Friday, February 16, 2018
People are noting that, back in the fifties we didn't have news of mass shootings and major gun crimes every day like we do now. They ask, "Why not then?" What, they ask, did we do differently back then that we don't do now. They ask the question, but they don't want to hear the answer. The answer is, we didn't have the ubiquitous anti-gun laws we have now. The law-abiding weren't as defenseless. You could buy a gun anywhere, in "big box stores," small "Mom and Pop hardware stores, and even in some corner drug stores (where they sold almost everything), by unfettered mail order. They didn't have people trying to ERASE the very KNOWLEDGE of the existence of guns from everybody's memory. 200 years ago there were not ANY "school shootings" of students and teachers because the kids brought their guns to school WITH them, in case they saw a squirrel they could shoot to add to the dinner table on the way to or from school. Anybody who came in wanting to shoot up the place would soon resemble "Swiss cheese."
What we've done is take as many guns as we could AWAY from the law abiding, leaving the field open to those who IGNORE all those silly, stupid, "gun laws." And crime has predictably grown, right along with the tightening gun laws. The key to reducing mass shootings and other "gun crime" is to give their guns back to the law-abiding and let them start killing those who obey NO laws. let alone laws that say they can't use a gun in doing their crimes. But they don't want to hear that. They cringe in horror at the very mention of letting the law abiding be armed for self defense. They continue to make their silly anti-gun laws that CREATE opportunities for the bad guys. Go to ANY liberal-run city with tight gun laws, and they will predictably have high "gun crime" stats. That's a given. But liberals will not recognize it, and the carnage continues. The article linked here was written a few years ago, but it makes some pertinent points that are still relevant, today. (National Review)
Hillary and her henchmen are now claiming that, "If not for the NRA, Hillary would now be president. "Let’s face the facts. Without the NRA Hillary would be President and Schumer would be the leading the Senate. The Supreme Court would be backed with young gun grabbing justices. The record number of judges DJ Trump has had appointed would be all to the left of center (WAY to the left). Imagine the 9th Circuit Court being the norm for the country as a whole.") Not only that, that mad woman, Nancy Preelosi would again be the Majority Leader in the House, and, between her and Chuckie, they would be able to forever block ALL legislation Trump suggests. Soon we would be a socialist country, with the government STEALING a large part of the fruits of the production of new wealth produced by those willing and able to PRODUCE new wealth. And forget about your constitutional right to be armed for self defense. Dumocrats have tried everything in their power during the last 8 years to disarm law-abiding America, and with Hillary in the White House, they would no doubt be able to "git 'er done." Of course, there's no proof that the NRA had ANYTHING to do with her loss, except to contribute money to conservative candidates and run a few ads, which they have the right to do. Just as there's no proof for her other imaginary plot, the "Russian connection." But that has never stopped the Dumocrats from promoting a lie before. (AmmoLand)
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Immediately after (or maybe during) the school shooting in Broward County, Florida, the anti-gun fools came out of the woodwork demanding more and more gun control--as if that would do ANYTHING to stop such people from doing their dirty work. Gabby Giffords and Diane Feinstein, both well-known anti-gun fools, were among them, touting completely unrelated anti-gun laws that would have done NOTHING to stop such atrocities. Giffords speaks confidently about "peace and safety," as if her misguided laws would have done ANYTHING to have stopped this killer. Broward CountySchools specifically ban ALL weapons that could be used to defend their students against such shooters, including stun guns, which are not normally a deadly weapon. But did their "rules" do ANYTHING to stop this atrocity from happening? Predictably, NO. But does that stop them from making those rules? NO. They apparently don't have the INTELLIGENCE to figure that out for themselves, and they won't listen to "wiser heads." They never answer the questions I ask, and continue to make these USELESS laws, patting themselves on the back, while killers still get their guns, easily. (Breitbart)
The anti-gun fools describe all their efforts to disarm Americans as "sensible," but they are ANYTHING BUT sensible. They don't work worth a damn. But they keep imposing new, ineffective, and sometimes unenforceable laws and regulations, while "gun crime" continues, and INCREASES. They're all unconstitutional because they are all INFRINGEMENTS on our right to be armed for self defense. Their laws and regulations only cause gun violence to succeed, because they DISARM the very VICTIMS of gun crime, which is usually accomplished by use of guns that are ILLEGALLY owned. No amount of "background checks" will work, because they're only applied to LEGAL gun buyers, not the CRIMINALS, who get their guns illegally, or just STEAL them. Disarming their potential victims only makes it easier for those criminals to victimize them, at will. The new "bumpstock bans" that are "in fashion" now by anti-gun fools are just as ineffective in stopping gun violence, because those who want to use them WILL get them, illegally. You cannot defend yourself by DISARMING yourself. That's something the anti-gun fools have never learned, and never WILL learn, in their ignorance. (Bearing Arms)
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Every time a mass shooting occurs, MINUTES later the anti-gun fools are blaming the guns, and demanding more and more of their USELESS gun laws to be made. Laws that do NOTHING to put an end to these things. Today I'm watching news coverage of the Broward County, Florida school shooting, in which supposedly (we don't know yet at this writing, since I'm writing this while events arre still unfolding) large numbers of people have been killed or injured when a "troubled" former student came in and started shooting at everybody in sight. One local politician was heard to whine about a recent bill to stop TERRORISTS from being able to buy guns being voted down, as if that was something that would have stopped this former student from shooting up that school.
Of course, he ignores the fact that terrorists don't obey ANY laws, so what good would this law do even if the shooter was a terrorist, instead of a "troubled ex-student?" Of course, they're going to blame the guns. They're making a "big thing" about this kid being "obsessed with guns," as if that had anything to do with it. It is obvious that he is mentally disturbed, and was KNOWN to be. One student even said so on live TV. If he was that well known to be a troublemaker, why wasn't somebody doing something about it? The anti-gun fools always look in the wrong direction whenever something like this happens, and insist that their actions are doing something to reduce gun violence, which they are NOT. Maybe one day they will "wise up" and look in the RIGHT direction and actually get something done. But I don't look for it to happen soon, since these people just aren't too bright. (Fox News)
Before Columbine, we didn't hear much about mass shootings, let alone school shootings. But now we almost hear about such things on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. Why is that? What has happened in our society that has caused the proliferation of such things happening? Anti-gun fools will say it is the "availability of guns," but that's patently WRONG. It's not guns. It is the MINDSET of a human being that causes him to go into a school and kill a bunch of CHILDREN. In Las Vegas recently, it wasn't even school students. The shooter there was a rich man, and he opened up on a concert with multiple guns, and might have even had help. We don't know much about that, because LV "authorities" seem to be covering it up, for some reason, even to the medical examiner releasing a phony autopsy report on the shooter, after refusing to release it at all, previously, even defying a court order. But what changed in our society after Columbine? What drives unstable people to murder innocent CHILDREN? They need to find out the answer to that question, or we're going to have a lot more such shootings, in schools, and elsewhere. It's not legal access to guns. They are becoming less and less easy to buy every day, while easy access to ILLEGAL guns is still rife--which we will never change by making new laws. But they need to find the MENTAL key to the THINKING that leads them to commit such atrocities. (Just common sense)
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
60 Minutes recently ran a 20 minute segment on national reciprocity that was patently an anti-gun propaganda piece, and soon were handed their heads by people a little smarter than they are. One of the more obvious drawbacks is the identity of the person who was asked to comment on the Second Amendment. It was a staffer for "MOMS Against Guns (or something like that)." Could they be more obvious? She told them that the Second only covered owning guns AT HOME, and didn't mean being able to carry guns on your person OUTSIDE the home. WRONG! The Second says we have the unalienable right to be armed for SELF DEFENSE. It says NOTHING about WHERE we can be armed for self defense. And do they think the need for self defense is diminished OUTSIDE the home? One wag said that, where he worked, if everybody carried a loaded gun it would be only a couple of months before somebody got shot. A thought that shows a depth of IGNORANCE that is an abomination. If the people he works with hate each other so much, they don't need guns to kill each other. The response was so COMPLETELY negative it "gob-smacked" the producers and directors. (Liberty Park Press)
In Florida, Dumocrats are trying HARD to prevent churches from allowing their law-abiding parishioners to being their guns when they attend services. They would rather they be KILLED if some fool came into the church and murdered them. HR-39, which removed the right of someone with a "carry permit" to be able to carry it where someone might accidentally see it, including churches. This bill ignores such cases as the female doctor in Texas who had to leave her legally carried gun in the car when she and her parents entered a restaurant that was posted as a "gun-free zone." She had to stand by and watch while a gunman entered and murdered her parents, right in front of her. Places like churches who wish to allow people to bring their guns should have the right to do so, In any case, Florida passed it into law, and I predict that many people will DIE because of it. People who introduce, and those who pass such laws ignore the possible consequences of their laws--or they just don't give a damn, in their zeal to disarm every law-abiding American, while the "bad guys" get their guns easily, illegally. Anti-gun fools are very short-sighted, except in cases of their own security. That's why people like Sen. Feinstein, a very loud anti-gun fool, has her own gun, in addition to the ARMED men who surround her wherever she goes. (NRA-ILA)
Monday, February 12, 2018
A gun control poll shows that 59% of America is "dissatisfied" with current gun control laws. They talk about those who want more or less strict gun control laws, which misses the point, altogether. Could it be that the current laws aren't making a DENT in the "gun crime" problem? They make more and more laws against legal gun ownership, while criminals, who disobey laws for a living, are somehow expected to OBEY their laws--and they ignore that, in their quest to disarm ALL Americans (but criminals). This is the flaw in their reasoning, but they apparently don't have the INTELLIGENCE to understand that. The definition of INSANITY is doing the same things over and over again, and expecting a different result. But that's the very thing the anti-gun fools are doing: making the same laws over and over again and expecting them to work, "this time." But they don't, and they make even more of them. And THEY don't work. But that knowledge doesn't seem to filter through their thick skulls. And they still wonder why a majority of Americans are "dissatisfied" with their gun laws. (Infosurhoy)
In a recent case where a girlfriend's husband attacked a man and he shot him, the prosecutor said the injures "weren't serious enough to warrant shooting." Apparently, this prosecutor wants him to wait until he gets some SERIOUS injuries before he defends himself. Maybe even serious enough to kill him. Luckily, the jury disagreed, and acquitted him. What an ABSURD wish that is! When you're being attacked, you don't have time to register the "seriousness" of the injuries being inflicted on you before you defend yourself. The attacker wasn't killed, but not due to anything HE did, or didn't do. In the heat of an attack, the victim can't be required to wait for a serious injury before defending himself. That's absurd, and an obvious LOSING argument in this case. This is more evidence that some anti-gun fool prosecutors will stretch things unmercifully to stop law-abiding people from defending themselves, even if the law allows it where they are. (Wheel Gun)
Friday, February 9, 2018
That's what churches are telling thugs who want to kill a bunch of innocent people without much fear of being shot, themselves, by a parishioner. That's how it still is in Indiana, now. But they're working to change that, and take down the "welcome sign" for mass shooters. Indiana has always had better gun laws than other states, and both my brothers and I have, at times, gone around armed when needed. And neither of us ever shot anybody. I now live in Colorado, where the gun laws are much tighter, and I feel very "nervous" walking around. I'm now 80, and as such, I am considered an "easy target" by thugs as they watch me walk down the street. Another brother in Indiana (a 71 y/o non-active Marine), has a gun and carries it. He recently ran off two muggers just by showing them he is not to be trifled with. The thing is, EVERY "gun law" does nothing but make it easier for illegally-armed thugs to victimize us, by disarming us. (America's First Freedom)
Virginia's new governor has rushed to declare that he is as stupid as the "lame duck" governor, Terry McAuliffe. New Governor Ralph Northam has declared that "gun control" will be a primary goal of his administration. Never mind gun control, as we know it, doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work. That's because it is based on several fallacies: first, that lawbreakers, who obey no laws at all, will somehow obey their laws that say they can't be armed when they commit their other crimes. Second, that making a law against criminals being armed will somehow be OBEYED by people who break laws for a living. "Gun-free zones," for instance. Potential shooters SEEK OUT gun free zones in which to do their dirty work, because they can be pretty sure the law-abiding people there will have left their guns elsewhere, so they can shoot and kill them, at will.
"Safe storage laws" are equally USELESS. All they do is make it harder for the law-abiding to get their guns into action when faced by an attacker with his ILLEGAL gun. That one, like the others, only gets people killed, while they fumble to get their guns in action, so as to defend themselves. We need to stop electing such fools to office, where they can INCREASE "gun violence" with their stupid laws. If a politician is anti-gun, "kick 'em to the side of the road." Don't give them a chance to make even more of their deadly, stupid laws. The very idea that background checks do ANYTHING to stop, or even slow down gun violence is one of their most ignorant ideas. All that does is (maybe) let the cops find the miscreant AFTER he shoots and kills somebody. That's if he bothered to stand for a background check, in the first place, since his gun is probably stolen or bought in a back alley somewhere, illeglaly. All their laws can be debunked, easily. But they aren't listening. (Daily Caller)
Thursday, February 8, 2018
A Kentucky legislator is trying HARD to enact gun control laws after a major school shooting, and he's doing it while surrounded by ARMED marshals. Doesn't that contradict what he's trying to do? The shooting itself would have been less deadly but for several things. One of them is that the cops took 45 minutes to appear on the scene. During that time the shooter had all the time he needed to leisurely shoot people down. Another factor is that the shooter, being only 15, could not buy gun legally, anyway, So what law would have stopped him from getting it ILLEGALLY? A UNIFORMED sheriff's "resource officer" was there, but was completely ineffective in stopping the shooting. No one knows where he was, or what he was doing during the shooting. The law the legislator was promoting is smarter than most "gun control laws," in that it was to allow a few "designated" people on the school staff to carry weapons IF they were already "concealed carriers," so they would not be UNIFORMED officers, easy to locate and "neutralize" before the shooting begins. What's wrong with his law is that it would require the guns not be carried on their person, but kept in a "lock box" until used. And the gun could be used ONLY for the protection of a third person, and not him/herself. I guess they must just DIE if PERSONALLY threatened, even with a gun available. (Gun Watch)
In Idaho, they're making a "stand your ground" law. That means a person who is threatened with an ILLEGAL or legal gun wielder may "stand his ground" and fight back, if he has the means to do so and so wishes. In the absence of such a law, people seem to be mandated to "RUN" when so faced. Of course, to run when someone points a gun at you may cause your DEATH, but that doesn't seem to matter to the anti-gun fools, who just want to DISARM the populace. In a recent attempted rape case that was thwarted by a legal gun owner, they actually SAID they'd rather the woman be raped than be defended with a gun, legal or not. That anti-gun fools haven't the slightest idea what they're doing is evident to INTELLIGENT people who actually REALIZE their laws don't work. Where we get all those STUPID politicians who think a LAW will actually stop a LAWBREAKER shooting people with their ILLEGAL guns is beyond the understanding of an intelligent person. (Idaho Statesman)