New Gun Control Scam

Call every gun an “assault weapon.” There is already a law against “assault weapons,” that they successfully passed by saying, “What does an individual need with an assault weapon?” I even fell for that one. Now they have their foot in the door, they’re calling every gun they find an “assault weapon” so they can apply this law. This is how they con the world. (Learn About Guns)

Stopping Mass Shootings

Laws prohibiting guns will not do it. Those wishing to commit mass murder do not obey laws that say they “can’t come in here armed.” This article gives a long list of schools where shooters have come in armed, where guns are specifically prohibited, and killed people. These killers could be pretty sure nobody there would be armed and able to kill HIM. “Guns were specifically not allowed on the premises by official policy or by law. Some locations have specific legal prohibitions, while others rely only on ‘company policy.’ Murderers will ignore signs telling them that something is prohibited. Clearly, if the state prohibits guns on campus, the good people will obey and leave their guns at home. But quite clearly, these signs did not dissuade the killers. Think about it. The only people obeying the law and the signs were the good people...the victims.” We need to allow RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE in these schools to be able to carry a gun (if they wish) so such shooters will not know whether or not there will be someone there who is armed and able to stop him as there was in Colorado Springs, Colorado when a shooter who had already killed that day came in shooting. A female parishioner shot him (and, knowing it was ‘all over,” he killed himself) and only two people there (other than the perp) died. (Examiner)

What the "Anti-Gun Freaks" Won't Tell You

“According to the FBI, states with ‘shall-issue’ right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.” Do they REALLY think the way to self-defense is to DISarm yourself? How STUPID is that? They tell you that when a lot of innocent citizens are armed, we will have a “wild west atmosphere” where people solve all their problems with guns. That’s a patent insult that assumes the average person has NO CONTROL over their actions and access to guns will cause more deaths and violence. That’s a LOAD. In Florida, where they DO have “must issue” laws for concealed carry permits, violent crime of ALL kinds has PREDICTABLY gone down significantly; while violence where gun laws are tight, it has gone UP significantly. This is not spoken of in the liberal media because they don’t want you to know it. (Just common sense)

"Taser Death"

Twice in recent days people have been shocked and have died. The “quick” judgment is that the shock killed him. That is impossible. Stun guns cannot kill. There isn’t enough AMPERAGE to do so. I’d bet that when the autopsy results are in, it will be discovered that both these people had underlying medical problems that killed them, not the stun gun. Of course, family members will not accept this, as the stun gun is a “convenient target.” They’ll say the medical examiner is “part of the system” and ruled to “save” the cop who stunned him. MEs don’t operate that way. They find what’s there and report it. Maybe that has happened in the past, but it’s not “common.” Medical Examiners are THERE as an “oversight” to the cops, and anybody else who might kill someone, accidentally or on purpose. In one case, the man fell to his death AFTER being stunned, but the press STILL called his death as CAUSED by being “tazed.”

I’ll wait until I find out just what killed this man before I blame the stun gun the cop used. (Update: now it has come to light [thanks to Fox News] that he was on a ledge, high above the street when he was shocked, and FELL to his death. He died of “head trauma” caused by his fall. A police lieutenant and the cop who shocked him at a very bad time have been relieved of duty. It was NOT the stun gun that killed him, news reports notwithstanding). Nonetheless, news reports still say this “has brought renewed focus to the use of Tasers by police.” Maybe they ought to teach them not to use them on people precariously perched on ledges, way above the street. One thing is sure: shooting him would not have been better. (Fox News)

Going Off Half-Cocked

At Princeton University recently, they shut down the campus, sent out e-mail mass messages, and wasted hours of the cop’s time conducting a search, all because somebody saw someone with a toy plastic gun. I expect soon to hear that “authorities” are demanding even tighter anti-gun laws in response to this. I guess they will figure if a TOY gun can trigger such a response, they ought to ban it, too. This is how the “anti-gun freaks” “gin up” reasons to make new laws against gun ownership and concealed carry. They figure if ANYBODY has a gun in his possession, he’s going to kill somebody. They don’t know ANYTHING about personal responsibility and self-control because they don’t have it. Turns out it was a couple of kids (They made sure everyone knew were from "off-campus" and had no connection to the university) playing "cops and robbers." (Just common sense)

"Gun Control" IS A Crime!

It gets people killed. If just ONE person in the path of the “Alabama Killer” had been armed and had the will and training to use his/her gun, Michael McClendon would not have been able to kill as many people in his rampage before he was shot to death. It makes no difference whatever whether or not the gun or guns he was using were legally obtained and legally carried, or were bought out of the trunk of an illegal gun seller in an alley somewhere. Someone bent on killing others doesn’t worry about the “legality” of the guns he has. What makes ANYBODY think a law against carrying or owning a gun will stop, or even slow down a criminal whose life is spent breaking the law, is beyond me. All such laws do is give such people a ready supply of “easy targets.” Even people who are directly threatened have trouble getting guns. I remember two stories of women who, threatened by their spouses, went in two different directions; one applied for a gun permit and was told to wait fifteen days to get it. She was shot to death by her boyfriend the next day. The other woman wasn’t so stupid. She bought an illegal gun and, when her ex-husband tried to kill her, she shot him to death. They tried to charge her with carrying a gun illegally, but the jury wasn’t stupid, either. There was no question about self-defense. In Israel, EVERYBODY carries a gun and my favorite “mind-picture” is of an old Jewish lady standing over a Palestinian terrorist, pumping bullets into his dead body. We need such gun laws” here so more of us can stay alive when crazies start shooting up the landscape. (Yahoo News/AP)

It's Patently Illogical!

Disarming yourself as a means to self defense is NOT LOGICAL. But that’s the policy the “anti-gun freaks” have (at least, until they get shot). Carry that into foreign policy, and you have this: “The outgoing director of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog warns major powers such as the U.S. to unilaterally disarm or be blamed for the doubling of nuclear weapons states in a few years.” Does he really think the irrational leaders of such currently nuclear-armed countries will just “back off” if we disarm ourselves? What the hell is he THINKING? They will attack us IMMEDIATELY, as soon as they know for sure we have no defenses. How can people who pretend to be so smart be so STUPID? (IBD Editorials)

"Irrational?"

"Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation's ‘gun show loophole.’ ‘There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it's still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington’ Sen. Lautenberg said, ignoring the Constitution.” What’s irrational about logic? Logically, what makes them think criminals, whose very life is dedicated to breaking the law (and crazy mass murderers) will OBEY a law that says they can’t be armed? No; we’re not “irrational,” these congresspeople are irrational to think that ANY law will stop people with evil intentions from getting their guns out of someone’s trunk in an alley somewhere. Experience has shown that where the gun laws are the tightest, illicit guns are the most easy to obtain. (Just common sense and logic)