Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Another Criminal Killed

This is another case that will not be covered very much in the national liberal media. Because it does not promote their agenda to make you think that NOBODY ever used a privately-owned, legal gun in self defense. The LOCAL media will cover it, at least once, but the national media will not. Gun haters want you to think that if you have a gun, YOU’RE more likely to be hurt than anyone else. NOT SO. If you’re properly trained, the people who need to be afraid of your gun are the CRIMINALS who try to victimize you. This man was “protecting his property” in a state (Texas) which allows it. Some states would charge this man with murder for shooting a criminal that wasn’t “threatening his life” at the tine he shoots. Which is STUPID. They can go in an instant from threatening your PROPERTY to threatening your LIFE in an instant. (KENS5)

Gun-Hating Paper Has Armed Protection

Remember the Journal News, the newspaper in New York state that published the names and addresses of those who held gun permits in their area? They’ve gotten so much backlash they have hired ARMED SECURITY. One wonders if the staff of the Journal have applied for their own licenses to carry guns in response to the supposed “danger” they fear from all those scary “armed people.” Or are they going to just HIRE people to carry the guns FOR them, as do anti-gun politicians. Or if they do, are they going to publish their OWN names and addresses? The Journal is following the “time-honored” method of all gun-haters; they hate them until they need to use them themselves. Then, since most of them are rich, or well-to-do, they HIRE people to carry their guns FOR them or, like one of the best-known gun haters, Senator Diane Feinstein, carry their own guns. These people are such hypocrites they make me want to barf. But they’re apparently not smart enough to recognize that. (ABC News)

All They Can Think Of Is "The Guns"

Every time somebody commits a mass shooting, all our INCOMPETENT “leaders” can think of is “BAN GUNS.” They’re all about “getting rid of guns.” They don’t even THINK about the SHOOTERS. Some people “give lip service” to improving mental health. But what they really want to do is BAN GUNS. That’s ALL they’re interested in. People like Wayne LaPierre (perennial VP of NRA) says there should be an armed cop in every school, but even a NON-uniformed one costs a lot of money because that will be all he/she does. Simply ALLOWING one or more STAFF to be armed and TRAINED costs a lot less and would work well. But they ridicule that, saying that staff member would be a “source of danger.” When are these incompetent people going to WAKE UP and get rid of the “no-gun zones” that are an OPEN INVITATION to people who want to come in and shoot up the schools? (Just common sense)

Monday, January 14, 2013

"Mother Jones" Lied

They did an article that concluded that “civilians with guns have never stopped a mass shooting.” WRONG!  The only reason there are very few instances of this is that they are not ALLOWED to be armed, so CAN’T stop mass shootings. But I know of a few instances where armed civilians HAVE stopped mass shootings. One of those was in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where a guy who had already shot up one church, attempted to do it again and ran into a parishioner who had her own gun and shot him. He then killed himself after only killing two other people in that church. They CLAIM she was a “security guard” hired by the church, but that’s a LIE. She was a parishioner who was armed, and they ASKED her to FUNCTION as a security guard while there. That’s a whole lot different. She was armed, and the shooter didn’t know it. That proves my theory. (Weekly Standard)

NRA: "More Guns for Good guys"

As predicted, the National rifle Association (NRA) recommends “more guns in the hands of good guys” to protect our children from the “guns in the hands of bad guys.” He asked if you would have guns in the hands of good guys ten minutes away (as with calling the cops) or a gun in the hands of a good guy standing beside the bad guy? The cops are always at LEAST ten minutes away and this “bad guy” can kill a lot of people in just a few minutes. The shooter in Newtown, CT killed all 26 CHILDREN in 3-1/2 minutes. Had there been a “good guy with a gun” there, that number could have been a lot less as that “good guy” put a couple in his head” as soon as he started shooting. The “anti-gun freaks” have always ridiculed this idea, but it is the ONLY idea that can be successful in dealing with these indiscriminate shooters.

An armed civilian is NOT as crazy as are these shooters just because they aren’t cops. This is the solution I have recommended all along. But nobody (in charge) is smart enough to take me up on it. Wayne LaPerre, perennial vice president of NRA, recommends armed police officers in every school—which is pretty much what they have now. But these officers are usually IN UNIFORM, which makes it easy for potential shooters to “take them out” FIRST, from ambush. I say they should be in civilian clothes, and people not suspected of being armed so a potential shooter cannot “single him out” and eliminate him before “doing his dirty deed.” Schools should NEVER be “gun-free zones.” That is an OPEN INVITATION to people who want to shoot them up. (Huffington Post)

Thursday, January 10, 2013

School Shooting In California

In a state where the gun laws are the tightest, a student at Taft high School in Kern County, California managed to get a gun and came into the school shooting, hitting at least two people. If this doesn’t prove my contention that tight gun laws don’t stop such things, I don’t know what will. But the anti-gun freaks will ignore it, and deny it if we bring it up. The shooting ended when the shooter shot himself. The REPORT is he used an “assault weapon,” but I doubt it, since they don’t even know how to DEFINE what an “assault weapon” even IS. Some people say we need to get rid of all guns, but not only will that never happen, if we were somehow able to get rid of all guns criminals and people determined to go into crowds and shoot people WILL still be able to get guns. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there’s something very suspicious about the increase in shootings in SCHOOLS lately. I think somebody is PROMOTING people to DO these shootings to “whip up” support for tighter gun laws—and the anti-gun freaks are cooperating nicely. (International Business Times)

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

"Gun Free Zones" Cause Deaths

People who wish to go into crowds and shoot people indiscriminately rarely go into gun stores or gun shows, or even police stations to kill people. That shows at lease SOME intelligence on their part. That’s because they KNOW there will be no guns there that they don’t know about so they’re free to kill as many people as they can without somebody shooting THEM. One man made the mistake of trying it IN a gun store and was made into “Swiss cheese” by everybody in the store who was armed. Another went into a church to kill people and found ONE GUN there in the hands of a small woman he didn’t know about, who ENDED his shooting spree after only two deaths. That’s what it’s going to take to put a stop to these shooting sprees: people shooters don’t realize are there who have guns to oppose them. If these people knew there was a great possibility there would be someone there to shoot THEM before they could kill very many people, maybe they’ll think again about doing it. But anti-gun laws will NEVER stop such shootings because people like that will ALWAYS be able to get a gun or guns, one way or another, REGARDLESS of the law. Criminals don’t OBEY laws that say they can’t be armed. (Just common sense)

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Bank of America Freezes Gun Mfg. Account

They told them, “You shouldn’t be selling guns and parts on the Internet.” Who the HELL do they think they ARE? They don’t get to decide what’s right and wrong and freeze people’s accounts because of it. This is just as bad as STEALING their money because they don't like them. This gun manufacturer needs to quickly SUE this bank, get their money back, and move the money to another bank that isn’t run by FOOLS. And when they do, they’d better hope they don’t get a liberal judge who rules on his OPINION, not on the Constitution, as he is SUPPOSED to do. One of the shortcomings in our system is allowing a JUDGE, by himself, to REVERSE things that were passed LAWFULLY, just because he doesn’t agree with it. There should be a review process to GUARANTEE the judge does NOT rule according to his OPINION, not the Constitution. The law should “go after” this bank for VIOLATING the law by their action. (Patriot Action Network)