He Didn't Expect That

A gunman came into a convenience store and pointed a gun at the head of the 63-year-old clerk. He probably confidently thought he had an easy target in this little old lady—until she pulled out her own gun and shot him to death. He probably hadn’t considered that as a possibility. Now it’s too late. He’s dead. Again I say: this happens so often, I hesitate to report on all of them, lest it bore you. And I don’t want to bore you. But, contrary to what anti-gun fools tell you, having a gun made that little old lady the equal to that 48-year-old thug, to his dismay. And this woman protected not only herself, but also others I the store, all of whom would have been defenseless if she had not been armed, and willing to shoot. No liberals have yet criticized this little lady, but I’m sure that’s because the liberal media has avoided reporting on it, for the most part—except for local coverage. But I’m sure their criticism will come, because they’re that stupid. I notice this article mentioned that she had a LEGAL gun, but makes no mention of the legality (or lack thereof) of the robber’s gun. They’ll probably use that old saw, “Robbing a store shouldn’t carry a death penalty for the robber.” But neither does BEING robbed, which is what he threatened. (Conservative Tribune)

Just Tell Me How

Anti-gun fools criticize people like me who actually see the senselessness of the laws they pass, and the impossibility of them actually DOING anything to reduce “gun crime.” They say we WANT more people to be murdered, and that’s supposed to be why we insist on retaining the constitutional RIGHT to be armed for self defense. So I want to ask them a simple question, and insist on a real answer, and not the usual name-calling in which they engage, to mask the fact that they HAVE no answer. The question is this: “Why do you insist on continuing to make laws that, in addition to NOT working to reduce “gun crime,” actually work to INCREASE it by disarming the law-abiding so they’ll be ‘easy targets’ for the law breakers?” Another question is: “What makes you think a CRIMINAL, who breaks laws for a living, will magically OBEY a law that says he cannot be armed when he commits his other crimes?” Criminals break laws. It’s in the name. So why not allow the law-abiding to be able to have guns for self defense? We kept our nuclear capability to keep international criminals such as communist Russia from victimizing us, so why can’t the law-abiding be armed, for the same reason? In Philadelphia, a city with one of the highest “gun death” rates outside of Chicago, 91% of “gun crime” is committed by people who are legally not allowed to have a gun. And those illegal guns number in the millions. So why can’t we be allowed to defend ourselves with a LEGAL gun? (The Enquirer)

Churches Are Now Targets

There was a time when nobody even considered allowing people to bring guns into a church, even if they were legally allowed to carry. That’s because they always considered a church a “place of peace and friendship,” and there was not only no reason to bring guns in, it was a violation of their “peace and friendship.” Not so today. After a number of fools have not only brought guns into churches, but have killed many people while they were worshiping their God. Now churches, themselves, are demanding “armed security” to protect their flocks. That doesn’t mean there will never again be any guns brought into those churches to kill the parishioners, it just means the prohibition on the law-abiding being armed there will cease, and anybody who brings his gun in to kill parishioners will likely meet a gun in the hands of one or more of the parishioners, as one did in Colorado Springs, Colorado, some time ago, when a tiny woman was there with her own gun and stopped a shooter cold. They CALLED her a “security guard,” but she was just a worshiper who was ASKED to bring her gun, just in case. In any case, this ONE GUN made all the difference. The shooter is dead, and only a couple of parishioners (who were in the parking lot) are dead. She saved the lives of all those in the church by shooting the gunman. (NBC News)

Hypocrisy Personified

Well-known anti-gun Chicago Alderman Ed Burke, who has been charged with extortion for telling Burger King that they had to send their legal business to his office to get any permits approved. And a permit application they’ve been trying to get issued for a long time was “magically” approved the same day they agreed. Now this guy has been in that office for fifty years, and actually “inherited it” from his father. Kinda like a small time king, I guess. And when they raided his office, they found that this anti-gun (for us) politician was “armed to the teeth.” They found 23 guns there. Alderman Burke is the embodiment of Chicagoland corruption, and has just been caught by the feds, not the locals or the state. Of course not. The “fix” is in there. He sees to that. But it’s hard for a local politician to control the federal government. They have their own pay-off system that he was not part of. His mistake, and a “deadly one” to his political future—unless he can find somebody to bribe. Keeping those guns in his office was yet another violation of the law for which he should be charged—unless he can claim it’s for “security purposes,” since he’s such an important man. That’s what big-time politicians usually claim. It remains to see whether or not they are licensed. Chicago itself mostly is a “gun-free zone,” for everybody but cops and other “government agents.” An 1879 law “defining” an alderman as a “peace officer” might be the loophole he needs to avoid that charge. That “fix” has been “in” for a long time. (Truth About Guns)

They Wonder Why

“Black Lives Matter” thugs decry the number of black men who are shot by cops in America. It’s as if those black men weren’t shooting AT the cops when they were shot. The fact is, in most cases where cops shot black men, they were shooting at the cops. Now the BLM fools will, of course, call me racist for saying that, but I couldn’t give less of a crap if they do. They call you racist if you fart brown. They’ve made that racist label meaningless by overuse. The same is true of the fools who decry the fact that the majority of prisoners in prison are black, but the same thing applies. They would not be there if they had not committed crimes. But BLM wonders why so many cops shoot first and ask questions later today? It’s because they fear for their own lives, as criminals have declared “open season” on them, in their easily identified uniforms and very distinctive cars. Criminals shoot them without warning, from ambush, or call in phony crime calls to get them to respond, then shoot them, often to death. It’s a self-created “problem” by BLM. (CNN)

Concealed Carry Reduces Crime!

In Illinois, which was, until recently, the “last holdout” in the battle to increase the “concealed carry” numbers, finally passed a “shall issue” law to replace the “no issue” laws then in force. And crime predictably went down. Even in Chicago, where “gun crime” continues unabated (though somewhat reduced), in spite of their many tight anti-gun laws. In fact, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel disagrees, saying “shall issue” laws will INCREASE crime. This in spite of the sure numbers of crime reduction since the “shall issue” law was passed. He maintains that “gun control is still needed,” in spite of the sure fact that their anti-gun laws have done NOTHING to reduce crime, instead INCREASING it, by DISARMING the law-abiding, making them “easy targets” for those who IGNORE their stupid laws. A recent “study” showed that “criminals don’t obey laws (they needed a STUDY to figure that out?). Which didn’t make a dent in their faulty thinking. They kept on making their silly, stupid laws, criminals ignored them, law abiding people obeyed them, and were victimized by the criminals, who don’t. (NRA-ILA)

Against Self Defense

As I go about my business researching for my bogs, I notice one very obvious similarity in every “anti-gun law” now on the books, or in the process of being passed. It is that they ALL make it impossible for the law-abiding to defend themselves against the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there. In New York, the abortion capital of the country because it condones infant murder, there is a law that forces anybody who simply wants to move a legally-owned gun from one place to another, put it in a lock-box, unloaded, before transporting it. In other words, make it USELESS for self defense. “Gun-free zones” make the law-abiding defenseless in them, while doing NOTHING to keep the law breakers from entering with their ILLEGAL guns and killing defenseless people. “Safe Storage laws” make it impossible to get a gun into action quickly enough to defend against a holder of an ILLEGAL gun, who already has his gun out, and pointed at you. I could go on and on, listing the many ways those laws and regulations make the law-abiding DEFENSELESS while the law breakers have no problem ignoring them, but my point is made. Take a look at ANY anti-gun law, and you’ll see they are all the same. They only impede self defense, while IGNORING the depredations of the law breakers. (Fox News)

Knife Attack In UK

So “gun crime” was getting out of hand in the UK, so they just about BANNED guns, pretty much altogether, for the law-abiding. They don’t count the law BREAKERS, who get their guns anyway. But did gun crime go down? Not so’s you’d notice it. The latest attacker, after shouting “Allah,” said, “As long as you keep bombing other cities, this kind of sh-t is going to happen.” This, of course, ignores the fact that Muslim extremists have been bombing OUR cities, and causing other kinds of attacks our bombings were in retaliation for. Extremists never think about the retaliation for their own attacks, and count it only as an attack upon themselves “without cause,” in their opinion. But, back to the original thesis: banning guns to “reduce gun crime.” It does NOT. It only forces it further underground, or causes the attackers to use other tools, such as a knife. So now “knife crime” is raging. There are now more attacks with knives than with guns. So now London’s mayor (a Muslim) wants to ban knives! Will that do anything good? Not a chance. As with the banning of guns, bad guys will just use something else. This will become evident, if it is not already—to those of us with INTELLIGENCE, anyway. But those in power will no doubt continue their useless, ineffective bans on the TOOLS the bad guys use in their attacks, They’re stupid that way. (Channel News Asia)

Legal Gun Killed MLK?

On April 4, 1968, James Earl. Ray shot Martin Luther King to death, using a rifle he bought LEGALLY. Aren’t the laws supposed to stop that sort of thing? Ray was not only a convicted felon, he was an ESCAPED prisoner. Thus, he shouldn’t have been able to buy a gun. But he did, and he used it to murder an icon. Additionally, law enforcement at the time was so lax he was able to escape to Great Britain, hoping to continue on to Rhodesia. Unfortunately for him, the authorities, by this time, had identified him, and he was extradited, and faced murder charges in the case. This guy was a petty criminal who escaped from prison! How was he able to buy a 30.06 rifle and a box of 20 rounds from a legal gun dealer? Anti-gun fools tell us their laws will stop people from doing this, but they do not. Somebody like Ray, if he wants to do such a terrible crime, will get his gun somehow, if he has to buy it in a back alley somewhere, or just STEAL it. He doesn’t worry about the relatively minor crime of being a felon in possession of a gun. (War Is Boring)

"Ban Cars! Ban Cars!"

That’s what the liberals are going to be shouting after they hear the news that cars have been driven into people in TWO places: Germany, and Japan. In Tokyo, a minivan slammed into New Year’s revelers, injuring eight people, while the same thing occurred in Berlin. In Tokyo, the driver wasn’t finished. He jumped out of the van and punched a ninth victim. In Germany, he did it twice (then again). He drove into a crowd in one place, but his intended victims jumped out of the way and were not hit. Not satisfied, he drove to another location and did it again, this time injuring four. He wasn’t a very good terrorist, and neither was the one in Japan. Neither killed anyone (yet). The attack in Germany seems to be aimed at foreigners, since all those hit were tourists from Syria and Albania. The Germany driver then tried it yet again, missing people entirely, before the cops “got him.” He was heard to make anti-foreigner comments when arrested. If the anti-gun fools run true to form, they will blame the car, rather than the driver, and demand laws be made to ban cars because some people misused some. Anti-gun fools are stupid that way, and they’re well known for blaming the TOOL for violence, rather than the perpetrator. Which, of course, accomplishes NOTHING, except to make the law-abiding vulnerable to people who want to kill them. (Huffington Post)

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. I’ve been resisting reporting every instance of defensive use of a gun because there are so many, it’s actually boring. Readers don’t really want to read the same story over and over again, even if it proves their thesis that, contrary to the lies the anti-gun fools tell, somebody shoots a burglar or other kind of criminal, every day, somewhere. In this instance it is the same old story: a couple of goons decide to break into the home of a woman—somebody they consider to be an “easy target” for their robbery. Robbery, not burglary, because they know she is home, and they figure they can overcome anything she has to offer. WRONG! The upshot is, she’s okay. One bad guy, DEAD. The other probably still running. That’s in Atlanta. In St. Louis, the homeowner didn’t even bother to kill the bad guy. He just shot in the air and the burglar set sail for less dangerous areas. I don’t think his feet even hit the ground, all the way to the hills. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Deaths Prevented?

“MOMS against Guns" (or something like that) is “celebrating success” in 2018 because they got a lot of their anti-gun laws passed. But I have one question for them: “Can you show me ONE DEATH that was prevented by ANY of your anti-gun laws?” It’s a question they can’t answer, not because you can’t prove a negative, but because not a single one of their laws prevented a single gun death. They INCREASED them, in fact, by DISARMING the law-abiding, leaving the way clear for the law breakers, who obey NO LAWS. That is the fatal flaw in their thinking: that making a law will keep a criminal or other “bad guy” from buying a gun illegally, or just stealing one. All they do is leave the law-abiding DEFENSELESS against the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there. They have to know this, but they ignore it, while the law-abiding, who DO obey their laws, DIE at the hands of those who do NOT obey their laws. From this, I can only conclude that they are not interested in reducing “gun crime,” but are only interested in the POWER to tell us what we can, and cannot do. They want to reduce the number of guns out there in other than government hands, so that, when “government agents” come for their property, they will be met with fewer guns in the hands of their intended victims. They’ve already started, with their RICO laws, under which they can take your property if somebody THINKS you got it illegally and are not even required to PROVE you guilty in order to TAKE your property. (Just common sense)

Banning Self Defense

If you live in Oregon, move out. That’s if you want to ever have ANY ability to defend yourself against a bad guy with his ILLEGAL gun. The law they want to pass virtually BANS guns in that state. They want to give a nameless, faceless bureaucrat the power to “give you government permission” before you can buy a gun. Never mind the Constitution recognizes buying and using guns for self defense as an “inalienable right,” not to be “infringed.” This law, if passed, IS an “infringement” on that constitutional right, and ought to be declared so, even before passage. The five-round magazine limitation, for example: the stories about bad guys taking five bullets and still coming makes it plain that this will not work. Every facet of this law makes it easier for a gunman with an illegal gun to victimize the law-abiding. Actually, EVERY anti-gun law does that. The anti-gun fools HAVE to know that, but they insist on making more and more of their useless, unenforceable laws. The upshot is, they are making it IMPOSSIBLE for the law-abiding to defend themselves. (OpsLense)

It Took An "Investigation?"

CNN did an “investigation (I don’t know how many dollars they spent in their “investigation”) and “discovered” what we already know: “criminals don’t obey laws.” I’ve been telling them that, all along, but they refuse to believe me, in favor of their preconceived notions that all they have to do to “reduce gun crime” is to pass a law, and, magically, all the lawbreakers will obey it. When are these people going to wake up and realize that the ONLY real solution to the “gun crime problem” is to arm the law-abiding, so they can defend themselves against the law breakers, who obey no laws? CNN “discovered” that, when filling out that form to pass a background check (which can get them ten years in prison for lying), thousands of criminals LIED on that form, and only about 12 were ever prosecuted. Not enforcing laws already on the books serves to INCREASE crime, but the “authorities” continue to do it. They also fail to prosecute violators of the “illegally-armed” laws by dropping those charges to gain convictions in other crimes. That’s just lazy police work. There are other ways to get convictions. CNN at least now realizes that criminals don’t obey laws. But will they remember when it comes time to support or not support the next “flight of fancy” the anti-gun fools call a “gun law?” (Town Hall)

Anti Self Defense

If one looks carefully at every anti-gun law now on the books in many states, and in the process of being passed into law in many others, one can only come to one conclusion: those laws are NOT “anti-gun” so much as they are “anti-self defense.” Each one of them is designed to make it harder, or impossible for a law-abiding person to get his/her gun in action fast enough to oppose an ILLEGALLY-armed criminal, who is not bothered to obey such laws. First of all is the “gun-free zone” where the law-abiding leave their guns at home, while lawbreakers freely use theirs there to victimize them. “Safe Storage Laws” likewise make it hard, or impossible to get the guns in action while they do nothing to stop holders of ILLEGAL guns. Limited magazine size gets the law-abiding killed while reloading, while law breakers have no such problems. Background checks only list people who get their guns LEGALLY, ignoring those who get them ILLEGALLY. In fact, EVERY one of those laws apply ONLY to those who OBEY laws, and those are not the people who are the problem. I could go on and on, but my point is made. (Just common sense)

They Won't Hear of It

The anti-gun fools are being told in many places that the BEST way to “reduce gun crime” is to allow the law-abiding to have their own guns to use in defending themselves against the millions of illegally-owned guns there are out there in the hands of criminals and other miscreants. But they consistently deny that solution in favor of their plethora of useless, INEFFECTIVE “anti-gun laws” that do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down “gun crime.” You ask them why they continue to support these useless laws and they never answer because there IS no coherent answer. So they just start immediately calling you names, hoping to divert you into defending yourself against those names. Meanwhile, where “concealed carry” is allowed, crime generally, and gun crime specifically, is down. Why? Because the “bad guys” can’t be sure their intended victims will not be armed, and able to resist their attacks, maybe even killing them. So they decide not to commit that crime. Or if they do, they can get killed, reducing crime, one criminal at a time. Anti-gun fools tell us defensive uses of guns doesn’t happen. Which is belied by the fact that it DOES happen, millions of times a year. (Bearing Arms)

Stay Away From Hawaii

There may be a good reason for intelligent Americans to stay out of Hawaii soon. Hawaii State Representative Tom Brower (Dumocrat, of course) has sponsored a measure that would BAN anybody (including people legally in possession of a gun or ammunition) from bring them into hotel rooms. We need to stop doing business with anti-gun fools who get laws made to deny us our constitutional RIGHT to be armed for self defense. The way to self defense is NOT to disarm yourself and make yourself DEFENSELESS against all those who hold ILLEGAL guns out there. Hit them in their wallets. If those anti-gun fools are not intelligent enough to know that, we need to teach them. America will never relinquish our nuclear capability for the same reason. If we did not represent “mutual destruction” to our enemies, they would “nuke” us in a moment. The only reason they don’t, is because they would cease to exist in the next minute, and they know it. It needs to be the same for potential gun criminals. They need to FEAR that their intended victim MIGHT be armed, and well able to handle them. That cannot happen if the laws disarm the law-abiding while ignoring the law breakers. (KHON 2)

Gun-Grabbers Hate It

Great Britain has some of the stiffest anti-gun laws going outside of pure dictatorships, which ban guns totally, except for “government agents” of one sort or another. Yet guns are still “pouring into the UK,” in spite of all of their laws. Just as they do in communist China, which is one of those dictatorships. At the same time, in places where concealed carry is allowed in the United States, crime is DOWN. Especially “gun crime.” The anti-gun fools ignore such things because they do not push forward their faulty agenda. They say that, “If we can just get all guns off the streets, we can reduce crime,” which ignores the fact that we have already done that by allowing more and more law-abiding citizens to be armed for self defense, assuring that more and more illegally-armed criminals will be killed or caught, after their hospital stay from being shot by their intended victims. This definitely reduces “gun crime,” one criminal at a time. In the UK, they’re working hard to stem the influx of illicit guns into their country, stiff anti-gun laws notwithstanding. At the same time, KNIFE crime is increasing, along with “gun crime.” Proving again what I have long said, that if they can’t get guns, criminals will just use something else with which to commit their crimes. (Truth About Guns)

Shut Up, Doc!

Liberals are putting pressure on doctors to ask their patients if they have a gun or guns as part of their “work-ups.” This, they have no right to do! The medical profession can try and make “gun crime” a “medical problem” all it wants, but it’s not. And asking their patients if they have guns is NOT part of their “medical history,” no matter how much the anti-gun fools want it to be. What I’m going to do if my doctor asks me such a question is tell him it’s none of his business. If he persists, I’ll find another doctor. I assume part of it is that the doctor will tell someone if he gets a positive answer. that’s an invasion of privacy and a violation of medical ethics. I also presume that, if this question becomes common, soon the politicians will want to make truthfully answering that question mandatory, with punishment to be added if the patient lies or refuses to answer. Things like this are usually “one step at a time,” with this being the “first step” toward doctors letting the politicians know, by law, if their patients have guns. (Boston Herald)

It Must Be Nice

It must be nice to be a subjectivist. Then you can imagine things as you wish they were, and think it’s real. That’s how it is with the anti-gun fools. They haven’t passed a single law that actually DID something about “gun crime,” but now they’re claiming victory because they’ve managed to get a bunch of stupid laws that do NOTHING passed, in spite of the works of those who KNOW their laws are stupid and ineffective. They say the shooting in Florida at Stoneman High School “galvanized” the anti-gun nuts to make even more useless, ineffective laws against guns (they didn’t put it exactly that way, but that’s how it is to those of us with some degree of INTELLIGENCE). They say “2018 is the year we turned the tide on ending gun violence.” Riiiigghhtt! Without making a single law that does ANYTHING about “gun violence.” Way to fool yourself, people! Yes, you got some laws passed. And you were able to pressure some companies into making other stupid rules that get the law-abiding killed, while the law BREAKERS still bring their guns and kill people. That’s not progress. You’re fooling yourselves. And others. (Huffington Post)

Stop Appointing Gun-Grabbers

The only way we’re ever going to be able to whip the anti-gun fools is to stop electing and appointing anti-gun fools to important offices. The more anti-gun fool senators and representatives we have, the more stupid anti-gun laws we will have to fight. Trump’s new Attorney General appointee has supported many anti-gun measures in the past, which indicates that he will support many more in the future. So who needs him? There is not a SINGLE anti-gun law now on the books that has done a SINGLE thing to stop, or even slow down “gun crime,” so what the hell GOOD are they? They ARE good for making the law-abiding easier victims for CRIMINALS, who are known to ignore laws they don’t like. One of the worst of those laws is the one mandating “gun-free zones.” Those are an “engraved invitation” to criminals and other miscreants to “come in and kill somebody.” That’s because the law-abiding don’t bring their guns, according to the law. So they will be defenseless in the face of your illegally-owned, and carried guns. Criminals SEEK OUT “gun-free zones” for this reason, because they don’t want to get shot, themselves. (Gun Owners)

Parents Favor Armed Teachers

No, not FORCING teachers to arm themselves, ALLOWING them to bring their already legally-carried guns to work with them, so as to be able to defend their students in case some crazed gunman comes in with his legal or illegally-owned gun and decides to kill a few children. Liberals always oppose the real solutions to problems that are recommended by others, and almost all liberals are anti-gun fools. Liberals try to convince us there are more than two sexes, and that men can menstruate. Both impossibilities; but that never stops a liberal from trying to FORCE us to accept their silly notions as “fact,” or vilifying us if we disagree. Letting legally-armed teachers bring their guns to school is, so far, the ONLY solution to “mass shooters” coming in to kill a few of their students. The cops aren’t a solution because, in the few minutes it usually takes for them to get there, that shooter can kill many children. The teachers are already there, and the shooter can’t identify those who ARE armed, as they can with a UNIFORMED “school resource officer” and kill them first. Teachers and other school staff are as responsible in their actions as are most cops, and if trained properly, are a real deterrent. But anti-gun fools won’t even ENTERTAIN the idea. Schools are a “gun-free zone,” which is an “engraved invitation” to potential shooters. EVERY mass shooting, in schools or otherwise, has occurred IN a “gun-free zone. So why can’t anti-gun fools realize that? They don’t have a better answer, so why keep opposing a real solution? Just STUPID, I guess. (Rasmussen Reports)

What Don't They Understand?

What don’t lawmakers who enact anti-gun laws that are aimed at BANNING gun ownership altogether understand about the Second Amendment to the Constitution? The Founders knew that if the government COULD ban the ownership and use of guns for the law-abiding, they could “run roughshod over them” with impunity, and they didn’t want that. They knew, from bitter experience, that this is true, and they didn’t want their government to be able to do that. So they made the Second Amendment, which says, unequivocally, that “no law” shall be made to “abridge” an American citizen’s right to be armed for self defense. The anti-gun fools have tried to complicate it, without success. It is very short, and to the point. And ANY attempt to “regulate” gun ownership or use IS an “abridgment.” Lawmakers should know these things, but many of them apparently don’t. They do everything they can to make the guns we do own useless to us. Like the “safe storage” laws that make guns impossible to get into action quickly enough to oppose the criminal, who already has his gun out and aimed. Like the “minimum magazine size” laws that get the law-abiding killed while trying to reload, since criminals have as large a magazine in their illegal guns as they wish. I could go on and on, but you get the point, while they don’t. (Just common sense)

Guns Aren't the Problem

Every time some fool goes out and starts killing a bunch of people in a crowd, or even just one person, with a gun, the anti-gun fools start screaming for yet more “anti-gun laws.” And when anybody opposes them, they vilify them, saying they “wish for more people to be killed.” But I have one question to ask them: “What would you like us to do, that will WORK? Since none of your highly touted anti-gun laws have EVER stopped a single shooting? Just tell me something that will WORK, and I’ll be all for it.” Unfortunately, they have never come up with a single thing that will actually reduce “gun crime,” as we know it. And they won’t, because there IS nothing they can do, no law they can make, that will work, because the gun is NOT the problem. That fool with a gun in his/her hand IS the problem. We have to find a way to cause those fools NOT to decide to shoot people, with legal, or illegal guns. It’s like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Guns exist, there is NO WAY they’ll ever stop them from existing, and the ILLEGAL guns in existence number in the millions. Make all the laws they want, and potential shooters will ignore them because they are contemplating actions much worse than disobeying some piffy little law that says they can’t be armed while committing their more serious crimes. (Daily Caller)

Surprise, Surprise!

Criminals MOSTLY don’t get their guns legally, even if they have not yet committed a crime that prohibits that. Something I’ve been telling the anti-gun fools for years, even though they seem to be “tone deaf” to that. They think, in their abysmal ignorance, that all criminals get their guns legally, so all they have to do is make a law and, magically, the criminals will obey it. Well, The Department of Justice did a survey of criminals in prison, basically asking them how they got the guns they used in the crimes for which they are incarcerated. They had no reason to lie about it, and the results show that a massive MAJORITY of criminals got their guns ILLEGALLY. They either bought them from other criminals in a back alley somewhere, or STOLE them from friends, family embers, or even strangers. Will these results be instructive to the anti-gun fools? Not likely. They have their eye fixed firmly on the impossible goal of denying EVERYBODY of the right to be armed for self defense. Their minds are made up, so don’t confuse them with facts. (Truth About Guns)

"Kids Killed At Night Club!"

That’s how the headline reads. But there are some glaring inconsistencies in this story. First of all, it was NOT a “night club.” It was a restaurant that had a limited alcohol sales license. It was a “dance party” and they were NOT serving liquor to underage people. It was NOT a case of a “mass shooter” who came in and started killing people. It was a GANG MEMBER who started shooting at other gang members, while people in the event shot back. What? Sounds to me like many of the attendees were armed gang members, too. It was a gang fight. And calling most of these people KIDS is a falsity, since they call them “kids” up to 19! A 19 year old is NOT a “kid.” He/she is an ADULT who has not yet quite reached 21. Even members of “MOMS Against Guns (or something like that)” are casting doubt on the reports, and that’s unusual. Usually they jump right on ANY story about people shooting one another and try to paint it in the worst way. (Gun Free Zone)

Easier For Criminals

I look at each and every anti-gun law passed by the anti-gun fools, and I see that every one of them simply makes it easier for an armed criminal (who usually is using an illegally-obtained gun) to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey their laws, while the criminals do NOT. Think about it: “Background checks” do nothing but help find a shooter AFTER the shooting, IF he got his gun legally, and stood for one. Criminals, not so much. Making it harder for the law-abiding to get guns to use for self defense makes sure there will be fewer guns in the hands of the law-biding, making it easier for the law breakers to victimize them. “Safe storage” laws only make it more difficult for a potential victim to get his gun into action to defend against a criminal, whose gun is already in his hand, ready to shoot. Then there are the “limited magazine capacity” laws that help the criminal to kill a law-abiding person while he is reloading. Something the criminal doesn’t trouble himself with. And worst of all, the “gun-free zones,” that let the criminal know there probably not be anybody who obeys laws there with a gun, so he will be free to rob and/or kill them at will. I could go on and on, but you get the point. (Oregon 5 Bullet Law)

Take Their Guns Away

There seem to be politicians everywhere who think they have the right to take guns away from their constituents. They even campaign on passing “tougher gun laws.” Never mind their anti-gun laws never work, and even PROMOTE “gun crime by DISARMING the law-abiding. Meanwhile these selfsame politicians hide behind a cordon of ARMED “security.” Some of them even carry their own guns, as Sen. Diane Feinstein did, in addition to her “security” troops. They think they are somehow supremely entitled to such “protection” while working hard to DENY the rest of us the same rights. So what we need to do is deny THEM the right to self defense if they take a single vote against our retention of our constitutionally-guaranteed right to be armed for self defense. I know getting such a law passed would be difficult, because the very people it would expose to their enemies would have to vote it in. We can only hope there are sufficient politicians with honor to get it done. That may be a forlorn hope, but maybe not. There’s a law in Congress right now to do just that—except it goes a little too far, and wants to stop ALL members of Congress from having protection. But it IS a “step in the right direction,” as Dumocrats are fond of saying. (Daily Caller)

Ain't Never Gonna Happen!

They’re wondering if, one day, the anti gun fools are going to realize how stupid they are, and “go away.” It ain’t gonna happen, people! Stupid people are too stupid to realize how stupid they are. They tend to think they are the smartest people in the room, when they’re not. Each and every law or regulation made by them makes it easier on the “bad guys” to victimize the law-abiding when they predictably OBEY their laws, even knowing how stupid they are. “Gun-free zones,” for instance. Owners of illegal guns have no problem bringing their guns into them because they are CRIMINALS. Criminals do not obey laws. They know the likelihood of a law-abiding person being armed there is small, so such zones are an “engraved invitation” for them to come in and do their dirty work. Criminals freely tell us they SEEK OUT such zones, for that reason. Background checks only make it possible to find a shooter AFTER he has killed people, IF he used a legally-purchased gun—which most “gun crime” people do not. “Safe Storage Laws only make it harder for legal gun owners to get their guns into action when threatened by an ILLEGAL gun owner, whose gun is already out and pointed at them. Most of their other laws are designed only to make it difficult for the law-abiding to use the guns they have a constitutional right to own to get them in action quickly enough. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Gun laws are stupid. (Joe Huffman)

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 Wayne County, W. VA, some people claiming to have presents tried to enter Jerrica Little’s home. She knew something was wrong when the woman who told her she has qualified for some free presents couldn’t tell her from whom they came, and a scruffy man in bib coveralls got out of their van looking menacing. Jerrica shut her door and told the woman she had a gun and was calling 9/11. They got back in their van and left. Without a shot being fired. Just the fear that she actually had a gun frightened them off, from what could have been a “home invasion” attack. These things happen millions of times a year, but the anti-gun fools still deny it. (WDTV)

"Save 32,000 Lives!"

The anti-gun fools keep quoting that phony figure of 32,000 deaths a year from gun violence, even long after it has been debunked, due to the knowledge that that figure INCLUDES not only “gun crime” deaths, but also “righteous shootings” by police and people using their guns for self defense, as well as gun suicides. They say that eliminating all guns will “save that many lives every year.” That’s a foolish pipe dream. Those wishing to commit suicide or commit crimes using guns will find other ways to accomplish their aims. That was recently proven conclusively by the sudden rise in KNIFE crime in the UK after they pretty much banned all guns that are legally owned, there. Those who want to kill will kill, even if they have to use a club. Additionally, there is NO WAY to COMPLETELY ban ALL GUNS. Those millions of ILLEGAL guns already in existence proves that. it’s actually EASIER to get a gun ILLEGALLY than legally these days, with all the laws and regulations in existence to make it as hard as possible to accomplish. (GunMart)

The Definition of Insanity

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. So why do the anti-gun fools do it? There is not a single law, now on the books, that has ever stopped, or even slowed down “gun crime.” So why do they insist on continuing to make them? Are they INSANE? Or just STUPID? Example: “gun-free zones.” Criminals SEEK OUT “gun-free zones” in which to do their “dirty work” because they can be pretty sure the law-a biding (their intended victims) will not be armed, and thus will be DEFENSELESS against their ILLEGAL guns. Anti-gun fools have to know these silly laws do not work, and are in fact, an “engraved invitation” to criminals to bring their illegal guns to victimize the law-abiding. You ask them why they keep making silly laws like that, and they never answer. They HAVE no coherent answer, so they immediately start calling you names and dismissing you, out of hand. What’s WRONG with these people? It can’t be lack of intelligence, because many of these fools are otherwise intelligent. But they just can’t se the contradiction in making these USELESS laws. Baltimore’s “gun buyback” didn’t work, so they’re going to do it, again. (CBS Baltimore)

Gun Rights ARE Inalienable!

Anti-gun fools are now saying that “gun rights are not inalienable.” Which is an out-and-our LIE. There is no right in the Constitution that is more inalienable. The Second Amendment is simple and uncomplicated, although anti-gun fools have tried and tried to complicate it by insisting that gun rights are limited to members of an “organized militia,” something that did not even EXIST at the time the Constitution was written. A “militia” then was considered to be all the people, who could be called up at any time to defend our nation, and they wanted them to bring their own guns, because the government then was not as “flush with money” as it is today. They recognized the right to self defense, and that gun ownership and use was vital to self defense, so the Second Amendment told us that “no law” could be made to infringe on that right. It’s that simple, and inalienable. That amendment does not “grant” us that right, it merely recognizes it existence and guarantees that the government can never infringe on that right, though politicians have tried every way they can to do just that, ever since. Before the ink was even dry on the Constitution. If the Second Amendment is ever repealed, you can look for this country to be a dictatorship soon after, after millions DIE. (Just common sense)

Background Checks Don't Work

“Last year, thousands of people trying to buy guns from dealers made false statements about their past on the required federal form, then went on to fail the background check due to a serious criminal record or other disqualifier. Lying to a licensed gun dealer is a felony punishable by a fine or up to 10 years in prison. But an ATF study showed that, in 12,710 cases of background check denials where the applicants LIED—which is a felony—only 12 were prosecuted for lying on their application. If there is no prosecution for lying, what is there to keep applicants FROM lying? In 2016, an internal ATF briefing paper showed that those who lie on their applications are far more likely to commit a gun crime than those who are honest. The “authorities” think lying on their application is such a minor crime they rarely prosecute it. But more prosecutions would “send a message” to future liars that they won’t get away with it. Of course, the fact that most potential criminal shooters don’t even bother to buy their guns legally, thereby bypassing a background check is not even mentioned by anti-gun fools. But it is a major factor, and one that should be considered. (CNN)