It Can't Be Done!

Governments everywhere try and restrict gun ownership and use to “government agents” of one kind or another, with the main purpose being to restrict opposition to what the government is doing. But in reality, it can’t be done. Everywhere the anti-gun laws are the tightest, illicit gun sales abound, while others just make their own guns, outside of the view of the government. Australia and Great Britain, for instance, do not have such a thing as the Second Amendment, and thus have almost completely eliminated legal gun ownership for their “subjects.” Meanwhile, “gun crime” abounds in both places, since their “draconian laws” seem to be unable to do anything about the thriving black market in guns, and now even in ammunition. They talk about “gun safety,” but in reality, the only thing they want is safety for government officials when they come to take your property. But their problem is, none of their laws work to stop anybody who doesn’t worry about obeying laws from getting guns. That’s because lawbreakers, who break laws for a living, are not going to bother obeying their silly little laws. (Reason Magazine)

"Guns Make Us Less Safe"

I remember when ex-President Obama told us, “Guns make us less safe.” This from a man that walks around SURROUNDED by armed men and women. He has also been heard to say, “I don’t want to take away your right to own a gun,” while he goes about doing things to accomplish just that. Obama has told many lies, and these are just two of the more obviously false. If Obama would have told his Secret Service Agents to “Get rid of their guns,” I might be more inclined to believe him (maybe). But this is an old story, many times told. A “puffed-up politician” telling us “unwashed masses” that, while HE really needs to be protected, we don’t. A good example of that is one of the loudest voices for the anti-gun fools, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who similarly runs around behind a WALL of armed “security,” and carries her own gun, to boot, while she goes about trying to take away the right to self defense for us. The fact is, guns do NOT “make us less safe.” They PROTECT us. It is the ILLEGAL gun in the hands of a criminal that DOES “make us less safe,” while lawmakers work tirelessly to stop us from having the means to defend ourselves from the millions of ILLEGAL guns already out there. (Just common sense)

Dick's Going Down

Dick’s Sporting Goods announced it would no longer sell “assault-style” firearms or high-capacity magazines after being appalled to learn that the killer at the Parkland High School shooting was found to have LEGALLY bought one of his many guns (but not one used in the shooting) in one of their stores. Immediately their sales began to slide, costing them millions, if not billions of dollars. Dick’s executives have said, “We expected the reaction might be less than positive,” showing that they are the masters of understatement. What really gets me is that they support laws that only apply to users of ILLEGAL guns, not buyers of LEGAL guns, because the bad guys usually don’t get their guns from legal sources. The laws they support never stop criminals from getting their guns ILLEGALLY. They acknowledge that legal gun buyers are usually not lawbreakers, but they are the ones they are punishing for the actions of mostly ILLEGAL gun owners. Theirs is a crappy policy, and the executives responsible should be fired. But they won’t be, because those able to fire them probably agree with their faulty thinking. (National Review)

"Gun Crime Drops 80%"

That’s a headline you will never see, anywhere, because even “fake news” sources refuse to run stories that are so easily proven false. And particularly there will never be one that says, “Gun Crime Drops 80% Because Of Gun-Free Zones.” For the same reason. They only run stories (mostly) that contain lies that are not easily disproved. Another headline you’ll never see for the same reason is this: “Potential Mass Shooter Drops Gun And Runs After Seeing A ‘Gun-Free Zone’ Sign.” That’s because nobody in his right mind expects somebody who wants to kill a bunch of people to obey a “gun-free zone,” except deluded anti-gun fool lawmakers. Each and every mass shooting has occurred IN a “gun-free zone.” That ought to tell the anti-gun fools something, but it does not. They insist on continuing to make “gun-free zones” while people continue to get robbed and killed in them. Anti-gun fools say, “You don’t need to stand for a background check when you buy a gun at a gun show.” Which is an out-and-out LIE. But they smugly tell it, all the time. The whole point is that NONE of their highly touted anti-gun laws stop a single criminal from using an ILLEGALLY-obtained gun to victimize the law-abiding, who OBEY their stupid gun laws, like them, or not. (Guns ‘N’ Freedom)

Criminls Will Love It

The federal government is “on the cusp” of passing a “red flag” gun law allowing them to confiscate guns from legal gun owners on somebody’s WORD that they “might be a danger” to themselves or others. Every anti-gun law passed so far does nothing but make life easier for the holders of ILLEGAL guns. It makes it much more likely that, when a criminal comes at a law-abiding American to victimize him/her they will not be armed, and will thus be defenseless. All their anti-gun laws only disarm the honest, while helping the dishonest. Criminals and mass shooters willingly tell us they SEEK OUT “gun-fee zones” in which to do their “dirty work” because they figure nobody will be armed there and able to effectively oppose them, and their ILLEGAL guns. That the anti-gun fools keep making such laws tells me they aren’t interested in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, only the law-abiding. They just want the power to say “no, you can’t.” Their ultimate goal is to do away with the very concept of self defense, and gun control is part of that. (Fox 5)

What Don't They Understand?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is the BASIS for ALL our laws, states clearly, “The Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Anti-gun fools try and “muddy the waters” because it also mentions a “well regulated militia.” Something that did not even exist at the time. To the Founders, a “militia” was the entire adult population, which they thought might need to be called up, and, being not as “flush with money” as today’s government, couldn’t always afford to arm them, so they wanted them to bring their own guns. It also recognized, and ensured (they thought) the concept of SELF DEFENSE. That concept is eternal, and continues to this day, and beyond. What part of that do the anti-gun fools not understand? Politicians and other rich people go about surrounded by ARMED men for “protection,” while working HARD to deny the same right to everybody else. Some, like Sen. Diane Feinstein, even go so far as to be armed, herself. And none of them seem to see the irony in that. (Zelman Partisans)

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, as usual. And today's “gun save” proves it, yet again. In Alabama, an armed police officer was shopping at the “Riverchase Galleria,” and saw a man shoot a couple of people. He immediately “engaged” the shooter and shot him to death before he could shoot any more people. Yes, he was a police officer, but at the time, he was just a citizen, doing some shopping. His presence was not expected by the shooter, and it made all the difference in the world, contrary to what anti-gun fools tell you. Legally armed citizens DO stop mass shooters, many times a day, but the liberal media, which is against legal gun ownership by the law-abiding, will not report it. Stories about this shooting may appear in the local news, but the liberal media will not report it. The story will remain “just a local story,” and the rest of the world will not know. (Breitbart)

Gun Control Foolishness

Anti-gun fools are idiots. They want to stop human beings from displaying a gun anywhere. And then they go to the movies—and what happens? Gunplay. Hollywood movie plots almost always involve gunplay, and people, including anti-gun fools, flock to see them. And they never realize the contradiction therein. Movie actors, such as Jamie Lee Curtis criticize guns and their use, then go to work shooting guns all over the place in their movies. When criticized for the contradiction, they say, “We’re just acting a part!” Stupid. It they were really “anti-gun,” they’d refuse all parts that put a gun in their hand. But they only PRETEND to be anti-gun while many of them walk around surrounded by ARMED “security” and live in “gated communities” guarded by armed men. They think that is not a contradiction, too. They think they’re entitled to a level of security they don’t want to allow the average American, because they can afford it, and that they “really, really need to be protected” from the “great unwashed” who pay a lot of money to watch them cavort with guns in their hands, shooting blanks everywhere. In the linked article, anti-gun fools object to a politician mounting a replica gun on a vehicle. That effectively illustrates the high level of their foolishness. (Bearing Arms)

Dismantling the Constitution

A new bill in Congress would do just that. While the Amendments would remain, they would be made toothless by Senate Bill 9191, a bill introduced by, guess who? A Dumocrat, of course! Dumocrat State Senator Kevin Parker basically requires anybody applying for a “carry permit” or just the right to POSSESS a firearm to submit to the government studying their Facebook or other “social media” posts as yet one more impediment to having and using a gun for self defense. Which is just one more thing they can use to DENY you that right. That’s in addition to all the other impediments that already are in force, the idea is to establish that you must conform to their ideas in order to exercise a constitutional right. Of course, that requirement means they can refuse to ALLOW you to have or use a gun if you don’t conform to THEIR idea of what is “safe.” This is just another effort to destroy the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time. It is an INFRINGEMENT on our rights, and should be struck down before it is ever passed. And if passed, should be vetoed. This is just more of the long-time effort to destroy the very CONCEPT of self defense, and make the government KING by disarming honest, reliable people. (DC Clothesline)

"Wholly Owned By NRA"

That’s the din put out by the anti-gun fools running for office in Florida, and elsewhere. That’s because the NRA donates a lot of money to the pro-gun governor who is running for the Senate. They, of course, ignore the millions of dollars that have been spent by “Everytown For Gun Safety” (or something like that) to promote anti-gun fool candidates. I guess being “wholly owned” works only one way. They say the governor is “in the pocket” of the NRA while resisting those who say they are “in the pocket” of “Everytown,” or former NY Mayor Bloomberg, who is financing it all. It always seems to me that Dumocrats always criticize others for doing the very same things they are doing. Like taking money from “special interest groups” that oppose their own special interest groups. Yes, the NRA is a “special interest group.” Keeping a constitutionally guaranteed right IS a “special interest.” As is the aim to disarm all America for their own purposes. That’s how politics works. Groups that support various things donate money to get people who agree with them elected, so they can oppose those who think otherwise. There’s nothing wrong with that. (Bearing Arms)

Futility of Gun Control

Gun control is futile. It is NOT the answer to “gun violence.” Places with the tightest “gun control laws” in place all have high levels of gun violence. That’s not an anomaly. It’s not my opinion. It is fact. Yet liberals everywhere criticize politicians (usually Republicans) for “doing nothing” to stem gun violence. What the HELL do they expect their pet politicians to do? Make more of the laws that have PROVEN they don’t work? None of the people criticizing certain politicians for “doing nothing to stem gun violence” have any suggestions Of WHAT to do. That’s because they don’t KNOW of anything to do, any more than the politicians do. The reason for that is making it difficult to get a gun legally does NOTHING to “stem gun violence,” because the bad guys just IGNORE all their highly touted gun laws and get their guns illegally. Of course, getting guns illegally is illegal, too. But they ignore those laws, too. The answer is two-fold: first, let the law-abiding have guns to use in defending themselves, and others. And second, take a different tack in the laws they make. Go after finding out WHY people do such things as mass shootings, and eliminate the cause. But those fool gun-grabbers won’t hear of the first, and never even consider the second. And that’s why they are not successful in “stemming gun violence.” You can’t hit the target if you’re aiming AWAY from the target. (Just common sense)

They Just Ignore Me

I’m constantly asking the anti-gun fools proper questions, while they ignore them and call me names, such as “gun lover.” That’s their scam. Never answer the charges, just attack the person making the charges. That’s because they have no truthful answer to those charges, and wish to “win the argument” without having to answer the charges. Questions like: “What good is a “gun-free zone” if it only applies to LEGAL gun owners while ignoring ILLEGAL gun owners?” What good is it if would-be mass killers SEEK OUR gun-free zones in which to do their dirty work? It is a known fact that EVERY mass shooting has taken place in a “gun-free zone.” So what good are they to anybody but would-be mass murderers? What good is passing a background check in tracking ILLEGAL gun owners, who usually don’t stand for a background check when they get their guns ILLEGALLY? The most important question they ignore is this: “None of your anti-gun laws have done ANYTHING to limit, or stop ‘gun crime,” and only make life easier for ILLEGAL gun owners to victimize the law-abiding, so what good are they?” They routinely ignore questions like these, and treat me as if I don’t exist, while they continue to make their USELESS anti-gun laws. (Just common sense)

Gun-free Zones: Dangerous

One of the favorite things for anti-gun fools is the “gun-free zone.” Never mind that 97.8% of ALL mass shootings since 1958 have occurred IN “gun-free zones.” When that is pointed out to an anti-gun fool, they never give you a real answer as to why they still work hard to create more and more “gun-free zones” because they have no answer. They immediately launch into the usual liberal tactic, used when asked a question they can’t answer, they start calling you names, like “gun-lover,” or “NRA member (used as an insult),” or any number of other insults they figure can win the argument for them without having to cite facts they do not have. All their other ideas have the same drawback as this one” they DO NOT WORK. But they keep “beating the drums” to get more and more of them passed. That recent mass shooting in a California bar, for instance, was in a DOUBLE “gun-free zone.” The bar itself, and the entire State of California, which has some of the tightest anti-gun laws in the nation, outside of Chicago. Chicago is infamous for the gang activity that creates some of the WORST statistics concerning gun killings in the nation, while they have some of the tightest anti-gun laws there are. EVERYWHERE the anti-gun laws are the tightest, “Gun crime” remains high, or BECOMES high where it wasn’t prior to those laws being made. The flaw in their reasoning is targeting the gun; the “favorite tool” of the criminal and other miscreants. Without the finger on the trigger, the gun is a useless piece of metal. So they need to figure out how to take that finger off that trigger. But don’t point that out to them. They can’t see it. (Breitbart)

Investigate the Investigator

Robert Mueller is painted as “perfect,” and “unblemished” by Dumocrats, as they support his appointment as “Special Prosecutor” with the goal of finding SOMETHING, ANYTHING, they can use to reverse the effect of the 2016 election that put him in the White House. He is supposed to be the “most honorable man” in Washington. But is he? There is an ongoing investigation into his handling of what turned out to be a phony gun charge in Tennessee. The FBI, under Mueller, arrested Darren Huff for “planning an armed take over of the courthouse” and of “carrying a firearm in interstate commerce with the intent to use it in a civil disorder” in a supposed right-wing plot in 2010 to take over a courthouse in Monroe County. What really happened is that Huff tried unsuccessfully to attend a hearing (legally allowed), was turned away, and went to a restaurant to have coffee, where some law-enforcement officers were doing the same. Nothing happened, at the courthouse, or at the restaurant. He had some legally-owned guns LOCKED UP in his vehicle, which they used to wrongfully accuse him of a crime. All this with the tacit approval of this “honorable man” who was running the FBI then. So Mueller has a history of framing people he doesn’t like, which made him a perfect “front man” for the scheme to frame Trump for SOMETHING. (Tea Party)

Don't Rob A "QuickTrip"

QuickTrip Stores in Wichita, Kansas have realized what I’ve been preaching, all along; that a “good guy with a gun” is not a danger, but a solution. They have instituted an “armed employee” policy, and it has resulted in fewer of their Wichita stores being robbed. It has been so successful they are now expanding it to their other stores, elsewhere. That’s not really to be unexpected. If I were a holdup guy, I’d go where the management was gullible enough to think banning all guns in their stores to be a solution to the holdup problem because I didn’t want to meet a gun in the hand of the store clerk when I go in to hold them up. It’s the same thing in “gun-free zones.” Criminals SEEK OUT gun-free zones because they can be pretty sure the law-biding people there will not be armed, and able to resist being victimized by thugs with their ILLEGAL guns. In some of their stores that means armed guards. But in stores where an employee is duly licensed and trained, they will be armed. Don’t expect a rash of employees shooting other employees, just because they have a gun. Anti-gun fools aside, that will not happen. But the very reduction in armed holdups in those stores where employees are armed, speaks volumes. But will anti-gun fools notice and act accordingly? Not likely. Their minds are made up, so don’t confuse them with facts. (Breitbart)

Anti-Gun Stupidity

The Penn Hills Girl’s Volleyball Team refused to play a game in Connellsville (I think it’s in New Jersey), thereby forfeiting the game. Why? All because there would be ARMED police officers there to “keep the peace.” What stupidity! Anti-gun fools are in panic! They do such stupid things as this, or calling the cops and putting a student IN JAIL for posting a PICTURE of a gun on Instagram. They just don’t understand (or pretend not to understand) the fact that cops at such games are mandatory in most places, and when there are cops there, they are armed. It is a REQUIREMENT for them to be armed. This is just as stupid as a restaurant refusing an armed cop service if he will not disarm himself and leave himself open to be killed by a disgruntled criminal who hates all cops, when he sees he is in uniform and unarmed, and has an ILLEGAL gun himself. What they will never understand is that a “good guy with a gun” is the best defense against a “bad guy with a gun,” as was proved when a thug opened fire on a bunch of senators as they practiced for a charity ball game. Were it not for those two armed cops who “took him down” before he could kill anybody, those senators might have lost a few of their number. Cops aren’t at those events to watch the action. They are there to PROTECT those in attendance. Anti-gun fools always blame the GUNS, not the people holding them. That’s wrong, and it shows a certain lack of intelligence. They think ALL GUNS are evil, when some guns can STOP evil from winning. (Trib Live)

Oops! Hogg Screwed Up!

David Hogg, that irritating teenager who thinks he knows more than anybody else about gun control because that’s what his handlers tell him, accidentally made a good case for the pro-gun argument. He obviously doesn’t even think before hitting “send” on his Tweets because he sent out one recently where he noted that you should “send sharks to fight sharks.” Which is basically the argument we’ve been making, all along. The way to defend yourself against a gun is to have a gun, yourself. It is NOT to DISARM yourself. Anti-gun fools generally think the only way to self defense is to ban guns, or make them very hard to get, so that the criminals have an easier time of it, knowing their intended victims will probably not be armed. The more armed people there are out there, the more dangerous it becomes to be a criminal. And we can reduce crime, by killing one criminal, at a time. Of course, anti-gun fools deny this. Their minds are made up, so we shouldn’t confuse them with facts. The more dangerous it becomes to be an armed robber, the better it is for the law-abiding. Killing off the robbers is just a bonus. One of these days, maybe the anti-gun fools will get that through their thick heads. But that’s not something I expect to ever happen. There will always be fools out there who think you can defend yourself by DISARMING yourself, no matter how stupid that is. (Twitchy)

Showing Their True Colors

MOMS Against Guns (or something like that) has funded some ads in favor of birth control. I’ve always said the anti-gun fools just wanted to disarm law-abiding Americans to make them “easy targets” for people who IGNORE “gun laws” to get them killed, and this latest action proves it. They are IN FAVOR of KILLING, any way it can be done. Supporting the MURDER of millions of helpless, innocent INFANTS is very indicative of their wishes. Anti-gun fools can only get their way by LYING about their intentions. I guess they’ve figured out that the anti-gun stand isn’t a winning one, so they support candidates who they figure will vote for their anti-gun fool laws by supporting things they figure those politicians will also support. As they say in the linked article, “People who can only achieve their goals by lying are evil.” And that’s something I agree with, wholeheartedly. I can see no other reason why the anti-gun fools would continue to be so adamant about pushing laws that do NOTHING but disarm honest people and make them “easy targets” for criminals, including those who wear badges. They figure that, in the future, “government agents” will come for our property, and they don’t want to meet guns when they do, as they did when they tried to take over that ranch out west. (Joe Huffman)

Dems Vow Gun Control

So Dumocrats vow “quick gun control,” do they? How are they going to do that? Not a single one of their “solutions” to the “massive gun crime” (as they call it) has done a thing to stop it. And there is nothing on the horizon that will stop criminals and other bad guys from getting the tools of their trade. When they can’t get them legally, they just get them ILLEGALLY. They either buy them from other criminals in a back alley somewhere, or just STEAL them. In both cases, they “bypass” those vaunted “background checks” the anti-gun fools love so much. They say, “The issue was off the table for eight years of Republican rule, as GOP leaders have sided with the powerful gun lobby against any new gun restrictions.” Which, of course, completely ignores the unalterable FACT that there is NO real “solution” to “gun violence” in their laws and regulations. Their laws not only do NOT do what they’re supposed to do, which is stop criminals from getting guns, they make “easy targets” of the law-abiding, who DO obey them, even if they don’t like them. The politicians are NOT “bowing to the powerful pro-gun lobby,” they’re just recognizing the FUTILITY of coming up with a law that will WORK to pass. One of the worst things they push is the “gun-free zone,” which is a MAGNET for criminals with their ILLEGAL guns because they figure there will not be any law-abiding people there who are armed, and able to resist. They willingly admit that they SEEK OUT “gun-free zones,” for that reason. EVERY mass shooting that ever happened, happened IN a “gun-free zone.” We ask them to explain that, and they start calling us names because they HAVE no answer. One of these days, the anti-gun fools will figure that out. But I’m not holding my breath until they do. Turning blue doesn’t appeal to me. (The Hill)

Howzit Possible?

There was a mass shooting recently, in RUSSIA! How in the hell did that happen? Russia long ago banned guns for its citizens (for the most part). So this should be an impossibility there, right? Russian “officials” are having a hard time explaining this away, after the gunman killed 17 people and wounded 40 others. They first told us it was an “explosion.” Then a terrorist attack. Then FINALLY, the truth came out that it was a STUDENT, who somehow got a gun, and killed a bunch of people. That was after they got so screwed up in their phony “explanations” that the local “officials” announced it was a shooting at the same time Putrid… er, uh, Putin was telling them it was an explosion. The shooter then killed himself after the attack was over. All this brings up (again) the question of how effective are anti-gun laws in keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. I think that’s a faulty way of going about it. You are NEVER going to be able to keep those who wish to do ill from getting the tools they need to do it. The ONLY sure way is to allow the law-abiding to be armed for self defense, so there is a great possibility that there will be someone there the shooter doesn’t know about, who can kill him/her before he/she can carry out his/her wishes to kill a bunch of innocents. The law-abiding are not likely to “go nuts” and shoot up the place, as the anti-gun fools confidently assure us they “might.” (Legal Insurrection)

Trackers On All Guns

That’s what the Russian cops promise. The question in my mind is this: How does that account for all the ILLEGAL guns out there? If you can’t find a gun, you can’t put a tracker on it. And the guns that are the REAL problem are the ones they can’t find. So, as usual, the law that makes this possible applies ONLY to the guns that are LEGALLY sold, and ignores the ones that are ILLEGAL. And it is those illegal guns that are the problem, not the legal ones. Why politicians everywhere just can’t figure this out, is beyond me. I am a person of somewhat more than average intelligence, if IQ figures are any indication, and I can figure that out. Why can’t politicians, who are supposed to be smart? I’m beginning to believe they don’t WANT to figure it out. They just want to disarm the law-abiding, making life easier for the lawbreakers (including politicians) to victimize them. Somebody convince me I’m wrong. But you’d better bring me some PROOF I can verify when you do. Trackers on all (legal) guns are like all the other anti-gun fool laws. They only apply to LEGAL guns. (The Firearm Blog)

Just Lie About It

Dumocrat Sen. Claire McCaskill is an anti-gun fool. But does she tell her voters? Of course not! They’d never re-elect her if they knew. She has spent the last 12 years supporting anti-gun measures, but she continues to tell her constituents she is pro-gun. She says, “They can’t know.” And you can bet there are other politicians that hide their anti-gun stance when campaigning for office. Then, when nobody’s looking (they think) they push every misguided anti-gun measure that comes down the pike. That’s how we get so many anti-gun fools in office. They lie about it, and work hard to keep us from knowing. Until they get elected. They claim that all they’re doing is “working for gun safety.” But their idea of “gun safety” is nobody, except for “government agents and cops” have guns—legally. Those politicians who work so hard to disarm the populace have ulterior motives in disarming us. They plan to later come to take what is ours, and they don’t want to face a gun in the hands of the owners of that money or property, as they did recently, out west, where they tried to take over a ranch, claiming unpaid “graze fees,” and even KILLING one of the ranch owners. Meanwhile criminals routinely ignore their useless laws and get their guns illegally, either buying them from other criminals, or just stealing them. While the law-abiding remain unarmed, and are “easy targets.” (Daily Wire)

Beating Gun Control Drums

California’s new governor, Gavin Newsom, says he will be “tougher on guns” than was his former boss, “Governor Moonbeam,” who vetoed several anti-gun fool bills. He says the NRA is “bankrupt morally” because they insist on supporting the rule of law. He didn’t put it that way, but that’s what he meant. He says politicians are “falling down on the job” because they haven’t passed even more of the anti-gun fool laws they have in force in California, that have DONE NOTHING to stop “gun violence,” in California, or elsewhere. What are they to do? Make more USELESS laws that stop nothing because criminals IGNORE them? Newsom is “flailing at windmills” if he thinks there are laws that can be made, that have not yet been made, that will “stem gun violence.” Like most “progressive” politicians, he isn’t too bright when it comes to “gun control.” He says the solution “is not more guns,” when it IS. More guns in the hands of the law-abiding, who are not the problem when it comes to “gun violence,” but who need to have the means to defend themselves against the ILLEGAL guns already out there. Newsom criticizes politicians for not “doing something,” but does not make any recommendations as to WHAT to do, because he HAS none. He likes to flap his lips to make OTHERS look bad, while doing nothing concrete, himself, because there IS nothing that can be done, as long as the “target’ is the gun, and not controlling the PEOPLE who are prone to violence. He ignores the fact that most of the laws he champions are in effect in California, and didn’t stop that bar shooting spree. (LA Times)

"Everybody I Know"

Gabby Giffords (a well-known anti-gun fool) asked a bunch of kids from the West side of Chicago, where there are some of the toughest anti-gun laws known to man, if they knew anybody who had been shot, she said every child (up to 19) raised their hands. What she didn’t ask is, “How many of the guns used in these shootings were legally-owned?” That’s a question never asked in such cases, and these fools “cherry-pick” the areas in which they ask such silly questions to get such answers. If you ask those questions in most areas you’ll get a very different answer. The point here is that ALL their highly touted “gun laws” are in effect in Chicago, but the number of gun deaths and injuries remains high. Why? First of all, the kind of people who regularly use a gun to settle an argument are not the kind of people who OBEY gun laws, or ANY kind of laws, for that matter. This is something they NEVER admit in their quest to make all Americans DEFENSELESS against such people. Every law they make, makes it easier for those law breakers to victimize those of us who OBEY their stupid laws. But they never admit that. They just want to disarm us, making us “sitting ducks” for those who ignore their silly laws. (San Diego Union-Tribune)

I Don't Understand It

The anti-gun fools rush, after each mass shooting, to DISARM all law-abiding Americans, to make them an “easy target” for the shooters. That’s instead of allowing them to arm themselves so they can do the job of defending themselves from mass shooters. It defies logic! The cops can’t do it because they aren’t usually “on the scene” when a mass shooter starts killing people. The cops can take minutes to HOURS to arrive (in one case recently, they didn’t answer a 911 call until the next day!), and in that time, a mass shooter can kill a lot of innocent people. In a recent mass shooting in a bar in California, the cops (bless ‘em) got there in three minutes. But in those three minutes, the shooter killed 11 innocent people and wounded 20 others. Three minutes! Then he killed the first cop on the scene. It is futile to think the cops can do anything but “clean up the scene,” corral all the facts, get rid of the bodies and send the wounded to the hospital. But none of this does anything to STOP such shootings. There HAS to be another way. The anti-gun fools have to know that, but for some reason, they refuse to recognize it, continuing to make their USELESS laws that target the gun, which itself is useless without the hand that shoots it. I know they’re not stupid, so why do they act as if they are? They need to concentrate on other ways to protect innocent people other than banning guns, which does not work, anyway. Criminals just ignore their laws and get their guns illegally. (Just common sense)

"Gun Nuts Are Terrorists"

That’s what one (Dumocrat, of course) anti-gun fool in Tennessee says, anyway. They call us “gun nuts” for insisting on our constitutional rights. He’s referring to those of us who wish to retain the constitutional RIGHT to own and use a gun for self defense, against those who IGNORE all their short-sighted laws that only make life easier for criminals to victimize the law-abiding. He says nothing about those who routinely IGNORE their silly laws and get their guns ILLEGALLY. Those are the ones who are closer to being “terrorists,” not the law-abiding, who OBEY their stupid laws. This wildly “out there” politician is trying to paint himself as a “moderate,” something that most Dumocrats do, and then they work to pass some of the most extreme laws ever while still claiming to be “moderate.” And they think we believe that crap. The language used by the writer in this article is unfortunate, so be forewarned. The amazing thing to me is that this candidate is trying to present himself as a “pro-gun candidate,” using an OUTDATED former NRA rating in his campaign. The NRA is demanding he get rid of the ads claiming NRA support because they are now lies. (Washington Free Beacon)

"It Never Happens!"

But it does. All the time. Anti-gun fools confidently tell you that a “good guy with a gun” cannot do anything about a “bad guy with a gun.” That the whole idea of arming the law -abiding for self defense is absurd. That to do so would “create a wild west atmosphere” where people would be getting shot over a fender bender or something else just as unimportant. Of course, they ignore the fact that people ARE being shot over fender benders by people who got their guns on the black market, and never stood for a background check, in spite of all their well-meaning laws trying to take guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Their fatal flaw in their thinking is that ALL the anti-gun laws ONLY keep guns out of the hands of honest people, leaving the way open for those who don’t obey laws to victimize them. That makes the law-abiding “easy targets” for the bad guys because they have nothing with which to defend themselves. “Gun-free zones,” for instance. This is one of the most USELESS ideas the anti-gun fools have ever come up with. All they do is create a “free fire zone” where the lawbreakers can bring their guns to do their dirty work without worrying about any of the law-abiding people there being armed. They SEEK OUT such areas in which to commit their crimes. Only the brain dead believe they can help stop “gun violence.” In Kentucky, a good Samaritan used a legally-owned gun to stop a mass murder at a Kroger store. Just one more instance. But that must be our imagination, since it never happens, right? You won’t read much about this in the liberal media because they won’t cover it. It doesn’t advance their anti-gun narrative. (Gun Watch)

"Unlicensed Gun Dealer"

It really amazes me the way politicians “dance around” to keep from calling something what it is. In this case they call the CRIMINAL who sold the gun that killed a cop an “unlicensed gun dealer.” Masking the fact he is a CRIMINAL. One of the guns he sold was a Glock 26 9 mm handgun, that ended up in the hands of a four-time felon who used it in February to kill Chicago police Cmdr. Paul Bauer in a shocking daylight shooting in the heart of the Loop, according to recently filed federal documents. It’s the same thing when they insist we call an “illegal alien” an “undocumented immigrant,” thus DEcriminalizing (they hope) the crime that illegal alien committed in entering this country illegally. Of course, the Chicago cops emphasized the fact that the gun used in killing this cop “came from out of state.” Forget that ALL guns, legal or illegal, “come from out of state” unless the manufacturer is IN that state. It’s a “fact without significance.” They talk about “how easy and lucrative” illegal gun sales can be, while masking the action with that “good sounding” phrase, “unlicensed gun dealer.” They refuse to see that NONE of their anti-gun fool laws touch this criminal because they only seem to apply to the law-abiding. This criminal was under their view, but he succeeded in selling this gun to a felon, anyway. (Chicago Tribune)

Disarm the Cops?

That’s about the most foolish idea to come down the pike lately. Unarmed cops would be useless against criminals, just about ALL of whom are ILLEGALLY armed. Especially today, when outfits like “Black Lives Matter” are sparking the killing of cops from ambush, and criminals are killing cops at the drop of a hat—and are even sometimes dropping the hat. In France recently, a bunch of unarmed cops were ON THE SCENE while a couple of Muslims murdered 11 people who worked for a newspaper. All they could do was cower behind their cars as those Muslim terrorists did their murders, while praying the murderers didn’t come after THEM. Disarming the cops not only puts you and I in mortal danger, it does also to those cops, only moreso. And if it ever happens in this country, I recommend every cop resign and go on to another occupation. In a world where even the most innocuous-seeming call can turn deadly in an instant, if I were a cop, I would quit INSTANTLY if I were to be disarmed. The silliness of disarming the cops was made plain recently in Colorado, where some cops were sent on a simple “family disturbance” call, and were instantly fired upon, killing one cop, before the rest of them killed the shooter. (You Tube)

Banned Guns, Knife Violence Rages

In Great Britain, there is an almost complete gun ban for its citizens—and even most of its cops. So “knife crime” is on the upswing, proving (again) what I’ve been saying for years, that if there were no guns, the bad guys would find something else, and continue their violence. So now the UK is also working toward a ban on KNIVES! Something that will be just as USELESS as is their gun ban. They keep referring to “youths” as the attackers. Which means, of course, gang members, who are engaged in a “war that dares not speak its name.” After they ban knives, what’s next? Clubs? Will they ban baseball bats? If so, how will baseball teams play ball? It has always been obvious to those of us with a modicum of INTELLIGENCE that banning the TOOLS the bad guys use does not work. They just get them illegally. they’re CRIMINALS, after all! But the anti-gun fools insist on making even more of their useless, unenforceable laws the bad guys IGNORE, while the law-abiding (who are not the problem) obey them, making them “easy targets” for those who do not obey those laws. It is time somebody looks to attack this problem LOGICALLY, not in the “knee-jerk reactions” as usual, that only result in more restrictions on the law-abiding, and are ignored by the law breakers. (Geller Report)

"Vowing Gun Control"

Dumocrats, after hearing about the mass shooting in California, wasted no time in “vowing gun control, using their newfound majority in Congress.” Riiigghhtt! They’ll send out many fund-raising letters, demanding money to do what they know they cannot do, take guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. All their favorite laws are already in effect in California, the state in which this new atrocity occurred. So what do they want to do? Enact even more of their USELESS, unenforceable laws that do NOTHING toward “keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.” Their big problem is that none of their laws apply to those who shouldn’t have guns because they just IGNORE them and get them ILLEGALLY. Word is, the shooter in California got his gun legally, in spite of the fact that he had been subject to a mental health examination after a confrontation some time ago where he was wrecking his own house. They decided then that he was not a danger to himself, or others. Boy, did THEY screw up! So all their laws did NOTHING to keep him from getting the gun he used to kill 12 people, including one cop, who tried to stop him. There were reportedly SIX cops in that crowd, all UNARMED, so they could do nothing but cower, out of his sight, while he killed people, left and right. They give politicians a hard time for “doing nothing about gun control” when there’s actually nothing they CAN do, using the laws they have made so far—and nobody has come up with anything better. (New York Times)