Post Fact Checker on Obama’s internet gun sales claim

| January 6, 2016 | 65 Comments

obama tears

Yesterday, in his emotional and tearful press conference, President Obama made the claim that; “The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked.” Yeah, it’s an outright lie, as many of us who have made purchases of handguns and long guns from the internet can tell you. I’ve bought several guns from auction sites and from electronic store fronts on the internet and every time I went through the NICS background checks before I was allowed to take possession of my firearm.

Apparently, Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post‘s Fact Checker, was inundated with emails after the President made the statement. Kessler grudgingly gave the President two Pinocchios;

Administration officials say his point was that electronic commerce has made it easier for prohibited people such as felons to obtain firearms (or to hide such transactions from scrutiny behind the dark Web). Put in those terms, his statement is reasonable. Illegal markets often exploit new forms of commerce.

But many readers believed Obama was asserting the rules were different for the Internet — that it legally permitted violent felons to obtain guns.

We agree that Obama’s language is slippery and could be confusing to the average person who doesn’t know anything about FFLs and interstate requirements. There is nothing unique about the Internet; the laws governing private transactions and interstate sales are exactly the same. It’s the same as offering to sell a gun on a bulletin board, except the bulletin board is significantly larger. The Internet, and eletronic payment systems such as PayPal and Bitcoin, have certainly facilitated transactions that in the past would have been more difficult to arrange.

Obama erred in saying the rules are different for Internet sellers. They face the same rules as other sellers — rules that the administration now says it will enforce better.

If the both the seller and the buyer are criminals, the transfers of the ownership of illegal guns on the internet will continue as it did before the President’s little crying jag yesterday, just like those car trunk sales in dark alleys and parking lots will continue between people who don’t care about following the law. Yeah, I bought scary black guns on the internet and at gun shows, but as I said. I went through the NICS background checks as i would at a gun dealer’s check out counter.

The President lied and the Washington Post should have admitted that it was an outright attempt at deceiving the American public. Instead they pretty much called it a “little white lie” when indeed it was a “whopper”. The President’s language wasn’t “slippery”, it was a lie. Those tears were a lie, too.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (65)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. In The Mailbox, 01.07.16 : The Other McCain | January 7, 2016
  1. HMCS (FMF) ret. says:

    Bodaprez lie????

    WAPO cover for bodaprez???

    It’s all about the preezy’s legacy… that’s what its about…his fucking legacy.

    Millard Filmore, James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter are all happy that the “preezy of the 57 steezy” is gonna be low man on the totem pole in a year…

  2. IDC SARC says:

    He’s just preying on the ignorance of the public. It’s what he has always done. His minions will line up to shout that anybody that disagrees is a liar and of course a racist.

    Status quo.

  3. ChipNASA says:

    The tears were real. Obama was quoted later as saying… “The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. I didn’t have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones… “

  4. Sapper3307 says:

    Tears of joy from Nobama.

  5. kafir says:

    Lie? I think they’re called “nuances” now.

  6. Fjardeson says:

    Crocodile tears.

  7. Atkron says:

    I’m currently waiting for the background check that POTUS and the other gun grabbers say are non-existent so I can pick the weapon up from the online purchase I made.

  8. IDC SARC says:


    Tears + “It’s for the children” = Validity

  9. The Other Whitey says:

    Hey, it’s the Washington Post! This is as close as they’ll ever get to admitting that the Glorious Leader is a liar. They actively compete with NYT for the title of “Pravda.”

    On an unrelated note, took the wife to see the new “Star Wars” last night. I won’t spoil it for any who haven’t seen it, but…

    FUCK YOU, JJ ABRAMS!!! You motherfucker!!! How could you?!! You maniac!!! DAMN YOU, you fucking maniac!! GOD DAMN YOU STRAIGHT TO HEEEELLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

    When I go back to work, I will give my firefighters the following assignment: Go forth, find the alleged man who calls himself JJ Abrams, and BRING ME HIS HEAD. Okay, obviously I won’t really do that (probably), but suffice it to say that I’m fucking PISSED. How could they? Motherfuckers…

    • Twist says:

      I’ll bring the torches if you bring the pitchforks.

    • Twist says:

      I also seen someone on Facebook say “this Star Wars no spoilers thing is the closest I’ve seen Americans work together since 9/11”.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      That bad, huh?

      Okay, I’ll stick to reruns of Farscape and a few sessions with “Troy”.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        It was great at first. I was loving it. One of the new heroes is a magnificent wiseass. There’s a hot chick. Kylo Ren is a ridiculously powerful dark Jedi with daddy issues and a bad temper that makes Darth Vader look downright serene, and is the boss from hell to the bad guys. Most importantly, no fucking Jar Jar. It was fucking awesome!

        And then…something happened that launched me out of my seat and had me screaming, “You motherfucking FUCKER!!!” And I was hardly the only one. Half of the audience vowed revenge against that treasonous son of a bitch Abrams.

        I need to shoot something.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Okay. Well, ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ sound good this weekend. Maybe a little time with John Wayne, too.

          It’s unfortunate when someone misses the message in a film series that started out so well, so long ago – probably before Abrams was even an ovum.

        • Haywire Angel says:

          We did the same thing when we watched it! Then, the hubby went cruising around online to see if he could figure out WTF was going on. Needless to say, there is the Star Wars Canon AND the Star Wars Legends (Expanded Universe). All I can still stay at this point is what you said in your second paragraph. Well put!

        • Casey says:

          I rather enjoyed it. Left the theater with a big grin on my face. The movie was fun.

          The fact that this is a record-breaking monster tends to indicate that you are in the minority. 😉

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      Interestingly, I enjoyed the film a great deal.

      I thought it paid appropriate homage to the original from 1977 and was done very well…

      Based on gross income I suspect you might have the minority opinion on this my friend.

    • Eden says:

      I loved Star Wars (back when it was called just “Star Wars” and not “Episode 4”), The Empire Strikes Back (aka “Episode 5”), and The Return of the Jedi (aka “Episode 6”). Episode 1 (whatever the heck its other name was) was meh, and I completely lost interest about half-way through Episode 2. I know the Episode 7 spoiler, and that alone is enough to make me glad I didn’t go see it.

  10. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hey, give bodaprez a break, peeps. It’s his last gasp before leaving.

    He’s gotta do SOMETHING. He used this opportunity to make sure that you remember him, so that when his name is mentioned in passing, you won’t remember who he was… or something like that.

    Name one thing he’s done in two terms in office besides piss people off.

  11. Poetrooper says:

    Can you imagine how the Imams are reacting to that emotional display? How about Putin or the Norks? Hell, even our allies must be cringing with the knowledge that this emoting pussy is what they have to rely on for their own national security.

    I’m not one of those who holds that a man can’t cry, as I’ve shed tears myself in a couple of very bad situations. Besides, I’m a creative type and we’re supposed to be in touch with our feelings.

    But for crying out loud, you don’t do it on the world stage, handing your sworn enemies a valuable propaganda and recruiting tool that will be replayed endlessly, until long after you leave office. Can you imagine the delight among ISIS leaders watching their bête noire demonstrate that he is in fact the bicycle-helmeted, mom jeans wearing sissy they’ve long suspected him to be?

    If I were the ISIS propaganda minister, I’d have a video made showing an Obama look-alike being thrown off a building. It would have instant credibility throughout the Middle East.

    Sheesh! What a friggin’ wuss we have for commander-in-chief!

  12. NR Pax says:

    I have a feeling that it physically pained Kessler to even give Obama two Pinnochios on that statement.

  13. Pat says:

    The number of people believing these lies (internet sales, background checks not done, gun show loophole, etc) is absolutely depressing.

    Need something to cheer me up, like range time.

  14. Flagwaver says:

    Let’s take a look at the President’s Executive Orders that were signed yesterday.

    1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
    *Federal agencies weren’t required to make relevant data available to the federal background check system before? In that case, what was it considered relevant data?

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
    *So, he wants to throw out HIPAA laws. This will make people more apt to seek psychological help how?

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
    *What incentives? Why were states not sharing information with the background check system previously?

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
    *What does he consider dangerous people? It was his government that declared veterans to be dangerous people. Also, what people were slipping through the cracks? Is he directing the AG to look at Muslims who post pro-jihad materials to social media?

    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
    *So, a police officer that seizes a gun as part of a traffic stop (yes, it does legally happen), must now perform a full background check on the person who failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign? That sounds a little tedious and would mean a violation of the Fourth Amendment, since the police would have to hold the seized property of the person until the government is able to get around to the background check.

    6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
    *Seeing as how one of the requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensee holder is how to perform a background check, and the NRA offers a “cheat sheet” for quick reference, this is just something to add to the workload of a bureaucratic federal agency.

    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
    *Like the NRA already has in place and offers free of charge to schools and social clubs?

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
    *A review of something that has never posed a problem in the past. That will definitely not add more bureaucratic paperwork for sellers of gun locks and safes.

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
    *He’s ordering federal agencies to do something they normally do during standard criminal investigations?

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
    *If it’s a DOJ report, then it is already widely available to law enforcement.

    11. Nominate an ATF director.
    *That prevents gun violence how?

    12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
    *The NRA already offers these kinds of classes, but his are probably how to properly shelter in place like fish in a barrel.

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
    *Gun violence and gun crimes aren’t being prosecuted? Since when? Or, is he talking about prosecuting gun crimes in the inner cities where illegal guns abound?

    14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
    *Gun violence is a disease? Can you catch gun violence? Can you transmit gun violence? This is like calling anger a disease. Also, the CDC has already researched the cause and prevention of gun violence and issued a report on it.

    15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
    *This is the first part of the order that makes even a lick of sense. This is something I believe needs to happen, but it is also blaming the tool for the actions of the person using the tool.

    16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
    *Executive Orders cannot change laws, and the HIPAA laws are laws. Also, it doesn’t prevent people from not answering the question or lying.

    17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
    *Ethics laws actually require health care providers to report threats of violence to law enforcement. It’s a good thing that happened to stop James Holmes and Nidal Hasan before they went on their rampages. Oh, wait, it was the law enforcement authorities who just didn’t listen.

    18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
    *This is something I actually support.

    19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
    *These places already have emergency response plans. I’ve helped in reviewing them. If a place doesn’t, then it is unsafe. However, this makes it sound like the feds are being directed to make one for every place equally, because everywhere is exactly the same.

    20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
    *This is already listed in the Medicaid handbook.

    21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
    *Weren’t these already included in the 2500+ page bill?

    22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
    *You’d think that finalized regulations would have been in the bill before it was passed.

    23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
    *How is a national dialog supposed to prevent gun violence?

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Meantime, in the City by the Lake, there are 50 (count ’em) confirmed shootings since New Year’s Day.

      How’s that gun control thingy workin’ for ya, Doofus?

    • IDC SARC says:

      Just wanna say thanks for taking the time to post all that.

    • Hondo says:

      3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
      *What incentives? Why were states not sharing information with the background check system previously?

      Because as another commenter pointed out elsewhere in comments to another article, doing so is not legally mandatory – and doing so costs the states $$$$. Many if not most state governments are damn fed up with unfunded Federal mandates to do things that cost their state money and don’t come with any Federal funding for execution.

    • David says:

      Couple of small points:
      #14 – Congress stripped CDC’s funding for anti-gun research when CDC said that gun violence was a disease and could only be cured by banning guns back in the ’90s. It was felt that they were drifting too far into political theology and diverting from their original purpose of disease research and control.

      #15 – at least one state (NJ comes to mind) has already passed laws that as soon as ANY “smart gun” is available for sale, no conventional guns can be sold in the state any more. You want your next handgun to cost $10,000 and only work 75% of the time? Hell, I have fingerprint ID on my iPhone and it works pretty well – but if it was a gun and I needed it, I would not want to have to rescan. Or hope the bad guys did not have a small RF jammer. Or that my batteries had not gone dead, etc.

      The most notable thing he skirted around, just like BATFE skirts around: what defines someone who is “in the business” of selling guns, because, after all, that is when someone becomes a dealer instead of a hobbyist. Hint: no one in law wants such a definition, they say because people will push it (if the law says 20 guns in a year makes you a dealer, some folks will only sell 19.) The real reason, though – if you set a precise definition, you have to abide by it and no one in law enforcement wants a hard and fast rule which will prevent them from making a case if they want to. They want the definition to be loosey-goosey so they can play with the charges, threaten more serious prosecution, etc.Take that away and you may as well make ’em run nekkid in the streets.

      • Twist says:

        What you are referring to is a moratorium on CDC handing millions to third party researchers after funds were used to do a debunked study claiming gun owning homes were more dangerous, which completely ignored available data on proportions of gun violence in criminal homes which were 90% of the shootings in the database used. Millions of tax dollars were spent on a study that used the SAME methodology as “proving” going to the hospital kills you! The taxpayer funded study used the same methodology as the Stats 101 example of specious methodology and assumption of random data sample.
        In fact when you control for homes of felons and persons with three or more arrests, remaining gun owning homes are significantly safer than unarmed homes, just as controlling for the 4% of hospital admittees with fatal conditions who are 90% of hospital deaths inverts the claim that visiting a hospital increases chance of death — to it increasing chance of living

  15. MustangCryppie says:

    When I saw Dear Leader squirting water, this is what I immediately thought of:

  16. streetsweeper says:

    Project Gunwalker anybody?

  17. Bill M says:

    Nothing says sincerity like fake tears.

  18. Stacy0311 says:

    The only time it is appropriate for a man to cry:
    Watching Ol Yeller
    Your team wins the Super Bowl
    You receive a particularly brutal kick in the junk.

  19. nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

    As much as this pains me:

    “5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”

    -There already is a similar requirement that pawnbrokers perform a background check on you before returning the gun to you that you pawned, so it kinda makes sense that the cops do the same thing before returning a seized weapon to someone. BUT, this means that for a pawnbroker to accept a gun in a pawn transaction they need to have an FFL in order to access the NICS. How many of us know of FFL pawn shops??

    There actually is an “internet loophole”, although it’s not explained to the general public very well. Private sellers can advertise and sell guns over the internet to other private parties, the same way that one would advertise in the paper or sell a weapon face-to-face. There is no real way of knowing if the person buying the gun is legal to own it, so why is private internet gun advertising and selling different from the classifieds in the newspaper? Here’s an example of one such website:

    Typical sensationalism…

    • Twist says:

      Depends on how the determine seized. Here in Alaska if you are interacting with a LEO by law you have to inform them if you are armed. They can also hold onto your firearm for the duration of the encounter. I’ve had this happen to me once. The LEO said “nice pistol” and handed it back to me. Under this new EO would he have had to perform a background check on me before handing it back?

    • David says:

      around here, a real good chunk of the pawnshops have FFLs. Used to be in the ’90s if you had a gun in for work at a gun shop, if it stayed overnight they had to background check you before you could get it back. Have not used a gunsmith for many years so I’m not sure if that is current.

      Think you will find that you can advertise over the internet, but unless someone is picking up the gun in-state with no shipping involved, you will speedily run into background checks. Try shipping a gun to your buddy across the state sometime… unless it’s a black powder gun, about the only place you can ship to is a dealer or factory. Guess what will happen on the other end… a background check.

  20. FatCircles0311 says:

    Considering nearly 1/3 or more of the nation owns firearms, they know he lied out his ass.

    Obama is scum.

  21. Jjak says:

    Reminds me, there’s a local gun show in a couple weeks…

    Love the weasel words to try and make the clown look smart.

  22. OWB says:

    The phrase, “You know he’s lying because his mouth is moving.” used to be rather amusing. His lies are now beyond tiresome. Embarrassing, too.

    This clown is an national disgrace.

  23. Thunderstixx says:

    Watching this fuck is like forced watching reruns of “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” over and over and over….
    Truly painful, awful and as useless as tits on a bull…
    I can’t watch it, listen to it or even think about it anymore. I change the channel and watch reruns of Patton 360 on YouTube instead…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *