Subtle "Anti-Gun Propaganda"

I've been reading some old "Li'l Abner strips on the Internet and Capp did something I wouldn't expect of him. After a series where "the Scraggs" wanted to continue an old feud and kill all remaining Yocums , causing "Mammy" and "Li'l Abner to kick the heck out of them and get them to promise to go away and never return, Abner asked Mammy if she was really going to shoot them. She replied: "Of course not. Only fools use guns. Smaht folks uses brains and sometimes a smack in the nose helps." Apparently, he doesn't realize that this statement is self-contradictory. A "smack in the nose" is just a lesser form of the violence represented by guns," and the THREAT of their use. Without this lesser violence being successful, resort to actual use of guns would be necessary to stop the violence the Scraggs were bringing to them. That is the REAL lesson to be gained from this strip. (Li'l Abner)

Wimping Out to Muhammed

"McDonald's latest bid to attract more customers -- Muslim fast-food lovers -- has caused uproar among customers. The fast-food chain has introduced halal products at two Melbourne restaurants, significantly boosting sales. However some non-Muslim customers are furious they were not told their hamburger meat was slaughtered (facing East) and blessed in accordance with Islamic rules laid down in the Koran. McDonald's consulted Muslim leaders before introducing halal products at its Brunswick East and St Albans stores." Why have they never offered food that would appeal to their Jewish customers? I have yet to see MacDonald's come out with Kosher foods, and probably won't, in my lifetime -- unless they decide to "wimp out" to both sides. Even so, my question is WHY do they think it's a good thing to "wimp out" to our enemies, rather than out friends? (News Busters)

"Vietnam Prosperous Because We Left"?

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is locked in a "fanciful" version of history. Like most elite liberals, he thinks Viet Nam is now "prosperous" because we left. Never mind all the South Vietnamese bloody bodies that were left in the wake of our leaving. He also says Bush "let" two "war heroes" be "swift-boated," (like Bush could stop it) one of them being John Kerry, who spent only about two months over there trying very hard to get a purple heart any way he could. If "swift-boated" means "told the truth about," that's true. But that's not what he means. He also denies that Iraq is a key piece of the puzzle in the war on terrorism. He even denies the very EXISTENCE of a "war on terrorism." That should tell you a lot about his intelligence -- or lack thereof. (News Busters)

Sardineville

The liberals seem bent on gathering us all together in small groups that are more easily killed by Islamic terrorists. They want to put us all in "high-density housing" that can be easily hit with a bomb and kill a maximum number of "lemmings" who don't know any better that to live so close together. They want us to sell our cars and start using mass transit. They SAY it is easy, quick, and convenient. It is NONE of these things. It is difficult, slow, and INconvenient. So why do we "buy into" their schemes? Because they jeer at us if we don't. Many people respond to that. I don't. I live in a HOUSE. I drive my own car. I haven't been on a bus or train in 20 years, and don't plan to do so soon. I do not fly unless absolutely necessary. Usually, I drive. If some get through and start blowing innocent people up in shopping centers and pizza parlors like they do in Iraq or Israel, I won't be among the victims because I'll be somewhere else. They say "there are no innocent Infidels." And they expect us to adhere to a strict "hands off" policy on Muslims. Sheesh! (Just common sense)

Gunman KIlled Robbing Store

And his girlfriend wants the storeowner who killed him "punished" for "shooting him too many times." What the hell? My thinking is simple: if you go out to violently rob someone, you shouldn't be surprised if you meet a violent end, and the person who "violently ends" you is NOT in line to be punished, under any circumstances. "Shot him too many times?" Hell, in his position I'd have "emptied my gun" into him, too. Many years ago a man tried to rob me with a knife. He made the mistake of taking his eyes off me long enough to look for the door handle (I was driving a cab) and I "brained him" with an old Radio Shack five-cell plastic flashlight. He didn't wake up for three months and never spent a minute in jail because he was, from that point on, "not right" (not that he was so intelligent before he robbed me, either). A cop asked my why I hit him so many times, and I responded, "I've never hit anybody in the head before. I was scared, and I kept hitting him until he stopped moving." I suspect the same is true of this storeowner. He kept shooting until the guy stopped moving. In any case, he was trying to stay alive himself, and shouldn't even spend a night in jail because of it. That's MY take. But liberals want to punish ANYBODY who uses a gun in self-defense, while "protecting" the criminal who forced it to happen Sheesh! Boortz's last sentence makes me wonder. If not McCain, whom? Does he think Obama will make the "gun thing" better? Sheesh, again! (Neal Boortz)

"Suicide More Probable if You Have A Gun?"

That's what the "anti-gun freaks" are trying to convince you of now. As usual, they're "blaming the gun," not the person. The illogic of this is so obvious I shouldn't even have to mention it. But they don't realize it and think you don't, either. "Anyone who acquires a firearm, we are told, is inviting a bloody death by suicide. So says Matthew Miller, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years,” he told The Washington Post." If you have any amount of intelligence, you know that if someone wants to commit suicide and DOESN'T own a gun, he/she will. He/she will find a way. But this "anti-gun frwak" doesn't think so. He thinks just the presence of a gun in your house makes you WANT to commit suicide. This crap falls into the category of "you're more likely to shoot YOURSELF than a criminal if you have a gun." It completely disallows competence in handling a gun on the part of the innocent citizen, while imputing that competence into a criminal. I've owned guns, and have never even CONSIDERED suicide. (Atlasphere)

"Shoot Down" Gun Control

It's interesting to note that the politicians who make these "gun control" laws that DISARM honest people and do nothing to disarm criminals, who never have any problems getting their guns either go around armed themselves ("gotta protect ourselves, don'tcha know?") or are surrounded by gun-toting bodyguards who are paid by whom? You and I, that's whom! Others get their politician "friends" to have them "deputized" so they can "carry (They do no law enforcement, it's just a scam so they can "carry.")." But if you and I are caught "carrying," guess what happens? They put us in jail and make felons out of us, so they can forever deny us the right to carry guns for self-defense. What's wrong with this picture? It's time we made politicians aware that we will no longer stand for their "reasonable" rules that keep us disarmed while they have their ways of "getting around the law" and being legally armed. (Common Sense)

Clerk "Beats Up" Robber

I just saw a video on Fox News (yesterday) where a robber came in to rob a place, starting off by hitting the clerk in the mouth. Many criminals rely on intimidation, and many have no weapons at all. This guy picked the wrong clerk to attack because the clerk "put him down" in short order. He didn't use any kind of a weapon but his fists, just proving arrogant criminals aren't always "the big guys" when they try and rob people. This should be a message for criminals. If you don't go out to rob people, you won't run into people like this guy. (Just common sense)

Open "Packing"

Did you know that in most states you can carry a gun without any kind of a license as long as it is openly carried? Although you will be accosted by police officers who will try and intimidate you, and irrational citizens who are just "afraid of guns," if you stand your ground and carry a copy of the law that allows it, there's nothing they can do. Private property owners, however, have the right, however irrational, to ban guns on their property (such as "Blockbuster." Who does.). The Los Angeles Time had a story about it recently. Below is my answer: " I think there are way too many people out there who are irrational about guns. It is not "guns" that hurt people; it is the people who USE them wrongly that hurt people. I have a blog called, "The Unarmed Citizen" on Blogspot to talk about such things and discuss other means of self defense WITHOUT the guns our government will not allow us to have and use for self-defense. Their idea is that self-defense is best accomplished by DISarming ourselves and allowing the illegally armed criminals to have a steady stream of unarmed victims." One question "anti-gun zealots" will not (cannot) answer is this: Do "anti-gun laws" reduce violent crime where they exist?" The answer is no. But they'll never admit it, so they just call me names (such as "gun-lover") to avoid answering it. Do "looser" gun laws reduce violent crime? Yes. But that's another one they will not, cannot answer. I was even accosted once by a cop who suggested that the metal flashlight in my pocket could be considered a weapon. I laughed and said, "Sure, if I ever use it to attack someone. We can discuss it then. He laughed and turned away. Fortunately, he wasn't serious and I remained friendly. (Los Angeles Times)

Control CRIMINALS, Not Guns!

Professor Walher E. Williams asks an intelligent question: "The people who murdered Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski were violent convicts released on parole. So what is responsible for his death: guns, or a criminal justice system that cuts soft deals for such criminals?" Unfortunately, this is not a question people who "hate guns" will ever ponder. They think if they can "get guns out of existence (a "fantasy dream"), violence will disappear. It won't. It existed long before guns were invented, and people would STILL find ways to kill each other if guns simply "disappeared" (which isn't going to happen, and is a little like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube) I have another question I always ask "anti-gun nuts," but which they never seem to be able to answer. They just start "calling me names" without attempting to answer it. It is, "Why would a CRIMINAL, whose entire life is dedicated to breaking the law, OBEY a law that says he can't be armed while committing other crimes?" I asked that question a few years ago of Andrew Hudson, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb's "press flack," and instead of even attempting to answer it, he accused me of "sending spam." Apparently, he can't tell the difference between spam and a personal e-mail. Another irrational thing "anti-gun nuts" do is create "no-gun-zones," such as Virginia Tech (where a crazy man killed 23 people with a gun that was "illegal" on campus) and other schools such as Columbine, where an armed man killed 13 people. Then there's the restaurant in Texas where a woman who had a license to carry had to disarm herself before entering and had to watch while a crazy gunman killed a bunch of people, including her parents, who were eating with her. What kind of stupid people ARE these "anti-gun zealots?" Guns are not what should be banned. Judges who "slap violent criminals on the hand" are what should be banned. (Walter E. Williams)

A Metal Flashlight

I used to carry a metal flashlight called "The Mag-Lite"® as part of my equipment back when I was a security officer. It served as an excellent flashlight to help me see in places where the light was low. But also, it served as an excellent "nightstick" if needed. One night as I "walked my post," I encountered a man trying to break into my building. He immediately attacked me, no doubt being of the "oft-repeated" criminal opinion that "rent-a-cops ain't nothin'." But he found out different as I drove the back end of the Mag Light into his throat. He immediately went down, out cold, trying hard to breathe, as I had crushed his larynx. I "cuffed him" and called the police, who came and took him away. Anybody could have done that, and Mag Lights are not illegal to carry (I DID take a course once in "nightstick management," which came in handy this time, as this makes an excellent "nightstick"). I once encountered a policeman in a convenience store in civilian clothes while carrying a 2-cell in my back pocket. He said, "You know, that flashlight could be considered a weapon." I grinned at him and said, "But it's not, unless I use it as an attack weapon. If I ever do, we can discuss it then." He laughed and turned away. My favorite of their line is the 2-cell. It's plenty big enough and CAN be carried in the back pocket. It is NOT a "deadly weapon" unless used to ATTACK someone. If used in self defense, it is not. The smaller ones can be used if you have some knowledge of unarmed self defense. Think about it. (Mag LIte®)