Polling Place Gun Bans

Missoula, Montana had a problem: most of the polling places were at schools, which are already “gun-free zones.” So no guns can be brought there by law. But not all polling places were in schools, so people could bring their guns there. So they made a law banning guns in ALL polling places. Problem solved. Or is it? What about those who contemplate mass murder, and so aren’t concerned about violating a silly little law telling them they can’t bring their guns? Politicians are so naive. They think that, all they have to do is make a law, and that “solves the problem.” Often it doesn’t. This is one place where it does NOT. West Palm Beach, Florida even went so far as to post a sign saying “Designated No Crime Zone,” and they figured that would take care of the crime problem. It did NOT. Criminals continued to commit crimes. Crimes that were already against the law. Laws they routinely IGNORE. Just as they will ignore ANY law that says they cannot bring their guns into a certain area. (American Military News)

"Gun Control Not Possible?"

Anti-gun fools keep arguing that the Second Amendment is an outmoded concept, written hundreds of years ago by men who feared the British. What they never mention is that the Second Amendment RECOGNIZES one very basic human RIGHT. The right to self defense against all comers, even if they are “government agents.” And that will NEVER be “outmoded.” This article details many reasons why “gun control is no longer possible.” What it fails to mention is that gun control has NEVER been possible. There is not a single “gun control law” now in force, or envisioned by short-sighted anti-gun fools that will do ANYTHING to reduce, or eliminate “gun crime.” That is a fact. Not somebody’s opinion. That is true because those laws only apply to people who OBEY the law, while lawbreakers, who are the ones that ARE the problem, simply IGNORE them, and get their guns illegally, either by buying them “off the books” or STEALING them. No amount of laws can stop that. Laws can PUNISH illegal use of a gun—AFTER it has been used. Laws against the law-abiding having, and using guns for self defense only makes it easier for the lawbreakers to victimize the law-abiding, by DISARMING them, making them “easy targets” for the lawbreakers. (Duke Chronicle)

Making It Obvious

How more obvious could you be that the “studies” you plan will favor the gun control crowd than to invite Gabby Giffords, one of the loudest mouths in favor of that useless “gun control” to speak at your opening? They call it the “Gun Violence Research Center,” and they got a $2 million dollar grant, from whom they don’t say in this article. That bullet must have really scrambled Giffords’ brain, because she just can’t understand that the laws she fosters do NOTHING to stop, nor even slow down, “gun violence.” In fact, they make it worse by disarming the law-abiding, while lawbreakers just IGNORE the laws she gets made, and do their shootings, anyway. They SAY their work doesn’t involve politics, but, in fact, it’s NOTHING BUT politics. They don’t say from whom the $2 million came, but I’ll bet it came from somebody with an “ax to grind” about “gun laws,” and that their “research” will predictably push the making of even more useless “gun laws,” Instead of concentrating on things that will actually WORK to “reduce gun violence.” Banning guns certainly has NOT. People like Gabby Giffords should know these laws do NOTHING, but she apparently does not. And neither do those who MAKE those laws. (Tap Into Nutley)

Doing It the Wrong Way

“Gun crime” is out of control. So the anti-gun fools keep making laws that do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down gun crime. To the contrary: they make it worse by DISARMING the law-abiding, while the law breakers go right on buying their guns ILLEGALLY, or just stealing them. Researchers put out all kinds of figures they want us to think back up their stories. But there is one glaring error in those figures. None of them take into consideration the LEGALITY of the ownership of the guns used in victimizing the law-abiding. Nobody seems interested in whether the guns used in crime are legally owned, or not. It is never mentioned, while the real fact is, just about ALL the guns used in crime are illegally in the hands of the users. But this goes unreported, while the anti-gun fools ASSUME that all guns used in crime are legally owned. But they are NOT. They make laws, hoping law breakers will somehow OBEY their laws, when they obey no others. This is a fatal flaw in not only their thinking, but their actions, as well. To really reduce gun crime, they need to find out WHY there is so much of it, and where it occurs. Most of it happens in the areas controlled by street gangs, who shoot each other for being in the wrong place. On the “turf” of a different gang. They all carry ILLEGAL guns, and shoot each other at the drop of a hat. And sometimes they drop the hat. Chicago is one of the worst examples of this. Chicago has some of the tightest “gun laws” in the nation, while at the same time one of the highest rates of “gun crime” in the nation. Proof again, that their laws do not work. (Just common sense)

Today's Gun Save

Anti-gun fools say it never happens. They say concealed carriers are more likely to shoot themselves than anybody else. They say that the average person carrying a gun NEVER is able to stop violence from being committed. They're WRONG. And today's “gun save” proves it, again: A father and his children were eating in a MacDonald’s, close to closing time, when an armed fool forces his way in and begins shooting. The father, a concealed carrier, opens fire on the gunman, killing him. This was not a time to wait until the cops arrive with their guns—usually AFTER the shooter has killed a bunch of people. In this case, there WAS a gun already there, in the hands of a private citizen, who used it to protect his kids, as well as everybody else in that restaurant. Thereby ENDING this crazed gunman’s wish to kill a bunch of innocent people. The Philadelphia mayor says armed people in the crowd is NOT the answer to this sort of thing, but this proves him wrong. There were a few minor injuries among the customers, but no one (except the shooter) was killed. Good riddance to bad rubbish. (Clash Daily)

It Just Doesn'tWork!

Gun control, as we know it, has a clear history of doing NOTHING to reduce gun violence. And Dumocrat politicians never hesitate to LIE to promote their wish to disarm all law-abiding citizens, even if the Constitution prohibits it. Dumocrat Elizabeth Warren (the presidential hopeful) tells us confidently that Massachusetts, which is a BIG anti-gun state, Has the lowest gun crime rate in the nation (at least she tried). Only one little problem with that. It’s not true. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hardly a pro-gun outfit), Massachusetts has NEVER been the lowest, when it came to gun deaths. The only way what she says could possibly be true is if they include SUICIDES in their figures (which they did). According to the CDC, Wyoming, with FEW gun laws, ranks two percentiles HIGHER (at 39% vs. 37%) than Massachusetts on the list of age-adjusted firearm death rate. Her figures are spotty, and use every statistical trick in the book to mislead. And she’s not the only one, most of them Dumocrats. Dumocrats seem, as a party, to wish to destroy our ability to defend ourselves, leaving us at the mercy of the government, which usually (cops) arrive long after the last shot has been fired. (The Federalist)

The Media Won't Cover It

There was a mass shooting recently, but I’d bet you’ve not heard anything about it. Why is that? Because it happened in Russia, where guns are mostly PROHIBITED for their citizens. Only government agents of one kind or another may carry guns. But there are still millions of ILLEGAL guns carried, and used by “average Russians.” It is well known that Russian mobsters are some of the worst in the world. How is this possible? Making guns illegal is supposed to stop gun crime. Completely. If you believe the anti-gun fools. In this case, 21were killed, (including the shooter), and 60 wounded. Not as big a death toll as we found in some of our mass shootings, but significant—at least to the victims and their families. Ten of the victims are still in critical condition, and the death toll may rise. It’s interesting that this happened in the Crimea, which is one of Obama’s worst blunders when he did nothing when Russia took it over by military force. The liberal media in the U. S. is eminently predictable in their opposition to Americans being able to defend themselves against those who ignore those ubiquitous anti-gun laws. They, along with the government, seem to WANT us to be defenseless against the millions of illegal guns already in circulation. (American Gun News)

Gun Control "Ghost Town"

Five million members? I don’t think so! MOMS Against Guns (or something like that) claims to have five million members, but their recent chapter meeting looked like a “ghost town.” If you can’t even draw more than a trickle to your meetings, there is no way you have five million paid members. One new member says she got involved after the Sandy Hook killings. And I believe her. But what she got involved in has no chance in reducing “gun violence” because all they do is make laws that the bad guys routinely ignore. Their laws do NOTHING but disarm the law-abiding, making it even EASIER for somebody like the Sandy Hook killer to victimize the law-biding. That they believe their way is a way that works, in spite of the absolute, undeniable evidence that it doesn’t, speaks to their intelligence (or lack of it) and their skill at propagandizing. They describe the laws they get made as being “common sense gun laws,” but they are anything BUT “common sense.” They are common IGNORANCE. If they ever came up with something that would WORK, I’d be right there with them. But that will never happen. Not because they’re stupid, but because there ISN’T anything they can do with the laws they have made thus far, to limit gun deaths. they’re kidding themselves if they think so. (Greenwich Free Press)

Liberal Contradictions

Liberals say one thing, then do another. They condemn gun owners and those who simply wish to defend themselves while making fabulous livings using guns. One good recent example is actress Jamie Lee Curtis, who is a big anti-gun fool. Her latest movie portrays her as a “gun-toting grandma” who owns an arsenal and who taught her daughter to be a marksman with a rifle. That movie has (so far) grossed $80 million dollars (the first weekend). It appears as if, even though she hates guns, and wants to deny their use to others, she has no problem making a handsome living promoting them. Matt Damon, star of the Jason Bourne franchise, “has a gun practically glued to his hand” all during the movie. In George Clooney’s latest, he is cast as an assassin, and uses guns throughout. You can never tell what a liberal really wants, because that changes, almost hourly. To them, down is up, and up is down, depending on what time of day it is. There are only two sexes biologically, as evidenced by their sex organs. But liberals are trying to convince us that there are many sexes, and call us bigots if we disagree. They want us to think Trump is our Hitler, but then they want him to confiscate all guns (except the ones they use in their movies, and the illegal guns that criminals use, of course). I could go on and one with this, but this is enough. (Off The Wire)

Money Buys It

Michael Bloomberg may be running for president in the next election. But he has already demonstrated his fealty to those who want to make the Second Amendment be sent to “the dustbin of history.” Not just “fealty” to those who wish to eliminate one of our most cherished rights, but a LEADERSHIP role in that effort. He has already spent $BILLIONS in his quest, and he has just pledged to spend ANOTHER hundred million to advance it, even more. All without significant progress. A vote for Bloomberg in the next election is a vote to give away your right to self defense, whether or not it is couched in that manner. If you give up your right to be ARMED for that self defense, you are giving up the RIGHT to self defense. Anybody who votes for Bloomberg is not too bright. In fact, anybody who votes for any Dumocrat is not too bright, because their stated objectives are inimical to our needs. Bloomberg hopes he can BUY the end of the Second Amendment. I sincerely hope he is wrong, as he has been in so many things. He demonstrated his disdain for the law by running for, and winning, a third term as mayor of New York, in violation of the law. He got away with it because all New York politics is run by a small number of liberals, who ignored his violation of the law. (Breitbart)

Bet They'll Blame Us?

Somebody sent some bombs to some liberal politicians, including the Clintons, Obama, and CNN. Why CNN, you ask? Because they have proven themselves to be politicians, not newspeople, by their left-leaning stories. The former Arizona governor (Jan Brewer) got one too, and it went off. What do you bet they will say it was conservatives who sent them? This smacks of a liberal (Dumocrat) plot, designed to make the Republicans look like the “party of violence,” when that label can be better applied to Dumocrats. If they find the culprit, and he/she turns out to be a left-winger, they’ll never tell you if they can keep from it. The only way we’ll find out is in what they call “the alternative media,” which tells both sides of all stories. This is obviously their latest “October surprise,” they think is guaranteed to be a winner for them at the polls. Their highly-touted “Blue Wave” turning out to be a “Blue Dribble.” This shows graphically their desperation. As they see more and more evidence of their impending LOSS at the polls, they’re getting more and more desperate in their scams and schemes. Would the “right wingers” do something like this? Not a chance. And history will bear that out. There might have been one or two individuals CLAIMING to be right-wingers who may have done such a thing, but this kind of thing is just not in the right-winger’s “playbook.” (The Telegraph)

Missing the Point

Those saying things like, “Gun makers are holding the country hostage” are missing the point, entirely. The danger from guns does not come from guns legally sold, over the counter, at a gun store, as a general rule. The danger comes from people who buy their guns ILLEGALLY in a back alley somewhere, or just steal them. What that means is that sellers of LEGAL guns rarely sell guns to those who shouldn’t be allowed near a gun—unless somebody screws up, as somebody did in Canada recently, when a convicted felon passed a background test and bought the gun LEGALLY, that he used to kill a few people. The point is, for the most part, legal gun owners or sellers are NOT he problem, and nothing is being done to stem the sale of guns ILLEGALLY, or their theft of potential shooters. All these laws do is make the law-abiding into “easy targets” for those who just IGNORE laws they don’t like. There has been not a single law passed that will do anything about this, and none are on the table for future passage. Every anti-gun law now on the books ONLY applies to the law-abiding, who are not, as a rule, the problem. And laws that MIGHT work, such as the ones mandating longer prison sentences for using a gun in a crime are routinely dropped, after using them as “leverage” to get convictions in other crimes—which, to me, is just lazy police work. There are other ways to get convictions. (New Statesman)

"Doesn't Stop Gun Violence"

David Harsanyi, author of “First Freedom,” says he can find no evidence that anti-gun laws stop, or even slow down gun violence. That’s a fact that will be routinely ignored by anti-gun fools, nationwide, because it interferes with their narrative that anti-gun laws DO stop gun crime. Just one problem there. That’s a lie. Anti-gun laws only apply to the law-abiding, who are not the problem. They do not apply to the lawbreakers, who routinely IGNORE those laws and just get their guns in a back alley somewhere, out of the car trunk of another criminal—or they just STEAL them from the law-abiding. If the anti-gun fools would just come up with a law that DOES work to reduce gun crime, I’d be right there with them, promoting it. But that’s a forlorn hope, because they never will. The REAL solution is to allow the law-abiding to be armed, so they could defend themselves against those lawbreakers. But you’ll never convince the anti-gun fools of that, because they think a gun in the hand of ANYBODY is a danger to society, and should be banned. (Truth About Guns)

Stopping Rape At WalMart

A woman had finished her shopping and was contemplating getting a cart to carry her purchases when she was approached by a teen, aged 14, who told her he wanted to have sex with her and he had a knife. She told him her husband was out in the car and would be looking for her soon, which did not deter him, What DID deter him was the man who walked up to help her with his legally-carried gun. The cops got the boy, sent him in for a sanity evaluation, and then to a juvenile detention center. Think what could have happened, had that armed man not been there. Yes, the kid was only 14. But I’ve seen some big, “bad” kids at 14. And this was a woman. He could have taken her to an untraveled section of the store and raped, maybe even killed her. This case again shows how important it is to allow law-abiding people to be armed, for defense of themselves, and others. Something the anti-gun fools won’t even entertain, in their abysmal ignorance. I might also point out that WalMart is a “gun-free zone.” Had that man obeyed their policy, again, the result might have been tragic. And that “gun-free zone” did nothing to stop that kid from bringing his knife into that store. What is WalMart going to do? Ban that man from ever entering their store again for violating their silly and destructive policy? (Daily Wire)

Happened Just In Time

Why don’t the people “who count” notice the unalterable fact that those “mass migrant movements” are happening just before the midterm elections? Why don’t they ask, “Who is paying all the bills for these people?” The cost of food, water, lodging, and transportation? Who ORGANIZED them? This kind of thing: thousands of people suddenly deciding to “Storm the borders” of the United States.” all at once? It’s an election time CON, designed to make Republicans look bad. It is so obviously a Dumocrat election scam, they have to be able to recognize it. Why don’t they? Why do they leave it up to the president to call it what it is? Is it because they are complicit? Or because they are just incompetent? I often wonder about this, in many Dumocrat scams, that are treated as normal and logical occurrences that should be treated as such. It is this ignoring of the obvious that allows those Dumocrat scams to be sometimes successful, as those “sexual impropriety” accusations sometimes are—without any kind of proof, as usual. (The Patriot Post)

They Teach Our Children!

This “professor” at College of Southern Nevada is really stupid. He actually purposefully shot himself “to protest President Trump.” How he figured that would do anything he wanted to happen is a mystery. But the question (not answered in this article) is how he got his gun, and what is going to happen to him because of his stupidity. If he is not a felon and got the gun legally, that’s one thing. If not, and he got it illegally, that’s something else. Either way, this “professor” obviously has a “mental challenge,” and from now on shouldn’t be allowed near a gun, or a classroom, even if that college is stupid enough to keep him on (he doesn’t have “tenure” so they could fire him). Of course, that doesn’t mean he can’t get one ILLEGALLY. They’re easier to buy in a back alley somewhere from another criminal than from a legal source. Legal sources refuse to sell to felons and those with “mental challenges,” but criminals don’t care. They’ll sell to anybody. Another question is, “Where are all those fancy gun laws in all this?” The answer is, “Nowhere.” all their highly touted “gun laws” had NO EFFECT on this situation. And notice this guy is also suffering from “hate Trump syndrome,” as are all Dumocrats and liberal elites and their dupes—which he is apparently one. The point here is that Trump supporters rarely do violence on those who don’t agree with them, and the “hate Trumpers” do. (Las Vegas Review-Journal)

Anti-Gun Fool Babbling

They don’t have much. They try to limit, or get rid of LEGAL guns when they KNOW that ownership and use of guns for self defense is GUARANTEED in the Constitution, which is the very BASIS for ALL our laws. Every law made MUST conform to it, and that makes their laws unconstitutional. So now they’re in a panic, seeing their fondest dreams wash “down the sewer.” Now they’re taking action against ANY depiction of a gun, anywhere. In Maine, a student posted a PICTURE of a gun on SNAPCHAT, and was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for posting that picture. Never mind that, in itself, is a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment. They don’t care about that. They know it will take a while to accomplish a reversal of their action while that student has to suffer from their action in the meantime. They know they will eventually be reversed, after somebody spends a lot of time and money to get the case before the Supreme Court. But they also know their actions will “send a message” to other pro-gun people that they will make trouble for themselves if they let people know about their wishes. The Founders made a big mistake when they prescribed NO PUNISHMENT for violating the Constitution, except for those laws that do so being reversed. (ABC 7)

Sauce For the Goose

Appears not to be “sauce for the gander.” Sen. Kamala Harris, (D-CA) a dedicated anti-gun fool, goes around mostly with ARMED security, paid for by the government, while she works tirelessly to bar us from having the same rights. It would be great if this story was a rare one, but it happens all too often. Lawmakers who work hard to keep civilians from being able to have the means for self defense reserve it for themselves, often at taxpayer (us) expense. Even that “teenage terror,” David Hogg has armed security when his “handlers” send him somewhere to rail against the right to be armed for self defense. Sen. Diane Feinstein, one of the loudest mouths against our constitutional right to own and use guns for self defense, not only has paid (by the taxpayer, of course) armed security, she carries her own gun! This is such an old story, it’s a cliché. Smug lawmakers making laws that stop us from doing the very things they do regularly. Another place they do it is in health care. They have their own “golden” health care plan with all the things we’d like to have, while offering us a “bare bones imitation” of their plan. Retirement is the same. One term in Congress gets them a lifetime pension that is almost as much as they made for actually working. (Breitbart)

Too Many Stupid People

Gun control is stupid. That’s evident in the fact that not a single one of those highly-touted “gun laws” do ANYTHING to limit the sale and use of guns to those who shouldn’t be allowed near a gun. But they keep making them, in the face of the fact they they not only do nothing to limit gun use by “bad guys,” they make it EASIER for the bad guys to victimize those of us who OBEY their stupid gun laws, whether we like them, or not. “Gun-free zones,” for instance. Each and EVERY “mass shooting” has occurred IN a “gun-free zone.” Stories of robberies and murders happening in gun-free zones are numerous. Criminals freely admit that they SEEK OUT gun-free zones because they can be pretty sure none of the law-abiding people there will be armed, and able to oppose them on an equal basis. Background checks might be a good thing...IF criminals ever stood for them. They don’t, for the most part. They either buy their guns from other criminals in a back alley somewhere, or they just STEAL them. Safe storage of guns simply makes it impossible for the law-abiding to get their gun into action fast enough to oppose a criminal, who already has his illegal gun in his hand, ready to use. Every other anti-gun law is just as “short-sighted,” in that none of them work. Politicians who think all you have to do is make a law against guns to eliminate “gun crime,” are STUPID. But like that “Whack-A-Mole” game, new ones keep popping up, every time we do away with one. (Just common sense)

Are They Insane?

Sometimes I wonder about the sanity of some high-ranking corporate executives who align themselves with people they know are disliked by all INTELLIGENT Americans. Dick’s sporting Goods, for instance, who infamously stopped selling guns, and even after losing millions of dollars by so doing, “doubled down” on that by announcing they’re stopping selling hunting gear in a number of stores. Then there’s Nike, that “gave the middle finger to America” by paying Colin Kaepernick a lot of money to headline their new “Just Do It” ad campaign. They have already lost millions of dollars in the first few days since they announced the ad, but they still persist, insisting that they will run the ad on the NFL Opening Day. How STUPID is this? Those executives who made those decisions should be dropped from the company and, if they’re on the board, voted out. And these two are not the only corporations headed by dunces who let their politics overload their butts and cost their companies millions of dollars. Unless the boards of those companies are peopled with a bunch of people just s stupid, they will soon be removed, before they can do their companies any more damage, while hoping the damage they have already done is not terminal. And if they are, they will soon “go down the tubes.” (Keep and Bear)

L. A.'s "Yellow Badge Law"

In Nazi Germany, “authorities” required Jews to wear the “Star of David” so they could be “easily identified.” Wearing it became a death sentence for six million Jews. Now the Los Angeles City Council wants those with ties to the NRA to “disclose their connection to the NRA” so they can be “identified.” That also means they can be banned (under the table) from receiving city contracts, or required to obey rules not forced upon those without such a connection. And maybe later targeted for gun confiscation. The law’s pusher says, “We must pass this because the NRA is the biggest roadblock to more gun legislation.” As if that makes them criminal, to be banned by law for opposing their stupid, unconstitutional laws. Who knows what’s in the minds of some politicians? They do nothing to make it harder on criminals who use ILLEGAL guns to victimize the law-abiding, and even routinely drop gun charges to get confessions to other crimes. One of the most effective laws is to give criminals longer sentences if they use a gun in their crime. And dropping those gun charges make that moot. Cops say they can solve more crimes that way. But I call that “sloppy police work.” They also mostly routinely oppose the very best method for self defense, the constitutional right of all Americans to be armed (if they’re not felons are crazy) for self defense. Meanwhile, they ignore those already out there with ILLEGAL guns. (The Gun Feed)

Another Mass Shooting

This time in Cincinnati. A shooter started shooting at innocent people on the loading dock of a bank, and the cops got there quick, for a change, and killed him before he could kill any more people. Of course, this again points up the fact that, if there was somebody there with a legal gun and the will to use it, that person could have stopped him before he could have killed three, and wounded two others. The article linked here said the result could have been worse, but for the quick response of the cops. What it doesn’t say is that an armed citizen already there could have made the result a lot better. The article also says nothing about whether or not the shooter got his guns legally or illegally, but they usually don’t. I’m not going to go on and on about having legally armed citizens in places like that as a deterrent, because I’m really getting tired of saying that over and over, and being ignored by legislators while they make their useless anti-gun laws that never work (Fox News)

Subverting Due Process

Liberals don’t like due process—unless it helps them get out of trouble. One of their latest attempts is to allow accusers to appeal cases that go against them, which violates the “double jeopardy” clause in the Constitution, allowing a defendant who was found not guilty to be subsequently found guilty on the same evidence. “It was the Obama administration that demanded schools judge cases of alleged sexual assaults under a "clear and convincing evidence" standard rather than on a "preponderance of evidence" standard.” And they want laws that allow punishment BEFORE a guilty verdict is reached, especially in gun cases. And further, even before the investigation into the charges. They wanted the government to strip people whose names appeared on secret government watch lists (people who have never been convicted of a crime, nor even ACCUSED of a crime) of their constitutional right to be armed for self defense, just because SOMEBODY added their name to a list. This is a “full frontal attack on the First Amendment.” Not only for gun owners and would-be gun owners, but for all Americans. Their recent attacks on Brett Kavanaugh show how this will work, if they get it done. (Town Hall)

It's Not "Common Sense"

The Anti-gun fools like to refer to their useless laws that do NOTHING to reduce gun violence as “common sense gun laws.” But they are anything BUT “common sense.” They just don’t work, because they don’t take into account the number of ILLEGAL GUNS there are already in circulation. We’re talking MILLIONS of illegal guns out there in the hands of those who would victimize the rest of us. All their “common sense laws” do is DISARM the honest, law-abiding people who OBEY laws, making them “easy targets” for those who obey NO LAWS. They have to be aware of that, but they keep on making them, while people die in their “gun-free zones” where law-abiding people are not armed, while the bad guys ARE. They trot out victims of mass shootings like loudmouth teenager David Hogg, treating them like some kind of experts, while all they actually are, are VICTIMS of gun violence that usually occur INSIDE one of their highly touted “gun-free zones.” Chicago, which has some of the toughest anti-gun laws anywhere, also has the highest criminal use of guns anywhere. And they want to make even more of those useless laws that only make it LOOK like they’re “doing something.” They’re NOT. You know it. I know it, THEY know it, but that makes no difference. (The Herald)

"More Likely To Be Shot"

A recent “study” showed that if you lived in states with looser gun laws, you were more likely to be shot by the cops. “The study, from researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Northeastern University found that people were 3.6 times more likely to be involved in fatal police shootings if they lived in the 10 states with the most guns — Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisian, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia — than if they lived in the five states with the least — Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.” I’d say, “Not if you don’t try and commit a crime with your gun, or point it at a cop.” Pointing a gun at a cop, whether it’s legal or illegal, is a death sentence. I don’t know where these fools get their figures, but at a guess I’d say they make them up, to prove their point—which is to disarm all Americans and make them “easy targets” for those who routinely IGNORE their fool laws. If you look into the people who do these “studies,” you will find they all are anti-gun fools, and their “studies” always tend to “prove their point.” (ABC)

Too Big for His Britches

Would you believe teenage anti-gun fool bigmouth David Hogg (well named, there) is raising money to put a billboard quoting Trump’s earlier comments against Sen. Ted Cruz when Cruz was running against him for president? He really thinks (and so do his Dumocrat “controllers”) that will have an effect on what Trump is trying to do. His grossly expanded head tells him so. He (and they) forget that, in politics, previous statements made in the “heat of battle” (so to speak) of an election are NEVER held against a candidate later. Of course, with all the irrational Trump hatred out there, it just might work this time, but I doubt it. The people who support Trump are intelligent enough to discount such peripheral issues. (If you don’t know what “peripheral” means, you must be a Dumocrat) Cruz has enough political clout on his own, that he doesn’t really need Trump’s support, although I’m sure he welcomes it. Furthermore, maybe Trump figured he wasn’t a good presidential candidate, but wants him for a senator. (Breitbart)

"What Don't You Get?"

I have to ask, every day, of anti-gun fools in government, and those anti-gun fools out of government who spend all their time and a lot of Bloomberg’s money trying to “get around” the Second Amendment, this question: “What part of ‘The right of all Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged’ do you not understand?” Anti-gun fools MUST be stupid. They KNOW the Second Amendment PROHIBITS the making of ANY LAW that “abridges” the right to be armed, but they insist on making more and more of them, every day. That’s while the ones they have already made FAIL to do anything about the “gun crime” problem, because the “bad guys” simply IGNORE them and get their guns ILLEGALLY, either by buying them from other criminals in a back alley somewhere, or just stealing them. It is a rare thing when a LEGAL gun owner does something illegal with his gun, or guns. Meanwhile, they keep adding to the list of “gun-free zones” that do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down gun violence, anywhere. In fact, every singe mass shooting has occurred IN a “gun-free zone.” Criminals freely tell us that they SEEK OUT gun-free zones, in which to do their “dirty work.” So what the hell GOOD are they? They just add to the problem. (Liberty Park Press)

He "Feared for His Life!"

The guy who shot and killed the man who pushed him to the ground while he was giving a woman a hard time for parking in a handicap zone and then turned to walk away, said he “feared for his life.” And how is that? How can a man threaten your life by walking away? Yes, he pushed you down. But that’s not something that should demand the death penalty. Of course, what doesn’t seem to be talked about is the fact that you threatened HIS life in the past, and he didn’t get a gun and shoot you. So just how is pushing you down and walking away threatening your life? I submit that you just wanted an excuse to kill this man, and hopefully to get away with it. Well, you have now killed him, and, so far, you’ve gotten away with it, due to a gullible sheriff. There is nothing “stand your ground” about this killing. You were humiliated by this man pushing you to the ground. He didn’t even bother to use his fist on you, which made it worse, in your mind. So you killed him. And you should be in prison for it, maybe suffering your own death penalty. This is an obvious abuse of the “stand your ground” law. The prosecutor didn’t agree that this was self defense, but only charged him with manslaughter instead of the at least second degree murder it was. (Liberty Headlines)

Cops Keep You Safe

That’s if they ever get there. I realize the situation here, where the cops took FOUR DAYS to respond to a call for help, is unusual. But even a few minutes can seem like hours, or days. But the point remains the same. The cops can only protect you if they’re “on the scene” when a bad guy who is ILLEGALLY armed, comes to victimize you. Usually, they’re MINUTES away. And in those minutes, the bad guy can do a lot of damage. Yes, maybe the cops can find and convict him later of your murder, if they can find him. But you’re still dead. And that’s only if he bought his gun legally and passed a background check, which is unlikely. People who want to commit crimes with their guns rarely pass background checks. Nor do they recognize “no gun zones,” where only the law-abiding are usually unarmed. And if you have your gun in a “gun safe,” it can also take you minutes to get it into action while the criminal already has his gun out, and aimed at you. The only thing those highly touted “gun laws” do is make it easier for the bad guy to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey laws, while the criminals do NOT. The ONLY solution is to allow the law-abiding to be armed for self defense. They are THERE when the bad guy comes, and can do what the cops can’t. Shoot the criminal before he can do his dirty work. And by so doing, can help reduce “gun crime,” one criminal at a time. (WXYZ Detroit)

Flailing Around, Searching

Searching for solutions, and not finding any. But pretending you have. That’s what’s happening in the search for solutions to the problem of “gun crime.” The anti-gun fools think the basic solution is to ban guns. They can’t do that because of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that RECOGNIZES and guarantees our RIGHT to be armed for self defense. That means guns, knives, or any other kind of self defense weapon, such as even a stun gun. They think “background checks” are the answer, but they’re not. All they do is give them a way to stop CRIMINALS from getting guns LEGALLY. They do NOTHING to keep them from getting their guns ILLEGALLY, which most of them do. More guns are sold ILLEGALLY than legally. “Gun-free zones” are not the answer, either, because they only get law-abiding people KILLED since, even if they are legally allowed to carry a weapon, they make people leave them at home when they go there, making them “easy targets”: for those who IGNORE their silly laws. Now some think school counselors are the answer because they can “spot a potential shooter before he comes to kill.” Unfortunately, that would cost a LOT of money. More money than schools have. Hiring uniformed, armed guards is not, because they are easily identifiable by a potential shooter, and can be located and “taken out” early. The real solution is ALLOWING legal carriers to bring their guns so there will be guns there the shooter doesn’t know about, who can “take him out” before he can kill a bunch of students or staff. But anti-gun fools won’t hear of that, which is the main reason I call them “anti-gun FOOLS.” (Just common sense)