"Shall Not Be Infringed!"

What part of that do the anti-gun fools not understand? The Constitution, to which ALL laws made in the United States MUST conform, has a Second Amendment, which firmly states that “the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” Yet every anti-gun law made infringes on that right. They might as well just make self defense illegal. There is no constitutional mention of self defense, and they might even get away with it. Or if they tried it, they might have caused a revolution, during which they, as the progenitors, would be killed in battle. I think that’s what they’re after, anyway. Making self defense illegal. It certainly seems that way, since whenever somebody uses some kind of a weapon in self defense, the cops want take it away from them, “as evidence,” of course. It doesn’t even have to be a gun. But they will certainly take away a gun that has been used in self defense. It looks as if they WANT you to be defenseless. And I think they do. If I walked down the street with a gun in my pocket and they caught me—without me breaking a single law with that gun, they’d arrest me and put me in jail, just for waking down the street with a gun in my pocket. Of course they’ll say I broke the law if the gun isn’t “properly registered” and I haven’t bothered to stand for a “background check,” but BOTH laws are unconstitutional “infringements” on my constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.” (Just common sense)

Self Defense Without A Gun

Certain politicians tell you that you don’t need a gun because the cops can protect you. They cannot. And the cops will be the first to tell you that. The key here is time; the time it takes them from when they’re called, until they can make it to “the scene.” In that time, many people can be hurt while they wait. If somebody is there with their own gun, and able to oppose the attacker on an even keel, fewer people can be hurt during that time. But many times—most, actually-- when that armed fool comes in, you don’t have someone there with a gun to oppose him. That’s when you need to understand that a defensive weapon doesn’t need to be a gun. There are many defensive weapons around you, all the time, wherever you are. Anything with a little weight can be an effective club, and if you get the opportunity, you can use it that way. Not as effective as a gun, but the desperation of being faced with that gun may make their use necessary, if you are alert to the opportunity. I have 2 33 fluid ounce water bottles at my elbow that can be used to brain an inattentive gunman if need be. Beside my bed is a 2-cell metal flashlight that can be used in a similar manner. I have another one on the front seat of my car to use on anybody who reaches through the window of my car to assault me in a “road rage” incident. If you have a heavy ash tray nearby, that can also be used. The point is, be alert to these potential defensive weapons. If you’re being threatened by a gunman, don’t try it unless he gives you the opportunity by being careless, but most personal attacks do not involve guns, and these “hidden weapons” can be used. (Just common sense)

Gun-Free Zones

One of the silliest ideas anti-gun fools have come up with is the “gun-free zone.” People put up signs saying, “No Guns Allowed Here” and law-breakers fill them full of bullet holes. Law-breakers SEEK OUT gun-free zones because they can be pretty sure the law-abiding people there will not be armed, because they DO obey laws, even if they know they’re stupid laws. They have to know this, but they continue to establish more and more of them, while people die there because they’re disarmed and helpless when a law-breaker brings his ILLEGAL gun there to kill a few people. So far, with one or two exceptions, ALL mass shootings have occurred IN a “gun-free zone.” A favorite place for mass shootings is a school—ALL of which are gun-free zones. But a gun-free zone has never stopped a potential mass shooter from coming in and killing a few people. So what the hell GOOD are gun-free zones? Like all the other anti-gun fool bright ideas, they just get honest people killed, because all they do is disarm the law-abiding, while the law-breakers ignore them and kill people therein. The recent shooting in Milwaukee was in a gun-free zone, surprise, surprise! (The Gun Feed)

Bored Politicians

Sometimes I wonder at the things some politicians put forward. It seems like they’re bored, don’t have enough to do, and want “a project,” no matter how stupid it is. One such is the bill now in Congress to ban certain hair styles. What the HELL do they think gives them the right to DICTATE people’s hair styles? Another is gun control. Gun control is a useless endeavor. If you ban a gun, law-breakers will get their guns ILLEGALLY. They ARE law-breakers, after all. Why do we call them that? Because they break laws! So no amount of anti-gun laws are going to stop them from getting their guns and victimizing the law-abiding, who DO obey laws, even when they’re STUPID laws. That makes them DEFENSELESS against those millions of illegal guns in the hands of those law-breakers. That just makes it easier for the law-breakers to victimize the law-abiding, just the opposite of what they CLAIM their laws are supposed to do. So why do they insist on making even more of them every time some fool takes an ILLEGAL gun and shoots somebody? Because they don’t have enough to do, and are bored. I get really tired of writing the same words over and over, but I will continue to do so until anti-gun fools “wise up,” which will probably be never. They just don’t have the intelligence. (Black Doctor)

Excesses of Gun-Grabbers

The father of one of those children killed by an ILLEGAL gun at that Parkland school thinks people should be jailed, just for having a gun, legal or illegal. This is the kind of excess that you can expect of fools, who think they can solve all the violence problems by getting rid of legal guns. I guess he thinks ALL legal gun owners should be jailed, including the cops and various “government agents” who are armed so they don’t get killed by those with ILLEGAL guns. The fact that ALL anti-gun fools ignore is that crime is not, for the most part, committed by people who buy their guns legally and stand for gun registration. It is committed by those who get their guns ILLEGALLY. And they do NOT stand for inclusion in a list of gun owners. I commiserate with him on losing his daughter. I lost a daughter—and a son—to drugs, but I realize no amount of lawmaking would have saved them, so I don’t go out and do the stupid things this Parkland dad is doing. You can’t bring back your children who have become victims of criminals by making laws against the law-abiding. And making laws that do nothing but make it easier for those ILLEGAL gun holders to victimize them will never help. (The Gun Feed)

Didn't Plan On That

Virginia Governor Northam did his best (worst) to make it look like there was going to be an “armed riot” in Richmond the other day, and was sorely disappointed when nobody got shot, even though many guns were in evidence there. Event-goers even cleaned up after themselves. And there was only ONE ARREST, of a woman, for wearing a mask. Northam finally came out of his hidey-hole and had to admit the even was completely peaceful, after he “went off half-cocked” and declared a “state of emergency” on not a single bit of evidence. The final result? Gun sales increased almost 50% over 2018! So all he accomplished with his irrational histrionics was almost half again the number of LEGAL gun sales this year. And no telling how many ILLEGAL gun sales there were. Of course, the legal gun sales are all he is concerned with, because that’s all he can control—maybe. He can’t control how many illegal gun sales there are, and never will. This time, instead of being “black-faced,” he was “red-faced” when it was all over. And the citizens of the state of Virginia will deal with him in the next election. (CNS News)

The "Ban Everything" Party

That’s the Dumocrat Party. They haven’t met anything they didn’t want to ban. They think, if they get elected, they have “unlimited power,” and they can ban everything they want, regardless of the law. Tops on their list to ban are guns. Just about every Dumocrat running for president right now has an “anti-gun plan.” Never mind such “plans” are prohibited by the Constitution, which is the BASIS for all our laws. They MUST conform to it, or they are not laws, at all. But that doesn’t seem to bother Dumocrats. Joe Biden says to gun manufacturers, “I’m coming for you!” For WHAT? Gun makers are engaged in a lawful enterprise. They’re not breaking any laws. So what are you going to “come after them” FOR, Joe? Bloomberg wants to ban everything. In NYC he banned plastic straws and huge soft drinks sold in convenience stores. Those are just the best known bans he promoted, outside the millions he has spent to “get rid of guns.” They all are stupid enough to believe that banning guns, no matter how illegal that is, will eliminate crime. They have to be aware that NONE of their highly vaunted anti-gun laws have done a single thing to stop “gun violence,” but they ignore that and go right on making more and more of their useless, unenforceable laws that do nothing except make it easier for the lawless to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey laws, even stupid ones, while the lawless do not. All their anti-gun laws do is get the law-abiding killed by disarming them. (Just common sense)

"Gun Rally Terrorizes Richmond"

That’s what Virginia Governor Northham wants you to think, but that’s not what happened, at all. Contrary to all the blather, the rally was as peaceful a rally as has ever been, in spite of Northam’s efforts to paint it as a “dangerous uprising” by declaring a “state of emergency” prior to the rally. None of what Northam predicted came to pass. Nobody fired a shot, even though guns were in abundance among rally-goers. The cops in the crowd were completely at ease, since even they didn’t believe Northam’s attempts to make the rally LOOK bad. Richmond, for the most part, was “business as usual,” with rally-goers and other civilians co-mingling peacefully. Northam worked really hard to make this look like an “uprising” by out-of-control gun-lovers, while the rally attendees proved him wrong at every turn There was only a single arrest near the rally. Virginia House Delegate Lee Carter claimed he got death threats because of the bills he introduced, but I sincerely doubt it. Claiming death threats is a standard ploy by Dumocrats to get what they want. He even called the rally terrorism, even though there wasn’t a single instance that could be described as terrorism. He even called some masked people terrorists for just wearing masks. Even Northam finally had to admit that the rally was completely peaceful—after he came out of his “hidey-hole” when he figured nobody would be shooting at him. This is how anti-gun fools “whip up” support for their useless, unenforceable anti-gun laws. “Cry wolf” and use the ensuing confusion to get their silly laws passed. (Washington Free Beacon)

I'm Baaack!

Didja miss me? Wedding over. My grandson’s an “instant father” since his new wife has two adorable little girls, one 7 the other 9, who were the flower girl and the ring bearer respectively. They were the hit of the wedding. It was an outdoor wedding on a cold day, but I survived. Now I’m back, and liberals hate that.

"Painfully Stupid Lawmakers!"

In Oregon they are passing many unconstitutional laws, “because they can.” ANY law that “infringes” upon the Second Amendment RIGHT to be armed IS unconstitutional BECAUSE it infringes on that right. But stupid lawmakers pass them anyway, and enforce them until somebody spends enough money on lawyers to get it before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court gets around to ruling. Then it depends on how the Supreme Court rules, and even if they declare it unconstitutional, the damage has been done. People’s lives have been ruined, money is lost, people are “stained” with the felon label. Some of this cannot be undone, even if the law is declared unconstitutional. But that’s what those lawmakers depend on. The slowness of GETTING their laws declared unconstitutional, coupled with the cost of getting it before the Court. Then they can immediately pass a similar law and enforce THAT until the next time it can be brought before the Court. Meanwhile, gun owners suffer and are kept as unarmed targets, BECAUSE they, unlike law-breakers, OBEY the law, even if it is a stupid law. (AmmoLand)

Gun Control Is Ludicrous

I just don’t understand the anti-gun fools. They have to know that NONE of their highly-touted anti-gun laws have EVER stopped a single illegal shooting. What’s more, they have INCREASED illegal shootings by making the law-abiding defenseless against people using ILLEGAL guns. Yet they ignore absolute evidence of this, and insist on making even more of their useless, unenforceable anti-gun laws, while people die daily because of their laws. Background checks do not stop “gun crime.” They only let the cops find the killers, IF they got their guns legally, which law-breakers never do. “Gun-free zones” are about the stupidest idea on the planet. Law-breakers freely admit that tey SEEK OUT “gun-free zones” in which to do their dirty work because they can be pretty sure the law-abiding will not be armed there, and they can rob and kill people freely. Other laws like “Safe storage” laws only serve to slow down the response of the law-abiding to an attack by a law-breaker, and often just gets them killed while they’re trying to get their gun into action to oppose that law-breaker. Where anti-gun laws are the tightest, gun sales are also highest. Every time you hear about a mass shooting it is usually IN a “fun-free zone.” So what GOOD is it? I could go on and on, but I won’t. I don’t want to bore anybody. (Just common sense)

No Posts Tomorrow

I’ll be out of town attending my grandson’s wedding after a 300 mile road trip, so there won’t be any new posts until Monday.

It Just Doesn't Do It

Like all the anti-gun laws, “assault rifle bans” do NOTHING to top, or even slow down mass shootings. Why is that, you ask? Because potential mass shooters, who are contemplating a VERY serious crime, just are not concerned about violating a silly little law that says they can’t get the guns they want to use to kill a lot of people legally. With one or two exceptions, every mass shooting that ever happened was accomplished with an ILLEGAL gun. So how the hell do they figure to stop mass killings by making a law against the very gun they get illegally? There is one thing that is common to ALL anti-gun laws. That is that THEY DON’T WORK. Not only that, they help to INCREASE gun violence by disarming the law-abiding, who are the intended targets of the users of illegal guns. Anti-gun fools are too stupid to see this. They have to know their laws just make things worse, but they keep making them, while criticizing those of us who ARE smart enough to know they don’t work and oppose their making. (Breitbart)

"Only the Cops"

A regular refrain among the anti-gun fools is that “Only the cops should have guns.” That’s so the cops could “lord it over us with impunity.” But. That. Will. Never. Happen. Even if they manage to eliminate all LEGAL guns, there are still millions of ILLEGAL guns already out there, in the hands of the people they do need to worry about, the law-breakers. The only guns they will be able to eliminate are those in the hands of the law-abiding, who are NOT the ones they need to worry about. That’s the basic flaw in the reasoning of the anti-gun fools. That by removing guns from the law-abiding, they can “stop gun crime.” That’s a fool’s scheme. The law-abiding do not use their guns for “gun crime.” They use them to defend themselves FROM gun crime. Take away their guns and gun crime has no impediment, and holders of illegal guns will “run roughshod over them.” Each and every anti-gun law only serves to make it easier for the law-breakers to victimize the law-abiding, by making the law-abiding defenseless against the illegally-armed law-breakers (Just common sense)

Yes, It Damned Sure Is!

Amy Klobachar says “Mandatory gun buybacks are NOT gun confiscation.” Amy, Amy, Amy! What PLANET do you live on? What is there about MANDATORY that you don’t understand? If you’re a gun owner (legal only) and the politicians in your area hold a MANDATORY gun buyback that means you MUST bring your gun and sell it to them for whatever lowball price they’re going to pay you. Then you go back home, gunless. What’s the difference between that and “gun confiscation,” Amy? You can’t fool intelligent people by just saying such things, Amy. Mandatory (forced) gun buyback IS gun confiscation because you are TAKING their guns while “paying” them a pittance—a price YOU set, and which they MUST accept, whether or not they want to accept it. That’s confiscation. You can’t deny that by saying so. Only the gullible will believe you. People who have ILLEGAL guns will not be bringing their guns in for you to “confiscate.” They violated the law to buy or steal them, and they aren’t going to obey the law and let you take them away. They NEED them to use in victimizing those gullible people who bring their guns to you and go home defenseless. Amy, you’re too stupid to be president. Go home. (Washington Examiner)

Changing the Second Amendment

Liberals, if they see an impediment to their complete takeover of the government, making it a dictatorship with them always in charge, they want to “move the goalposts.” They’d like to eliminate the First, AND the Second Amendments to the Constitution because the First allows conservatives to say the truth (if demonstrators and college students don’t drown them out), while the Second assures they will not be able to just “walk over” us in their quest for power. The First also guarantees a free press, although today’s liberal media “self-censors,” adhering to liberal-dictated “speech,” where people are only allowed to use “approved words” or are castigated for not using them. The Second assures we will be able to maintain (mostly) the First, by guaranteeing our right to “bear arms” in self defense, even against our own government, if necessary. They want to “modify” both Amendments, but both are “yes or no” questions. Either we have to right to say what we wish without fearing government action, or we’re not. In the Second, either we’re allowed to “bear arms,” or we’re not. There is no “modifying” them without eliminating them, altogether—and that’s exactly what liberals want. (Just common sense)

"Gun-Free Great Britain"

In England, they have an almost “gun-free country.” Having no such thing as a Second Amendment, their anti-gun laws are so complete that it’s almost impossible for a private citizen to own or carry a gun, while almost ALL “government agents” in one way or another are armed—except for a few gullible cops who go out among illegally-armed criminals and try to enforce the law upon them while not being armed, themselves. Crime should be non-existent, according to the anti-gun fools—right? Why then, were there 10,000 “gun crimes” committed in one year recently? How did that happen when owning and using guns is illegal for British citizens? Do you mean some people don’t OBEY those laws? Horrors! Whodathunkit? I guess the “British Gun Experience” is even more proof that banning guns just doesn’t work, right? So why do anti-gun fools keep making those laws? Because they’re stupid, that’s why. All the anti-gun laws accomplish is making it easier for those with ILLEGAL guns to be able to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey those laws, even if they know they’re stupid. Why are they stupid? Because they don’t work. And they KNOW they don’t work, but they keep making them. That’s stupidity. (Breitbart)

"State of Emergency?"

The governor of Virginia was so frightened at what he had created, he declared a state of emergency during the then upcoming gun control event that was scheduled. He was afraid the people who want to retain their constitutional right to “bear arms” would “shoot up the capitol” if they’re allowed to bring their guns with them. The truth of the matter is simple. American citizens are not going to stand for the government taking away a constitutional right to self defense and the right to buy and use the means to that, a gun. King George found that out when he tried it. His attempt to disarm the American colonists resulted in the revolutionary war and ended up costing him sovereignty over the colonies. Governor Northam is going to discover the same, eventually, if he persists, especially of he does such a stupid thing as establishing a “special police” unit specifically to take guns away from his citizens. But not this soon. Americans are reasonable people. If there is any possibility of agreement, they will try that first. But in the end, if Northam persists, he will be removed from office one way or another. Hopefully in the next election. But he will be GONE, in any case. Already his own legislature refused to pass his anti-gun laws. (KSTP)

Insane Accusations

One “school official” accused a pro-Second Amendment woman of being a “school shooter because she is FOR guns in the hands of the law-abiding. At the same time, another fool accused the NRA of “making it easy to commit mass murder.” How he figures that is a mystery, since all but one or two mass murders have been done with an ILLEGAL gun. And being in favor of a constitutional RIGHT doesn’t make you a “school shooter.” Such accusations show the abysmal ignorance of the anti-gun fools. I call them fools because they have to be aware that NONE of the existing anti-gun laws have ever done a single thing to stop, or even slow down, a mass shooting. Yet they make these insane accusations, and more, in their frustration because they DON’T work. They, no more than we, can figure out a single law that will, but they criticize us for our inability to find a law that will work. They say “gun control” is inadequate” in this country, and they’re right, Because of that. The law-abiding do not, as a rule, commit “gun crime” with their legally-owned guns. They use them only in self defense and the defense of others. Period. The reports od legal gun owners committing crimes with their guns is few,and far between, but the anti-gun fools will not admit that. (Just common sense)

"Tool of Opression"

I’m not one of your religious fanatics, but I recognize that there are some “good words” of logic in the Bible. One of those is contained in Jeremiah 6:23 where they talk about “removing the bows and spears” from the people while the “Chaldeans will be mounted on horseback bearing swords.” In other words, if you want to subjugate a people, take away their means to defend themselves against not only the average criminal, but also those wearing badges or shouting, “federal agent!” It means if you have no guns today, you cannot defend yourself against anybody, especially not “government agents,” come to subjugate you. So any politician wanting to take your guns is a would-be despot, out to subjugate you. That means you must vote AGAINST any politician whose stated objective is to take away your guns lest he subjugate you. They tell you their purpose in “getting rid of guns” (except theirs, of course) is to “protect you.” But it does not. The millions of ILLEGAL guns out there proves that. What it does do is make YOU defenseless. Period. Against the illegal guns and the legal ones in the hands of “government agents.” (NOQ Report)

Gun Rights Under Attack

Fred Gutenberg, whose daughter was killed in the Parkland School shooting, has let his grief overshadow his good sense when he said that, “Gun rights are not under attack anywhere in the U. S.” I don’t know where he gets that from, but the fact is, gun rights are under attack EVERYWHERE in the U. S. Each and every Dumocrat presidential candidate has promised to enact unconstitutional measures to “infringe” on our Second Amendment rights if elected. Other politicians all over the country work tirelessly to pass many different useless, unenforceable anti-gun laws that do NOT “reduce gun crime,” but in fact INCREASE it by disarming the law-abiding. This leaves the law-abiding, who DO obey laws defenseless against all the ILLEGAL guns out there in the hands of the law-breakers, who DO NOT obey laws. That this increases gun violence is a “no-brainer,” at least, to intelligent people. I question the intelligence of those who think that banning guns will stop violent crime. Or that they CAN “get rid of all guns.” Their laws only apply to the law-abiding, who are, for the most part, NOT the problem, making it easier for the law-breakers to victimize them. (Truth About Guns)

Jews: "Never Again!"

During the Second World War, the Jewish community refused to be armed. They didn’t like the very idea of being armed for self defense, and that cost them 6 million Jewish lives. In New York City, after multiple hate-filled attacks on Jews, they are now attempting to arm themselves so it won’t happen again. But I predict that the liberals running things there will react the way they usually do, and put a stop to the massive movement by Jews to become armed in order to defend themselves from hate attacks. They will stop Jews from getting “carry permits,” so the Jew-haters can kill and maim them, at will. In Fort Worth, Texas, after a civilian put down a would-be mass killer in his church, the liberals in the government reacted swiftly to make sure civilians will not be LEGALLY armed in any church in Texas. I know, I know, that’s stupid, but that’s how liberals react when somebody is able to prevent a tragedy with a legal gun. make a law to keep legal guns out of there, keeping the people defenseless. (Washington Examiner)

"Cruel and Unusual Punishment"

The Constitution prohibits any law that constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” for any “crime.” So, of course, Virginia passes a law allowing 12 months’ imprisonment for EACH and every magazine held by a citizen that holds 12 rounds or more. One month in prison for EACH magazine that can hold 12 rounds or more. If that isn’t “cruel and unusual,” I don’t know what is. Yet Virginia has passed that, and other unconstitutional laws, KNOWING they are unconstitutional, which should be a crime in itself, for anybody connected with the making of such a law. Unfortunately, the Founders erred in not making knowingly passing unconstitutional laws a crime for those passing them, so they get away with passing them into law, and enforcing that law on an unsuspecting public, until the Supreme Court gets around to declaring the law unconstitutional. By then, much damage has been done. People’s lives have been ruined, money and property has been lost, and people have died because they are defenseless against the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there in the hands of law-breakers. And when those laws are declared unconstitutional, nobody ever goes back and corrects SOME of the errors that destroy people’s lives. Just as they don’t go back and reverse policies put in place by a president (Obama) who is a president illegally, since he was born outside the United States. (Washington Examiner)

Repeal Bill of Rights

That’s the ultimate goal of the left. The total repeal of the Bill of Rights, beginning with the Second Amendment. They just can’t handle the fact that the Bill of Rights prevents them from more efficiently “ruling” us and fleecing the country. The Second is first on their list because as long as it exists, they know they can’t just “run roughshod over us,” and that’s what they want to do—and what they WILL do if they ever manage to get rid of it. The left is what the founders envisioned when they created the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Would-be dictators who want no impediments to their power. They want to be kings, and the Bill of Rights prevents it. It has been said, “If the government tells you that you don’t need a gun—you need a gun. You need to “retire” any politician who wants to eliminate ANY of your rights, especially your right to “bear arms” for self defense. The left wants to eliminate completely the very concept of self defense, especially against the government. In the State of Virginia, the governor is “cowering in his office” at the thought of honest, law-abiding people with guns. He thinks they will use them on him—and he’s right. But only if his efforts at total gun control are successful. He is creating an “uprising,” and he knows it—and he’s very afraid. Watch out, gov, at the next election. (AmmoLand)

Unconstitutional Law

Virginia just passed a “gun ban law” and a “gun confiscation law.” Both are unconstitutional and those voting for them, as will as those who attempt to enforce them, should be prosecuted and imprisoned. But that isn’t going to happen, because, in one of the biggest oversights the Founders made when writing the Constitution was not to provide a penalty for making unconstitutional laws beyond having the courts reverse them. So corrupt politicians can make as many unconstitutional laws as they wish, and enforce them until the Courts declare them unconstitutional. BY then much damage has been done, to many people, sometimes even including prison time for “violating” what actually was not even a law. Making and enforcing such laws has almost become a “cottage industry” since they have no fear of being punished for getting such abominable laws passed. Politicians who pass such laws are “despots in waiting” who want to be able to “walk right over” the people without worrying about the possibility of getting shot. The very actions of those Virginia politicians to try and whip up fears of an “armed attack” since the “other side” had guns, should be something for which they should be punished. (Daily Caller)

Multiple Illegalities

Virginia Governor Northam apparently thinks he is above the law as he goes about making laws that are patently unconstitutional. His gun ban at the capitol is unconstitutional, both in the national Constitution, AND in Virginia’s own Constitution, but he continues to flout both with his “rules.” He is very frightened that legally armed people would just start shooting up the landscape if they were allowed to bring their guns along with them when they gathered for that “Lobby Day,” which is expected to be attended by many gun owners. He apparently has no confidence that legal gun owners can control themselves and will shoot him and his accomplices. He ignores the possibility that ILLEGAL gun owners will be there too, ant d they aren’t nearly as responsible as are LEGAL gun owners. His gun ban probably doesn’t include the police and other government “agents,” but I wonder how many of those are legal gun owners outside of work, and agree with the others. Northam can see from the very number of “sanctuary counties” in the state (a majority of which will not enforce unconstitutional laws) that have so declared themselves that his anti-gun laws are very unpopular to his constituents, but he doesn’t care. He plans to make to those laws and enforce them until the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional—which might be YEARS down the road, with the damage having been done. There need to be laws allowing “rogue office holders” to be brought up on charges for enforcing unconstitutional laws. (Bearing Arms)

"Hellfire Joe" Biden

“Hellfire Joe” Biden is thinking like a dictator. He thinks a president could, and would, order a “Hellfire missile” attack upon his citizens for insisting the government obey the law of the land, and not try and take away our right to self defense. He really thinks any president who did that would not be assassinated the next day. Yes, the government does have “Hellfire missiles.” But to use them on its citizens would be the heights of idiocy because the first time they did, the citizens of this country would “take him out,” along with those politicians and bureaucrats who supported him. Impeachment would be the smallest thing that would happen to him, and don’t think he would not be convicted in the Senate. But they’d probably kill him before that. Killing private citizens for standing up for their constitutional right to be armed is definitely a “crime or misdemeanor.” And believe me, he would be impeached, and convicted—if he was not assassinated. Americans are not so wimpy that they would allow such an outrage without retaliation. They would hunt him down and kill him with the weapons they have. He has to sleep sometime, and if somebody is sufficiently motivated, he CAN get at a president—with the kind of weapons we can have. don’t get me wrong—I’m not saying I would do it—I’m saying SOMEBODY would. So don’t try and send the FBI after this old man. (Bearing Arms)

We Don't Want Civil War!

This Dumocrat has gotten death threats. Or at least he SAYS he has, because of his anti-gun efforts. He’s living in dream land. Nobody wants to kill him, he isn’t important enough to kill. He thinks “the right” wanted a civil war if Trump didn’t get re-elected in 2020, but he’s wrong. Trump WILL be re-elected in 2020, so that idea is moot. Where there is a real fear of a civil war is if the Dumocrats (who have all said they would ban guns) are successful, there WILL be a civil war. Not over President Trump, but over the violation of the Constitution that would entail. It’s already brewing in the State of Virginia, where they are PROMISING to violate the Second Amendment. King Gorge learned, the hard way, that Americans will NEVER allow themselves to be disarmed. If laws are made to do that, they will join the law-breakers, and get their guns ILLEGALLY. It’s really easy to do, as the law-breakers have discovered. Whether that leads to all-out war remains to be seen. But that’s what I see coming. It’s not something the “right wing” WANTS, but it is definitely a possibility if the anti-gun fools are more successful than they have been, to this point. (Bearing Arms)

Anti-Gun Hysteria

Can you believe it? Some anti-gun fools pretending to be school “officials” called the COPS on a 6-year-old CHILD for pointing her FINGER at a teacher and saying, “I’ll shoot you.” With what? Her FINGER? And that requires the local cops to waste their time responding and filling out the paperwork that comes with that response? Worse yet, the child had Downs Syndrome, which means she might not have even known the implication inherent in her words and the gesture. Mom had no problem with the child being sent to the principal’s office, but calling the COPS? That shows a stupidity that should call for the “school official” to be fired for incompetence. If you’re afraid of a 6-year-old’s FINGER, you’re incompetent. Now this BABY has “a record” of “threatening a school teacher.”” Knowing they type of people you find as bureaucrats, that might even be a major problem for that child later in her life. School officials are supposed to have, and use, good judgment in such cases, and this school official apparently had none. Worse yet, this is not the first time a school child has gotten in police trouble for pointing a FINGER at someone, pretending it’s a gun. It has happened several times, including in 2019 in Kansas where a middle school student was charged with a FELONY for pointing a “finger gun” at somebody while other kids were only charged with misdemeanors for bringing real guns to school. Stupidity reigns supreme. (Bearing Arms)

What Are They Smoking?

If I were a stoner, I’d want some of what the anti-gun fools are smoking. They can’t really believe their silly little anti-gun laws that only apply to LEGAL gun owners will have ANY effect on law-breakers, who obey NO laws. So what is their purpose? They either have an ulterior motive in disarming most honest, law-abiding Americans, or they’re stupid. Or they’ve lost their minds—if they ever had one. They can’t think they can actually violate the Second amendment to the Constitution with impunity. It says, “[The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” How clear can you be? And the way to change that was designed to be difficult, so any would-be despot would have a helluva time disarming the people so he (or she) could “lord it over” us. So barring the possibility of a change to the Constitution, which is revered by all honest people, they don’t have a chance in hell to get around it with a simple gun ban. They’ve tried it, many times, and always failed. If they ever succeed, they will run into a brick wall. The American people will NEVER stand for a complete ban on buying and owning the means to self defense. Not when there are millions of ILLEGAL guns out there, in the hands of law-breakers. Are the anti-gun fools part of the law-breakers? Do they want to disarm us so they can victimize us? That remains to be seen. (Just common sense)

Ignorant Liberal Judges

U.S. District Court Judge William Young issued a 47-page ruling saying AR-15s and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the 2nd amendment. Where he gets that is beyond my imagination. Maybe he looked into his crystal ball. Where, in the Constitution, does it say WHICH GUNS are, or are not covered by the Second Amendment? The Second clearly says, “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” What part of that says that certain guns should be exempt from the Amendment? Nowhere is there a definition in the Second Amendment as to which “arms” shall be included, and which shall NOT be included. This liberal fool “ruled” according to his anti-gun fool OPINION, NOT by what is IN the Constitution. He should be instantly reversed, and removed fro office for his bias. Rules should be made forcing such judges to cite the place in the Constitution that supports his or her rulings. (Just common sense)

Outlaw Lawmakers

How do you describe an outlaw? That’s easy. An outlaw violates laws. Nancy Peelosi, the outlaw who runs the House in the US Congress, has announced that the House will pass many anti-gun laws this session. Never mind most of them will die in the Senate, where “wiser heads” prevail. But the very act of passing them makes the House an “outlaw chamber.” Because they have to know that EVERY anti-gun law they pass violates the Constitution, to which every law made MUST conform, or it is NOT a law. The Founders foresaw the rise of would-be despots, since they were in the process of getting themselves out from under one when they wrote the Constitution. They knew that if politicians were allowed to disarm the populace, they would BECOME despots. Nancy, and all the other politicians who support laws to disarm Americans and make them defenseless against all ILLEGALLY-armed law-breakers are, themselves, law-breakers. Such politicians need to be voted out of office, where they can no longer violate the rights of law-abiding Americans, making it easier for the Law-breakers to victimize them. And then we need to stop electing that kind of politician to office. (Bearing Arms)

Democrats Will Destroy Us!

If you vote Dumocrat, you’ll be voting for the end of this country, as we know it. Dumocrats hate the coal industry, and at least two of them have promised to “close it down,” without even looking at the consequences of that act. We had a massive power outage yesterday that lasted from 11 AM well into the night. I don’t know how long it lasted because I was swaddled in many blankets, asleep, because I couldn’t do anything without the electricity being on. No lights, no TV, no microwave (so I couldn’t eat anything, and even my daughter-in-law couldn’t help, because her stove is electric), and I couldn’t post anything to this blog because my WI-FI depends on electricity. So even if I had battery backup on my computer it wouldn’t matter because the WI-FI was out.

Parkland Father Removed

Nancy Peelosi’s guest, Fred Gutenberg, father of one of the Parkland School killings got himself thrown out of the State of the Union speech when he disrupted the proceedings. Ever since that killing, he has been an anti-gun fool, thinking wrongly that banning guns will save the lives of other students. It will NOT. I seriously doubt any anti-gun fool law would have stopped the killer at the Parkland School from getting his guns, illegally, if he can’t get them legally. NO anti-gun law has ever stopped a single gun crime, and never will, because the people who use guns to victimize people do not obey laws—ANY laws. Not just anti-gun laws. I think it’s instructive that politicians immediately moved to keep licensed concealed carriers from bringing their guns to church after one used his gun to save lives in that Texas church. A stupid response, to be sure. But you can’t tell these bozos that their idea of what to do to stop gun killings is stupid. They’re too stupid to realize how stupid they are. Gutenberg thinks the laws he is promoting would have protected his daughter, and he’s WRONG. Anti-gun fools criticize us for “doing nothing” about gun control. But I ask them, what SHOULD we do? They have no answer, except to criticize us again. (ABC News)

Talk About Gun Control

What the hell is WRONG with these people who think the way to self defense is to make yourself defenseless? The very first thing “authorities” tried to do after a private citizen stopped a would-be mass killer, ending his wish to kill a few innocent people in a Fort Worth church, was to make a law preventing such people from being armed in church. STUPID! If that man had not been there with his legally-carried gun, the training and the will to use it, many more people would have died when that fool came in with his ILLEGAL gun and started shooting. The first thing they think of in such cases is to take away the right to carry LEGAL guns while ignoring the ILLEGAL guns people bring in, ignoring their silly little laws. If you are contemplating a much more serious crime like mass murder, you certainly aren’t going to be concerned about violating a silly little law that says you can’t be armed when you do it. When they do this, they reveal themselves. They are against SELF DEFENSE, and the gun is just the symbol of it. They just don’t want us to be able to defend ourselves, period. So that later, when they send their minions in to take our property they won’t run into as many guns in the hands of their intended victims. They know the first thing you have to do before victimizing your citizens is to disarm as many as you can. Hitler knew that. Stalin, Castro, and all other despots knew it, too. And each was responsible for many killings, sometimes numbering in the millions, who had no defense, since their despots had disarmed the law-abiding. (Just common sense)

Power Out Yesterday

My computer doesn’t have a battery backup, so, no postings.

The Party of Fools

That’s the Dumocrat Party. Oh, not necessarily all those who count themselves as Dumocrats and vote that way. Most of them are just not paying attention, and vote the way they’re told. And the Dumocrats are ready and willing to tell them how to vote. First of all, the Dumocrats are socialists, which, in itself, is stupid. Anybody who really LOOKS at socialism wants no part of it, unless they’re promoting it to gain power over others. It’s a system BASED on the theft of the fruits of production of new wealth from the producers, for the benefit of those who, for whatever reason, do NOT produce, but only consume. And then there are the silly ideas they promote, such as that there are more than 2 sexes. They insist on it in the face of biological proof that it would be impossible.

They say sex is “assigned” at birth, which is false. It is DISCOVERED at birth by observing which of TWO sex organs the baby has. Nothing else can “assign” a sex, no matter how much they protest. They claim, transsexualism (where a man dresses like a woman and pretends to be a woman, or likewise a woman dresses like a man and pretends to be a man), is a different sex, but it is NOT. It is a mental aberration. They claim bigotry if men pretending to be women aren’t allowed to compete against real women in sports, and even SUE to get their way. Too often liberal judges agree with them and they prevail. But that doesn’t make it so. As Ayn Rand said, “A is A.” A can never be B. It is foolishness to try and make it B

Just as it is foolish to try and say there are more than 2 sexes. They try and convince us of other foolish things including believing they can stop violent crime by eliminating guns—which is an impossibility. Especially in this country, where we have the Second amendment guaranteeing the fact that we have the inalienable RIGHT to “bear arms.” Even so, the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there makes it an impossibility. Even if that were possible, violent crime would continue, just using something else as a weapon, as they did before guns were invented. They try and convince is that “there ae no absolutes” so they will not be bound by an absolute. But their very statement SAYING there are no absolutes is a “statement of an absolute.” They refuse to believe it and continue to insist they are right. Stupid. (Just common sense)