Too Many SWAT Raids

Are we now in a “police state?” Yes, according to the author of a new book, called, “Police State, USA” by Cheryl Chumley. One of the examples she uses is the one where Jose Guerena, a 26-year-old Iraq veteran, thinking the SWAT raid on his home was a gang home invasion, came down with a gun in his hand (his right, in his own home) and was shot sixty times by police who were, by the way, at the wrong address. The cops paid his family $3.2 million, but he’s still dead. They can’t change that. One of the factors she cites is SWAT teams being used to serve warrants where there are no lives at stake and no violence expected. I don’t hate all cops, but I DO think many cops are too “trigger happy,” which is proven all the time by stories about cops shooting unarmed people they THINK are carrying a gun and are threatening them with it (That eliminates cops who shoot a giant thug who is trying to kill them). Then there are the numerous stories about cops shooting dogs that were doing nothing but “looking for a little love.” I think cops should be better trained in the use of their guns, and that SWAT Teams should be used ONLY in cases where lives are at stake and their expertise is needed. By the way: I get no “kickback” from sales of this book. I just think it’s a good book to read. (Gun Owners of America)

Castle Rock Wins!

They had an election, where their local anti-gun fool laws were decided, and the town lost. “Castle Rock’s recent special election, one which was riddled with conflict and lawsuits, had its results certified today. Both initiatives have passed, thus removing the ban on open carry on town property, limiting the power of the town manager and putting decisions on future second amendment restrictions into the hands of the citizens.” They tried hard to limit their citizens’ right to own and carry the means to self-defense, but they lost. Anti-gun fools have lost almost everywhere they’ve tried recently, as Americans "wised up.". One of the most notable places was Chicago, where the court threw out their most onerous anti-gun laws as unconstitutional and gun crime promptly “tanked.” They says it’s because of “better policing,” but they haven’t changed a thing in their policing methods, so that’s a lie. That proves again that their fools will NEVER admit they’re wrong, and start making REAL gun laws that punish the USE of guns in crime, rather than DISARMING honest people. (Pagosa Daily Post)

Doing Dumb Things

The 9-year-old who accidentally killed the instructor who was teaching her how to shoot an UZI raises an important question: “Should we be teaching our kids to shoot automatic weapons?” And, “Should we make laws to prevent it?” Which brings up another question: “Are 9-year-old children responsible enough to be able to shoot such guns?” I have always been in favor of teaching kids about guns, stressing safety and responsible handling of a gun. The very first attempted school shooting was scotched when the would-be shooter was ventilated by bullets from many guns in the hands of the children, who then (in the 1800s) all had guns and took them to school without a problem because they were taught about shooting and regularly used them to help provide food for the table). But teaching a 9-year-old to handle an UZI? Not smart. They’re way too young at that age to handle such a gun. Teach them about gun safety (including safety in handling ALL guns, including an Uzi) and allow them to shoot lesser guns under tight supervision, yes. But a gun like an Uzi is a bit much for them to handle at that age, and that instructor, and his boss, were remiss in allowing it. This killing gives anti-gun fools way too much information they can use against us. (LA Times)

Why Are They Always Wrong?

The anti-gun fools are ALWAYS wrong in the direction they want to go. This bunch lost their kids to “gun violence.” But nobody ever seems to ask, “Were the guns used legally bought?” “Were the kids members of gangs?” Or were they being ‘pressured’ to join gangs?” "Did any of them have records?" What were the details in these shootings? Would the same tired, old ideas of gun registration and requiring HONEST people to get permits work while young gang members and other criminals ignore the laws? I don’t think so. I think they need to get some new thinking into the gun control business. Ideas like making USING a gun, legal or illegally owned, in a crime more costly in terms of time spent in prison or even the death penalty for murder with a gun. But they don’t listen when I suggest that. They’re fixated on their own ideas of what they should do, even if it hasn’t EVER worked. Instead of trying new ideas, they keep on doing the same ol’ same ol’, hoping they will get a different result. Isn’t that the DESCRIPTION of INSANITY? (News Channel 3)

"Common Gun Sense"

That’s what today’s anti-gun fools call the laws they cause to be made by gullible politicians, who don’t know any better, but who want to be SEEN as “doing something” about “gun violence. They just don’t understand (any of them) that DISARMING honest people is NOT the way to stem “gun violence.” They react with horror at the very MENTION of arming more (honest, reliable) people. They think that doing so would “create a wild West atmosphere” where people would be shooting each other over a fender-bender, or something else, even LESS important. They think we just have NO control and discount completely the FACT that criminals, who DON’T obey ANY laws, still get their guns easily; even more easily where gun laws for honest people are tight. In that, they’re WRONG. They ALREADY have a “Wild West atmosphere” in places like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, where fun laws are the tightest. And those laws are the REASON why. But you’ll never get them to admit that. They think they can’t possibly be wrong; they’re too smart. (Yeah, right!) If they’d just get their hands OFF our constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to bear arms, the world would be a better place, but they’ll react in horror to the very suggestion. (Just common sense)

We Aren't Buying What "Moms" Is (Are) Selling

Shannon Watts, chief “Mom” of “Moms Demand Action Against Guns lies volubly about the NRA, since there are no truths she can say about them. “The National Rifle Association is in a quandary. The organization's leadership, which is sullied by a long history of sexism and misogyny [sic], must continue to grow its market for guns in order to protect gun manufacturers' profits [sic]. Over the past decade, more guns have been sold to fewer people - mainly men [sic]. As a result, gun manufacturers desperately need women to start buying guns. [sic] There you have ir: FOUR lies in one simple statement. They’re stepping up their failed effort to disarm Americans, whatever it takes—constitutional or UN-constitutional, lies or truth. (Just common sense)

Not Liberal or Conservative

Liberals like to say anti-gun control is a “conservative” thing. It is NOT. There are gun advocates and anti-gun advocates on both sides. The anti-gun advocates on the liberal side don’t make as much noise though, as a usual thing, because they know they’ll get in trouble with anti-gun advocates. Yes, most of the anti-gun fools you hear from ARE liberals. But every once in a while you hear about a KNOWN liberal who shoots an intruder on his property or is caught with an “illegal” gun in his/her possession. One of the best known liberals going HIRES gun-toting “security” for her kids. A well-known anti-gun senator has a concealed carry permit. A noted liberal anti-gun legislator in California is arrested for “running guns. So it’s not a liberal/conservative thing, it’s a smart/stupid thing. (NRA Sharp Daily)

Reversing Their Opinion

That’s what DC is trying to do to the court that decided (rightly so) that the ban on carrying a gun (for anybody but a government agent or a cop) was unconstitutional. Their argument (a weak one) is that this constitutes an “error of law,” in that carrying arms in public “does not fall within the Second Amendment.” How STUPID is this? The Second amendment says that, “Congress may make NO LAW restricting the right of the citizen of the United States to keep and bear arms.” Where in that can they get that the Second Amendment does NOT apply? What is there about NO LAW that they don’t understand? They’re getting desperate, folks, to even TRY such a fool scam. But what worries me is that some of the Justices may be sufficiently liberal to buy this BS. (Reason Magazine/Hit & Run Blog)

No Gun for Perry

Because of the phony “indictment” his enemies got in their attempt to destroy him, Texas Governor Perry can no longer carry a gun or even purchase ammunition. Seems to me an “indictment” shouldn’t have this effect, since Americans are considered “not guilty” until CONVICTED of a crime. Of course, that doesn’t hurt Perry in practice because he has plenty of men with their own guns to surround him. But it’s the while idea of prohibiting someone who has NOT been convicted of a crime from owning a gun or being able to buy ammunition that I don’t like. It sounds too much like some bureaucrat deciding he’s guilty before a conviction. It’s more of the “overdoing it” I’ve come to expect from liberals. (The Blaze)

Gun Control Hypocrisy

In New York, they want to pass a law requiring all people who have ever used a gun in the commission of a crime (even if they just HAD one on their hip when stealing a lady’s purse or got caught with one without a license) to be “registered” in much the same way as a sex offender is. They SAY it is so the public will know where the gun offenders are, but their REAL purpose is to “single out” criminals who use guns and exclude those who use knives or other instruments to commit their crimes, so they can quote false numbers to support ither “gun laws.” Further, it’s up to some nameless, faceless bureaucrat somewhere to DECIDE just what is a “gun crime,” and WHO should be on the list. There’s no “oversight” for this, and you can be put on the list if you’ve ever just been CAUGHT with a gun in your possession illegally, or even in your home. Or they twist things inside out and put your name on the list without ANY kind of “gun crime” in your past. (Mississippi Gun News)

Chicago Crime Down

Surprise, surprise! After the courts struck down Chicago’s very tight gun laws, allowing easier granting of “concealed carry,” their crime rate has gone down. Robberies alone have gone down 20%, which is a BIG number. Of course, local police politicians put it down to more “intelligent police strategies,” completely ignoring what REALLY caused it. Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, says different. He says the cops have not changed their tactics one iota. He says, “It isn’t any coincidence that crime rates went down when concealed carry was permitted.” He further referred to the fact that criminals can’t know who is, or isn’t armed being a major factor. Of course, Chicago bosses are working feverishly to stop people from buying guns in many other ways, hoping to mute the effect of the new “carry” law. Will they admit their error? Not likely. (The Blaze)

Maybe They're "Wising Up"

We’ve been preaching for a long time that “Gun free zones” don’t work. They only serve as an INVITATION to thugs with a message that there will be no guns there to oppose them when they come in with their guns to victimize people. Places that heretofore banned guns from their premises are now reversing that policy, While SOME outfits, like Target Stores and Jack In The Box restaurants do not, and continue to be robbed by thugs who just ignore their signs “banning” guns. They’re beginning to realize that criminals do not OBEY laws and signs banning guns. They know only people who OBEY laws will not bring their guns, so they will have no trouble robbing them. So now more and more businesses are ALLOWING guns on their premises. (Alabama Media Group)

Murder Ouitside "Gun Ban" Target Store

I don’t know what drives these fools who think “banning guns” will keep people bent on doing violence with a gun away. Do they really think such people will OBEY such “bans?” It has been my experience that such people IGNORE such things as a “gun ban.” They’re bent on committing crimes a lot worse than ignoring gun bans. So what would make an INTELLIGENT person think they would obey a gun ban? But then, the kind of people who think these gun bans will work aren’t too intelligent, or they would learn from example. That they don’t tells me a lot about their intelligence. So Target, which HAS such a ban, has AGAIN had a murder with a gun happen in the parking lot of one of their stores. (World Net Daily)

Got Guns? No Looting

Did anybody notice? The only stores that didn’t get looted in Ferguson, MO were the ones protected by men with guns. Which once again proves my theory that the BEST way to protect yourself is to have your own gun. Looters came by, but when they saw men with guns lined up outside the stores, they went elsewhere. That’s the way it is with petty criminals; they see a gun in the hands of their intended victims, they go in the other direction. That’s even more evident when looters are in the equation. If more people had guns, there’d be a lot less looting, as well as other kids of crimes because criminals are basically cowards. They prey on UNARMED people, but RUN when they see a gun turned against them. (World Net Daily)

It Disturbs Me

That local police agencies are getting $5 billion dollars’ worth of MILITARY gear. Even small communities like Greenwood, Indiana are getting what amounts to armored cars and automatic weapons. I’m sure they’re getting bullet-proof vests, too. The guns and bullet-proof vests don’t worry me because the criminals are getting the same equipment to use against the cops (Albeit not from the feds. They steal them or buy them illegally.). Example: the bank robbery a few years ago in LA where the cops had to go to a local gun store to obtain automatic weapons to use against the automatic weapon-armed bank robbers. What DOES disturb me is the rest of the gear and training the feds are providing (sometimes for FREE). It effectively makes police agencies the EQUIVALENT of the military. Posse Comitatus prevents the use of the military from acting as police officers, and for good reason. It does NOT stop police from acting as the military, and that is one way the feds are “getting around” “Posse Comitatus.” Why are they doing it? Do they EXPECT a revolution? And is this a way of PREPARING for one? There’s a good reason for Posse Comitatus, and arming and training the police agencies as military violates the SPIRIT, if not the actual law. Criminals are not the only people who violate the law. (Guns Save Life)

"No Guns" Signs Are Useless

As far as ending gun violence, that is, anyway. What immediately happens to a restaurant chain or even  single restaurant that posts a sign saying, “NO GUNS?” Very soon, somebody who doesn’t obey laws and who DEFINITELY isn’t going to obey a SIGN posted in a restaurant comes in with a gun and victimizes them. Jack-In-The-Box did it, and within two weeks men with guns came in and robbed them, KNOWING there would be no guns there to oppose them. A Mexican restaurant chain posted a sign and within HOURS were robbed at gunpoint. Would-be gunmen CHOOSE “no-gun zones” in which to “ply their trade,” because they KNOW they will be “easy pickings.” They might as well post a sign saying, “come in and shoot us.” But you can’t convince anti-gun fools of that. The operative word here, is FOOLS. One man who shot up a school and killed several people had a choice of two different schools to attack and SAID later that, of the two, he CHOSE the school where he knew there would be no guns. What could be plainer? But anti-gun fools persist in their “gun-free zones” while those zones KILL people. And the blood is on THEIR hands. (CincinnatiUSA)

As Usual They Aim Wrong

New York is pushing for a mandatory two year sentence for anybody found carrying a gun illegally. But that does NOTHING to punish the USE of a gun in a crime. It’s a good idea, but as usual, it doesn’t go far enough. They still routinely use those charges as a “bargaining chip” to get information or convictions in other crimes. Also there’s still no deterrent to using a gun in committing a crime. Yes, two years longer in prison just for CARRYING an illegal gun is a “step forward.” But I’d bet most criminals say they could do TWO “standing on their heads” because they don’t think they’ll be caught carrying. If they were worried about it, they wouldn’t BE carrying. And a gun is a useful and necessary tool in their business. (Philadelphia Enquirer)

Refusing to Face Facts

New York City cops are blaming the increase in gun violence in SPITE of the tight gun laws on the cops “finding fewer guns on the streets” than before (because of the rescinding of “stop and frisk”), hoping people will think their anti-gun laws have done some good in keeping guns off the streets. But as usual, they’re wrong. The increase is due to the law keeping guns out of the hands of honest people, who OBEY the law, and do NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS, who DON’T. Those writing the story are at pains to point out that the majority of those “stopped and frisked” were black, completely ignoring the fact that most of the CRIMINALS (the cops KNEW were criminals) were black. They always ignore that fact, so they can grouse about black people being “oppressed.” (Last Resistance)

Blocking the Feds

The federal government has become so overbearing on gun laws that at least eight states have made laws to make enforcing their laws illegal. Which may even lead to the ARREST of “federal agents” who attempt to enforce them. A majority of states have made laws making “concealed carry” much easier than the feds like. This tells me that the feds are way “out of touch” with the wishes of most Americans and they are going to continue to LOSE when they attempt to make laws to further inhibit our right to keep and bear arms for self defense. They love it when pro-gun people talk about “guns for hunting” because that is NOT the important thing. It diverts our attention from the important thing, which is SELF-DEFENSE, not hunting. Hunting today is a SPORT, not a necessity for having something on the table at dinnertime. But self-defense, even against members of our own government, is MOST important. It is the whole reason they put the First Amendment in the Constitution, in the first place. They said so, in many places, many times. (News 21)

Maryland Judge Upholds Ban

Judge Catherine C. Blake, recently handed down (up?) a decision that upheld the “assault weapon ban and the large magazine ban” in Maryland. Not surprisingly, she is a Bill Clinton-appointed liberal judge (maybe one of his former lovers?) She says the Second Amendment only covers guns in “general use,” even though the Constitution does NO such thing. Even so, the AR-15 is one of the most commonly-owned guns in the nation with Americans owning 8 MILLION guns LIKE the AR-15. So her reasoning fails on TWO counts. But that doesn’t count to a liberal who just wants to make it more difficult for potential gun owners. Anti-gun fools NEVER take reality into account. If the facts defeat them, they just ignore them and make up their own “facts.” (Daily Caller)

Ten Killed, 40 wounded

What is that? A “weekend in Chicago.” It’s becoming so common, people aren’t even thinking about it, any more. Except for people like me, who see it as ample evidence that today’s brand of “gun control” does NOT work, and is more likely to get people killed. Disarming honest people is NOT the way to self-defense, and the anti-gun fools know it. They’ve been told often enough. But they reject such common sense out of hand because it does not conform to their pre-conceived notions. Thugs like Mike Brown regularly kill people in Chicago, IGNORING the tight gun laws. Same in New York and Detroit. It’s like open warfare in those cities, all of which have the tightest anti-gun laws in the nation. And they’re not the only ones. Los Angeles, too, has tight gun laws, and some of the highest gun violence stats. And that will remain so until “wiser heads” prevail in the “gun violence” question. (Just common sense)

Whoda Thunkit?

“The American Bar Association (ABA), which supports handgun registration and handgun owner licensing, supports a ban on general-purpose semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, thinks the Consumer Products Safety Commission should dictate what kind of firearms are “safe” enough to manufacture [except for cop use, of course –RT], supports legislation to ban the manufacture of pistols that don’t micro-stamp ammunition, thinks that anti-gun groups should be able to file frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry, and opposes “shall issue” carry permit laws and federal “Right-to-Carry” reciprocity legislation has come out against Stand Your Ground laws.” The American Bar Association is a well-known anti-gun fool group, so who’s surprised? (Daily Caller)

More Money for Guns

The anti-gun fools hate it, but people are contributing a lot more money to PRO-gun groups than to ANTI-gun groups; which should tell them something about the mood of the American people regarding the right to self-defense. They THINK they are working for the majority of Americans, but they’re not. And the recent figures should let them KNOW they’re not. Will they “take note” and start to mitigate their activities? No. They’re not smart enough. But even if they aren’t working for the majority, they simply want to “get rid of all guns.” They don’t care about majority or minority. They’ve got it in their thick skulls that they can do this, and that, regardless of what other people want, this is okay. So they will continue. (NewsMax)

Giving Enemies Ammo

Some pro-gun promoters go WAY too far and thus give ammunition to our detractors. One such is Kory Watkins, “Open Carry Tarrant County’s” group coordinator, who carries an automatic weapon into a grocery store while shopping. That’s a “bit much.” It gives the anti-gun fools something to say, and DO they! The picture here linked appeared in The Daily Beast, and the Huffington Post, neither big gun promoters. Such displays, while legal, do a disservice to people who wish to simply, and quietly carry their guns for self defense. If somebody accosted Mr. Watkins, would he “open up” on “full auto,” spraying bullets everywhere? I don’t know. But he makes it easy for the anti-gun fools to predict such a thing, and that hurts efforts to retain our right to self-defense, and to carry the means to that, a gun. Responsible people who carry guns for their own protection don’t usually “go wild” at the least provocation, but the anti-gun fools want us to think they do. Mr. Watkins has no idea how ridiculous he looks carrying such a gun on a grocery-buying visit. Or he does, and he relishes the attention. (Dallas News)

Gun Sales Down

After a record 2013 when gun sales skyrocketed, gun sales are down so far this year. The anti-gun fools are rejoicing. But maybe they shouldn’t be so happy, so soon. Maybe gun sales are down because most of the people who wanted them now HAVE their guns. Or maybe it’s just a “pause” while people examine all the new anti-gun laws that will do nothing to stop, or even slow down gun violence because people who want to do crime don’t obey ANY laws. They continue to make their useless laws that only serve to give criminals an unlimited supply of unarmed victims, IGNORING advice that that’s what they do. They think they’re the “smartest people in the room” and we don’t know what we’re talking about. I haven’t gone out and bought another gun yet, and maybe there are a lot of people out there like me who just weren’t in a HURRY to get another gun. (Roanoke Times)

Shutting Us Up

When you can’t win the debate, the next best thing is to “shut up the opposition,” and that’s what the “anti-gun fools” wanted to do when they filed suit to stop an ad saying, “Guns Save Lives” in Arizona. They lost. They said that the decision “opens the door to to more ads that blend political and commercial messaging.” So what? Have they ever seen an “electioneering” ad? Come to Colorado. They’re all over the place. Politicians are LYING to us all over the place. Or they’re simply insulting our intelligence. One politician is running ads condemning his opponent for being against murdering your infant as a substitute for using a rubber when having sex. The kind of ads they want to stop are those that can hurt their cause terribly with simple truth. (AZ Central)

Disarming Off-Duty Cops

The National Football League has told off-duty cops they can’t carry their guns into Vikings games, thus rendering them useless in case of trouble during the game. But the LAW supercedes that order, since cops are considered to be “on duty” 24 hours a day just in case trouble arises where they are, “on duty” or not. Trying to disarm cops is sheer abysmal STUPIDITY. What are they going to do? Randomly shoot people at the ball game after slugging a few beers? Sounds more like the “average” football fan, to me. Not a cop, who is trained in the use of guns and cautioned against irresponsible use of them. The “war against guns” is growing, folks; even though politicians have LOST most of the battles. Outfits like NFL keep trying to “get around” the Constitution my making rules where they can to BAN guns, claiming that since they aren’t the government, the constitutional prohibition to banning guns does not apply to them. But it does, no matter how much they whine otherwise. A football stadium might be considered private property, but I don’t know of a single one that was NOT built with taxpayer money. That makes the Constitution apply. (Minneapolis Star Tribune)

"Not A Protected Group"

Professor Jack Russel Weinstein, as Utah University, says, “Gun owners are not a protected group,” and that, “people should flee from open carry activists.” This is the kind of panic-stricken comment to be expected by FOOLS who fear guns, themselves, rather than the CRIMINALS who carry them, ILLEGALLY. But they ARE a “protected group.” The Constitution states unequivocally, “Congress shall make NO LAWS infringing on that eight.” That’s constitutional protection, whatever this frightened professor thinks. What concerns me is that this is the kind of person who is “teaching” our kids, and “molding their minds” for the future. And he is going to be responsible for MANY anti-gun fools in the future; people who “buy” his foolishness. We need to get rid of damned fools like this before they can corrupt any more minds. (FishGame)

"Constitution? What Constitution?"

That’s what Gabby Giffords and her astronaut husband are telling us with the new “report” they’re recently released, which includes several methods for “temporary” gun confiscation. Do these people think because Gabby was injured by a legal OR non-legal gun, that this guives them the right to recommend IGNORING the Constitution? Apparently, they do. Somebody needs to “take them aside” and remind them this, or ANY government, cannot do the things they have demanded. There will ALWAYS be guns on the streets, legally OR illegally. You can’t stop it. It’s like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Guns are everywhere; even in places like communist China, which has laws that do TRULY ban guns in the hands of citizens (but not in the hands of “commisars” or cops, of course) Crooks and crazies are too good at “skirting” gun laws and their supply of guns is ongoing. The ONLY answer is “guns in the hands of good people,” which their current laws do their best to eliminate. (Breitbart)

Their "Gun Control" Doesn't Work

You’d think New York’s new mayor would know better. New York City has some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the nation (outside of the “violent crime capital,” Chicago), but none of them have kept CRIMINALS (who don’t obey laws) from getting their guns, which is common knowledge. Now de Blasio is promoting an “anti-violence initiative,” which will not be any more effective than their current laws. He claims it was successful in “pilot programs” in other cities, but provided no proof of that statement. People like de Blasio keep coming up with tired, old systems that never work, claiming them to be successful elsewhere, and they NEVER work. But they can CLAIM to be “doing something.” But they continue with their useless efforts anyway, hoping that, somehow, criminals will start OBEYING laws. (New York Observer)

Sheriff Defeats Bloomberg

The pro-gun Sheriff in Milwaukee County “whipped up on” former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, when Bloomberg spent $150,000.00 to run ads to defeat him. Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. soared to a BIG victory in spite of Bloomberg’s money. Clarke said, “Bloomberg miscalculated the political climate here when he spent all that money.” People there are very determined to keep their right to carry and use guns for self-defense, and the election result showed that. Bloomberg should take his misleading anti-gun program elsewhere, where there are more anti-gun politicians. The “tide is turning” AGAINST their brand of “gun control.” It has been PROVEN that it does not work, and just hands CRIMINALS an unending supply of unarmed victims. People are “wising up” to his mistaken agenda. (The Blaze)

AR-15 Not Included

District Judge Catherine C. Blake has ruled that “certain firearms” like the AR-15 and AK-style weapons as well as other magazine-fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features “fall outside the Second Amendment protection” as “dangerous and unusual weapons.” They do NOT! Where the hell does she get that? The first, and main purpose of the second Amendment is to allow us to keep guns for self-defense, even against our own government!. What if the opposition HAS such weapons? We would be at a distinct disadvantage in defending ourselves against that. Further, the Founders never could have envisioned such guns, let alone dis-include them, and to them, the TOP self-defense gun was a “flintlock rifle.” Seems to me this judge is “writing her own version of the law,” which she is not allowed to do. You can’t DEFINE a law in such a way as to allow unconstitutional decisions. Apparently, she isn’t smart enough to know that. (The Federalist Papers)

"Knockout Game" With Warning

If a guy comes up to you and asks if you have a gun, don’t answer. Get ready to block a punch. That’s the “new method” they’re using to keep from getting shot and killed while practicing the “knockout game.” Several times a “knockout game” punk was shot when he tried to hit an armed man and they don’t want that to happen to them. So they ask. Which to anyone with intelligence would be “fair warning” that he is about to “sucker punch” you and you should be ready to block it and “return fire.” If you have a gun, you can shoot him, halfway through his punch. But in no case, answer his question. It is preparatory to a “sucker punch,” which is all these punks are good for: punching somebody without warning and running away. Makes them feel like “big men.” (World NetDaily)

Persecution of Honest Gun Owners

In New Jersey, a woman who was a legal gun carrier in another state was stopped by a policeman and she, according to the law as she knew it, informed him of her gun in the trunk. At which time he arrested her for felony gun possession. Forget she was a legal gun carrier in her state and informed him herself of the gun in the trunk, following the law as she knew it. He could have simply advised her that her gun permit was no good in Jew Jersey and maybe write her a ticket for the infraction. Instead, he arrested her for a felony violation, which may result in prison time for this innocent woman. This is indicative of the way liberals overreact to ANYBODY carrying a gun, no matter what the circumstances. Now this innocent woman may be yanked from her family and be forced to spend time in PRISON, with real criminals, where she may be raped or even murdered by other inmates. This is just too much. (Julie On Politics)

Stores Left Alone

In the riots and looting around St. Louis, several stores were untouched. Which ones? And why? All were protected by men with guns who knew how to use them, and weren’t afraid to do so. So looters, who looted stores right next door, stayed away from these stores. Mmmm…wonder what the difference was? It was obviously the presence of men with guns, ready to defend themselves and their property. What have I been saying, all along? How many times do I have to be proved right before the imbeciles who only want to DISARM the populace so criminals, who have no trouble getting their guns illegally, can victimize us without opposition? Maybe, when we start electing politicians with some intelligence. (BizPacReview)

Criminal Control, Not Gun Control

The “anti-gun crowd” insists that we need to “control guns,” but that’s WRONG! We need CRIMINAL CONTROL! Without criminals using them to commit crimes, guns do not do ANYTHING to hurt us (unless somebody misuses them). There are already laws on the books to make a crime using a gun worth more time in the slam, but they are commonly used as “bargaining chips” and are thus dropped to get convictions in other crimes. This practice needs to STOP. Cops just need to work harder to get EVIDENCE for a conviction in other crimes, rather than “take the easy road” and drop gun-use charges to GET their convictions. We need to stop making useless laws to stop the “law-abiding” from getting guns, and work harder to keep the CRIMINALS, who don’t OBEY laws from getting their guns out of the trunks of the cars of other criminals in a back alley somewhere. THAT’S where laws need to be made, and action taken. Guns are merely a TOOL for self-defense, and for criminal offense. Without the criminals, they can't DO anything. (Si Robertson)

Facts They Don't Want You to Know

Gun-grabbers like to cite guns as a leading cause of death in the United States, but when the CDC comes out with its “pie chart” about the leading causes of death, guess what? Guns aren’t even MENTIONED! Of the 15,238 murders in America (which is only 5.2 deaths per 100,000 population), 11,068 were the result of gun violence, and most of those were due to GANG VIOLENCE. And what “gang member” do you know who bought his gun in a retail establishment and PASSED a background test? That’s with 800,000 Americans owning guns and only a TINY NUMBER of those guilty of gun violence, and most of THOSE committed with ILLEGALLY-obtained guns. Clearly guns in the hands of honest people do NOT cause gun violence, and, in fact, help PREVENT it. But they IGNORE this in their quest to disarm Americans. (The Federalist Papers)

Gun Makers Getting Smart

You can’t force sellers of raw steel to register them as “gun parts,” even though they can be made into guns. So some makers are making guns as “PARTS,” with instructions on how to MAKE a gun. That makes it very hard to stop the sales of what can BECOME guns. So the anti-gun fools start concentrating on AMMUNITION. Without ammunition, a gun is useless. They’re already restricting sales of some ammunition and will no doubt soon BAN the sale of ammunition LOADING equipment, to stop people from making their own, This kind of thing and the government “buying up” all the ammo it can has caused a shortage, but has not done the job completely. Nor will it ever do so. They’re trying every sneaky trick in the book to get around the constitutional guarantee NOT to “infringe” on our right to own and use guns for self-defense. But their efforts to make ammunition unavailable IS “infringing” on our right to bear arms, though they will argue that it isn’t. So far, we’re matching them, move for move. But how much longer can we do that? They have all the money in the world to fight us, but it’s not the other way around. (The Federalist Papers)

Background Checks Useless

The anti-gun fools still think Brady’s “Instant Background Checks” helped keep crazies like John Hinkley from getting the guns they used in their mass shootings. In the first place, background checks do NOTHING to keep most crazies and criminals from getting their guns. All they do is help CATCH them if they survive their own shooting spree. After they’re killed and maimed many people. But they don’t even do that. Facts show that, except in a few cases, the people who committed the mass shootings bought their guns at retail from a gun store, and PASSED background checks. But they don’t listen to reason. Logic means NOTHING to an anti-gun fool, to whom the “anti-gun culture” is a religion. Like most people when you question their religion, they put their blinders firmly on and are not amenable to reason. They just want to “get rid of guns,” except in the hands of the cops and government agents, They don’t care how, or how many unarmed victims get killed because of their short-sighted laws. As to Hinkley being charged with murder, it’s not likely. He has already been convicted of a crime on this evidence and cannot be tried again. (The Examiner)

Condemned to Death

Taylor Woolrich has a stalker. She is in imminent danger from him. She asked to get a “carry permit” to protect herself and was REFUSED by the college administration, which has a “no-gun” policy on campus. They think this policy will protect her, even after many illustrations that it WON’T. Such policies, like the usual “gun control” laws, benefit only the criminals or potential criminals, who don’t obey laws. They have caused the DEATH of many people who ran afoul of these “gun-free zones” and died from it. Yes, most of the shooters were caught, and “paid the price,” but that doesn’t do their victims any good—they’re dead. It really amazes me at the abject STUPIDITY of school and other officials who can’t see the obvious and condemn people like this woman to death because of their stupidity. When are we going to get some INTELLIGENT people in these positions? (Inquisitr)

Correcting the President

Obama tries, at every opportunity to change the Constitution in every way he can, and to ignore it when he can’t change it. One of his latest attempts is on one of the government’s web sites, where it says, “The Constitution GIVES American citizens the right to keep and bear arms.” WRONG! The Constitution GIVES no rights. It recognizes that they EXIST and instructs lawmakers never to INFRINGE them. Gun Owners of America corrected them in an open letter that was released to the public, reminding them that the Constitution GIVES no rights, it just recognizes them and promises not to infringe upon them. Not that this will, in any way but cosmetically change Obama’s efforts to deny us the right to be armed for self-defense. If there’s ANY way to do it, you can count on Obama and his thugs to find, and use it. You can count on that. Another thing you can count on is that whatever he does, he’s going to LIE about it. (World NetDaily)

Something Nobody Talks About

Why do liberals work so hard to disarm the populace? You don’t have to eliminate EVERY gun not in the hands of government agents and cops to “reduce gun violence. That will go on, anyway, as CRIMINALS, who OBEY no laws, get their guns illegally out of the trunks of the cars of other criminals in a back alley somewhere. No; their goal is NOT to “reduce gun violence.” It is to reduce gun opposition to THEM as they come to oppress us. They know when they come after our rights and property, they are going to be “at risk” if we are armed, so they take away every gun they can find. Meanwhile, criminals victimize all those unarmed victims provided them by government. We keep telling them how to REALLY stop gun violence, bu if it doesn't involve taking away our guns they aren't interested, because that is NOT their plan. Their plan is to keep us disarmed, and therefore easier to control. (Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel)

How NOT to Promote Gun rights

This guy opened his door in the middle of the night, and without even knowing what was going on and who was knocking, shot and killed this unarmed tiny woman with a shotgun, claiming self-defense. She was not armed—he was. How he figured a self-defense argument would work is beyond me. Self-defense requires a person be RESPONSIBLE, and this guy’s actions were NOT responsible. Think about this little girl, just in an accident, hurt and frightened. She knocks on a door and is shot to rags by a man with a shotgun, Yes, she might have been on something, but does that merit a death sentence? People like this should NEVER be allowed ot have guns, and I’d bet he showed signs of this irresponsibility before. It’s too obvious not to have been evidenced before he murdered this defenseless woman, who was just looking for help, without even asking her what she wanted. This gives the anti-gun fools fodder for their lies. And it’s tragic. (Liberty Alliance)

Obama's War Against Guns

I’ve written about Obama’s attempt to put gun people out of business by “pressuring” banks and lending institutions to stop lending them money. But I didn’t think he’d go so far as to refuse them the right to a bank account, just because “some people disapprove of them.” But Morris Williams, owner of Inman Gun & Pawn, in S. Carolina recently received a letter from Sun Trust Bank telling him that “because of banking rules and regulations,” he must close his accounts because he is running a business that has been “deemed” a “prohibited business.” They don’t say under what “rules and regulations” they demand this, nor did they tell him in just what way he was “running a prohibited business,” and WHO was prohibiting it. The only thing he can think of is that he sells GUNS. This is one of the most underhanded usurpation of power I’ve ever seen. It’s low, even for OBAMA. And he gets pretty low. (Daily Caller)

They Just NEVER Learn!

We tell the anti-gun fools and tell them, school and other shootings in “gun-free zones” prove us right that “gun-free zones” KILL people by INVITING would-be shooters to come in and shoot there because there will be no unknown guns there to oppose them while they kill the UNIFORMED security guard first because he/SHE Is she is easy to find. Meanwhile, they keep on trying to make their STUPID laws to create yet MORE “gun-free zones” as if criminals and crazies actually OBEYED their laws. The fact that would-be shooters CHOOSE “gun-free zones” and STAY AWAY from any place there might be a gun being used against them doesn’t dawn on these fools, who think they know it all and we know nothing. They ridicule our efforts without examining them and people (mostly children) DIE. (The Examiner)

They Tried to Prove Lott Wrong

But they couldn’t. so they LIED about it. They even accused him of using “bad information” in his popular book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” while using bad information themselves in their attempts to debunk his findings that showed that increased concealed carry CAUSED a reduction in violent crime. That they were inept in their efforts goes without saying, but the important thing is, even the NON-inept portion of their findings failed, on all levels, to debunk his findings and, in fact, inadvertently REINFORCED them. Of course, this did not sit well with the anti-gun fools, who are spraying spit all over when they denounce his work (without evidence). They’re really pissed! Now they’re saying (without evidence, of course) that Lott’s research “has been completely discredited” (which it has NOT) and that the “best research” on the relationship of “right to carry” laws to crime is their own paper, that alleges (again, without proof) that RTC temporarily increases aggravated assault (which it does NOT). The efforts of these fools amazes me, but is believed by most people who pay no attention to politics. (Daily Caller)

"New Ground" In Gun Control

Leave it to Massachusetts to come up with an entirely new idea in gun control that gives the government complete control over who has guns, along with complete knowledge of just who has the guns, and where they are.  If H.4376, which has been passed by both houses of the legislature, is signed into law by the governor (who has signaled his willingness to do so), the very PURCHASE of ANY kind of a gun would be subject to the WHIM of a bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat is given wide latitude in declaring his REASON for denying it. So they’re not denying people the right to own guns, but are making it impossible if not APPROVED by a bureaucrat. As usual, this does NOTHING to limit the ILLEGAL purchase of guns by criminals, and serves to keep guns out of the hands of HONEST people—and does NOTHING to punish USE of a gun in a crime. Sneaky, but effective, for their purposes; not for ours. (The Daily Caller)

"Gun-Free Zones" KILL!

We did a story on this before, but attention on this needs to be repeated, over and over, until the thick-headed fools who think they save lives begin to have it dawn on them that it doesn’t. “Gun-free zones” are actually RESPONSIBLE for many deaths because they signal to would-be shooters that there will be no guns there in the hands of honest people who can, and WILL stop them before they can do more damage. The doctor in this story made a conscious decision to violate this “gun-free zone,” carrying his own gun into this medical office building. Other people are realizing this, as witness the blog item here linked, no thanks to the liberal media, who consistently IGNORE the “gun-free zone” angle. This doctor will no doubt be disciplined for having that gun, even though he clearly saved lives (including his own) by having it. It’s good to know that I have been joined by others of intelligence in opposing the LACK of intelligence in the liberal media. (Julie on Politics)

Operation "Chokepoint"

This is an Obama idea to “choke off” gun makers at their money source. Pressuring banks and other lending organizations to refuse to lend money to ALL legal, but “disfavored” by the government outfits. Translation: gun makers and sellers. The idea is to cut off their money supply and therefore run them out of business, even though their business is completely LEGAL, though “politically frowned upon” by the feds. But the FDIC is refusing to “play along,” since such businesses, while “politically frowned upon,” cannot be classified as in the same area as, say, Ponzi schemes. The FDIC said that, even though they’re legal, “some people” didn’t like them, and thus they wanted the FDIC to penalize them. FDIC is “walking that back,” refusing to “come down on” legal businesses just because “some people don’t like them.” This is just one more Obama failure to “regulate guns out of existence.” (Daily Caller)

The "Main Solution"

“Gun control is the main solution to domestic violence.” So sayeth L. A. Parker, in the Trentonian. But not the current method of “gun control,” as reflected in the current anti-gun laws that concentrate on IDENTIFYING the shooter AFTER he shoots, and probably kills someone. That’s NOT an “answer to domestic gun violence,” no more than are restraining orders, which are virtually worthless to stop somebody who is bent on breaking the law anyway. Parker says they are “just paper,” and have no effect. Laws that concentrate on identifying the shooter AFTER the crime is committed similarly are “just paper” and do NOTHING to restrain a would-be shooter. I’m fully in favor of “gun control.” The RIGHT kind, that concentrates on PUNISHING shooters who use guns to commit crimes more severely for using a gun. Not the kind that disarms ALL Americans who DO obey laws, while doing nothing to stop CRIMINALS (who DON’T obey laws) from getting and using them. Parker is well-meaning, but misguided, as are most anti-gun fools whose ideas get more people killed than anything else. (The Trentonian)

Afraid of Guns?

I never thought about anybody being afraid of guns (in their own hands) until I became active in the self-defense writing field. I was never afraid of guns, even when I was a kid who found my dad’s octagon-barrel .32 cal. six-shooter in a closet. No, I never did load it up and play with it or accidentally shoot and kill anybody with it, because Dad taught me to respect it and always treat it as loaded, even when I KNEW it was not.. The thought never occurred to me to play with it. Sometime later I fired expert with that old “workhorse” gun, the .45 caliber automatic used by the military in the fifties. It didn’t frighten me. That never occurred to me, either. The idea of people being afraid of an inanimate object never occurred to me. But some people ARE afraid of guns, mostly because of the “bad rap” guns are being given in the liberal media (which they don’t deserve). Guns are simply a tool to use in self-defense—and that is their principle function. What frightened me was that a LEGISLATOR in Washington State not only ADMITTED being “shocked and sickened” by guns, she was proud of it. And this is a person who MAKES LAWS against guns declaring she was “shocked and sickened” by them. Which means she MUST be biased AGAINST guns—while making laws about them. Some people only look at guns as a sport: shooting or hunting. But those activities are only a secondary use of guns—not the primary one. I really get tired of hearing those people insist on gun rights for SPORTS or hunting, rather than the most important use of them, self-defense. To do so belittles their use for self-defense. (Just common sense)

Getting It Right

Lawmakers continually make laws to promote “gun safety,” but they continue to “get it wrong,” making laws that concentrate on “taking names” to make it easier to SOLVE a crime after it has happened. That does NOTHING to keep gun crimes from HAPPENING. This is a common malady all over the country, and in most other countries. In places like communist China, for instance, guns are simply ILLEGAL for anybody but a government agent or a cop. But criminals there, as well as here, still get their guns and use them with abandon on those of us who OBEY the law and thus do not carry guns for self-protection. Massachusetts recently made yet again such a law, and the Boston Herald seemed to approve it. Their laws ought to concentrate on keeping LAWBREAKERS (who don’t OBEY laws) from getting guns, not honest people (who do), or they should punish gun crimes so severely criminals won’t want to use them or they will be in prison long enough for crime to naturally go down. But most legislators apparently aren’t smart enough to realize that. Such laws are already on the books, but are commonly “waived” to use as a “bargaining chip” to get convictions in other crimes. This must STOP. Meanwhile, honest people MUST be allowed to have, and carry their own guns to be able to defend themselves. (Boston Herald)

Cops Overreact

In Armada, MI, a local teenage girl was murdered, which instigated a massive “investigation” that included violating the civil rights of everybody on the roads around the town. Cops set up roadblocks in three places, effectively blockading the entire town. Stopping and questioning EVERY person they could find about their destination, where they came from, etc, writing it all down, and holding up traffic for hours. This is a good example of cops using a dastardly crime as an EXCUSE tro violate everybody’s rights. Worse, I suspect they didn’t come up with anything concrete from these roadblocks after wasting everybody’s time and stepping on their right of movement. This action came an entire WEEK after the girl’s body was found, after the murderer had ample time to be elsewhere. (Police State, USA)

Changing Facts Again

The “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” (two guys with a fax machine and a telephone number and a lot of time on their hands) is saying now that “The Founders” never mentioned “self-defense: in the Constitution. That the only thing they specifically mentioned was the right to bear arms in an “organized militia. But they DIDN’T mention an “organized militia,” because an “organized militia” did not exist at the time the Constitution was written. What is it going to take to get through the concrete in the brains of these stupid people? They simply wanted to preserve the right of ALL Americans to SELF-DEFENSE and to have and carry the means to that, a gun, to counter the ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals, some even wearing badges. It’s a simple concept, but one that is impossible for these stupid people to comprehend. (Facebook)

Insisting On Stupidity

At least two Oklahoma lawmakers “get it.” They must have been listening when guys like me said that if more people they couldn’t pinpoint and “take out” first were able to carry guns on school property there’d be a lot fewer school shootings on school property. They want to “make it so,” but are running against stiff opposition from university “officials” who want to maintain the STUPID “gun-free zones” that have gotten so many people KILLED. They really think making school property a “no-gun zone” will stop a criminal or crazy from coming on campus carrying a gun. Do they really think people who want to KILL a bunch of people will care about violating a “gun-free zone?” How do you get through to people whose minds are set in concrete? And these are the people who PRETEND to be smart enough to teach our children about the world. (Chicago Tribune)

It Isn't Working, Folks!

They still have some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the nation in Chicago, even though the court struck down their blatant “gun ban.” Still, their murder and other gun violence rates are sky-high. Which just goes to prove that their brand of anti-gun laws just don’t work. Criminals will still get their guns, and the tougher the gun laws are, the easier it is to get guns because more criminals are selling them out of the trunks of their cars in a back alley, somewhere. All such laws do is, as I have said many times, give ILLEGALLY armed criminals a steady stream of UNARMED victims. I’ll keep on saying it until the day I die, but that will make no difference to those ignorant anti-gun fools who never learn. (FSRN)

Next Gun Control Push

It’s going to be coupled with “the woman’s rights” issue. Of course, that’s a phony issue Obama made up so he could further limit your rights. When Obama’s anti-gun laws failed last year, it was NOT Republicans that killed it; it was DEMOCRATS voting against it. The anti-gun fools (Obama among them) fail and fail, time after time, and STILL they don’t “tumble” to the fact that Americans do not WANT their kind of “gun control.” But does that stop them—or even slow them down? NO; they have people being paid big bucks to sit in darkened rooms finding new ways to limit our right to be armed in our own self-defense. And they’re worth the money to them. They’re always coming up with new scams and connecting it to “women’s rights” is the latest scam. The con is “keeping guns out of the hands of abusers.” But once the law is made, they don’t limit it to REAL abusers; they create their own “abusers” by using a very WIDE definition of just what abuse really IS. (Cowboy Byte)