Back to the Sixties

A recent Washington Post article thinks the way to “gun safety” is to revert to the loose gun laws of the sixties where you could buy a gun through the mail without any problem. They might be onto something there. Of course, like most anti-gun fools, the writer thinks the idea that the government guarantees you the right to be armed for self defense is a “NRA construct.” It is NOT. The Second Amendment says clearly, that “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s not something the NRA dreamed up, but it IS something they fully support, and fight for, in spite of the ignorant brayings of the anti-gun fools. I call them fools because they have to know their anti-gun laws do NOTHING to stem gun crime and, instead, promote it by disarming the law-abiding, making them “easy targets” for criminals, who usually are using ILLEGAL guns. They assume the criminals get their guns legally, and stand for background checks. They do not. They get them any way they can to AVOID having to get them legally and stand for a background check. Their laws therefore only apply to LEGAL gun owners, who are usually NOT the problem. But they keep making them, over and over again. (Washington Post)

Targeting the Law-Abiding

The very targets to which all anti-gun laws are aimed, are wrong. They are the law-abiding, who are NOT the problem. The problem is the law-BREAKERS, who just ignore all their anti-gun laws, and get their guns illegally, or just steal them. They’re criminals, after all. They don’t obey ANY laws. So how are their highly-touted anti-gun laws ever going to stop, or even slow down “gun crime?” They will NOT. But when we point these things out, the anti-gun fools just ignore us, and go right on making their stupid, unenforceable anti-gun laws that don’t work, in any way, to limit “gun violence.” It is a proven fact that in areas with the tightest anti-gun laws, gun crime is at its highest, because the law abiding potential victims are DISARMED, and therefore DEFENSELESS against the millions of ILLEGAL guns in use by criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists—who are becoming an increasing problem in America. All their laws do is make it easier for the lawless to victimize the law-abiding, which is just the opposite of what they claim to be doing. Meanwhile, they try their best to criminalize the NRA, which does two things: One, stand up for our constitutional right to be armed, and two, teach people the proper handling of guns to promote safety. San Francisco has even gone so far as to declare the NRA a “terrorist organization.” which is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen a bunch of fool politicians do. And that’s saying a lot. (Just common sense)

Based On A Fallacy

One wonders why “gun control” is so unsuccessful in “reducing gun crime.” But not if you’re intelligent. Anti-gun fools apparently erroneously think that criminals only operate using LEGAL guns and, that banning legal guns will “solve the problem.” To intelligent people, this is stupid. Another fallacy is thinking that all you have to do is pass a law against guns and THAT will solve the gun crime problem. It will not. That has been proven time after time, every day. you’d think those fools would learn from their mistakes, but they apparently do not. They keep demanding we pass more and more of those useless laws every time a “gun crime” occurs, even knowing (they have to know) their new laws will not work any better than their old ones. It’s obvious to intelligent people that their laws only make it easier for criminals to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey their laws, while criminals predictably do NOT. I really get tired of writing the same words over and over and being ignored by those who ought to know better, but who don’t. These are only two of the many fallacies on which gun control is built. The whole thing is a “house of cards” that is only propped up by ignorance. (Just common sense)

The "Common Use" Standard

Anti-gun fools like to say the Constitution only allows us to have guns that are “in common use.” But the Constitution made no such stipulation. Its words are clear: “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Nothing could be more clear than that. But the anti-gun fools wish to “muddy the waters” so they can come and take your guns away, leaving you at the mercy of the lawless, who are not inhibited, in any way, from getting their guns ILLEGALLY. I know why liberal politicians want to disarm us—they know they’re going to come for our property in the future, and they want to run into as few guns as possible when they do. They wet their pants and stamp their feet in rage every time that old Constitution stops them from taking away that right. And you'll notice they always have enough money to hire somebody to carry guns for them. Some even carry their own guns, too. They just want to prevent you from doing likewise. Criminals love the anti-gun laws for the same reason as the politicians. They want to run into as few guns as possible when they come to take what is yours. (Harvard Law & Policy Review)

How Stupid Is That?

In many places, stupid politicians and bureaucrats posted signs saying “Gun-Free Zone.” That’s like posting signs on sheep herds saying, “No Wolves allowed.” They’re just ignored by the criminals (or the wolves), who do not obey ANY laws, much less those that say they can’t be armed when committing their other crimes. You don’t prevent a criminal from committing a crime by posting a sign saying what he wants to do is illegal. He doesn’t care. Else he would not be a criminal. The gun-free zone is one of the stupidest ideas ever to come along. All it does is prevent people who obey laws from being armed there in self defense, leaving the way wide open for criminals, who obey NO laws. Criminals freely admit “targeting” gun-free zones because they can be pretty sure the law-abiding there will not be armed, so they can do what they want there with their ILLEGAL guns. Personally, I stay as far away from gun-free zones as I can, because I fully realize how dangerous it is for me to be there, where there is no impediment to a criminal, who just ignores them. If I am entering a restaurant and see a “No Guns” sign, I take my business elsewhere. (Story Warrant)

"Only the Cops"

To hear the anti-gun fools tell it, only the cops are qualified to have guns. But two recent cases show the fallacy of that statement. The first is the case of the female cop who somehow got into her neighbor’s apartment and shot and killed him, thinking she was in her own apartment, and he was an interloper. She got ten years for that, and her entire life is ruined after that. Her neighbor is dead. And then the Dallas cops sent a rookie on a “welfare check” because someone told them a door was open when it shouldn’t be. He came, saw, and mistook the woman who lived there for a burglar and panicking, without waiting, shot and killed her. He has now resigned, just ahead of his firing, and has been charged with murder. He is now out on a six-figure bail. Where he got that kind of money is in question, but that’s one for another time. This doesn’t show that cops are generally not qualified to have guns. Only that, like most of society, there are even some cops who shoot first, and ask questions later—if there’s anybody left alive to question. They’re human beings too. That destroys the arguments of the anti-gun fools, and shows that there is really no reason to keep the law-abiding from having guns to defend themselves from the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there in the hands of criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists. But so far, that’s true with all their arguments, and then laws they pass do NOTHING to stop “gun crime.” (CNN)

Why the Hell?

Anti-gun laws don’t work. that’s a fact, not just my opinion. So why pass them? They contribute to the gun violence they pretend to stop by disarming the law-abiding, making them “easy targets for the miscreants who could care less about obeying their laws and get their guns illegally; by buying them in a back alley somewhere, or just stealing them. So what good are all those anti-gun laws? Not a bit. At least, not to do what they tell you they’re for. I read somewhere this: “If your government tells you don’t need a gun, you need a gun.” Truer words were never spoken. A corollary to that is this: “If your government takes away your guns, can your freedom be far behind?” The one thing that is SURE to reduce gun crime is dismissed without thought. That is to allow the law-abiding to be armed in self defense. That’s in spite of the fact that the Founders made “bearing arms” a constitutional right. Allowing the law-abiding to be armed can reduce gun crime, one criminal at a time, as they are killed when trying to victimize the law-abiding. The fatal flaw in anti-gun laws is that they can only apply to people who OBEY laws, not criminals, who do NOT. We need to give the law-abiding “parity” with criminals, who will always have guns, no matter how many laws are made against it. Anti-gun fools never even ask if the gun used in a crime was obtained legally. They don’t care. They just want to “get rid of guns,” something they can never do. (Just common sense)

Democrats As Despots

Everything I’ve heard out of the mouths of Dumocrats tells me how despotic is their thinking. All they want to do is ban this, that, and the other. Beto wants to “come for your guns; all the other Dumocrats promise to “come for your guns,” too, one way or the other. Others want to repeal the Second Amendment; Hillary Clinton wants to “shred the Constitution.” Every day comes some new despotic wish declared by a Dumocrat. And they want your money to finance it. They have PROMISED, if elected, they will repeal Trump’s tax cuts and raise them even more. “Fracking” is responsible for the fact that we are now “oil independent,” and no longer dependent on foreign oil sources. That we no longer have to pay stupendous prices set by countries who hate us. Dumocrats once told us we would NEVER be “oil independent,” but we are. And they want to end it. Dumocrats also blocked that famous “oil pipeline” that has also helped keep us in oil.

They want to stop everything we do that supports our current standard of living. In New York City, a total liberal Dumocrat stronghold, they even want to ban plastic straws and “giant drinks.” The mayor just got passed a measure to fine people for what they SAY! “Thought police!” In California, their state is suffering under a liberal Dumocrat “despot.” They can’t afford to produce or buy enough electricity to keep the power on, so now they have “rolling blackouts.” Gary Dumocrat Mayor Buttgiggle wants to stop executing terrorists, but it’s okay to keep murdering helpless infants, still in the womb, who have committed NO crime except to be the unwanted result of unprotected sex. AOC’s “Green New Deal” will bankrupt us. So will most of the things “Crazy Bernie” Sanders has promised, as well as what other Dumocrats have promised. (Denver Post)

"Do Something! Anything!

What? What the hell should we DO to stop gun violence? Banning certain types of guns, or banning guns period will never work. We ban “assault rifles” (whatever they are) and we still have mass shootings using them. And mass shootings, no matter how terrible they are, only account for a small number of the people killed by guns each year. An even larger of people are killed by gang violence, and “assault rifles” are rarely used for that. They use guns obtained ILLEGALLY, since most gang members aren’t even old enough to be able to buy guns legally. Then there are the criminal types, who use their guns specifically to victimize the law-abiding, whom they are pretty sure will be unarmed, because, after all, they’re “law-abiding,” which means they abide by the law—which criminals do not.

None of the current anti-gun laws are worth a damn to restrain gun violence, but stupid politicians still insist on making them. I say “stupid” because these politicians have to know these laws are useless, even while they keep making them, and more and more law-abiding people die because of them. Of course, law BREAKERS die too. But that’s their problem. The point is, they flail around demanding we “do something,” but they have no suggestions as to WHAT we should do—because they don’t know, any more than we do. So the only thing that works to reduce gun violence is to allow the law-abiding to be armed for self defense—it’s a constitutional right, after all. They they will actually REDUCE gun crime, by killing one gun criminal at a time when he tries to victimize them. Don’t like that idea? Give me a better one. (Just common sense)

Yes, It's That Stupid!

W. Palm Beach, Florida police recently posted a sign that is so stupid it’s laughable. It said, “You Are Entering A No Crime Zone. Criminal Activity Prohibited.” Similarly, and with similar results, many people put up signs saying, “Gun-Free Zone,” thinking criminals, who obey NO laws, will somehow obey this one. Such notices are the result of the complete stupidity of the local politicians, as well as some well-meaning, but stupid private businesses. Worse yet, one company, “Dicks Sporting Goods, went so far s to destroy $5 million dollars’ worth of guns while announcing that they would no longer sell most types of guns—which was a $250 million dollar mistake that ought t cost the person responsible his job. The entire anti-gun push is similarly stupid. They think the way to self defense is to disarm yourself, making yourself DEFENSELESS against the millions of illegal guns that are out there in the hands of criminals and other miscreants such as Islamic terrorists—who have told us they plan on coming here and doing what they are now doing, elsewhere. Does anybody think these people get their guns legally? (Just common sense)

What SHOULD We Do?

In New York, one stupid anti-gun fool is “going on a hunger strike” to get us to “do something” about gun control. She still eats one meal a day, and drinks “energy drinks.” She says she’s doing it so we will pass “common sense gun laws.” But nowhere does she say what ARE “common sense gun laws.” that’s because she doesn’t know. She has no idea what ARE “common sense gun laws” and neither do we. If she was actually going on a hunger strike, and not just telling people she is, she would die of starvation before anybody else came up with a “common sense gun law” that would actually DO something about “gun crime.” Considering the way she is doing it, the only people who actually believe she is actually on a “hunger strike” are other liberal fools. This so-called “hunger strike” is pointing up the absolute stupidity of those who think making laws against guns for he law-aiding to follow. There ARE no such laws. She can’t recommend any because of that. But she wants SOMEBODY to come up with some with her “grandstanding scheme.” It isn’t going to happen, so she might as well have a good meal and just shut up. (The Guardian)

Ignorance Drives Them

I’ve always wondered what drives the anti-gun fools, and I think I’ve finally figured it out. It’s stupidity. They want to disarm everybody in the country, and they cannot. There are millions of illegal guns already out there in the hands of criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists and their followers. And more being sold or stolen, daily. You’ll notice that most of them are Dumocrats, and they plan on later coming for what’s yours, using laws that are criminal, in themselves. They don’t worry about the criminals, crazies, or Islamic terrorists because they regard them a “kindred spirits.” Notice how liberals kowtow to them in all they do. Some liberals want to abolish prisons entirely. AOC is the biggest mouth in that effort. They want to eliminate ICE and open our borders to the hordes of refugees who have been sold ab bill of goods by other liberals in their countries. Mostly they want eliminate the Constitution as the basis for all our laws so they can make laws to do exactly what they want, without limit. They tell you the way to self defense is to disarm yourselves, and that is ignorance, personified. (Just common sense)

Beto's Really Stupid

He really thinks he will have dictatorial powers if, and when he is elected president (a forlorn hope). He promises “consequences” for those who won’t “turn in their guns” when he demands it. Consequences like the cops coming to your house to take your guns, and arresting you (or shooting you) if you try and refuse. This is just one more reason NOT to elect Beto, or any of the other Dumocrats, who all think likewise. There is not a single Dumocrat presidential candidate who doesn’t plan of “coming for your guns” if elected. And that included the front-runners. It’s like they don’t want to get elected, at all, they way they’re threatening the electorate with higher taxes, gun theft, and many other things. They discount then constitution, thinking they can just ignore it, with impunity. And they’re right. There is no penalty for passing unconstitutional laws, except for their reversal by the Supreme Court—whenever they get around to it. That’s something that needs to change, to keep corrupt politicians from passing so may unconstitutional laws and enforcing them until the Supreme Court gets around to reversing them, long after a lot of damage has been done. (Washington Free Beacon)

Swalwell's 65-Point Plan

Eric Swalwell thinks he’s got it done. All he has to do is get his 65-point plan to control guns and ammunition into effect. His plan contains nothing new, and is a collection of all the tired old laws and regulations that have not worked worth a damn to “stop gun crime.” It’s an effort for this Dumocrat presidential candidate to revive his flagging presidential campaign, and it won’t work any better that all his potential anti-gun laws worked. Since he listens only to liberal Dumocrats, he thinks the world wants gun control, without knowing what gun control will ever stop, or even slow down “gun crime.” I don’t think even he believes his effort will do anything about gun crime, but he hopes it will help his flagging presidential campaign. His plan is so complicated that nobody can really understand it, and that’s okay with him. The less people understand his plan, the less able they are to point out its flaws, and that suits him right down to his toes. Swalwell is the guy, you remember, who told us the government “had nukes” they could use on us, so they could pass laws to control guns. Nuclear force to “get rid of guns,” of course. Somebody needs to tell Swalwell that more violence is not the route to less violence, and that law breakers will never obey his laws, even if he manages to get them passed. (Guns)

Aiming At the Wrong Target

That’s the big thing about “gun control.” Anti-gun fools assume that the guns used to victimize people are legally obtained, and making it difficult, or impossible to get guns legally will solve the “Gun crime” problem. They’re clearly, abysmally WRONG. It is obvious from the fact that where anti-gun laws are the strongest, “gun crime” is also at a high level. I hate to repeat myself, but I have to note that Chicago is one of the very best illustrations of that. Every one of their highly vaunted anti-gun laws are in effect there, while gun deaths are at an unreasonably high level, as well. That’s a fact roundly ignored by the anti-gun fools as they go about trying to eliminate our constitutionally guaranteed right to self defense, and to own and use the means to that, a gun. Any kind of a gun, with no limitations. None at all. Anti-gun fools try and pick the Second Amendment apart, chiseling, little by little on it all the time. Getting rid of legally owned guns in the hands of the law-abiding does NOT reduce “gun crime.” It INCREASES it, by disarming the potential victims of the ILLEGAL guns the bad guys use, so the law-abiding are DEFENSELESS against them. I’m sorry if you’ve heard all this before, but it takes only a few words to debunk all of the anti-gun bunk you’re being fed, daily. So I’m afraid I will continue to repeat myself as long as “the powers that be” ignore me. The linked article is even further evidence of what I’m saying. (Wall Street Journal)

"Shall Not Be Infringed!"

I guess gun control depends on how you define the word “infringed.” Infringed means blocking something by WHATEVER MEANS. Anti-gun fools don’t define it that way as they go about doing everything in their power to “infringe” on gun ownership for the law-abiding. The Constitution (to which ALL LAWS must conform) clearly states that “the right of a free people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That means ANY law that infringes on gun ownership is null and void, is no law at all. They recognize that they cannot just BAN guns altogether, so they do everything they can to make gun ownership impossible for the average person (the rich, of course, will always be able to afford them). Meanwhile, those making such laws, while they normally don’t carry guns themselves (some do), HIRE people to carry and use guns for their “protection,” while making impossible for us to do the same. They require “background checks” to buy ammunition, without which guns are useless lumps of metal. Now some fool has come up with the idea to impose an impossible TAX on gun ownership, which will put it out of reach for most people. Either one is an INFRINGEMENT on the Second Amendment, but has just not been declared so by the Supreme Court. Yet. (The War On Guns)

"Inaction On Gun Control"

That’s what many people decry. But they cant’ tell us WHAT action we should take, because there ISN’T any that will stop a single mass shooting from happening. They flail about demanding our politicians DO something, but nobody knows WHAT we should DO. Banning guns does not work. In the areas with the tightest anti-gun laws, the number of “gun deaths” is at the highest, anywhere. The City of Chicago is one of the best examples of this. In Chicago, ALL of their favorite anti-gun laws are in effect, but they are IGNORED by those who want to use guns to victimize people, as well as gang members who victimize each other, and any innocents who get in the way of their badly-aimed bullets. All their highly vaunted anti-gun laws do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down the “gun violence” in Chicago, or in any other city with similar laws. All they do is disarm the law-abiding, giving the lawless “free rein” to victimize them. Criminals love anti-gun laws because they tend to disarm their intended victims, and they don’t obey ANY laws, anyway. So why the hell should they obey an anti-gun law? So what good ARE the anti-gun laws if that’s all they do? What laws should we pass? They can’t answer. All they can do is rail against us for “inaction” on gun crime, without telling us what to do, since there is NOTHING that can be done if you merely blame the gun, rather than the hand that holds it. (The Guardian)

Why Do They Do It?

I’ve been asking myself for a long time, why do the anti-gun fools keep making those useless, unenforceable anti-gun laws that only make it easier for the lawless to victimize the law-abiding? They have to be aware of the fact that none of their laws or regulations have ever stopped a single miscreant from using their ILLEGAL guns to victimize the law-abiding by disarming them? You can make all the laws you want to stop the law-abiding from getting guns, but you’ll never stop the lawless from getting their guns illegally. Wherever the anti-gun laws are the tightest, the black market in illegal guns gets stronger. Criminals never have any trouble getting the guns they use to victimize the law-abiding. The answer, I’m afraid, is much more sinister. It’s about POWER.

The power to tell us what we can, and cannot do, while taking away from us the means to oppose them when they come after our property and our rights. That contretemps out west a few years ago where there was a standoff between a rancher and the government over “grazing rights,” where they isolated one of his men while the FBI chased him down and murdered him is a good example. These people had guns, and the government couldn’t just “go in and walk on them” like they wanted. They want less of that. Notice that almost ALL politicians who want to take our guns are Dumocrats. That’s because the Dumocrat Party is the party of would-be dictators. Don’t believe it? Just listen to what their myriad presidential candidates are promising IF they get elected. (Just common sense)

"We're Not Anti-Gun"

That’s what “MOMS Against Guns” (or something like that) say, even though everything they do is geared toward getting guns out of the hands of honest, law-abiding people, leaving them at the mercy of the lawless, who just don’t obey ANY laws, much less the ones MOMS cons people into passing. Meanwhile, head “MOM” Shannon Watts calls gun confiscation “innovative and exciting.” If that isn’t anti-gun, I’d like to know what is. What I do know is that this bi… er, witch gets an excellent salary as head of MOMS, and the net result of her actions is to disarm only the law-abiding. If she has her way, the only people who have guns will be the lawless. And she wants to make us think she and her organization is not “anti-gun.” Well, Shannon, we’re more intelligent than that. We can see right through your lies—all of them. I don’t know what you gain from all this, unless it’s that handsome salary you’re making as head of MOMS. But we can see right through you and put a stopper to as much of what you do as we can. (CBS News)

Twisting the Numbers

The anti-gun fools always get numbers that favor their position by twisting the figures to suit themselves. Example: self defense killings are reported by them as “murder.” Suicide (the biggest number) is not separated from other kinds of gun deaths and is used routinely to inflate the numbers. They have a large segment labeled “other” that includes unintentional deaths, law-enforcement shootings, or deaths from “undetermined circumstances.” But they are still “reported” as “gun deaths.” There don’t seem to be enough REAL numbers for them to cite, so they twist the numbers they can to support their position. Which means when they come out with “reports” that sound bad for pro-gun people, they’re likely false. They can’t be depended upon. You’d think these people would realize their mistakes and go off in another direction. Stop blaming the gun, which is useless, and try to find the real cause of what “gun crime” there is. But they don’t seem to be intelligent enough to “put 2 and 2 together and get 4. And there are many anti-gun fools making a very good living touting gun control, so they’re not going to stop what they’re doing, as long as gun control can “bring in the bucks.” (Just common sense)

Using Any Excuse

This government is now officially out of control when it comes to gun confiscation. They’re now using any excuse to come and take guns away from law-abiding people, while ignoring the lawless and their guns. I’ve seen several cases recently where they took guns away from a law-abiding person with no record because he/she called their attention to him/her. In several cases recently they took them away from vets who had them specifically for self protection. In the case linked here, this guy, who is a Korean War veteran, expressed “concern” about a potential school shooting. He committed no crime, and displayed no probability that he would use his guns to commit a crime. He is 84, and worked as a crossing guard after his wife died, to “keep busy” and because he loves kids. He lost that job after his guns were taken, and all because somebody misheard a comment he made about a school shooting. Believe me an 84 year-old is not going to commit a mass shooting! This guy is just “hanging on,” waiting to die, as are all of us in our 80s. And if some young buck comes and threatens one of us with his ILLEGAL guns, we need to have our own guns to use in opposing him, or die. We're certainly not able to overpower him. But “Red Flag Laws” allow this kind of gun confiscation, and they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But they will be enforced until the Supreme Court says its piece, and the damage will be done, as it was in this case. (Western Journal)

The $250 Million Mistake

Anti-gun laws are useless. They do NOTHING to reduce gun violence. In fact, they make things worse by disarming those who are not likely to use them to violate the law, leaving them completely defenseless against those who WILL. Dicks Sporting Goods bought the lies fed them by the anti-gun fools and stopped selling guns, which cost them $250 million dollars in sales of all sorts of things, since gun owners just stopped buying from them. Whichever executive who made this stupid move should be FIRED. And blackballed, so he (or she) can never be in a position to make such a stupid decision, and cost any company that kind of money. $250 billion dollars is a lot of money, and any executive that makes a decision that costs his or her company that much money for a stupid reason has no business being in a position to make such decisions. I know Dicks is a big company. But are they big enough to survive a $250 billion dollar loss? Will they “go under” because of this? Targeting the guns in trying to stop gun violence does not work. That’s a fact—not just my opinion. But anti-gun fools will not see it. They persist in their useless posturing while law-abiding people die. They actually destroyed $5 million dollars’ worth of guns at this executive’s direction. What a way to declare his/her stupidity! (Fox News)

It's A Death Sentence

Paris Police have been disarmed. Which is a death sentence for many of them if they attempt to do their duty without guns to oppose the illegal guns that proliferate in the hands of the criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists. Disarming the cops is INSANE! I remember when two Islamic terrorists came to the offices of a satire magazine there, and murdered 11 people because they had the temerity to actually publish a picture of Mohammad, while unarmed cops had to hide behind their cars and watch. They were unable to “take a hand” because they didn’t have any guns to use in defending those11 people. So those people died while the unarmed cops cowered behind their cars, knowing that if they tried to intervene, they to, would die. I suggest every cop who has been disarmed by the damned fool politicians should resign, effective immediately. Let those damned fool politicians try and find someone dumb enough to replace them. It’s a terrible thing when damned fool politicians can put good people in deadly danger by their misguided orders, but it happens, everywhere. Disarming the cops has even been suggested, here. Fortunately, nobody has yet been stupid enough to actually do it. (Breitbart)

Democrats Ignore the Constitution

It sickens me to hear Dumocrat candidates threaten (promise) to “come for your guns” if they get elected to the presidency. As if they had the right to do so, under the law, which is based on the Constitution. They talk as if becoming president will give them dictatorial powers, so they can ignore the Constitution and do what they want, in spite of the fact that the Constitution, to which ALL LAWS must conform, PROHIBITS them from “coming for your guns” if they are legally owned. Dumocrats have always acted as if they didn’t have to follow the Constitution, when they MUST. Which is just one more reason NEVER to vote for a Dumocrat because they WILL do things that are prohibited by the Constitution, and enforce those unconstitutional laws until the Supreme Court “jerks them up short.” Of course, by then, the damage will have been done. People will have lost their legally-obtained guns and will be DEFENSELESS against the criminals with their illegally-obtained guns. Some will have been imprisoned, and lost property and status. All because they may have “violated” an ILLEGAL LAW. (Daily Caller)

It's All About Power

This situation proves it. Now they want to make a law requiring people to ASK PERMISSION to defend themselves. Universal Background Checks are bad enough. They give the government control over an inalienable right. The power to license means they have the power to say “NO.” And to go along with it means you’re giving the government your permission to take away your right to own and use a gun for self defense. Their argument is that universal background checks “keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” It does NOT. Criminals merely find a black market gun dealer and get their guns illegally, or just steal them. None of their anti-gun laws do anything to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” The proliferation of ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals proves that. The worst example of this is the “gun-free zone,” something that is popping up all over the country, by law in some places, and by the decisions of the owners of private businesses in others. All they do is guarantee a criminal that the law-abiding (their targets) will not be armed there, and they can victimize them at will. Each and every mass shooting has occurred IN a “gun-free zone.” The anti-gun fools are KILLING us! We need to stop electing them to offices where they can impose their will upon us. (NOQ Report)

Self Defense Is Violence!

That’s how the anti-gun fools define it, anyway. Hobby Lobby is being criticized by the anti-gun fools for “selling items promoting gun violence.” Things like bumper stickers that say, “No Trespassing! Violators Will Be Shot. Survivors Will Be Shot Again.” Or, “You Can Have My Gun When I’m Out Of Bullets.” Both promoting only SELF DEFENSE, which is a constitutional right. But to the anti-gun fools, ANY use of a gun, even for self defense, is “gun violence.” Whenever some fool starts shooting, they jump on it, demanding more of their stupid, unenforceable, USELESS laws that do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down real “gun violence,” which is usually carried out using ILLEGAL guns. They never recognize the difference between gun victimization and gun defense to that victimization. To them, it’s all “gun violence.” This is how they inflate their “numbers” when they tell us all about how much “gun violence” there is, and why we need more laws against guns, for everybody. Never mind the bad guys just IGNORE their laws and shoot us, anyway. And, of course, if they don’t have any numbers to inflate, they just make them up. That’s not just my opinion, it is a proven fact. (Yahoo)

The Best Gun Salesmen

For many, it is anti-gun Dumocrats, such as Barack Obama and others, such as Senator Feinstein or others, all Dumocrats. Everything they do causes a spike in gun sales. Obama has been cited as the top gun salesman in the country, but there is a better one: mass shootings. Every time there is a mass shooting, there is always a “spike” in gun sales, as people buy guns for self defense. Meanwhile, anti-gun fools always jump right on them and demand more of their useless, unenforceable anti-gun laws be passed. Never mind none of their damned fool laws have EVER stopped a single gun killing. The net result of their meddling is the death of many law-abiding people, who do obey those laws, even while knowing they are stupid. What they do is cause an INCREASE in “gun crime” by disarming the law-abiding in the face of the millions of ILLEGAL guns there are, already out there. Gun control laws do work in the way the politicians wish. That is, they give politicians more power to tell us what we can, and cannot do—which is their main purpose. (New York Post)

"For Me, Not For Thee"

Many of the huge number of Dumocrat candidates for president are anti-gun fools. They think passing a law that says criminals can’t use guns to victimize people will actually cause a reduction in “gun crime.” It will not, but they aren’t smart enough to understand that simple fact. In Florida, they made a law allowing teachers to bring their legally-carried guns to school so as to protect themselves and their students if some fool comes in and starts shooting them. One of those many Dumocrat candidates, Kamilla Harris, who admittedly carries her own gun “for personal protection,” immediately spoke up in opposition, saying, “[W]e need more books and pencils in schools, not more guns.” She carries a gun “for personal protection,” but wants to make it impossible for YOU to do likewise, and especially teachers, who only carry them into their schools for the PROTECTION of your children. She’d rather both DIE, rather than be able to bring a legal gun in, so as to be able to defend themselves, instead of being “easy targets.” Mass shooters love to shoot up schools because they know they ARE “no-gun zones.” (Breitbart)

Anti-Gun Insanity!

Talk about “doubling down on stupid!” The anti-gun fools are so damned insane that they have now entered the world of complete lunacy. A little girl pointed a FINGER at a classmate, pretending it’s a gun, and they charged her with a felony, then led her away in handcuffs! How is it remotely possible for a 12-year-old CHILD to hurt anybody with her FINGER? The person who charged her needs to be locked up in a loony bin and forgotten. Talk about overreaching! And if there’s a judge, anywhere, who will agree to this fiasco, that judge needs to join that prosecutor in the loony bin. All involved in charging this innocent little girl with a felony need to be locked up with them. The anti-gun fools are getting more and more desperate, every day, as they fail to get their fool laws passed because they don’t work to do anything except to make the law-abiding DEFENSELESS against the millions of ILLEGAL guns already out there. In desperation comes insanity, and charging a CHILD with a felony for pointing her FINGER at someone definitely rises to that level. This action is definite proof of the desperation of the anti-gun fools. I agree with one of the comments to the story linked here. There’s a more appropriate finger to be raised about this fiasco, and aimed at those so-called “authorities.” (Flag and Cross)

Exposing the Gun Lie

The anti-gun fools tell you, every day, that “gun crime” is out of control, so we need to disarm the legal owners of guns and leave them defenseless against the millions of ILLEGAL guns already out there in the hands of the neer-do-wells who want to victimize us. But that’s a LIE, told you to frighten you into letting them disarm you, to your detriment. There are now more concealed carriers In the United States than ever, and crime generally iS DOWN! That’s a combination of numbers the anti-gun fools would rather you not know so they can continue to disarm you in the face of the criminals who still want to victimize you. So the presence of those concealed carriers IS having an effect on crime by removing one criminal at a time from the ranks of those who would use their illegal guns to victimize you. That do that by killing, injuring, and apprehending those criminals when they try. The numbers of criminals “taken down” by concealed carriers is increasing, day by day, and will soon go down, after most of the criminals are dead or in prison. The anti-gun fools are in panic, and do everything they can to conceal this from you so they can better control you. (Guns)

Deluded Anti-Gun Researcher

He seems to think that background checks could have prevented Sandy Hook massacre. He is deluded if he thinks that. The shooter first murdered his own mother, then STOLE a gun or guns from her. How a background check would have had any effect on that is a mystery. At no time did this killer EVER have an opportunity to stand for a background check. He wanted to commit a dastardly crime, so he STOLE the gun or guns used. This “researcher” also thinks better mental health research will not have much of an effect on “gun crime.” In that, he’s wrong, too. Better mental health WOULD help reduce such crimes by better being about to recognize murderous Intent in a person and “take him out of the game” before he can carry them out. Background checks, like all other anti-gun fool laws, do NOTHING to stop, or even reduce “gun crime.” That’s the problem. Targeting the gun is futile. It only stops the law-abiding from getting guns easily, which is useless because a potential mass killer will get his guns by buying them ILLEGALLY or STEALING them. (Public News Service)

National Gun Tax

While the country pays close attention to Beto O’Rourke’s blatant threat to violate the Second Amendment and “come for your guns” if he is elected president (a forlorn hope, that) nobody seems to be paying much attention to another Dumocrat presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren, who plans to tax guns at 30%, plus a 50% tax on ammunition, something that will make it impossible for most low-wage people to own guns, even if the law allows it. Fortunately, neither candidate has much chance of ever getting enough votes to be elected. But the fact remains that MOST, if not all Dumocrat presidential candidates have expressed some interest in “gun control,” even though gun control has proven itself to do NOTHING to reduce “gun crime,” anywhere it has been tried. Chicago is a prime example. Almost every anti-gun fool law existing is in effect there, yet every weekend people are killed in double digits and more, mostly by ILLEGAL guns. Similar figures in “gun crime” are extant in almost every major city in the country, even the world. Great Britain, for example, has made it almost impossible for the law-abiding to get guns, and now are fighting “knife crime,” by banning pointed knives—another futile effort that will come to nothing. (American Action News)

NRA "Inciting Violence?"

How stupid are people who believe that? It is obvious that what NRA does is stand up for a constitutional right, while teaching people the SAFE operation of guns, That is in NO WAY an “incitement to violence.” By doing that, they’re also standing up for SELF DEFENSE against the millions of ILLEGAL GUNS already out there. Standing up for self defense does NOT make them a “terrorist organization,” as San Francisco seems to think. They can’t answer the cogent questions the NRA ask, so they try to “criminalize them” in the minds of gullible people. Word is that 32% of people asked think NRA is “inciting violence.” That means 68% believe otherwise. And it is that 68% that is right. Notice it is 32% of DUMOCRAT VOTERS who believe this LIE. And 68% do NOT. Which shows that there ARE some intelligent Dumocrats out there. The City of San Francisco declared NRA to be a “terrorist organization,” but had to back down and reverse itself when NRA sued them. They know their declaration would never hold up to the intelligent scrutiny that suit would cause. Fact is, the Second Amendment GUARANTEES us the right to “bear arms.” That’s a fact the anti-gun fools would like to get rid of. But constitutional rights are hard to take away, by design. So tyrants like the Dumocrats are “held back” in their efforts to trample on us. (Daily Caller)

"Only the Government"

“Can be trusted to carry guns.” That’s the argument normally put forth by a dictator to legitimize the disarming of the populace so he can more easily victimize them. Which is why I maintain that “Beto” O’Rourke thinks being president makes him a dictator, and he wants to get started on disarming “his people” early so he can better victimize them later while meeting a minimum of effective opposition. Other Dumocrat presidential candidates have similar ideas, but Beto’s are more solid, right now. Which means there should be NO WAY he should ever get NEAR the Oval Office except maybe as a visitor to the sitting president. Other Dumocrat candidates likewise should be kept far away from the presidency because everything they promise are things no intelligent person should want, or allow a politician to impose upon us. Of course, not mentioned is the FACT that anti-gun laws do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down “gun crime” and, conversely, INCREASE it by disarming the law-abiding, making them “easy targets” for ILLEGALLY gun-wielding criminals, some of whom work for the government. I’ve said this many times, and am roundly ignored by people who should know better, but who do NOT. Beto makes this argument at Kent State, where students were wrongfully killed, by THE GOVERNMENT! (Reason)