More Guns, Less Crime

Sounds like a cliché, doesn't it? At least, that's what the “anti-gun nuts” want you to think. Ever since John Lott wrote a book by that name, anti-gun fools have been trying to debunk the whole idea, although in that book, Lott brought forth ample evidence to PROVE his thesis. They still say that book has been debunked, though it has NOT. Now comes even more evidence it is true. The FBI is now reporting FEWER MURDERS, and fewer armed robberies since gun ownership has become more prevalent following record gun sales. This follows a year in which background checks broke records, John Walsh notwithstanding. Maybe those figures are because more armed criminals are being killed by armed citizens and there just aren't so many of them, any more. Or maybe because more intelligent criminals have gone into other kinds of crime that is a little safer, I don't know. I just know that with more guns in the hands of honest people, crime has GONE DOWN. That's an indisputable FACT, no matter how hard the anti-gun fools object. (Breitbart)

Anti-Gun Activists Violent

They talk a good game about reducing gun violence, but they really want you dead. That's their answer to ANY opposition. Get rid of it. That's why they remade a recent NRA ad to show a woman shooting herself. I expect to have them join the global warming religion supporters and demand pro-gun people be put in prison because they oppose them. That's how all kinds of liberals operate. They think they can't possibly be wrong, so they want to have their opposition SHUT UP in any way possible. They can't suggest they be killed (even though those “Black Lives Matter” fools get away with it), so they just suggest they be imprisoned. They're really frustrated. They work so hard to take away our right to have a gun, and fail every time. Meanwhile, as more and more legal guns appear on the streets in the hands of honest, reliable people, violent crime goes down, just as we said it would. (Says Uncle)

Clinton's Gun Words Backfire

She recently came out and confirmed that she was just another “gun-grabber,” and made some pro-gunners' heads explode. But they should have waited. Sanity prevailed. All her coming out against gun ownership did was to ”energize gun owners.” She's apparently vying with Obama to become the biggest gun salesperson in the country. Obama' efforts at “gun control” have done nothing but help INCREASE gun sales nationwide. I'm sure her actions will do so, too. Liberals think all they have to do is come out against something, and the whole country will fall right in line. Not so. Ownership of guns for self-defense is a BASIC right, and we'll fight to the DEATH to keep it. She ought to learn that, but she's not smart enough. She and Obama will keep yapping about gun control while we keep on defeating their every effort to take that right away.(American Women Who Bear Arms)

Fair Bans Guns

Arizona state Fair banned guns. And guess what? Fair workers were robbed at gunpoint. What? You mean the criminals didn't obey the rules? Horrors! The gun-grabbers tell us confidently that all we have to do is make a law against people having guns and violent crime would miraculously vanish from the Earth. What happened? Why don't criminals obey the rules? That's why they're called criminals, you say? Because they don't obey laws OR rules? Wow! Do you think the gun-grabbers will take note of that and change their ways? No? You don't think so? is it that they're not smart enough? I thought they were the smartest people on Earth. They always tell me so. Has anybody told them the laws they are currently making serve only to make “easy targets” out of honest Americans who DO obey laws? Yes, you say? And they don't listen? Wow! Maybe the lawmakers should start ignoring their efforts to disarm ALL Americans (except criminals, of course). Maybe they could start making laws to punish USE of guns in crime. They already have them, you say, but they use them as “bargaining chips” to get convictions in other crimes, you say? Maybe some laws should be made to force them to enforce those laws. Maybe that would work. You say they're bent over laughing? I'm not surprised. (Ammoland)

No Guns Around the Pope

When the Pope came to Philadelphia, they BANNED GUNS anywhere around him. Of course, that's unconstitutional, but they don't care. It will be all over before any case can be brought before the Supreme court, or any “inferior court,” so they'll get away with it. It's that old saw, “Better to ask for forgiveness later than ask permission now and be refused.” Especially since there's no punishment designated in the Constitution for violating it, except for reversal of the violation, if possible. In this case, it's NOT possible. But did they really think that if anybody decided to shoot the Pope, their “rules” would have stopped him from having a gun in the Pope's presence? Of course, there were a lot of guns around the Pope (at least 11,not counting the cops). They were all carried by his security and all the cops running interference. As usual, “the authorities” deny us “peons” the right to self-defense while ALLOWING it to “dignitaries,” who can well afford to HIRE their own guns and men to carry them, so they don't have to. And, of course, they have armed cops right there to take care of anybody who wants to shoot the Pope. Something us “peons” don't have, as a rule. This is one of the best examples of that “double standard.” (The Truth About Guns)

Let 'Em Talk

I've always said, let ignorant people talk, and they'll reveal their ignorance by what they say. Gabby Giffords and her bald-headed husband have done that by saying that “armed citizens” with guns have killed more than those killed in all wars since Reagan. Which is a lot of horse manure (like pretty much everything they say). Aside from the fact that many more soldiers have been killed than the military admits, she doesn't say which ones were shot by LEGAL guns, and which by ILLEGAL guns. That makes a big difference, you know. There is nothing the laws she promotes that will do ANYTHING about all the ILLEGAL guns on the streets, most of them in he hands of criminals, who are PRONE to shoot people. Like most anti-gun fools, she plays “fast and loose” with facts, making it up as she goes along. They have to, because all REAL statistics prejudice their case. One question in my mind is, “Was the guy who “scrambled her brains” with a bullet carrying a LEGAL gun. Or not? If it was legal, how would her laws prevented him from getting it? If it was ILLEGAL, the question is the same. (Breitbart)

Suicide By Cop

One sheriff said, “Some people choose to be shot by us.” Which causes liberals to “lose their minds,” but it's true. Most of the people cops shoot who are later found to be unarmed do something, SHOW something to convince the cop they're not only armed, but wish to harm him/her—so they get shot. And the cop takes the blame, sometimes just losing his (or her) job and career, sometimes going to prison him(her)self. But try and convince those “useful idiots” in the “black lives matter” bunch of that. They only believe the worst of cops, for their own purposes. Most of them are criminals, in their own right. And yes, they are in danger of being shot by cops as they go about their criminal enterprise. But murdering cops from ambush is NOT going to “help their cause.” It's only going to create a situation that makes what they say about cops come true. Cops, knowing they are targets, will be super vigilant, and quick to shoot, to save their own lives. Then they will have their “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Know that the “black lives matter” movement is a movement of criminals, FOR criminals. It's a short-sighted attempt to “get the cops off their back,” and it's NOT going to work. It will (and is) make(ing) things worse than ever, with more cops (and criminals) dying than ever before. And what for? To make criminals feel good. (Bearing Arms)

Dream On, San Fran!

The headline says, “Gun Violence to End in San Francisco After Last Gun Store Closes.” (It's probably moving to a city close by where the politicians are more intelligent). That's what the anti-gun fools think, anyway. I'll be watching the news reports in the next few weeks and months to see just how damned STUPID and naive this is. The guns we have to worry about are in the hands of CRIMINALS, who obey NO LAWS and get their guns illegally so they can't be easily traced to them. Closing all the gun stores isn't going to make a ripple in the crime stats, except to cause them to rise sharply, while those gun stores who moved to other close cities thrive, selling guns to honest people. This headline reflects the STUPIDITY of ALL the anti-gun fools who really believe that bilge that if all guns are illegal, that will reduce, or eliminate gun crime. That's a “forlorn hope,” and intelligent people know it. anti-gun fools don't. (Cowboy Byte)

Getting smart

The State of Maine has “gotten smart.” They have passed a law allowing anybody who has a gun to carry it, concealed, or unconcealed, without the necessity of getting a concealed carry permit. Watch for the violent crime rate to “drop like a stone” in the near future, as armed honest people kill ILLEGALLY-armed criminals when they try to victimize them. These criminals aren't too smart, which they prove, every day, by being criminals. So they will still try and victimize honest people, thinking their guns won't make much difference. So the number of criminals using their ILLEGAL guns will decrease fast, as armed citizens kill them, and violent crime will wither. Will other states follow suit? Maybe. If their politicians are intelligent enough, as many of them are not. But I suspect pressure from the citizens will PUSH some into doing likewise and the number of states having their honest citizens kill violent criminals will increase. And Islamic terrorists, who are moving here by the thousands and more (with Obama's help, and at our expense), will get the same message Tojo got, that there “would be a gun behind every blade of grass” in America, that caused him to refuse to invade the American mainland during WWII. (The Right to Bear)

Shot Him Dead

The criminals didn't worry because there were three men on that bridge that night. He had a gun, so he figured he would be “in charge.” so as they passed him, he pulled out his gun and pistol whipped him. But instead of cowering at his superiority, the guy he pistol whipped pulled out his own gun and shot him to death. Lesson learned: don't attack without knowing your victim isn't prepared. But he didn't get to reflect on it for very long, because he is now on a slab in the morgue and the guy he pistol whipped is at home resting, after telling the cops his story, backed up by the testimony of his friends. It was a clear case of self-defense, and there is now one less armed criminal running the streets in Phoenix, Arizona. It again proves that those who make laws against self-defense really want violent crime to succeed, no matter what they tell you. As long as they keep honest people unarmed, situations like this will end up in the guy who got pistol whipped, and maybe his friends, as well, dead. They paint nasty pictures of honest, reliable people “going wild” if they have guns, and all that does is show their lack of confidence in our reliability—which is bogus. (The Right to Bear)

He Needs to Be Replaced

Chicago's “top cop” needs to be forced to find another job that doesn't tell cops it's okay to shoot people who have “carry permits” just because he doesn't like the idea of legal guns on the street. He ignores the fact that there are millions of ILLEGAL guns on the streets, in the hands of people who wish us evil, and those who have LEGAL guns can help the cops immensely, by killing those with illegal guns when they try and victimize someone. This guy is short-sighted and incompetent to do this job. He should be fired and not allowed to EVER be any kind of a cop again in his life, because he isn't thinking right. He doesn't know who the “enemy” is, and thinks honest people are the enemy because they're armed. He thinks only cops should be carrying guns, even though studies have shown that cops are FIVE TIMES more likely to shoot the wrong person than anybody else. And that's only going to get worse with all the thugs out there thinking the “black lives matter” crap gives them a “license to kill cops,” and cops a "license to kill back." (Bearing Arms)

How Is This Possible? (sic)

I'm getting very tired of reporting on the “Rahm and Garry Show” in Chicago. All the “gun grabbers” tell us that the fewer the guns allowed on the streets, the less gun violence there will be.” And they're ALWAYS wrong. Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation. So tight, in fact, that the courts have seen fit to declare some of them to be unconstitutional, while Chicago goes right out and makes more laws that are JUST as unconstitutional and enforce them until another court speaks. Meanwhile, criminals (who don't OBEY laws) go right on killing people while the lawmakers target the GUNS, not the GUNNERS, and make all kinds of USELESS LAWS that do nothing but make “easy targets” of all of us, while those same “lawmakers” go about behind their own screen of ARMED security while 82 people were shot, just over the last weekend in Chicago, and 14 died. They're BLIND to the fact that their laws are USELESS, and lead to more innocent deaths. They're INCOMPETENT, that way. And in many other ways, as well. They keep on making those USELESS laws, crying that they're “doing something about gun violence,” while they're only making it worse. (Bearing Arms)

For Them, Not For Us

I'm getting very tired of celebrities who can (and do) hire people to carry their guns for them telling us we have no right to self defense. They SAY we don't have the right to carry a gun (we do), but carry that to it's logical extreme, and it means we have no right to self-defense, while they do, since they can afford to hire armed guards to protect them. One of the more recent examples of this anti-gun bigotry is Justin Bieber, who goes about with more armed protection that the president, was seen holding an automatic pistol with his finger on the trigger (illegally, of course, since he's too young to have a gun legally, and there was a cop in the background, who probably supplied the gun). That's what I object to: people who are surrounded by armed guards (as are most of the lawmakers who make such laws) telling me I can't carry my own gun so I won't be an “easy target” for an illegally-armed thug. Senator Diane Feinstein is the worst of this lot. She's an avid anti-gun freak, but has her own “carry” permit and carries her own gun. She also has a bunch of armed guards around her, wherever she goes.  And of course, she was once seen waving an automatic weapon around in a crowded room with HER finger on the trigger. (The Wire)

Not Many School Shootings

There aren't too many mass shootings in Israeli schools, because teachers are ARMED. They won't be “easy targets” as they are in this country. At least, most of this country. In Salt Lake City, Utah, at least one teacher is armed and well able to protect her students. Kasey Hansen, who is a “special needs” teacher, decided, after Sandy Hook, not to support those USELESS laws liberals usually make to disarm HONEST people while ignoring criminals, who don't get their guns legally, anyway, but to arm herself and carry her gun to school. It has been ten years since teachers have been allowed to carry their guns in school, and there have been NO school shootings in those ten years. I wonder why:? Maybe the “bad guys” don't want to get shot as soon as they show their guns. Intelligent people are not frightened by the very thought of a gun in school, even if it is carried to PROTECT their children. (Defend and Carry)

"Got Guns? No Kids"

A Nevada couple went out of their way to help kids. They were foster parents to three of them, happily so. It was So when somebody threatened them, they brought out their guns. Only problem, the law had been recently changed, and CPS removed their foster parent credentials because owning guns were no longer allowed for foster parents. Of course, they didn't know that (yet), when they used their guns to protect their children. Now the “powers-that-be” have decided ti make them “Easy targets for the next bunch of criminals that come after them, by taking away their right to have guns, in VIOLATION of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It's a violation, and they know it.; But they don't care. They can CLAIM it's a “bureaucratic decision” and isn't prohibited by the Constitution. That's a lie, but they'll use it, anyway. That's how they “get around” the Constitution. (The Right to Bear)

Needs to Happen More Often

A homeowner a bunch of gang members decided to beat up, and maybe kill since the target of their anger wasn't there, shot and killed one of them and stabbed another (with his own knife?). This needs to happen more often. Then maybe loser kids like these wouldn't being their ILLEGAL guns and try to victimize honest people. This article doesn't say whether the homeowner had his gun legally, but I assume he did, since they didn't talk about any charges against him, either. But you can BET the guns the gang members brought were illegal. If what politicians wanted was true here, this homeowner would probably be dead, now. It pains me that the people we elect to office want to make us defenseless against this type of attack, and especially the attacks that will be coming soon from Islamic terrorists that are having their way here PAID by Obama. Most of these people walk around behind a wall of armed men, anyway. (Guns)

TheyThought He'd Be Easy"

The thug who attacked this 84-year-old man thought he'd be an easy target because he was so old. Boy, did they get a surprise. When it started, he beat him unmercifully and severely injured him—until he got his gun and shot one of them, who was found wounded when the cops (finally) arrived. In a similar incident, a 54-year-old man took a gun away from a robber and shot him to death with his own gun. These incidents should give a message to armed burglars. Don't underestimate old men. They'll surprise you sometimes. I'm 78, and for the first time in my life I'm a bit “fearful” of simply going to the grocery store because I know the thugs—who always choose “easy targets” will view me as such. If they try men though, they'll find out different. I remember a time when my daughter was approached by a guy with a gun. She took it away from him and threw him in a creek. Men with guns don't always win. (Guns)

"Self-Inflicted Genocide"

That's how movie director Spike Lee described what he found when he was in Chicago for six weeks shooting an anti-gun movie he calls, “Chiraq.” Blacks talk disdainfully of cops shooting unarmed black men (which happens rarely, if at all), while ignoring the “self-inflicted genocide” committed by those black men, themselves. During the six weeks he was in Chicago, which has some of the tightest “gun laws” in the nation, there were 400 SHOOTINGS, which killed 65 people and injured 331. He, and Mayor Rahm Emmanuel hope to point out that genocide in that film. But they pointedly fail to mention that most of those shootings were carried out with ILLEGALLY-owned guns. Not those owned by law-abiding people. That's a common failing for anti-gunners. Most of the “gun problems” we see come from people who get their guns ILLEGALLY, not from honest citizens who OBEY the law and have LEGAL guns, and they somehow fail to mention that. What a bunch of hypocrites! (Guns)

Don't Want You to Know

The Obama administration apparently wants to hide the fact that the gun that killed Brian Terry was one of the guns Obama ran to Mexico's drug cartels under the GUISE of a “scam” to identify how legal gun dealers sold guns to them. Instead, it SUPPLIED them with many guns, and have led to many murders, including this one.The guns contained NO tracing devices, proving the LIE to their excuse. But Obama doesn't want you to know that, so he sent word to the judge in this case to BAN all mention of the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme in the killer's trial. He doesn't want us to know that without his gun-running scheme, this guy would have had a little harder time getting the gun he used to kill this guy. The massive coverup is the kind of criminal act we have come to expect from that criminal in the White House, Barack Obama. His scam was SUPPOSED to show how legal gun dealers sold guns “under the table” to Mexican drug cartels. But what they didn't tell you is they ORDERED those dealers to sell them the guns, or they wouldn't have done so. (Truth About Guns)

How Could This Happen?

New York City has some of the tightest “gun laws” in the nation. In fact they were one of the FIRST cities to enact a tough “gun law,” the “Sullivan Law.” So how could TWO PEOPLE be killed and even more injured by gunfire in one day in one city? The “anti-gun freaks” say if guns are eliminated from the world (an impossibility) there would BE no “gun crime.” They're obviously wrong, but they'll never admit it. Justin Bieber thinks there is NO GUN CRIME in Canada since they banned guns, entirely, and HE'S terribly wrong (as most smart-alec teens usually are). They keep making their USELESS “gun laws” that do nothing but make honest people “easy targets” for ILLEGALLY-ARMED criminals and, soon Islamic terrorists, who ALSO will have no trouble getting guns from illegal sources, which THRIVE under a “tight gun law” society. Politicians seem to be BENT on DISARMING honest people and making them EASY TARGETS for malefactors. (New York Post)

Bieber On Gun Control

While holding a loaded gun with his finger on the trigger (something he's too young to do, legally). He seems to think there is no “gun crime” in Canada, where guns are prohibited (they don't have the benefit of the Second Amendment to the Constitution). Boy, is this kid DELUDED! This just points up the fallacy of actually LISTENING to the rantings of young punks like him. He thinks wearing a hoodie in the summer with the hood up is fashionable! And that HAIR! Anybody who would let himself be seen with his hair in that condition isn't too bright. He thinks he's the “smartest guy in the room,”like most teenagers—but he's not. All this talk is from a guy who's surrounded by ARMED security (something they deny), but I'd bet if you frisked some of them, you'd find their guns. It's actually FUNNY how such people, who can afford to hire people with guns to protect them want to deny the rest of us the same right. But that seems to be how it is with young (or old) fools like him. By the way: don't think I read Billboard regularly. I don't. I was led to this article when I saw a picture of him holding a loaded gun with his finger on the trigger. (Billboard)

Their Biggest Mistake

The biggest mistake made by anti-gun fools is thinking that LAWS will stop criminals from getting guns. How STUPID is that? In areas where the gun laws are the tightest, guns are easier to get than anywhere else. Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation, but they also have one of the highest gun death rates in the nation, as well. Spike Lee stayed in Chicago for six weeks making an anti-gun movie and noted 400 SHOOTINGS in that time that resulted in 65 deaths and 300 some injuries—in SPITE of their tight gun laws. And don't think those were done by LEGAL gun owners! Most were done by gang members (most of whom are too young to legally own guns) and other criminals who had their guns ILLEGALLY. Anybody who thinks a LAW will keep criminals from having guns is DELUDED. As are most of the people making “gun laws” today. Justin Bieber thinks their gun laws have STOPPED gun violence in Canada. How dumb is THAT? Just read the linked article about the “gun crime spike in just Toronto, and/or Google Canada gun crime.” Apparently Bieber doesn't know about Google. (Toronto Sun)

Again, the Wrong Target

The Confederate Flag never hurt anybody, yet the liberals have targeted it, and any manifestation of it. Just as they are doing with gun violence, instead of targeting the CRIMINAL, they target the GUN, which is entirely innocent unless held and fired by a human being. So somebody used a gun to kill somebody. Instead of targeting the guy who pulled the trigger, liberals again target an inanimate object they THINK is simply the symbol of something they don't like, when it used to be THEIR OWN symbol. Bill Clinton even had a campaign button with it on it. The whole campaign against the Confederate Flag is a “smoke screen” to divert attention from their own shortcomings. We need to start telling them to “go to hell” whenever they try to DELETE it from the world, especially where THEY used it. (Hot Air)

We Won, Again

A federal court “took a little nibble” into Washington, DC's silly anti-gun laws that don't do a thing to stop gun violence, but increases it, instead, by disarming their potential victims, making them “easy targets.” Little by little, the courts are taking their stupid laws apart, as they should be. If the trend continues, maybe we'll get back to what the Second Amendment intended, citizen's free access to the tools for self defense, a gun, Liberals talk about ”gunfights in the streets” if that happens. Maybe that's what we need: a few gunfights between honest citizens and ILLEGALLY-armed criminals. That would certainly get a bunch of criminals “off the streets” and onto a slab at the morgue. That's one way to reduce violent crime: get rid of violent criminals. We need to “kill off” a few—or more than a few. We need to make armed criminals VERY nervous, not knowing if his intended victim might be armed and well-able to put an END to him. That way, they would decide to go into a less dangerous line of “work.” (Hot Air)

The "Inconvenient Truth"

Just as the gun grabbers use the wrong methods to “reduce gun violence,” so are the real reasons FOR gun violence ignored. It's not the guns, it's the people. As this linked article says, the reasons for gun violence are, the popularization of violence in the media, the abuse of drugs, poverty caused by welfare, and one-parent families (usually the mother). But if I were to choose ONE THING that is the MOST responsible, I'd choose the use of illegal drugs. There is more crime committed to “get the next fix” than for any other reason. Another factor is the “cheapening of life” precipitated by the Supreme Court's MAKING A LAW that says it's “okay to murder infants in the womb, and now even OUT of it., therefore cheapening our reverence for life, itself.

That is emphasized by the current “Planned Parenthood controversy where there shouldn't be a controversy, at all. People called returning Vietnam veterans “baby killers,” and today, the same people ARE “baby killers." Anybody with half a brain would CONDEMN what Planned Parenthood is doing, but apparently there are very few people with half a brain left in this country, which is why stopping them is a “controversy.” It is this lack of intelligence that leads people to take up an illegal gun and kill people for little, or NO reason at all. In 1996, Australia flat-out BANNED GUNS. Then crime increased apace. The number of guns in Australia INCREASED, while OTHER violent crimes (using knives, heavy objects, and other killing tools including bare hands) increased, as well.

France has largely banned guns, as well. Even many of their COPS are unarmed, which became obvious when two Muslim terrorists attacked a newspaper for drawing a picture of Mohammed, and killed 11 innocent people. The responding cops, being unarmed, could do nothing but cower behind their cars while the criminals did their dirty work. Gun grabbers keep saying America has more gun violence than any other country. That's a bald-faced LIE. Australia (which banned guns entirely) has the LARGEST increase in violent crime, while America is 13^th on the list of violent crime increases. I hate to say, “I told ya so,” but I told ya so. Will the anti-gun freaks listen to reason and logic? Not likely. That would take INTELLIGENCE, something that is in short supply among them. (The Right to Bear)

Jeb: "No Gun Rights"

Jeb Bush thinks because of the Tenth Amendment, you don't have a right, under FEDERAL law, to have a gun. He thinks “Only the states can recognize that right because of the wording of the Tenth Amendment that says, "All powers not ceded to the federal government are reserved to the states, respectively, or the people. Maybe he needs to look a little closer at the Constitution. The Second Amendment clearly states that NO LAWS can be made limiting our right to own and use a gun. What about that does Jeb NOT understand? Jeb is a Republican. He's not supposed to be a “gun-grabber.” The Constitution clearly states otherwise, whatever he thinks. He thinks reserving the right to make gun laws REMAINS with ONLY the states. He's wrong. The states can make NO LAWS that do not conform to the Constitution. They had to agree to that in order to BECOME a state. (Liberty Alliance)

Sorry, Folks!

It happened again. We lost power again at 6:47 AM Wednesday and I had only the overhead lights under power all day yesterday and most of today until they figured out how to fix it. Unfortunately my battery backup didn't work. I did manage to “jury-rig” a power source for my computer a little while ago and that's what I'm using now.

Violation of Civil Rights

Apparently ALL those signs posted on the front of various businesses saying “No Guns Allowed” are a violation of the civil rights of concealed carry permit holders. It was a city-owned outfit, the ZOO in Houston, Texas that put up the signs and the city quickly told them to take them down, which they did. In Texas, they SHOULD know better, It was in Texas where a doctor who was a concealed carry permit holder had to watch her parents be murdered by a mass killer in a restaurant after being forced to leave her gun in her car by such a sign on a restaurant. ANY place that is a “gun-free zone” is an OPEN INVITATION to would-be mass shooters to “come in and shoot us up, nobody will be here with a gun to oppose you.” And if they think that sign will stop a deranged killer from bringing his gun into their place of business because of a SIGN, they are DELUDED. I would not enter a business sporting such a sign on their door because I would feel unsafe there. (Personal Liberty)

Insulting Women

That's what the latest horse manure put out by “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence” has done when they suggest women just aren't strong enough to successfully use a gun against an attacker. This is a LOAD of horse manure. What they want to do is disarm all honest Americans (except the criminals, of course, who don't obey their laws). This, of course, ignores the numerous cases where a woman who has a gun successfully defends herself against an attacker. But most of those cases don't get reported in the liberal media because it doesn't “jibe” with their agenda to make all of us defenseless against illegally armed criminals. Not to mention all the Muslim killers that Obama is not only ALLOWING to come here, he is paying their way! He calls them “refugees,” and there may be some refugees among them, but many of them are simply Muslim terrorists wishing to fool Obama (which isn't hard, since he's on their side) into HELPING them infiltrate us. We need to get rid of Obama BEFORE his term is up so he can do less damage to this country. (I'm not suggesting we kill him, for the benefit of those federal snoopers reading this. There are several legal ways to do that.) But rid ourselves of this traitorous saboteur, we must. Be aware the Atlantic is a liberal rag, so don't believe everything you read there. (The Atlantic)

Incompetent Governor

And, of course, it's a Democrat governor! Martin O'Malley, Democrat former governor of Maryland, now running for president with NO chance of winning, is “fed up with gun violence.” So he wants to raise the age where a man can own a gun to 21. Uh....governor....you already HAVE a law that does that, and so do most other states. Not only that, there's a FEDERAL LAW that says you can't sell a gun, OR ammunition to a minor. It might pay you to do a little research before you act, gov. Of course, along with that, he's looking at the usual bunch of USELESS laws about controlling gun storage, expanding background checks, and the like. He says it's because of the “increasing gun violence.” apparently he doesn't know that gun violence is GOING DOWN as more and more states pass REAL gun laws that allow honest people to have their own guns for self defense, instead of ones that DISARM honest people while criminals, gang members (a repetition, that), and terrorists have no trouble getting their guns illegally. Most gang members are underage, but they ALL carry guns and kill people at the drop of a hat. And sometimes they drop the hat. If we had some COMPETENT politicians in office, maybe we could DO something about that. But not as long as we (not me) keep electing Bozos like O'Malley. (Town Hall)

But They Will

It is said that even the most virulent gun-haters cannot argue with this man's reason to buy a gun, but they will. They don't care about his safety. All they care about is making more and more honest people “sitting ducks” for armed criminals, gang members, and Islamic terrorists. Harvey Lembo was robbed FIVE TIMES, so he went out and bought a gun, since he was tired of being victimized. Just hours later a burglar broke into his house, and ignored orders to sit still until the cops came. So Lembo shot him in the shoulder. He decided to obey. Just goes to show ya, “don't mess with old folks.” You never know what tricks they have up their sleeves. Now if he had been a batter shot, there'd be one less burglar left. Maybe he'll get another chance to correct his aim, if the guy decides to come after him when he gets out of jail, which will probably be soon, if I know my “criminal justice system” today.(Second Amendment Insider)

Undermining the NRA

The gun-grabbers have a new scheme. Pay the $25 and JOIN the NRA so as to “infiltrate the NRA” so they'll be able to undermine it. That's what the gun-grabbers want to do, and openly advocate it. For only $25 a year, they figure to get many things, including the right to vote Wayne LaPierre out of office. Good luck with that. Wayne is the PERENNIAL vice president of NRA. No matter who is the president. I don't think there is a way in the NRA by-laws to DO that. And even if they could, what makes them think Wayne is the ONLY person in the NRA hierarchy who can keep this needed organization going? I say, “needed” to counter the machinations of those fools who want to DISARM all honest people in the United States and NOT the criminals, or the terrorists who have come here to kill us.

Do they really think they can destroy the NRA by voting him out of office? The strength of the NRA is their “bench.” They have many good people behind Wayne on their team. That's why they whip the anti-gun freaks so often. Go ahead, anti-gunners. Spend your money to join and make them even stronger. We welcome it! They say in Great Britain, where guns ARE prohibited, they have a murder rate 138 times SMALLER than in the United States, but don't mention how much SMALLER that country is than the United States, and that the murder rate, while smaller than ours, has INCREASED significantly since that law was passed. And as to becoming a “voting majority,” I'm sure the NRA knows all about their ideas and have provisions in the by-laws to prevent it. (Huffington Post)

They Aren't Too Smart

Are they? In 2013, this same guy broke into this home when he was a teenager and got shot. So he came back in 2014 and this time was shot and KILLED. What the hell was he THINKING? Maybe to get his revenge for being shot the first time? Didn't make it, did he? Unless he wanted the homeowner to suffer from remorse over his death, that is. But somehow I don't think that homeowner cares much about the death of a burglar. The writer of this article started to advise burglars not to come back to the same place where they got shot once before, then changed his mind and said, “Sure, sure! Come back and help lower the gun violence rate by your death.” People who go into the burglar racket aren't very smart, which this guy has demonstrated graphically. Oh, well: one less burglar more or less isn't a great loss. This guy should win a Darwin Award. Posthumously. Another thug claims misreporting about it being the same guy. But it may have been, anyway. It doesn't matter. The guy should have known about the previous break-in, even if it WASN'T the same guy this time. He must have really been frightened. He ran THREE BLOCKS after being shot before he died. (Concealed Nation)

The "Cult" of Gun-Haters

In the wake of the deaths of two Virginia reporters the liberal cult of anti-gunners are on their high-horses yet again, demanding the nation be disarmed.Their flawed logic seems to reason if guns were eliminated from legal purchase then the whole nation would be safe. Sure, it’s great in theory, but it’s totally impractical in practice. Just ask the pastor of an Oklahoma City church who had to use his firearm to protect himself during a robbery.” This pastor confronted a burglar who was robbing his church and held him at gunpoint. But he “ran off” just as police were arriving (later) and was found hiding on a neighbor's property and was arrested by the cops, who probably wouldn't have found him unless told exactly where he was. The pastor fired two shots at him as he ran off, and I suspect, purposely missed, just hoping to scare him into stopping, a forlorn hope. But he was found, and all is well, due to the pastor being a “concealed carry” permit holder. The media ignores stories like this because it doesn't advance their agenda to disarm honest people and make them “easy targets” for ILLEGALLY-ARMED criminals. (Tea Party Update)

Losing Interest

It looks like anti-gun fools are losing interest in “gun control.” Those running Bloomberg's “Everytown Gun Safety” bunch of fools promised to “flood DC with anti-gun fools” (my words, not theirs) at their recent gathering. But it didn't happen. Only a few hundred showed up for the festivities, and I suspect most of them were there for the party. The media outnumbered protesters at the event, some coming from as far away as France. They took lots of closeup photos of the “crowd,” hoping to hide the small turnout in their dispatches. That's how they do it to advance their agenda to disarm Americans. Many Democrats, including Terry McAuliffe, made speeches to the tiny crowd. Most of the speeches pushed the passage of already discredited legislation that did nothing to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS, but did serve to make honest people “easy targets” for those illegally-armed criminals. They say selling a lot of guns is “not what Americans want,” but they're wrong, if statistics showing gun sales booming say anything. They always run pictures of a table full of captured guns with these articles, but I suspect it's always the same photo. They can't have too many. (Free Beacon)

"Any Way Possible"

I'm going to go out on limb, here. But I don't think I'm going very far, what with “Black Lives Matter” fools telling black men to kill cops with impunity, I don't think I'll get in much trouble if I tell you to IGNORE the liberal “gun laws” they have out there, now. Get your guns any way you can, legal or illegal. Just get them. That way, when Islamic extremists come here to shoot us up like they're doing in the Middle East and Europe, you can shoot back and help them to become martyrs and get their 74 virgins. They can't behead somebody for not believing the way you think they should if they have a bullet in your brains. It's our politicians' wish to take away our guns so they can enslave us. Hitler had COMPLETE gun control, and that's what he did, until some people who still HAD guns came in and put an END to him. So did Stalin until his system met a similar fate. Taken down by somebody with guns. (The Blaze)

Luttrel Says It All

In a recent NRA ad, he told the Muslims this: “Don’t ever confuse me for my politicians or my media. I am an American, free born and free bred…My freedom is more powerful than anything you can possibly do,” Luttrell says in the ad. “I will say what I think, worship according to my beliefs, and raise my children how I see fit. “And I defend it all with the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” he added. “I cower to no one.” And he speaks for me, and a lot of other people when he says these things. The Japanese in WWII refused to invade the American mainland because “there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.” Muslims would be wise to remember this when they decide to “shoot us up.” As soon as they start shooting, they'll die and get their “74 virgins.” They say they want to die for their beliefs? We'll be happy to help them do that. Just get in front of our guns and do something threatening. If they think they're being discriminated against now, wait until they get serious about shooting us up. (The Blaze)

Hillary's Stupidity

She says, "If somebody is breaking into your home and you are in imminent danger, or you go to your door and you see something that is deeply concerning, well, first thing you should do is call 911,” IF they don't just shoot you when you pick up the phone. Remarks like this reflect the stupidity of someone who has around-the-clock armed security surrounding her for most of her life. The following quote says it all: “When you have 24/7/365 taxpayer-funded Secret Service protection for life—like Clinton has—it’s easy to dismiss the security concerns of 'ordinary' Americans.” Whenever I hear a politician talk about supporting “gun control,” it tells me that politician plans later to come to take your property from you and doesn't want you to be armed and able to repulse it. I think it's also instructive to note that almost everybody who recommends calling 9/11 when faced with an armed criminal themselves run around behind a WALL of armed security. (America's First Freedom)

Criminal's Guns Illegal

Surprise, surprise! They had a “study” that “discovered” that the vast majority of guns used in crimes are NOT gotten legally. They needed a “study” to find THAT out? I'm just an old man in front of a computer and I knew that. I've been telling them that for years. That this fact means none of their vaunted “gun laws” are going to stop, or even slow down “gun violence.” People who want commit major crimes aren't a bit worried about their piddling little gun laws that say they can't have a gun. They have a good laugh at that. Gun grabbers SAY all they want is “common sense gun laws,” but they're lying. The laws they support are FAR from “common sense.” What they do accomplish is to DISARM honest people (but not criminals) to make them “easy pickings” for illegally-armed criminals. What they also do (and this is more important) they make them “soft targets” for federal agents who come to take what doesn't belong to them under the RICO laws. Laws that allow them to take property by just “declaring it” to be “probably illegally gained.” They even have sensors to "read" how much money you have in your pocket as you walk by to see if you're worth their time to rob. (Bearing Arms)

"Ban Guns, No Suicides"

That's what the gun-grabbers say. No shi....er, uh, stuff. Liberals really believe this stuff. Apparently they've never heard about an empty sleeping pill bottle next to a corpse, or a dead body with his/her wrists cut wide open. Or somebody who points what looks like a gun at a cop, figuring the cop will commit his suicide for him. It is this kind of fool who is responsible for all the STUPID “gun laws” we have now, that do nothing more than make us defenseless victims of ILLEGALLY armed criminals. Most “mass shooters” got their guns illegally, and those that got them legally PROVE how useless the current crop of “gun laws” really are. I have yet to see anything that WILL work except one that allows honest, reliable people (who CAN be trusted not to “go wild” with their guns) to have their own guns to defend themselves from the many criminals who are not. Gun-grabbers laugh at that suggestion, but they have nothing to replace it that will WORK. (Just common sense)

Why Do They Go Stupid?

Why do the relatives of gun victims “buy” the horse manure put out by the “gun-grabbers” so readily when a loved one gets shot? The father of the news reporter who was shot to death along with her cameraman has joined with “Whatever It Takes” anti-gun bunch and is leading a DC rally against guns while looking for his own gun. He thinks “what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander,” apparently. The anti-gun fools are right there to conscript such people. Gabrielle Giffords, a female member of Congress, was shot in the head in a parking lot. She and her husband have become leaders among the “gun control crowd.” Then there's the “Brady Bunch,” led by the wife of the guy who was shot in the attempt on Reagan's life, and who eventually died from it. But what they're pushing would NOT have done ANYTHING to stop the shootings they protest—and if you try to convince them of this, they look at you as if you just sprouted an elephant's trunk or some such. They completely “buy” the horse manure they're fed by the anti-gun fools and won't listen to anything else. (Huffington Post)

8 Dead, 46 Wounded

In one long weekend in Chicago. If that doesn't tell you how well tight gun laws work, I don't know what will. The City of Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation, coupled with one of the highest gun violence rates in the nation. This is something I've been predicting for a long time. So why don't supposedly intelligent politicians realize this simple fact? Because their reason for making such laws has nothing to do with “crime prevention.” They are designed to ASSIST crime—theirs. When the feds come to take your property under those unconstitutional RICO laws, they don't want you to be able to shoot back. Under those laws, the cops (or the feds) don't need to show you are committing a crime, OR charge you with ANYTHING in order to take your money and property. They just say the money or property “might be” the result of criminal activity. Sure, you can get SOME of it back by suing them (after they take all your money and everything else you own). Or they'll offer to give you some of it back if you promise not to sue them for the rest. They'll probably come after me before long for revealing this scam. (Chicagoist)

Why Isn't Chief In Jail?

Cathy Lanier is the Police Chief in DC. She is refusing to issue “carry” permits unless the applicant can prove a “telling need” for a gun, something that is NOT required in law. A court has issued a restraining order to stop this practice, but it hasn't made a ripple in her operation, which continues unabated. She is IGNORING that court order. Just like Tennessee County Clerk Kim Davis did in refusing to issue gay marriage licenses in violation of a court order. Kim went to jail. Why isn't Cathy? The answer is simple: what Kim did was AGAINST liberal wishes. What Cathy did was IN SINC with liberal wishes. That's the way it is in America, today. Laws are enforced or ignored on the basis of liberal wishes. (Town Hall)

They Knew In Advance

James Holmes, the Aurora (CO) theater killer, “wanted to kill as many people as he could, to avenge his inability to do well in school.: He told a school psychologist that, in so many words. Since he/she is obligated to tell about a possible threat revealed to him/her in session, he told his superiors, and they acted: they took away Holmes' school ID card (or some such). Nothing else. Then Holmes sent this worker his “diary,” which outlined, in detail, what he had planned. Still no action. Then, Holmes opened fire in a crowded theater and killed 12 people, injuring many others. THEN they acted. They “cleaned up the scene,” documented the crime, and tried him for multiple murder. He has been convicted and bow gets a lifetime of free rent and free food. The 12 people he killed are still dead. If just ONE PERSON had had a gun and was able to “take him out” in the first couple if minutes of his “shooting spree” (in a gun-free zone, where all such shootings occur), maybe some of those 12 people would not have had to die. But, NO! The politicians blame the gun, not Holmes OR that social worker, and still think they can stop people like him from getting their guns by passing a law. Tell me: if you were contemplating mass murder, would you worry about a dinky little law that says you can't have a gun, or bring it into a theater? (Denver Post)

All About Control

Look at ANYTHING the government does, it has one of two goals: usually both. Control, and raising taxes. In this article it is about gasoline rationing by an un-elected gang of bureaucrats (thugs) with NO OVERSIGHT by elected politicians (as if that would help). Whenever they pass something that further limits our rights and gives the government more CONTROL over our lives, they give it a “good-sounding name” so we won't be able to figure out what they're doing unless we really pay attention. And since so many of us DON'T pay attention to politics until just before an election when the paid lies are flying, we usually don't. That's how we've gotten so many silly, stupid laws and incompetent office holders. A good example is their fool GUN laws that they SAY are designed to “stop the flow of guns to criminals,” but are really designed to give them more CONTROL and let them charge us more “FEES.” In addition to making of us “easy targets” for those three groups mentioned, since we will have nothing to use to counter their ILLEGAL guns. (Elm Tree Forge)

Wrong--As Usual

In the Billings Gazette, they pretend to have the “solution” for “gun violence.” That ain't what it is. Their “list” is just a mish-mash of old, “used and abused” methods that have been PROVED not to work. Here it is: “Steps: 1) Increase surveillance data: Track gun related death data from every state through the National Violent Death Reporting System. 2) Expand gun violence research: Use NVDRS and the CDC. 3) Ban public use of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. 4) Restrict certain violent movies. 5) Establish stringent background checks. 6) Close gun show loopholes. 7) Consider feasibility of licensing. 8) Publicize national mental health risk indicators: Help identify early individual mental aberrations and advise how to handle and report.” Everything listed has already been tried, somewhere—and FAILED to do ANYTHING about ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists.(Billings Gazette)

Gun Laws Don't Work!

Not the kinds of laws they're making these days Did you know that thousands of people are killed with knives, clubs, and bare hands? Statistics show that you'd have a better chance of being struck by lightning than to be killed with a gun. Why then, is the gun their FIRST TARGET when it comes to “:making us safe?” The gun is USELESS without somebody HOLDING it, pointing it, and shooting it. Otherwise, it's an inanimate object, like a car, that without a driver can't hurt anyone. More people are killed by cars than by anything else. Why don't they want to ban cars? They say adding fees to gun purchases and ammunition isn't “infringing.” It IS. Guns are expensive by themselves. To add unnecessary “fees” (taxes,” “penalties”) to their cost is DEFINITELY an “infringement” that makes it hard on people of lesser earnings. Voting people who MAKE “gun laws” in office isn't too smart. But we do it, anyway (not me). They keep saying their laws are “reasonable.” But who defines “reasonable?” Them, of course, and the laws they come up with are ANYTHING but “reasonable.” The secret is for people to be more vigilant. If someone “shows signs” of mental problems (as all of the mass shooters have done, but were ignored), somebody should SAY something to the right people so they can be restrained, if possible. (The Gleaner)

Surprise, Surprise!

A new study finds that criminals don't buy their guns legally! No kidding! They need a STUDY to determine that? I'm just an old man sitting in front of a computer and I knew that, without a shadow of a doubt. I've been telling everybody I could get to that, for a long time. And they're just now finding that out, with an (expensive) STUDY? Jeeze! Maybe they'll catch up to us INTELLIGENT people someday. Maybe they'll have a “study” to figure out why the “experts” are so behind the times. It seems like they need “studies” to find out anything. No wonder they don't know anything. Yet they think they know EVERYTHING and pretend to ”instruct us” on things. They're still dumb enough to think they can make a LAW that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Hey, “experts,” criminals don't OBEY laws! So your “laws” are USELESS! (Eagle Rising)

They Call It "Gun Violence"

But they ignore the unalterable fact that ALL the guns used here are ILLEGALLY owned, mostly by young gang members (all of wh0ose guns are illegal) and others in a “state of poverty.” In other words, it's NOT the gun's fault, it is the fault of the person HOLDING the gun, who got that gun illegally—which means NONE of their “gun laws” as they are today would have stopped, or even slowed down this “gun violence,” which is actually “people violence.” If guns didn't exist, they'd use knives, or even CLUBS. But whatever it took, they'd get their killing done. When are these fools going to learn this simple fact? Simple, at least, to INTELLIGENT people. Apparently they aren't intelligent enough to “tumble” to it. But, of course, they aren't interested in “stopping gun violence.” What they want is to DISARM the populace so they won't run into guns when they come to take what's ours. They don't worry about the guns in the hands of criminals, because they feel a “kinship” with them. (Valdosta Daily Times)

"Don't Restrict My Rights!

Joe Wurzelbacher, also known as “Joe the Plumber,” has a message for the father of the television reporter who was brazenly murdered ON TV recently. His message? “Don't try and restrict my right to defend my daughter while you take steps to avenge yours.” He's referring, of course, to the recent news that this man, while vowing to “fight for gun control,” intends to get his own gun permit. How he reconciles that, I have no idea. If he has the right to get a gun, how can he think he can work toward limiting the right of others to do the same? I know he's probably not thinking straight right now. I know I wasn't right after losing my own daughter a few years ago. But that doesn't give him the right to stop others from doing exactly what HE is doing: arming himself. If he thinks that's right, how can he be against others doing the same, for the same reason? (The Truth About Guns)

Harassing Legal Gun Owners

The “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” is resorting to harassment of legal gun owners. They recently sent out a notice to their acolytes: It tells them that if they see ANYONE with a gun, if they are IN ANY WAY “concerned” abut their intentions (a pretty wide requirement, and subject to their own personal opinion), to call the cops and waste everybody's time, since all the legal gun carrier will do is show the cops his/her gun permit and they'll usually back off—unless they are gun control freaks, too. Hopefully, they won't “rough him/her up" before that happens. Since some cops are “in sympathy” with these fools, some will make further trouble for the gun owner until “wiser heads” intervene. So a lot of expensive time will be wasted because of those anti-gun fools who can't get their unconstitutional laws passed, so resort to harassment. (Town Hall)

"Chicago's Deadliest Day"

The deadliest day since 2003. And that says a lot. Usually the former “deadliest day” is a lot further back than that, but apparently, Chicago has been VERY deadly lately. Mostly since they passed all those “tight gun laws” that work only to make innocent people helpless against criminals, who don't obey laws and always seem to be able to get their guns. On this “deadly day,” NINE different people were killed in different places. It might as well have been a “mass shooting,” but wasn't. Gun deaths have SPIKED by 20% in just the last year in Chicago. Why such things don't “educate” the fools who make those laws is beyond me. It can't be that they're stupid. Those lawmakers are otherwise intelligent (I think, maybe). But they keep approaching gun control from the wrong direction, making laws that only make the problem worse while REFUSING to make laws that can make it better. I think these politicians are just AFRAID of an armed populace, period. They know they can't do anything about the criminals who get their guns illegally, but they hope, at least, to limit the guns in the hands of honest people so they, themselves won't get shot when they come for people's belongings. (Newser)

Are Cops the Bad Guys?

Not a chance. Sure, there may be one or two instances of a cop exceeding his/her authority and killing somebody when it didn't need to happen. But that doesn't mean ALL cops are bad. Cops save lives every day; both black and white lives. That's their JOB. The people who want to kill cops because they kill a few of their friends just don't want to believe their friends are mostly committing crimes when they get shot. They think if they can kill enough cops, they'll be safe in their own criminal enterprises. It ain't agonna happen, folks! The more cops you kill, the quicker cops are going to be to shoot, and you will have created a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Mostly they have NOT been killing black men in inordinate numbers. In fact, they kill more white men than black men, both of whom are mostly committing crimes at the time. Since the “war on cops” has been declared, crime predictably has gone up to record numbers, as people stop cooperating with cops. And without the cops, we have chaos, in which more and more people will die—not at the hands of cops, but at the hands of CRIMINALS, who will be “running wild.” (Gun Nuts)

More Guns, Crime Falls

It's predictable. But not to the “anti-gun fools.” all they want is to DISARM all America, for their own reasons, no matter what excuses they use. They care not for statistics that show their theories to be bogus. They just ignore them and cite their phony “statistics” that purport to show that the more guns there are out there, the more crime. And that is PATENTLY FALSE. REAL statistics show that, as gun ownership grows, crime REDUCES. If that's because of criminals being scared to act, in case they, themselves might become gun victims, or because lots of criminals HAVE become gun victims, I don't know. I only know that, as Americans buy 170 million new guns, crime has FALLEN 51%! And that's according to the government's own “Congressional Research Service” study that ended in 2009. Don't listen to the horse manure put out by the “gun-grabbers.” It is FALSE. (Breitbart)

Why Wait for the Cops?

In this case, it took EIGHT MINUTES for the cops to finally arrive. They must have decided to finish their coffee and donuts before responding. At the best of times—even if it takes them maybe THREE MINUTES, that's too long. The bad guy will have done his “dirty work” and will have gone. All that will be left for the cops is to “clean up the scene” and prepare to prosecute the criminal (maybe the killer) later—IF they actually catch up to him/her. And unfortunately, in too many cases, they never do. Anti-gun fools seem to think that ALL guns are simply used to kill honest people, never for self-defense from those with ILLEGAL guns. They seem to think (also falsely) that the cops can actually protect us when they usually only arrive long after the crime has been committed. I have a lot of respect for cops (though it might not sound like it), but the truth is, they can't be everywhere when a crime is committed. In some cases though, they take an inordinate amount of time to arrive.

So how CAN they “protect us?” All they can do is punish the evil-doers—in SOME cases. If the crime is murder, the victim is still dead. In Grant's Pass, OR, Charles Bruckman wasn't willing to docilely wait until the cops made their apparently leisurely trip to his house while a criminal prowled around the outside of his house, looking for a way in. He got his gun and waited. He did not “pursue” the criminal. But when the criminal threw his weight against a glass sliding door Charles, fearing he might break through, fired two shots through the door. The crook ran toward his children's room—bad idea. Fearing for his children's safety, Charles put six more into him, killing him. So much for the cops and their ability to “protect” us. If he hadn't had his gun (legal, of course) nothing good would have happened. He did, and thus was able to defend himself and his family. Obama and the rest of the government want to prevent that. Ask yourself—why is that? (The Right to Bear)

Wal-Mart Needs A Lesson

A lesson in reality. An AR-15 or a semi-automatic shotgun is a LEGAL PRODUCT. You can't stop people from getting one by stopping selling them in YOUR store. They'll just go somewhere else. Not only to buy that, but to buy everything else they might buy in your store, as well. At one time I thought Wal-Mart was owned and run by conservatives, and people with INTELLIGENCE. I guess that's no more. They've now “bought” the liberal horse manure about guns. I'll be staying away from their stores. You do what you want. I understand Wal-Mart has also declared their stores “gun-free zones.” That means, to me, I am no longer safe in their stores, because only HONEST people obey such things. Criminals don't bother. And all the gun crimes committed in Wal-Mart parking lots proves it. (Second Amendment Insider)

"Keep Crazies From Guns"

That's what the father of the TV reporter killed on the air now is saying. Unfortunately, the kind of gun laws they're pushing AREN'T “reasonable.” They're Unreasonable. They simply disarm honest people. He says we need to “keep crazy people from getting guns.” The question is, “How do you do that?” The guy who shot those TV people was not KNOWN to be crazy, so such laws would not have stopped him, nor even slowed him down. It's easy to SAY “make reasonable gun laws,” but not as easy to DO it. What is it with the relatives of gun victims that makes them automatically think that the laws ALREADY IN FORCE can stop criminals and crazies from getting guns? Because the “gun-grabbers” tell them so? The “Brady Bunch,” for instance: Just because Jim Brady was killed (eventually) when that fool shot Reagan doesn't mean the laws they push are GOING TO stop “bad guys” from getting guns. NOTHING is going to do that. The only answer is arming honest people so they can defend THEMSELVES. The cops can't be everywhere, so we must arm as many honest people as possible. (Apparently he believes that, because he is arming himself) The criminals get their guns, anyway, so we won't be doing ANYTHING to help them do so. But when more of them meet their END while trying to victimize others, that just might convince some of them to go into other lines of work. Tell me if I'm wrong. And when you do, tell me just HOW I'm wrong. And what I can do that's RIGHT. If you CAN. (Just common sense)

"Don't Ask Questions"

That's what a man learned one day at a gun show when he made the mistake of asking a question about guns of an ATF Agent. One of them regarded if it was illegal to put a rifle-type gun to your shoulder OR just use a “forearm brace.” soon there were three ATF Agents surrounding him and giving him the “stink eye” as they grilled him as to why he was asking the question. Seems there IS an ATF rule that requires a person to “jump through hoops” and “bribe the government” (buy a tax stamp) before it becomes legal. And the reason for this rule? People asked too many questions. He tells his story: “The interaction with the agents left a bad taste in my mouth, not only did I dislike them crowding my stand as if I were some sort of criminal for asking these questions, but I didn’t like the fact that I was told ‘If you guys would have just kept your mouths shut no one would have bothered with the SIG Brace ruling.’ To me that’s ridiculous. So a perfectly law abiding citizen can be turned into a felon instantaneously because they shouldered a weapon that fires a rifle cartridge? How is this law in any way going to protect people? “ This is what it has come down to. (All About Outdoor)