Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Watch: Rioters in London Clash With Police Over ‘Cleaver’ Terror Attack

Government

AP Fact-Checks Obama, Biden and Bloomberg on Key Gun Claim: ‘Grasping at Tatters of Moldy Data’

Mar. 13, 2013 6:55am Billy Hallowell

The following article is a fact-check from the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Some of the numbers being hurled around in the gun control debate passed their freshness date eons ago. Perhaps none is more prominent than the claim that 40 percent of gun sales take place without background checks.

The statistic is ubiquitous these days and cited as gospel by a variety of public figures and gun-control advocates, President Barack Obama among them, but it is 20 years old and was not much more than an educated guess at the time.

It’s no wonder policymakers are grasping at tatters of moldy data as they consider expanding background checks and banning certain weapons and ammunition. A 1996 law pushed by the gun-rights lobby closed the spigot on federal gun research, leaving scholars, private groups and states to pick up some pieces. Only now, under a recent order by Obama, can federally financed research resume.

AP Fact Checks Obama, Biden and Bloomberg on Key Gun Claim | Gun Control, Background Checks

U.S. President Barack Obama is accompanied by Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate Terrance Gainer. Credit: Getty Images

No one questions that criminals get their hands on guns, and do so primarily from the off-the-books market. But no one knows how many guns skirt the criminal-check system by taking place at gun shows, in private transactions or otherwise outside the regulated channels. Public policy research is scarce on the subject.

Into this statistical vacuum rush voices of certitude.

OBAMA, on Jan. 16: “It’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check. That’s not safe. That’s not smart. It’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.”

MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS, a coalition favoring tighter gun controls, on Tuesday: “Around 40 percent of U.S. gun transfers are conducted by unlicensed `private sellers’ who are not required to conduct a federal check, and who often do business at gun shows and on the Internet.”

NEW YORK MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, Dec. 17: “Congress should pass the Fix Gun Checks Act, which would close the `private sale loophole’ that allows more than 40 percent of gun sales to go through without a background check.”

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg holds a large cup as he speaks to the media about the health impacts of sugar at Lucky’s restaurant, which voluntarily adopted the large sugary drink ban, March 12, 2013 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images

REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I., Jan. 26: “More than 40 percent of sales nationally are made without background checks.”

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, Jan. 17: “Because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct. But the consensus is about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the … background check system.”

THE FACTS:

Biden stands alone here in acknowledging he may be saying something that isn’t right.

The claims that gun sales made without background checks comprise “more than,” “as many as,” “nearly” or “about” 40 percent of all gun sales are rooted in a poll looking broadly at gun ownership in America. Sponsored by the Justice Department through a grant to the Police Foundation, the poll’s principal relevance today is as a snapshot of the way things were when it was taken – 1994.

The research reported on the nature of gun acquisitions made in 1993 and 1994, asking people who had obtained guns then where the guns had come from and whether they thought the source was a federally licensed dealer. Transactions through licensed dealers were considered covered by the background check system, which was just then coming into effect.

Credit: AP

Although the survey interviewed more than 2,500 Americans, just 251 had acquired guns during that time frame, a small sampling from which to make a general conclusion.

In all, 64 percent of those respondents reported acquiring a gun from a source they thought to be a licensed dealer, suggesting that 36 percent of gun acquisitions were in the secondary and unregulated market.

But the study’s researchers found considerable ambiguity and some apparent contradictions in the responses. With a clear picture eluding them, they estimated 30 percent to 40 percent of the acquisitions were off the books and would not have been subjected to a background check.

Only 4 percent of gun sales were thought to have come through gun shows or flea markets – a corner of the market that is a top concern today for those who want to expand background checks to close the “gun-show loophole,” as Obama’s proposals would do.

More than 17 percent of guns acquired in 1993 and 1994 came from a family member, according to the poll – a source of weapons that would remain largely unregulated in pending Senate legislation calling for expanded checks.

Credit: AP

Discounting family acquisitions, the percentage of gun transactions eluding background checks – whatever that figure is – would be considerably less.

The statement by the coalition of mayors followed a Senate Judiciary Committee vote along partisan lines Tuesday to expand background checks. The bill’s prospects are uncertain.

In contending that 40 percent of gun transfers are conducted by private sellers, often “at gun shows and on the Internet,” the mayors stretched a thin claim even thinner.

They cited the same old study as everyone else – one that was done well before the spread of online commerce. The study considered purchases by mail order – 3 percent of reported gun acquisitions – but makes no mention of online transactions.

–

Other Must-Read Stories:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (45)

Slipstick
Posted on March 14, 2013 at 10:12am
I’m thinking that at least 40% of politicians are so full of bull that their eyes are brown.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dynaboy
Posted on March 14, 2013 at 9:52am
I could careless what bills they pass I will never comply with these jack booted thugs in DC…………I love that new movie Olympus falling I wish it would and never rebuild ,,when I see Dc getting bombed I cheer like mad and laugh,why cause they are taking out the club house of the gang called DC THUGS

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
drjake
Posted on March 14, 2013 at 1:26am
Not all “initial denials” yielded by today’s NICS occur because the purchaser is a prohibited person. I wager that probably only a VERY SMALL percentage of those initial denials are actually denials of prohibited persons. And, no, law-enforcement doesn’t take action on these denials. Apparently prosecuting criminals has never been part of the background check plan. And since NICS doesn’t do it why should we believe that “Universal Background Checks” will? What more information in that regard would we have under UBC that we don’t under NICS? We would have the national registry, that’s what. The “background check” bit is a ruse designed to sound innocent and appealing but the real purpose is to establish a federal database of gun-owners and their guns. For what purpose we can only guess…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Secret Squirrel
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:53pm
So, what percentage of guns purchased legally
face to face are used in crimes?
Infinitesimal.
Let’s try to keep legal guns out of the hands of crazy people.
Hello? ACLU?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dmerwin
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:43pm
What ought to be fact checked, are the numbers of prosecutions for those who attempted purchase and failed to pass the check. If background checks are the answer, there OUGHT to be some penalty for felons attempting to purchase! I have heard that the numbers of prosecutions are way less than 1% of attempted and denied purchasers. Why don’t republicans have and USE these numbers? Personally, I believe that some people should NOT own firearms, like convicted felons with gun or violent crime histories. Let’s say we will make a mandatory minimum sentence of say 10 years for every felon 15 or over in possession of a firearm. 20 years for second offenses and really police the inner cities after dark even if that means rotating teams of federal agents (FBI, DEA, ICE and ATF) to really apply massive manpower to several cities one night a week at random times.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
djmo22
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 2:10pm
Why is this even being debated, when over 90% of Americans support universal background checks. The only people that would be against this is criminals, gun manufactures, and a some of our less intelligent citizens, whipped into a fearful frenzy by the N.R.A.. There is not a single intelligent argument, against background checks, based in reality.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jhrusky
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 4:08pm
  Over 90% of Americans support universal background checks? Please cite your statistics and the study(ies) that prove this.
  
  Report this comment
- djmo22
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 5:09pm
  JHRUSKY
  Not hard to find, but no problem.
  Gallup – 92% favor 7% oppose
  CBS- 91% favor 7% oppose
  Quinnipiac University – 92% favor 7% oppose
  Fox News – 91% favor 8% oppose
  
  http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
  
  Report this comment
- jsmith5893
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:13pm
  @DJM022 – Yeah there is. Only the law abiding will participate in background checks – criminals have not and will not (see my other post). And when that reality sets in after the next mass killing, there will be a call for further restrictions like registration. And when that doesn’t work after another mass killing there will be a call for something else – probably confiscation. And you still won’t be able to identify, isolate or deter the 1 or 2 people every year out of 315 million who, for whatever reason, want to kill a lot of people. Gun registration and/or confiscation is currently a work in progress in several countries but historically it has ended in one of 2 ways. In Canada it was abolished because it didn’t produce useful results and in other cases thousands of people died because oppressive governments evolved from the new gun free norm and used it as a tool to kill people who didn’t agree with them.
  
  Report this comment
- gothope
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:20pm
  If 90% of people who read your post thought you shouldn’t be able to post it would it be ok for the govt to censor you or make it illegal for you to comment?
  
  Report this comment
- jsmith5893
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:20pm
  There are only 2 ways to legally sell a gun in the US. One is a private sale between individuals (ex. friends or family) or by a gun dealer with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) from the BATF. Only individuals with an FFL can run a background check through the government NICS database of prohibited persons. Private citizens cannot. So to fix this, you need to do 2 things:
  
  1) Allow any small gun dealer to get an FFL without having a storefront. Currently, thanks to the Clinton administration, you can’t get an FFL if you want to sell guns only at gun shows (See question 18a of ATF form 5310 FFL application). As a result someone that wants to sell guns but can’t afford the inventory costs and overhead of a storefront has to sell discretely as a “private citizen” and can’t run a background check. Rather than throwing these people out of the system they should allow them back in to get an FFL and subject them to BATF rules and oversight like they were before.
  
  2) Give anyone free, public, anonymous online access to the NICS database. Once this is done, you then tell private sellers if you sell a firearm to someone and don’t retain a piece of paper that says you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. This would also provide an easy, fast, non-bureaucratic method for anyone to determine if a suspicious neighbor, student, etc is a potential threat to society whereby the authorities could be notified to i
  
  Report this comment
- djmo22
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:29pm
  @JSMITH5893 I agree that this will not end mass murder, but why would we want to make it easy for criminals, and disturbed people to acquire weapons. And the slippery slope argument doesn’t hold up. No way Americans will allow it. And I agree with your second post completely.
  
  @GOTHOPE That is your comparison, pretty lame. So to answer your question, yes. If I post vulgar things on Nickelodeon site, would it not get ( and should be ) censored?
  
  Report this comment
- jsmith5893
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:23pm
  @DJM022 Mass murders will take the easiest route to achieve their goal, which right now appears to be the use of a firearm. 20 years ago restricting firearms might have worked but today we have the Internet and Google, which provides the ability to search in a few seconds for details about things that can kill lots of people. Try this if you want a scary and depressing experience – but you better be sitting down. If you think the recent mass killings were bad, consider this kid (http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=22112.0) who built a homemade flamethrower with $100 worth of plumbing parts. So when the guns are banned and some deranged individual uses something like this and kills or disfigures several people in a fraction of the time the recent mass killings took, what would you ban then – plumbing parts and gasoline? And more important, do you think all the restrictive gun laws that were enacted to force these individuals to use more sophisticated methods would be repealed? The trend of government since I’ve been alive is to take away rights, not to give them back.
  
  Report this comment
- jsmith5893
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:20pm
  @DJM022 Americans won’t allow it all at once but they will be forced to allow it in progressive steps with open ended “flypaper” laws that trip up the innocent law abiding gun owner or force them to prove their innocence after being intimidated or arrested by overzealous or ideologically driven authorities. As an example Colorado is about to pass a law that outlaws all future transfers of magazines that hold or can be converted to hold more than 15 rounds. This effectively includes several magazines less than 15 rounds because any magazine with a removal bottom plate can potentially be converted which in some cases makes the gun itself non-transferable because non-convertible magazines don’t exist. Also, there is no definition of owner except for the person that bought it. By the letter of the law, possession or access by family members in any situation is illegal and would result in a class 2 misdemeanor that would require the owner to surrender all of his or her firearms for 2 years. So if you don’t have your grandfathered “high capacity” magazines with you at all times you are violating the law and hence are vulnerable to intimidation and arrest. Some gun owners will decide the risk of owning the magazines is not worth it and will dispose of them, which is the unadvertised goal of the law. Once they’ve squeezed those gun owners out they will progress to the next step of more flypaper laws to put more pressure on the holdouts.
  
  Report this comment
- ProudAmericanMa
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 3:08am
  If you sincerely believe that this is not big deal, perhaps you should study your history lessons. The first step in control is registration. Once the government knows who has what and where it is located it is much much easier to confiscate it. Hitler had that down pat. One of the first steps is disarming the citizens, but it is very hard to disarm a country when you don’t know where the fire power is. Please take a lesson from world history and even a piece from our own history!!
  
  Report this comment
- ProudAmericanMa
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 3:10am
  My apologizes, My remark was meant to another on gun registration. I don’t have a problem with back ground checks as long as they are improved, and the right people are kept from having weapons great. My problem is with nation wide registration, which I am unsure how they would separate the 2 as they do go hand in hand.
  
  Report this comment
- ProudAmericanMa
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 3:16am
  OK me again, sorry I am laughing to myself here, talked to my sister in law who works for one of those polling places. NOW for the facts about the facts…only aprox 2000 people are polled, second the majority of those persons do not I repeat DO NOT own a gun. Now how is that actually a fairly biased poll?? The more people that are polled the more the numbers change, either way pro or con, but they do change, you can not I repeat CAN NOT, base the entire nations beliefs on 2000 people.
  
  Report this comment
- PoliceState8
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 3:30am
  That number is completely fabricated by the mainstream media. Actually 88% of people oppose it check it out at POPVOX.com if you don’t believe me.
  
  Report this comment
- Xmystic
  Posted on March 14, 2013 at 8:55am
  All your poll sources do not mention “universal” background checks. There is data on background checks which even the NRA supported. There are universal background checks now by the NICS. There is even an option to file a Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) with the FBI so the information will be readily available in a permanent file for faster efficient background checks that will help to avoid false delays.
  
  The slippery slope would not be allowed by Americans? What do you think you are seeing right now? Automatic weapons bans in 1934 and again in the 80′s. So called assault weapon ban in 1994. New proposals for “assault” weapon ban currently that is much worse than the ban of 1994. NY and CT already had state ban on “assault weapons since 1994 that were continued since 1994. None of that stopped Newtown.
  
  Gun control will do very little or nothing. We need criminal control. We need to address societal decay. Why are these thing happening? Not what tools are being used to do it. The answer is to limit collateral damage? Limit magazines? So a smaller murder rate is acceptable? That is so lame. It’s a cop out from anyone that believes that. It’s time to put the work in for comprehensive solutions that eliminate the tragedies. Demand that your representatives work on those comprehensive solutions, not “feel good” band aid solutions that infringe on constitutional rights. Why do we protect criminal’s rights more than law abiding citizen’s rights.
  
  Report this comment
Mr. H.
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 2:08pm
When they talk about Internet sales and mail order sales, these guys are overlooking the existing law requiring guns going through the mail go from Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder to FFL. I’ve bought guns through private sales, and in all cases the seller made it difficult by trying their best to determine I was one of the good guys. The clincher was my concealed carry license. So, personally, I strongly believe that the vast majority of private sales would also pass a background check had there been one.

These ignorant liberal progressive politicians thoroughly ignore stolen guns! The bad sales out of the trunk of a car with the meeting setup by criminals selling to criminals. Nobody but nobody has said how many guns were stolen last year! Guns are stolen by criminals. Stolen gun sales are criminal. We already have laws against these sales, and they are criminal counts against the criminal if and when they are caught. So where are these statistics? FBI? Local Police? Where? The government has them, and should compile them and publish them for all to see. Or would that make the policing effort look to bad and or ineffective?

This makes the 40% statistic look really weak and more like maybe 8% which is still too high.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Bvikay
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 1:54pm
Back ground checks should not be a federal responsibility. It is just another policy on the road to confiscation of guns from the citizens.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
toledofan
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 1:13pm
These guys are just pathetic, all politics, no substance and at the end of the day no common sense. Until they have their security people give up their automatic weapons or their other guns and carry just shotguns, then nobody should do anything different. Why do they need them if we don’t, I mean a gang is a gang and if you have one chasing you a shotgun would only help a little.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DavidH628
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 11:08am
If Biden is so pro gun control why is he still pushing people to buy shotguns? According to a report this morning, during his visit to a D.C. area nursing home the vice president told the residents to get a shotgun because it’s easier to blow someone’s head off with a double barrel than it is with an automatic weapon. WTF? http://www.thedailyrash.com/biden-its-easier-to-blow-someones-brains-out-with-shotgun

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DSTSS2010
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:56am
This is the tactic they use repeatedly. Tell the lie, repeat the lie, get all your cronies to tell the same lie.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.” Adolph Hitler would be proud of his protoges.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ahberns
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 12:26pm
  I hate to ruin your day but that quote came from P.T. Barnum. and the end of it is “But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
  
  Report this comment
jsmith5893
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:33am
I keep hearing about this study of 251 people but no one ever posts a link to it. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in their report at http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/no-check-no-gun-report.pdf
on page 11 footnote 27 references https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf and http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/12_02_04.pdf which also references http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/CookMolliconiAndCole.htm. All of these references used a small amount of survey data collected before the national background check system went into effect on November 30, 1998. Another source for the 40% and 80% numbers in the same Brady report is footnote 124 on page 22 from table 8 in http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf which surveyed convicted felons in 1997. Table 8 says 39.6% of criminals got their guns from “friends and family “ and another 39.2% got them illegally. Technically neither of these categories had a background check but I don’t know what law would ever compel criminals and acquaintances of criminals to run background checks on other criminals, Also note this study was before national background checks were required and only 0.7% claimed they got their firearms from gun shows..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
battles
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:07am
Proof that our government only see Americans a being criminals like themselves. I do not need a background check, you do not need a background check. We are dealing with a Marxist/communist criminal enterprise when it comes to our government. When push comes to shove, I think that our government and federal loving/conspiring local police departments are going to see the American people backfire upon them. People everywhere can be pushed just so far. This will lead to the local police cowering in their offices only, knowing that they have caused their own lives to be worth nothing that the cost of a single American’s bullet, once they start trying to confiscate our constitutionally owned guns. The Marxist/communist democrat gun grab is going to cause an American backlash.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Uechi
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:02am
I don’t know what Gun shows these morons have gone to ( clue,none) but everyone I have been to is occupied by FFL’s selling firearms usually at inflated prices. When you buy that firearm they are required by law to have you fill out a 4473 and that information is then imparted via phone to the appropriate state agency and a background check is done while you wait. The only exceptions are firearms made before 1899 ( considerd antiques ) and the few individuals who bring firearms to sell personally. The key words are few and personally. The number is extremely small, that means nowhere near even 5% of sales. This is nothing but mendacity to the extreme. What a big surprise our President, Vice President and the Government lies to us.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ozchambers
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:48am
  I purchased a firearm from a gun show in VA and a background check was conducted just like buying from a licensed gun store. It was my first gun show, and I figured there would be little to no background checks being done, based on media reports. It was a huge show, and it seemed to me that virtually every dealer was running background checks for firearms purchases.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 4:10pm
  Many gun shows have private firearms owners selling their wares and a background check is NOT required to purchase one/some of their weapons.
  
  Report this comment
Listen_then_think
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:42am
Proving once again that biden and oblameo lied.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:30am
No doubt they are grabbing at data that is faulty, but that is really not the issue? The issue is your civil rights GAURANTEE YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I don’t believe in background checks period, but I watch other people buy this arguement because they make it sound like its a good thing, but those that sell this snake oil forget to mention it violates your civil rights?

If someone is not in jail, and they are not in a mental hospital (an no I am not counting people on prescriptions) they have a GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. If you let someone out of jail early, and they commit a crime, gun laws are not the problem, are they? There is no such thing as eliminating risk, but there is such a thing as creating a tryannical government creating gun free zones like we are defenseless animals and too many taxes to surveil a state because they don’t trust them, even though the US Constitution does trust all citizens?

We have a problem with people determining how much self control we all have, and what is going to push us over the edge when not only is it impossible for you to know what’s in the minds of all people, it is really none of your business?

Stand up for your civil rights, don’t give them away? Yes, crimes comitted with guns are awful, which is why we make sure you can have one, if you think you need one, so you can protect yourself?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SamIamTwo
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:04am
The background check will be like a top secrete investigation…names, address, jobs, friends etc etc going back 15 years or more.

They will know everything about everyone that way. Better find out what they intend to implement…for Obama-care application it is a 15 page form.

First the law, then the regulation, then a new form, then hire more federal employees. Nothing new under the sun.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:02am
This is why 0bamacare was/is such a big fing deal to the complete take over of ALL American Rights. They can write anything into this law, since it was unwritten when signed. THIS MUST BE DE-FUNDED AND REPEALED!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
missingneworleans
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:35am
Once again Obama is using “Executive Orders” to overturn actual law. The 1996 law to prevent federal research, investigation of gun owners should not just be swept aside by the whim of a president.
What gives him this right ?
Last time I looked nobody had appointed him Emperor.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ColoradoBoots
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:42am
  You know how to tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:59am
  The MSM enables their fellow Lefties to get away with all of this.
  
  Report this comment
- PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:10am
  0bamacare. Biden’s “big fing deal”. The law was unwritten when signed….just imagine what will happen when un-elected bureaucrats are writing legislation. Tyranny.
  
  Report this comment
- SGT Rock
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 1:23pm
  He is not an Emperor but instead our Caliph or so he thinks.
  
  Report this comment
Sargeking
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:35am
Of course the Liberals employ fuzzy math. That’s all they know to buttress their lies. Chipping away at American human rights with gun control is designed to distract everyone from the horrific Obama Economy. He owns this debacle. He embraces it with relish. Our Great Leader presumes that investment in research and education will provide jobs for anyone who wants one. As usual, he’s sketchy on the details. He doesn’t want a balanced budget. He says so, “forwardly” and w/o shame.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Zipit
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:23am
It’s like mom always used to say; ” If you can’t lie about something, don’t say anything at all”! Well, that’s if your mom was Stanley Ann Dunham, I guess!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dublinthewagons
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:24am
Theft should disqualify a person to owning a firearm.
Especially Washington D.C.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dublinthewagons
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:16am
100% of all FREE guns given to criminals ( fast & furious) by this administration, did not undergo background checks. Arm the criminals & unarm the law abiding taxpayers. In the name of safety.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:11am
  DUBLIN: Agree. For this Fast and Furious Administration to push for gun control is one of their most outrageous bits of hypocrisy. ( Notice the Democrats’ Polly Wants A ******* routine with the ” 40% ” figure being repeated by ALL of them in the media ? ) Apparently disarming citizens while failing to present or balance the budget seems to be the ” goal” of this administration . Why ? Are they deliberately trying to start a societal divide ? Are they deliberately trying to start a revolution ? Why ? What is the motive for the rancor this man and this administration seems to constantly be inciting ?
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:34am
  DUBLINTHEWAGONS, There you go again, using common sense and pointing out that the high muckety mucks consider themselves to be above the law.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.