Banned Guns Kill Hundreds

In Egypt, where automatic weapons are BANNED for use by citizens (but not for the government agents, of course), Islamic terrorists used them to murder more than 200 Egyptian Muslims who were attending a Mosque. They used a bomb to get them to flee the Mosque, then shot them down like dogs as they fled, Then later, they, themselves, were blown to kingdom come by the government, which tracked them down and blew them to hell. Oops! I bet they didn't expect that! But the whole point here is that the very guns they used were BANNED in a country which does not have a Second Amendment, but they had those guns, anyway. How did they get them? Illegally, of course, again proving laws against guns do NOTHING to stop criminals or terrorists from getting them. Yet they keep making them. (Daily Wire)

"Trusted" To Own A Gun!

That's what the Arkansas State Police say about people who have concealed carry permits. and as such they have "entered into a contract" to not only get training, but to return to be "recertified" every few months, because some people are so stupid they "forget" basics, such as how to load a magazine. Yes, people who get guns should get trained in its use. But having to "return every few months" for further training (and to pay the fees required) is an abuse of power. First off, nobody has the right to "trust' somebody to own a gun for self defense. Owning and using guns is a RIGHT, not to be "trusted" by ANYBODY. The very idea that you must be "trusted" to own a gun is stupid. But that's how anti-gun fools think. They think they have the right to"trust" us to own a gun, which they do NOT. Even stupid people have the inalienable RIGHT to own a gun for self defense. Natural selection will "weed out" the really stupid ones. Except those in the anti-gun fool category, most of whom carry their own guns, while wanting to deny that right to others. (The Geek Blog)

Banning Guns Won't Work

The theory pushing the anti-gun fools is that if they can get rid of ALL the guns in the world (impossible), that will cause crime to dry up. That shows a complete ignorance of how things work in the world. First, there is NO WAY they will ever get rid of all the guns in the world. Second, violent crime pre-exists guns by many years. Back when guns were non-existent, thugs found other things to use in victimizing the law-abiding. Such as swords and other kinds of knives. Swords and other bladed instruments have been used for hundreds,maybe thousands of years to victimize people. The only real answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the law abiding, so they can defend themselves. Criminals will always be able to get guns to use in committing their crimes. They buy them ILLEGALLY, or just STEAL them. These people really should be intelligent enough to understand that, but apparently they aren't. Or they just want to "feel the power' of telling you that you can't own a gun. (America's First Freedom)

Total Ignorance About Guns

This columnist is totally ignorant on guns. He blames the NRA for people being killed by guns when it is the LAWBREAKERS who do the killing. Very few legal gun owners kill people who do not need killing because they are using their ILLEGAL guns to threaten people. The NRA simply stands up for the RIGHTS recognized and GUARANTEED by the Second Amendment of the Constitution for American citizens to be armed, so they can defend themselves from such people. He tells of ONE crazy killer who was a bad conduct discharge from the Air Force, who shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, but who DID, because the Air Force screwed up in not sending his name to NICS, thereby allowing him to successfully LIE in order to buy the guns he used to kill 26 people in that church. How that makes the NRA responsible is beyond my understanding. What IS responsible is the incompetence of those Air Force paper-pushers who screwed up. When they say somebody is responsible for people dying because they stand up for a constitutional RIGHT shows complete IGNORANCE of how things work. The responsible people are people who think this way, and would deprive law-abiding people of the right to self defense, and to buy and use a gun, the TOOL for that defense. (Citizen-Times/DaveWaltrop)

Fatal Gun Control Flaw

It DEPENDS on LAWBREAKERS to OBEY their laws, and they DON'T. Background checks, for instance, can only be applied to LEGAL gun buyers, while criminals just ignore them while getting their guns ILLEGALLY. Gun free zones are only observed by law-abiding people, while criminals ignore them. or even seek them out in which to do their "dirty work." "Safe storage" laws are routinely ignored by criminals, and only serve to make it easier for criminals to victimize the law-abiding. Laws limiting the size of magazines are commonly overcome by criminals by simply buying their high capacity magazines illegally or STEALING them, like many criminals do their guns. Anti-murder laws likewise suffer from this, but they are not made to PREVENT murder, but are made to PUNISH murder and get the murderer "off the street" AFTER he kills somebody. They only prevent SUBSEQUENT murders by the same murderer, and MAYBE cause future murderers to think twice about what they will do. Anti-gun laws are not for that. They wish to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals, and they FAIL, miserably. (Just common sense)

Complete Ignorance About Guns

Gabby Giffords' brain must have suffered some serious damage when that killer bounced a bullet off it. Now she wants a law requiring EVERY PART that makes up a gun to have a serial number--and, of course, to go along with that, a requirement for the "authorities" to keep track of all those numbers, including changes when new parts are installed while making repairs. She obviously has NO IDEA of the bureaucratic nightmare this would create. Whole new databases would have to be created, and kept up to date. That includes the changes when new parts are installed. She obviously is ignorant of the sheer COST of such activity, to keep track of all the parts in LEGAL guns, while the ILLEGAL guns are completely ignored. And criminals more often than not do not carry LEGAL guns. Local officials are hoping against hope that her bill does not pass into law, because I'm sure it does not include increases in their budgets to cover the insurmountable COSTS. That's even if they AGREE with her on "gun control." (The Geek Blog)

"Shall Not Be Abridged"

I wonder what there is about "shall not be abridged" that anti-gun fools do not understand? The Second Amendment could not be more clear. It is a single paragraph that says one thing: that the right of all Americans to be armed "shall not be infringed." Yet lawmakers make laws to abridge that right, every day. And the Supreme Court sometimes even upholds them--sometimes simply through INACTION, as they did recently when they refused to get rid of an unconstitutional law in Maryland that CLEARLY abridged that BIRTHRIGHT. A birthright is one held by "right of BIRTH" and cannot rightly be abridged by man. That right continues to be under attack by fools who believe they can ignore the Constitution in making their laws. There should be a law that PUNISHES lawmakers who KNOWINGLY make laws that violate the Constitution, which is the BASE upon which ALL our laws sit. But that probably will never happen, as long as that law must be made by the very people it wants to bring into line. (ABC News)

Gun Control Is Useless

In Port Lucie, FL, cops arrested a FELON in possession of many weapons. So how did he get all those guns, if, as a felon, he is not allowed to HAVE any guns? Simple: he just IGNORED the law as do all criminals who want guns. Cops found THREE automatic weapons, three handguns, and 4,000 rounds of ammunition in his home. One of the charges against him was THEFT of a gun. You think maybe he stole those others, too? He certainly didn't get them legally. This is a testament to the INEFFECTIVENESS of gun laws. Lawbreakers, who break laws for a living, are NOT going to obey a law that says they can't be armed. Why should they, when they violate so many other laws? Anybody who thinks they will is stupid. And that includes ALL anti-gun fools, who keep making USELESS gun laws for them to ignore. One would think these people would be intelligent, but that is not the case, at all. Yet they keep coming up with USELESS gun laws that the "bad guys" routinely ignore. If they were intelligent, they'd deal with that and quit wasting their time and ours with their stupid, useless, and unconstitutional gun laws. The Constitution specifically recognizes our right to be armed. Every law they make limiting that right is unconstitutional, and they should know that. But they persevere in their stupidity. (WPTV)

Bad Guys Have No Honor

The shooter in Tehama, California was a felon, and not allowed to own or use a gun. That's the law--which he ignored when he violated the "honor system" they use when people buy guns. They expect people who are buying them for nefarious purposes who already have a record to be "honest" with them, KNOWING that, to be honest, will stop them from buying the gun. As with ALL anti-gun laws, this one DEPENDS on LAWBREAKERS to obey it--which they will NOT. So this felon LIED on his application and bought his guns, then went out and started killing people, beginning with his wife, at home, and including some CHILDREN among his victims before "good guys with guns" shot him to death (with a little help from him). The basic flaw in ALL anti-gun laws is that they DEPEND on a LAWBREAKER to OBEY them--which they will not. And "honor systems" are even worse. You just can't expect CRIMINALS to have honor, so why bother? (LA Times)

Ignorant Gun-Grabber Thinking

I marvel at the abysmal STUPIDITY of thought that goes into a gun grabber's thinking. Piers Morgan, for instance, thinks the very idea of a church-goer actually DEFENDING himself from a mass shooter in church is absurd, and "sick." Does he go to church? If so, does he include himself in that? what if someone came into HIS church and began killing people, eventually to include him? Would he be grateful if some legally-armed soul shot the shooter before he could get to him and kill him? That's the problem with these "holier-than-thou" anti-gun fools. To them it is an "exercise in other people's actions," and they never think of how they, themselves, would approach things is THEIR lives were involved. They think their anti-gun laws should be for "other people," not for them. That's why many of them either hire armed security to protect them, or carry guns, themselves, or both, while wanting to deny that right to others. A good example of that is Sen. Diane Feinstein, one of the most vocal anti-gun fools, who has a gun permit herself, in ADDITION to her armed security. That's the kind of contradiction that abounds among them. (Twitchy)

Bad Guys Have Them

In South Carolina, they want to buy some "assault rifles" for the state patrol. Anti-gun fools (who know nothing) ask, "What do they need those for? Who are they going to assault?" That the very question displays their abysmal IGNORANCE for all to see is evident. The reason they need those guns is that the "bad guys" already HAVE "assault rifles," and they don't want to be placed in the same position as LA cops were in that recent bank robbery, where they had to go to a gun store and BORROW assault rifles so they would no longer be outgunned by the crooks. The anti-gun crowd, as usual, ignore reality in their zeal to stop as many people as they can from having and using LEGAL guns. That this AIDS those using ILLEGAL guns doesn't occur to them. Which tells me a lot about their intelligence--or lack thereof. These people are completely blind to the RESULTS of their insane campaign to get rid of LEGAL guns, while ignoring all the millions of ILLEGAL guns, already out there in the hands of the "bad guys." This just makes it easier for the crooks to victimize law-abiding people, who DO obey laws. (WLTX)

They Just Don't Get It!

The medical profession journals, written by people who are supposed to be the smartest people around, are still promoting the tired, old, discredited anti-gun laws that never do ANYTHING to prevent gun crime. They're pressuring Congress to pull out all the laws that have been proven useless in the past many times, and impose them, again. The medical journals are again pushing the idea that "gun crime" is a medical or mental problem, and should be dealt with by THEM, not law enforcement. No law that has ever been made has been effective in halting gun crime, but that escapes these supposedly highly intelligent people. I just don't understand people like that. They are supposed to be in the business of keeping people alive, and to be smart enough to do it. But I'm beginning to wonder if many of them ARE smart enough to keep ME alive, although I've lived a very long time. There are fewer and fewer people alive today who are older than I am. That's somewhat due to the efforts of doctors who are not, fortunately, involved in writing articles for the medical journals. I suspect it is people who are more politician than doctor who do. (Macon Telegraph)

2nd Amendment "Not A Right"

Once again, anti-gun fools attempt to discredit the Second Amendment as a right. The word "right" is right in the Amendment, but they try to deny it. The words are thus: "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.” — US Constitution, Amendment II. What part of "right" don't they understand? The anti-gun fools will try ANYTHING to accomplish their aim, which is to DISARM all the law-abiding people they can, thus making life easier for the criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists who don't bother to OBEY their laws. What drives these misguided fools is beyond my comprehension. I just can't understand fools who wish to DISARM people in the face of the attacks made by people who get their guns any way they can, mostly illegally. But anti-gun fools, like "the poor," will always be with us. The only difference is that these people, unlike the poor, do it to themselves by refusing to accept the reality that none of their laws have ever worked. But they still insist on making them. (Register-Guard)

Going to the Limit

Gabby Giffords, the former congressperson who was famously shot in the head and survived, has become one of the most prominent anti-gun fools out there trying to disarm the whole country (and the world, if she could). She is completely CRAZY in her efforts, now wanting to BAN a lump of metal that COULD be made into a "ghost gun." That's because the fool in Tehama County, California, who went on a killing spree SUPPOSEDLY made his guns because he couldn't buy them. She doesn't recognize that he bought them LEGALLY by the simple act of LYING on a form, telling the government that he was NOT disallowed to buy a gun. Where she got the idea he made his own guns, I don't know. Maybe she listens intently when conspiracy theorists speak. But if she succeeds in getting this lump of metal banned, look for her to go after many other stupid things next, because there are many ways for felons to get their guns, ILLEGALLY. (AmmoLand)

"Background Check Loophole"

Just to show how stupid anti-gun fools are, they're whining about a "background check loophole" for gun thieves. It has been shown that thieves STEAL 237,000 guns from legal gun owners every year, and those guns are not subject to a background check. So now they want to make a law to "force" those thieves to submit themselves to a background check, to comply with the law. Blaming the victim, they say that this is made worse by legal gun owners, who "fail to properly secure their weapons," making them easy to steal. They make a big thing out of that, saying gun owners being sloppy in their storage of their guns :make it harder on cops to do their jobs." Maybe if cops did their jobs better, thee wouldn't be so many guns stolen, in the first place. They'll always find an excuse, folks, for their own laxity in keeping guns out of the hands of lawbreakers. Now they pine for a law that criminals will NEVER obey, to submit to a background check on their STOLEN guns. (Business Insider)

Never Learn From Experience

The anti-gun fools never learn from experience. Evidence abounds that their "gun laws" not only never even slow down "gun crime," it INCREASES it. They have to know this, but they keep dragging out all their tired, old, useless "gun laws" and think they're new. The UK, for instance, has an almost complete gun ban, but have suffered a 27% INCREASE in "gun crimes." Chicago, IL has some of the tightest gun laws in the country, coupled with probably the HIGHEST rate of gun crime in the nation. Other cities with similar laws also have high gun crime rates. Meanwhile, areas with less tight gun laws and more guns in the hands of law-abiding people have much LOWER gun crime rates. Mass shooters SEEK OUT "gun-free zones" in which to shoot as many innocent people as they can because they can be pretty sure there won't be any law-abiding citizens there with their own guns, who can kill them before they get to kill many innocent people. Stories of mass shooters (with no criminal records) who followed every law up to the minute they began killing people or just LIED when asked if they could legally buy a gun, or just STOLE the guns they used to kill people. What drives these anti-gun fools, I don't know, except a wish to DISARM all law-abiding people, leaving the way open for ILLEGAL gun-wielders to victimize them without opposition. (Sky News)

Book of Effective Gun Laws

If somebody ever thought about a book listing all the EFFECTIVE anti-gun laws, it would be easy to produce, because it would be a set of covers with no pages inside. That's because there ARE no "effective anti-gun laws." Every time some fool takes a gun (legal or illegal) and shoots a bunch of innocent people, there is always a clamor to make even more anti-gun laws that do not work. Intelligent people know that if someone is contemplating committing such a heinous crime as mass murder, he will just IGNORE any piddlng little law that says he can't have a gun, and go right out and do his crime. He obviously doesn't give a "tinker's damn" about committing such a MINOR crime as illegally owning a gun when he is out to murder a bunch of people. NONE of the existing anti-gun laws have done a thing to stop the mass murders that have occurred in many places, and new ones will not do so, either. If the anti-gun fools had any intelligence, they'd know this, but they don't. They keep on making their stupid and unconstitutional laws, while criminals predictably ignore them and keep on killing people. (National Review)

Here We go Again!

A known violent man who was "officially banned" from owning and/or using a gun because he was a felon got a gun anyway. Then he murdered his wife and went on a killing spree that terrorized a small North California town, until the "good guys with guns" came and killed him. When will the anti-gun FOOLS begin to realize that their silly, USELESS gun laws do NOTHING to stop such malcontents from getting guns, with which to shoot and kill innocent people? Yet they keep making them, instead of spending their time looking for REAL solutions, and they use such instances as this one to fuel their further calls for more useless "gun laws." They are already calling for the .50 cal. rifle to be banned, and some fool wants to ban the gun used in Texas to stop a similar "killing spree." What kind of reasoning they use for that, is beyond my comprehension, since without this gun being legal, the death toll would have been much higher. I just think these fools HAVE no reasoning ability, and many liberals claim there IS no such thing as reason and logic. such stupidity abounds among liberals and other anti-gun fools. (Just common sense)

What're They Gonna Do?

The anti-gun fools are hollering (again) for gun confiscation to put stop to mass shootings. Never mind gun confiscation in America is against the Constitution, which is the very BASIS for every law we make. Each law MUST conform to the Constitution, or be eventually thrown out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. But what if they actually got a law through in spite of that which allowed the government to confiscate (steal) every gun in the country (if that's even possible), and the mass shootings continued, unabated. What would they do, then? They would then be faced with IRREFUTABLE evidence that their laws stop NO gun crimes. What would they do? What would they be ABLE to do? Ignore the fact that their law did NOTHING to stop mass shootings? What about "mass knifings," or terrorists running people down with cars and trucks? Gun confiscation laws won't TOUCH those, as they didn't in communist China (where you can't get a gun legally) recently, where a couple of guys ran a car into a bunch of people, then jumped out and began STABBING everybody in sight. (Keep and Bear)

Incapable of Reason

The anti-gun fools are incapable of logic and reason when they ridicule us for suggesting that law-biding people not be encumbered by their silly, stupid, unworkable anti-gun laws. They can see positive proof that allowing the law-aiding to be armed DOES help in stopping insane fools from killing even more people than they have, already, and they "brush it aside" as if we know nothing. That's a hallmark of the stupid--being too stupid to even know how stupid they are. Yet these are the kind of people we (not me) have elected to represent us. They get many people killed while obeying their stupid laws. Meanwhile, the "bad guys" blithely IGNORE their silly laws and go on killing people unopposed--EXCEPT in places like Texas, where the lawmakers are largely more intelligent and allow more law-abiding people to have their guns for self defense, as was intended by the Founders when they wrote the Second Amendment. And a good thing for the parishioners in that Texas church that an armed citizen was there, and shot the killer before he could kill EVERYBODY in that church, causing that coward to flee. But the anti-gun fools just can't admit the wisdom represented there. They think they know better than we do, and, unfortunately, they have wormed their way into positions where they can make such STUPID laws, and ignore wisdom, while causing many deaths. (New York Post)

More Anti-Gun Laws?

Whenever some fool takes a gun and kills a bunch of people, the anti-gun fools scream for "more gun laws!" Why? The many ignorant anti-gun laws already in effect did nothing to stop the shooter from getting his guns, even if he was BANNED from ownership of a gun by being a convicted felon. Many mass shooters have no felony convictions UNTIL they start killing innocents in clusters. In Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs, Texas, they easily got their guns, legally or illegally. What laws would have stopped the Las Vegas madman from killing all those people? By all reports, he was a "model citizen" up until h started spraying bullets into a crowd. The killer in Sutherland Springs Texas, had at least TWO reasons to be denied the use of a gun, but he had them, anyway. And in both cases, the place where the shootings occurred were "gun-free zones," so THAT law didn't work. What more anti-gun laws would accomplish what all those already in effect did not? The only real answer is to allow law-abiding people to be legally armed, so as to provide a DEFENSE against that kind of person, but the anti-gun fools won't hear of it. Stupidity abounds! (Rush Limbaugh)

"Don't Mess With Texas!"

"DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!" That's something the shooter in a Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas learned, the hard way, when he walked into that church and started killing innocent people. An armed local shot him and ENDED his massacre, forcing him to run to keep from getting killed, himself. But it didn't do him much good, because he was found dead inside his vehicle some time later. It is not known if he killed himself, was shot by pursuing deputies in a neighboring county, or died from the wounds suffered when the citizen shot him. But he's dead, which is a good thing. He got what is coming to him without all the folderol of a "show trial" such as the guy who killed three people in a Denver Wal-Mart is going to get, at great expense. His motive is not yet known at this writing, but this doesn't seem to be an Islamic terrorist operation. He is a known abuser who did jail time after being dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. One fool at MSNBC said, "The Second Amendment nullified the right to live of these people in Texas." But, in fact, the Second Amendment allowed the citizen who STOPPED the carnage to BE armed. (Grabien News)

Will That Work?

The Dumocrats have introduced legislation to BAN the gun used to STOP the shooter in his Texas church killings--as if that would stop similar killings. Which proves again the anti-gun fools just want to disarm everybody. I should point out that this shooter WAS a felon, and gun ownership was DISALLOWED for him. But he got four guns, anyway. What kind of a law would have stopped him? Can anybody tell me? I'd really like to know--if anybody has an answer, tell me. My e-mail address is above, to tell me directly. But frankly, I'll guarantee you nobody will be able to come up with ANYTHING that will WORK, because there ISN'T anything that will work, outside of allowing law-abiding citizens to own and carry their own guns for self defense--which the anti-gun fools will not hear of. They ridicule the very suggestion, in their ignorance. They think if we allow the law-abiding to carry guns, they'll "go wild" and kill each other over trivialities, completely ignoring the fact that owners of ILLEGAL guns are doing that, already. Mostly gang members, who will kill you if you step foot on "their turf." And none of them have gun permits anyway, because most of them are too young to qualify and the older ones just don't give a damn. (Breitbart)

"Ban Cars!" Seriously

That's what a writer for Buzz Feed thinks, anyway. " In the coming days, politicians will try to convince you that what happened on the West Side Highway in Manhattan recently was an issue of terrorism, immigration, or religion. But just like the plague of mass shootings is a gun problem, the thousands of people killed by cars as they walk our streets every year is a car problem." I'm not sure if this writer is serious or writing with tongue firmly in cheek. But this article serves to show how silly, stupid, and illogical it is to want to ban guns because some people misuse them. He says that, "As 6.000 Americans are killed by cars last year walking the streets, and terrorists embrace this deadly power. Car-free cities make even more sense." Actually, it makes just as much sense as banning guns, since people who want to drive will find a way, illegally, if possible. And the carnage will continue. Banning cars will inconvenience millions of people. But if this guy is serious, he doesn't care about that. And I'll bet he owns a car, too. Those who want cars will get them, one way or the other. This article easily illustrates the complete LACK of intelligence displayed by the anti-gun fools in ignoring the PEOPLE holding the guns and blaming the guns, themselves. (Buzz Feed)