The Unarmed Citizen

Typical Liberal Swindle

2011-12-08T13:48:00.000-08:00

They wanted to get a lot of guns into the Mexican drug wars so they could SAY that “most of their guns come from the United States” and use that to strengthen anti-gun laws. They screwed up. It didn’t work. They didn’t tell the media the guns that came from the U. S. were sold by this government itself, but they found out. After the conservative media broke it, they HAD to cover it, and it has become one of Obama's biggest scandals. I hope it sinks him. This is how the liberals in our government try to fool us into letting them do things we normally wouldn’t allow. When are we going to wake up and question their every action? And I mean even when the Republicans are in power because they do it, too. (American Thinker)

No Guns Needed

2011-10-04T12:22:00.000-07:00

A man walked into a school in China, and killed eight (count ‘em, EIGHT) children. NOBODY in the school was armed and able to stop him because of STIFF anti-gun laws in communist China. “SHANGHAI — A former community doctor allegedly stabbed to death eight children and injured five others at a primary school in east China's Fujian province, the authorities said, as China grapples with a rise in high-profile criminal violence in its cities.” Notice, in a country with “no-nonsense” anti-gun laws for its citizens, criminals find a way to increase the violence. This proves my thesis that if there were NO GUNS in society, the “bad guys” would find a way to kill, maim, and intimidate people. The answer is to allow RESPONSIBLE people to get “carry” permits easily, or just make carrying guns “under cover” legal so those (usually) illegally armed criminals cannot ever be sure their intended victims will not be armed and able to defend themselves. There's certainly nothing out there to keep criminals from getting their illegal guns. This would cause most of them (criminals are basically cowards) to go into other lines of crime. (Wall Street Journal)

What You don't Know About Islam

2011-09-24T13:56:00.000-07:00

They SAY it’s a “religion of peace.” But to them, peace is only possible when ALL countries are under Sharia Law and ALL people have converted to Islam, willingly or not. The Koran allows Muslims to LIE to “Infidels” (unbelievers) to conceal their goals. There are other things you need to know and this video tells you about many of them. Islam is NOT a “religion of peace.” Not by OUR definition of peace. It is a religious DUTY for Muslims to work to impose Islam on the entire world. They say one thing in their own meetings in their own language and quite another here in a language we understand. (Patriot Action Network)

Typical Expectations

2011-09-24T13:52:00.000-07:00

"I'm confident of winning a second term.," Says Obama. The way Obama’s dupes talk, this sounds a bit like what they probably expect. They think he’s the reincarnation of the Messiah and can do anything. His failure to do so in so many cases doesn’t seem to disabuse them of this notion (or maybe what he HAS accomplished, that WE deplore, is counted as success to these ignorant people). I feel sorry for those people who are still driving with “Obama 2008” stickers on their cars. It will be even harder for me when I start seeing "Obama 2012" stickers begin appearing. If I had done something as abysmally stupid as voting for Brraaaccck Obama I certainly would not be advertising my stupidity this long afterward. I feel even more sorry for them because they STILL can’t see their error. (Mallard Fillmore)

Hillary Commits to UN Gun Ban

2011-07-07T13:23:00.000-07:00

Obama has been heard to tell "gun banners" that the US is working "behind the scenes" (in secret) to support a national gun ban. The UN wants to ban guns in the hands of ALL citizens. Not the cops or “federal agents,” of course. They don’t care that we have a Constitution that guarantees our right to “keep and near arms.” They don’t think much of our Constitution and think they can get around it easily. Hillary has “committed” to support this gun ban. Maybe if she gets shot at she’ll change her mind. But I don’t think so. liberals ALL “blame the gun,” not the gunner. She thinks (like all liberals) that a LAW will keep criminals (who break the law daily) will OBEY a law that says they can’t be armed. The day possession of a gun becomes illegal, I will become a criminal. I will NOT give up my right to self defense and the right to own and use the means to that defense. Where the hell does HILLARY get off “committing” the U. S. to ANYTHING? (National Association for Gun Rights)

TR UC

Is Obama Helping Drug Cartels?

2011-07-07T13:21:00.000-07:00

Sure seems like it. He’s done all he can to GUT border control, and must have APPROVED the action to actually SELL GUNS to the drug cartels; guns that have been used to KILL many innocent people, among them several border control officers and ranchers. Does he figure his actions will help create the chaos that will help him impose a socialist government upon us? I don’t know. All I know is that these actions have had the EFFECT of doing that very thing. He has DENIED the KNOWN FACT that over-the-border violence by those cartels is rising precipitously while CUTTING the number of border control officers in the area. What is WRONG with this idiot? Is he STUPID? Or does he just not care? I can’t believe it! The Washington Post actually reported the news correctly, once, when it didn’t make Obama look good. (Washington Post)

Pharmacist Imprisoned for Killing Robber

2011-06-15T11:47:00.000-07:00

This is the direction our Justice system has taken under the liberals. “On May 19, 2009, [Jerome –RT] Ersland went from unassuming pharmacist to killer. Just before 6 p.m., 16-year-old Antwun and a 14-year-old accomplice rolled into the Reliable Pharmacy, waving guns and demanding cash and drugs. Ersland’s co-workers escaped through a back entrance. Ersland, unable to flee due to crippling disability, fought back. Ersland shot Antwun first, and then chased Antwun’s accomplice for a short time before returning to find Antwun was still alive. A terrified Ersland retrieved a second weapon and emptied it into Antwun, killing him.” Ersland was afraid for his life when he killed Antwun, but that made no difference to the liberal judge and a largely liberal jury, who sent him to prison for life. I shudder to think of how this system will victimize us in the future as they further evolve. Personally, I believe a robber deserves what he gets when he enters a store waving a gun around. (Personal Liberty Digest)

UN Wants to Control Guns in US

2011-06-09T13:34:00.000-07:00

They want a “global gun treaty” so Islamic terrorists won’t be able to get guns to use in killing innocent people. Yeah, that’ll work well. What the hell makes them think such a treaty (which they hope to slip by our Congress) will work any better on the terrorists than anti-gun laws already on the books IN the United States works to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, who break laws for a living? It’s already against the law in most countries to sell guns to terrorists, so how is this different, except it gives the UN control over guns in the United States? Anti-gun freaks in the US still can’t answer the question: “What makes you think that CRIMINALS, who break laws for a living, will OBEY one that says they can’t be armed?” The same question applies to terrorists. (Forbes)

Revoke Rate Miniscule

2011-05-31T10:35:00.000-07:00

Florida has issued 1.9 million “concealed carry” permits and only FOUR have been revoked for cause. This puts the lie to the liberal (anti-gun freaks) admonition that Florida has created “a wild-West atmosphere” where people will wantonly kill each other. Actually, it proves that “an armed society is a polite society,” as Robert Heinlein said. As John Lott said, “More guns means less crime.” And he’s right. Florida’s violent crime rate is WAY down from what it was before that law was made. (John Lott)

Hard to Arm Themselves

2011-05-31T10:31:00.000-07:00

Drug cartels find it easy to get American arms to use in killing anybody they wish. They get them from American dealers, at the behest of the Obama administration. This administration SAYS they allow it so they can “track” where the guns go down there. But they’re not “tracking” anything, and many of the guns sold down there have turned up in murder cases on both sides of the border. But U. S. citizens can’t seem to get a gun to use in defending themselves against those Mexican bandits who rob and kill on both sides of the border, despite the lies told by Obama. Obama says violent crime rates in border states are going down. Anybody who lives there know what a LIE that is. Just ask some of the ranchers who have been murdered when they objected to the illegal aliens crossing their land and making a mess as they do. (John Lott)

Schumer Wants ACCUSED to Lose Gun rights

2011-05-22T15:10:00.000-07:00

Never mind that until they are CONVICTED of a crime, they are INNOCENT. Next, he’ll want to bar anybody that somebody pointed to and said “he’s guilty of a crime” from having a gun. Then it’ll be somebody ANYBODY just doesn’t like. Meanwhile, like many other politicians, he either has a carry permit or hires people who do to keep him safe. Like most politicians, he wants rules for US, but not for HIM. He thinks people “in his position” should be above laws for us “little people.” (John Lott)

Obama Approves Gun Sales for Mexico

2011-05-17T14:21:00.000-07:00

They called it a “sting.” They said it was to “trace” the movement of guns in Mexico, but they did not “trace” anything. Now Mexico is blaming the United states for the number of guns available IN Mexico that came from the U. S. why would Obama DO that? So he could “crack down” on gun dealers in the U. S. Gun dealers who did nothing but what Obama wanted them to do. It’s the old “bait and switch.” Tell them it’s okay to sell guns to Mexican drug cartels because it’s a “sting.” Then come back and “crack down” on them for DOING it. (Prison Planet)

Laws Don't Apply to Them

2011-04-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

California lawmakers, who have made some of the tightest “gun-control laws” in the nation, now get to carry their own guns, since so many Californians hate them for destroying the state’s economy. This is typical. Politicians just don’t want to be forced to OBEY the laws they make for the rest of us. So they don’t. They either specifically EXCLUDE themselves from the law or make another law to do it. We need to find a way to make a law forcing legislators to LIVE by the laws they make. But it’ll probably never happen, since it’s the legislators that will have to MAKE that law. (The Sacramento Bee)

Again, Blame the gun

2011-04-17T10:59:00.000-07:00

That’ll be the response from the “anti-gun Nazis” when they hear about the gun attack in Philly that injured nine and killed one at a party. As usual, nothing is being said about the legality of the shooter carrying the gun he used. That’s because one: if he had a “carry permit” that’s an illustration that anti-gun laws don’t stop such shootings and; two: if he didn’t, how easy it is for criminals to get guns in “tight” gun law areas like Philly. But you can count on them to “blame the gun,” which is an inanimate object that cannot kill anybody unless in the hand of a human who can pull the trigger. (Fox News)

She Could Have Stopped It

2011-04-10T10:29:00.000-07:00

Dr. Suzanna Hupp is a licensed gun carrier. She could easily have “put a couple into” a man who crashed his car into a Texas Luby’s restaurant, got out, and started shooting people at random. But Texas has a law that makes it a felony to carry a gun into a restaurant, even if you’re licensed. So she had left her gun in her car. That cost a lot of people, including her father and mother, their lives. That short-sighted law cost these people their lives when if she had had her gun with her, she could have put an end to this madman’s massacre before he killed any more people. Instead, he randomly killed a lot of people, unopposed. She made a point to tell these lawmakers a simple thing: hunting is not the reason for the constitutional guarantee of the right to carry the means to personal protection, a gun. It is so we can defend ourselves against criminals, including those sitting on that dias. A judge recently ruled that states have the right to “regulate” guns. He’s wrong. The Constitution of the United States is the BASIS for ALL laws in the country. Federal AND state. But he’s a judge; so who’s going to tell him he’s wrong except another judge? (YouTube)

Blame the Gun

2011-04-09T15:17:00.000-07:00

A gunman opened fire at a Brazilian school recently and 13 people were killed. Nothing has been said about whether or not the gunman had the guns legally, or was breaking the law just by carrying them. This shooting just shows one thing: laws against carrying guns around would not have done ANYTHING to keep this shooting from happening. But the anti-gun Nazis won’t consider that. To them, it’s “the gun’s fault” whenever a human being takes an inanimate gun, which can do nothing without a human pointing it and pulling its trigger. I’m waiting for the next report about somebody going into a school with a kitchen knife (again—it happened in Korea) and killing people so the “anti-knife” people can have their day. (The Blaze)

U. S. Supplies Guns to Mexican Drug Cartels

2011-03-26T13:16:00.000-07:00

NRA perennial vice president Wayne LaPierre called Glenn Beck to reveal a shocking and unbelievable story: the United states government provided illegal guns to Mexican drug cartels. But he did not make it clear, as I did last week, that it was done to discredit America by providing proof that most of the guns used there came from US sources. I don’t know if Glenn understands it yet, but this is the kind of thing Obama would do. Provide guns to murderers to prove a lying point he has been trying to prove. (Glenn Beck)

Anti-Gun Freaks

2011-03-24T11:50:00.000-07:00

Someone asks if you would like to be in a store where everyone has a gun. My answer is “yes.” If I’m in a store where only one person has a gun, everybody could easily be killed by that one person with a gun. With ten people armed, if that one person starts shooting at people, he can be stopped before he CAN kill everybody in the store. That was amply illustrated last year when a man came into a Colorado church and started shooting people. He ran into a woman who had her own gun and she shot him. Then he committed suicide and was only able to kill two people at this church. He had already killed several people at another church where there was nobody else with a gun, earlier. But thanks to this courageous woman, he will never kill again. (Yahoo Extra Answers)

CNN Invokes Reagan

2011-03-19T11:12:00.000-07:00

Reagan used to be a liberal—before he “saw the light” and became more of a conservative than a liberal. Back then, he “followed the liberal line” somewhat, and was somewhat in favor of gun control laws. But like all the other liberal ideas he spurned when he “woke up to reality,” he spurned the gun control laws that controlled everything BUT guns. They SAY more than 24,000 people have died of gunshot wounds, just since the Tucson shooting. So what? If there were not guns, people would find other ways to kill people. Gun control jerks just won’t realize the simple fact that CRIMINALS, who break the law for a LIVING, will NOT obey a law saying they cannot be armed. People who want to kill, will KILL, whatever they have to use to kill with. Maybe we should ban all PEOPLE. Guns cannot kill without a PERSON pulling the trigger. (News Busters)

"Guns Walking"

2011-03-18T14:57:00.000-07:00

They called it a “sting” to find out where the guns would go. But what it amounts to is that ATF was SUPPLYING guns and ammo to Mexican drug cartels. Agents were against it, but were ORDERED to “stand by and let it happen.” I wonder how many people, both in Mexico and the United States, are dead because of this policy. At least one Border Patrol agent has been killed by a gun traceable to this "program." Yes, intelligence is needed. But we don’t have to SUPPLY guns for Mexican drug cartels in order to learn it. Now an ATF agent is risking his job and maybe his life by “opening this can of worms.” Do you expect anything substantive to be done about it? I doubt it. They will “convene” panel after panel, none of which will come up with anything, nor punish anybody. But they will be able to point to them and say, “We’re doing something.” Meanwhile this agent, if he manages to keep his job, will be shipped to Nome, Alaska or maybe further away. (You Tube/CBS News)

"Getting Around the Constitution"

2011-03-17T11:29:00.000-07:00

This is how liberals operate. Work within the Constitution if you can, find “ways around it” if you can’t. “WASHINGTON -- Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.” This is a direct quote from the Huffington Post, hardly a “conservative bastion.” I print it here because I went to the page where the story about this was, and there seems to be a problem loading it. Is it a “technical problem?” Or is Obama ordering them to remove it? Here’s the link; it may or may not still be there when you go there. Or Obama might want to imprison me for linking to it. (Huffington Post)

Criminals Push Gun Control

2011-03-16T11:45:00.000-07:00

Why? Because they know gun control will mean fewer guns in the hands of honest people and will foster a “safer workplace” for them. It’s a known fact (but not to the “anti-gun freaks”) that tighter gun control laws makes for better violent crime without worry of danger for the criminals. They also know guns are EASIER for criminals to get in areas where gun control laws are the tightest. I don’t know why politicians can’t understand the simple thought that CRIMINALS, whose entire lives are dedicated to breaking the law, will NOT obey a law that says they cannot be armed. This video is an obvious parody. But it says a lot. (YouTube)

Gun-Free Zone

2011-02-17T12:54:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Freedom's Phoenix for this graphic

This is what a “gun-free zone” is. A place the criminals can be fairly sure there won’t be anybody there with their own gun to oppose them when they come in and rob and kill people with their own ILLEGAL guns. Does ANYBODY really think a CRIMINAL, whose entire life is DEDICATED to violating the law, will OBEY a law saying he can’t be armed? If you do, you have way too much faith in the effect of laws on criminals. (Just common sense)

Just As Wrong

2011-02-16T13:14:00.000-08:00

In South Dakota they want to pass a law FORCING every citizen to buy a gun. This is just as unconstitutional as Obama’s health care swindle law that requires every American to buy health insurance. What gives these “lawmakers” the idea they have the right to DEMAND a citizen buy ANYTHING? So-called “lawmakers” at all levels are constantly coming up with laws that exceed their authority and spit on the Constitution. We ought to make a law that can punish them for even SUGGESTING a law that is patently unconstitutional. But that isn’t going to happen when the very people who think they are “all-powerful” will have to MAKE that law. (The Patriot Update)

No Exceptions!

2011-02-12T14:46:00.000-08:00

Unless you’re Islamic, of course. In one school in Michigan, a Sikh student is allowed to carry a dull knife because is is a “religious requirement.” Never mind other students are not allowed to observe THEIR “religious requirements” because they are not Middle Eastern religions. In a nation where a MINIATURE toy gun carried by a BOY in his pocket is grounds for him to be expelled, a Sikh is allowed to carry a dull knife, which could STILL be used as a weapon. This in a nation where a “no tolerance policy” for weapons of ANY kind, even tiny ones, is normally enforced. (Detroit Free Press)

"Thou Shall NOt "Pack Heat"

2011-02-04T13:09:00.000-08:00

That’s the “commandment” the liberals would like to impose upon us. Others realize that it’s only common sense to say they the most BASIC human right is the right to SELF DEFENSE and the right to own, carry, and USE the means to that end today, a gun. The bad guys, who have NO trouble obtaining guns to use in robbing and killing us, need to WONDER if that supposed “easy target” he/she is about to attack will be armed and willing to kill him before he/she can kill/rob his victim. This alone would serve to reduce the number of violent attacks decidedly—without anyone firing a shot or killing anybody. Thieves are basically cowards, anyway. But that argument is lost on liberals, who are “tone deaf” to any argument that destroys any of their cherished goals. (World Net Daily)

Just As Unconstitutional

2011-02-02T13:24:00.000-08:00

No Evidence

2011-01-23T11:19:00.000-08:00

The liberals like to “pontificate” on things without any kind of evidence there’s anything wrong. Such is their screeching about guns; and high-capacity magazines and the “need” for tighter gun laws, none of which will do ANYTHING to limit the access to guns, high-capacity magazines, or anything else to people like the Arizona shooter. If they want it, SOMEBODY will sell it to them. Quicker in areas where gun laws are “tight” than anywhere else. Glenn Beck’s buddy Stu paints a very different picture than do the liberals who are now calling for CENSORSHIP of CONSERVATIVES, while ignoring the “hate speech” that daily comes out of the mouths of liberals who want Sarah Palin ASSASSINATED (Salon Magazine), and Justice Thomas fed a lot of bacon and sausage in hopes he will have a heart attack. I can’t believe how STUPID these people are, and how stupid they think WE are. We need to CALL them on what they say, and make them PROVE it. (Glenn Beck)

Gun Sales Up 60%

2011-01-18T09:28:00.000-08:00

In the wake of the Arizona shooting. And this is a problem how? I’m glad to see it. Maybe there will now be fewer people like Jared Laughner out shooting into crowds now that he can’t depend on there not being anybody in the crowd with his own gun, ready and able to put a few in him before he can kill any more people in the crowd. Have you ever noticed such crazy shooters never go to a GUN SHOW to shoot it up? That’s because he doesn’t want to resemble a “Swiss cheese” right after he starts shooting. One man actually went into a GUN STORE to hold it up. When it was over, he had 13 bullet wounds from guns in the hands of the store owner and two customers in the store, who happened to be police officers. By the way: has anybody seen anything about this in America’s media? (Guardian)

Thank God for Guns!

2011-01-12T14:00:00.000-08:00

At least, guns in the hands of honest people. Usually, television shows decry guns in EVERYBODY’S hands because most of the producers of such shows are gun-haters (except for themselves, of course). But apparently the producers of “Boston Legal” are of a different sort, as witness this delightful video, taken, apparently, from one of their episodes. I don’t usually watch that show because lawyer shows bore me. I have nothing against it, but I actually go out of my way to watch only one or two series, such as NCIS and Bones. But maybe I’ll add this one to my list. Watch the video and get a good laugh. (Boston Legal)

It's NOT Radio, OR Guns!

2011-01-11T14:06:00.000-08:00

It's the idiots who use them. Politicians are all over the map trying to advance their own personal agendas on Gabby Giffords’ head—literally. Those who want to shut conservatives up are using her shooting by flapping their lips about talk radio “instigating” these shootings while others are blaming the gun or the high-capacity cartridge-holder instead of the completely ‘round the bend jerk who used it to kill 6 people including a federal judge, a nine-year-old girl and (almost) a congresswoman. They talk about “vitriolic rhetoric” when the most vitriolic rhetoric comes from their very own mouths. They talk about the “wild West atmosphere” prevalent in Arizona and the West, while making sure their own ability to carry their guns or hire their armed bodyguards is secure. It's absurd to blame the guns, or other inanimate things like cartridge cases when the REAL blame is on the heads of such idiot lame-brains as Jared Laughner. This guy is completely 'round the bend, and if you don't believe it, just look at his booking photo, wherein he gives us a very "spooky" grin. This guy should have been locked away from society long ago, but nobody paid any attention to his stupidities. That's where the blame lies: crazies running around spouting their craziness, while nobody does anything about it. Very few people like him have any trouble getting the guns they use, regardless of the law. In fact, the tighter the gun laws, the easier it is to get them illegally. (Los Angeles Examiner)

Anti-Gun Laws Don't Work!

2011-01-10T11:56:00.001-08:00

The gun didn’t kill a (Republican) federal judge in Arizona. The man who pulled the trigger killed the judge and wounded many others, including a congresswoman. Making laws to limit access to guns just DOES NOT WORK. Those who want to indiscriminately kill people will do it, with or without a gun. In Korea some time ago, a man went into a school and killed several students with KNIFE. The tighter the gun laws are in a given area, the easier it is to get a gun illegally because more people are selling them. I keep saying this, and nobody says I’m wrong. But nobody recognizes that I’m right, either. I talk and talk and talk, and nobody listens. And people die. People will continue to die until somebody with some INTELLIGENCE recognizes reality and allows honest people to have and use the means to their inalienable right of self defense, a gun. If just ONE PERSON had had a gun and been willing to use it in Arizona, maybe the shooter would be dead and the death toll much lower. But NO! The anti-gun nuts prevailed and six more innocent people are dead. (Just common sense)

Making Hay While the Sun Shines

2011-01-09T13:26:00.000-08:00

The anti-gun fanatics lost no time to advance their agenda to disarm all Americans based on the legality of the gun purchase by the Arizona shooter. According to the Wall Street Journal, he bought the gun legally several weeks ago, despite “certain people” knowing he was “disturbed.” But I’ll say this: insane or not, he would have had no trouble obtaining a gun, anywhere in the country. If he couldn’t get it legally, he’d buy it out of the trunk of some crook’s car on a back street or in an alley. And it is known that where “tight gun laws” prevail. It’s even easier to find such criminals willing to sell illegal guns. They say, ”Of course he had a gun. This is Arizona, after all.” As if it’s “Arizona, where it’s ‘the Wild West,’ after all.” Yes, no license is needed to carry a gun in Arizona. But Arizona (except for illegal aliens killing innocent ranchers) is one of the safest states there is. (NECN)

Self Defense Without A Gun

2011-01-06T12:35:00.000-08:00

I’ve been researching the whole idea of self defense without a gun, since the “powers that be” will not, in most places. Allow you to carry a gun for self defense. Everywhere I go they talk about carrying knives (requiring training) or those ubiquitous black meal flashlights cops carry. That’s two or more D-cells of pure lead in a metal container. Have you noticed “nightsticks” have mostly disappeared in favor of these nifty flashlights? That’s because they’re NOT a weapon until USED as one—and if used in self defense, you usually won’t be charged with anything unless you hit your attacker a bunch of times, and maybe kill him. Frankly, I market a complete line of disguised self defense products, including stun guns looking like cell phones, pagers, and such. We also have pepper sprays, also disguised as innocuous items such as lipsticks, pens, even RINGS. But one of the best things I ever learned was how to make a weapon out of just about anything.

You can knock someone out with a heavy ashtray or anything else heavy, from that flashlight to a heavy cane. If you’re holding a radio (and it’s big enough), hit him with it. If it’s not very big, hit him anyway. It will divert his attention. Even something as innocuous as a pen or a pencil, or a key chain can be used to stab or slap him him enough to get his attention long enough for you to get away. At Barnes & Noble bookstores there is a “page holder” with each end weighted by something heavy and even looks like a sap. It’s legal to carry, and you should keep the box to prove it. If you’re carrying “take out,” throw it in the attacker’s face, Then get out of there, quick! Just about anything lying around can similarly be used, such as a dinner plate, even a full water bottle. All you want is something to divert the attacker’s attention long enough for you to get away. Of course, if he has a gun (as many crooks will, since they’re so easy to get illegally if you don’t care about the law), I don’t care if you have a Howitzer in your pocket. Don’t reach for it. But if he has less than a gun (many do), there are many things you can do, as listed above. (Just common sense)

Merry Christmas Again!

2010-12-25T12:00:00.000-08:00

You can’t say it often enough. I said it the other day, and now I say it again. “The PC Police” can take it and stick it. This day is dedicated to the birth of Jesus Christ, whether or not you believe in him. It’s the religion of Christians, and reference to it should NEVER “offend” anyone. I am not offended by reference to the symbols of other religions, and I should not be. And members of other religions should not be “offended” by references to someone else’s. Especially Muslims, whose “Holy Book” tells them to KILL anybody who does not believe exactly the same way they do. Today’s Christianity does not, even if they can find an obscure passage in the Old Testament that might be read in such a way that some people might think it does. In any case, it is not a “guiding principle” to Christians. Some non-Christians seem to think they can stop Christians from making reference to their religion by wishing people “Merry Christmas” on this day. They’re wrong, even if some liberal courts disagree. They misread the Constitution to say that government and religion should be separate. That’s wrong. There is NOTHING in the Constitution saying that. So I say again, “Merry Christmas to all!” No matter what your religion. This will be the only post today, as I will be spending time with my family. (Just common sense)

Government Confiscates Guns

2010-12-23T13:22:00.000-08:00

Government troops went house-to-house in New Orleans after Katrina, on orders of the federal government, confiscating any guns found. Never mind the Constitution says we have the right to own and use guns in our own self-defense. One 84-year-old woman was thrown to the ground when she resisted this ILLEGAL confiscation of her personal property. Two days later thugs, alerted that she no longer had a gun, robbed her at gunpoint. You think this can’t happen in America? Think again; it HAS happened, and it WILL happen again. Watch this video. (USA Carry)

Using Shooting to Promote Gun Control

2010-12-23T13:19:00.000-08:00

Predictably, the anti-gun fanatics are using the recent school board shooting to promote gun control. But has anybody asked if the shooter had a license for his gun? If he did, that just shows how INEFFECTIVE are gun control laws. If he didn’t, that STILL shows how ineffective are gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of people like that. The way to self defense is NOT to disarm ourselves. It is to have enough guns around in the hands of responsible people to make guys like this think twice before doing their dirty work. Not to mention killing him FIRST before he can kill innocent people. (The Blaze)

Merry Christmas Everybody!

2010-12-22T12:25:00.000-08:00

Some people are “offended” by the words, “Merry Christmas." They can go to hell. I will not accede to the demands of the “PC Police” and say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.” Why should I care if atheists, some Jews, Islamics, and followers of other religions don’t like it when I wish them a Merry Christmas? This is a country FOUNDED by Christians and, in which most powerful posts are still held by people who at least SAY they’re Christians. If that offends some people, too bad! I don’t care. Most Jews don’t “get offended” by it, and they don’t try and kill Christianity in a Christian country. So I say, “Merry Christmas,” people, and anybody who gets “offended” by this can go to hell. (The Blaze)

Zero Tolerance Equals Zero Intelligence

2010-12-09T12:12:00.000-08:00

A teenage girl who put her hunting gun in the trunk of her car and forgot it after a weekend hunting outing actually TOLD the “school authorities about it just before they had a "contraband dog sniff every car in the school parking lot and she got EXPELLED under their “zero tolerance” policy. Frankly, I think a “zero tolerance” policy with no “wiggle room” is for people who have “zero intelligence,” as these “school authorities” obviously are suffering from. This will affect her entire life, but they don’t care. It’s “zero tolerance.” (Yahoo Answers)

More Guns, Less Crime

2010-11-06T13:14:00.000-07:00

It has long been predicted by people who have “no axe to grind,” that more guns in the hands of honest. dependable people will cause a reduction in violent crime. “First, the number of guns has risen to an all-time high. Second, for decades Brady Campaign has repeatedly predicted with unfettered confidence that more guns would necessarily cause crime to rise. But third, the nation's violent crime and murder rates have instead fallen to 35- and 45-year lows, respectively.” (NRA-ILA). The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is that as the number of guns increases, violent crime reduces. They can’t factually deny that, though they rail futilely against it.
(NRA-ILA)

"Lies Your Government Told You"

2010-10-28T13:30:00.000-07:00

The lies you’re being told by your government every day are legion. But none so pernicious as the ones told you about guns. They want you to believe that the way to reduce gun violence in the USA is to pass more and more “gun control” laws. But consider this: Will CRIMINALS, who break laws for a LIVING, obey a law that says they can’t be armed? Not even! The tighter the “gun control laws” are in a given area, the EASIER it is for criminals to buy illegal guns on the streets. What we need is more guns in the hands of responsible people to COUNTER the illegal guns in the hands of the criminals, so they’ll never know if their intended victim will be armed and able to shoot them, instead. This link goes to excerpts from the book, “Lies Your Government Told You,” which covers many lies you’ve been told, and the truth. (Judge Andrew Napolitano)

Why Not?

2010-09-30T12:53:00.000-07:00

An eighty-year-old man took a couple of shots at two young men trying to steal his trailer, seriously wounding one. The cops let him plead guilty to attempted manslaughter after initially charging him with attempted first degree murder. They say “You can’t use deadly force in defense of property.” Why not? The criminals use deadly force to steal it! The man says he didn’t mean to hit anybody; he was trying to scare them off. Of course, that didn’t mean anything to the anti-gun politicians. He shot at the bad guys, so they ASSUME he was trying to kill them. I think people ought to be able to do what it takes to defend their lives AND property from criminals who would KILL them to steal it. Part of his punishment was to “give up his guns.” Telling the next criminal he will be unarmed, so go ahead and rob him! (9 News Denver)

We Need More of This

2010-09-23T13:08:00.000-07:00

In Denver last night, two guys tried to rob liquor stores. One ran out the door and got away when the man behind the counter produced his own gun and threatened the robber with it. Self defense without firing a shot. The other one didn’t run when confronted by the counterman’s own gun, and was shot. He’s in the hospital now, getting better. Probably at taxpayer’s expense, since he’s a prisoner. The other guy was caught later. More would-be robbers need to be confronted with guns. Maybe they’d go into another business. (9 News, Denver)

Criminals Prefer Unarmed Victims

2010-08-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

Intelligent people know this is true, but anti-gun politicians do not. So they keep making more and more anti-gun laws, therefore making it more and more possible for illegally-armed criminals, who break the law for a living, to “have their way” with you, or someone you love. I’ve been preaching for years that what criminals need is to NOT know if their intended victims will be armed and able to “take them out.” But nobody with the power to make laws seems to be paying attention and thus, violent crime is made easier and more common. Criminals themselves would like to see ALL guns outlawed, knowing that would create more unarmed victims for them to rob and kill with their easily-obtained, illegally-obtained guns without fearing their intended victims will be armed and able to defend themselves. A recent video by DuPont is a parody of a gun ad, but it makes the point clearly. In Florida, gun “carry permits” are easily obtained, and the violent crime numbers are predictably down significantly. Anti-gun politicians never take note of this and continue to make more and more laws to DISarm honest people. (Just common sense)

Robbing The Wrong Guy

2010-08-17T13:53:00.000-07:00

This kind of thing needs to happen more often. A thug tried to rob a man at knife-point. Whereupon the guy pulled his gun, took the thug’s cell phone, credit card, and wallet, sent him on his way with the brown stuff he had deposited in his pants at the sight of the gun; then used the card to spend a lot of money. Then he placed an ad aimed at the thug advising him to go into another line of work. This is the only way we’re going to put a stop to violent crime, people. Make the bad guys unsure their intended victims will not be armed and able to kill them or just humiliate them while making them dirty their drawers. (Boortz)

Veto Kills Man

2010-05-25T14:02:00.000-07:00

In Kentucky, licensed concealed gun carriers have the right (contained in the Constitution) to carry their guns for self-defense—except in restaurants and taverns, of course. The legislature made a law to fix that oversight and the governor vetoed it. So a stalker waited until his victim entered a place where she could not legally bring her gun and murdered a woman’s husband in a restaurant soon after. That didn't stop this murderer from bringing in HIS gun. Funny how the criminals always seem to be able to get guns while honest people can’t. “Governor Bredesen has ignored the will of the citizens of Tennessee yet again. Bredesen’s veto of the Restaurant Carry Bill speaks volumes about his disregard for our Constitution and our Second Amendment rights. This man was elected and swore under oath to uphold our Constitution. With an overwhelming vote in both the Senate and House, our fine Legislators spoke for their Constituents by their vote supporting the Restaurant Carry Bill.”

Nikki Goeser lost her husband because a stalker wanted him “out of the way” and she could do nothing because her licensed gun was in the car because of Tennessee’s law prohibiting guns anywhere food or alcohol is served. The governor’s veto caused his death as surely as if the governor had pulled the trigger on the illegal gun the murderer used to kill him. Politicians make or break laws without considering the EFFECT of them on human beings. When are politicians going to start facing the reality that anti-gun laws DO NOT stop criminals from killing people with their illegally-obtained guns? It amazes me how STUPID these politicians are! (Human Events)

Who Bought Off the NRA?

2010-05-15T16:11:00.000-07:00

They used to be dependably hard to get along with whenever government tried to put more limits on how Americans handle guns--something they have a constitutional right to do. But recently their actions have been “tepid” at best. They’ve gone along with way too many government actions regarding guns and it has cost them millions in membership fees, mine included. They recently sent me a pretty window sticker I would have liked to put on my car. But I threw it in the wastebasket. I will NOT be a member until or unless they return to their strong opposition to government attempts to inhibit our right to gun ownership and usage. (The State)

Every 13 Seconds

2010-04-22T12:19:00.000-07:00

That’s how often people use a gun in self-defense. Many times without firing a shot. Just the thought that their intended victims might be armed scares the bejezuzz out of most criminals, who are basically cowards. Which reminds me of the time (before cell phones) that I stopped at night at an outside phone to make a call. I was approached by two men, one of which asked me for a light. I reached for the metal flashlight in my back pocket, just in case. One of the men said, “Don’t shoot me, man,” and they quickly left. I guess it looked like I was reaching for a gun and scared the hell out of him. (Learn About Guns)

Always A "Good Excuse"

2010-03-17T08:22:00.000-07:00

The gun-haters always have a plausible excuse to ban your ability to have a gun for self defense. In this case, they cite “security issues,” as if their cops COULD “keep the peace” in emergencies. Actually, they can’t. They’re too busy worrying about traffic and keeping people alive. But nothing ever stops the “anti-gun freaks” from doing everything they can to limit or erase your ability to defend YOURSELF from illegally-armed criminals, who don’t obey ANY laws. In this case, they cite the “snow emergency” Al Gore said would never come because of global warming (now called "climate change"). (World Net Daily)

I Feel Helpless

2010-03-14T16:11:00.001-07:00

If someone comes at me with a gun (which could happen any time in today’s world, anti-gun laws notwithstanding), I am completely defenseless if I don’t have my own gun with which to defend myself. Unlike the stereotype the “anti-gun zealots” want to paint, I’m no more likely to go off on a shooting spree at the slightest provocation than is that cop you see with the big gun on his hip. Responsible people ought to be allowed to defend themselves against the myriad of illegally armed criminals, and to be able to buy and carry (even concealed) the means to that end. If every gun were to be removed from the world today, criminals and crazies would still be able to find something with which to kill you. Remember the days of the sword? Everybody carried a sword, and it was a very polite society in those days. IN prehistoric days, they killed each other with rocks and clubs. Crooks need to always be aware that their intended victims might be armed, and well able to resist their attacks. Violent crimes would then go down precipitously because criminals are essentially cowards. Anti-gun zealots will say I’m wrong, but they have only to look at Florida, where it’s easy to get a “carry permit” and then look at the violent crime statistics in that state since that law was passed. Don’t ever give me that crap that violent crime goes UP where easy access to guns is created. It just isn’t so. If you say so, you’re lying. (Just common sense)

Not A Word About Gun Control

2010-03-14T16:07:00.000-07:00

Many cities have had reductions in homicides; some that have tight gun laws, others with looser ones. But all gave as the cause of the reduction, “more or less gang activity.” Not a word about their “gun control laws.” What this proves it that gun control laws make NO DIFFERENCE in the violent crime rates. “Gang activity” is ALWAYS with ILLEGAL guns. I don’t think a gang member has EVER had a license for his gun (or guns). Some credit “more police activity,” and they might be right, in some cases. But more guns in the hands of responsible, honest people to allow them to defend themselves against ILLEGALLY-ARMED criminals would mean an even larger drop in gun violence and murders by guns, though not by other means. People who want to kill will kill, whether or not guns are available. Tight gun laws do NOT cause violent crime to “go away.” Because criminals do not obey ANY laws, much less those that say they can’t be armed. In fact, if guns miraculously disappeared tomorrow, they’d find ways to kill and maim, as they did before guns were invented. (Yahoo News/AP)

Becoming A "Gun Nut"

2010-03-11T11:11:00.000-08:00

For a long time, although I think EVERYBODY ought to be allowed to carry the means to self-defense, a gun, so they would not be completely helpless if a criminal stuck a gun in their face, I didn’t do much about it. As I get older, and realize that “old guys” like me are prime targets of the “bad guys,” I started thinking more about how I could “even the odds” if a criminal DOES go after this old man. Therefore, I sell disguised self-defense products such as stun guns, pepper sprays, and even cameras disguised as teddy bear style puppy dogs and screws in the wall (http://www.raythomas101.com/personalsecurity.html). I also realize that if that “bad guy” has a gun, nothing can help you but your own gun if you can get it out fast enough.

Old age ought to be a “good reason” to be “granted” (by a bureaucrat who should have no power to "grant" it) the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” so you can defend yourself, rather than be victimized by a criminal, who never seems to have any trouble getting a gun, whatever the anti-gun laws that are in effect in any given area. In fact, the tighter those laws are, the easier it seems for a criminal to get his gun. That makes me a “gun nut” according to the “anti-un zealots” who drive our liberal politicians to make more and more useless anti-gun laws. But I don’t care what they call me; I’m getting a gun, and after a few years in the military, I know how to use it. I’m not senile, and I won’t “go off on a shooting spree at the slightest provocation” as those “anti-gun zealots” say I will. I just want to “even the odds.” If a criminal kills me with a gun (or just makes the attempt), I want it to be the last thing he does in HIS life. (Just common sense)

Yet another School Shooting

2010-02-24T13:55:00.000-08:00

Every school in the land is a “gun-free zone.” Which means it’s illegal to bring a gun into the school, at any time, unless you are a policeman. But crazies who shoot up schools don’t care about the law. They don’t obey laws that say they can’t take a gun into a school. I predict that the “anti-gun Nazis” will demand even more restrictive anti-gun laws as a result of the shooting on February 23, 2010 at the Jefferson County, Colorado middle school, even though such laws NEVER do anything to stop such people from shooting up a school and, in fact, make such shootings even more possible and likely by assuring the shooter there will be nobody there armed and willing to stop them. There has never been a shooing at a gun show because a potential shooter KNOWS there are guns and people willing to use them in self defense there. A uniformed, armed policeman won’t work because they KNOW he is armed and can take him out first, before anybody is ready.

I’m not suggesting they let the students be armed. I AM suggesting that teachers and staff who have a concealed carry permit be allowed to carry their guns into the school specifically so a potential shooter cannot be sure there will be no one there to stop their rampages. And I suggest those teachers and staff be ENCOURAGED to get a gun and a carry permit so there WILL be someone there who can protect these defenseless students. The same holds true elsewhere. ANYBODY who can qualify for a carry permit should be allowed to carry his gun into what is now a no-gun zone. That way, illegally armed criminals cannot ever be SURE they can shoot people at will with nobody able to defend themselves. Anti-gun laws just do NOT work, so why do we continue to make more and more, every time somebody shoots someone with an illegal gun? (Fox News)

"You Can Take Me At My Word"

2010-02-23T13:27:00.000-08:00

That’s what Obama says about gun rights. But his track record for telling the truth is abysmal, so why should we believe ANYTHING he says, about anything? “Obama lied when he said ‘I'm not going to take your guns away’ and ‘Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear...I think people can take me at my word.’ Yet Obama's agenda has a national gun owner registration scheme to authorize the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person's name to the terror watch list.” And there is no legal requirement to be met to add your name to that list. I’d bet my name has already been added to this list because I disagree with his policies. (Soda Head)

He's Following the Same Path

2010-02-21T11:21:00.000-08:00

Right now I’m reading the history of the Bolshevik takeover of the Russian government in 1917. They followed the exact same plan Obama is using right now to “collectivize” this country. Lenin was popularly elected and immediately “targeted” the rich, which included ANYBODY who owned property or a business. He told people “only the rich” would ever pay his excessive proposed taxes, then applied them to everybody. Soon his people were taking over and closing businesses at the point of a gun and running the owners out (without compensation). Soon, the owners were “allowed” to live in ONE ROOM of the home they formerly owned. Obama is making much progress in this direction. You can expect the “home and property confiscations” to begin soon. You may say I’m an “extremist” for this, but it is true. People who tried to warn the Russians about the onslaught of communism (a form of collectivism) were called “extremists,” too. If we don’t “wake up” and put some roadblocks in his way, Obama will become the Lenin of the USA. I won’t be here to see it, thank God. I’ll be dead; I hope. Unless it happens quickly. (Just common sense)

It's Not The Guns, Stupid!

2010-02-20T13:36:00.000-08:00

Anti-gun freaks blame guns for violence, but it’s not the guns. We had violence long before guns were invented. Remember the time when everybody carried a sword and sword fights were a popular way of settling disputes? If every gun in existence were “zapped” and disappeared from the world (an impossibility, but one the anti-gun freaks wish for) bad guys would find other ways to maim and kill people. They talk about “life being cheap,” not mentioning that it was people like that who MADE it cheap when they pushed the killing of the result of unprotected sex, rather than use a rubber. It’s NOT guns that made it cheap. Criminals and crazy bad guys seem always to get a gun when they want to shoot up a bunch of people, usually IN a “gun-free zone.” Has anybody ever successfully shot up a gun show, where everybody was armed? (Guns & Stuff)

I'll Go Out On A Limb

2010-02-19T12:26:00.000-08:00

I’m going to go a little bit out on a limb (but not very much) and predict that, as with ALL “random shootings” in “gun-free zones,” the “anti-gun freaks” are going to use this shooting to call for even more limits on gun ownership and concealed carry. Will they try also to ban small planes because of the Austin, TX IRS-targeted plane crash? Logic would tell anybody with a modicum of intelligence that people who are bent on committing a crime aren’t going to be too worried about violating anti-gun laws. But these people HAVE no intelligence. (Just common sense)

One Illegal Gun Equals 3 Dead

2010-02-17T11:32:00.000-08:00

One illegal gun in the hands or a professor who had been denied tenure killed three other professors and wounded several other people when this professor went on a “shooting spree” in a university meeting. Had just ONE other person in the room had his/.her own gun and the will to use it in self defense, the death toll could have been a lot smaller. But NO! The “anti-gun freaks” think such a person as this professor would OBEY a law that says she can’t be armed. How stupid is THAT? She didn’t, and three people are dead. Criminals and crazies don’t OBEY anti-gun laws. This, they never take into account, and people die because of it. They say without anti-gun laws, it would be a “wild-west shootout” every day. What an ignorant thing to say! That assumes that responsible people who were able to carry guns would use the guns FIRST in any disagreement. That’s a patent INSULT to everybody. It assumes the anti-gun nuts know more than we do. One other thing: I'd "bet the farm" this university is a "gun-free zone." Notice, you never see shooting rampages like this at gun shows where EVERYBODY has a gun. (Mail Times)

Keeping Us Defenseless

2010-02-06T12:17:00.000-08:00

That seems to be the goal of most of our governments. When Islamic terrorists come here to kill us, as they will when they realize Obama’s government is not nearly as solid in opposition to that as the Bush government was, we will be completely defenseless. Right now all we have to worry about is “run-of-the-mill criminals” and crazies who occasionally go into places they can be pretty sure have no guns to oppose them and shoot them up. But what will happen when an Islamic terrorist goes into a crowd and starts shooting? There will be no one there to shoot him down and stop his killing, so many will die. One of my fondest memories is of an Israeli woman standing over a Palestinian (Islamic) terrorist, pumping bullets into his face when he tried to start a shooting spree. In Israel, EVERYBODY carries a gun. Another fond memory is of a pretty blond woman worshipping at a church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, when a man came in the church, shooting. She was legally armed, and she shot him, ending his shooting spree

Has anybody ever noticed that such shooting sprees always happen in “no-gun zones?” Places where the shooter can be reasonably sure there will be no unexpected guns aimed in HIS direction? Our politicians need to start using common sense regarding self defense and the means to that end. For some reason they want to keep us unarmed, and thus unable to defend ourselves against the illegally-obtained guns carried as a matter of course by criminals, crazies, and terrorists. In SPITE of all the anti-gun laws, guns are easy to get almost anywhere for those willing to break the law. The tighter the anti-gun laws are in a given area, the easier it is to buy an illegal gun. People bent on breaking laws don’t OBEY anti-gun laws. Only honest people do, and are thus unable to protect themselves against those who flagrantly violate ALL laws. We need to do as Florida has done and make it easy for honest, responsible people to obtain “carry licenses,” so that those who would use their illegally-obtained guns to plunder us will never be able to know if their intended victims are armed and willing to kill them before they can kill us. (Just common sense)

Keeping Us Defenseless

2010-01-31T13:50:00.000-08:00

That seems to be the goal of most of our governments (local and federal). When Islamic terrorists come here to kill us, as they will when they realize Obama’s government is not nearly as solid in opposition to that as the Bush government was, we will be completely defenseless because honest, reliable people are not allowed to be armed for self defense). Right now all we have to worry about is “run-of-the-mill criminals” and crazies who occasionally go into places they can be pretty sure have no guns to oppose them and shoot them up. But what will happen when an Islamic terrorist goes into a crowd and starts shooting? There will be no one there to shoot him down and stop his killing, so many will die. One of my fondest memories is of an Israeli woman standing over a Palestinian (Islamic) terrorist, pumping bullets into his face when he tried to start a shooting spree. In Israel, EVERYBODY carries a gun. Another fond memory is of a pretty blond woman worshiping at a church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, when a man came in the church, shooting. She was legally armed, and she shot him, ending his shooting spree

Has anybody ever noticed that such shooting sprees always happen in “no-gun zones?” Places where the shooter can be reasonably sure there will be no unexpected guns aimed in HIS direction? Our politicians need to start using common sense regarding self defense and the means to that end. For some reason (I know what it is) they want to keep us unarmed, and thus unable to defend ourselves against the illegally-obtained guns carried as a matter of course by criminals, crazies, and terrorists. In SPITE of all the anti-gun laws, guns are easy to get almost anywhere for those willing to break the law. The tighter the anti-gun laws are in a given area, the easier it is to buy an illegal gun. People bent on breaking laws don’t OBEY anti-gun laws. Only honest people do, and are thus unable to protect themselves against those who flagrantly violate ALL laws. We need to do as Florida has done and make it easy for honest people to obtain “carry licenses,” so that those who would use their illegally-obtained guns to plunder us will never be able to know if their intended victims are armed and willing to kill them before they can kill us. (Just common sense)

Happy New Year!

2009-12-31T11:28:00.000-08:00

Not “Happy Holidays” as the liberals prefer. I don’t follow their “political correctness” scam to limit what we can say in any way. I say “Merry Christmas” and “happy New Year”. This is the end of 2009. Hopefully, 2010 will be the year when we foil Obama’s plans by taking away his voting base in Congress. He currently has a voting majority there, and the Republicans can’t do much more than whine and gripe, and attempt filibuster of his idiot plans. This doesn’t work very well when he has the votes to invoke cloture. So when the election comes, vote AGAINST all Democrats and every Republican who is acting like a Democrat. Get those people OUT of there and, hopefully, Obama won’t be able to complete his planned takeover and collectivizing of this government. It’s up to you. Unless you vote them out, he will continue to destroy this country a little at a time, until we can elect Sarah Palin in 2012. (Just common sense)

Merry Christmas, Gun Owners

2009-12-27T12:07:00.000-08:00

There; that should make all liberals mad as hell, and that’s what I like to do. Mainly because every liberal idea they come up with is not only illogical, it is dangerous. Yet they think they’re the smartest people in the world, and should be allowed to run OUR lives. You know, ideas like declaring what we breathe out every time we take a breath to be a “poisonous emission” that needs to be “controlled.” How? Taxed and limited. How they’ll do that, I don’t know. They also believe that the way to self defense is to DISarm ourselves. That CRIMINALS, whose very lives are devoted to breaking the law, will OBEY one that says they can’t be armed. They actually think that they can ELIMINATE guns from the world. This is not only illogical, it’s STUPID! But they, in their “wisdom,” won’t even LISTEN to those of us who try to tell them different. They try and eliminate the word “Christmas” from the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. They say it “offends” certain people, as if we cared. Those who are offended by Christmas can go pee up a rope, for all of me. (S. E. Cupp)

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T14:34:00.000-08:00

I will not bow to the liberals’ political correctness dictate that I not mention “Christmas” in my greeting to you on Christmas day. The whole idea of eliminating the word “Christmas” from a greeting concerning the birth of Jesus Christ is stupid. But then, everything the liberals in Washington (and other government centers) do or say is stupid, so I expect it of them. Whatever your religion, using the name of Christ in a reference to His birthday is logical, and I am logical if nothing else. I respect ALL religions, even though I may not agree with all their tenets. So Merry Christmas to all, whatever your religion. I realize that may “offend” some, but that’s too bad. Trying to limit my free speech offends ME. (Just common sense)

The UN's gun Control Scheme

2009-12-16T08:24:00.000-08:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has signaled that the Obama administration would “work hand-in-hand: with the UN to get the global arms treaty signed. “Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “’terrorism,’ ‘insurgency’ and ‘international crime syndicates,’[ the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.” Like most ignorant gun-control freaks, Hillary, Obama, and the UN still think criminals, whose whole reason for being is to breaks the law, will OBEY a law that says they can’t be armed.; when are these people going to get some COMMON SENSE? I, and others, have been trying to get through to these people for years. But they aren’t listening. They think they’re smarter than anybody else. (Town Hall)

CSU Is Stupid!

2009-12-05T13:04:00.000-08:00

Colorado State University recently voted to become a "gun-free campus." Basically telling those who want to come there and shoot people, "Come on and shoot us. There will be no unexpected guns here and you will not be shot. We're completely unprotected, except for uniformed campus police officers, most of whom have never fired their guns outside of a shooting range, and which you can identify from a long ways away. We're protecting ourselves by DISARMING ourselves. How stupid is THAT? Anti-gun freaks really think the way to self-defense is to DISARM us. The only UNsuccessful mass shooting I know of is one where there was one parishioner in a church in Colorado Springs, Colorado when a man came in shooting, and she shot him, cutting his shooting spree short after only two deaths. They CALLED her a "part-time security guard," but she was simply a worshipper who was encouraged to bring her gun to services. It is only her presence, with her gun, that stopped the shooter from creating a much bigger death toll. But this kind of thing is lost on the anti-gun freaks. (Just common sense)

Answer the Damned Question!

2009-12-02T13:39:00.000-08:00

When you ask liberals (Democrats) an important question, such as how you can expect insurance companies, that MUST make a profit to survive, how they’re expected to compete with a government agency, which does not, they never answer. They just change the subject and get you talking about the new subject so you forget about the original question. We need to DEWMAND answers.

STIMULUS DIDN’T WORK: So they’re going to do it again, even though doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is THE definition of insanity. Why don’t they just lower the base tax rate as Bush did, and create ANOTHER “boom” period? Why take the money in the first place, only to give it back? The answer is simple. If they get to decide who gets it, they gain more POWER.

“CLIMATE CHANGE” IS A HOAX: A hoax that has either taken in some of our leaders, or is simply being used by them to increase their power over us, while making us pay for it. The “Copenhagen Accord” is a good example of this. If it is signed, and Congress approves it, it will cause legislation that will simply fleece America for a lot more than AlGore ever dreamed of conning us out of.

GOVT. HEALTH CARE IS ANOTHER SCAM: Global warming (now called “climate change”) is a hoax designed to take more of our rights while making us pay for it. Government-paid health care is another. These are just two of the scams Obama and his “gang of thieves” are using to “take us over” and gain complete control over us.

“OLD ARGUMENT?”: The idea that we’re fighting Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep them busy so we won’t have to fight them here IS an “old argument.” That’s because it is TRUE and it’s hard to “change” a true story your opponents deny. Liberals don’t have that problem because their stories are mostly lies, anyway.

I’M NOT BEING RUDE! That’s what Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee shouted rudely, after someone said she was rude for answering phone calls while people are trying to ask her questions during a “town hall” meeting. Sheila is the “poster child for representatives who just don’t care what their constituents think.
.

They Just Won't Listen

2009-11-29T12:54:00.000-08:00

We tell them and tell them logical conclusions, but they ignore us. They won’t even answer. We ask them what makes them think a CRIMINAL, who makes his LIVING breaking the law, will OBEY a law saying he can’t be armed. We ask them what makes them think the route to self-defense is DISARMING ourselves? And the answer? Silence. And they go right on making their stupid laws, which only penalize HONEST people who DO obey laws. It just makes of them, “easy targets” for criminals, who do not. The ONLY unsuccessful mass shooting recently was stopped by ONE GUN in the hands of a woman not afraid to use it, who ended the shooting spree in a Colorado Springs church by shooting the shooter.

It’s a proven fact that in areas where guns are easy to obtain and legal to carry, violent crime figures GO DOWN. Liberals and other gun-hating fools deny this, but they can’t prove their denials. They just SAY it and hope we’ll believe it. In one case in Texas, where a licensed gun carrier was forced to leave her gun in the car by law when she and her parents went in a restaurant to eat, she had to watch as her parents were gunned down by a man with an ILLEGAL gun, right in front of her eyes. Just think about how different the story would have been if she had been allowed to carry her gun inside. (Just common sense)

New Gun Control Scam

2009-09-24T11:41:00.000-07:00

Call every gun an “assault weapon.” There is already a law against “assault weapons,” that they successfully passed by saying, “What does an individual need with an assault weapon?” I even fell for that one. Now they have their foot in the door, they’re calling every gun they find an “assault weapon” so they can apply this law. This is how they con the world. (Learn About Guns)

Stopping Mass Shootings

2009-07-30T12:11:00.000-07:00

Laws prohibiting guns will not do it. Those wishing to commit mass murder do not obey laws that say they “can’t come in here armed.” This article gives a long list of schools where shooters have come in armed, where guns are specifically prohibited, and killed people. These killers could be pretty sure nobody there would be armed and able to kill HIM. “Guns were specifically not allowed on the premises by official policy or by law. Some locations have specific legal prohibitions, while others rely only on ‘company policy.’ Murderers will ignore signs telling them that something is prohibited. Clearly, if the state prohibits guns on campus, the good people will obey and leave their guns at home. But quite clearly, these signs did not dissuade the killers. Think about it. The only people obeying the law and the signs were the good people...the victims.” We need to allow RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE in these schools to be able to carry a gun (if they wish) so such shooters will not know whether or not there will be someone there who is armed and able to stop him as there was in Colorado Springs, Colorado when a shooter who had already killed that day came in shooting. A female parishioner shot him (and, knowing it was ‘all over,” he killed himself) and only two people there (other than the perp) died. (Examiner)

What the "Anti-Gun Freaks" Won't Tell You

2009-06-28T12:45:00.000-07:00

“According to the FBI, states with ‘shall-issue’ right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.” Do they REALLY think the way to self-defense is to DISarm yourself? How STUPID is that? They tell you that when a lot of innocent citizens are armed, we will have a “wild west atmosphere” where people solve all their problems with guns. That’s a patent insult that assumes the average person has NO CONTROL over their actions and access to guns will cause more deaths and violence. That’s a LOAD. In Florida, where they DO have “must issue” laws for concealed carry permits, violent crime of ALL kinds has PREDICTABLY gone down significantly; while violence where gun laws are tight, it has gone UP significantly. This is not spoken of in the liberal media because they don’t want you to know it. (Just common sense)

"Taser Death"

2009-06-21T13:40:00.000-07:00

Twice in recent days people have been shocked and have died. The “quick” judgment is that the shock killed him. That is impossible. Stun guns cannot kill. There isn’t enough AMPERAGE to do so. I’d bet that when the autopsy results are in, it will be discovered that both these people had underlying medical problems that killed them, not the stun gun. Of course, family members will not accept this, as the stun gun is a “convenient target.” They’ll say the medical examiner is “part of the system” and ruled to “save” the cop who stunned him. MEs don’t operate that way. They find what’s there and report it. Maybe that has happened in the past, but it’s not “common.” Medical Examiners are THERE as an “oversight” to the cops, and anybody else who might kill someone, accidentally or on purpose. In one case, the man fell to his death AFTER being stunned, but the press STILL called his death as CAUSED by being “tazed.”

I’ll wait until I find out just what killed this man before I blame the stun gun the cop used. (Update: now it has come to light [thanks to Fox News] that he was on a ledge, high above the street when he was shocked, and FELL to his death. He died of “head trauma” caused by his fall. A police lieutenant and the cop who shocked him at a very bad time have been relieved of duty. It was NOT the stun gun that killed him, news reports notwithstanding). Nonetheless, news reports still say this “has brought renewed focus to the use of Tasers by police.” Maybe they ought to teach them not to use them on people precariously perched on ledges, way above the street. One thing is sure: shooting him would not have been better. (Fox News)

Going Off Half-Cocked

2009-06-07T15:25:00.000-07:00

At Princeton University recently, they shut down the campus, sent out e-mail mass messages, and wasted hours of the cop’s time conducting a search, all because somebody saw someone with a toy plastic gun. I expect soon to hear that “authorities” are demanding even tighter anti-gun laws in response to this. I guess they will figure if a TOY gun can trigger such a response, they ought to ban it, too. This is how the “anti-gun freaks” “gin up” reasons to make new laws against gun ownership and concealed carry. They figure if ANYBODY has a gun in his possession, he’s going to kill somebody. They don’t know ANYTHING about personal responsibility and self-control because they don’t have it. Turns out it was a couple of kids (They made sure everyone knew were from "off-campus" and had no connection to the university) playing "cops and robbers." (Just common sense)

"Gun Control" IS A Crime!

2009-05-21T11:18:00.000-07:00

It gets people killed. If just ONE person in the path of the “Alabama Killer” had been armed and had the will and training to use his/her gun, Michael McClendon would not have been able to kill as many people in his rampage before he was shot to death. It makes no difference whatever whether or not the gun or guns he was using were legally obtained and legally carried, or were bought out of the trunk of an illegal gun seller in an alley somewhere. Someone bent on killing others doesn’t worry about the “legality” of the guns he has. What makes ANYBODY think a law against carrying or owning a gun will stop, or even slow down a criminal whose life is spent breaking the law, is beyond me. All such laws do is give such people a ready supply of “easy targets.” Even people who are directly threatened have trouble getting guns. I remember two stories of women who, threatened by their spouses, went in two different directions; one applied for a gun permit and was told to wait fifteen days to get it. She was shot to death by her boyfriend the next day. The other woman wasn’t so stupid. She bought an illegal gun and, when her ex-husband tried to kill her, she shot him to death. They tried to charge her with carrying a gun illegally, but the jury wasn’t stupid, either. There was no question about self-defense. In Israel, EVERYBODY carries a gun and my favorite “mind-picture” is of an old Jewish lady standing over a Palestinian terrorist, pumping bullets into his dead body. We need such gun laws” here so more of us can stay alive when crazies start shooting up the landscape. (Yahoo News/AP)

It's Patently Illogical!

2009-05-21T11:07:00.000-07:00

Disarming yourself as a means to self defense is NOT LOGICAL. But that’s the policy the “anti-gun freaks” have (at least, until they get shot). Carry that into foreign policy, and you have this: “The outgoing director of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog warns major powers such as the U.S. to unilaterally disarm or be blamed for the doubling of nuclear weapons states in a few years.” Does he really think the irrational leaders of such currently nuclear-armed countries will just “back off” if we disarm ourselves? What the hell is he THINKING? They will attack us IMMEDIATELY, as soon as they know for sure we have no defenses. How can people who pretend to be so smart be so STUPID? (IBD Editorials)

"Irrational?"

2009-05-17T08:47:00.000-07:00

"Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation's ‘gun show loophole.’ ‘There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it's still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington’ Sen. Lautenberg said, ignoring the Constitution.” What’s irrational about logic? Logically, what makes them think criminals, whose very life is dedicated to breaking the law (and crazy mass murderers) will OBEY a law that says they can’t be armed? No; we’re not “irrational,” these congresspeople are irrational to think that ANY law will stop people with evil intentions from getting their guns out of someone’s trunk in an alley somewhere. Experience has shown that where the gun laws are the tightest, illicit guns are the most easy to obtain. (Just common sense and logic)

Another "Victory" for Gun Control!

2009-04-15T13:24:00.000-07:00

Twelve or more people are dead in New York City at an immigration center. There was NOBODY there with a gun and the will to use it to stop him. That’s because New York has some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the country. Did that stop this guy? Not for a second. When a criminal wants to use a gun to commit a crime, NO amount of laws that say he can’t do it while armed are going to stop him. Only the presence of someone in the crowd who can kill him early in his “shooting spree” and reduce the death toll. Only his not knowing if there was someone there who is armed so he can’t target the only armed person he knows is there, first, as the Columbine killers did. Only laws that allow honest people to be armed and able to defend themselves from such people will help. But ignorant politicians will never allow that. Even if this killer’s gun or guns were licensed, it makes no difference. If they were not, it’s the same. Anti-gun laws, as we know them, are STUPID and have KILLED many people. As long as honest people are not allowed to be armed for self-defense, we will continue to hear about such shooting sprees, and they will be successful. This is the second such shooting spree I’ve heard about in as many days. The other one was in a “REST HOME,” fergawd’sake! How many people have to die before the “anti-gun freaks” wake up? (Yahoo News/AP)

It's NOT An "Iraq War!

2009-03-18T11:52:00.000-07:00

Iraq is just ONE THEATER in an overall “war against terrorists.” It doesn’t matter what we do in Iraq, that war will go on and on until we’ve killed or crippled enough Islamic terrorists to make it impossible for them to continue to attack us. Afghanistan will be the next “theater” in that war, and I’m sure Iran will come soon after. If the “doves” in our society continue to gripe every time we make a move to win this war and this government LISTENS, we will LOSE that overall war and the Islamic terrorists will be bombing indiscriminately in the U. S., which they have not been able to do up to now because Bush kept them busy in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is it about “self defense” these “doves” don’t understand? These are the same people, no doubt, who think the way to personal self defense is to DISARM yourself while CRIMINALS, who have no problem violating a law that says they can’t be armed, see us as “easy targets.” I’m getting sick and tired of these “doves” running things while making it more dangerous for us to live. If I arm myself to avoid becoming the victim of one of these illegal guns, then I become a criminal who will go to jail if the cops find me armed. That’s a load of bull droppings. (Just common sense)

Zapping Coyotes

2009-03-18T11:45:00.000-07:00

Coyotes are becoming a major problem in Colorado lately, coming into settled areas and attacking people and animals. Now they have come out with (“new”) device (which has actually been around for a while, designed to stop human predators) they mistakenly call a “Taser.” “Taser” is a registered trade name for one of the first of its breed, the stun gun. Just the sound scares off some animals (though maybe not human animals). But the “shocker” is that it carries a 150,000 volt bang that will put down the biggest animal, human or coyote. Works on dogs, too, and is a lot better than shooting them, according to the cops. (Just common sense)

Guns on Campus A Comforting Thought

2009-01-20T13:40:00.000-08:00

At least to those who have been killed by insane idiots who have had no trouble getting their guns, OR bringing them on campus. What the hell makes politicians think “BANNING” guns from campuses will make them safer? What makes them think such people will OBEY a law that says they can’t be armed? People bent on killing people will NEVER have trouble getting guns, no matter how many “anti-gun” laws are passed; and they don’t give a second thought to anti-gun laws. So honest people, especially people on school campuses, are “fair game” for those weenies. If the principle of Columbine High School in Colorado had had a gun in his pocket and the will to use it when he “looked around a corner and watched one of the shooters firing into a room,” he could have “put a couple into the shooter’s head” and maybe reduced the death toll. An armed part-time security guard at a church in Colorado Springs, Colorado DID end a shooter’s rampage in her church when she shot him before he could kill more than two people there. How many times must it be proved that having more guns in the hands of responsible, honest people can reduce such shootings because the criminals won’t know for sure their intended victims won’t be armed and able to shoot back? The “anti-gun fanatics” seem to think the very presence of guns is dangerous. In actuality, the presence of guns those shooters don’t know about can stop them cold (or maybe cold and dead). For my part, if someone shoots me, I want it to be the last thing he does in HIS life. (Indianapolis Star)

Kills Intruder With His Own Gun

2009-01-07T13:46:00.000-08:00

I'd like to hear more of this kind of story. This woman, when faced by a man with a shotgun who wanted to rob them, took it away from him and gave it to her husband, who shot and killed one of the two bumbling attackers. The cops say since they were defending themselves, they "probably" won't be charged. "Probably?" The Constitution still allows deadly force in defense of your life or family. The woman says she isn't glad someone is dead. I am. More of this kind of person should be killed. Maybe others would get the idea that people aren't going to be "easy targets" any more. (Fox News)

"Anti-Gun Fanatics" Refuted Again

2009-01-07T13:43:00.000-08:00

"Another bogus argument of gun control extremists--that sensible concealed carry laws create an increased threat to police officers--has been refuted by statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and published by USA Today. The number of officer fatalities due to gunfire is the lowest in 50 years, noted Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A report out Monday said that this year, 41 officers have died from gunshot wounds, down 40 percent from the 68 who died by gunfire in 2007. Yet the number of concealed carry permits issued by the states has risen, dramatically in some areas, in the past 12 months. 'Better training and equipment have contributed to this decline,' Gottlieb stated, 'but it must be noted for the record that growing numbers of legally-armed citizens have not resulted in more police slayings. That has been one of the many lame arguments offered by gun control fanatics over the past few years when they fought against expanded concealed carry rights.’ " We refute them again and again, but they keep insisting on their flawed reasoning and their flawed assumptions. When we do it, they call us names. That’s when we know we won the argument. (CCRKBA)

"Gun Control" Doesn't Work

2009-01-01T10:25:00.001-08:00

It didn’t work in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India where TEN people killed HUNDREDS in a country with tight gun laws. It doesn’t work in Australia, which suffered a 300% INCREASE in gun violence after effectively BANNING guns. In America, we have periodical massacres, sometimes in schools, other times in churches and colleges. Some have been done with ILLEGAL guns; others with LICENSED guns. Nothing the anti-gun freaks have tried has worked. If someone wants to go on a shooting spree, he/she always seems able to get guns, legal or not. Whatever makes politicians think that the way to self-defense is to DISARM ourselves; or that criminals, who don’t obey laws, will obey one that says they can’t be armed, I don’t know. Stupidity, maybe? If the Columbine school principal (during their massacre) had had a gun and the will to use it when he peeked around a corner and watched one of the shooters firing into a room and could have “put a couple in him,” maybe the death toll wouldn’t have been so high. In Colorado Springs at a church, it was different. There was a female parishioner there who had been asked to bring her gun to services and act as a “part-time security agent.” She shot the shooter after only two deaths. So he killed himself, knowing it was “all over.” The point is, no amount of “gun control” has EVER been able to “control” guns. So why not allow innocent people to carry guns for self-defense? Maybe violent criminals will find something else to do if they can’t be sure their intended victims aren’t armed and ready to shoot THEM. What good are “gun laws” if they can’t get rid of guns? Only violent criminals meeting guns in the hands of their intended victims will lower gun violence. That’s an absolute. (Just common sense)

More Guns, Less Crime

2008-12-31T11:43:00.000-08:00

That’s the name of a best-selling book and a basic truth, as some people in England are discovering. The shootings in Mumbai should have stilled forever the voices of those who think defending ourselves requires that we disarm the populace. It should have destroyed forever the MYTH of “gun control.” But that won’t shut them up. They’re not smart enough. Anybody who really thinks disarming ourselves is the way to self defense is an idiot (and that includes politicians). That’s why a think tank in England is mulling the idea that “if each of us carried a gun…” They’re taking note of the fact that every gun used in the Mumbai massacre was a “prohibited weapon” under Indian law, yet the gunmen had no trouble getting them. So where did they get them? The black market, of course. Those “gun control laws” guaranteed they would not be met with real resistance, as usual. No massacre in history ever happened where mere mortals (not cops or “government agents”) find it easy to be able to carry concealed guns (as in Florida, whose violent crime has gone down since they made it easier to carry a gun). When violent criminals can’t be sure people aren’t “carrying,” they’ll soon go into a less violent kind of crime. That’s what I’ve been preaching for years, but nobody has been listening. (Times Online)

UN Goes Ahead on Gun Control Measure

2008-12-31T11:41:00.000-08:00

People who believe self defense involves DISARMING ourselves are idiots. They’re stupid. But that doesn’t slow down the United Nations, which thinks of itself as a “world government,” although it is NO kind of a government, and hopefully will not be one in my lifetime (admittedly short). What the hell makes them think that disarming the populace is the way to self-defense? That way lies idiocy! But you can never “shut up” the anti-gun idiots. They think they know more than the rest of us, although it’s painfully obvious to intelligent people they’re not. When are they going to “wise up?” Never, if I know the anti-gun jerks. (WTOP News)

Ireland to Ban the Glock

2008-12-30T12:14:00.000-08:00

The Glock is the gangster’s favorite gun, so Ireland is going to ban it. Completely. Does anybody really think that will reduce the number of Glocks used in crimes in Ireland? I don’t. I think the number of Glocks in Ireland will INCREASE, as do all things banned. Remember prohibition in the U. S.? Booze in this country didn’t “disappear,” as those pushing prohibition predicted; it INCREASED exponentially. People were making booze in their BATHTUBS. Criminals will, as usual, have no problem getting Glocks in Ireland, or any other kind of gun, actually. And they will make a lot more money doing it. When you ban something, you create a black market and even more of that item is sold than ever before. Politicians (everywhere) never learn that. What idiots they are! (Herald.ie)

Finally Gave Their Guns Back

2008-12-21T15:52:00.000-08:00

New Orleans finally gave back the guns they stole under the cover of "cleaning up" after the hurricane. But they didn't do it on their own. They fought "tooth and nail" for THREE YEARS when the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association sued them. They shouldn't have had to file this suit in the first place, to force New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to follow the Constitution and allow his citizens to defend themselves against the ILLEGALLY armed criminals who don't OBEY laws. The "anti-gunners," including Nagin, are doing everything in their power to DISARM honest Americans and make of them "easy targets" for criminals. What makes them think a CRIMINAL, who doesn't OBEY laws, will not be armed if they make a law against it, I don't know. All I know is, like the Chinese and Japanese in history, we must find a way to "get around" their asinine anti-gun laws. The Orientals came up with "unarmed combat." The government couldn't stop them from having their arms, legs, feet, and other effective weapons. Can we find as effective a counter for the laws our liberals make to keep us disarmed and "easy pickins" for criminals (some of whom even wear badges)? (Common Sense)

Guns in Church?

2008-11-26T13:03:00.000-08:00

Two people are dead as a result of a man coming into the St. Thomas Syrian Orthodox Knanaya Church. In New Jersey, where guns are not allowed, and killing his estranged wife and a parishioner. In Colorado Springs, a man came in and started killing people in a church protected by a part-time security guard who was also a parishioner, who shot him, stopping his rampage. In a Scientology Church, a man came in with a sword and tried to kill some people, but was shot to death by a security guard. Anti-gun freaks say there should not be guns in church. But how many people have been killed in churches by people who don't obey rules, nor laws? I think concealed guns should be allowed EVERYWHERE, so people can defend themselves against such people. The "anti=gun freaks" say that will make America a "wild-west" society where people "settle scores" with guns at the slightest provocation. What a LOAD! Back when everybody DID carry a gun, gunfights were rare, and it was a "polite society." Today, when people carrying guns are rare, we have more shootings per square inch than ever before because people who want to shoot someone don't care about how many laws they break while the people they want to shoot, do. What makes politicians think a CRIMINAL, who does not OBEY laws, will obey one that says he can't be armed, I don't know. Only honest people do, and we don't have to worry about them. (Associated Press)

More Guns Needed

2008-11-12T12:06:00.000-08:00

In New Zealand, "dairies" (their equivalent of a convenience store") are arming themselves because of a recent increase of violent crimes against them. They call the job of clerk in their stores as "one of the most dangerous jobs out there." Some keep baseball bats, cricket bats, knives and other weapons short of a gun because of the tight gun laws that do nothing toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (who don't obey laws) but DO keep guns out of the hands of most honest people--those who really NEED them. But some are actually putting guns under their counters in defiance of the law because "it's better to be judged by 12 instead of carried by six." I agree. If I had such a job, I would DEFINITELY have a gun close to hand, law or no law. (New Zealand Herald)

School Shooting in Finland

2008-09-25T13:41:00.000-07:00

"KAUHAJOKI, Finland - A masked gunman whose violent YouTube postings prompted police to question him a day ago opened fire Tuesday at his trade school in western Finland, killing ten people before shooting himself in the head." Who was it that said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?" After this shooting, Finnish "authorities" say they need MORE gun control. They already have some of the most restrictive "gun control laws" in the world. How is making more going to stop this kind of thing? Especially since the gun this guy used was LICENSED and had to be left in his home after they questioned him yesterday following some "disturbing" YouTube postings he made? Last November, a gunman killed eight people in a school, igniting a lot of talk about "gun control," though the law didn't get changed significantly. This is yet more evidence that customary "gun control laws" do NOT work. Again I say: if there had been ONE person in that school with a legal gun and the will to use it (maybe that janitor), maybe the death toll would be smaller, as it was in the church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where a female part-time security guard (actually, a parishioner attending the church, but who had been asked to bring her gun) with a licensed gun shot the shooter, stopping his "killing spree. But who is listening? Nobody, apparently. (Yahoo News)

Are Guns A "Good Thing?"

2008-09-17T11:03:00.000-07:00

They are if they're in the hands of honest people. You can't stop criminals from getting guns, so why make it easier for them to terrorize honest people by keeping those "honest people" from having the means to self-defense? John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime" notes: " . . where guns are banned, crime increases." The USA is often criticized for having widespread gun ownership, but Lott states that "the states with the highest gun ownership rates have by far the lowest violent crime rates. And similarly, over time, states with the largest increases in gun ownership have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime." This is unarguable. But the gun-control freaks continue to "make noise" about "dangerous guns." Guns are NOT "dangerous." CRIMINALS with guns ARE "dangerous" and they'd be less so if honest people were allowed the right to own guns, as "guaranteed" by the U. S. Constitution. The bureaucrats and politicians get around this and get away with effective gun bans by saying, "Sure, the Constitution allows Americans to own guns. But that doesn't stop the need for reasonable restrictions." What is a "reasonable restriction?" That is subjective and is usually "defined" by those politicians and bureaucrats to suit themselves. And by the time honest people can successfully contest it, criminals have already killed them with their ILLEGAL guns, which HAVE no such "restrictions." One of the stupidest "reasonable restrictions" is the trigger lock. There's no point in having a gun around for self-defense if you have to fumble with a gun lock while the criminal is already armed with a gun unfettered by such a silly thing as a trigger lock. Sometimes I think the "anti-gun freaks" want to kill everybody who wants to own a gun for self-defense. I think every person who wants a gun should be allowed unfettered access to them; even criminals. They're going to get them anyway, so why shouldn't their intended VICTIMS be able to defend themselves? (The Progress Report)

Tough Old Guy

2008-07-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

I just watched a video of an attempted robbery of an elderly man in a convenience store. When the thief tried to take a bunch of twenties sticking out of the old man's pocket, the old man, who is an ex-marine, a former steelworker, and a former Golden Gloves boxer, commenced "beating the hell" out of the "bad guy." With the help of a store clerk, he restrained the thief until the cops came. He proved that robbing elderly citizens isn't always a "piece of cake," but is sometimes a bad idea. He spent six months in jail after he got out of the hospital. In another video, a man tried to rob an old woman in a convenience store with a sawed-off shotgun. She grabbed the barrel and ran this cowardly criminal off, proving that most criminals aren't very tough, even WITH their guns. Another video showed an old man who jumped an armed robber because this robber aimed his gun at his daughter. They finally ran the criminal off, firing many shots in his direction. Don't count those "oldsters" out. You might get hurt. ("Most Outrageous")

In the Stomach, Huh?

2008-07-29T13:45:00.001-07:00

A would-be robber burst into a Texas home and shot himself to death while trying to pull his gun out of the front of his pants. I suspect the newspaper was being "careful" when they described him as "shooting himself in the stomach." Pulling a gun out of the front of his pants would usually result in him shooting himself elsewhere, more likely. Shooting himself in the stomach, while not impossible, would be unlikely in this situation. But that's okay. We don't need to know what he blew off. He won't need it. He's dead. Criminals have been getting dumber and dumber lately. They've even got a weekly television show devoted to "dumb criminals." That takes a lot of stories. (Dallas News)

Subtle "Anti-Gun Propaganda"

2008-07-19T11:30:00.000-07:00

I've been reading some old "Li'l Abner strips on the Internet and Capp did something I wouldn't expect of him. After a series where "the Scraggs" wanted to continue an old feud and kill all remaining Yocums , causing "Mammy" and "Li'l Abner to kick the heck out of them and get them to promise to go away and never return, Abner asked Mammy if she was really going to shoot them. She replied: "Of course not. Only fools use guns. Smaht folks uses brains and sometimes a smack in the nose helps." Apparently, he doesn't realize that this statement is self-contradictory. A "smack in the nose" is just a lesser form of the violence represented by guns," and the THREAT of their use. Without this lesser violence being successful, resort to actual use of guns would be necessary to stop the violence the Scraggs were bringing to them. That is the REAL lesson to be gained from this strip. (Li'l Abner)

Wimping Out to Muhammed

2008-07-18T05:20:00.000-07:00

"McDonald's latest bid to attract more customers -- Muslim fast-food lovers -- has caused uproar among customers. The fast-food chain has introduced halal products at two Melbourne restaurants, significantly boosting sales. However some non-Muslim customers are furious they were not told their hamburger meat was slaughtered (facing East) and blessed in accordance with Islamic rules laid down in the Koran. McDonald's consulted Muslim leaders before introducing halal products at its Brunswick East and St Albans stores." Why have they never offered food that would appeal to their Jewish customers? I have yet to see MacDonald's come out with Kosher foods, and probably won't, in my lifetime -- unless they decide to "wimp out" to both sides. Even so, my question is WHY do they think it's a good thing to "wimp out" to our enemies, rather than out friends? (News Busters)

"Vietnam Prosperous Because We Left"?

2008-07-18T05:17:00.000-07:00

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is locked in a "fanciful" version of history. Like most elite liberals, he thinks Viet Nam is now "prosperous" because we left. Never mind all the South Vietnamese bloody bodies that were left in the wake of our leaving. He also says Bush "let" two "war heroes" be "swift-boated," (like Bush could stop it) one of them being John Kerry, who spent only about two months over there trying very hard to get a purple heart any way he could. If "swift-boated" means "told the truth about," that's true. But that's not what he means. He also denies that Iraq is a key piece of the puzzle in the war on terrorism. He even denies the very EXISTENCE of a "war on terrorism." That should tell you a lot about his intelligence -- or lack thereof. (News Busters)

Sardineville

2008-07-18T05:15:00.000-07:00

The liberals seem bent on gathering us all together in small groups that are more easily killed by Islamic terrorists. They want to put us all in "high-density housing" that can be easily hit with a bomb and kill a maximum number of "lemmings" who don't know any better that to live so close together. They want us to sell our cars and start using mass transit. They SAY it is easy, quick, and convenient. It is NONE of these things. It is difficult, slow, and INconvenient. So why do we "buy into" their schemes? Because they jeer at us if we don't. Many people respond to that. I don't. I live in a HOUSE. I drive my own car. I haven't been on a bus or train in 20 years, and don't plan to do so soon. I do not fly unless absolutely necessary. Usually, I drive. If some get through and start blowing innocent people up in shopping centers and pizza parlors like they do in Iraq or Israel, I won't be among the victims because I'll be somewhere else. They say "there are no innocent Infidels." And they expect us to adhere to a strict "hands off" policy on Muslims. Sheesh! (Just common sense)

Gunman KIlled Robbing Store

2008-07-17T13:15:00.000-07:00

And his girlfriend wants the storeowner who killed him "punished" for "shooting him too many times." What the hell? My thinking is simple: if you go out to violently rob someone, you shouldn't be surprised if you meet a violent end, and the person who "violently ends" you is NOT in line to be punished, under any circumstances. "Shot him too many times?" Hell, in his position I'd have "emptied my gun" into him, too. Many years ago a man tried to rob me with a knife. He made the mistake of taking his eyes off me long enough to look for the door handle (I was driving a cab) and I "brained him" with an old Radio Shack five-cell plastic flashlight. He didn't wake up for three months and never spent a minute in jail because he was, from that point on, "not right" (not that he was so intelligent before he robbed me, either). A cop asked my why I hit him so many times, and I responded, "I've never hit anybody in the head before. I was scared, and I kept hitting him until he stopped moving." I suspect the same is true of this storeowner. He kept shooting until the guy stopped moving. In any case, he was trying to stay alive himself, and shouldn't even spend a night in jail because of it. That's MY take. But liberals want to punish ANYBODY who uses a gun in self-defense, while "protecting" the criminal who forced it to happen Sheesh! Boortz's last sentence makes me wonder. If not McCain, whom? Does he think Obama will make the "gun thing" better? Sheesh, again! (Neal Boortz)

"Suicide More Probable if You Have A Gun?"

2008-07-17T13:12:00.000-07:00

That's what the "anti-gun freaks" are trying to convince you of now. As usual, they're "blaming the gun," not the person. The illogic of this is so obvious I shouldn't even have to mention it. But they don't realize it and think you don't, either. "Anyone who acquires a firearm, we are told, is inviting a bloody death by suicide. So says Matthew Miller, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years,” he told The Washington Post." If you have any amount of intelligence, you know that if someone wants to commit suicide and DOESN'T own a gun, he/she will. He/she will find a way. But this "anti-gun frwak" doesn't think so. He thinks just the presence of a gun in your house makes you WANT to commit suicide. This crap falls into the category of "you're more likely to shoot YOURSELF than a criminal if you have a gun." It completely disallows competence in handling a gun on the part of the innocent citizen, while imputing that competence into a criminal. I've owned guns, and have never even CONSIDERED suicide. (Atlasphere)

"Shoot Down" Gun Control

2008-07-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

It's interesting to note that the politicians who make these "gun control" laws that DISARM honest people and do nothing to disarm criminals, who never have any problems getting their guns either go around armed themselves ("gotta protect ourselves, don'tcha know?") or are surrounded by gun-toting bodyguards who are paid by whom? You and I, that's whom! Others get their politician "friends" to have them "deputized" so they can "carry (They do no law enforcement, it's just a scam so they can "carry.")." But if you and I are caught "carrying," guess what happens? They put us in jail and make felons out of us, so they can forever deny us the right to carry guns for self-defense. What's wrong with this picture? It's time we made politicians aware that we will no longer stand for their "reasonable" rules that keep us disarmed while they have their ways of "getting around the law" and being legally armed. (Common Sense)

Clerk "Beats Up" Robber

2008-07-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

I just saw a video on Fox News (yesterday) where a robber came in to rob a place, starting off by hitting the clerk in the mouth. Many criminals rely on intimidation, and many have no weapons at all. This guy picked the wrong clerk to attack because the clerk "put him down" in short order. He didn't use any kind of a weapon but his fists, just proving arrogant criminals aren't always "the big guys" when they try and rob people. This should be a message for criminals. If you don't go out to rob people, you won't run into people like this guy. (Just common sense)