More violence Coming

And no amount of the kind of “gun control” laws as we've seen them is going to do anything about it. It's coming in the form of “Syrian refugees” that Obama is bringing here by the hundreds of thousands, even paying their way in many cases. These “refugees” are suspiciously MOSTLY MUSLIM MEN with a suspicious absence of women, children, and old people among them. Yes, there are a few, just so they'll be able to show pictures, narrowly focused, to say otherwise. In one group, there were 500 plus Muslim men, and ONE Christian. These people represent a “killing culture,” a “rape culture,” people who see a SMILE as an invitation for sex. Troublemakers who spend all their time looking for ways to disrupt our society until the word is given to “come shooting.” Laws are NOT going to do ANYTHING to stop these people, or even slow them down. San Bernardino proves what they're after, and it's only a matter of time before they start killing us if we don't get our own guns and stand ready to KILL them before they kill US. (Daily Caller)

Yet Another Scam

Liberals in government are determined to put as many roadblocks as possible in front of people who want to buy a gun. They can't just BAN guns altogether because of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. So they first pass laws that, if obeyed, make the guns you have USELESS (like gun locks and a requirement that guns be UNLOADED when stored in your home). Then they “pile on” with such legislation as that now proposed in Hawaii, requiring overpriced INSURANCE that gun buyers MUST buy before they can even BUY a gun. No doubt other states are looking closely at this legislation, too. Liberals are DETERMINED to make gun owning so expensive that only those who have a lot of money can even OWN a gun—and those people are usually the liberals who MAKE the laws and can afford to HIRE people to carry their guns for them. As with people like Sen. Diane Feinstein, a well known anti-gun activist who now happens to be in a position to DENY guns to the “hoi palloi." Such people ALWAYS go around with gun-toting “security” surrounding them. They don't NEED to carry their own guns, so they say WE don't need guns, either. Except for Feinstein, of course, who DOES have her own gun, AND a “carry permit.” While denying similar rights to us. (Town Hall)

Democrats Always Lose

They always lose on gun control on a national basis, because most Americans are adamantly OPPOSED to their brand of “gun control.” Not because they are against ANY kind of gun control, but because they ARE against the USELESS gun control laws they pass, time after time, even after they are PROVED not to work and the American people are solidly OPPOSED to them. But the Democrats are NOT intelligent. They INSIST on making their USELESS laws when they KNOW they don't work, because it's not about “gun control,” it's about POWER. But they can't seem to get by the American people, who INSIST on having the means to self defense, no matter WHAT the Democrat fools think. They don't want to take away your GUNS, they want to take away your POWER. They know they're going to make laws and regulations to take what's YOURS in the future , and they don't want to be met with guns in your hands when they do. (DeanWeingarten)

Decorated Cop Disarmed

A decorated 30-year cop was disarmed: Why? Because he can't sleep at night, and sought treatment for it. So now he has to give up his guns. A decorated cop and a Navy veteran who has never misused a gun, not even while he can't sleep. This 30-year retired cop had his guns confiscated after an obviously incompetent doctor mistakenly diagnosed him as “unstable” during a hospital stay to treat INSOMNIA.  The very people you WANT to ber carrying a gun is an ex GOOD cop who knows how to use it to stop crimes if he runs on one. He is now suing the State of New York, alleging that Gov. Cuomo and other officials violated his Second Amendment rights. This is an example of what can happen in today's INSANITY over “gun control.” It's unconstitutional as hell, but they do it, anyway, and force those injured by their actions to spend money to go to court and get it reversed—after MONTHS, sometimes YEARS of enforcing their “flights of fancy” on many innocent people. They'll try ANY TRICK to take your guns away. In the North East now, and where YOU live, next. Or NOW. (Survival Joe)

False crime Reports

It started (I think) with “Mothers Demand Action,” who put out an item telling their fools to “report a crime” whenever they see anybody carrying a gun, if they were “doubtful” about their intentions and make the cops think a crime is in progress, or about to be. In at least one case, such a report resulted in an honest man's DEATH at the hands of the cops, who believed the “report.” That's about the crappiest, underhanded thing they could do, to use the cops to advance their agenda. That's more than “activism, it's a vile CRIME. And the cops, who never know whether or not the report is real until they get there and assess the situation often get into shooting scrapes with innocent legal gun carriers because of such nefarious “reports,” and sometimes KILL them. Those people who call in such reports ought to be charged with MURDER. Laws are in the process to make such reports, called, “SWATing,” illegal. When they call, they always make comments like, “He is acting very threatening,” which make the cops very “trigger happy.” These people are FOMENTING VIOLENCE and should be punished. Under a federal law now being considered in Congress, such people would possibly face up to 20 years in prison and a hefty fine. (Constitution.com)

Whoopi's Really Ignorant

She tried to take Rand Paul to task about “automatic weapons” being so easily available to anyone, and he “shot her down” with FACTS. Fact is, if anybody HAS an “automatic weapon,” he got it illegally, since “Automatic weapons” have been banned since 1934. What she THINKS is an “automatic weapon” is a SEMI-automatic weapon. Big difference. But considering the “open space” between Whoopi's ears, she isn't aware of that. The show she helps host is a “paragon of ignorance,” and proves it every day. But not usually so explicitly as this day. It's really a shame such ignorance is regarded as intelligence on television AND in the “written word” today. But you have to learn how to recognize stupidity when it rears it's ugly head. Whoopi should star in a program based on “The Onion” until she gains some intelligence—if that ever happens. She's a good actress, but lousy at political opinion. Now you black racists don't bother to call me a racist because I wrote this. Whoopi would be STUPID, black, white, or PURPLE. (Tea Party Update)

McAuliffe Crushed

Recently he tried to dissolve agreements with 25 other states to recognize their “concealed carry” permits in a “reciprocity agreement.” But he got so much “kickback” to it, he is now “backing off.” His action only lasted five weeks before he “caved” to logic and reinstated the agreements. McAuliffe had bragged about “confronting the NRA, and they CRUSHED him. They has assistance from Virginia's State Legislature, which was poised to pass (with veto-proof majorities, which would have BLOWN his effort to further limit guns in Virginia. That McAuliffe is a Democrat does not even need to be said. The only exception is the “domestic violence” part, which is dependent on a judge issuing a two-year protective order (which judges issue like giving candy to a child), saying, “:no one wants a violent abuser to have access to firearms.” As if they could stop them from getting a gun ILLEGALLY. Liberals, of course, hate it. (Hot Air)

Denying the Obvious

The government no longer considers protection of your life and property a good reason to have a gun, while they all parade around surrounded by gun-toting “security.” Where the HELL do they get off making such a judgment, against all intelligence? When a criminal comes to kill us because we're not armed, will they reverse this decision? Not a chance! They're not INTELLIGENT enough. They will “double down” on their opinion until somebody gets through their gun-toting “security” and kills one of them. And then they'll STILL blame it on the GUN, not the criminal. Gun grabbers are among the STUPIDEST of the stupid. They NEVER see the “error of their ways.” We need to get RID of all those abysmally stupid politicians who think this way. (Town Hall)

Get Rid of Gun Grabbers!

It seems like gun grabbers will always be there to try and take away your constitutionally protected right to own and use the means to self protection, a gun. They always seem to “slip by” even though they are adamantly opposed to protecting our constitutional rights. Most of them just LIE about their opposition to gun ownership. Like Obama says, “We don't want to take your guns,” and then goes out and does his best to take our guns. But when it becomes obvious by their ACTIONS, once elected, we can then vote the fools out, if we will. It seems like the voters are blissfully unaware of their bias and keep re-electing them. Being “anti-gun” should be the SINGLE ISSUE that makes them UNELECTABLE, regardless of their other views. It's the only way we're going to get rid of those FOOLS. Outside of shooting them, and we don't want to do that. It's illegal. (NRA/ILA)

Laws That Get People Killed

Slow-witted politicians want all “phony guns” to be colored orange, or some other distinctive color to “mark them” as not real. The Massachusetts House (where else?) recently passed a bill to force BB gun makers (and all toy gun makers) to color their entire guns a distinctive color so people too dumb to know it's a fake gun seeing the CURRENT orange front end of the barrel. Of course, it's easy for crooks to paint it black so they can use a fake gun to rob somebody, and get themselves killed if they accost a person with a REAL gun. They're always doing things to INHIBIT the owners of guns from being able to get their guns in action fast enough to oppose a criminal with an ILLEGAL gun, who isn't subject to such rules, since they never obey ANY laws. What seems to escape their attention is that there is a thriving business in painting guns, so you can have any color gun you want. This is a fake, “we have to do something, even if it's wrong” law loved by ignorant politicians everywhere. If you think this law is a “good thing,” you're a fool. (Bearing Arms)

Australian Style Gun Ban

Obama admires what they did in Australia about gun control; an almost complete BAN, and requiring citizens to “turn in their guns.” Of course, he can't LEGALLY do such a thing here because of the constitutional prohibition. The Constitution says simply, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” It's not part of a several page amendment that is murky and hard to understand. It's ONE SENTENCE, and very CLEAR. But gun grabbers have been trying, almost since before the ink dried on the Constitution, to obfuscate it in favor of taking away our guns. To do so would be unconstitutional. But Obama has ignored the Constitution so many times, in so many ways, he thinks he can get away with it, as usual, while nobody “calls him on it” until he has gotten rid of all the guns that were “turned in.” And don't fall for that “regulated militia” crap. There was NO SUCH THING as a “regulated militia” at the time this was written. They meant that ALL THE PEOPLE could be called up to defend the country, and should be able to keep their arms, because they WERE “the militia.” Some stupid people say the Amendment is “confusing” because of the reference to a “militia.” But it is “confusing" only to the stupid. (Get Smarter)

Denying Us Self-Defense

Hillary wants to deny everybody who isn't using guns for hunting, shooting practice, or collecting, the right to have a gun. That “list” suspiciously leaves out “self defense.” Seems like every “gun law” they make makes it harder on law-abiding people to defend themselves, while IGNORING the very obvious fact that criminals are NOT affected since they don't OBEY laws. I think they WANT us to be defenseless against criminals because they feel an affinity with them, being criminals, themselves. It's becoming obvious, even to those who pay no attention at all, that every “law” they make makes it easier for criminals to victimize honest people. They HATE laws allowing us to be armed and well able to repulse criminals and their ILLEGAL guns. Every time we suggest anything that will help us defend ourselves, they not only oppose it, they ridicule the people supporting it, calling them paranoid. But it's not paranoia, if people WANT to hurt you, which they do. Not just criminals and crazies, but Islamic terrorists, too, which Obama is importing by the hundreds of thousands, many at OUR taxpayer expense. And I think that begins with the “gun-grabbers.” Who, of course, go around SURROUNDED by gun-toting “security.” (Just common sense)

Muslims Desecrate Kid's Pools

These are “PEACEFUL Muslims, mind you. And “Muslim refugees.” The ones Obama insists on allowing into this country, even though many of them are NOT “peaceful Muslims” and will soon be killing us in wholesale numbers if Obama's “gun control” keeps guns out of the hands of Americans so we can't shoot those bastards to death as they APPROACH. They “beat off” into a Jacuzzi and broke into a child's dressing room and molested some CHILDREN. They even pulled down their pants (in full sight of those kids) and CRAPPED  (you know, the stinky brown stuff) into another kiddy pool. You name the asinine (as-hole) action, and they'll do it. There's nothing so ghastly that they won't do it. And these are the “peaceful Muslims.” If what they do is “peaceful,” those who describe them that way have a very different description of “peaceful” than do most Americans These kind of people should be “run out of town on a rail” after being “:tarred and feathered.” They'll call me a bigot for writing this, but who the hell cares what Muslims say? (Freedom Outpost)

A Gun That Doesn't Work?

Picture this, if you will: you are a “concealed carrier” with a “Smart Gun” in your pocket and you're confronted by a CRIMINAL who is pointing a “NON-”Smart Gun” at you. You pull your “Smarty Gun and shoot—only it doesn't shoot. So the criminal shoots you to death with his unencumbered gun that he got ILLEGALLY, since he does not, by definition, obey ANY laws. Obama wants ALL guns in the United States to be “Smart Guns,” with all the INCREASED “failure points” involved. They're UNRELIABLE, and he KNOWS it. He figures that's one more way to limit the number of workable guns in the hands of HONEST people. The Constitution only guarantees us our RIGHT to be armed. It doesn't specify what KIND of gun we can have, or if it must WORK. If he could, he'd ban ALL GUNS except those he knows are useless. (Tampa Tribune)

Gun Hater Gets Shot

She needed a gun, desperately. But she didn't have one, and she got shot. Unfortunately, even though she survived, she will probably not learn a lesson from being shot. The only reason she and her daughter survived is because the criminal allowed it, and didn't finish the job. Andrea Koller, a teacher who is very vocal in her opposition to guns (saying nothing about the criminals and their violence) tried bravely to stop the criminal from pistol-whipping her daughter, and got shot. Why the criminals didn't finish the job, I don't know. Maybe her fighting them frightened them off. Most criminals are cowards, of course, so that's quite possible.

She'll probably redouble her rhetoric against guns, but not against the criminals who USE guns to commit violence. As with most people who hate guns, this woman had NO “situational awareness” as the criminals “shadowed her” right to the hotel entrance while she was blissfully unaware of their presence until they started pistol-whipping her daughter. THEN she woke up and ran out to help her daughter, and got shot. If she had HAD a gun, the situation might have turned out differently, But she will not realize that. The chances that the gun used by the criminals was registered is very small, so no law would have made any difference—except one that allowed HER to be armed. (Bearing Arms).

Justifiable Homicides Spike

In Albuquerque, NM, criminals are increasingly being shot to death by their intended victims. From ZERO in 2011 to EIGHT in 2015. It's like I predicted. Shootings WOULD go up for a while, as armed citizens “killed off” the ILLEGALLY-armed criminals. Criminals there are learning, to their consternation, that violent crime is a good way to “get dead” in a hurry. Six of the eight justifiable killings happened during attempted burglaries. One involved a gunfight involving two former CNN employees and another shooter at a hotel “There are now more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens than ever before. It is hardly a surprise that as more good people have firearms and good firearms training, that armed bad guys who are often under the influence of drugs and who have no firearms training are over-matched and defeated when they target a gun owner.” (Bearing Arms)

Typical Lying "Poll"

You've probably heard about the “poll” that says MOST Americans would be okay with buying a “smart gun.” the TRUTH is, they didn't poll “most” Americans. They polled anti-gun people who don't own guns, and are afraid of them. As with most liberal “polls,” they ask questions guaranteed to get the responses they want, and they only “poll” people they KNOW will be on their side. Like one poll one day where they “found” that “most Americans” WANTED the Democrats to win the election. What they didn't tell you is that they only “polled” the people who lived in a heavily liberal, Democrat voting area, and ONLY them. If ANYBODY answered “wrong,” they left that out. The questions might be something like, “When did you quit beating your wife?” with checkboxes, "today," last year," or "never." Nowhere to answer otherwise. This is how “polls” MAKE the news, not report it. Never believe ANY “poll.” Not even on the conservative side. (Hot Air)

Laws That Don't Work

Apparently, nobody told lawmakers in Washington State that laws against gun ownership or tighter storage of guns (locking them up) do NOTHING to stop criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists from getting their guns, and only serve to take us longer to get our guns in action when the “bad guys” already have their ILLEGAL guns ready when they come to victimize us. Or if anybody did, they ignored it. Now they're pushing for tighter “gun-storage” laws and that old saw, an “assault weapons ban.” They ask, why would ANYBODY want an “assault weapon,” without having any idea what an “assault weapon” really is, and completely ignoring the fact that more and more criminals are getting their own “assault weapons.” So if we don't want to be “outgunned” by the “bad guys,” that's WHY we want “assault weapons. Unlike the L. A. cops, who had to go to a gun store to get weapons to equal that being shot at them by a bunch of bank robbers, we want to HAVE such guns BEFORE they come to victimize us. We can't afford to hire somebody to carry our guns for us like politicians can, at OUR expense. (Breitbart)

The Reloading Game

Obama's fools are trying to make ammunition so costly that people can't afford it. Which is one way to make the guns you have USELESS. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to buy ammunition OR to reload previously fired ammunition. So I can see an upswing in sales of reloading equipment in response to their absurd laws. I can also see liberals and other anti-gun fools banning RELOADING and the sales of reloading equipment, So you can't “get around” their damned fool laws. The reloading industry makes people able to avoid the cost of highly-taxed ammunition--until they put a tax on every bullet you reload of course, or ban the equipment it takes to do it. So I can see them doing both. Pretty soon they'll ban bullets, altogether, since the Constitution doesn't protect bullets. That's the kind of sneaky things they do to get their way, in spite of hell. (Daily Caller)

No Reasoning With Obama

Everybody talks incessantly about the “partisanship” prevalent in DC. Completely ignoring the fact that the system was DESIGNED to inspire partisanship. Otherwise, why two different parties and three different co-equal branches of government? It was designed that way to keep somebody like Obama from dominating the government completely. But they forgot to make an allowance for the “opposition party” NOT opposing the “ruling class.” To Obama, NON-partisan means “knuckling under” to HIM. He will, in NO WAY “knuckle under” to the opposing party, especially since they for the most part today, don't bother to OPPOSE him. Of course, we're talking about “gun control,” although this applies to everything he does. Like the Islamic terrorists, who want only ONE THING, and that's complete capitulation to their evil "religion,” Obama demands complete capitulation to HIS idea of “gun control,” which only DISARMS law-abiding people, since they're the only ones who OBEY his absurd laws. Nothing less will satisfy him. (Daily Caller)

They Can't Ban Guns

The Second Amendment prevents it. So they do everything they can to CRIPPLE or even DESTROY the gun industry. Most recently they've put high taxes on ammunition and made all kinds of rules that make buying guns difficult, costly, or impossible for honest people. Which, of course, does NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS, who don't BUY guns legally. Now they're trying legislation that, if passed, will DESTROY the gun industry in this country. Their new bill GUTS the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms of 2005” law. It It promotes the SUING of gun makers by people who are victims of ILLEGALLY-obtained guns in the hands of CRIMINALS. Of course, they as usual, haven't thought this through. If they run gun makers in America out of business, where will they get THEIR guns? The feds are the biggest purchasers of guns in the country. They'll get them from foreign sources, just like the other criminals. (Hot Air)

He Robbed the Wrong Store!

You've probably seen the movie in which a guy tried to rob what turned out to be a cop bar, and ended up with everybody in the bar pointing their guns at him. That's almost what happened to this guy, but the result wasn't so funny—not for him, anyway. He tried to rob a convenience store in Deerfield Beach, Florida and ended up shot to death from TWO directions, since TWO of the clerks were armed. The store owner lauded those clerks as heroes, saying he had no problem with several guns being hidden around the store by his employees. This guy probably won't get robbed any time soon, as the “bad guys” take note of this. And that's what I keep saying about more honest people being armed in self defense. The anti-gun fools keep saying that if more people could carry guns, they'd be shooting each other over traffic accidents or other trivial things. But it's those who shouldn't have guns, but get them illegally anyway, that are more likely to do that. (Guns)

Obama Lied Again

Surprise, surprise! He still claims that “Fast & Furious didn't have a real effect on getting guns into the hands of Mexican drug Lords. When a Border Control officer was killed with a gun traceable to F&F, he ignored it. Now they've found a .50 cal. Rifle in the home of that (formerly) escaped drug Lord. A “fifty” cal. rifle in this drug Lord's home! A “BIG FIFTY” can STOP a car or blow a man to flinders. It can destroy a HELICOPTER in flight! And he got it through Fast & Furious. Obama was responsible for arming THOUSANDS of Mexican drug dealers and helping them in their “war effort” against anybody who opposed them or simply COMPETED against them in selling drugs. But he wants to stop LAW-ABIDING Americans from having guns. Never mind that his “laws” never do ANYTHING to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS, who don't OBEY his “laws.” Like most liberals, he intends someday to come to your home and TAKE your property and he doesn't want his thugs to run into your guns as much as possible when they do it. That's the ONLY reason for disarming the American people. (Fox News)

Obama Judge Rejects Obama

She rejected his demand to HIDE the records in the “Fast & Furious” debacle. Now he has to turn them over after deciding what to remove before he does it, as Hillary did in turning over her e-mails. Of course, we'll never know what he removed, because it will be GONE. Or he will IGNORE the judge's order like he has on many occasions in the past. Nobody seems willing to “go after” him for ignoring court orders, so why should he bother to obey them? The judge is one of Obama's appointments, but she didn't “knuckle under,” as he assumed she would. I guess she's one of the few HONEST judges who doesn't rule on politics, instead of truth. I hope the IRS doesn't “take her out,” as I'm sure they will try. In her ruling, she assured us that claiming executive privilege was not to cover up corruption (which it was), in an attempt to mollify Obama. (Politico)

Should Radical Muslims Own Guns?

A basic question has been asked: “If people with mental problems should not be able to have guns, should radical Muslims?” Which, of course, ignores a basic point. Radical Muslims (and other criminals) do not go to gun stores and buy their guns, dutifully allowing their names to be on lists of gun owners. Some do, yes. And with no previous records here, they're approved. Certain kinds of names do not necessarily mean they're Muslims. As with the killers in San Bernardino, they were OBVIOUSLY Muslims. But if they had been turned away, I'm sure they knew where to get their guns ILLEGALLY. It's a lot easier to buy guns ILLEGALLY than legally. No paperwork, no application for the gun owner's list, no waiting periods, etc. Just a bit more money handed over to another CRIMINAL in a back alley somewhere. That's the basic fallacy with LAWS against easy gun-buying. Criminals do not register their guns and get their names on lists of gun-owners, so no amount of laws will stop them from getting guns. (Breitbart)

Typical Horse Manure

An elderly man shot and killed a burglar inside his home, and the burglar's family is mad as hell at him, saying, “He didn't warn the interloper before he shot him (my words).” Since when is it incumbent upon a homeowner to WARN a CRIMINAL who is invading his home before shooting him? Maybe the burglar should have called that old man and given HIM advance warning that he intended to break in and steal his property! People really come up with some STUPID ideas in an effort to JUSTIFY crime and blame the VICTIM for what the CRIMINAL did, and the result thereof. It has become almost standard practice to blame the VICTIM these days, because liberals allow it. And liberals have wormed their way into way too many powerful positions, through lies and misdirection. That's what blaming the victim is, so they understand and approve of it. They just don't understand that if you're found ILLEGALLY inside somebody's house, you're LIABLE to be shot, and WITHOUT warning. Whoever finds you there will be afraid you want to kill THEM, so they will act accordingly. NO sympathy should be found for the family of such people. (Bearing Arms)

Hillary: Enemy of Guns!

Hillary and Bernie, AND “Whosis” demonstrated their hatred of guns (except for the "hired guns" that surround them wherever they go, as usual) in the Democrat Debate the other night. Clinton accused Bernie of “voting with the NRA on several occasions, and Bernie cited his MINUS 18% record with NRA, Whosis said he was the “only person on the stage who had actually ENACTED gun-control legislation in his state (whatever state that is). That this tells you they ALL want to violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States even though ALL swore to defend it, goes without saying. What it DOES say is that NO gun-owner or “would-be” gun owner should even CONSIDER voting for ANY of them, ever. Obama (and Hillary) keep saying, “We don't want your guns” while doing everything they can to GET our guns and make us DEFENSELESS against ILLEGALLY armed criminals. crazies, and Islamic terrorists, who are “invading” this country by the hundreds of thousands, DISGUISED as “refugees, to kill us, and with Obama using OUR tax money to pay their way. (Talking Points Memo)

You'd Think He'd Learn

The way to self defense is NOT to disarm yourself, no matter how much liberal politicians and bureaucrats think it is. It doesn't work on an international scale, as with a unilateral ban on atomic or hydrogen bombs, and it doesn't work on a local level, with citizens and the right to “keep and bear arms” for self defense. Every time somebody shoots up a crowd with legal or ILLEGAL guns, he tries to further limit our Second amendment RIGHT to own and use a gun for self defense. It's a “knee-jerk response” with him and his kind. And by that, I DON'T mean blacks (He's as much white as he is black, anyway. He just CHOOSES to be black so he can call any criticism racism.). I mean stupid liberal politicians. But he'll never learn. His brand of “gun control” is in his DNA, and he ain't gonna change. He isn't smart enough. He makes a “big thing” about “never owning a gun,” but he doesn't NEED to. He has armed security surrounding him at OUR (taxpayer) expense. But I doubt his statement is true. They never are. (CNN)

Remove His Security Detail

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffee (Democrat) and his attorney general (Democrat) moved to halt the recognition of “concealed carry” permits from other states. But he continues to go around surrounded by ARMED security. What a contradiction THAT is! He thinks WE should not be allowed self defense, but he maintains HIS! Virginia Senator Blill Carrico has introduced legislation to strip funding for McAuliffe's security detail, forcing him to pay for ir, himself, if he even is allowed to HAVE one. That's only fair. If he thinks WE don't rate self defense, so should he. Politicians like him (McAuliffe) NEED to be stripped of their ARMED security. Maybe they'd learn how important being armed in self defense is. Or maybe they'll die in a hail of ILLEGAL gunfire. And it'd be their own fault. (Daily Caller)

Making Legal Guns Useless

Liberal politicians can't just BAN guns altogether in this country, like they did in Australia. So they make rules making the guns in your possession USELESS. The Founders didn't prohibit that in the Constitution. They didn't foresee the gyrations politicians would go to, in order to “get around” the Constitution. FOUR cities in New York State (where else?) Have now required ALL guns in your home be “locked up and disabled,” so when a criminal; crazy, or Islamic terrorist comes there to rob or KILL you, it'll take more time than you will have to get it into action. “Gun locks” have worked to do that for some time, all over the country. ALL such laws should be ignored, so your guns are instantly ready to use to defend you from the attacks of the “bad guys,” who HAVE no such restrictions on their ILLEGAL guns because nobody knows they have them until they push them in somebody's face. (Guns 'N' Freedom)

Gun More Important Than Cop

More and more sheriffs all over the nation agree that “a gun in your hand is better than a cop on the phone” when a “bad guy” is threatening you with his ILLEGAL gun and a cop is MINUTES away. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd in Florida agrees, and advises all citizens in his county to get guns, learn how to use them, and keep them handy, saying they'll stay alive longer that way. He says, it's the job of he and his deputies to keep them safe, but it's the job of the citizens, too. He says further, “If you're foolish enough to break into a home in Polk county, you can expect to get shot.” Which should make ALL burglars think twice before doing it. And that's the whole idea. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clark agrees, saying, “I want as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this county as we can get.” Such loudly stated support for the Second Amendment is a “crime-fighting tool” and isn't limited to “red states” like Florida. All law enforcement with INTELLIGENCE feels the same. (Fox News)

Anti-Gun Hypocrites

I've written a lot lately about anti-gun hypocrites and their circle of ARMED guards that surround them. Yes, they don't carry guns, themselves (mostly), so they can say they don't. But they either can AFFORD to PAY for other people to carry their guns,with OUR money or with their own. But rarely with their own, especially in the case of government employees. But some private citizens who happen to be rich can pay for their own, and DO. As witness the anti-gun fools at the recent Golden Globes event, who showed up, SURROUNDED by armed security. As usual. There were bomb-sniffing dogs; the “red carpet” was “cleared” by security, and there were even snipers on roofs (hopefully, all of them to PROTECT attendees). They don't even TRY to conceal their hypocrisy. They had soldier-looking guards with automatic weapons, and even had an armored vehicle. This, from people who SAY guns in YOUR hands won't stop victimization by criminals, crazies, and terrorists. (Fire Andrea Mitchell)

Robbers Get A Surprise

In Chicago (Rahm town) where the gun laws are TIGHT, and criminals should not HAVE guns, two gun-wielding robbers walked into a T-Mobile store, attempting to rob it. Instead, the store clerk pulled out his own LEGAL gun and shot them both, therefore putting one more nail in the coffin of the anti-gun fools, who tell us all the time that a “good guy with a gun” won't make any difference in gun crime. He shot one of them in the “family jewels.” Both fled after being shot, with the armed store employee in “hot pursuit.” The article doesn't say whether or not the crooks were caught, but you can at least bet they won't be robbing any stores for a while. T-Mobile allows CCW holders to carry their guns at work (they're smart that way) I'd bet robbers who pay attention will go somewhere else to ply their trade if they don't want to lose the “family jewels.” This is probably the best advertising against being robbed there is. (Chicago Tribune)

Stopping Hundreds of Criminals

The anti-gun fools say it doesn't happen, and their dutiful accomplices in the liberal media make sure we don't learn of it when it happens, mostly. But legal gun-carriers have stopped HUNDREDS of criminals in the act of robbing or hurting someone. The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) surveyed 200 cases where individuals defended themselves, or others with their legally-owned and carried guns in the last year! The users were of all ages and sexes, and socioeconomic subset imaginable, but mostly the middle-aged. Only 69 of the 200 crooks faced with a citizen with his/her own legal gun were killed, with most fleeing or just being caught. The majority of cases were decided without a shot being fired. (Eagle Rising)

It'll Never Happen!

Not even Obama, who thinks he's smarter than everybody, will attempt to debate Wayne LaPierre (NRA's perennial vice-president) on “gun control, because he KNOWS his (Obama's) arguments are LIES. And such a debate, to which LaPierre is challenging him, would reveal that. So he'll find some lame excuse to ignore that demand. Maybe he'll just repeat his efforts to discredit LaPierre and NRA like he usually does, and say to debate him would be a waste of his time. Or he'll just ignore the challenge. That way, he doesn't have to answer any tough questions. LaPierre says Obama is choosing to be against what he doesn't understand. He doesn't even know for sure what an “automatic weapon” IS. If it did happen, LaPierre would dismantle his lies, one after the other and make him look like the fool he is. So there's no way he will ever allow that to happen directly to him. (Bearing Arms)

Comparing Cars and Guns

The New York Times is comparing cars and guns. They say that since cars kill more people than guns, are a universally recognized “privilege,” and are “regulated,” we should similarly regulate guns. That might be okay if their “regulation” did ANYTHING to reduce gun deaths. In any case, owning and using cars is not a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution, as are guns. Therefore, the reasoning is a lot different between them. Regulation of cars has done nothing to reduce deaths by car, and has proven itself to be unable to reduce gun deaths, too. Yet they insist on making more and more of their USELESS laws that inhibit gun ownership and usage—the very thing the 'Constitution PROHIBITS. It says, “the right of American citizens to be armed shall NOT be infringed!” What is there about “shall not be infringed” do they not understand? The fact is, there is NO comparison between cars and guns, no matter how hard they work to compare them. (New York Times)

No, It Doesn't!

Ol' Joe Butthead....er, uh, Biden says, “The Constitution says you can limit the people who can have guns.” But it doesn't. How he gets that out of the simple one sentence that covers it, I don't know. He lists “criminals,” “crazies,” and such. What is there in these few words, that says you can pick and choose who may own a gun? “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” What is there in that saying you can CONTROL who may buy a gun? Somebody tell me. And this guy is a “heartbeat” away from becoming president—for a while, yet. In any case, no amount of laws and regulations will keep criminals and crazies, and Islamic terrorists, for that matter, from getting their guns ILLEGALLY. They don't OBEY laws. You can't stop them from getting guns by limiting gun ownership for HONEST people. (Daily Caller)

"They Shouldn't Own Guns"

Obama says he doesn't want to take your guns. That's right after he has signed an “executive order” to take your guns. It's a little hard to take his words seriously when that happens. But, of course, those of us who can see through this con artist know that if he says it, it MUST be false. Another factor is a statement he made in 1996 to writer Jazz Shaw: “I don't think people should be able to have guns.” That seems like more of an honest statement, since it was said in private, to a colleague. Compare it with his current actions designed to take your guns and his current lies that he “respects the Second Amendment,” respects the right to bear arms,” and “respects people who want a gun for self protection.”

But none of those comments made recently, jibe with his earlier statement, made when he didn't think it would ever be quoted. Basically, he thinks nobody should be able to have a gun—except him or his cohorts, of course. He wants to deny us the right to the means of self defense while he runs around SURROUNDED by ARMED gunmen. He thinks because he doesn't carry a gun himself, he's not a hypocrite. But, like all the other anti-gun fools who run around surrounded by armed thugs, he IS a hypocrite. He thinks he, and his cronies, are “smarter than the average bear” and should be allowed guns, while we're too stupid to do likewise. (Hot Air)

"But Not for Me!"

“I believe not everybody should be allowed to own guns. But that should not apply to me, of course, because I'm smarter than anyone else.” That sentiment seems to apply to just about all the anti-gun fools out there. They don't think we have the intelligence to be able to have a gun and not shoot somebody over a trifle like a parking place. They think everybody but them are stupid and cannot be trusted with guns. But of course, they can be trusted. Hollywood moguls are infamous for this. They want to take guns away from everyone (but themselves, of course) and many of them run around with a circle of gun-toting “bodyguards” surrounding them. They think they're so “special” that they rate armed protection while we don't. When we accuse them of hypocrisy, they intimate (or say right out) that we must have some kind of a mental deficiency to think that way. They're too stupid to know how stupid they are. (Plunderbund)

Incompetence In Action

I've talked on many occasions about the incompetence of the politicians who have conned their way into important offices. Offices which they are NOT COMPETENT to hold. Think for a moment: if someone walked into a police station and started shooting everybody in sight, what would be the obvious answer? Disarm the cops and make them defenseless? Or see to it that they have sufficient arms to kill that shooter and save a bunch of lives? So two fools waltz into a crowded place and start shooting everybody in sight in San Bernardino, CA. So what is the answer to that? Disarm every citizen and make him/her completely defenseless? Not a bit of it. But that's what many politicians (most of them liberal Democrats) want to do. Disarm the populace as a means of self defense.

It is policies like these that make me say many politicians are INCOMPETENT. We need to make this an ARMED SOCIETY. As Robert Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society.” Normal human beings aren't going to “shoot it out” over trifles, as the anti-gun fools say we will. Gang members and other criminals already do that with their ILLEGAL guns. And there seems to be no way to keep them from getting them. So we have to make sure that when they attack somebody with their ILLEGAL guns, there are LEGAL guns there to oppose them. That's what COMPETENT people do. When that happened in San Bernardino, what did Obama do? He tried to disarm more people as a means of helping them defend themselves (he says). That's the kind of incompetence I'm talking about. And there are many more illustrations of governmental incompetence, but I don't have room to list them all here. (ACRU)

Anti-Gun Hypocrites

I've written a lot lately about anti-gun hypocrites and their circle of ARMED guards that surround them. Yes, they don't carry guns, themselves (mostly), so they can say they don't. But they either can AFFORD to PAY for other people to carry their guns,with OUR money or with their own. But rarely with their own, especially in the case of government employees. But some private citizens who happen to be rich can pay for their own, and DO. As witness the anti-gun fools at the recent Golden Globes event, who showed up, SURROUNDED by armed security. As usual. There were bomb-sniffing dogs; the “red carpet” was “cleared” by security, and there were even snipers on roofs (hopefully, all of them to PROTECT attendees). They don't even TRY to conceal their hypocrisy. They had soldier-looking guards with automatic weapons, and even had an armored vehicle. This, from people who SAY guns in YOUR hands won't stop victimization by criminals, crazies, and terrorists. (Twitchy)

Simple Logic

”I don't need a gun; I have never needed a gun; I hope I never need a gun; And in all likelihood, I'll never need a gun; However, should I ever need a gun, I'd better have a gun; therefore, I have a gun; And if the government ever says you don't need a gun, that's when you need a gun.” Obama says I don't need a gun while he runs around surrounded by ARMED guards while telling me having a gun will not protect me. I found this on Twitter, posted by a woman named Mia: “shooter's wife,” and it carried a logo, “Freedom Fighters. More logic: Why are there so many laws against owning guns when the Constitution clearly states, “NO LAW shall be made inhibiting a citizen's right to be armed?” (Just common Sense)

Just the Opposite

It's just the opposite of how things should work, according to the Constitution, which is the BASIS for ALL of our laws. Rand Paul, GOP presidential candidate, and still a Senator, has introduced legislation to stop Obama from VIOLATING the Constitution and ILLEGALLY trying to legislate by fiat on gun control. Something he hasn't been able to accomplish by conning the Congress. He still thinks he is superior to the Congress, when, according to the Constitution, which CREATED this government, he is NOT. Congress is a CO-EQUAL branch of government, and if it chooses not to act on his unconstitutional laws, they're not being “lazy,” they're doing their jobs. He is NOT “their boss,” and if they choose not to pass his pipe dreams into law, that's their RIGHT. This guy thinks he is some kind of a dictator, and he's wrong. Somebody needs to “slap him down (figuratively) and educate him on how things work in this country. (Bearing Arms)

NRA Sets Obama Straight

Obama loves to talk about the “gun show loophole” and how easy it is for a kid to buy a gun while waxing poetic about his “background checks” and how we need them to be even tighter The NRA says we already HAVE good enough background checks—if the government would just ENFORCE them. There IS NO “gun show loophole.” You buy a gun at a gun show and THEY are required to do a background check, just like in a store. And a kid CANNOT buy a gun as easily as he/she could buy a BOOK. That's an outright LIE as told by Obama (surprise, surprise!). It's IGNORANCE to think that the way to self defense is to become DEFENSELESS. But that's his answer to ANY mass shooting. The Philly mayor is just as ignorant. The SHOOTER of that cop shouted that he “did it for Allah.” The POLICE COMMISSIONER said it was an Islamic terrorist attack, and the mayor gets up in front of the microphones and says it is NOT Islam terrorist-inspired. Is he DELUDING himself? Or does he really believe that? Somebody needs to “slap him down” and enlighten him—if he will even BELIEVE them. The important thing the NRA brought out is that MOST of the mass shooters recently PASSED background checks before they killed all those people. (Eagle Rising)

She's An Imbecile!

That Baltimore sun columnist (Trisha Bishop) who said that she is more afraid of LEGAL gun owners than she is of CRIMINALS who ILLEGALLY own guns is a complete idiot. She says she is “shielded from gun-wielding CRIMINALS, but not from legal gun-owners." What kind of a FOOL is this woman? It is fools like this who make it hard for honest people to retain the right to self defense and to own the means to it, a gun. Something that is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. But apparently, she, Obama, and other fool politicians can't read the Second amendment, which clearly says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.” What part of that does this imbecile (or the others) not understand? American citizens merely want to be safe, not to shoot people indiscriminately like the owners of ILLEGAL guns do every day. To actually be more afraid of LEGAL gun owners shows an astounding STUPIDITY, and should disqualify any newspaper columnist from holding that job. (Daily Caller)

Take Away THEIR Guns!

Have you ever noticed that almost every politician who wants to take away our guns, and therefore leave us DEFENSELESS, are, themselves, surrounded by ARMED bodyguards? They say being armed is unnecessary, but they won't give up their own ARMED guards. They say they need them for protection. But what makes them so different that they get armed protection, but we don't? They tell us they aren't armed, their guards are. But it's the same thing. If they need armed guards and can afford it because WE pay for it, but we don't get them because we would have to be our own armed guards because, after paying for theirs, we can't afford to HIRE them. It's a typical example of “what's good for us is not good for you.” And some of the politicians DO carry their own guns. One notable anti-gun fool, Sen. Diane Feinstein, DOES carry her own gun, in ADDITION to being surrounded by armed guards. And there's no telling how many others do. (Bearing Arms)

Cops Plead for Guns

In Chicago, the cops at airports don't have guns. So if somebody comes in there and starts shooting up the place, Rahm Emanuel says they should “run and hide.” So what the hell GOOD are they? Now they're PLEADING for guns so they won't be as defenseless as an average citizen, while wearing police uniforms. Yes, they can help in an evacuation—IF they survive the shooting. They can't do much else except DIE right along with the other victims. What the hell Rahm was THINKING when he created this force is beyond me. But he is a Democrat, after all. Democrats are KNOWN for their stupidity and incompetence in any office they've conned their way into. (CNN)

"It Exists, On Paper"

That's what Obama says about the Second Amendment. In other words, it's “just words on paper” and means nothing. This “constitutional scholar” thinks the Second Amendment means NOTHING when it comes to making laws against self defense and gun ownership. This is what he thinks about the Constitution, period. “just words on paper.” Doesn't limit him in any way. If Congress (a “coequal branch of government) won't do what he wants, he'll just “go around them” and do it, anyway. It doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional. He's Obama, isn't he? He wants it, doesn't he? In his mind, that's enough to get it done any way he can, legal or ILLEGAL. Somebody needs to “slap him down” and make him know the Constitution is NOT “just words on paper.” It RULES what he is able to do, and any time he goes against it, he's breaking “the law of the land.” (Bearing Arms)

Obama's Many Lies

Obama tells a lot of lies, but the sheer NUMBER of lies he told in his speech about his illegal “executive actions” on gun control is impressive. The first one here is when he said “Background checks have stopped many mass shootings.” That is simply not true. But he wants us to think it is. Background checks have not stopped a single mass shooting, but we can't prove it, because if a shooting doesn't happen, we never know about it. Now, anybody who sells a SINGLE GUN has to get a federal firearms permit, and Hillary wants the fee for that to be increased to $2,500.00. When I got one (many years ago) it was ONE DOLLAR. There are criminal penalties for violating these restrictions, but NONE for a president (or other politician) who violates the Constitution, except for his unconstitutional laws being reversed (whenever somebody has enough money and enough guts to get it to the Supreme Court). The article linked below details other lies he told, just in that one speech. (Bearing Arms)

"New Rules Won't Stop Gun Violence"

Obama himself admits that his new DICTATES won't stop all gun violence. So why is he wasting time and breaking the law to make them? Truth is, NONE of the “gun control laws” they've made so far will stop ANY gun violence. But they insist on making them, anyway. He says, “If they will stop ONE gun death it's worth it.” Autos kill more people that guns, so why nor ban THEM? More people die from falling off ladders than guns kill, so why not ban ladders? That's a stupid argument, but people like Obama persist on making it. Why not make laws to make it VERY expensive for people to use a gun in the commission of a crime? You know, something like an additional TEN YEARS on top of their other sentences for using a gun? And make a law making it impossible to “waive” that to get a conviction in other crimes, as they now usually do. (White House)

Putting the Lie to Obama

Obama, like all anti-gun fools, says that armed citizens have no effect on violent crime. But, like all the rest, he's WRONG. The real facts are in, and armed citizens used their guns to save 283 lives between July 2014 and July 2015, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation Analysis. So of course, the anti-gun fools will call it a lie. That's all they have. Deny reality. Obama talks about 30,000 gun deaths a year, not telling you MOST of them were suicides or gang activity (using illegally-bought or stolen guns). And another thing: many kids, elderly, and women used their guns to save their lives, and the lives of others. Anti-gun fools never tell the truth, because to do so would ruin their narrative and put them out of business. Anti-gun organizations use their lies to get “donations” from gullible fools. (Daily Caller)

Rats Leaving Sinking Ship

As they usually do when it is sinking, and that's what's happening to Rahm Emanuel's ship. As mayor of Chicago, he has done as lousy a job as has his former boss (Obama) has done as president. He was “riding high” on a “wave of Democrat success” when elected, and had some of the TIGHTEST anti-gun laws in the nation, most of them unconstitutional, some of them already declared so by the courts. Despite that (or because of it), he also was presiding over one of the HIGHEST gun death rates in the nation, again proving that the kind of laws liberals promote do NOTHING to reduce gun violence, and instead, PROMOTE it. Now, after suppressing a video showing a cop killing a teenager by shooting him in the back while he was walking away, then filling his corpse with 16 bullets, one of his own people is now making an attempt to get him recalled. It's going to take some doing, but it just might happen. (Conservative Tribune)

Proved Wrong. So What?

That's Obama's opinion. He uses previously DEBUNKED figures to back his ILLEGAL action to use powers he does not have to further limit our gun rights. He uses false figures all the time to back up all his ILLEGAL acts. This is the most LYING president, in history, and that takes a lot of lying. Especially with people like Bill Clinton on the list. For instance: one phony anti-gun outfit said that “seven kids are killed every day by gun violence.” That might be true if you define kids up to age 26 and include shootings between gang members with ILLEGAL guns. They said that there had been “100 school shootings since the “Sandy Hook killings.” Problem was, they included many shootings OUTSIDE of schools, NEAR them. Others were LEGAL guns being ACCIDENTALLY discharged. They also included “shootings” that never happened. That's how they got their “alarming statistics.” (Breitbart)

"Come And Take It!"

That's what Texas Governor Greg Abbott told Obama when he announced his ILLEGAL “executive actions” to take away our right to own and use a gun in self defense. Looks like Texas has elected another REAL MAN as governor and he “ain't gonna take any sh-t from Obama.” A well known motto is, “Don't mess with Texas,” and Obama's going to have a hard time taking away any guns in Texas. Texas doesn't respect those left-wing fools in DC and they'll make Obama's life HELL if he tries it. Other states (like my own State of Colorado) whose governor recently DOUBLED the license plate fees, forcing me to pay $84.00 for a small piece of Scotchlite showing my right to drive my 17-year-old car for another year) is one that is “tugging his forelock,” bending over forwards to take what comes, and agreeing to “enforce” Obama's ILLEGAL “regulations.” Texas recently passed one of the most comprehensive “open carry laws” in the nation in direct OPPOSITION to Obama's position. As usual, Obama's new “regulations” are completely ineffective in cutting “gun violence,” and do nothing except make trouble for HONEST gun buyers, while doing NOTHING to stop CRIMINALS from getting their guns ILLEGALLY, which they usually do, anyway. (Conservative Tribune)

What's This?

James Woods says we need to get guns and learn how to use them. That this goes exactly opposite to what is usually preached about guns by the Hollywood “intelligentsia” is obvious. I wonder how many movie roles he will lose because of this as the liberal moguls there punish him for not agreeing with them.. But he's exactly right. When a CRIMINAL comes to your home or stops you on the street and holds you up art gunpoint, what will you do if you have no gun to use to oppose him? What will you do if you're in a crowd and a gunman starts shooting into the crowd? Or when one of the MILLIONS of Islamic terrorists Obama is letting into America (many at taxpayer expense) comes to kill you? Anti-gun fools say everybody owning and carrying guns will cause an increase in gun violence—and they're right—for a while, while honest people “kill off” those criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists who are using their ILLEGAL guns to victimize them, and then it will become mostly non-existent. (Eagle Rising)

"Big Brother" Watching You

Now gun control is no longer just “national security” or “common sense” (it isn’t common sense). Now it’s “for the children.” That “old saw” liberals have been using for eons to sell unconstitutional laws to the public. Nobody wants to vote against “the children,” do they? Or vote against “common sense?” But there’s nothing “common sense” or “for the children” in their latest scam of telling people to “find out if your neighbor has any guns and tell us.” That is pure “Big Brother.” Neighbors “snitching” on neighbors. Next, they’ll be telling children in school to tell them if their PARENTS had any guns (if they aren’t doing it already). Is there no low to which these fools will not sink? (Bearing Arms)

Christian? No Guns

The anti-gun fools have come up with yet another absurd claim: “You can't be a Christian and be pro-gun,” hoping to con Christians over to their side. But it won't work. People are too smart for that. Christianity does NOT bar us from self-defense. This is just one more effort to screw people out of their rights, that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Don't fall for the exhortations of imbeciles. Evangelicals, who ARE Christians, are the strongest supporters of gun rights. Larry Pratt, who runs Gun Owners of America, is an Evangelical Christian, and he says ALL Christians should be armed, in self-defense. He says that self defense is a “God-given right.” The Constitution merely guarantees it. He personally saw the results of gun violence, all of it done with ILLEGALLY OWNED guns. It is those ILLEGAL guns that create just about all the “gun violence,” not the LEGAL guns owned by law-abiding people. There ARE a few examples of gun violence committed by legal gun owners, but they are absolutely in the minority. That is proved by FACTS. They throw around the phony figure of "95% of Americans supporting a national gun registry." But, as usual, facts do not support this. (Just common sense)

Press LIES to Incriminate Cop

They want the cop who killed Tamir rice prosecuted for murder, saying Rice was “open carrying.” he was NOT. And 12-year-olds are NOT included in those who CAN “open carry.” “Rice was concealing (not open carrying) a replica firearm by sticking it in the waistband of his pants under a loose-fitting hoodie. To carry a firearm in that manner, you must be 21 years of age, receive a minimum of 12 hours of handgun training (10 hours of classroom instruction and 2 hours of range time) from a certified instructor, demonstrate competency with a handgun through written and shooting tests, pass a criminal background check, and meet certain residency requirements.” The media clearly LIED so as to incriminate the cop, who had no way of knowing it was a REPLICA gun, which fired only BBs, if at all. It's part and parcel of the liberal media's attempts,. Both to impugn gun ownership in general, and the use of guns in their work by cops. (Town Hall)

It's Incrementalism

That's where the government takes away your rights in INCREMENTS, no single theft of your rights enough to “move you to action.” You complain about it, and people like Obama call you a “whiner.” But, added up over years of such reductions in your rights, the loss of rights looms large—but you don't notice it, because it's always a SMALL reduction in rights at one time, “for your own good, dontcha know?” California has just passed a law that is a “small” loss of rights. Restraining orders are given out by the courts “like candy” to kids. But in California now, ANYBODY who has a restraining order against them or who is “deemed” to be a “danger to him/herself or others” lose their constitutional right to own a gun.

USING a gun illegally or actually COMMITTING a crime is not required. All that IS required is somebody's OPINION that you might POSSIBLY use a gun to hurt someone in the future (maybe). Next, it'll be anybody who has an auto accident. Put all these tiny outrages together and you have a massive violation of the Second Amendment, I'm sure the anti-gun fools in other places are watching carefully to see if California gets away with it, so they can make similar unconstitutional laws and get away with it. I remember back in the sixties the California law was such that you could not “project anything at a person in such a way as to hurt them” or you were in violation of their gun laws. I remember thinking that means I must register my FISTS, since that describes them. It may be the same today, I don't know. (Just common sense)

Gun Confiscation Begins

California made a law saying that they could confiscate guns from anybody that, in somebody's OPINION' was, or COULD BE a “danger to themselves or others.” All that was required was a special kind of “restraining order,” which has been handed out like candy to kids, all the time. Liberals keep saying “we don't want to take your guns.” Then they PROVE otherwise when they get enough power, which they usually do by giving out “freebies” like candy. That's what they're going to start doing in California January 1. The law allowing this is unconstitutional, but “following in the footsteps of Obama,” they don't care. By the time any case can come to the Supreme Court, they will have already “disappeared” the guns they have confiscated under this unconstitutional law, and nobody will be punished for MAKING IT. (Red State)

Not Legal, So Illegal

Obama can't legally take away our gun rights. He has tried, numerous times in Congress, and failed. He has even acknowledged that failure, saying, “My biggest regret in my administration is my failure to take America''s gun rights away from them (My words, not his. He said it differently.).” There's no LEGAL way he can do that, so he's going to do it ILLEGALLY. What do laws matter to him? He has violated laws and the Constitution many times, and gotten away with it. Now he's going to try “the big one.” He forgets what happened the last time a government tried to take away America's guns. King George tried it, and he got a WAR. A war he LOST, against forces he THOUGHT would be easy to defeat, and which created this “free country.” If Obama thinks he can succeed, even ILLEGALLY, he's got another think coming. No matter how much firepower (guns) he can command. Americans, many of which this country's army TRAINED. He can't beat a bunch of ragtag Islamic terrorists, and he SURE can't beat Americans. I'm just waiting for the rebellion to start, while America still has their guns. Guess who will be the first to go when that happens. There are always some stinky rear ends willing to trample on people's rights for a “taste of power,” but I'm betting there are many more Americans who won't stand for it, and they're still armed. Be afraid, Obama. Be VERY afraid! Real Americans are coming! (Examiner)