"We Must Ban Bullets!"

The anti-gun fools have seized upon something the "founding fathers" overlooked in writing the Constitution. Actually MENTIONING the right to buy bullets. They think the Constitution doesn't give us the right to buy bullets for our guns, since bullets were not specifically mentioned. Therefore, they're starting a campaign to BAN BULLETS. They're beginning by assuming the founders didn't include bullets in their recognition of our RIGHT to self defense, and to buy and use the means to that end, a gun. They're pretending that, because the founders didn't specifically MENTION bullets in their recognition of our right to self defense that the Second didn't cover bullets. The founders never envisioned somebody so STUPID as to think they didn't include bullets, and thought it was unnecessary to specifically MENTION them. That they included them in their declaration by the very fact that, guns were USELESS without them doesn't enter into the thinking of the anti-gun fools. They just aren't smart enough. But the Founders DID include bullets by their very insistence that we should retain the right to the means of self defense, a gun--that without bullets are USELESS. A simple object, without function, or use, except as a club. They're only trying to make bullet buyers stand for background checks and obey some of their other stupid laws now that only apply to the law-abiding, who aren't the problem, anyway. It is the lawBREAKER who creates the vast majority of "gun violence," and they can't be bothered to obey their stupid laws. But they will soon enlarge that to an outright BAN on buying ammunition of any kind, since it is not, according to them, covered by the Second Amendment. Of course, there will arise soon a "black market" in BULLETS, and the lawbreakers will have their bullets, while the law-abiding will NOT. What STUPIDITY that reveals! In any case, the Founders did not mention guns. They mentioned "arms," which, to the intelligent, INCLUDES ammunition. (America's First Freedom)

It's As Predicted

Moms Against guns (or some such) didn't wait until the bodies cooled in Santa Fe, Texas before using that shooting to recruit new dupes. Never mind the shooter violated many different laws in doing this shooting. He STOLE th guns from his dad; he brought them into a "gun-free zone"; he was a MINOR in possession of a gun; and then he committed multiple MURDER. What law would have done ANYTHING to stop this massacre? Yet they USE massacres such as this to recruit more DUPES to their useless "organizations." They're not stupid. They have to KNOW their laws and regulations, and rules have stopped not a SINGLE mass shooting, but they insist on making them, anyway. I have become convinced that "making people safe" is not their objective. They know their laws not only DON'T do that, they do just the opposite. They get people KILLED by keeping the law-abiding UNARMED against such people, who break many laws in order to do their "dirty work." "Making people safe" is a simple job. Just let people be armed to defend themselves. One or two FAILED mass shootings foiled by someone there with his or her own gun might convince potential future shooters that their goals cannot be met. In Israel, where they DO arm their teachers, there have only been TWO school shooters in their history--both of which ended with a dead shooter. It's a PROVEN deterrent, but anti-gun fools ignore it. They talk about "our leaders not acting." They do, but they won't let them take action that WORKS. (MOMS/Twitter)

"Background Checks Really Work"

Yeah, right! But they don't, even if the bureaucrats running them Are competent, and apparently, they are NOT. There is no telling how many times convicted felons have LIED while filling out their Form 4473, saying they had never been convicted of a felony, while the bureaucrats running things "phone it in," and pass him without checking.

That's what happened recently in Indiana. This guy had beat an attempted murder rap after stabbing his sister by claiming insanity; he had a long "rap sheet" that included charges of theft, robbery, and criminal recklessness. But the FBI still passed him. He bought his gun, and not six hours later he shot his landlord when he came for the rent. Cops found him hiding wearing a motorcycle helmet, heavy clothes, and with two guns and several knives. The FBI used the usual bureaucrat excuse, saying, "It fell through the cracks." Which is an euphemism for "their incompetence and sloppy work." (Range 365)

Dancing In Their Blood

MOMS Against Guns (or something like that) wasted no time to use the Santa Fe, Texas massacre in their recruiting effort. As they usually do, they "dance in the blood" of the victims, duping them into supporting their USELESS laws that don't work, and giving them money to join their damned fool organization and make the anti-gun fools richer. There's no counting the number of law-abiding people their actions have KILLED by DISARMING the law-abiding, who DO obey their laws, making them :easy targets" for those who DON'T obey their laws. They're like ghouls who hang around cemeteries so they can steal bodies in the dead of night. They make their money sponsoring legislation that is USELESS in "fighting gun crime." They have to KNOW their laws don't work, but they make them, anyway--while becoming richer by so doing. Meanwhile, they are the best gun salesmen out there. The more they flail around trying to take away our Second Amendment RIGHTS, the more guns intelligent people buy, and join the NRA or other organizations like it. Their very masthead on their web site shows a bunch of women wearing their signature red T-Shirts. I wonder how many photo-shopped pictures they had to alter to get that many women for that picture. (MOMS Demand Action)

No "Wild West Atmosphere"

One of the basic wild claims of the anti-gun fools is that, if the law-abiding are allowed to carry their guns, it will "create a 'wild west atmosphere, and blood in the streets." They completely discount the "blood in the streets" already out there, with shooters using their ILLEGAL guns to shoot everybody in sight. A good illustration of that is in Chicago, where anti-gun laws are tight, and 23 people have already been shot over the Memorial Day weekend (so far). The only problem is, their silly laws never work. and they only make it worse, by DISARMING the law-abiding, making them "sitting ducks" for the lawbreakers, who can't be bothered to obey their laws. Others see to it laws are made to ALLOW the law-abiding the right to carry a gun for self defense. Immediately the anti-gun fools predict "gloom and doom" and the law-abiding shooting up the streets. Then "gun crime" predictably goes down, and they are silent. You'd think they'd be happy, but they aren't. Their laws were not responsible, But they want to make more of them. (NRA-ILA)

We Need More of This

A thug thought he had it all his own way when he pulled a gun on a group of mothers with their children, so he decided to pull his illegally-carried gun on them and rob them.--bad decision. Because as soon as he had his gun out, one of the mothers (who happened to be an off-duty cop) shot and killed him, shooting him three times before he knew it. It's too bad this woman had to be an off-duty cop, and not just an average citizen with a gun. If this kind of thing happened more often, thugs like this would think twice before accosting innocent people on the street and stealing their property. Anti-gun fools think the average citizen, if allowed to carry a gun, would "go crazy" and shoot everybody in sight. That's their reasoning for trying to keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, leaving them "sitting ducks" for this kind of thug. If more mothers on the street had their own guns and the training in their use, crime would go down--guaranteed. If nothing else, with more thugs getting killed while "plying his trade" of robbing people. There would then be fewer of them out there shooting people. After that, other thugs will look for other ways to victimize people and that too, will cause a decrease in crime. It's a "double whammy." (New York Post)

First One's Over

Got my cataract on the right side removed, and it was pronounced fine. Gotta do it all over again next week on the other side. It was easier than I anticipated. I just went to sleep, and when I woke up it was done. After that, the hardest part was the eye patch I had to wear until the next day, and the eye drops four times a day for two weeks. Bother. Then another month for the heart catheterization. Busy time.

It Must Have Killed them

Even CNN couldn't get out of reporting this "good guy with a gun" story, and it must have made their headline writers shake with fury and break out in a rash to have to write it. The headline is: "Armed Citizen Kills Gunman at Oklahoma City Restaurant." Writing it might have caused them to have a nervous breakdown, I don't know. Seems like a guy walked into a restaurant and started shooting at two females. Whereupon a nearby citizen who was legally armed, shot him to death, saving the lives of those women, and who knows how many more. CNN regularly writes that things like this don't happen. What made them actually run this story is a mystery, because it clearly marks them as liars. Again proving the LIE that "good guys with guns" don't ever stop mass shootings." Meanwhile, incidents of good guys with guns stopping shootings mount, as MILLIONS of them do it. Most don't get covered by CNN, or the rest of the liberal media, because they are fully invested in disarming the law-abiding in America. That way, nobody knows about them. (Clash Daily)

One Little Word

That seems to be all it takes to allow the government to violate one of the most important amendments in the Constitution. That word is "dangerous." I've wondered why I've been seeing that word so often with reference to guns. The answer is simple. Laws are being written to include that word because, if bureaucrats decide (on their own) that you are "dangerous," they can forever deny you your Second Amendment right to own and use a gun for any reason, let alone self defense. And it is so easy to be labeled "dangerous" it's funny. All one person in government needs to do is apply that label to you, and your Second Amendment rights are GONE. And. so far, there's no way to get that label reversed. Once it is applied, that's it. Five states have these laws already, following the Parkland School shooting, and 19 states are working to pass the laws."it doesn’t take much for the government to decide you’re “dangerous.”Say the wrong thing on Facebook… get reported by a left-wing neighbor… make someone uncomfortable by carrying in public… Boom. They show up on your doorstep and search your house for weapons." Then they "confiscate" (steal) any they find, and you're disarmed. On the strength of the opinion on ONE bureaucrat. You need to take an interest in what the legislature is doing in your state, lest YOU get labeled as a "dangerous person" whether or not you are. You need to do everything you can to fight the passage of such laws, or become a criminal if you go out and buy a gun, anyway illegally, to replace the one(s) they stole.. (Just common sense)

Scheduled Surgery

Coverage might be spotty late this week because I have scheduled cataract surgery Thursday, and I don't know if I will be able to update this blog that day, or the next. But I'll be back up to speed as soon as I can, until Thursday the next week when the second cataract surgery is scheduled. I might be a little more sure of what I can do for that one. Stand by.

"Demands Action" On Guns

Kelly Clarkson is the latest clueless celebrity to call for "action on guns." WHAT action, pray tell, Kelly? There has been plenty of "action on guns" in the past. There is always calls for more after every mass shooting, in a school, or somewhere else. But if you ask such people WHAT action, they can't tell you. They assume you'll find SOMETHING that will stop gun violence, but they have no idea what that would be, They just expect others to come up with something. Nobody has yet come up with anything that works, and nobody's likely to do so any time in the future. But fools like Kelly keep demanding it, without having a clue what it would be. That's the problem. They have no idea what would work, but they insist that somebody else come up with something. It's an impossible assignment. Meanwhile, they will not even CONSIDER the one idea that might have an effect on gun violence, allowing people to own and carry their own guns for self defense. They think to do so would be to create a "wild West atmosphere" where people would be shooting each other over trifles. Never mind that holders of ILLEGAL guns are doing just that, right now. Just look at any large city, such as Chicago, that has a major gang shooting problem in spite of all their tight gun laws. Gangs shoot people *with their illegal guns) who stem on "their turf" without permission. Nothing could be more trivial than that. (Breitbart)

Displaying Their Ignorance

It amazes me how many politicians base their campaigns on their IGNORANCE of reality. In this specific instance I'm talking about gun control. Gun control doesn't work. It has NEVER worked, and won't ever work in the future. Yet they base their very CAMPAIGNS on something they have to know doesn't work, and is unconstitutional, and they still get elected. This in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans are unalterably OPPOSED to gun control, which in unconstitutional, and makes it easier for lawbreakers to victimize the law-abiding, who are the only people who OBEY their laws. "Gun-free zones," for example, are places where you are not supposed to bring a gun, and law-abiding people leave their guns at home, even if they have "carry" licenses. Then when a lawbreaker, who obeys NO laws, TARGETS that zone BECAUSE there are most likely to be no guns there, and kills them. There is not a single place a mass shooting has occurred that is NOT in a "gun-free zone." Gun-free zones get people KILLED. Yet these ignorant politicians keep creating them, law-abiding people obey them, and get killed. So the anti-gun fools DEMAND more of them, and those ignorant politicians give them more, and more people DIE. Criminals in prison freely tell us they LIKE "gun-free zones" for the very REASON they are "gun-free." This is just ONE of their silly, stupid, USELESS laws that don't work, and get people killed by lawbreakers, who routinely IGNORE them. (Just common sense)

"Inaction on Gun Control"

Crazy Bernie Sanders is "disgusted with the inaction on gun control." The Houston, Texas police chief is similarly frustrated. Many other anti-gun fool dupes are saying the same. But that raises the question: "What new law would work to curb gun violence?" "Gun-free zones?" Criminals and other would-be shooters SEEK OUT gun-free zones, because they know most law-abiding people will not bring their guns there, while the not-so law-abiding CAN, and will. They will have "free rein" to kill and rob at will because there will be no meaningful opposition, there. Limits on concealed carry? Same. The law-abiding will obey those laws, and the lawbreakers will not. How about background checks? Law-abiding people will submit to them, and lawbreakers will not. Do you see a pattern, here? The law-abiding will OBEY those laws, making them "easy targets" for lawbreakers, who don't obey ANY laws, so why should they obey these? The easy solution here is to allow the law-abiding to be armed, for self defense. But the anti-gun fools will not hear of it. They think if the law-abiding have guns, they will "go wild" and shoot up the landscape, ignoring the fact that all the lawbreakers who have guns rarely do. So what "action" can they take that would DO anything to "stem gun violence?" If you ask them what laws now in effect have been successful at it, they either lie or, when they figure out they can't answer the question, begin calling you names, like "gun lover," "NRA member" (as an insult), or anything else they can think of to mask the fact that they can't answer. Then they go right on making USELESS laws. (Just common sense)

"Good Guys" Thwart Shooters

The anti-gun fools say it doesn't happen. But FBI figures expose the LIE. Recent FBI figures released show cases where EIGHT "active shooters" were thwarted by "good guys with or without guns." Cops can't be everywhere. It takes them, at best, MINUTES to arrive at the location of an "active shooter" report. In those minutes, a shooter can kill many innocent people. In one recent case, it took them 45 minutes to get there. Realists within the ranks will tell you that an armed populace is good, although the police politicians in the higher ranks, many of whom have either never been "in the ranks" or have forgotten what it was like, may tell you otherwise. But the unalterable fact is that a person ALREADY on site with a gun, and the training and willingness to use it, CAN, and DO stop "active shooters," no matter what police politicians and other anti-gun fools tell us. Anti-gun fools confidently assure us that the cops CAN protect is, but that's a LIE. All they can usually do is document the "crime scene," get rid of the body or bodies, and MAYBE someday find the killer. Unfortunately, the number of unsolved murder cases on the books is large. Too large. Which shows that they CAN'T protect us, and realists in the ranks will be the first to tell you that. (Bearing Arms)

He's Got the Answer

Dumocrat Senator Mark Warner says, "no law would have stopped the Texas killings," but he's "got the answer." Then he goes on to spout all the usual anti-gun fool measures that have proven NOT to do ANYTHING to stop, or even slow down "gun crime." Fools like this come out of the woodwork (to score some TV time) every time some fool shoots up a school or some other "gun-free zone," sometimes with a gun they bought legally (because they had not yet committed a crime), but more often with a gun they obtained in violation of one or more laws. Thus proving that when they contemplate committing mass murder, they just are not concerned with a piddling little law that says they must do their heinous crime with something other than a gun. This happens many times; every time some fool takes a notion to kill a bunch of students or some other people. Politicians come out of the woodwork demanding their "camera time" on TV while spouting the same drivel that has never been successful in stopping "gun crime." Other politicians DEMAND more of the same laws that have been PROVEN ineffective. Do they just take stupid pills, or what? (Allen West)

UN: "Disarm Your People"

The United Nations is run by dictators from all over the world. They just don't understand a country that allows its citizens to be armed for self defense, even against its own government. None of them have such a thing, so their first answer to "the gun problem" is to take guns away from the law-abiding. That this makes it even easier for the lawbreakers to victimize the law-abiding doesn't enter into their thinking. They confidently tall us how effective are laws that keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, completely ignoring figures that prove that to be a LIE. They have to be aware of the fact that NONE of those laws have ever done ANYTHING to stop, or even slow down "gun violence." They just go about making even more of such laws while the law-abiding die from the wounds inflicted by those who routinely IGNORE all their laws. What is their purpose? That's easy. They want to be able to come to your home at some later date and "confiscate" (steal) your property, and they don't want to meet a gun in your hands when they do. The fools running the UN think we can just "make another law" to further disarm our people so our government (and the UN later, they think) can bully us into submission, as they have in other countries. (UN News)

Another Damned School Shooting!

What is going ON? Why is it that, since the school shooting in Denver that killed 13 people, most of them students, there have been so many shootings in schools, all of a sudden, since then? Why does it seem that kids who were "bullied" suddenly become KILLERS? I was bullied when I was in grade school. there was one guy who kept after me all the time, and a gang of other kids who were after me all the time too, and I didn't get a gun and go into my school and start killing people. I ended my bullying by taking my dad's advice and STARTING a fight with my principle bully, and showing him I would no longer be an "easy mark," win or lose.

That, apparently also convinced that gang to stay away from me, too. So there are other solutions to the "bullying" problem, and one is to fight back, win or lose, convincing the bully that, even if he wins, it will not be without a cost to him. That bully went home with blood coming out of his ear. One solution to school shootings is to get rid of the "no-gun zone" in all schools. A "no-gun zone" ANYWHERE is an "engraved invitation" to disturbed people to "come in and shoot us." Every mass shooting I know of was done in a "no-gun zone." Shooters SEEK OUT such places in which to do their dirty work.

Criminals LOVE them because they KNOW the law-abiding most likely won't be armed, and able to defend themselves. No-gun zones are the biggest culprit in mass shootings, everywhere. But not the only one. It's not the fault of the guns, NOR the ease of getting them," that anti-gun fools insist. They will be easy to get ILLEGALLY in all places where they are BANNED--as has been PROVEN by a study checking the murder rates in places where guns ARE banned, where they uniformly RISE. Proving conclusively that banning guns does NOT work. Anti-gun fools dispute that, but they cannot answer it truthfully, so they LIE to promote their wish to disarm ALL Americans for their own purposes.

They HAVE to know their laws have never stopped a single shooting, but they persist. Which means to me they have an ulterior motive that does not include logic. We need to find out what there is in the MINDS of potential shooters so we can do something about THAT. Making guns illegal to own is STUPID. It just doesn't work. It's counter productive. It gets people KILLED. But that's always their FIRST "knee-jerk" reaction for the anti-gun fools. (New York Times)