Discrimination Against Gun Owners

That seem to be what we’re up against these days. It has begun with banks unilaterally closing the bank accounts of any business having anything to do with guns, and other banks refusing to loan money to them. This is rank discrimination, and is worse than the discrimination that was waged against black people for many years. In most cases, at least, black people could get loans, and open bank accounts in most places. Anti-gun fools are waging a campaign for other institutions to begin discriminating against gun people, too. What they can’t do by legislation, they hope to do by intimidation and discrimination. The Second Amendment remains as a bulwark against laws to limit our right to own and use the means to self defense, a gun, or any other tool for that purpose. Even so, the cops seem to want to take away from us, any kind of item that can be used for self defense. I was even told by a cop one day that the metal flashlight he saw sticking out of my back pocket could be considered a deadly weapon and, I’m sure that, if I ever used it in self defense, he’d want to take it away from me. But there are some things they can’t take away if used for self defense—like any heavy object that can be thrown at an attacker to disable him. (Outdoor Life)

Could Have Saved Them

Students at that Ft. Lauderdale school where a bunch of students died when a man came in and shot them down, are demonstrating AGAINST a measure that could have saved them. The legislature is considering ALLOWING teachers who already have “concealed carry” permits to bring their guns to school with them. These students are convinced that armed teachers would not have made a difference. I guess they have bought the anti-gun fool line that teachers, if allowed to be armed in school, would “go wild” and start shooting up the place, which is, as usual, WRONG. Teachers are, by the very nature of their jobs, responsible people, while those students are not. Not yet, anyway. They think the responding cops might shoot an armed teacher by mistake, and that gives the cops less respect than they deserve. Those armed teachers would not be firing at the cops. They would be firing in the other direction, and the cops can tell the difference. They’re not the dunces the anti-gun fools think they are. I don’t much like the language this writer used at one point in his article, but for the most part, this article is “right on.” (Gun Free Zone)

Liberals Miss the Point

As usual, in their efforts to disarm the American populace in advance of, I’m sure, their long range plans to move in and take as much from us as they can. And, of course, they are mischaracterizing the San Diego County synagogue killings to advance their anti-gun fool efforts. And they’re absolutely missing the point, on purpose. They have to know that not one of their laws and regulations have prevented a single such shooting. The people who wish to do such things, if they can’s get their guns legally, just get them ILLEGALLY, and ignore their silly little laws. Their laws, in addition to doing nothing to prevent such shootings, make the rest of us easy targets” for such shooters by disarming the law-abiding, who DO obey their silly little laws, even if they think they are stupid, and they DIE when one of those shooters (with a legal or illegal gun) comes in to kill a bunch of defenseless, disarmed people. They criticize people for not making even more of their stupid laws, and vilify organizations like the NRA for standing up for out constitutional right to be armed for self defense. The reason why we want to be able to be armed is to defend ourselves against such people, not because we’re “gun nuts,” as they falsely call us. (GOP World)

Somebody Got to Him

The very judge that declared the “high-capacity magazines ban” to be unconstitutional has reversed himself. After 5 PM Sunday, April 7, 2019, you will be a CRIMINAL if you possess one, until it goes to a higher court where they might not be able to get to the judge or judges, and is again reversed. Next thing to happen will be the California Nazis seizing shipments of high-capacity magazines before they can be delivered. The article here did not reveal the judge’s reasoning for reversing himself, but I suspect somebody made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. It’s a pity when one man can actually MAKE LAW, outside of the Congress, or even local legislatures, and make it stick. Dumocrats commonly use these “courts,” which are more “pliable” than people may realize, to accomplish things they cannot do in the legislatures, or in congress. And there doesn’t seem to be anything those proper lawmaking bodies can do about it. If you have enough money, just “buy” a judge, and he’ll do anything you want. If that judge ever reads this, he’ll probably want to declare me “in contempt.” Of course, since I don’t plan on ever going to California again, it won’t matter. (Truth About Guns)

Rehabilitating the NRA?

Who the hell thinks the NRA needs “rehabilitating? Only the people the NRA was created to oppose, those who want to violate the Second amendment, which guarantees our right to “bear arms. The NRA does not NEED to be “rehabilitated.” Only the ignorant think they do. They talk about the “financial difficulties” they are facing, as if that were the most important thing in the world. It is not. Any large organization will occasionally have “financial difficulties,” and the NRA is no different. They will solve them, and still be the implacable enemy of those who want to disarm America. I have my own problems with the NRA, but, by and large, they do a good job of defending the Second Amendment, even though they may fail in some cases. It strikes me as pretty stupid for some people to try and criminalize an organization whose one simple goal is to support a constitutional right. Only the ignorant want to do that, but among the anti-gun fools there is no shortage of ignorant people. Yes, they have some “financial woes.” But “this too, shall pass,” and they will continue their work. If they don’t, some other organization will, and they, in turn, will be vilified. (Just common sense)

New Zelanders Surrender Guns

There are 1.2 million guns in NZ. Right after the government demanded people “turn in their guns” in response to the killing of a bunch of Muslims in Christchurch, 37 people complied. The rest of that 1.2 million yawned. Just as an aside: It must be hard for Muslims to live in a place called “Christchurch.” I’m surprised they haven’t demanded a name change. That sounds like something they’d do. The NZ prime minister says they must turn in their guns to “make the community a safer place.” How she figures that is in question, since most of those 1.2 million guns in NZ are illegal, and only the law-abiding would bother to answer that ridiculous demand, while the law breakers would cheer, and grab their illegal guns and go out to victimize those gullible law-abiding people. They want to “get the goods while the getting is good.” She assured gun owners that her new anti-gun fool laws were not aimed at them. Who then? ALL anti-gun laws are aimed at LAW-ABIDING gun owners, leaving the field open to the ILLEGAL gun owners to victimize the law-abiding. (Legal Insurrection)

Does Gun Control Work?

Mexico doesn’t have a Second Amendment. So the government can ban guns at its whim—and it does. A legal gun is almost impossible to get in Mexico, but there is no shortage of guns there. They just get them illegally. You know that. I know that. But politicians, who have the responsibility to make laws that protect the rest of us—do NOT know that. Else they would not make so many useless, unenforceable laws that only stop the law-abiding from getting guns with which to defend themselves against the bad guys, who have no trouble getting their guns illegally. That fact was never so obvious as it was in a bar in Veracruz, Mexico, where a bunch of thugs came in looking for a specific person to kill, and wound up killing seven men, five women, and a CHILD. Nobody opposed them because the law-abiding OBEY gun laws, even if they think (truthfully) they are stupid. So they die, from the stupidity of the politicians, who just don’t understand a simple thing: disarming yourself is not the best way to defend against illegal gun-wielding bad guys. I know that, and you know that, but those responsible for making laws do NOT know that. Or they do, and they just don’t care. (Reuters)

Anti-Gun Fools Lie

They tell us that anti-gun laws in other countries that do not have a Second Amendment have “STOPPED gun crime in its tracks.” Only one problem. It’s usually a LIE. Look at Australia, for example. After the 1966 Port Arthur mass shooting with its 39 dead, Australia made strict gun control laws and hasn’t had a mass shooting since. That’s what the anti-gun fools tell us, anyway, and it’s a LIE. Using the FBI definition of a mass shooting as one in which 3 or more people are killed in a single event, the Hunt family murders in 2014 qualify. The husband killed his wife and three children with a gun. Then there was the Wright St. Bikie murders. Those were the result of a biker feud. Not all killings are by gun. Predictably, when guns are hard to come by, they use other tools. Such as the Churchill Fire in 2009 that killed ten people, and the same year five members of the Lin family were bludgeoned to death. Just last year, five people were bashed or stabbed to death in Bedford, Australia, near Perth. They talk about other countries, too, and, as usual, they’re lying. They use different definitions of what IS a mass shooting to come up with lower figures, or no figures, at all. But if you look honestly, mass killings still happen, and some are done by guns. (Bearing Arms)

"A Wish and A Lie"

That is what all anti-gun fools do, because they have no truth to tell us about what they do. And ex President Bill Clinton is no different. He’s now telling us that since Columbine, mass shootings have increased in America. That’s a LIE. But then, Bill baby is KNOWN for his lies. The liberal media oohed and ahhed over his ability to tell a convincing lie without criticizing the reasons WHY he lied. He also intimates that gun control is politically popular in this country, which is also a LIE. If it were, the anti-gun fools would not be complaining that even more of their unenforceable, useless anti-gun laws have been passed. They’d love to get rid of the Second Amendment, which is what separates us from New Zealand, where they instantly banned “automatic weapons” after that Christchurch shooting that killed a bunch of Muslims. You ask them if their laws have stopped a single shooting, and they can’t answer. So they “dissemble” and call you names instead of answering. They have to know their laws don’t work, but they continue to make them, anyway, so they can “pat each other on the back” and tell themselves they have done something concrete. They have NOT. (NRA-ILA)

Fallacy of Gun Control

The first thing is the idea that if a bad guy can’t get a gun legally, he can’t get a gun, period. That legally is the only way a bad guy can get a gun. That taking guns away from the law-abiding does ANYTHING to prevent bad guys from getting the guns they use to victimize the law-abiding. So many ways to show that gun control is FUTILE. It does nothing except make it easier for the bad guys to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey laws, while the bad guys do NOT. The whole idea that disarming the law-abiding will somehow prevent the bad guys from getting their guns. Disarming yourself is NOT the way to self defense. A country would not divest themselves of their nuclear weapons because to do so would invite other countries with nukes to attack. So why do otherwise intelligent politicians insist on making useless, unenforceable anti-gun laws they KNOW will not do a thing to prevent bad guys from being armed. They have to know that, so why do they keep making those stupid, useless laws? Are they stupid, or what? I’ve never understood them, and as long as they continue in this way, I never will. (Crime Prevention Research Center)

It's A Definite Trend

Local officials are “wising up” and allowing teachers to bring their legally-carried guns to school with them, so that a potential mass shooter will not be able to locate and dispense with (kill) the uniformed “resource officer” at that school, first thing, before their killing spree. They will have no way of knowing which teachers are armed, and that will have a “chilling effect” on mass shooters who want to kill innocent children. Most politicians remain stupid, trying their best to make all attendees at schools defenseless when a murderer comes calling. I’ve been saying this is the way to go for a long time, and I guess even stupid politicians sometimes “wise up,” under pressure from their constituents. Keeping guns away from all schools is really stupid, and counter productive. But the anti-gun fools continue to mandate it wherever they can. Background checks do nothing to stop such shootings; “Gun-free zones” not only do nothing to stop school shootings because the bad guys just ignore them. “Safe storage laws” only make it impossible for a law-abiding person to get his gun into action fast enough to deal with a bad guy, who already has his illegal gun in hand, to threaten him/her. None of this crap works, but the anti-gun fools persist in supporting the making of such laws. I guess they take stupid pills. (Guns and America)

They Just Won't Learn

Dick’s Sporting Goods has lost (so far) $150 million dollars in one year by banning the sale of certain guns in their stores. At one time Dick’s was a major gun retailer, and the sale of guns drove the sale of other items, such as boots, jackets, and hats. When sales fell sharply after their first ban, they added even more. Now, they’re doing it, again. The CEO says he knew they’d lose some business, but the fact that two separate mass shooters bought their guns in his stores disturbed him. So he stopped selling certain guns. How he thought that would change anything, I don’t know. Potential mass shooters will just get their guns elsewhere, legal or illegal. And law-abiding gun owners will, also. The CEO says it was “worth it.” To whom? He’d better be in a very strong position when he goes to the next board meeting. He may just lose his job. It is very unusual for a mass shooter to buy his guns legally, anyway. The actions of this CEO will have not a bit of an effect on them. They will just cost his company a lot of money. They might even have to close some stores because of it, causing unemployment for their employees. (Bloomberg)

Background Check Fallacy

The idea that a “full background check” will “stop gun violence” is a “pipe dream.” In the first place, all that background check does is (maybe) help the cops find, and prosecute a shooter IF—he bought his gun legally and stood for such a background check. It does NOTHING to PREVENT such shootings. Secondly, it has done NOTHING to stop, or even slow down “gun violence. The FBI itself says, “The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.” The FBI says they have denied 1.3 million firearms transfers since NICS began, and gun violence continues, apace, since people who want to commit a crime with a gun will get their guns ILLEGALLY, and never get NEAR a licensed gun dealer. Now they want “expanded background checks,” which will be equally ineffective, for the same reasons. There is one fatal flaw in ALL their anti-gun laws, not just this one. That is, that the “bad guys” don’t, as a rule, get their guns legally. They just ignore gun laws and go on victimizing the law-abiding, who DO obey the law and are thus defenseless. (American Thinker)

They Really Dunit!

A “lower court has ruled California’s high-capacity (10 bullets) magazine ban unconstitutional. Of course, the state is going to appeal it to the liberal Ninth (Circus) Circuit Court, and you never know what will happen there. But President Trump has caused conservative inroads there, as everywhere. Maybe enough, maybe not yet. So the result there is in question. I wouldn’t push it yet, Californians. With those liberal fools still in charge, they may still be enforcing it until then, and they may balk then, if it is upheld. And if it is not, “Katie Bar The Door!” Other states will waste no time following suit. The Court said, “[G]overnments cannot turn ‘millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals” for simply exercising their Second Amendment rights.” That is absolutely right. They also said, “A magazine ban is a gun ban,” which is patently unconstitutional. Banning any part of a gun and what it takes to use it is an “infringement on the right to be armed for self defense,” and is unconstitutional. I personally think President Trump’s effect on the judiciary is responsible here, as the courts all become more conservative and stop ruling on silly things such as foreign law, and go back to ruling, based on OUR Constitution, as they are supposed to do. (Update: the court stayed its decision for a week, and millions of high-capacity magazines were sold in that week) (Ammoland)

Overdoing It

California “Attorney General” Xavier Bacerra (a Dumocrat, of course) says those who want to have guns for self defense (a constitutional RIGHT) are “mass murderers,” just by wanting to own a gun. Talk about going “way over the top!” He’s pushing one of the anti-gun fools’ favorite things, a ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds, and is meeting opposition from citizens, who apparently aren’t anti-gun fools like he is. So now he’s “lashing out” at them. Unfortunately, he is in an elected position, so he can’t be fired for stupidity. And what he is promoting IS stupidity, considering the fact that it will not stop a single fool from getting a gun, even with a high-capacity magazine, and killing a bunch of innocent people. I’d hate to be his wife. He probably comes home after each defeat and slaps her around a little in his frustration that he couldn’t get his favorite BS passed into law. This is the kind of politician who should never have been allowed NEAR the place where he must go to RUN for anything. He’s too stupid to be elected to ANYTHING. (Town Hall)

Just the Sound Enough

All it took for one Memphis homeowner to “run off” a would-be home invader was to close the bolt on his AR-15. That poor burglar is probably still running. Fool politicians keep saying “honest people don’t need AR-15s, but criminals do.” They don’t even realize the contradiction that is. If the criminals have an AR-15, a handgun likely isn’t going to be of much use against it. The good guy NEEDS an AR-15 to “have parity” in armament with that criminal. The cops certainly have added automatic weapons to their armament, after that LA bank robbery where they had to go to a gun store and BORROW some automatic rifles, since they were out-gunned. Anti-gun fools commonly make stupid statements like that, because there ISN’T any good reasons to DISARM the populace in the face of criminals getting their guns, any way they can. The way to defend yourself is NOT to disarm yourself. That is FOLLY. But anti-gun fools firmly believe it is. They’re stupid that way. (Truth About Guns)

To Destroy Self Defense

I’ve been trying, for some time, to figure what the real purpose of gun control is, since none of their efforts have done a single thing to stop, or even slow down, “gun crime.” Yet they keep insisting on making more and more of their useless, unenforceable anti-gun laws that do nothing except make “easy targets” of law abiding people who obey laws, while criminals and other miscreants just ignore them and get their guns illegally. After much thought and consideration, I have come to a conclusion; that they aren’t after “gun control,” they’re after PEOPLE control. They want to be able to tell us what we can, and cannot do. What we can buy and use, and what we can’t buy and use, whether it be a gun, or anything else. They figure that if they can get rid of the very concept of self defense, and be able to tell us we cannot buy and use legal products, they can extend that to everything. Liberals (Dumocrats) have a favorite saying: “it’s a good start.” Meaning that any small victory they get “paves the way” for more. And I believe their primary goal is to get that power, and gun control is the avenue to it. (Just common sense)

Feinstein's Gun Confiscation

Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the loudest voices among anti-gun fools, claims the way to achieve “reduced gun crime” is to confiscate all guns. Of course it won't, because you can only confiscate LEGALLY-OWNED guns, leaving the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there. Never mind the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits that, since it would be an obvious “infringement” on one of our most cherished rights. One she, herself, practices, since she is a “licensed carrier” and carries her own gun, in addition to her armed thugs that surround her, everywhere she goes. Or she did, before we discovered this contradiction. I don’t know what it is with some politicians that makes them think they can just flout the Constitution, which is the very BASIS for ALL our laws. Every law made must conform to it, or be reversed. Like all anti-gun fools, she thinks she can just ignore the Constitution and do as she likes to her constituents. Of course, her idea ignores the fact of the millions of ILLEGAL guns there are out there that can’t be found, to BE “confiscated” (stolen). That’s the simple reason why NONE of their anti-gun laws does anything to “reduce gun violence.” Their laws only apply to the law-abiding, who are NOT the problem. Illegal gun owners go right on victimizing he law-abiding, since they obey those silly laws and are thus “easy targets.” (Legal Insurrection)

They Never Change

The anti-gun fools never change their fool claims. They’re now giving a hard time to those who rushed to buy high-capacity magazines during the week’s moratorium on enforcement of the California ban on such magazines. As usual, they’re predicting “a wild west atmosphere” that never happens. And the next time they lose, they’ll AGAIN predict a “wild west atmosphere,” and it won’t happen then, either. They hate it that a judge made keeping those high-capacity magazines legal, even after the ban went back into effect. That’s not supposed to happen in “LaLa Land.” Liberal judges are supposed to uphold all their illegal, unconstitutional laws and regulations so they can “tell us no.” One gun store owner said, “People loved it. It was like we were out of prison and were not treated like bastard stepchildren of the country anymore." That’s what happens when people are “allowed” to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights in what is, in effect, a “police state.” (Town Hall)

Making Money from Death

And they’re not even morticians! The New Zealand government made it a criminal offense, just to OWN a copy of the video their latest mass shooter made of his crime, so they could SELL copies for $102.00 (I assume while issuing something that makes owning one they bought, not a crime). Talk about “cashing in” on mass murder! It sure must be fun to be in the “government racket.” They figure out many ways to cash in on being the government. Now just in NZ, but everywhere. They make laws in such a way as to ENABLE making money, off the top of which they can skim, for themselves. A good example is the recent dropping of all charges against actor Jussie Smollett after he agreed to “forfeit his $10,000.00 bail money (can you say “payoff,” anybody?) I can’t really think of any other reason to GIVE the City of Chicago $10,000.00. Now they’re suing for the $100,000.00 they SAY it cost them to “investigate” it. And every time a gun goes off, anywhere, they jump right up and make even more laws, requiring payment, from someone, for the “right” to own a gun. Well knowing those laws and payments do NOTHING to “reduce gun crime.” (Libertarian)

Anti-Gun Hypocrites

Dumocrat Kamala Harris has ADMITTED to owning a gun “for personal safety” while working hard to deny the rest of us that same right, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, the very BASIS for all our laws. And she’s not the only hypocrite among anti-gun Dumocrats. One noted anti-gun Dumocrat is Senator Diane Feinstein, who carries her own gun (or at least used to, before we discovered it) in addition to the “armed security” thugs that surround her, everywhere she goes. Most anti-gun politicians similarly have their thugs to surround them, “protecting them” from angry constituents. How many carry their own guns, I don’t know. But they would be wise to do so, in case they get separated from their thugs. It is also wise for US to do the same, but they work hard, every day, to prevent us from having that same right. ANYTHING that can be used in self defense, they want to BAN, and take away from us. Take a close look at the politicians who show up at anti-gun rallies, and they are ALL accompanied by their own “armed thugs.” The governor of New York, for instance, actually took part of an anti-gun “lie-in” recently, while his armed thugs stood by, alert for danger. (Liberty Headlines)

FOID Card Unconstitutional

It’s jist turribl! This little lady had a rifle in her home without having gone to a state bureaucrat, hat in hand, asking for PERMISSION to own one. She didn’t give the bureaucrats their paperwork. The circuit judge decided the very idea of having to apply for PERMISSION to own a gun was unconstitutional. The state plans to appeal this to the Supreme Court, but I don’t expect it to be reversed, since having to ask PERMISSION to exercise a constitutional right IS unconstitutional on it’s face. I’m not even a lawyer or a judge and I can see that. I just don’t understand where elected or unelected bureaucrats get the idea they have the power to force a citizen to ask PERMISSION to exercise a constitutional right. But these fools exceed their authority all the time, and get away with it. Their arrogant violations of the law are rampant. Fortunately, in this case, even a LOCAL judge recognized that excess, and reversed it. The judge later revised his ruling and widened it’s effect when he noted that the statute under which she was charged was too wide, and was impossible to obey. (Truth About Guns)

Law of Self Defense

They’re asking if that old man (“security guard?”) at a MacDonald’s was justified in drawing his gun while being beat up by two thugs. I say YES! Absolutely! It stopped them from ganging up on him and he only showed it to them. If he had fired as they were running away, THEN the answer would be no. Liberals are far too quick to judge without being subjected to the same situation. And they don’t like ANY self defense use of a gun, even if not a single shot is fired. I’d like to ask them how they would have stopped those thugs from beating THEM up? I doubt if they would have an answer. Liberals are quick to criticize people for lawfully defending themselves, but at the same tie they have no answers when asked how they would have handled that situation if they were the victims. They HAVE no answers, only baseless criticism of ANY use of a gun, even if it is legal. They are just trying to eliminate the “law of self defense.” Period. (Just common sense)

"No Weapons of War"

Joe Scarboro (“Morning Joe” on MSNBC) says the Second Amendment “doesn’t cover weapons of war.” Hey Joe! Yes, it DOES. It isn’t limited to covering flintlocks, either, as some anti-gun fools say. They say it only covers the weapons that were in use when the Constitution was written. Wrong again! It covers weapons “in common use.” Not those in common use when the Constitution was written, but those in common use, NOW. Furthermore, it doesn’t cover weapons, at all. It covers our RIGHT to be armed, with whatever. This is just another feeble attempt by an anti-gun fool to DILUTE the meaning of one of the shortest, and simplest, easily understood sections. It mentions NO KIND of gun, but guarantees that Americans will always be able to be ARMED, in self defense. What doesn’t Joe understand about that? Liberals are constantly trying to dilute the meaning of constitutional limits on their actions by purposely misunderstanding the wording. It hasn’t worked in the past, and it ain’t gonna work in the future. The Second Amendment does not protect certain GUNS. It protects our right to defend ourselves, and to be able to buy and use the TOOLS for that. Be that a gun, or a ray-gun, in the future. Whatever kind of defensive weapon that is in “common use” in the future. (Breitbart)

"Most Dangerous Weapons"

Eric Swalwell wants to get rid of “the most dangerous weapons” out there. Oh? Does he mean weapons that fire bullets? I don’t really see how you can define what weapons are the “most dangerous.” All fire bullets, and it seems to me that’s about as dangerous as it gets. The anti-gun fools like to paint people who demand their constitutional gun rights as being “gun nuts” who just use guns for target shooting, mostly. There’s no other use for a gun in the hands of the law-abiding, right? WRONG! The main use for a gun is to defend against the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there, in the hands of criminals, who use them to victimize the law-abiding, when they’re not shooting each other without a care about innocent bystanders who may get in the way of their bullets. Then there are the guns used to protect the politicians who want to take away that right from the rest of us. You wouldn’t believe how many anti-gun politicians themselves own guns or, if not, HIRE gun-toting “security.” Many of them show up at anti-gun rallies with their armed security. One memorable such instance was when the NY governor joined an anti-gun demonstration while his “gimlet-eyed” armed security stood by, alert for danger. Then there is the loudest mouth against guns, Senator Feinstein, who is a “licensed carrier” and carries her own gun, in case her armed security is not enough. These people are hypocrites who just want to disarm the populace so their minions won’t run into as many guns when they come to take what is not theirs. (Just common sense)

Knee-Jerk Reaction

In New Zealand, the government, in a “knee-jerk reaction,” banned “all automatic weapons that can use a magazine holding more than five rounds.” Now our politicians are saying, “We need to follow New Zealand’s lead.” Where? Into oblivion? New Zealand isn’t “leading.” It is following all the anti-gun fools there are, who make useless anti-gun laws that do NOTHING to reduce gun violence. Instead INCREASING IT by disarming the law-abiding, who are NOT the problem, while ignoring the law breakers, who ARE the problem. Thus making it significantly easier for those law breakers to victimize the law-abiding. New Zealand is “looking at” other anti-gun laws with a view toward following suit, even though it is obvious none of them work. Look for there to soon be many new “gun-free zones” in NZ, and an “upsurge” I mass shootings, all of which will HAPPEN in “gun-free zones.” Then NZ will make more new anti-gun fool laws that further reduce the ability of honest, law-abiding people to defend themselves against those who obey NO LAWS. (Red State)

Disarming the Victims

They tell us all they want is to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” But all their laws do NOTHING to accomplish that goal. All the laws they have passed, so far, have done is to disarm the potential victims of “gun crime” while making it much easier for the criminals to victimize them, since they are rendered defenseless by their laws. Each and every law they make only makes it easier for the criminals. I have something that “resembles a “sap” that is, and was sold in a bookstore as a “page holder” to use when reading while eating. It’s black leather and has a what feels like a lead lump at each end, and would MAKE a good “sap.” If anybody ever attacks me, he’s going to be surprised when I slap him down with it. And I expect the cops will immediately take it away from me, since they usually “confiscate” anything that can be used in self defense. It doesn’t matter what is it. If I hit an attacker with a heavy ash tray, they’d take that, too. It just seems they are determined to keep us defenseless, so they take away anything that can be used in self defense. This has got to change. We need to be able to defend ourselves against the criminals, who just IGNORE any laws that say they can’t be armed when they rob us. (Town Hall)

Bloomberg Writes An Article

In it, he DEMANDS that the Supreme Court, in the person of Chief Justice Roberts, “Follow New Zealand’s lead,” and ban all assault rifles. He thinks first of all, that Justice Roberts gives a damn what Bloomberg says and will actually DO it. And second, if he does, it will “put a stop to gun violence.” This kind of stupidity seems to run through hack politicians in all countries. Most have been proven to be stupid. Maybe they all take stupid pills. Whatever, their approach to “gun violence” is ALWAYS to make more and more of the stupid laws that have done NOTHING to prevent gun violence, while congratulating themselves on a “job well done.” Meanwhile, gun crime continues, unabated. They just can’t get it through their thick skulls that making laws to keep guns (only) out of the hands of the law-abiding does not work. Criminals and mass shooters continue to get their guns, legally or illegally, and then kill people. As long as they target the guns, not the shooters, this will continue. They will congratulate themselves while more people die from their stupidity. (Bloomberg Opinion)

Never Fired A Shot

A couple of Chicago thugs decided to beat up an old man, and changed their minds abruptly when he pulled a gun and pointed it at them. They’ve probably made it to Iowa by now. This is a good example of what should happen way more often when young thugs, armed or unarmed, decide to victimize people they regard as “easy targets.” The government should stop trying to make more of their citizens defenseless in the face of this kind of violence. And that’s exactly what their anti-gun laws do—make it more easy for such thugs to be successful in attacking honest, law-abiding people. They CLAIM their laws “keep guns off the streets,” but they don’t. All they do is keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, who OBEY such laws, even if they think they’re stupid, while law-breakers just ignore them and get their guns illegally. They’re CRIMINALS, after all, and they disobey laws for a living. Why does anybody with any intelligence at all believe they will obey these laws when they obey no others? (Dan From Squirrel Hill)

"Bang Head Against Wall"

That seems to be the universal “solution” to “gun crime” all over the world. New Zealand, after that tragic massacre in a Muslim mosque, is making new laws to BAN all “automatic weapons,” and reclassifying other weapons as “automatic weapons” so as to include them in their ban. Their PM says, “We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place," But does it? Not a chance. The next mass shooter there will simply get his guns ILLEGALLY, and all they have done is make it easier for that next shooter by DISARMING the law-abiding. The law-abiding OBEY laws. Criminals do NOT. I don’t know why most lawmakers and other politicians are so STUPID as to imagine that BANNING certain guns will actually WORK to stop the next shooter. Maybe they just take “stupid pills.” I don’t know. They haven’t been able to make a single law that will do that, and they have to know that. But they rush to make even more of them, every time some fool uses a gun, legal or illegal, to mow down a few people. Then they sit back and congratulate themselves, thinking they have actually DONE something to stop “gun violence.” They have NOT. (CNN)

I'm Disgusted With Politicians

I’ll tell you. I’m really disgusted with Dumocrats—AND Republicans, today. Each, for different reasons. Dumocrats for their seeming inability to “give it up” when they are proven wrong, and Republicans for not “speaking up” when Dumocrats are wrong. Dumocrat Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler, before even getting a look at the Mueller Report, says, “Mueller’s investigation was limited, and I’m going to keep the ‘investigation’ going.” Mueller’s “investigation” was NOT “limited.” He abandoned the original idea that Trump “colluded” with the Russians to get elected, and wound up indicting a couple of men who might have only shook Trump’s hand once upon a time of “process crimes” and maybe a few money scams having nothing to do with Trump. He “indicted” a dozen or more RUSSIANS he figured would never come here to stand for charges so he could say he “did something,” His fools conducted massive ARMED dawn raids on two men for relatively minor “crimes,” for which one of them was NOT indicted. As an “investigation” failed. The object was to find SOMETHING, anything that could be used to END President Trump because had the audacity to whip their hand-picked Dumocrat, and he failed, miserably. Republicans for standing back and doing nothing to protect their president, some of whom joining Dumocrats in criticizing Trump. (Breitbart)

It's A Scam

The Stormy Daniels thing is a scam from the word "go." So she had a one-night stand with Donald Trump, a decade or more ago. Before he even thought of running for president. So what? So a man claiming to have given her a lot of money to stay quiet about it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Maybe he was representing Trump, or he wasn't. There is only her UNSUPPORTED WORD that it ever happened, and if it did, SO WHAT? And what is she after now? Another payoff? Notoriety leading to more “gigs?” What's her purpose in bringing it up--now--with an important election looming? Sounds like a setup, to me. The kind the Dumocrats are famous for. And that fabled "death threat," and the professional, model-looking picture of the "threatener" is just more of the same. Of course, Bill Clinton did much worse, but that never bothered the Dumocrats. Only if they think they can prove it on a Republican does it ever bother them. It amazes me that this never seems to occur to many Dumocrats. (Just common sense)