Colorado Declares Its Stupidity

It passed a “Red Flag Law” by one vote, and the Senate President, a Republican, voted against it. Later, he was seen walking past a reporter asking why he voted that way without even acknowledging his presence. Something that need to happen with all the Dumocrats who voted for it. The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, in which Dumocrats hold a bigger majority. The new Dumocrat governor is expected to sign it if it survives. This version is worse than the one that failed last year, in that it makes it much easier to TAKE your guns, and much harder to get them back. One Dumocrat said the bill was “not contentious,” but almost HALF of Colorado’s counties say they will not enforce it, should it become law. Senate President Pro Tem says the measure “is totally constitutional,” but it is NOT. And it is easily SEEN as not, by everybody, even those with less intelligence than a lawyer. The Constitution says “the right of the people to be armed for self defense SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” this bill, if it becomes a law, IS an infringement on the right of the people to be armed for self defense. These fools will find that out when it goes to the Supreme Court, which it will. As usual, this bill, if it becomes law, will do NOTHING to stop a potential mass shooter from just ignoring it and getting his guns ILLEGALLY. Of course, as usual, it further limits the rights of the law-abiding, without affecting the lawbreakers. (Colorado Politics)

Gun Rights Sanctuary

Liberals are declaring “sanctuary cities” all over the country where they are doing everything they can to derail the federal government’s efforts to stem the flow of ILLEGAL aliens. So now the State of Texas is trying to do something similar with anti-gun laws. They’re looking at a law to DE-FUND the federal attempts to reduce, or get rid of altogether, your constitutional right to be armed for self defense. “Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) filed Senate Bill 378 (SB378) on January 17. The bill would prohibit any state government agency, personnel or public funds from enforcing any federal gun control regulation or law ‘if the federal statute, order, rule, or regulation or international law imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity, size, or configuration limitation, that does not exist under the laws of this state’.” So if you want to have the state in which you live actually support your constitutional right to own and use a gun for self defense, move to Texas. Texas has always (for the most part) had the right attitude about self defense, and the Second Amendment, and they’re showing it, again. (The Free Thought Project)

The Concept is Wrong

The very basic concept in “gun control” that the way to self defense is to DISARM yourself is a “fool’s errand.” It is STUPID. But the anti-gun fools keep thinking that, if they can just take all the guns away from the law-abiding, that will stop the law-breakers from victimizing them with their illegal guns. Think about that: making yourself defenseless is the way to self defense. Tell that to an old-west gunslinger. They wouldn’t go anywhere without a gun on their hip, so some dumb kid wouldn’t be able to shoot them to make a name for himself. I see stories, every day, of law-abiding people who have managed to “get permission” from a nameless, faceless bureaucrat to exercise their constitutional right to be armed for self defense, shooting bad guys who want to victimize them. Actually, that’s the very best way to reduce gun crime—killing those with illegal guns who try and victimize the law-abiding. Reducing gun violence, one shooter at a time. If that happens more and more often, the bad guys will decide to go into other lines of work—maybe even HONEST work. Those who don’t will just die at the hands of the law-abiding people they try and victimize. Sen. Feinstein thinks now is the time to confiscate guns, in spite of the fact that is contrary to the Constitution. (Breitbart)

Bat to a Gun Fight

Nobody with any intelligence at all will try and go against a GUN with a baseball bat. But Steven Benevides tried it, and his accomplice had a knife. They tried to force their way into the home, only to be shot by the homeowner. Thus, again proving me right when I say having a gun wins the day every time when a thug tries to victimize you. These guys were both shot, but not killed. I don’t know if this guy is a bad shot, or if he just didn’t want to kill them, only deter them. Whichever it was, it worked. They both ran away, and were found a short distance from from his home. They were taken to a hospital, and are expected to recover—at which time they will be transferred to jail, awaiting conviction and imprisonment. They won’t be tying to force their way into any homes for a while. Both men, who have already many charges against them, will be in prison for a long time. Meanwhile, they’d better be thankful this homeowner didn’t kill them. Maybe they’ll think twice before attempting it again. (Breitbart)

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 Denver, a gas station clerk shot a would-be robber who tried to rob him. The way the anti-gun fools think, they’ll probably try and punish that clerk for “having a gun at work,” but, as usual, it’s better to be judged by 12, rather than carried by 6. In another case, a grandmother shot a would-be home invader after he broke into their home and he accosted her husband. This needs to happen a lot more often than it does, even though it does happen more times than the anti-gun fools tell us it does. They think it never happens—at least, that’s what they tell us. (9 News Denver)

Gun Control Is Useless

A guy who deals in statistics, and is not necessarily a pro-gun man, did a study, based on the figures released by the FBI’s “Uniform Crime Statistics” and discovered something very interesting to me, as a person who supports the Second Amendment to the Constitution: after they passed the “Maryland Firearms Safety Act,” murders went down a little in the first year following the implementation of the law, but then SKYROCKETED in the years since then. Actually, shootings were “leveling off” prior to the implementation of the law, but rose markedly thereafter. This proves my contention that such laws not only do NOT “reduce gun violence,” they INCREASE it. Will the anti-gun fools take notice of this study and act on it? Not a chance. Those fools will just IGNORE it and go right on passing their useless, unenforceable laws that only limit the law-abiding in their ownership and use of guns for self defense. They’re stupid that way. There are many such studies, and the anti-gun fools ignore them all in their quest to make us defenseless against the millions of ILLEGAL guns, already out there. (Baltimore Post-Examiner)

"Children" At Age 18?

That’s what a Florida Atlantic University (FAU) "study" seems to think, anyway. I guess they couldn’t find enough real children affected by gunfire for their study, so they expanded their definition of “children” to include those up to 18 YO. I’d say including men who are members of street gangs and go about armed (illegally) shooting each other all the time, makes their figures look a lot worse than they really are. Most people, when they hear the word “children,” think of toddlers and other small people, not MEN AND WOMEN who are really ADULTS. This is how the anti-gun fools inflate their numbers, and is probably the BEST reason to doubt ALL their numbers. And this is just one way they inflate their numbers. They have many more. So whenever the anti-gun fools give you a number, take it with BIG “grain of salt.” It’s probably not true. In fact, it’s more LIKELY to be untrue. When you break down these FAU figures, you’ll find that almost 40,000 ADULTS old enough to vote (almost) were among them, skewing their figures a LOT. Making a LIE of their “study.” One of their conclusions is that more black “children” are killed, ignoring the fact that ages 15-18 is the prime age for gang involvement, meaning that the most of these “child deaths” and “deaths of black children” come from near adult gang members shooting each other. Which completely refutes their contention that “more black children are killed than white children” because most of those killed are gang members who kill each other, and are NOT children. (Breitbart)

Why Indeed?

One student who has a concealed carry permit still thinks there is no need for anybody to carry a gun on campus. She talks about “Not feeling in danger as she walks from class to class.” She says there are 100 cops in the local police force, and thinks that can save her life if some damned fool comes onto her campus and starts shooting up her CLASSROOM. The cops can take MINUTES to arrive when called, and in those minutes the shooter can kill a lot of people. That’s why there IS a need for armed people (not in a uniform, who can be located and neutralized (killed) FIRST, before the killings of the rest of the students begins. The very fact that there ARE people, among the shooter’s intended victims that he CAN’T “locate and neutralize” before his killing spree because he doesn’t know who they are is, in itself, a deterrent to such shootings, without a shot being fired. The anti-gun fools just cannot answer this fact, so they don’t even try. They just immediately start their process of calling you names so you will start defending yourself and forget the fact they didn’t answer your questions. The whole idea of DISARMING potential victims in the many ways they do with their stupid anti-gun laws is stupid, in itself, and makes life easier for those who use ILLEGAL guns to victimize others. She also says, “Gun regulations on campus do not restrict my rights.” She might think so, but they DO. If she’s ever in a classroom where a mass shooter decides to “kill a few students” without her gun, she’ll change her mind—if she survives the experience. (The Parthenon)

They Can't Do It!

In Deerfield, Illinois (just outside of Chicago) they passed an ordinance banning assault weapons. Happy Days, for the anti-gun fools. Only one problem. They can’t dodat. It didn’t take long for a LOCAL judge to decide it was unconstitutional. A city cannot ban guns in the United States, no more than can the federal government. The Second Amendment prohibits it, and ANY law made MUST conform to the Constitution. They didn’t even need to go to the Supreme Court to get their ruling. It is so obvious, even a local justice of the peace could do it. John Boch, Executive Director of “Guns Save Lives,” said, “Deerfield’s senseless ban on popular firearms and magazines imposed a major burden on the right of law-abiding Illinois citizens to defend themselves but did nothing to disarm criminals,” That’s what ALL their anti-gun laws do. They make it more dangerous for the law-abiding while doing NOTHING to disarm law breakers. This was a typical example of anti-gun fools exceeding any little authority they may have, and it was rightly overturned by a savvy judge. (The Western Journal)

Another "Get-Around"

If you can’t ban guns, just make them so expensive that only the very rich can afford them. That’s not an “infringement,” is it? WRONG! It IS an “infringement,” whether you admit it, or not. That’s how anti-gun fools get around the Second Amendment. Just call it something else, which gives them “plausible deniability.” They enforce their unconstitutional laws, saying they’re something other than what they ARE. The same is true of those laws applying confiscatory taxes on gun sales, or requiring impossible demands upon buyers or sellers. Each one is an “infringement” upon a clear constitutional right. “Safe storage” laws, likewise, are an infringement, because they make it impossible for the law-abiding to get their guns into action fast enough to deal with a criminal or other ILLEGALLY-armed troublemaker. As such, it makes those legally-owned guns USELESS, while no such enforceable restriction is on those ILLEGAL gun owners. (Truth About Guns)

Racism in Gun Control

Leave it to the liberal news people to inject racism into everything. Now the Scientific American published an article saying “white men” are stockpiling guns. Nothing about black men being AWASH in guns, mostly in the hands of gang members, who PREY on “white people,” male and female (and blacks, too). Liberals want to inject racism into everything. They work hard to CREATE racism against white people while pretending that racism against blacks is as strong as it was in the fifties. They ignore the fact that there are more black people in positions of power in this country now than ever before, and that included the presidency. Every time I see a picture of a mayor or a sheriff somewhere, it seems he/she is black, female, or even oriental. And that includes in the South, where back in the fifties a black person couldn’t be elected to ANYTHING in the South, especially. They say they did a “study” that proves white men are buying guns because they’re afraid of black men. They say after we elected Obama, gun sales “skyrocketed,” as if the election of a black man prompted that. In actuality, it was Obama’s stance on gun control that convinced people they’d better get their guns while they still could, before Obama takes them away. That’s a typical purposeful misunderstanding of events liberals always do, to make their false points. (Scientific American)

Background Checks: No Impact

Why the hell the anti-gun fools think background checks will have ANY impact on criminals is a mystery because—well--they’re CRIMINALS, aren’t they? Background checks only apply to the law-abiding. Criminals break laws. It’s expected of them, because that’s how they make their living. So why would ANYBODY with any intelligence at all, think they would OBEY a piddling little law that says they can’t be armed when they perform their other law breaking? I can’t believe those anti-gun fools are THAT stupid, so I have to believe they have another purpose entirely in their quest to take away one of our most cherished constitutional rights, the right to be armed for self defense so we can have an equal chance against all the ILLEGALLY-ARMED criminals. I don’t think they really WANT to make life easier for illegally-armed criminals, so it has to be something else. Like the realization that before you can gain the power to tell others what to do in all things, you first have to take away their ability to defend themselves from ALL criminals, especially the ones who work for the government. All dictators disarm their people so their minions will not have to face as many guns in the hands of those whose money and property they want to take. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Mussolini did it. All bloody dictators disarmed their people, then systematically murdered them by the millions as they increased their power. (Daily Caller)

Nobody Cares

“Snowflake Millennials” have come out with a list of the most major “stressors,” and gun control didn’t even make the list. Of course, some of those that did are slow Wi-FI, a broken cell phone screen, and getting zero “likes” on Facebook. Those are actually causing them to lose sleep. Did you find anything on there that really bothered you? Maybe the reason guns didn’t make the list is because those kids might be a little smarter than most anti-gun fools about anti-gun laws. Maybe they actually realize they don’t work, so they can’t be bothered to worry about it. It seems like anybody might be smarter than the anti-gun fools, who keep making them, in spite of the fact that they never work. Further, they CONTRIBUTE to “gun violence” by DISARMING the honest, law-abiding people who need to be protected. Of course, that gives the anti-gun fools a reason to keep their jobs, while “beating the dead horse” of gun control. It gives them something to do. (Study Finds)

What don't They Understand?

What is it about the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States don’t the “gun grabbers” understand? The Constitution is the very BASIS for ALL our laws. Every law made, by ANY lawmaking body, MUST CONFORM to the Constitution. Our very country was CREATED by that document. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights that is contained in that document is very simple and easy to understand, even to idiots. But not anti-gun fools. It says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What is there about the words. “shall not be infringed” that anti-gun fools don’t understand? Each and every law they have passed so far IS an “infringement” upon our right to be armed. And that right is NOT dependent upon being a member of “an organized militia,” since those did not exist when this amendment was written. To the founders, a “militia” was ALL THE PEOPLE, who were expected to bring their own guns if called up. The government was not as “flush with money” as they are now. Now the Dumocrats in the House have passed a bill CRIMINALIZING private gun sales. If that’s not an infringement, I don’t know what is. I’ll be surprised if it passes the Senate. And if it does, President trump will probably veto it. I hope. (Breitbart)

CNN Gets "Journalism Award"

The “liberal fake news factories” hate it when President Trump calls them out for it. So they get together and give each other awards for “great journalism.” Just after that many-times botched “investigation” into the Parkland School Shooting in Ft. Lauderdale that cost the sitting sheriff his job for incompetence, CNN hosted a “Two Minute’s Hate” gathering, where students were told to “scream at Republicans” and all gun supporters, and blame the NRA for that shooting, because they stand up for our constitutional right to be armed for self defense from all those “unregulated” ILLEGAL guns out there in the hands of the bad guys. This is “journalistic excellence?” Not a chance. But other fake news factories sponsor such awards so they can point to them when Trump “calls them out” on their constant fake news. I expect CNN will respond with an award of their own for one of the other “fake news factories.” Parkland was “investigated” in the most incompetent way possible, while failures in the sheriff’s handling of the shooter’s previous obvious bad behavior were ignored, while he planned, got his guns, and carried them out. I have to warn you, the linked article carries some bad language. Language I wish I could use to describe how this mass shooting was handled. (Gun Free Zone)

Phony Shooting Stories

"Cops kill black men 21 times more often than white men.” That’s the narrative. Maybe that’s because black men shoot at cops 21 times more often than white men. But those figures aren’t even CLOSE to being accurate (translation: true) Many police departments don’t even publish numbers about the occurrence of cops shooting people, nor do they separate them into black or white, male or female, which tends to twist the figures in favor of the idea that cops shoot blacks way too often. “And as often as not, the black males are unarmed.” But that’s not true, either. “Research” by the “Violence Policy Center,” (a known anti-gun fool outfit) “proves” they are incompetent shooters. Yes, there are exceptions. But, they are few. Anti-gun fools "cherry pick" things from each shooting to make them SEEM to support their moronic rhetoric. In a Denver, Colorado suburb, cops shot and killed a shoplifter—because he pulled a gun on them. But all that was reporyter was that ops killed a shoplifter. His girlfriend ran away and hasn’t yet (at this writing) been found. I predict that the liberal media will “forget” he pulled a gun on the cops (a sure death warrant), and try and paint this incident as “further evidence” that cops are “trigger-happy fools.” (Greely Tribune)

One Judge Is Smart

It’s no accident that mass shootings happen mostly in schools, or churches, or any other location that is a “gun-free zone.” Which is why Americans are “warming” to the idea of ALLOWING (not forcing) teachers and other staff (non-uniformed) to bring their guns to school, so they can protect not only their students, but themselves, as well. Of course, the anti-gun fools don’t agree. They think that, if a teacher has a gun with him/her, he/she will lose all control and start killing students, themselves—which is a pipe-dream. People don’t just “lose control” just because they have a gun in their pockets. They make this argument so they can continue to make their useless anti-gun laws that don’t work, worth a damn. At least one Ohio judge is “smarter than the average bear” and has ruled that teachers don’t need complete police training to be allowed to bring their guns to school if they are licensed carriers. Teachers are, for the most part, sensible, responsible people who will NOT “go crazy” just because they have a gun in their pockets. And, unlike the cops, they are THERE when a gunman tries to open up on their students, and can “take him out” instantly, while the cops are still “minutes” away, and that killer can kill many in those minutes. A uniformed, armed guard is not the answer either, because a shooter can identify and locate him/her before starting his shooting rampage, and “take him out.” Killing him first. (Firearm Daily)

Trevon Martin "Poster Child"

“MOMS Against Guns” (or something like that), are now using young thug and attempted murderer Trevon Martin as a “poster child” for anti-gun laws. They posted a Tweet saying that he was shot and killed “while walking home from a Florida convenience store.” Nothing is said about the fact that he ATTACKED the man who ultimately killed him while he was sitting on top of him, beating his head against a concrete sidewalk, trying to kill him. That’s how they do it. Take an “iffy” situation and bend the facts way out of shape to make a good headline to advance their false narrative. They did it here, and they did it in Missouri, where a huge young thug was trying to kill a police officer and got shot for his trouble. There, they promoted the “hands up, don’t shoot!” narrative, which was equally false and caused a riot and much damage, while ruining that cop’s life. And they’ve done it in too many places for me to mention here. (The War On Guns)

Using A Tragedy

Rahm Emanuel is known for his intemperate statement that we should “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Which means that, as politicians, you should always USE a tragedy like the one in New Zealand, where a gunman mowed down a bunch of praying Muslims in a mosque with an automatic weapon. New Zealand instantly BANNED all automatic weapons. As if such a ban would actually DO something to stop future such atrocities. It will not. Emanuel is an example of a politician who uses such tragedies to his own benefit, and to the benefit of his friends. Politicians in this country will use this tragedy to make more and tighter useless gun laws that do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down “gun violence.” The have to know they don’t work. If they don’t, they’re stupid. And I don’t think they’re stupid. So they have to have an ulterior motive, such as knowing politicians will one day send their armed thugs to take private property on one pretext or another and they want to meet as few guns in the hands of their intended victims as possible. That’s the only thing I can think of. If you can think of something better, let me know. Emanuel is a hack politician who found his way to the top of his party’s pile of excrement, as Obama’s chief of staff before going back to corrupt Chicago to run their “machine” for a while—until one of their cruddy cops murdered a teen who presented no threat to the cops on the scene. (Brainy Quote)

Lying Through Her Teeth

Nancy Peelosi can’t get anything done using the truth, so she “lies through her false teeth” to do it. That’s what she’s doing when she claims an “epidemic of gun violence” amid a REDUCTION in murders. And that’s happening as more and more Americans are carrying their own guns, in spite of all her attempts to “get around” the Second Amendment, and take away all the legal guns out there (not in the hands of government people, of course), leaving the field wide open for the holders of ILLEGAL guns to victimize the law-abiding. You see, the law-abiding (who are NOT the problem) do obey laws, while the law breakers (who ARE the problem) do NOT. Maybe she actually believes there is an “epidemic of gun violence” since the anti-gun fools include LAWFUL self-defense gun use in their “gun crime” figures to inflate them. But I don’t believe even that. I know Nancy. She regularly lies to promote her silly laws and regulations. Since 1998, the murder rate has dropped 45%! That’s way too big a number for anybody with any intelligence at all to ignore. But ignore it, she does. (Breitbart)

What They Don't Report

The liberal media is “all over” that New Zealand mass shooting of Muslims and blaming President Trump and the NRA for it. Not mentioned in their “coverage” is that a legally-armed Muslim man in one of the Mosques ran the killers off with his own gun, saving countless lives in the process. That’s because that would not advance their narrative against guns in the hands of honest, law-biding people. What the NRA does is make it possible for that Muslim man to BE armed, so he could “run off” the shooters before they could kill any more people. As usual, before the echoes of the gunshots have even faded, the anti-gun fools are “jumping on” this tragedy to promote their useless, unenforceable laws that do NOTHING to prevent such atrocities. And if anybody has the guts to look into it, they will probably find that the guns used to kill those people were NOT legally obtained, again proving my point. That the only gun on the scene that WAS legal was in the hand of that Muslim man who ran the shooters off. I’m not sure what the gun laws in New Zealand are, but I’d guess, with all the anti-gun fools there are in that area, they’re probably pretty tight. But they predictably did nothing to stop this atrocity. (Conservative Buzz)

Can't Talk About Guns

Isn’t this supposed to be a free country with a First Amendment to protect our right to speak about ANYTHING, and express ANY opinion, even if it is opposite to someone else’s? Apparently they don’t think so in New Jersey, where they’re trying to pass a law to stop anybody from talking about, writing about, or publishing anything relating to 3D printed guns. That sounds like a law they’d have passed in communist Russia! Not in the United States of America, which has the First Amendment. I find it hard to believe that legislators there are so arrogant that hey can blithely pass a law that is in complete contravention to the Constitution, to which ALL LAWS must conform. That’s the LAW. The Constitution is the very BASIS for ALL our laws, and it cannot be ignored in making ANY laws. The Second Amendment Foundation is suing New Jersey Attorney General Gurbig Gruwal to prevent this law from being made, and unless they come before an ultra-liberal judge, should win. Of course, Gruwal, a Sikh, is a Dumocrat, who probably doesn’t even understand our Constitution and the way we make laws. (World Net Daily)

Yesterday In Denver

The power went out about one PM and stayed out until 7 PM that night. All of Denver was dark. And cold. With it went my Internet connection, so there was no chance to update my blogs or do any research. Sorry about that. We’re back to full steam now.

Forced Funding

Students at Concord University are being FORCED to fund ANTI-gun activities. They can’t avoid it, since moneys gained from assessing them “student fees” are the money that will be used to fund anti-gun gatherings. The president of the university is KNOWN to be against guns on campus and she not only made a speech about it, she allowed “student fees” (whatever that’s for) to be used to pay for students to protest a “campus carry” bill now up for a vote in the Tennessee legislature. The student government (funded by “student fees”) paid for buses to take those students who didn’t want to drive the 90 miles where they could protest the passage of the “campus carry” bill. They said “all opinions welcome,” even though they openly said their purpose was to DEFEAT the bill. “Campus Reform” reports that the Student Government Association sent an e-mail with a bogus headline: “EMERGENCY—GUNS ON CAMPUS,” and “begged students to attend the protest they were hosting.” The fallacy here, of course, is that potential mass shooters are not going to obey ANY laws they pass and, without guns already there in the hands of law-abiding students, teachers, and other staff, the students and others will be completely DEFENSELESS against them. (Legal Insurrection)

They Want Dumber Voters

Oregon can’t get enough voters to agree with their anti-gun fool policies, so now they want to reduce the voting age to 16 to get more ignorant voters. This is not a slam to those 16 years of age, it’s just a realization of reality, that kids that have only been ALIVE for 16 years haven’t learned enough to really know what’s going on. I know at 16 I didn’t, and I can tell you honestly that others at 16 aren’t fully aware of all the important things—such as NO gun control laws have EVER done anything to limit, or stop “gun crime,” so why vote in even more of them? So those voters that are only 16 DON’T KNOW those laws do nothing, and more easily fall for the “brainwashing” that we MUST HAVE more gun control, and will vote that way, in their ignorance of the facts. This is how Dumocrats work, and anti-gun fools tend to be Dumocrats. It’s their thing. And they like to “move the goalposts” when they meet too much opposition. That’s what promoting voting for those 16 years of age is all about. Moving the goal posts. Another way they’re trying to move the goal posts is to eliminate the time-honored “Electoral College” method of electing presidents to make it easier for them to steal elections. (Bearing Arms)

NC Getting Smart

In Raleigh, NC, lawmakers are considering a law that will ALLOW teachers and other staff who have carry permits and who undergo proper training to bring their guns to school. And if they do, there’s going to be a 5% increase in pay for them. It’s not law yet, but just thinking that way is being a lot smarter than the anti-gun fools, who say that, “If they bring guns to schools, they ‘might’ get into the hand of the children.” As usual, they’re basing their objections on “mights,” and “possibles.” Well, let’s do another “might.” If a gunman comes into their classroom to kill students, an armed teacher or other staff “might” kill that gunman before he can kill any students. That’s a “might” I will buy into, every day. The anti-gun fools just want to make believe guns do not exist for those children, unless they are in the possession of a UNIFORMED officer. The fallacy in that is that a potential shooter can locate and “neutralize” (kill) that uniformed officer before he starts killing children. The cops are, at best, MINUTES away, and that shooter can kill a lot of children in those minutes. (Fox 8)

Taxing It Won't Work

In California, they’re considering putting on a special tax on guns and ammunition. They don’t know that taxing it won’t work, either. Although it will bring millions of dollars into the California state coffers—which, I’m convinced, it their only purpose. None. Not a single one of their anti-gun laws has done a single thing to limit, or stop “gun violence,” so now they’’re going on a different, completely predictable direction. “If you can’t stop it, tax it.” Can anybody tell me how much effect a tax on LEGAL guns and ammunition will have on the purchase and use of ILLEGAL guns in California? Not a bit. And that’s predictable. They know it won’t, but they’re satisfied to use “gun violence” to put money in their pockets. And if you believe some of the money collected through this tax will not end up in then pockets of some of those ignorant politicians, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. “Gun Violence,” like global warming/climate change has put a lot of money in the pockets of the swindlers promoting it. It’s all a scam to pick your pockets with taxes. (Heartland Institute)

Why Don't They Learn?

Word is, tighter gun control laws than New York now has are coming. The ones they have now only serve to make all their citizens “easy targets” for those who don’t obey their silly, unenforceable laws. What they DON’T do is “reduce gun crime.” So, of course, they want to make even more of them for the real criminals to ignore. New York is a leader in passing useless anti-gun laws for the law breakers to ignore, while the law-biding obey them, even if they know they’re useless and stupid. Why don’t the politicians learn? Why do they sit and listen, nodding their heads, lapping it up like a puppy eating an ice cream cone? One bill makes it a misdemeanor not to lock up a gun when someone under 16 is at home. I guess a 16-year-old is “fair game.” This bill, if it becomes law, will make defending your home if an armed intruder enters impossible, because it would take too long to get your gun into operation, while the bad guy already has his “locked and loaded” and pointing at you and/or your children (under or over 16). Meanwhile, the bad guys just get their guns illegally, and don’t bother with such stupidities as “safe storage” laws. (WKBW)

Abysmally Ignorant Politicians

That’s the only way I can describe the politicians who bite on the bull droppings fed them by the anti-gun fools who think “controlling gun violence” is as simple as making laws that ban or hinder people from getting and/or using guns in self defense against the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there in the hands of the “bad guys.” There is plenty of history to prove that NONE of their laws do a damned thing to limit, or “stop gun violence,” but they keep making them, and celebrating the fact that they have been made, as if they will do anything about “the problem.” They just can’t seem to get it through their thick skulls that all their laws are USELESS to accomplish their goals. Not as long as they concentrate on eliminating legal guns from society. Their laws do nothing except make it easier for he law breakers to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey their laws, while the law breakers do NOT. They’re law breakers, after all. It’s predictable. But not to those anti-gun fools and their damned fool politicians. (WAMU)

Gun Control Backfire

In Great Britain they passed laws that essentially DISARMED their entire population (except for the law breakers, of course). They thought that would result in fewer violent crimes. Of course, it didn’t. Law breakers still got their guns, and those criminals who couldn’t get guns illegally took to using knives with which to do their violent crimes, leading to what Britons call “the knife crime epidemic.” Of course, this was to be expected among people with intelligence, anyway. Apparently, the politicians in the UK don’t have enough intelligence to expect this kind of a result. Next, they will ban KNIVES, hoping THAT will work—and it won’t. Bad guys will still get their guns—and knives—and violent crime will continue, unabated. Why politicians everywhere don’t learn from experience, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because their purpose is NOT to “reduce gun crime,” but to make it impossible for the law-abiding to defend themselves from the attacks of the law breakers, who routinely IGNORE such laws. (Gun Free Zone)

He's Clueless

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says a “Democrat president could declare a ‘gun crime’ emergency and take your guns away. Apparently, this member of Congress doesn’t know the Second Amendment exists, and any president who tried would be stopped. that’s the major difference between what President Trump did, and a future Dumocrat president “taking away our guns” using the same thing. There is a specific law ALLOWING Trump to do what he did, than does NOT exist to allow a future president to “take away our guns” the same way. The Second Amendment gets in the way. Nancy Peelosi (Majority Leader in The House) feels the same way, and is just as clueless. This is the problem we have with ALL those who wish to get rid of our constitutional right to be armed for self defense. They think they can “get around it” by simply making a law. They can’t. ALL laws MUST conform to the Constitution, and ANY law limiting, or denying our right to be armed do NOT. (Washington Free Beacon)

The Evidence Mounts

It keeps piling up, yet the anti-gun fools routinely ignore it and go right on making their stupid, useless, anti-gun laws they have to know are unconstitutional on their face, and do not work. Strongarm thugs attack what they consider to be “easy targets” like the 79-year-old woman in Atlanta, who successfully held off a 20-year-old criminal until the cops finally got there and “saved him” from this little woman with her big gun. He ran from his original entry point after the first time she shot at him (she purposely missed, sine she didn’t want to kill him), and went to the second floor, ransacking as he went. Apparently he was too stupid to understand the fact that she was on the phone to the cops even as he dodged her bullets, because he stayed and did some more ransacking. Then finally, it must have dawned on him that this woman was dangerous, and he hid in an upstairs closet, where the cops finally found him, cowering in fear of this small, old lady with a big gun—at least, big to him. His sis says he was “off his meds,” which probably accounts for his stupidity in staying there while he must have known the cops were coming. But this points up—again--the fact that a gun in the hand of a law-abiding person can make all the difference. Without it, this lady might now be dead. But, as usual, they’re not listening. (11 Live)