Monday, October 16, 2017
The Bradenton Herald actually printed a letter to the editor that went against the usual agenda that "criminals obey gun laws." That's the point of the whole letter: that criminals and crazies DON'T obey gun laws. And why should they? They violate every other kind of a law, so why should they suddenly obey a gun law? When cops are asked, almost all the felons they arrest are in possession of a gun. How is that? Felons aren't allowed to have guns! So they just disobey the law! Outrageous! Lawbreakers not obeying laws? Whoda thunkit? The fact that anti-gun fools will not accept, is that lawbreakers routinely IGNORE all their laws that say they can't have a gun. So they ignorantly insist on still making the same INEFFECTIVE laws, over and over again, and then wonder why criminals are still using guns they get illegally. It is this kind of stupidity that makes "sitting ducks" out of people who DO obey laws. It's a known fact (to those with intelligence, anyway) that gun laws only apply to the law-abiding. But those who make them are clueless to this fact. (Keep and Bear)
The liberal media likes to give you the "news" in a misleading way, like their recent story about gun deaths being "more numerous that all the gun deaths in recent wars." That might be true. But the only problem is that is is totally MISLEADING, since 2/3 of all gun deaths are SUICIDES, with murder being only about 1/3 to 1/4 of the total gun deaths--and those were mostly not committed by "the average person," but were committed by rival gang members killing each other in "turf wars," as in Chicago and other cities with tough gun laws. This is how they get you all alarmed about something NO LAW could possibly prevent. Yes, suicide is not illegal. There's a reason for that. Who would you punish? The lawbreaker would be DEAD. Murder is already illegal, but people still do it. (PEW Research Center)
Friday, October 13, 2017
Anti-gun fools are like a kid throwing his skivvies up against the wall to see if they stick so he'll know if he had a good time, since he was so drunk he couldn't remember. Every time some fool like the killer in Las Vegas opens fire on somebody, they want to ban something else. Never mind what they ban does NOTHING to reduce gun violence, because they're (as usual) missing the target by blaming the GUN, not the PERSON. They seem to think that somebody who is contemplating the very worst kind of a crime will, somehow, OBEY their piddling little laws and by that, be stopped in his tracks. It doesn't occur to them, in their IGNORANCE, that he just doesn't give a damn about ANY laws, since what he is contemplating is the very worst kind of a crime. How gun-ignorant people get to keep making gun laws is a mystery. (CNBC)
Within MINUTES of the begging of the Las Vegas massacre, even while authorities were still removing bodies, she had the temerity to advance the current narrative about "silencers," saying, in her IGNORANCE, that if the shooter had had a silencer, many more would have died because they couldn't hear the shots. What an absolute IMBECILE this woman is! First of all, you can't put a suppressor on such a gun. It would melt the barrel. Second, a "silencer" is NOT "silent." It's as loud as a triphammer, which is not "silent." It just is not quite AS loud as a gunshot. And what kind of law would have stopped this massacre? I don't think she has a clue. Every time she opens her pie hole, stupid comes out. If she had won the election and become president, it would not take her long to destroy this country as a free country, with her stupidity. (Daily Caller)
Thursday, October 12, 2017
The first thing I heard on turning on the TV today was some fool asking the question, "Should we still celebrate Columbus Day?" all because some liberal damned fool (a repetition, there) said we should not. I'm getting very tired of the STUPID things the liberals are trying to DICTATE we do, Yes, Columbus might have done some things that weren't the best, But he WAS an explorer of note, even if discovering America WAS an accident. Anybody who does what liberals "order' him to do is a fool. Everything liberals try and foist upon us is STUPID. Everything they promote is contrary to common sense. Like men in women's restrooms. And allowing gays to destroy the very MEANING of the word "marriage" by using it to describe their "unions." They've been offered everything a marriage entails, but under a different name, and have refused, thereby revealing their real purpose. And then there's "gun control," which is a misnomer. They just want to disarm Americans and make them defenseless when "federal agents" come to take their belongings. I could go on and on, but I won't. I'm sure you have a few of your own favorites. (Just common sense)
Noted firearms expert (sic) Nicholle Wallace, infobabe at MSNBC, says that the Second Amendment was "designed to fight foreign militias, not create an armed populace." What an ignorant statement that is! Just who does she think would be a bar to foreign militias, if not an armed populace? It really frosts me how ignorant people like Nicholle think they know what the intentions of the Founders were. They do that simply to promote their wish to disarm America. The Founders wanted ALL Americans to gave the RIGHT to own and use firearms for self defense as WELL as for the defense of the country (ergo: against foreign militias). At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was common for everybody to be armed (except in Eastern cities), not only for hunting to put food on the table, but also to defend themselves against all comers (including dangerous animals, and the two-legged kind), if necessary.
They wanted everybody to be armed so they could bring their own guns if called up (the government, at the time, was not the money-rich entity it is now, and could not arm everybody). Somehow that got lost as Eastern city-dwellers, who depended on the cops to defend them (sometimes to their detriment), prevailed in getting laws passed to limit gun ownership and use by citizens. It was not logical, but nothing those people (liberals) do is logical. They're always promoting illogical things, such as MEN in women's restrooms, and men marrying men or women marrying women (which, if it grows in popularity will reduce, or maybe even eliminate population growth), or the very idea that making laws can stop neer-do-wells from getting and using guns to victimize the law-abiding. Note the overbearing nature of the very NAME of this source. They tell lies and label it as truth. (Blunt Force Truth)
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
I'm talking about those people who believe they can eliminate crime by making guns illegal. That all they have to do is make a law, and law-breakers will somehow OBEY it. The depths of stupidity that shows is amazing! They make "gun-free zones" that become "killing fields" because the "bad guys" can be pretty sure the law-abiding people there will not be armed and will be "sitting ducks" for them. People who have already violated their "gun-free zones" willingly tell us that they SEEK OUT those places for that reason. They make laws about "safe storage" of guns at home, that make it difficult, or impossible to get their guns into operation quick enough to defend against the owner of an ILLEGAL gun come to victimize them. These are people who firmly believe that the way to self defense is to DISARM yourself. How stupid is that? Not a SINGLE law they have made, so far, has ever done ANYTHING to reduce gun violence because they depend on people who break laws daily to somehow OBEY their insipid little laws. Only the law-abiding do, which makes them "sitting ducks." (Just common sense)
Something "clicked over" on the day of the Columbine killings and mass shootings increased measurably since. Islamic terrorism is partly to blame, but not all the mass shooters in America have been Islamic terrorists. I don't really know what started it, and what has caused it to increase so much except for the "victimization" Dumocrats push to get votes. Due to disagreement in reporting agencies on the definition of mass shootings, they list 270 mass shootings in America, just in 2017. But the problem there is, due to the definition used, many simple crime shootings have been conflated with the real mass shootings to get this number. The answer is NOT more gun laws. the ones now in effect have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent mass shootings. The killer in Las Vegas, for instance, bought all his guns legally because he had NO criminal history.
Many other shooters did likewise, for the same reason. Those who could not get them legally either bought them ILLEGALLY from another criminal in a back alley somewhere, or just STOLE them (the Aurora theater killings). In any case, you can't just BAN GUNS in America because the Constitution forbids it. And you can't just change the Constitution ro eliminate the Second Amendment. You would never get 2/3 of the states to ratify it, even if you could get it through Congress. Even if you could, that would still not do it because of the thriving black market in guns in this country, and others. And potential mass shooters are not concerned with piddling anti-gun laws because they plan a crime much worse than that--many of them don't even worry about any laws giving them longer prison sentences for using a gun in a crime where they have them, and they mostly don't even enforce them.
They use them as "bargaining chips" to get convictions in other crimes. And still potential mass shooters will not care about how many laws they violate in getting their guns since they plan to kill a bunch or people, and maybe even expect to die themselves as a result. In most mass shootings, allowing more law-abiding people to be armed in self defense would do--but not always. In Las Vegas, the shooter was 32 stories up and mostly inaccessible. When the cops finally broke into his room, he had killed himself. Potental mass shooters usually give off SOME signs as they prepare for their crime. (The shooter at Ft. Hood, for instance, did so many ways, but was ignored). If we are alert for these signs, maybe we can prevent some of the shootings. But not all, because some give no signs, at all. The first sign is when he begins killing people.
We need to stop "targeting the guns" and start looking for ways to spot potential mass shooters BEFORE he carries out his evil plan--IF that's even possible. It'll need much more of "police state" than we now have to do that. The only thing I can think of that will be even partially successful is more law-abiding peole legally carrying their own guns so they can (in most cases) shoot the shooter before he can kill as many people as he wishes. But the anti-gun fools will not hear of that. They think (wrongly) that law-abiding people being armed in self defense is a "bad thing, That they will "go crazy" if they have a gun in their pocket and shoot each other over trifles. Some illegal gun owners do that, but they are of a different mindset, being criminals. (ABC 15 Arizona)
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
It has been said, "When guns are banned, only criminals will have guns, The reason for that is that the very people anti-gun fools SAY they want to disarm are the "bad guys," but they are the ones not touched by ANY gun ban. when you ban a certain type of gun or gun accessory, you merely create a new black market for that gun or accessory. The proof of that is all over the place. For instance, when "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines were banned, you could still buy them. Just not from legitimate gun stores. You have to find an ILLEGAL gun dealer in a back alley somewhere, who sells them out of the trunk of his car at sky high prices. The harder they are to get, the higher the price. And "bad guys" are willing to pay those prices because they most likely STOLE the money they use to buy them. Or they just STEAL the guns. The point is, making such things illegal is FUTILE because the bad guys will always find a source for their guns, and an illegal source is beyond legislation OR regulation. The only way to combat illegal guns in the hands of bad guys is legal guns in the hands of GOOD guys. But anti-gun fools will not hear of it. They're too damned stupid. (Breitbart)
It's not self defense to disarm yourself. It's stupidity. You cannot defend yourself against all the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there in the hands of criminals and other malcontents. The anti-gun fools are just LAZY to target GUNS, instead of the activity that ENGENDERS shootings. Gang members, for instance, are usually too young to be able to buy a gun legally, yet they have them, illegally, and they use them on one another AND innocent people, either on purpose, or by accident. My thesis is PROVEN in Chicago, where they have some of the tightest gun laws in the land, coupled with the highest gun deaths in the land, proving that dun laws NEVER work, and to continue passing them shows complete IGNORANCE on the part of the lawmakers. Anti-gun fools really think that the avenue to self defense is to take away guns from law-abiding people, leaving them to be "sitting ducks" for those who don't obey their laws. It's the same kind of thinking that led to "disarmament treaties" that rogue countries willingly signed, then violated, while knowing America will abide by them and thus weaken itself. The same thing is true of the individual, who makes himself DEFENSELESS by disarming himself, letting the lawbreakers have "free rein" to victimize him. (Just common sense)
Monday, October 9, 2017
For some reason most don't know, the liberals (Dumocrats) want to disarm the American people. I say "most people." But that doesn't include people who are still able to THINK. We know that the real reason is well hidden. They are AFRAID of an "armed America," because of their future plans for us. Those plans involve ponying up false "charges" on people whose property they want to steal, then raid them to get the job done. And if their victims have guns, they will be facing more danger than they like. So they want as few law-abiding people to have guns as possible when they come for their property. Hillary Clinton, for example, just couldn't wait for the official body count in Las Vegas so she could politicize the massacre so as to advance the gun confiscation and gun banning scam liberals are running on the American people. I can confidently assure you that if they ever do succeed in getting an unconstitutional gun ban passed, it won't be long before they'll be coming for what is yours. Believe it! (American Patriot Daily)
Why have there been so many mass shootings in recent years? I'm 80 and I don't remember many before Columbine. Maybe that's because the liberal media covered them up. But today's politicians will never find out the reason so long as they simply blame the guns. I have heard often that it is the "easy availability of guns" that is at fault. That is the lazy way to look at it. Guns are NOT that "easily available" if you have a criminal history. And those who do not have a criminal history should NOT be denied the constitutional right to own and use a gun for self defense. But as long as they simply blame the gun, they're looking in the wrong direction and they will never find the answers they seek. It is simple IGNORANCE on their part, and I hate it that such people find their way into important, lawmaking positions so often. So that, instead of looking for the REAL reasons, they waste their time making USELESS laws that do NOTHING to "stem gun violence." I think it is a combination of liberals (Dumocrats) making VICTIMS out of so many people, hoping to thereby create votes for themselves, and the feelings of hopeless thus engendered, that CREATE malcontents who think they have a GRUDGE against "society," It is those malcontents that are at fault, not guns. That has been proven by the mass killings recently where there were no guns even involved. Where they used knives, swords, cars and trucks, and even pressure cookers to kill people. We need to find some politicians or bureaucrats who are not IGNORANT, who will look in the right direction, instead of taking the easy road and concentrating on guns. (Just common sense)
Friday, October 6, 2017
Jimmy Kimmel has increased the number of ARMED security people at front and back of his studio after what he describes as "Trump supporting protesters" who don't like his support for Obamacare. I think he's lying about it, hoping for more publicity for his silly show. The truth about it is that Trump supporters do NOT do VIOLENT demonstrations in support of their position. It is liberals and Dumocrats who do. So to believe Trump supporters are suddenly a "violent threat" to him is absurd, and not to be believed. Can he point to a SINGLE violent protest" committed by Trump supporters OR conservatives of any kind? No. Not a single one. So why should we believe his claims that Trump supporters are suddenly a threat to him? Another thing that bothers me. He lives in New York City, one of the most gun controlled cities out there, and now he is HIRING extra guns to protect him? Will he also apply for a "carry permit" of his own, like anti-gun fools like Sen. Feinstein did? (SanJose Mercury News)
Tucker Carlson asked a simple question of one of the foolish people demanding we "do something" to end mass murder. The question is, "What CAN we do to stop mass murders from taking place?" Many people make such demands, but they never come up with a "magic solution" to the problem, because there ISN'T one. There is not a single anti-gun law either in existence, or yet to be made, that will do ANYTHING to stop crazies from getting a gun, either legally or illegally, and then shooting into a crowd of people. Or take a knife and stab everybody they can reach. Or take a vehicle and run over as many as they can. It's obvious to those of us who still retain the power to THINK, that limiting the purchase of guns is NOT the answer. Disarming yourself is NOT the way to self defense! If you can think of an answer to that question, please send me an e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please. I'm not being snarky. I really want to know, if you have the answer. (Just common sense)