice, they usually refer to the blue collar people as ‘workers’, not Americans or citizens. The Progressives in the Rep. party are like the National Socialists (NAZI’s) who claim to be industrialists, pretending to promote job creation and free enterprise for greater job opportunities for people. progressives of BOTH parties have no interest in the freedom of the actual legal citizens of the United States of America, but are interested in POWER, their POWER. Progressives from both parties are heading down the same path, eliminating the middle class and creating a society of the ruling/privileged class, and then everyone else will be part of the working class, subservient to the ruling class. Conservatives desire to return to the principles of the Constitution where the government is supposed to protect the people and stay out of their way as they live their own lives unencumbered by excessive government. The Libertarian belief is that the government and others should only govern affairs as absolutely necessary and for the rest of the time fulfill the motto that was once on United States coins, “Mind Your Own Business”.

        • calebgrayson

          did you notice i used a lower case ‘l’ for liberal and an upper case ‘L’ for Libertarian and you switched them in your reply?!?!

          pretty tricky! i know what i said and i meant it. 😉

          liberal and conservative are relative terms until you capitalize them.. and still relative to a particular political context.
          i don’t like either term because getting wrapped up in labels is how we got in this mess. people use labels like book covers so you’ll just judge them by their label and not by the content of their character — because that requires character to do and if America is short on any one thing it’s the character of it’s citizens. that’s why we have Obama. that’s why if we didn’t get Obama we’d have gotten Romney. that’s why we got Bush. that’s why we keep getting the same guy every time. we can’t discern the right person because we are not the right person.

        • usaok59

          Thank you for a clear picture of what these labels mean. If we are going to use them it helps to know what we are saying. When people call someone a “tea bagger” we don’t know if it’s an intended insult or ignorance, and they mean member of the Tea Party.

      • g.johnon

        yeah boy,
        this ol’ gummint of ours sure did a buncha shrinking under the bushes, right pal?
        stop falling for the right vs. left crap. your party sucks, no matter which one you belong to.

  • hthrsllvn

    This article is misleading. There is a significant difference between an “Executive Order” and an “Executive Action”. The author started out writing about an Executive Action, which is basically a proposal or a “to-do” list that the president would like to focus on. Later, the author ended by asking the question, “Would bypassing the Senate to push gun control be a proper use of executive order?” An Executive Order is an official order document that is filed numerically within the Executive Registry. Since Obama did not, in fact, create an Executive Order, the article is misleading and more propaganda than anything.

    • damion

      And unless you work for the Executive Branch, Executive Orders have absolutely no legal authority over US Citizens. They exists to help run the executive branch with laws that are in passed and need enforcement policy and procedures (i.e. Executive Order)

      • usaok59

        And what about the NDAA? I think that was passed by Executive Order, and it’s as oppressive as anything in Russia or China.

    • Kevin Merck

      I think you’re way off base.
      He is threatening to take “executive action” which means that he intends to put his criminal action into law by “executive order” which takes time to put in writing.
      The criminal intends to confiscate firearms by executive order. The article isn’t propaganda. You are just playing mind games that have no basis in reality.

      • hthrsllvn

        He’s been in office for how long now? If he wanted your guns, I think it would’ve happened by now, no? He doesn’t want your damn guns. He knows you have a constitutional right to them. He wants to make sure you know how to use them and keep others safe. Its what most people have expressed.

  • NoResolution

    Does he need to start with the DOJ first when it comes to gun trafficking?

  • Trev Tastic

    I live in Oklahoma, which is still (thankfully) one of the more Gun Friendly states. I have NEVER purchased a gun from a shop/broker and I never will. Private sale only as I will not have the government knowing what I do or don’t have. It’s my business, not theirs. If you are able to do the same (legally), I advise you to start going private sale immediately.

    • quizibo

      That sounds extremely illegal and if it is not it should be.

      • Get Real

        Since you have already proven you are an expert on Jack, please let me be the one to inform you that Jack has left the building. Your opinion on the rights of others is worthless. That is the difference between a Democracy (ancient Greece) and a Republic (the USA). Please become better educated before you are old enough to vote.

        • g.johnon

          get real,
          I could not have said that better.
          you should be informed as to your freedom to decide that you may be more comfortable in another county.
          I cannot see any value in having you here. apparently neither can you.

  • Magus

    So does this mean he will get out of bed with the zionist gun makers, or just not allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the criminals who do have and still will have guns? Where are the guns Holder lost? Will Obomber continue to give guns to Al CIAda in Syria?

    • Danl Boone

      As soon as an asshole starts talking about “zionists” we can be sure he’s a scum-bag nazi.

      • americanvirtues

        Please refrain from insults and keep conversations constructive.

      • g.johnon

        stick the words “jews against Zionism” into your search engine and go try to learn something

  • Debbie Carretto Miller

    No this is not a proper use of Executive Order. The president can only create executive orders for issues that he has the power to control and gun control is not something the president has the power to control. In reality no one in the US has the power to control the right to keep and bear arms.

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Infringe means to limit or undermine or encroach on the right to keep and bear arms. So they cannot limit, undermine or encroach on this right.

    • Kevin Merck

      That’s exactly right Debbie, well said.
      All of the gun control measures that have been enacted over the past several decades are unconstitutional.

    • Jim Pappas

      It seems people are forgetting, Obama hates the Constitution and really does not care. It addition, Congress is too weak to stand up to him, and the Supreme Court is terrified of the threats against them…remember John Roberts sudden rewrite of his opinion on Obamacare.

    • quizibo

      No one has rights. You have privileges until they are taken away. Who gave you those “rights”? The government gave you those “rights”. Deal with it.

      • Get Real

        So, you ever read that pesky Bill of Rights or are you a Chicago born Constitutional Scholar?

        • quizibo

          Explain who gave you those bill of rights?

          • kaioti

            The Bill of rights is not a granting of rights so much as a limiting of government power in certain areas.

          • God & Government

            They were endowed by our Creator…a Creator that America now denies. We want to hold our Founder’s documents as sacred, but not hold the Creator from which they came.

            if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. II Chronicles 7:14

          • g.johnon

            god & government.
            so, pushing for a theocracy are we?
            how does this not make you every bit as dangerous to a constitutional republic as your run of the mill blithering liberal or posturing neocon?

          • Get Real

            Knowing that we are endowed with our rights has NOTHING to do with a theocracy. I am going to ignore the rest of your blather and send .25c to you to take a bus into town and beat your teachers for utterly failing you in high school.

          • g.johnon

            get real (an ironic nick if ever there was one),
            are you always in the habit of answering other people’s questions for them?
            you are correct enough in saying that knowing our rights are endowed has nothing to do with theocracy.
            however, when one names the creator as this author as done by wrapping up the post with a Christian biblical quote that follows the outlandish accusation that America now denies its creator. I mean come on.
            perhaps g&g fails to notice that it may not be the creator that is falling out of favor, but merely religion. I kinda think that’s it, don’t you?
            keep your quarter for the collection plate.

      • Hippo Lau

        “right” as defined by the constitution, is GOD GIVEN. only HE gives rights, the constitution is there to assure those rights are respected.

        • quizibo

          If that was true, and these rights were GOD GIVEN, then why doesnt every country have the same amount of rights as the United States? There are countries that are more freer than the United States but have different sets of rights. Why is that? Unless they were man made, which in that case, its a bunch of bullshit, and if they were man made then they can be taken away.

          • noname

            God did not give us the right to own guns. God gave us the right to defend ourselves. Currently the most efficient way to defend ourselves is to use guns. Thus, it is a natural right to be allowed to own a gun. It would be unjust for a body of people to declare it illegal to own a gun. Taking away a person’s right to defend himself is wrong. Our constitution was created to defend this right and many more like it. The government does give us our rights they were created to defend our rights.

      • Tom223

        The government was formed by the people. the people gave the people those rights.

  • Bobby

    He can’t use executive action or orders on any part of the 2nd amendment because it goes against the constitution… He would have use it on ammo or related items…He is already spending millions buying up billions of small arms ammo creating shortage in supply and demand.

    • dave

      he doesn’t care about the Constitution

  • Jing Yagunazie

    I find obama to be a mental giant. He should be put into a mental institution.

  • Nathan

    Trayvon, Antonio West, the “Boredom” shooting in OK, and this jerkoff wants guncontrol? Sorry, I’ll keep carrying my M&P, with 15 in the mag, irregardless of what this asspirate thinks……

  • Aaron Sullivan

    if it was such a private meeting how come its on here”source”…..

  • Jon Doe

    Why are you fabricating stories? If you are a journalist you should already know it is against the law for public officials to have closed door meetings to discuss public matters. Sorry guys but this story is fabricated.

    • Get Real


      So you think P-BO cares what’s legal all of a sudden?

    • Wesley Reese

      Not sure if troll of just stupid.

    • bugs07734

      Lets see, I don’t remember seeing ANY “open” door meetings with any Republicans, the public, or any other member of Congress when a few Democrats decided to write-up ObamaCare…. and then, if I remember right– passing the dang bill without (admittedly)READING THE DING DANG THING. Closed doors meetings are so common–it doesn’t even need addressed by Obama and his EXECUTIVE pen…it just IS! Thank goodness you are at LEAST coming to a news resource where you may start learning some awful truths about such things.

    • Emily Gonyon

      Prove that it isn’t. Until then you have to admit there could be something wrong with the way our government is doing us. They are starting something and they are not telling us what it is. Gun control is the first step to whatever it is.

    • Allison Benton

      Yes, because our government never breaks domestic or international laws. I guess that’s why they carted off all the physical evidence from the World Trade Center within literally days of the incident, sending it to China for “recycling.”

      It’s called destruction of evidence. I guess that, or authorizing the use of drone strikes without warrant – against American citizens, no less – or imposing legally punitive measures to force a health-care agenda…. none of that is apparently breaking the law.

      You are very naive, man who’s too afraid to put his name in this forum.

    • mr.g

      Following the news as much as I do, closed door meetings DO occur, quite regularly. I have never understood if it was actually against the law or not, because it’s so common.

      You shouldn’t assume that someone is fabricating things simply because you don’t like them.

      here is another source though

  • Annie Nonimous

    Executive action is this President’s only weapon. He is abusing it just like every other tool at his disposal. He is a dictator, pure and simple. He is acting like a spoiled child. If he can’t get his way through democratic process, he will bypass and overrule it. Shame on him and shame on this government for not impeaching him like the criminal he is.

  • Arthur Longeno Pavis Jr

    A president cannot re-write The U.S. Constitution or nullify the Bill of Rights. Bring it on!

  • Kevin Merck

    The reason gun violence is out of control in the large cities of America is because of illegal drugs brought in by the CIA. This is no secret to anyone who is paying attention. Everyone on Capital Hill knows that the CIA runs the drugs and large banks like Wells Fargo launder the money.

    Blaming guns for the violence in our cities today, instead of drugs, is like blaming the violence in the thirties on guns, instead of prohibition.

    It seems like a five year old child should be able to connect these dots.

    Don’t be duped by this criminal who **hope a doped** his way into office.

    Ron Paul has it right on just about every issue including the need to legalize drugs in order to take the profits out of the hands of criminals like this petty dictator, Obama.

  • Emily Gonyon

    It would not represent the American people! Not in the least. The people have spoken on that a long time ago. That is why the 2nd amendment was put into place in the first place. We need to take stand and say we don’t want him infringing on our rights. There will never be a good enough reason to take our arms away. We have the right to defend what is ours. Only a person who wants to take our right to do so would ever consider taking our rights away. We the people don’t want this or it would of passed already. He needs to understand and accept this. In fact I think it should be required to carry guns when in jobs such as schools, and other facilities that would have lots of children. The fact that he thinks fear would make us give up our rights to guns is just plane wrong. In fact it did the opposite. More people then ever are starting to carry. I hope with deepest part of my being he leaves it alone.

    • D’Rosemont

      Gun control = confiscation = genocide. That’s the Zionist goal. They’re trying to work towards an agenda.

  • CAman


    • Kevin Merck

      I understand the sentiment, but he’s not a traitor, because he was never on our side to begin with.
      He’s a fraud, a criminal, and a usurper. He’s what the criminals who call the shots are using to completely destroy what’s left of America.

      • Robo

        He took the oath. He’s a traitor as well.

        • Kevin Merck

          As a matter of fact, he took it twice the first time he was elected – or so they say. What they actually did was make a mockery of the ceremony because they all knew he was not eligible under the Constitution.
          Those who don’t understand by now that he is not eligible to be President are not living in the real world.
          I see him as a domestic enemy, not a traitor. He never took his oath seriously. He is only a traitor to those who were duped.

          • D’Rosemont

            He can be U.S. President all he wants, but he’s not the American president. The U.S. is a separate country from the U.S.A. Talk about being duped and someone being a fraud.

          • Kevin Merck

            There is no sense in arguing with nuts like you, but I will say this …
            If Obama is the U.S. President, but not the USA President, then who is the USA President, and how is that helping the situation? Even if there is an element of truth to your argument, it’s a moot point when we are about to cease to exist as anything you would recognize as either the US or the USA.
            Pull your head out of your backside son, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

      • Sldr

        That’s a traitor hello!! Anything or anyone who threathens the sole core of America “constitution” is a traitor and should be not hanged but euthanized.

        • Kevin Merck

          You can look at it however you want, I don’t care.

          My point is that he had nefarious intentions from day one, he is not eligible to be President under the Constitution, yet he ignored that fact and accepted the office anyway.
          If you are looking for someone to call a traitor, look no further than the millions of people who helped him get into the position he’s in right now.

          Everyone on Capital Hill knows he’s not eligible, as a matter of fact, everyone with a normally functioning brain knows he’s not eligible. It seems the only people who don’t understand that are the people can’t show you where New York is on a map of the United States.

  • Blank Reg

    Doesn’t matter to me what his edicts are. They are all unconstitutional, and I am under no obligation to abide by them. Cold, dead hands, and all that.

  • Tosheba

    Impeach. This dude is out of control.

  • abinico

    Medical industry kills about 200,000 yearly – google ‘medical deaths’ – guns kills about 10,000 yearly – seems like we need doctor control not gun control

  • John H

    The debate on private ownership of arms, and how where when and what types ended in 1876. No branch of government, especially the weakest (federal) is granted any power to regulate or control or otherwise infringe on the absolute right.
    It’s time to have a rational discussion and implement the limited government clause of the Constituon and reduce the Federal government by 75%

  • Ron Paul Supporter

    During the end of the Bush presidency I had an argument with a Republican about going to war without a Declaration as required by the Constitution. The Republican told me that the “War Powers Act” gave the president the power to override or ignore the Constitution as pertaining to going to war. I told him that was a dangerous precedent to use, a path that might one day come back to haunt him. I said that if some “act” overrides the Constitution in regards to going to war then he could expect a future president to use an act, perhaps “executive order” to override the Constitution in regards to gun ownership. That was only six years ago and now it happens. We can’t pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow or ignore it when our guy’s in office then demand it be followed when the other guy gets in. The Constitution is either is the Supreme Law of the Land…..or it is not.

    • drenman

      It’s not.

    • Scott Figgins

      It is!

    • hthrsllvn

      Have you lost your guns? Seriously? Has someone come into your home and taken your guns in the name of a constitutional takeover? Unlikely. So your claim that he has overridden the constitution is invalid. You can’t cherry pick the constitution as you say, but you’re willing to cherry pick the 2nd amendment? It says “well regulated”. But you want to skip that part. Talk about cherry picking….

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    The executive order has been ridiculously abused for over a hundred years. Laws are passed by Congress. The executive order was designed so the president could spend a small discretionary budget for items such as White House drapes, dishes, and office furniture. A president is not a king and cannot issue orders in lieu of congressional legislation. To the extent we allow this, we are complicit in the tyranny that is destroying our country.

    On April 5th, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order confiscating gold in the possession of US citizens. We never should have let that stand. It’s all been downhill since then.

  • Getting Fed Up!

    I guess I am getting tired of listening to everyone rant about how Presidents are circumventing the Constitution and also admitting it is our fault(the people) because we are not stopping them. I think the issue is because “the people” are missing a few things in order to stop the corruption in upper level government. We are missing a few things like…

    – Unification which brings our power in numbers
    – Knowledge of what to do and how to do it… How about protesting and boycotting
    – Grass roots leadership that can be trusted to be on the side of the people and not some covert set up with hidden agendas
    – Willingness and drive to actually take action

    – Simple knowledge of what our government is actually supposed to be doing and how. Sound basic education is needed.
    – Truthful, honest and consistent information on what is happening in our country and the world

    I could go on, but I think you should get the point. The people need some very difficult basics that cannot be turned on like a switch. They need to be built into society or a reaction to an extreme situation.

    • Tim

      It’s simple. Find a group who is grassroots and wants to elect some acceptable kind of Constitutional Conservative or Tea Party candidate. Support the candidate by donating time and money. Just like every other grassroots politician. Without putting in the work, you won’t get anywhere.

      Also, consolidate groups of like-mindedness. Forgive small differences those other groups might have in the interest of a common goal to get a bigger group of people behind a candidate who will focus on the most important core principles of limited government and individual liberty.

  • ddearborn


    A message to Mr. Obama. You have no legal or Constitutional right to use anything or do anything about “gun control” . “Gun Control: by its very definition is a form of infrigement and is therefore not just illegal it Unconstitutional. So what our President is announcing is that he will no longer abide by the rule of law or the Constitution upon which it is based. He is announcing to the world that he will impose dictatorial powers of his own making to break the law and violate the civil rights enshrined in our Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold. In short the President is inviting impeachment. And every single member of Congress that supports or ignores his criminal acts is also in line for impeachment.

    • hthrsllvn

      Gun control by definition has no infringement whatsoever. You are being asked to control your guns through regulations. You are under the false assumption that control equates confiscation. He is not breaking any laws by regulating gun use in America. It is your constitutional right to bear arms, but it is completely within his constitutional power to protect citizens by regulating those arms.

      • ddearborn


        Actually that is not correct. By definition gun control is absolutely an infringement of our right to bear arms.

        “control” –to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command. 2. to hold in check; curb: these are without any shadow of a doubt infringements. Unless of course hthrsllvn is using a defferent English language than the founding fathers.

        People there is NOTHING in Constitution that grants the President or anyone else the right to “regulate” it. In fact it specifically states in clear concise and unambiguous language that they can not. Hence the phrase “shall not be infringed”.

        the second amendment in its entirety:

        “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.”

        Nothing in there about “regulations”, “limitations”, “restraints”, “curbs” at all. Why is that? because these are ALL infringements.

        • hthrsllvn

          The second amendments itself says “a well regulated militia”. Its in the second amendment! But you choose to skip over it and dismiss it just as you choose to do with a majority of the constitution. Control, as you defined it, is his job. to put in checks and balances for those getting firearms and curb unnecessary death from them. You still have your guns. No one wants to take them away! When will you get that thru your heads? No one is confiscating you beloved guns. No one. Asking for tighter background checks and a limit on mag capacity doesn’t take away your guns. All you are doing is perpetuating fear.

          • Unknown Patriot

            Troll, Troll, Troll, “What Will You Do When “SHTF”?

          • luke

            “A well REGULATED militia”. Definition
            was a well-trained militia not the new politically correct definition.

  • Misty E Bennett

    Because the U.S dollar is about to equal 0- We are in debt 211 trillion dollars! Rescission will be in affect in a few months. More than likely you will starve, cars will be giant paper weights, and your daughters raped and murdered.

  • Vince Bert

    Better come for mine with great surprise and force of violence. Otherwise you are fair game. Better get us all at once or you will be afraid, very afraid of the night.

  • Jewelie Dee

    I am completely against executive orders for anything whatsoever, as it bypasses the checks and balances that would prevent the Presidency from becoming a monarchy. We are seriously in trouble in this country, as long as we have leaders like King Obama.

    • hthrsllvn

      Then you don’t seem to understand what an executive order really is. An EO is power constitutionally given to the president and there is no provisions or statutes that permits EOs but there are strict limitations to the presidential power if there is good reason found that the EO is unconstitutional. If an EO is found to be unconstitutional, the president can face removal from office. Consequences that one does not take likely, nor that can lead a “monarchy”. An EO must have constitutional support, either by a clause granting specific powers to the executive office or by congress granting the powers to the president (and with this do nothing congress, very unlikely). So, it cannot “bypass checks and balances” as you say. Maybe you should brush up on your constitutional law before posting.

  • Ed Cassidy

    Nothing ever gets done because all of Republicans
    and Democrats in the population say. So what this guy did it so it’s okay for that guy to do it! When they don’t realize in Washington DC, very few of either this is a criminal takeover of our country by both sides same policies never change only the crimes against the people became more dominating by each one don’t believe me. Keyword Eric holder, banks that laundered drug monies to support terrorism. He said there too big to prosecute too big to jail, in essence, what he was saying is there are bosses. And when the American public wakes up and realizes this. Start looking in your communities see who the criminals are look at the elite locally special favors and privileges most laws don’t pertain to them and look at your state, you’ll find many states, police departments and state police do have some that runs drugs US government biggest underground arms sellers and drug smugglers We The People mean absolutely nothing to them sorry to say forget Republican and Democrat unify as Americans.

  • Mac_em

    Hello Kristin, you may like to know that presidential
    executive orders only pertain to those in the executive branch, not to the Legislative Branch, not to the Judicial Branch of government and certainly not to the
    rest of the people. This is similar to Burger King CEO giving an
    executive order. It only applies to Burger King. The people have
    the right to do anything with any arm (usually a firearm) they please as long
    as they do not injure or cause a loss to another. The supreme law of the
    land, the Constitution, protects that right. Read 2nd amendment.
    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
    infringed” is protected. Public servants take an oath to protect and
    defend that Constitution. Any interference contrary to the plain meaning
    by a public servant is fraud on his/her part and a felony.

    • hthrsllvn

      Notice how you skipped the “well regulated” part of the 2nd amendment? Yeah, its in there. Spouting about the 2nd amendment is great so long as you put it into context.

  • rp59

    you don’t pass this around, may you enjoy his Plan! WHAT??? The Republic
    has a CONSTITUTION??? Amendment 28 Congress shall make no law that
    applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally
    to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that
    applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally
    to the citizens of the United States . Imagine
    what we could do if everybody passed this around. Congress shall make
    no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not
    apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall
    make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does
    not apply equally to the citizens of the United States . Imagine what we
    could do if everybody passed this around.

  • Danny Collins

    are you reading the Constitution at all?

  • juan hunoz

    Everyone needs to remember that it was Bush who first misused the “executive order” principle during his presidency. Both parties are corrupt and if we seek a solution in the context of the right-left paradigm, we will continue to lose our freedoms. Forcing our elected officials to follow the Constitution is our only way out of this mess.

    • dozr

      just because bush did it first doesnt mean obama isn’t just as wrong.

    • Richard V. Davis

      Wasn’t it Truman?

    • Gregg Benghazi Cummings

      Amen on your Last sentence Juan. Amen