Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Coverage might be spotty late this week because I have scheduled cataract surgery Thursday, and I don't know if I will be able to update this blog that day, or the next. But I'll be back up to speed as soon as I can, until Thursday the next week when the second cataract surgery is scheduled. I might be a little more sure of what I can do for that one. Stand by.
Kelly Clarkson is the latest clueless celebrity to call for "action on guns." WHAT action, pray tell, Kelly? There has been plenty of "action on guns" in the past. There is always calls for more after every mass shooting, in a school, or somewhere else. But if you ask such people WHAT action, they can't tell you. They assume you'll find SOMETHING that will stop gun violence, but they have no idea what that would be, They just expect others to come up with something. Nobody has yet come up with anything that works, and nobody's likely to do so any time in the future. But fools like Kelly keep demanding it, without having a clue what it would be. That's the problem. They have no idea what would work, but they insist that somebody else come up with something. It's an impossible assignment. Meanwhile, they will not even CONSIDER the one idea that might have an effect on gun violence, allowing people to own and carry their own guns for self defense. They think to do so would be to create a "wild West atmosphere" where people would be shooting each other over trifles. Never mind that holders of ILLEGAL guns are doing just that, right now. Just look at any large city, such as Chicago, that has a major gang shooting problem in spite of all their tight gun laws. Gangs shoot people *with their illegal guns) who stem on "their turf" without permission. Nothing could be more trivial than that. (Breitbart)
It amazes me how many politicians base their campaigns on their IGNORANCE of reality. In this specific instance I'm talking about gun control. Gun control doesn't work. It has NEVER worked, and won't ever work in the future. Yet they base their very CAMPAIGNS on something they have to know doesn't work, and is unconstitutional, and they still get elected. This in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans are unalterably OPPOSED to gun control, which in unconstitutional, and makes it easier for lawbreakers to victimize the law-abiding, who are the only people who OBEY their laws. "Gun-free zones," for example, are places where you are not supposed to bring a gun, and law-abiding people leave their guns at home, even if they have "carry" licenses. Then when a lawbreaker, who obeys NO laws, TARGETS that zone BECAUSE there are most likely to be no guns there, and kills them. There is not a single place a mass shooting has occurred that is NOT in a "gun-free zone." Gun-free zones get people KILLED. Yet these ignorant politicians keep creating them, law-abiding people obey them, and get killed. So the anti-gun fools DEMAND more of them, and those ignorant politicians give them more, and more people DIE. Criminals in prison freely tell us they LIKE "gun-free zones" for the very REASON they are "gun-free." This is just ONE of their silly, stupid, USELESS laws that don't work, and get people killed by lawbreakers, who routinely IGNORE them. (Just common sense)
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Crazy Bernie Sanders is "disgusted with the inaction on gun control." The Houston, Texas police chief is similarly frustrated. Many other anti-gun fool dupes are saying the same. But that raises the question: "What new law would work to curb gun violence?" "Gun-free zones?" Criminals and other would-be shooters SEEK OUT gun-free zones, because they know most law-abiding people will not bring their guns there, while the not-so law-abiding CAN, and will. They will have "free rein" to kill and rob at will because there will be no meaningful opposition, there. Limits on concealed carry? Same. The law-abiding will obey those laws, and the lawbreakers will not. How about background checks? Law-abiding people will submit to them, and lawbreakers will not. Do you see a pattern, here? The law-abiding will OBEY those laws, making them "easy targets" for lawbreakers, who don't obey ANY laws, so why should they obey these? The easy solution here is to allow the law-abiding to be armed, for self defense. But the anti-gun fools will not hear of it. They think if the law-abiding have guns, they will "go wild" and shoot up the landscape, ignoring the fact that all the lawbreakers who have guns rarely do. So what "action" can they take that would DO anything to "stem gun violence?" If you ask them what laws now in effect have been successful at it, they either lie or, when they figure out they can't answer the question, begin calling you names, like "gun lover," "NRA member" (as an insult), or anything else they can think of to mask the fact that they can't answer. Then they go right on making USELESS laws. (Just common sense)
The anti-gun fools say it doesn't happen. But FBI figures expose the LIE. Recent FBI figures released show cases where EIGHT "active shooters" were thwarted by "good guys with or without guns." Cops can't be everywhere. It takes them, at best, MINUTES to arrive at the location of an "active shooter" report. In those minutes, a shooter can kill many innocent people. In one recent case, it took them 45 minutes to get there. Realists within the ranks will tell you that an armed populace is good, although the police politicians in the higher ranks, many of whom have either never been "in the ranks" or have forgotten what it was like, may tell you otherwise. But the unalterable fact is that a person ALREADY on site with a gun, and the training and willingness to use it, CAN, and DO stop "active shooters," no matter what police politicians and other anti-gun fools tell us. Anti-gun fools confidently assure us that the cops CAN protect is, but that's a LIE. All they can usually do is document the "crime scene," get rid of the body or bodies, and MAYBE someday find the killer. Unfortunately, the number of unsolved murder cases on the books is large. Too large. Which shows that they CAN'T protect us, and realists in the ranks will be the first to tell you that. (Bearing Arms)
Monday, May 21, 2018
Dumocrat Senator Mark Warner says, "no law would have stopped the Texas killings," but he's "got the answer." Then he goes on to spout all the usual anti-gun fool measures that have proven NOT to do ANYTHING to stop, or even slow down "gun crime." Fools like this come out of the woodwork (to score some TV time) every time some fool shoots up a school or some other "gun-free zone," sometimes with a gun they bought legally (because they had not yet committed a crime), but more often with a gun they obtained in violation of one or more laws. Thus proving that when they contemplate committing mass murder, they just are not concerned with a piddling little law that says they must do their heinous crime with something other than a gun. This happens many times; every time some fool takes a notion to kill a bunch of students or some other people. Politicians come out of the woodwork demanding their "camera time" on TV while spouting the same drivel that has never been successful in stopping "gun crime." Other politicians DEMAND more of the same laws that have been PROVEN ineffective. Do they just take stupid pills, or what? (Allen West)
The United Nations is run by dictators from all over the world. They just don't understand a country that allows its citizens to be armed for self defense, even against its own government. None of them have such a thing, so their first answer to "the gun problem" is to take guns away from the law-abiding. That this makes it even easier for the lawbreakers to victimize the law-abiding doesn't enter into their thinking. They confidently tall us how effective are laws that keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, completely ignoring figures that prove that to be a LIE. They have to be aware of the fact that NONE of those laws have ever done ANYTHING to stop, or even slow down "gun violence." They just go about making even more of such laws while the law-abiding die from the wounds inflicted by those who routinely IGNORE all their laws. What is their purpose? That's easy. They want to be able to come to your home at some later date and "confiscate" (steal) your property, and they don't want to meet a gun in your hands when they do. The fools running the UN think we can just "make another law" to further disarm our people so our government (and the UN later, they think) can bully us into submission, as they have in other countries. (UN News)
Friday, May 18, 2018
What is going ON? Why is it that, since the school shooting in Denver that killed 13 people, most of them students, there have been so many shootings in schools, all of a sudden, since then? Why does it seem that kids who were "bullied" suddenly become KILLERS? I was bullied when I was in grade school. there was one guy who kept after me all the time, and a gang of other kids who were after me all the time too, and I didn't get a gun and go into my school and start killing people. I ended my bullying by taking my dad's advice and STARTING a fight with my principle bully, and showing him I would no longer be an "easy mark," win or lose.
That, apparently also convinced that gang to stay away from me, too. So there are other solutions to the "bullying" problem, and one is to fight back, win or lose, convincing the bully that, even if he wins, it will not be without a cost to him. That bully went home with blood coming out of his ear. One solution to school shootings is to get rid of the "no-gun zone" in all schools. A "no-gun zone" ANYWHERE is an "engraved invitation" to disturbed people to "come in and shoot us." Every mass shooting I know of was done in a "no-gun zone." Shooters SEEK OUT such places in which to do their dirty work.
Criminals LOVE them because they KNOW the law-abiding most likely won't be armed, and able to defend themselves. No-gun zones are the biggest culprit in mass shootings, everywhere. But not the only one. It's not the fault of the guns, NOR the ease of getting them," that anti-gun fools insist. They will be easy to get ILLEGALLY in all places where they are BANNED--as has been PROVEN by a study checking the murder rates in places where guns ARE banned, where they uniformly RISE. Proving conclusively that banning guns does NOT work. Anti-gun fools dispute that, but they cannot answer it truthfully, so they LIE to promote their wish to disarm ALL Americans for their own purposes.
They HAVE to know their laws have never stopped a single shooting, but they persist. Which means to me they have an ulterior motive that does not include logic. We need to find out what there is in the MINDS of potential shooters so we can do something about THAT. Making guns illegal to own is STUPID. It just doesn't work. It's counter productive. It gets people KILLED. But that's always their FIRST "knee-jerk" reaction for the anti-gun fools. (New York Times)
That's Australia, after a major gun killing incident, they passed laws that effectively BANNED guns in Australia. Soon thereafter, crime (including gun crime) rose 300%. But they didn't talk about that, and even denied it when we brought it up. Now we have a major shooting in Western Australia, resulting in the deaths of FOUR children and three adults. Which raises the question: "How did the shooter get his gun or guns in a country with such STIFF anti-gun laws? Not a word about how the killer got his guns, except hearing gunshots is not unusual in this area, when people shoot kangaroos. The killer looks to be the husband and father of this family, and he is among the dead. It appears that their big anti-gun laws don't affect gun ownership in rural areas like this, since they have the means to shoot kangaroos. Apparently, they can't ban guns entirely, because there are areas where they are needed, and are a simple tool they use regularly. It seems like it is only in the cities that their citizens are denied the right to self defense. (News)
Thursday, May 17, 2018
No, it's STUPIDITY. They have to know banning or limiting access to guns is a USELESS endeavor, but they insist on making their USELESS laws for criminals and other miscreants to IGNORE. In places where guns are banned, murder rates RISE. That's a fact. Not just somebody's opinion, but proven by examining the murder rates in places where guns are banned. It's undeniable, but anti-gun fools still deny it. Almost ALL "mass shootings" happen in their highly-touted "gun-free zones." Criminals and potential mass shooters SEEK OUT such places because they know law-abiding people there will usually not be armed, and able to defend themselves, so they can kill them at will. Law-abiding people usually are not the ones who carry out gun crime. It is LAWBREAKERS who do. And none of their laws can keep lawbreakers from doing their dirty work. Stories about gun assaults in the parking lots of "big box stores," almost ALL of which are "gun-free zones" are rife. I watch my surroundings very carefully when I go to Target to get a prescription filled. Putting down the anti-gun fools is simple. Just ask them how many of their silly laws have ever stopped a single gun crime. They will quickly start calling you names, because they have no other arguments. (Just common sense)
In the old days, businesses, mostly in the South, refused to do business with black people, and they were supported by law. That is gone. It is now UNLAWFUL to discriminate against black people. The new discrimination is against gun makers and sellers, and gun owners. Banks are unilaterally closing the accounts of ANYBODY engaged in the gun business, or even OWNING a gun. Housing developers are banning gun owners from their projects. Restaurants are demanding armed police on duty leave their guns in their cars on entering to eat. Never mind discrimination is ILLEGAL, they do it, anyway, because they know (as did the old discriminators against black people) they will not be punished for it. They're trying to do with financial discrimination what they couldn't do by law. The Second Amendment stops them at every turn (eventually, after the damage has been done) so they go after them on financial terms. It's ILLEGAL, but liberals OWN the legal system (so far), and they know they will most likely not be punished for it. (Santa Ynez Valley Star)
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
That's a given, according to a recent study by the Crime Prevention Resource Center. Of course, the anti-gun fools will say, "So what? The study was done by a conservative source, so it doesn't count." To which I reply, "Who else would conduct such a study and not bury it with those results?" Every "study" that says otherwise is subject to the same criticism, with the anti-gun fools being the ones being RIGHTLY criticized. They put out phony studies all the time. Studies with questions calculated to get the numbers they want, taken in liberal "strongholds" where they can count on the answers they want. This study went to places where guns were banned, and uniformly their murder rates went up after they banned them. In the Solomon Islands, they ONLY had shootings begin AFTER banning guns. Surprise, surprise! ONLY after banning guns! Imagine that? That certainly puts the LIE to what the anti-gun fools want us to think, doesn't it? But will that stop them in their tracks? Not a chance. They will ignore it and go right on with their quest to make as many Americans as possible "sitting ducks" for lawbreakers, who ignore their silly laws and just get their guns illegally. The more guns we ban, the more criminals go into the illegal gun business, selling guns to other criminals. That's a given. (Conservative Tribune)
In New York, they want to stop pro-gun folks from even having MEETINGS to discuss the useless "gun rights controversy." By so doing, they hope to cripple our defenses to their silly laws by taking away our right to even have MEETINGS about it. Of course, to do so is a violation of the Constitution, but liberals just IGNORE that "august document" when it limits their dictatorial powers over the rest of us. Any law such as this will ultimately (hopefully) be declared unconstitutional, but not until it has been enforced for a time, and the damage has been done. New York State is the place where stupid liberals gather, and they really think they can make such laws without consequences. If the "Founders" had made the making, or even PROPOSING of such laws a punishable offense, such stupid politicians would not be able to make such stupid laws in the first place. It pains me to think there are even enough stupid liberals in existence to populate states like New York, and extend their stupidities to the Congress in the senators and representatives they send there. (Reason Magazine)
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
The Dallas News did a story recently, in which they point out that the NRA convention cost the city $575,000, while IGNORING the $24 million dollars the convention brought to the city. The city spent that $575,000 for cop overtime, traffic control, security, and other various expenses while merchants in Dallas piled up $24 million bucks. But did the Dallas News bother to report that? Yes, in the very LAST paragraph, while playing it down. This is how the liberal news media usually twists things to put the NRA in the worst light possible to promote their alliance with the anti-gun fools. That's how they support their drive to make all law-abiding Americans DEFENSELESS against the ILLEGAL guns in the hands of the lawbreakers, who IGNORE their laws and get their guns illegally, like everything else they steal. Criminals willingly admit that they LOVE the anti-gun laws because they take guns away from their intended victims, the law-abiding, who DO obey them. Why the anti-gun fools never "tumble" to this simple fact is a mystery, unless you realize they just don't care. They just want to disarm as many Americans as they can, for their own nefarious purposes. (Dallas News)
There have been many stories in the "alternative media" about the number of KNIFE deaths in the UK since they made such a big thing about almost completely BANNING guns there, and knife injuries took over, predictably. They say the stories are "absurd and offensive" to the families of knife victims. They say the families of children killed in knife attacks are offended by Trump's remarks at the NRA meeting. They hate his claiming that the right to bear arms could make a difference in "battling gang violence." Never mind what he said it absolutely true. Their outrage comes from the sure knowledge that they are WRONG, and he's right. They hated his reference to "blood all over the floors of emergency rooms," which may have been a reference to the remarks by Martin Griffiths, a surgeon at the Royal London Hospital, who likened an emergency ward there to an Afghan war zone due to the number of victims of knife attacks." Their outrage stems from the fact that they KNOW they're wrong, and hate to admit it. They SAY they've made "amazing progress" in their efforts to stop gang crime, but I seriously doubt their figures. They say that more guns is NOT the answer, and in that, they're wrong. Guns in the hands of the law-abiding MIGHT cause a temporary increase in gun violence, as honest people kill off the thugs with their ILLEGAL guns, but it will ultimately be the answer. Their problem is, they just don't TRUST the law-abiding to abide by the law, if they have guns in their hands. (Telegraph)