Not What They Thought

The anti-gun fools thought putting video cameras on cops would prove their false story that cops “go hunting” for blacks to kill. But it did something else, instead. It caused the reduction of successful civilian complaints against cops by 93 %! Civilians who come into contact with the cops are PRONE to accuse them falsely in hopes of mitigating their own crimes. A good example is Freddy Gray, in Baltimore, who accidentally killed himself in an effort to incriminate the cops. But the existence of video evidence is damning to the attempts to incriminate cops, by showing what REALLY happened. Not what “witnesses” say. Witnesses to cop shootings, many of whom are friends of the ones killed, are notoriously false. But video evidence “puts the lie” to it. That was so in Baltimore, and in Ferguson, MO, and in Charlotte, NC. In Ferguson, “witnesses” swore Brown had his hands up shouting, “don't shoot,” which was proved a lie. In Baltimore they swore he was given “a rough ride” by the cop driving the wagon, and THAT was proven to be a lie, again by video evidence.” In Charlotte, the victim's wife swore he had never even OWNED a gun, even though she KNEW he had served 7 years in prison on a gun charge, and she had previously filed for a restraining order on him because he had “threatened her with a gun.” (BBC)

It's Always Legal Guns

Anti-gun fools always rail against guns. But the ones they talk about are the guns in the hands of honest, law-abiding people, who are NOT the problem in “gun violence.” It is the holders of ILLEGAL guns who ARE, which none of their laws will do anything about. Criminals and other “bad guys” don't register their guns. They just kill people with them. They talk about the “wild West atmosphere” that will be created if we allow more honest people to carry guns. But what they ignore is that there are ALREADY millions of UNREGISTERED guns “on the streets,” in use by “bad guys” of all kinds. Mostly by young gang members, who don't care who they kill, on purpose or by accident. Who are mostly too young to have guns, but do, in spite of ALL their laws. They don't even TRY to find ways to reduce such ownership. They “go after” LEGAL guns and gun owners, since they're “low-hanging fruit” and easy to oppress. And, like in Memphis, they wonder why “gun violence” is so widespread. (Mississippi Gun News)

CNN Ignorant On Guns!

They say that, since N. Carolina is an “open carry state,” Kieth Lamont Scott was within his rights to be carrying a gun. That shows complete ignorance on how laws work. Scott was a “violent felon,” and thus was BARRED the ownership and use of a gun—period. When the cops saw him holding a gun in his car, he became a “prime target” for arrest. What happened then is in question, but that lie alone, makes all other statements about the case suspect. His wife says he “never owned a gun.” But that's a LIE. She has, in the past, taken out a restraining order on him because he “threatened her with a gun.” This shows sure knowledge of her LIE to police. He actually spent 7 years in PRISON on a gun charge. How she expected to support that lie is a mystery. This is how people “whip up” controversy whenever the cops have to shoot a suspect. As in Ferguson, MO, the entire contretemps was CAUSED by the LIE that Brown had his hands up, saying, “don't shoot.” In Baltimore, the lie that was disproved was that the cop driving the police “wagon” gave the suspect a “wild ride,” thus killing him. That was disproved by video evidence, and all six cops charged by an overzealous cop-hating prosecutor were exonerated in court. (The Federalist)

Complete Surrender to Thugs

That's what Los Angeles wants it's cops to do in the face of an armed suspect: “just run.” this is not the way to protect the citizens. Especially if this policy is announced. An armed thug will then know that all he has to do to dispense with a police presence is to show a gun. He will have WON. A commission on police activity says the cops should have “run away” last year when confronted with an “out of control” woman with a 9 inch knife, swinging it and shouting, “shoot me.” Turning to run would have presented her with a large target”: the cop's BACK. It's a real shame when four civilian commission members with NO POLICE EXPERIENCE can “second-guess” cops on the scene who have only SECONDS to make a life or death decision. Such people are going to get a lot of cops killed because they're engendering hesitation on their part. That hesitation can cause their death in a world where criminal thugs go on “hunting expeditions” to kill cops. (Daily Caller)

More Black Males Die

Data from the Centers for Disease Control (not the most reliable source) indicates that of all the black males between the ages of 15 and 24 who died in 2014, a MAJORITY were killed by a gun. What the “study” didn't say is that most of those young black males were gang members, and were killed by other black male gang members, using ILLEGAL guns, while they were holding illegal guns. Something all their “gun laws” would have NO control over. This is how they force their false narrative on us. By leaving out the most important things. This proves NOTHING except for the fact that young white men are smarter than young black men, and usually don't join gangs. Of course, they'll call me a racist (again) for pointing out this truth. In Chicago, the chance of a young black man getting shot in the worst neighborhoods (which are predominantly black) is nine times greater than in the safest neighborhood (which is usually predominantly white). Chicago is run by Democrats and has some of the tightest gun-control laws in the nation, coupled with the highest gun death rate. Does that tell you anything? (The Trace)

Racist Roots of Gun Control

I'll bet you didn't know that the first “gun control laws” in America were made to keep guns out of the hands of Indians—and predictably didn't work. The Indians still got the guns (illegally, of course) they used to victimize all whites. Soon the laws were widened (as they always are) to include blacks and mulattoes (anybody with a single “drop” of black blood). So the first anti-gun laws were MADE to keep guns away from Indians and black people. And, if they thought they could get away with it, they'd do the same, today. They may not be WRITTEN that way, but in many places, they're interpreted that way. At the same time, the reason so many black males die by cop's guns is that they are SHOOTING at cops, at the time. Not always, but mostly. Of course, they'll call me racist for pointing out this truth, but I don't give a damn. Lately, they've attributed ANYTHING they don't like to racism. Even if they have to change the meaning of certain words they CALL “code words.” (Time Magazine)

Tampa Bay Times Lies

They recently ran an editorial in which they said the NRA was holding classes in how to respond to the cops when they shoot somebody illegally. That's an outright lie. What they ARE doing is advising people in the legal ways to use their guns in self-defense. And they're getting flack from fools who write articles like this. Nobody who holds a ”carry permit” WANTS to shoot somebody without a good reason, and that's why they take this course. Apparently this writer missed the memo about “concealed carriers” being the most law-abiding people around. This is a good example of how the liberal media twists facts to prove their erroneous narrative. Lie about it, and hope nobody notices. (Bearing Arms)

"Missed It By THAT Much!"

“MISSED IT BY THAT MUCH!” One of the factors in watching the actions of anti-gun fools is to catch them in as many lies as possible. Sometimes the lies are so outrageous as to be funny. That's how it happened when Kentucky anti-gun fools released a “list of accidental gun deaths” recently. It contained 130 instances. But after they were “caught out,” they had to recalculate, and the number came to only 5. that's a pretty big “accidental” mistake, isn't it? This is how they twist facts to support their false narrative. That's why you can't believe ANYTHING they put out. If they do tell the truth, it's an accident. How do you make a mistake as big as that? It's easy. You LIE. (Say Uncle)

http://www.saysuncle.com/2016/09/23/accidental-gun-deaths-in-tn/

Hillary Not Selling Guns

One of the factors that distresses Obama the most is the fact that every time he talks again about his intention to “stomp on” America's constitutionally-protected right to self defense, and to own and use the means to that end, a gun, America buys more and more guns. Consequentially, he has been unwittingly responsible for more gun sales than any gun salesman out there. But conversely, Hillary has never been responsible for an increase in gun sales, no matter how much she talks about doing the same. There's a good reason for that: Obama IS president, has shown clearly that he is DETERMINED to step on our self defense and gun ownership rights, in spite of what the Constitution says. Hillary, on the other hand, is merely a presidential hopeful that intelligent people believe will never get to walk into the Oval Office, even as a visitor. Therefore, they need not worry about her supposed future ability to affect their self defense rights. We can only hope we can continue to stifle Obama's ability to violate our rights until he is forced to leave office on January 20, 1917. (Washington Post)

Mall Killer Barred Guns

The anti-gun fools all want to pass more and more laws to “keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them,” in spite of the fact that such laws DON'T WORK, and have NEVER worked. And they KNOW they don't work. The killer of FIVE people at the Cascade Mall in Burlington, WA, was specifically BARRED from gun ownership, due to past felonies and his emotional and mental health issues—but, somehow, he still GOT the gun he used in killing FIVE innocent people. How do they answer that? They don't. They just ignore it, and go on whining for more, tighter gun laws that never work. Anti-gun fools never admit their “solutions” don't work. They just keep on insisting on making more of them, in spite of the constitutional prohibition against their laws. Of course, the “big story” in this article is the fact that a cancer survivor is one of the victims, and nothing is said about the fact the killer was barred from having a gun. (Seattle Times)

Violating the Constitution

It appears that the founders made a fatal error in not prescribing a PUNISHMENT for politicians willfully making law that VIOLATE it. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has PLEDGED to violate it if Hillary is elected president in November. Sandy Hook, while a tragedy, is not a good reason to violate the Constitution. There is a BIRTHRIGHT to self defense, and the Constitution recognizes it. That includes the right to own and use the means to self defense, a gun. The Constitution is very clear on that subject, no matter how much the anti-gun fools want to obfuscate it. Anti-gun fools such as Sen. Murphy think anybody who is carrying a gun will “go nuts” and start shooting people over ANY minor real or imagined slight. That is NOT true. Yes, the idea of an armed person getting into a drunken scrape in a bar makes you shudder. But it happens every day, anyway, somewhere, but usually involves an ILLEGAL gun. Making more laws against gun ownership for honest people is NOT going to correct that PEOPLE problem, no matter how much they imagine it would. (Mother Jones)

Women Can't Use Guns?

 Liberals (anti-gun fools) say “the idea that women can use guns in self defense is ludicrous.” Actually, the idea they CAN'T is what's ludicrous. A tiny finger can pull a trigger as well as that of a big, powerful man. If you don't believe it, just try and beat up a woman who has a gun and is trained in it's use. That is, if you want to end up dead. Just ask the guys who tried it. Oh....you can't....they're dead. Liberals say REPUBLICANS are sexist. But this idea proves that the sexists are in the Democrat Party. It's sexist to even suggest that women can't use a gun in self defense. Huffington Post says only 15 women used a gun to defend themselves against a man last year, while men killed 1,600 women. And whose fault is that? If more women were able to HAVE guns, that number would soon change. You can read the damned fool article in Huff Post by clicking the link below. We need to advise women of one thing: don't threaten, just SHOOT. And don't let him know you've got it. (Huffington Post)

Soros/Bloomberg Mad!

Well, boo-hoo! The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners tell us that George Soros, who recently joined with Michael Bloomberg, both billionaire rabble-rousers and anti-gun fools, are MAD at Colorado because their efforts to “stomp out” our gun rights here is in trouble. Well, I'll be happy to help them wring out their crying towels, but that's all. Who the hell CARES if they're “mad at us?” We're mad at THEM for meddling in our affairs! Whatever gives them the idea they have the right to interfere in our state's business, especially to violate the Constitution in any way they can, is a mystery. They know we are GUARANTEED the right to self defense, and to own and carry the means to that end, a gun, but they are still determined to “stomp it out.” It's too bad the Founders didn't prescribe a punishment for people who try very hard to violate it. (just common sense)

"B-B-But, This Never Happens!"

It doesn't, huh? That's what the anti-gun fools always say, completely ignoring the thousands of times it DOES happen every year, to support their false narrative. Maybe if they asked these 3 “bad guys” they might find out it really does. Oh. I forgot. One of them is dead, and the other two are still hunting the “high timber.” as far away from this woman as possible. If they ever find them where they're hiding, maybe they can ask them. This should happen more often. It might convince some of these fools that think they can just TAKE what they want, brandishing their ILLEGAL guns, that theirs is a very dangerous profession and maybe they ought to find a new one. The article doesn't say if any charges will be taken against this gutsy woman, but if there are, it will be a travesty. She has a right to defend herself against three ARMED criminals entering her home. (The Blaze)

I'm Baaacck!

Did you think I wasn't coming back? I would have almost agreed. We had a helluva time getting our Internet set up in the new place. And it took forever to find some of my important stuff, and we aren't finished looking, yet. I finally did get my office set up—kinda--after a couple of days typing on the computer sitting on a dresser, which almost ruined my back. But I think the worst of it is over, now. Although there are still a few problems, like my almost complete inability to roll my chair back and forth on this rug, which is the only one in the whole house. Anyway, I'm back in business—I think. A lot has been happening while we were out, including two cop shootings, one of which might even be real. The other one the usual bunch of crap where they call it a racist killing when the shooter was black, too. Add to that a mess of outside agitators—did you know 70% of protesters arrested in Charlotte were from “out of town?” Having rushed there to make as much trouble as they could, just like in Ferguson, MO. We'll be writing more about that, later, as the real FACTS come out, as they usually do after we sift out all the LIES. (Just common sense)

"B-b-but....It Doesn't Matter!"

In Minnesota, a fool ran around in a shopping center stabbing people—until a legally-armed guy who happened to be there shot him to death. After that, he didn't stab any more people. And the anti-gun fools say that doesn't prove our point that legally armed people already there can STOP criminals from wantonly killing people. So what crystal ball vision do they use to come to that conclusion? It certainly DOES prove our point, which has been proven, over and over, in many places! They say it means nothing because he is a trained shooter. What the hell do they think we, and the NRA have been preaching and teaching forever? Somebody who gets a gun and doesn't learn how to use it is a danger to him/herself, and all those around him/her. They're right in that. And they're all around us. They call them “gang members and criminals) But the more law abiding trained shooters there are who are among us (that the “bad guys” don't know are there), the more often this is going to happen. What do they do when a bad guy starts killing people randomly? They call the trained guys with guns, who are often several minutes, maybe longer, away. Such a fool can hurt or kill many people in those few minutes. But an armed, TRAINED PERSON already there can “git 'er done” in an instant, saving many lives that would be lost while waiting for the cops to arrive. They say such situations are “rare.” But whose fault is THAT? (Breitbart)

We're Moving Thursday

And until then, we'll be packing. And then unpacking. Which leaves no time for research or posting. So I'll be off line until Saturday or Sunday, hopefully. Or maybe even Monday. I'll still be checking my e-mail, so if you need to say anything to me, you can do it that way. E-mail will remain the same.

Didn't Work--Do It Again!

In a good example of one of the major failings of the anti-gun fools, Australia is planning another “gun buyback,” even though the “big one” not only didn't do anything to stop “gun violence,” it caused a 300% INCREASE in gun violence. Now they're whining about all the “gun violence” since then, and planning another one. They say “Melbourne is in the grip of an unprecedented wave of gun violence.” Wait a minute! I thought getting rid of guns (which they almost did with their original “buyback” after a major shooting) would solve all their “gun violence” problems! What? It didn't? Maybe our anti-gu fools should take notice of that. But they won't. They'll do the same thing they did on the original buyback. Lie about it, and insist that it “solved the gun problem.” (The Age)

Got It Wrong Again

Two of the anti-gun fools most vocal recently in taking our right to self away, think the “gun lobby” is more like a “cult” than anything else. Which shows me where the “cult” appellation lies. It lies with them. There is certainly nothing that even approaches TRUTH in what they preach. For some reason, they completely IGNORE the fact that the “gun lobby” merely is protecting our constitutional; RIGHT to self defense, and to own and use the means to that end, a gun. What makes them think they can VIOLATE that august document that is the very BASIS of ALL our laws, is beyond me. I guess they're just stupid. They think making a LAW will stop criminals and other “bad guys” from getting guns, which, in itself, is a stupid idea. “Bad guys” don't OBEY laws. If the Founders had had the foresight to prescribe a PUNISHMENT for politicians stupid enough to PROPOSE a law that is patently unconstitutional, we may have not been subject to all the harassment that comes from these stupid people. Maybe. Or they'd still figure out a way to “get around it.” (Bill Moyers)

Playing the Race Card

Seems like liberals can't do anything without playing the race card. ”U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy took a deep dive into the interwoven worlds of the gun-rights movement and gunmakers, saying anti-government “neo-anarchist’’ Republicans are aligned with a firearms industry desperate to sell more guns to a shrinking customer base.” “Shrinking customer base? Come on, Senator, wake up to reality! The customer base is INCREASING steadily, mostly because of the actions of fools like you to take away our rights! But I digress, mostly because of his stupidity. This item is more about his effort to attribute our wish to retain our birth rights to hatred of blacks, which is a load of bull dung.

“In a speech before the National Press Club, Murphy said, ' hostility to government has become a right-wing standard, especially since the election of the nation’s first black president Barack Obama, in 2008'.“ In that, he's exactly right. And it was so since way before that, for good cause. Except it's not because he's black. It's because he's a damned fool who wants to be a dictator, and thinks he already is. And he refuses to recognize that we ARE at war with Islamic terrorists, and won't even use the WORDS to describe the enemy. He has spent more money than there IS, more than ALL presidents before him, COMBINED. It's because he is the WORST president in memory (With the possible exception of Jimmy Carter). If America was really so hateful of blacks, how did he, and other black people get elected, or appointed to high office? Murphy is as much of a damned fool as is Obama. And he's white. (CT Post)

The Anti-Gun Hydra

It has sprouted another head. Financed, of course, by billionaire, and former New York City Mayor Bloomberg. Who else? He's tried so hard to violate the Constitution and the basic right of Americans to self defense, and to own and use the means to that, a gun, without much success, you almost have to feel sorry for him. A man can only take so much rejection. So now, in “The Great Northeast (where else?), he has spawned “Mainers for Responsible Gun Ownership,” which is “code” for “let's ban guns in Maine.” their big thing (to begin with) is gun registration. one of the usual bad ideas, as if gun registration has ever done ANYTHING to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other bad guys, who don't bother to register their guns. They just kill you with them. Like Adam Lanza, who stole a gun from his grandmother, killed her with it, then went on to kill a bunch or other people. What the hell good did gun registration do them? (Gun-Free Zone)

Gun Laws Don't Work

So make more of them. Lists of legal gun owners don't do a thing to “stem gun violence.” But they go right on making them, anyway. Thus proving that their purpose is NOT to “stem gun violence,” but to disarm the populace so their agents won't be taking as much of a chance of being shot when they come to burglarize us. Black males think cops shoot black males with glee, even HUNTING them like deer. So they favor “street justice” over asking the cops for help. Which makes black males “fair game” to be killed by cops, just doing their duty. Black males are only 6% of the population, but they represent 50% of the victims of shootings, most of which are accomplished by other black males, not the cops. The idea that cops “hunt black males for sport” is a MYTH made up by such as the “Black Lives Matter” fools. (Gun Free Zone)

Violating the Constitution

It appears that the founders made a fatal error in not prescribing a PUNISHMENT for politicians willfully making laws that VIOLATE it. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has PLEDGED to violate it if Hillary is elected president in November. Sandy Hook, while a tragedy, is not a good reason to violate the Constitution. There is a BIRTHRIGHT to self defense, and the Constitution recognizes it. That includes the right to own and use the means to self defense, a gun. The Constitution is very clear on that subject, no matter how much the anti-gun fools want to obfuscate it. Anti-gun fools such as Sen. Murphy think anybody who is carrying a gun will “go nuts” and start shooting people over ANY minor real or imagined slight. That is NOT true. Yes, the idea of an armed person getting into a drunken scrape in a bar makes you shudder. But it happens every day, anyway, somewhere, but usually involves an ILLEGAL gun. Making more laws against gun ownership for honest people is NOT going to correct that PEOPLE problem, no matter how much they imagine it would. (Mother Jones)

Creating A Lie

You'll find very few black people who don't believe that cops are unduly willing to kill black men, even if they're unarmed. They give us the same examples, over and over, but those examples seem to be of the same situation. They “cherry pick” them to prove their point. The real fact is, cops killing black men who are unarmed are a very small number, compared to those who were shot while trying to KILL that cop. But they ignore those situations, and repeat the same situations, over and over, in their propaganda, to prove their point. They don't tell you about all the thugs, black and white, who use their ILLEGALLY-gotten guns to try and kill cops. That isn't important, to them. The only ones that ARE important to them are the very few where a “bad apple” cop DOES kill without reason. And there are a few of those, as there will always be, in every barrel. But the fact remains, it isn't NEAR the problem they make it out to be, and they're CREATING the very problem they claim to be fighting. Cops, knowing they have “targets on their backs,” are today very nervous as they run around in their distinctively marked cars with their easily recognizable uniforms, just waiting for some stupid thug to decide to kill them. That they just MIGHT “shoot first and ask questions later” if there are any left alive, would not be unexpected. (Daily Caller)

"Active Shooter" Training

In Ohio, they not only allow legally armed teachers to carry their guns into their schools, they train them in how to “take out an active shooter.” This probably makes anti-gun fools throw up. The thought of ANY legally-allowed gun in a school makes them dirty their pants and release all kinds of bodily fluids. They're afraid of gunfights between teachers over the possession of blackboard erasers. That's their regular fallback position: talk about the absolute “worst case scenario,” something that would NEVER happen. They automatically assume the average citizen, if he/she gets his/her hands on a gun, will be having gunfights in the halls of the school—or wherever. They have no faith in the responsibility of honest people to properly handle their guns. Or they PRETEND not to believe in the responsibility of teachers to carry guns in school. That's their scam. (Breitbart)

Too Many Guns?

The anti-gun fools are constantly reminding us that there are “too many guns out there.” which is something we can agree on. What isn't mentioned is that too many of them are gotten ILLEGALLY, and thus there can be no “record” of their purchase and ownership. Obama recently mandated that EVERY gun confiscated be “traced” back to it's original owner. WITHOUT budgeting any money to carry our his order, which makes a hard job even harder. It's an impossible quest. In just one day at the trace center, there are 5,000 cases demanding a trace. And the next day, they'll get 1,000 more. It's a CRUSHING load of work, and does little to reduce gun crime. And tracing most guns confiscated at crime scenes will NOT give any information on LEGAL gun owners, who aren't the problem, anyway. Obama just wants to make it LOOK like he's “doing something” to stem gun violence, when he's NOT. But that's how he operates. He does things to make it LOOK like he's accomplishing things, when he is NOT. (Smallest Minority)

Coming for Your Guns

The Democrats have been trying to disarm the American people since before I can remember. And they're closer to being successful than ever before. They had their chief opposition in the Supreme Court killed so they'd have a “free hand” in appointing another Justice who would rule in their favor and get rid of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court is the only body that can do that, and the Republicans know that, which is why they refuse to allow an up or down vote on Obama's pick while he is still in office. But if Hillary wins, we're LOST. One of her first acts will be to appoint a flaming liberal judge to the Court, and he/she will find some excuse to nullify the Second Amendment. Then her thugs will “come for your guns” and you will be disarmed when they come back for your other property, and your freedom. The first things despots do it to disarm the populace so it will be easy to subjugate them. And if you don't think that is her plan, you need your head examined by an honest doctor. (AmmoLand)

"No Guns for Students"

That's what they say at Harvard. They think people under 30 should not have guns because their brains aren't sufficiently grown to know how to use them. Why then, do we send so many “under 30” people overseas after putting guns in their hands, to fight for us? Are all the soldiers we send UNABLE to handle their guns? Their logic here escapes me. But then, ALL the “logic” displayed by liberals escaped me, because they don't HAVE any logic. So I guess they want their students to remain DEFENSELESS against the crazies who come there to kill them, in big bunches. It seems like ALL the laws they make about guns are designed to keep people from being able to defend themselves against all the ILLEGAL guns out there. I was thinking the other day: what would happen if a thug attacked me on the street (I'm pushing 80) and I killed him with a knife with a blade over 3 inches long? I'd probably end up in jail for the rest of my life. ANY jail sentence for me is likely to be a life sentence. But I'm not a criminal. I just insist on being able to defend myself AGAINST a criminal. (Harvard Crimson)

Chicago: Showcase City

The anti-gun fools point to Chicago as their “showcase city” for tough gun laws. What they fail to mention is that none of them work worth a damn..65 people were shot over the Labor Day weekend alone, 13 of them fatally. It was the most violent weekend in Chicago history And that's after last month, which was one of the most violent in it's history, too. They CLAIM that their laws “reduce gun violence,” but they don't. They attribute the violence to cops shooting blacks, but it's actually blacks shooting other blacks. Yes, some WERE shot by cops. But only while they were trying to kill the cops. Chicago IS a “showcase city, but not for gun laws that WORK. For gun laws that DON'T work, and incompetent government, that can be traced right back to liberal Democrat “rule.” There are Democrat-run cities all over the country, and every one of them are in trouble, through the INCOMPETENCE of their Democrat leaders. (Guns)

Infringement?

The Second Amendment PROHIBITS any “infringement” on the right of ALL American citizens (who are not convicted felons or insane) to own and use a gun for self defense. But liberals have been able to obfuscate it to the point where they can pass laws and make “regulations” that allow them to infringe on that right on a regular basis. Isn't a law allowing people to carry a gun, but the gun must be UNLOADED and infringement? How about one that requires a gun to be stored in a locked safe that guarantees you can't get it in operation soon enough to effectively oppose the gun in the hand of an attacker in your home? Or laws requiring guns and ammunition in a car be stored separately, as far away from each other as possible? And “no-gun zones” where you're not allowed to even BRING your guns—but which do NOTHING to stop CRIMINALS from bringing theirs? Every law they pass seems to be to INFRINGE on our constitutional right, and they get away with it. Somebody needs to bring that up in the Supreme Court, if we can ever get a Supreme Court that is “even handed, that is. (Just common sense)

Making Guns Useless

Most anti-gun laws “skate around” the fact that laws BANNING guns cannot be made, by no less than constitutional order. They can't BAN guns, so they make laws to make them USELESS while such laws do NOTHING to stop criminals and other “bad guys” from coming in your homes with their unencumbered (illegal) guns to kill you. They use flimsy excuses to get people all excited about making it hard for children and other ignorant people to kill themselves and others without telling them the NRA TRAINS people in the proper handling of guns. Of course, that only happens when people KNOW NOTHING about guns, a situation they work HARD to maintain. They HATE the NRA, which is the biggest outfit that TRAINS children and adults in the proper handling of guns, so they'll no longer be “a mystery' and an object of curiosity. They work HARD to stop the NRA from doing that, because less ignorant people would NOT kill each other and others by accident, making their figures false—and they can't have that, can they? (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Gun Laws Don't Work

So make more of them! That's what Chicago Bulls player Dwayne Wade thinks. He thinks Chicago's gun laws are “weak and ineffective.” So they have to make more of them. Only one problem. They can't think of any that will WORK. And they're so weak and ineffective that some of them have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Never mind that, with all their stupid “gun laws,” they've got the highest “gun violence” stats in the nation. A “gun violence epidemic” like that nowhere else in the country, even in other liberal run cities with similar laws on the books. Maybe one day they'll find a law that WILL work and pass it. Then I'll be right with them. But they never will. They aren't smart enough. That's proven by the fact that they think the way to self defense is to DISARM yourself. That same ignorance is displayed by the “disarmament treaties” politicians have pushed about nuclear weapons. It's NOT. The way to self defense is to be BETTER ARMED than the opposition. But they're not smart enough to figure that out for themselves. (Sports Net)

How to Stop Terrorists

Liberal “logic” says, “ban guns.” What kind of “logic” that is, I can't understand. But that's their opinion—unless they're threatened themselves, that is. Then they pull out their own guns. Like the now dead liberal columnist who wrote many columns against guns, then pulled a gun on a kid swimming in his pool without permission. Or Sen. Feinstein, who is one of the most vocal members of Congress against us “peons” being able to carry guns for self defense, but who has her own “carry permit” and carries her own gun, in ADDITION to the armed security with which she goes around surrounded. This is a good example of the contradictions in the thinking of liberals. Contradictions that never cease to make me crazy. (Keep and Bear Arms)

Don't Take Polls Seriously

People LIE to pollsters. For years, pollsters have gone among us and asked if we have guns. They're told “NO” by many people who DO own guns, but don't really want all the anti-gun fools out there to know it, lest they be targets for confiscation when that time comes—and it will come, as long as liberals (Democrats) permeate the government, at all levels). There have been gun confiscations in many countries in the past, and many people simply BURIED their guns where the “confiscators” (government thieves) couldn't find them. The anti-gun fools make a big thing of such polls, trying to convince potential gun owners that they are in the minority, when they are definitely in the MAJORITY. That's why they lose when anti-gun laws are proposed. That's how Democrats win elections, too. They conduct polls in known Democrat territory, asking questions GUARANTEED to get the answers they want. Then they use those polls to “mold” public opinion. (NRA-ILA)

Making Guns Useless

Most anti-gun laws “skate around” the fact that laws BANNING guns cannot be made, by no less than a constitutional order. They can't BAN guns, so they make laws to make them USELESS while such laws do NOTHING to stop criminals and other “bad guys” from coming in your homes with their unencumbered (illegal) guns to kill you. They use flimsy excuses to get people all excited about making it hard for children and other ignorant people to kill themselves and others without telling them the NRA TRAINS people in the proper handling of guns.. Of course, that only happens when people KNOW NOTHING about guns, a situation they (the anti-gun fools) work HARD to maintain. They HATE the NRA, which is the biggest outfit that TRAINS children and adults in the proper handling of guns, so they'll no longer be “a mystery' and an object of curiosity. They work HARD to stop the NRA from doing that, because less ignorant people would NOT kill each other and others by accident, making their figures false—and they can't have that, can they? (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Hates Pro-Gun Laws

Until he needs the laws for his own benefit, that is. That's the way with anti-gun fools. Like that now dead columnist who wrote many columns against guns—until he found a boy swimming in his pool and threatened him with a gun. Or like Sen. Feinstein, who is one of the most virulent anti-gun fools out there, and has her own “carry permit,” in ADDITION to the ARMED security that surrounds her. And others, who also go around behind a WALL of ARMED thugs while denying us “peasants” the same right. This guy used to be a Montana lawmaker and voted AGAINST a law that ALLOWED him to threaten someone with a gun if he thought he was in danger. It passed, in spite of his opposition. Then he pulled a gun on one of his tenants while she was moving out, and is citing that law in his defense in court. This is a good example of the irony of anti-gun fools getting in trouble for their own use of a gun while working to deny us the same right. (AmmoLand)

Infringement

The Second Amendment PROHIBITS any “infringement” on the right of ALL American citizens (who are not convicted felons or insane) to own and use a gun for self defense. But liberals have been able to obfuscate it to the point where they can pass laws and make “regulations” that allow them to infringe on that right on a regular basis. Isn't a law allowing people to carry a gun, but the gun must be UNLOADED an infringement? How about one that requires a gun to be stored in a locked safe that guarantees you can't get it in operation soon enough to effectively oppose the gun in the hand of an attacker in your home? Or laws requiring guns and ammunition in a car be stored separately, as far away from each other as possible? And “no-gun zones” where you're not allowed to even BRING your guns—but which do NOTHING to stop CRIMINALS from bringing theirs? Every law they pass seems to be to INFRINGE on our constitutional right, and they get away with it. Somebody needs to bring that up in the Supreme Court, if we can ever get a Supreme Court that is “even handed, that is. (Just common sense)

Just Like Hillary

This famous singer thinks laws don't apply to him, as does Hillary Clinton. Her lawbreaking is a little different than his, though. She “has people” to do for her the things this guy does for himself. The only laws she personally breaks are those regarding her political life. Such as having a private e-mail server as Secretary of State when doing so is, if not completely illegal, it is unethical. Then there's her actions in allowing Islamic terrorists to murder her diplomats in Benghazi when some of them could have been saved if she'd just gotten off her considerable rear end and sent some people to do so. Instead, she sent out a "stand down" order, which was IGNORED by many. This guy likes to do things himself. Which is why he has been charged, many times, with violence against the women in his life, always getting off with “slaps on the wrist.” But he IS a felon, which begs the question of how he was able to have the gun he threatened one of his girls with when she admired some jewelry he though she shouldn't. There are LAWS against felons having guns, especially in California, where he lives. Looks like those laws aren't obeyed very well by guys with a lot of money. Which makes them pretty useless. Even if he is not guilty of the crime of which she accused him, how did he get the gun with which he allegedly threatened her? (NBC News)

Lying About Guns

It's too bad there isn't a “board” or “committee” somewhere to approve of the veracity (truth) of what is written about guns in the liberal media. There are too many fools who know absolutely NOTHING about guns, who write these pieces that contain many lies and misrepresentations. It's hard for the average person to “filter out” the lies, and see what's true. They preach the same old crap they've read in other liberal publications without questioning it, so as to notice the contradictions in what is preached. Like the idea that the Second Amendment is NOT an “individual right,” but a recognition that an “organized militia” needed to be armed. Which is a “flight of fancy,” as the amendment itself makes clear, since there was NO such thing as an “organized militia” at the time, so they HAD TO mean that ALL THE PEOPLE must have the right to be armed, so THEY could be “called up” in an emergency, and would bring their own guns. And that's just ONE of the lies and misrepresentations, just in this one article, linked here. Another is the fiction that it only covered MUSKETS, which were the guns in general use at the time it was written. Today, the guns in general use are the automatic and semi-automatic weapons in use by the military and by the cops and government agents. It did NOT say specifically muskets. (The Dana Show)

Following Obama's Lead

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, of California, has sponsored a “voter initiative” that is much more restrictive of gun owners than even that put out by the governor. He says, “Gun control is the will of the people and should trump the legislature.” He thinks, like Obama, that if the legislature doesn't “do his bidding,” they're not “doing their job.” Tell me, Gavin, why then, have the anti-gun fools had so much trouble getting their USELESS “gun laws” passed, generally? They have less trouble in California though, because there are so many FOOLS in California, who agree that the way to self defense is to DISARM yourself, and “throw yourself on the mercy” of the ILLEGAL gun owners. Frankly, I don't think that will last long, because those ILLEGAL gun owners will kill them off. Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm beginning to think that's the only way to get through to those fools. Fools like Newsom and the governor, himself. Whatever gave him the idea that “gun control” is the will of the people is a mystery. Maybe he saw it in his crystal ball. (NBC LA)

Enforce Current Laws!

Obama and his accomplices are constantly working to make new anti-gun laws. But my question is, why don't they enforce the ones already on the books? Laws against criminals being in possession of guns are already on the books. They can mean an extra ten years, ABOVE the sentence for the other crimes of which they are accused. But they are ROUTINELY “waived” in return for “confessions” to other, lesser crimes. And then, Obama has the perpetrators RELEASED after serving only 40% of their sentences, saying they are “non-violent offenders.” In the case of Richard Reid, a “two-time loser” who was in possession of TWO guns when arrested for selling drugs, maybe he IS a “non-violent offender.” But why did he HAVE those guns while he sold his drugs? Maybe he just hasn't been caught in a violent crime yet. Or maybe he “has people” for that, who weren't caught. (Daily Caller)