March 10, 2015 3:00 pm -

[su_thin_right_skyscraper_ad]We all know the black president wants to take away the white man’s guns.

A majority in both the Senate and House — 52 senators, 238 House members — have joined to oppose the Obama administration’s move to ban a popular type of ammo used in the top-selling AR-15 rifle and pistol because it pierces police body armor.

A week after the House members, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, sent a letter of opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley echoed that in his own letter signed by 51 others.

They also raised new concerns that the administration appears poised for a much wider ammo ban.

“Second Amendment rights require not only access to firearms but to bullets. If law-abiding gun owners cannot obtain rifle ammunition, or face substantial difficulty in finding ammunition available and at reasonable prices because government entities are banning such ammunition, then the Second Amendment is at risk,” said Grassley’s letter.



D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

20 responses to Republican Congress Warns Second Amendment ‘At Risk’

  1. bpollen March 10th, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    Yeah, a real Goodlatte – half crap, half Santorum..

    • wpadon March 10th, 2015 at 6:15 pm

      I thought that was a frothy mixture of sex lube and fecal matter, referring to Pa’s Santorum of course.

      • bpollen March 11th, 2015 at 1:58 am

        And that was exactly what I was referring to…

  2. Suzanne McFly March 10th, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    After six and a half years, you would think their constituency would finally catch on to their doom and gloom antics, but nope. Once again I give them credit and once again they fail.

    • frambley1 March 11th, 2015 at 2:23 am

      Ha Ha Ha Ha!! Oh wait, you are serious? the idiots that follows these idiots would pull their heads out of their arses? Not likely.

    • bahlers March 20th, 2015 at 5:50 am

      I guess this guys opinion doesn’t have any bearing on yours does it?

  3. Thomas Brown March 10th, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    Because screw the police, right? Is that what you’re saying, shitheads? It was law enforcement who wanted this ammo banned. But no, it’s important that citizens be able to kill cops, just in case… or something. Jesus H. Christ.

    • bahlers March 20th, 2015 at 5:49 am

      Just so we’re clear, any rifle ammo is capable of penetrating soft body armor worn by police.

  4. tiredoftea March 10th, 2015 at 7:09 pm

    Yes, Sen. Grassley, the 2nd is at risk, but from your rabid 2a zealots and the NRA who have combined to make it unrecognizable to any reasonable person, much less our Founders.

  5. tracey marie March 10th, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    where in the constituion does it say ammo needs to be offered at reasonable prices and that all types has to be available?

    • Roctuna March 11th, 2015 at 8:01 am

      It’s in the imaginary 2nd paragraph of the 2ndA where it guarantees Walmart a profit.

      • tracey marie March 11th, 2015 at 3:48 pm


    • bahlers March 20th, 2015 at 5:48 am

      If you can only speak your mind in a finely construed set of scenarios, do you truly have the right to freedom of speech?

      • tracey marie March 20th, 2015 at 11:39 am

        Bwahahaha, a 9 day old troll, wow you are desperate and pathetic.

  6. jasperjava March 11th, 2015 at 3:48 am

    I wish it were true that the Second Amendment was at risk. It’s a poorly-drafted mess that ought to be rewritten or repealed.

    • bahlers March 20th, 2015 at 5:46 am

      How is it poorly drafted? Just because you can’t understand it? To me it clearly grants both the states and the individuals in those states the right to arms.

      • jasperjava March 20th, 2015 at 11:49 am

        The Second Amendment has been interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again in the last two centuries. What is meant by a “well-regulated militia”? If we don’t depend on militias anymore for our security, how does that affect the right to bear arms? What do we mean by “arms”? Are individual rights limited to front-loading muskets, or can a person own ballistic missiles and thermonuclear warheads? What do we mean by a “free state”? The individual States, or the United States as a nation-state? Who are “the people”? Can we not restrict the rights of children, the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists?

        While it’s tempting to limit yourself to a simplistic reading, I think it would be good to set some limits to an absolute right to bear arms. The goal of maximizing individual security and liberty would be served by reasonable limits.

        • frambley1 March 27th, 2015 at 2:30 am

          Its pretty clear to me….

  7. fahvel March 11th, 2015 at 4:37 am

    there is a maladie in your country and it seems, if the progressive reporting is true, that the usa should pay more than lip service to. It’s an intellectual (I use the word lightly) revolution being perpetuated by some terribly mean and frightened people. Wake up folks!!!!!

  8. Warman1138 March 11th, 2015 at 4:54 am

    The logic of bigger, better, guns and bullets escapes me.