Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Disarmed and Defenseless

Politicians (most of them, anyway) want Americans to be DISARMED and DEFENSELESS. That is the basic purpose of all their damned fool anti-gun laws. They certainly don’t do anything to stop the bad guys from victimizing the law-abiding, who DO obey their short-sighted and stupid anti-gun laws. That’s because they (most of them) plan on coming one day for your possessions and they don’t want to meet a loaded gun in the hands of their intended victims. They’ve already begun that push with the RICO laws. Those laws were made, ostensibly to take away the money drug dealers can use to defend themselves when arrested. That’s a completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL reason, since even drug dealers and murderers are entitled to the best defense they can have. But the real reason is that, they will use them to disguise their banditry later on, by casting their thievery in a “law enforcement” disguise. (Breitbart)

Next: We Ban Cars

In Great Britain they never learned that banning the tools bad people use to kill other people never stops them. They had several major mass shootings. They don’t have a Second Amendment, so they banned guns. Then the bad guys started killing people with knives, so they banned knives. Then people started killing people with cars. Now the mayor of London wants to ban cars. They just don’t get it, no more than our own stupid politicians don’t get it. Banning the TOOLS bad guys use to victimize the law abiding NEVER stops them. They just use something else, or IGNORE your laws and use those tools, anyway. As usual, they paint their silly, USELESS laws as being “for freedom,” when they are NOT. They further limit the rights of the law abiding, while making it easier for those who IGNORE their laws to victimize the rest of us. Banning cars is the brainchild of London Mayor Sadiq Kahn, a Muslim. Which would be okay if he was thinking like a Brit, not a Muslim. He’s thinking like Muslims do in countries where they are in complete control. He is prima facie evidence of the reason why civilized people should NEVER elect a Muslim to a political office. Muslims tend to think and act like ants or bees, with a “hive mentality.” Whatever “the hive” dictates, they do. Which is why Muslims today, all over the world, are being treated like an “endangered species.” Which would not be a problem if they didn’t get taught in the Koran that it is okay to MURDER people who don’t convert to their “religion,” and that it is okay to murder their children if they do something to “dishonor” their family. Personally, I have nothing against Muslims, per se. I DO have something against Muslims who want to KILL us, or are always trying to change our ways and bring THEIR “values” to us, while FORCING us to accept it. If they leave me alone. I leave them alone. (Bearing Arms)

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

"Take Guns, Kill 'Em"

That’s what has happened in countless countries. They make “laws” to take the guns away from the law-abiding, making their citizens “easy targets for criminals (many of whom wear badges), then come back and make “laws” that allow the government to take money and property belonging to them. It happened in Nazi Germany, and then the Nazi government MURDERED 6 MILLION Jews, just because Hitler didn’t like Jews. “Gun confiscation holds a special place in the halls of political repression.” (Mises Wire) Then we go to the communist Soviet Union. Lenin actually called for a “citizen’s militia” when he was still working to take control, but when he got in power, it “morphed” into a powerful “militia” subservient only to “the State,”and was used to subjugate the people. “To maintain its iron grip, the Soviet Union had to turn to the most proven form of suppression — gun confiscation. On December 10, 1918, the Council of People’s Commissar mandated that Soviet citizens turn in their firearms. Failure to do so, led to criminal prosecution. Soviet gun control laws remained tight in the following decades, although the government did go out of its way to give Communist Party affiliates privileged access to firearms.” As did Hitler, in Germany. Many countries have followed this pattern, and ALL have resulted in countless deaths, at the hands of “government agents.” (Mises Institute)

Britain: "Gun Control Utopia"

Guns are effectively prohibited, even for most cops, in London, so there should be no crime, no violence, right? WRONG! Recently, in South London, in what APPEARS to be, but may not be a “gang fight,” four young teens were stabbed, one of them disemboweled, with maybe only an 8% chance of living, according to one person. Even knives are “controlled” in London, so how did these CHILDREN get their knives? The same way other criminals get their guns, of course. They IGNORE anti-gun laws (and anti-knife laws) routinely there, just like they do here. Here, those laws are unconstitutional because they are an “abridgment” on our Second amendment rights, even though the Supreme Court hasn’t yet gotten around to declaring them so. Every anti-gun law in America is unconstitutional for that reason. And they are USELESS, in that they only apply to the law-abiding, while the lawbreakers routinely ignore them. Anti-gun fools pass these laws. They don’t work. And they pass even more of them, and all they do is disarm the law-abiding, making it easier for the lawbreakers to victimize them. (Metro)

Monday, September 17, 2018

Typical Anti-Gun Lie

Anti-gun fools keep telling us that defensive uses of a gun just don’t happen. In spite of indisputable proof it DOES happen 760,000 times a year. It happened again here, as cops tried to stop an armed suspect, who put SEVEN bullets in one cop. He shot the shooter, saving that cop’s life. If you think that doesn’t happen, just ask that cop, who is still alive today, in spite of being shot SEVEN TIMES. This guy has had a “carry permit” for sixteen years, and this is the first time he has ever shot anyone. This puts the lie to another anti-gun fool claim that carry permit holders present a danger to society, since they MIGHT go on a shooting see if they’re allowed to carry a gun. Permit holders, contrary to the lies told by anti-gun fools, are NOT the problem in “gun crime.” It is the criminals, who obey NO LAWS, who are. And none of their highly touted anti-gun laws apply to them, because they obey NO LAWS. So if they want to make things better, let citizens carry their own guns, They will soon rid us of those criminals by killing them, when they try and victimize them. Reducing crime, one criminal at a time. (The Blaze)

No Crime, Take Guns

In Arizona the governor is pushing for a law that allows them to confiscate (steal) guns from legal owners if a judge “deems them” to be “dangerous,” or if they are incarcerated “on suspicion” of a crime for 21 days or have been on a “mental health incarceration” to SEE if they are mentally deficient. Conviction of a crime or a mental condition not required. Even if no such condition is found. The incarceration is sufficient. This is like the RICO laws. Under RICO, which was PASSED to deprive “rich drug barons” of the right to a proper defense by taking away their money, is now being used to “confiscate” (steal) CARS because of the most minor of crimes, suspicions only. No actual CONVICTION required for their property to be stolen by the government. The RICO laws are unconstitutional, even though they have been enforced for years without being sent to the Supreme Court for a decision. They are unconstitutional because they are DESIGNED to deprive an American citizen of his/her right to a PROPER defense against an out of control government. This law would be unconstitutional also, for the same reasons, since NO CRIME is required to deprive an American citizen of his/her Second Amendment rights, and could be enforced for DECADES before being so designated by the Supreme Court. (Cogito Ergo Geek)

Friday, September 14, 2018

Why Vote Democrat?

I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why ANYBODY of even average intelligence, would vote for a Dumocrat—ever. Dumocrats fall all over themselves to support abysmally STUPID policies, all the time. They are in favor of socialism—which is a system BASED on the THEFT of the fruits of their labors from those capable and willing to earn their own way, so they can GIVE it, UNEARNED, to those who produce NOTHING. But they still believe in it, in spite of the sure knowledge that it not only does not work, it is DESTRUCTIVE, both to the economy, and to the individual. Every city where Dumocrats run things is in trouble. Gang trouble, money trouble, “social” trouble. They make promises, but never deliver—yet gullible voters keep electing them to mess things up, even more. Look at Chicago, which is, and has been, run by Dumocrats. It is so broke it has to issue IOU’s to lottery winners. It has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the nation (some so tough they have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). Coupled with the highest rate of “gun crime” in the nation. They promote such really stupid things as gay marriage, that there are more than two sexes, and allowing MEN into women’s restrooms and changing rooms if they THINK they are a woman, that day. There’s a lot more, but I don’t have room for it, here. But voters in many areas keep electing them, while they complain about the results of their own policies while those gullible voters suffer. (Just common sense)

Incompetent Policing

Convicted felons can’t legally buy guns. Right? Then why did Marlin Mack, a convicted felon, PASS a background check so he could legally buy the gun he used to kill a “graduate student” during an attempted restaurant robbery? Cops found him at a “swanky hotel” later, and three cops were shot apprehending him. All with a gun he bought LEGALLY while being a convicted felon. Mack was killed in that gunfight, which is the best way to handle such people. One cop said, “He needs to be warehoused until he is old and decrepit. WRONG! Had he lived, he should have been given the death penalty. Some people just don’t deserve to be alive. Mack is one of them. Anti-gun fools say “background checks save lives.” Did they save these lives? Obviously not, as the dead bodies piled up attest. When even a convicted felon can pass one of their highly vaunted background checks and buy his guns LEGALLY, we’re ALL in trouble. And the ONLY real solution is to ARM the law-abiding so they can protect themselves, instead of DYING while waiting for the cops to arrive with their guns. Had there been ONE armed civilian in that crowd at the restaurant, maybe that “graduate student” would not have had to die. But anti-gun fools will NOT hear of this. They go right on making their USELESS laws that stop NOBODY from getting guns. If they can’t get them legally, they get them ILLEGALLY. (Truth About Guns)

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Political Trickery

Don’t be surprised if you see ads being run by DUMOCRATS, in which they talk about how much they love guns. That‘s how they screw with your brain and get into office. Then they go out and sponsor all the old, tired, USELESS anti-gun laws that have never worked, and never will. They’re learning that Americans value their Second Amendment rights, and they LIE to you to get into office. That’s when they revert to their “old tricks” and try their best to make the Second Amendment moot while still telling you they aren’t doing it. They think you’re too stupid to notice. One Dumocrat said in his campaign “What I think it's going to take is people in Congress who are willing to do more than just talk, who are willing to actually work together and stay late, if it requires that, and do some things that would really produce change." As usual, he says “good words” that mean nothing. He talks about Congress “doing more than just talk,” while he has no answers to offer TO Congress on the subject, besides those tired, old laws that don’t work. At the same time, one Dumocrat candidate accused his opponent of wanting to gut Social Security and Medicare, which no Republican has ever even tried, if he was intelligent. That’s one of their usual accusations, and it is also false. I hate listening to television during campaign ad season because I know most of them are lies, or a twisting of the facts. (Business Insider)

Doesn't Fit Their Narrative

In New Mexico, the son of an Islamic Imam was training CHILDREN to become school shooters and KILL children. One would expect the anti-gun fools to be all over that, but they’re not. Why is that? The answer is simple: this situation doesn’t fit their narrative. Yes, guns are involved, but this is obviously Islamic terrorism, which is a little “out of their territory.” If this fool had been successful, and one or more of his “students” had invaded a school and killed a few children, maybe they’d get interested, even though there is NO WAY those children could ever get a gun, legally. There’s another aspect to this story that is a reason the liberal news media barely covers it. The Islamic terrorism angle. The liberal media, for some stupid reason, is bound and determined to “cover up” anything Islamic terrorist, and this fits that narrative. They don’t even make much of the fact that one three-year-old child was KILLED during their “training,” after being KIDNAPPED from his home, by his FATHER, fergawdsakes! Update: A local judge released them all on a technicality.But the feds, to their credit (under Trump) re-arrested them on federal charges. (Gun Free Zone)

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Blaming Republicans

Dumocrats are tying now to blame Republican for the “gun violence” in Chicago. Never mind the unalterable fact that Chicago is, and has been, run by Dumocrats for as long as I can remember—and I can remember a long time back. The latest attempt was initiated by Dumocrat Senator Dick Durbin (that first name is very descriptive of his intelligence), who tried to blame the GOP for the gun violence in Chicago. Linking to an ABC News report about an “anti-violence activist” in Chicago who’d been fatally gunned down, Durbin tweeted, “This is heartbreaking. Chicago has lost far too many aspiring young people to senseless gun violence. When will Republicans in Congress finally decide to act?” How he makes that connection is a mystery to intelligent people, since Chicago is RUN by Dumocrats, and has been for a long time. James woods called Durbin “an embarrassment.” And he’s right. But the nimrods in Illinois keep electing him, and people like him. Meanwhile, they are still waiting for things to get better—as Dumocrats promise, but never deliver. (Conservative Tribune)

Gun Control Defies Logic

And all those anti-gun fools who make all those USELESS laws that do NOTHING to stop, or even SLOW DOWN “gun crime” have to know that. It’s not necessarily the laws that make no sense, it is the very idea that you can stop “gun crime” by making laws against it. People who want to kill people will just IGNORE your laws, or just use something else. Like the “box cutters” the Islamic terrorists used to hijack the four airplanes they used to kill 3,000 people in the World Trade Center. “Gun-free zones,” for example. Has there ever BEEN a single mass shooting that happened OUTSIDE of a gun-free zone? Criminals freely tell us they SEEK OUT such zones in which to do their “dirty work,” just BECAUSE they can be pretty sure nobody who OBEYS laws will be armed, and able to stop him from killing people—until the cops finally get there with their guns. “Background checks” don’t work because would-be killers either pass them if they haven’t yet committed a crime, or they just get their guns ILLEGALLY, or use something else in their quest to kill people. “Safe storage laws” only keep the guns people already legally own impossible to get into action quickly enough to repulse a criminal with his ILLEGAL gun, which he already has in his hand. Criminals IGNORE LAWS. That’s a given. So law-abiding people are at a disadvantage in dealing with them, and they can usually kill at will with their ILLEGALLY-owned guns. Laws do nothing to stop that, so why not look for something else to do, to accomplish that goal? The reason is simple: they don’t KNOW anything else, and they want to convince the voters they are DOING SOMETHING, even if it is USELESS. (Just common sense)

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Gun-Free Zones Are Dangerous

One of the favorite things for the anti-gun fools is to create new “gun-free zones.” The only problem is, a gun-free zone is a dangerous place to be. ALL mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones.” Potential mass killers SEEK OUT gun-free zones because they figure they can be pretty sure there will be no law-abiding citizens there who are armed, and able to resist them when they bring their guns to kill people. Yes, the cops will soon come with their guns, and shoot him. But not until AFTER he has killed a bunch of unarmed, innocent people. Potential mass shooters not only seek out gun-free zones, they AVOID shooting up places where there MIGHT be guns in the hands of their intended victims.

Anti-gun fools HAVE to know this. It is as obvious as the noses on their faces. But they ignore this FACT, and keep on insisting on creating more and more of them, in spite of these FACTS. From that, I can only figure they’re STUPID. Not ignorant. Ignorant is just not having all the facts. Stupid is KNOWING things, but doing stupid things, anyway. I keep asking them why this is, and you know what they answer? Nothing. They don’t bother. They just start calling me names. Like “gun nut.”Or “Nazi.” Or their all-time favorite, “racist.” They have no facts with which to answer, so they just stick me with one of their labels and go right on with their stupidities. (Breitbart)

Wiser Heads Prevailed

Almost. Remember that guy who got pushed to the ground by a man that he had threatened in the past, because he was hassling a woman who illegally parked in a handicapped zone? The guy who then drew his gun and killed the guy who pushed him down, as he was leaving? The local “authorities” called it a “stand your ground” situation and said they were not going to file charges against him for murder. WRONG! Under “stand your ground,” you MUST be “afraid for your life,” and this guy was NOT. The guy who pushed him down was turning to leave when shot. He was, in NO WAY posing a threat to this guy’s life. Quite he opposite, actually. The guy he pushed down had previously threatened to kill the victim, and carried out that threat, here. He SHOULD have been charged with premeditated murder. They actually charged him with manslaughter, and even THAT could be changed as time goes on. Double jeopardy does not apply until the guy has been tried, and not convicted. Charges are revised in many cases as additional facts are considered. One would hope that happens in this case, or this guy will be getting away with first degree murder. (Legal Insurrection)