"Gun-Free Zone" Shooting

This is becoming almost a daily occurrence: a gun attack in a “gun-free zone.” Chuckie Cheese’s, in Pico Riviera, California, is a “gun-free zone,” but that did nothing to stop a couple of guys from bringing their guns into the parking lot of a Chuckie Cheese’s and blazing away at one another. Fortunately neither were much good at aiming their guns and after 13 shots, nobody was injured. So the only thing that saved the people there (including the two shooters) was that they were lousy shots. As usual, the cops got there long after the shooting was over and the shooters were gone. They say the shooting MIGHT be “gang-related,” which is code for the fact it will probably never be solved, nor anybody ever arrested, (NBC Los Angeles)

Huffington Post, Nonsense

The “Huffer” says the whole idea that “A good guy with a gun can stop bad guys with guns is nonsense.” Really? “Remember last week when a good guy with a gun stopped Alton Nolen from continuing his Islamic Jihad beading spree by shooting him? What about Dr. Lee Silverman stopping a shooting rampage in a hospital last July? The Huffington Post is hoping you don’t remember those instances as they push their anti-gun agenda by asserting that good guys with guns do not stop bad guys.” As usual, the things the anti-gun fools say are LIES. Truth means nothing to them. Huffington Post is one of the worse liberal outlets there is, and it lies on a regular basis, when the truth interferes with their preconceived notions. In their efforts to back this up, they EXCLUDE active shooters who killed themselves and those who were stopped by cops (aren’t cops “good guys with guns?”). In addition, most who committed suicide did so when confronted by a citizen (or a cop) with a gun. Twisting facts is an art with liberals. (Down Trend)

Obama Likes Aussie Gun Ban

He says, “Australia enacted gun control laws after a single mass shooting and hasn’t had one since.” That’s one of his typical LIES. Maybe they haven’t had a MASS shooting, per se, but their gun violence WENT UP 300% after they passed that law. They don’t like for us to talk about that, and I’d bet their media have covered up any stories abut mass shootings there to keep the myth solid. He says, “Gun violence in America is off the charts.” I don’t know about HIS charts, but with a majority of states making concealed carry easier, gun violence has GONE DOWN significantly. Obama is simply one of the higest-ranked gun-grabbers who is frustrated by the fact we don’t just shut up and let him violate our constitutionally-guaranteed right to own and use a gun in self-defense. (Weasel Zippers)

Banning Muslim Shooters

Jan Morgan owns a shooting range, where she has made a policy decision to ban Muslims from shooting there, and has put up signs telling them that. Now a web site nobody reads says she’s a fool for doing that. I think she’s “right on.” Let a bunch of Muslims come in her range with guns and they might just decide to shoot it up, as well as kill everybody there. Some have called that action racist. It’s NOT. It’s COMMON SENSE. Some people are so ignorant as to resent ANY effort to limit Muslim participation in everything American while Muslims are beheading CHILDREN and adults, raping and murdering women and making their families watch, before killing them, too. What’s racist about resenting and punishing people who are TAUGHT to do that sort of thing FROM BIRTH as a “religious command?” People who are the most bigoted bunch on Earth? People who think not taking action against such people are FOOLS and should be “slapped down.” The site linked here claims to be one of “shooting sports news and info,” but all it is, is the voice of some of the worst anti-gun fools around. They’re really incensed that she would do such a thing. Maybe this web site (that REALLY nobody reads) is run by Muslims? They talk about “discrimination on the basis of religion,” but Muslims do not follow a religion. They follow a political system PRETENDING to be a religion for just this kind of thing. What her policy does, is keep possible mass killers OUT of her property and she’s allowed to do it. (Gun Nuts Media)

"Never an Intent"

According to some, there was “never an intent to allow individuals to have firearms.” What a twisted way to ”interpret” the Constitution! But it goes right along with the left’s wish to DISARM all Americans except for government agents. They’ve said, all along, that it was an “organized militia" they meant, when such a thing did not even EXIST at the time of their writing, so they COULDN'T have meant that!. They wanted EVERYBODY to be armed, in case they “called them up” to help defend the nation, and that they have their own guns to bring into battle. When it was written, that’s how things were done. So that’s what they meant. All the citizens “rallied around” to defend their property and lives. They didn’t call an “organized militia,” since one did NOT exist. So there’s NO WAY they meant that, rather than that every citizen should be armed. And it is STUPID to say otherwise. But we can expect that of the anti-gun fools, who will try ANYTHING to disarm Americans. (Rev. Rob Times)

Gun Pros and Cons

“While many people have decidedly formed opinions on gun control, the debate is complicated and has strong supporters on both sides. The pros and cons of gun control come to the forefront of debate in the wake of mass shootings that continue to pop up throughout the nation. Yet support for federal bans and reforms remain elusive. Even the devastating attack at Sandy Hook Elementary in December of 2012 failed to garner a consensus on the issue of background checks for gun purchases.” There’s a good reason for that. Neither side is mentioning the basic thing about “gun control” as we know it today: it’s going in the wrong direction. It’s targeting GUNS, not PEOPLE. It takes guns away from honest people, not criminals. They need to make laws that make using a gun harder on the CRIMINAL, not on responsible citizens. You don’t protect yourself by DISARMING yourself. That’s where they’re making their biggest mistake. The article linked here pretends to cover the “pros and cons” of gun control, but it doesn’t. The three questions it asks first talk about only PERIPHERAL ISSUES. The REAL points are above. (News Max)

Stupid Politicians

In Santa Clara County, Utah, a councilman was infuriated by a newly-passed ordinance allowing guns in city parks. That ordinance is now in the process of being repealed (maybe). But the interesting part of this is that councilman’s wish to make it illegal to use a gun in self-defense! Something he apparently doesn’t know is guaranteed under our Constitution. It would seem that people who hold elected office under that Constitution ought to be at least DIMLY aware of its content, and how it affects the laws and ordinances he/she makes, As long as we keep electing such STUPID PEOPLE to office, we will get stupid laws made. (St. George News)

Jihad Is HERE!

Even if that damned fool in the White House is too stupid to admit it! A recently converted to Islam fool in Morris, OK who broadcast his intent in many ways, and many places, went into the place where he had been fired from and BEHEADED one of the women there who had rebuffed his efforts to convert her to Islam (and maybe sex, too). He was trying to kill another “apostate” when the company’s chief financial officer (who also happens to be a volunteer deputy sheriff) blew him away—AGAIN proving my point that it only takes ONE GUN, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it and isn’t afraid to do so, to make it a very bad day for any would-be mass killer. It also proves my prediction that Jihad would be here, soon, with Obama’s REFUSAL to enforce our border control laws. It happens this guy is “home-grown,” having been a recent convert. But who converted and radicalized him? Notice the picture accompanying this article, of a Muslim (in America) holding a sign saying to “behead all those who insult Islam.” I say we should make a law allowing people like that to be shot on sight. (Joe for America)

Shot In A "Gun-Free Zone"

What part of the body is that? Oh; you mean where guns are not allowed? How’s that workin’ out for ya, huh? In Inglenook, Alabama, a recently fired former employee went into a UPS facility and shot three people to death, before killing himself. How is this POSSIBLE? I thought “gun-free zones” guaranteed our safety within them. I guess they don’t, after all. But will the anti-gun fools take note of this? Doubtful. They’re probably the only people who don’t have to worry about being shot in the head. There isn’t a bullet strong enough to get through their thick skulls. Will they ever learn? No. They’re too stupid. (CNN)

"Bought NRA's Theory"

That’s what political criminal Bill Clinton says we have done. And he’s right, except for one thing: he thinks the NRA’s “theory” is wrong. We know it’s RIGHT. As usual, Bill goes around surrounded by men with guns. They carry the guns HE would be carrying for the same level of security if he were not a former president. Yes, we have “bought” the NRA “theory” that the best defense is to be ARMED, so that, when an ILLEGALLY armed criminal comes at you , you have a means of self-defense. Like most anti-gun fools, Clinton’s “theory” doesn’t hold water for this reason, if no other. Take his gun-wielding thugs away from him and he’d be as defenseless as the rest of us—and he wouldn’t like that. It’s easy to make cracks like that when you have a bunch of government-paid-for guns protecting you. Notice the look on his face in the accompanying picture. It says, “We fooled ‘em again, didn’t we. Hillary?” (WAPT News)

"How Dare You Criticize Gabby?"

That’s what they’re saying now, after Republican House candidate Martha McSally criticized her thinking about gun control. What the hell? Does getting shot in the head make her invulnerable to criticism? Yes, she has good reason to want to control guns. But the DIRECTION in which she’s going is WRONG! She’s raking guns away from HONEST people while doing nothing to PUNISH the USE of a gun in the commission of a crime. The laws she proposes, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, do nothing but give criminals more unarmed victims. And that’s WRONG, no matter how many bullets she has had bouncing around in her head. (AZ Central)

LA Times Promotes "No Gun Control?"

This article seems to do that, because one of their writers finally realizes some of the simple truths we have been telling them about for years. One of those being that gun murder rates have gone DOWN in recent years in “some places.” What they don’t mention is that those places are where gun laws aren’t as tight as they’d like hem to be. They talk about there “being no ‘drive-by poisonings’ or ‘drive-by knifings,’ “ but completely ignore the fact that ALL the “drive-by shootings” have been done by people who don’t buy guns legally. So their laws will not stop them. They talk about there being 260 million guns out there CAUSING high death rates, ignoring the fact that people killed people BEFORE there were guns. “Back in the day,” they all carried knives or swords—or further back, CLUBS to kill with. Guns do NOT “cause” the death rate. They just make it easier. And when something better than guns comes along, IT will be blamed—not the PEOPLE who USE it to kill people. Such is the result of illogical thinking. They talk about our murder rate here being THREE TIMES that in Great Britain, completely ignoring that our population is much HIGHER than in GB. This is how the language is used to fool and confuse us. (LA Times)

"Nothing to Fear"

Nazi PR flack (propaganda minister) Josef Goebbels once said, about gun registration, “If you have nothing to hide, why should you be afraid of gun registration?” I don’t know, let’s see: maybe when the government knows where all the guns are, they can come and take them when they’re ready to “take over,” as the Nazis did?  The “Big Mom” of “Moms Against Guns” quoted Goebbels recently in a Tweet. She didn’t give credit to the originator. Maybe she didn’t want to. But the whole point is that many regimes that later became dictatorships DID use gun registration to know where the guns were so they could later confiscate them. People like this think we don’t remember things like this. And a lot of us DON’T, or never learned it, in school. Frankly, the only time I want to know who owns a gun is after it has been USED by its owner in a crime. Not before. (Bearing Arms)

Helping Our Cause

Our cause being to educate anti-gun fools. The State of Massachusetts has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. At the same time, it has the worst record on gun deaths, as shown by their own figures. They want to have border checks to keep people from bringing guns bought in states with less-tight gun laws into those with tighter laws. Believe it! Liberals won’t control our INTERNATIONAL borders, but they want to control borders between STATES! One of the things this article proves is that, far from “preventing gun violence,” tight gun laws” actually INCREASE gun violence in the areas they cover. Increase it, or make no difference, whatever. These figures are available to anti-gun fools, but they ignore them or purposely misread them for their own purposes. (Gun News)

Pro-Gun Is Racist

It’s a typical liberal position. If they don’t like it, it must be racist. Now they’re saying that to be pro-gun is racist. That the reason we want to be allowed to be armed to be able to defend ourselves is so we can shoot blacks. They, as usual, point out that more blacks than whites are killed by guns, without mentioning that most of those blacks (OR whites) are armed and attempting to victimize innocent people with THEIR illegal gun when shot. They show “selective statistics” to back up their position while eliminating statistics that prove otherwise, as usual. I’m going to be very clear, here; something the liberal media never are. The reason more blacks  (or non-whites, including Hispanics) die by guns than white people is that white people seem to be better shots. Most neighborhood gangs are peopled by Hispanics and blacks, and ALL are illegally armed. This is why more “non-whites” are killed (while in the process of committing crimes) than white people. That’s a fact that will NEVER be pointed out by the anti-gun fools. (Tampa Bay Times)

How Could This Happen?

Didn’t they know that guns were requested to be elsewhere than in this Target parking lot? I guess they only came here for their drug deal because they knew there wouldn’t be any other guns there besides theirs. At least, not in the hands of HONEST people. As predicted, these people only came to the Target parking lot because they figured there would be no (other than theirs) guns there. Anti-gun fools, who pressure outfits like Target to ban guns on their property, never listen when we remind them that criminals don’t obey ANY laws, especially ones that say they can’t be armed, ANYWHERE, not just on Target property. These guys apparently carry their guns everywhere they go, and to hell with “gun-free zones.” (Guns Save Lives)

A "Sea of Guns!"

That’s what DC Mayor Vincent Gray (Vinnie) said. What? How can this BE? Until recently, DC had a complete BAN on guns (until the courts declared it unconstitutional). If gun control worked, DC would be an “island of safety in a gun-filled world.” But it’s not. Instead, it has one of the highest gun-violence rates in the country. He is ADMITTING that today’s brand of “gun control” doesn’t work, while demanding MORE “gun control” laws. It is this kind of “dim bulb politician” that’s responsible for all the people killed and injured by illegally-armed criminals, while they are not allowed, by law, to have the means of self-defense. Meanwhile, down in Florida, where guns are freely available and almost anybody not a felon can get a “carry permit,” crime rates are plummeting. But anti-gun fools IGNORE such stats while making up their own. (Down Trend)

Where Anti-Gun Fools Play

In Mississippi, the most dangerous cities are where many of the anti-gun fools live and work (play). Indianola, a city of 10,641 people, citizens have a one in 12 chance of becoming the victim of gun crime. The city with the most limitations and the greatest opposition to citizens carrying a gun is the second most dangerous city. To a right-minded, thinking person that should make them realize that continuing to pass laws preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm to protect themselves does not prevent crime.  The facts show that those laws actually put citizens in greater danger and increase crime. That city is Jackson. Of course, anti-gun fools never take notice of facts like these, and just keep on making their useless laws that only make it safer for criminals to use their ILLEGAL guns to victimize people. (Mississippi Gun News)

Gun Violence On Blacks

They’re pushing the idea that twice the number of blacks are killed by gun violence than whites. But they’re ignoring the fact that most of the shooters are black, too. And that most of the VICTIMS had their own guns, and were shot in “shoot-outs.” It’s the same way they point out that more blacks than whites are in prison. They IGNORE the fact that more blacks commit crimes than do whites. You can always make things look one way or the other by ignoring facts that tend to disprove your thesis. And the media will gobble it up like a puppy gobbles kibbles from his bowl. This is how the liberal media “tailors” the news to fit their preconceived notions. But they’re no longer able to control things the way they used to, with the rise of the “alternative media” like Fox News and Beitbart. (LA Times)

Passing A Gun Background Check

Every mass shooter since Jan. 2009 could have passed a background check. So what good is it? The answer is, it is NO GOOD, except to harass potential honest and reliable gun owners. It does NOTHING to stop “gun crazies,” which is something I’ve been saying for a long time. Furthermore, “gun crazies” who can’t pass such a background check will simply find another criminal somewhere to sell them a gun out of the trunk of his car in a back alley somewhere. The anti-gun fools are DELUDED if they think their attempts at gun control will EVER “keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” All they will do is make it more expensive for them to buy them and do NOTHING to punish them if they use the gun for a criminal act, while giving the criminals lots of UNARMED victims. Laws that do that are commonly dropped to get confessions in other cases. This must STOP. A law must be made to prohibit dropping these gun charges for anything but provable innocence. (Breitbart)

It's RACIST!

The feds are now requiring new gun buyers to tell them their race. Isn’t that against the law? They can’t require such information from anybody else. So why for buying guns? Do they figure one race is going to use a gun in an illegal manner more than the other? Seems to me this is a “crime.” Oh: I forgot. It’s the government doing it! If they do it, it must be okay, right? If I required such information of purchasers of my products, they’d put me in jail or just “string me up.” Seems somehow WRONG to allow the GOVERNMENT to do it. But they will. Because they have the power. And power is all they need. They can obfuscate any effort to stop them and keep it in the courts for YEARS, until the grandchildren of the original complainants give up. All the more reason for honest people to retain the right to have, and carry a gun for self-defense, no matter what their race, even if the feds do use race to prevent them from it. (Gun Owners of America)

ISIS Is Already Here!

They are arguing on the news channels about ISIS (whatever they call themselves this week) being here. Many people don’t believe they are and are demanding PROOF. But the proof is there, in the victims of at least one Muslim crossing the country killing people assumed to be “anti-Muslim.” Our southern border is wide open, and if you don’t believe Islamic terrorists are pouring in like water through a downspout, you’re deluded. They’d better wake up, before they become victims. Now it is even more important to retain our right to be armed in self defense. Israel is “holding its own” against Islamic terrorism because EVERYBODY there is considered part of the military and is armed. My favorite scene of all time is of one middle-aged Israeli woman standing over an Islamic terrorist pumping bullets into his head while his bomb lies there unexploded. We need our guns, so we can be the first line of defense against these Muslim fools. (Just common sense)

How Is This Possible?

A man showed up at a County Supervisor's meeting, and when his concerns were not addressed to his satisfaction, he pulled out a gun and started shooting. He missed. Fortunately, other supervisors were quick and tackled him to the ground before he could shoot anybody else. During the scuffle, he shot himself, presumably accidentally. The story doesn’t say whether or not he survived, but that doesn’t affect the point of this story. The point is there was a ‘Np Guns Allowed” sign outside, which did NOTHING to stop him from bringing his gun in the meeting. Further, he didn’t even have a “carry” permit. How is this possible? That sign should have stopped him from entering with a gun, and the lack of a “carry” permit should have stopped him from HAVING a gun. Neither stopped ANYTHING. Just like with other anti-gun laws today. All they did in this case was to prevent others from having guns to use in their own defense. Luckily, they didn’t need them. (LastResistance)

Cops Running Wild

They stormed Marvin Louis Guy’s home at 5 AM to “serve a warrant.” Guy, fearing a ‘home invasion” when he was attacked by people he didn’t know, got his gun and prepared to defend his home. He’s lucky to be alive, since cops, in that kind of situation, usually fill the homeowner full of holes. Instead, they arrested him for murder and attempted murder (three counts) on a police officer. Now he faces the death penalty for defending his home against unknown invaders. This is not right. Cops should not be allowed to invade people’s homes and charge the homeowner with a crime when he rightfully defends his home, which he is allowed to do, under the law. I know they do it like that to surprise people, who are thought (operative word, “thought”) to be criminals. But that surprise can get them killed, and they treat being killed in that fashion as a simple crime—which it is NOT, except in THEIR case. I remember a case where they conducted such a raid on phony charges because the sheriff wanted this guy’s land for his own purposes. He appeared with a gun and they “filled him full of holes” and bought the property for “a song” from his widow. This is not an item against cops, per se; it's against cops who exceed their authority and kill innocent people. (Last Resistance)

Defeating Anti-Gun Fools

Former New York City Mayor Bloomberg spent $150,000.00 (a mere piffle for him) to defeat Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clark, a strong supporter of the right of Americans to carry guns for self-protection against armed CRIMINALS (including those wearing badges). But it didn’t work. Clark won. He won by 52-48 and is expected to win re-election in November. One would wonder why a former New York mayor was spending big money (big for us, anyway) to defeat a MILWAUKEE Sheriff. But we all know it’s because he favors Americans staying unarmed. Bloomberg doesn’t like the idea of honest people being able to repulse criminals and he thinks that makes it okay to impose his ideas on the rest of the country. Which shows you how some rich people (mostly liberals and Democrats) think they can force their idea on the rest of us. (Daily Caller)

"Smart Gun" Promoters Lose

In Massachusetts, BOTH representatives who supported the “Smart Gun” legislation lost in the primaries. One was a NINE-TERM representative who had been in the legislature for more than 20 years. It’s the first such upset in 22 years, and the one thing that’s common to both is their support for the “Smart Gun.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has nothing against the “Smart Gun” technology, but they object to it being made MANDATORY. They think shooters should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to use it, rather than being TOLD to do so by the government. One of the two legislators promised to “take on” the NRA with his law, but found “taking on” the NRA wasn’t as easy as he thought it was. The NRA is still in business, but he is NOT. (The DailyCaller)

"Only Belong In War"

This letter writer says, “assault weapons only belong in war.” What the hell does he think we’re IN?” In Chicago, oftentimes more people are killed by illegal guns than in Iraq or Afghanistan in the same time period. Criminals use automatic weapons routinely. That’s why the cops in LA had to go to a GUN STORE to get weapons to equal those being used by the bank robbers they were trying to apprehend. We are IN a war against gun suppression by fools who want to disarm the populace. They SAY it’s to “keep guns off the streets,” but it doesn’t. Criminals don’t obey laws and they always get their guns. All their laws do is keep guns out of the hands of HONEST people so as to make them “easy targets” for illegally-armed criminals. We keep telling them this, but they keep not listening, and continue to pass their useless anti-gun laws. (Times-Union)

Gun-Grabbers Recycle Old Material

They have nothing new, and all that old stuff is a lie, too. But they “dust off” the same articles over and over, sometimes under the same titles, and other times under different titles to make people think they’re “shiny and new.” But they’re not. All they are is a collection of the old lies and innuendoes under a new cover. The writer of this article is a “fluff piece” writer who writes about “The (number) Of Things (the flavor of the day) Won’t Tell You.” I haven’t checked into the veracity of her other articles, but I did this one and NONE of what she says is true. They have nothing else, so they’re touting this article as a “definitive expose” of the gun industry. (Daily Caller)

Why Do Liberals Want Us Disarmed?

They SAY it’s to “keep guns away from criminals.” But their laws do NOTHING to accomplish that lofty goal. All they do is give illegally armed criminals a steady supply of UNARMED victims. Is that their goal? Do they want us disarmed so that, when their thugs come to take what’s ours, they will not be met by a gun in the hands of their intended victims?  Or is Obama a “closet Islamic terrorist” who is “preparing us” for the “invasion” to come, by his refusal to enforce border controls while disarming us? Can people not put “two and two together?” Islamic terrorists FAVOR “gun control” in the United States so there will be fewer guns here to oppose them when they “make their move” to kill as many Americans as they can. Is he working to help them? I think so, but I can’t convince others that their own president is a saboteur who wants the enemy to win. They just call me an “extremist” and move along. (Just common sense)

Gun Limits Kill People

A recent study shows it: limiting gun ownership for honest people KILLS people. Mark Gius, of Quinnipiac University, found that between 1990 and 2009, “states with more restrictive CCW laws had a 10% higher murder rate.” He also concluded that murder rates were 19.3% higher when the federal government’s assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans were in effect. I love it when statistics prove me right, and make liberals and other anti-gun fools squirm! And squirm they do when such statistics emerge. They just ignore them in public, where somebody could see them; and they go right on citing their phony figures that make it look like they’re right. They just can’t accept the truth. They think they’re right, in spite of those pesky statistics that prove otherwise. (Daily Caller)

Slowly Waking Up

Some schools, instead of enforcing their foolish “gun-free zones” to extreme, are beginning to allow people with concealed carry permits and specific training to bring their guns onto school grounds, thus making it impossible for potential shooters to know who might be armed so they can “take them out” first, as with most schools, which only allow UNIFORMED security officers to be armed on their property. Missouri is the latest state (of TEN) to do so, and they have even put up signs to warn potential shooters off. Anti-gun fools are still making a “big thing” out of “teachers shooting themselves” to make us think this is a BAD thing. But the key phrase in the Missouri law is “specifically trained” teachers. You can’t allow people with NO training who have a CCW to carry, but it is a simple thing to REQUIRE such training BEFORE issuing a CCW. The “anti—gunners” like to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”  It took overcoming a governor’s veto to do it, but it does seem like Missouri legislators are emerging from their ignorance. This article is in an anti-gun publication; so don’t take their editorial comments too seriously. (Addicting Info)

Criminals Don't Register Guns

In the never-ending fight against gun ownership, anti-gun fools always concentrate on “registering” guns sold on the “up-and-up,” ignoring completely those sold out of the backs of other criminals’ car trunks in back alleys somewhere, as if closing the “open” sales would stop criminals from getting guns. It won’t. Criminals only buy their guns through people who openly sell them when they can, and that isn’t often. Other criminals make a lot of money selling to them when  they can, which is most often. In any case, trying to keep criminals from getting guns only keeps honest, responsible people, who USE legal means to buy guns from getting them, as a rule. That this provides more and more UNARMED victims for the illegally-armed criminals to victimize goes without saying. They’re still aiming their efforts in the wrong direction, and as long as they do, I will oppose them. (PeninsulaDaily News)

Isn't A Tank A Gun?

Billionaire Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, wants to buy a tank. Isn’t that a gun? He’s an anti-gun fool, isn’t he? He reportedly paid $2.5 million dollars for the tank, but the people he paid for it now refuse to turn it over, so he’s now involved in a lawsuit to force them to do so. They SAY they tried to return the money, but as with politicians who say publicly they returned illegal donations, there’s no proof of that. They are now saying the tank was never for sale. Maybe he didn’t pass California’s background check. Like most anti-gun freaks, he apparently thinks the rules aren’t for him. Like most big-money men, he wants what he wants, when he wants it, and to hell with the laws, or what other people think. Gun control fools say, “you don’t need such guns as an AR-15, so they make laws against their ownership. But what about TANKS? Is there EVER any reason for an INDIVIDUAL to own a working tank? Probably not, unless you’re a billionaire and want one. As Alan Gottlieb said, “The difference between billionaires and the rest of us is the SIZE of the guns they want to own. (TheExaminer)

"Why So Cocksure?"

A woman asks a pro-gun activist, “Why are you so cocksure gun control doesn’t work?” The answer is simple: it doesn’t. Not the way they do it today, and yesterday. They aim at the guns themselves, as if they were dangerous in, and of themselves, and honest people. In so doing, they create more and more UNARMED VICTIMS for criminals, who don’t OBEY laws, to victimize. It’s logical. They impose “gun-free ones,” which mean NOTHING to criminals, who carry their guns into them, anyway—because they don’t care about “gun-free zones” and regard them as “shooter-free zones” where there will not be any guns there to oppose them as they victimize those who OBEY laws and rules. It’s not “gun control” that doesn’t work, it’s the DIRECTION in which gun controllers go in “controlling gun violence” by limiting ownership and use of guns for SELF-DEFENSE, while doing nothing to PUNISH the USERS of guns in the commission of a crime. If they aimed their efforts in that direction, I’d be all for “gun control.” But not the “gun control” as they now use it. (Extrano’s Alley)

What FOOLS They Are!

Banks are now discriminating against gun makers. They’re closing their accounts, refusing to process their credit card transactions, and, I’m sure, refusing to loan them money for any purpose, regardless of their credit history. The anti-gun fools have found yet another way to harass anybody who has anything to do with guns without involving the Constitution. That way, they “get around” the constitutional restrictions on making ANY laws restricting, in any way, the right of the people to have, and carry arms. They’re bound and determined to violate out constitutional rights, any way they can. We need to start retaliating, in the same way the liberals have taught us, by SUING them and forcing them to spend loads of money fighting the suit, every time they refuse us service; just as liberals do. It cuts both ways, unless some liberal judge decides, arbitrarily, to refuse a suit—in which case, move to remove that judge for cause and file the suit with another judge. But, like liberals, never give up on your harassment. The lawyers will get richer, but you can't have everything. (The Blaze)

I'm Expecting A Shooting

I have every expectation that somebody will be shot to death in a Panera Bread restaurant before too long. Or a Jack In The Box. Why? Because they have announced to the world that there will be no guns there to oppose a potential shooter. Wannabe shooters don’t care if a restaurant has adopted a policy not to allow guns on their premises. They bring theirs, anyway. Especially to places where they figure they can be pretty sure nobody else will have a gun because of the stupid policies of the owners. Such policies are an open INVITATION to such people to “come in and shoot us up” because there will be nobody else there with a gun to oppose them. People still don’t realize this as they create more and more “gun-free zones.” They will finally, one day, realize it, but not until many people have died from their stupidity. (The Blaze)

ISIS Favors Gun Control

For Americans, at least. I don’t know what’s happening, but I tried to get to JPFO, the source for this, and it would not load. Either directly to the article, or the JPFO, themselves. Maybe their server crashed because so few people had thought about it and wanted to read the article. But it’s obvious that ISIS would favor gun control for Americans. Unarmed people are easier for their thugs to kill, and serves to keep most of THEM alive while doing the killing. Tojo refused to let the Japanese attack the American mainland for a good reason: “There’d be a gun behind every blade of grass.” ISIS doesn’t want that, so they favor gun control for Americans. Obama is playing right into their hands by working HARD to take the right of self-defense away from Americans. He swears otherwise, but you know how he lies. (JPFO)

Do We Want Islam Here?

Islamists are coming here to do their dirty work. Obama is seeing to it. He even went so far as to SUE the State of Arizona for demanding he enforce his own border control laws. He has emasculated the Border Patrol so they could not stop ANYBODY from entering illegally. Yes, most of them are from Mexico and other South American countries. But among those coming in are Muslims, who are setting up cells and preparing to go out and KILL people, as they do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recently, some Islamics were parading around in Germany with vests proclaiming them to be “Sharia Police,” exhorting people to stop going to bars and nightclubs and threatening them if they do—until the real police intervened. Such brazen acts will be coming here next, and unless we are READY for it, they will have “the upper hand” and will be able to intimidate timid souls who don’t have the means to oppose them. One of my favorite scenes in the past was an Israeli woman standing over a Muslim attacker in the street, pumping bullets into his brain. Everybody in Israel is armed, because they all are considered to be part of the army. We need to do that here. Everybody needs to have a gun so we can’t be intimidated. And any anti-gun fool who says otherwise is deluded. (Just common sense)

13 Years Ago Today

3,000 innocent people were murdered by a group of stupid fools who believe the whole world should believe in their god. What makes them think their god is better than ours? Stupidity, I guess. They want to KILL anybody who believes in a different god than theirs, which at their beginning was only one of MANY gods people worshipped. We, who do not kill to increase the ranks of our followers condemn these people and will not allow them to kill us. If that requires killing them, so be it. Notice I do not capitalize when I speak of their god. That’s because he is not a real god, but an imposter created by a con man named Mohammed. Mohammed was an evil man who had sex with children and led an army of killers who laid waste to people who would not convert to his phony “religion.”

That is how his “religion” became the fastest growing in the world: by the threat of DEATH if you didn’t convert, and more death if you converted to another religion after converting to his to stay alive. He really thought these “forced conversions” were real while, in their hearts, those “converted” still believed in THEIR God. We will never forget the 3,000 people who died on that day, nor will we forget the millions who have died at their hand since. Obama has promised to “follow them wherever they go.” Now lets see if that is like most of his promises: all wind, and no action. He talks tough, but does nothing to stop them. Maybe after the election we’ll get a REAL president, who will really go after them wherever they exist, and kill them all before they kill us. Obama hasn’t the guts to do that. If, indeed, he wants to. (Just common sense)

Gun-Weilding Coach Fired

Parents of children’s teams attempted to brutally beat a coach over “playing time” but were repulsed by the coach’s wife, who shot a gun into the air, stopping the beating, which included one man who had his own gun. The coach and his wife has been fired, even though both have “carry permits.” The league said “bringing a gun near children” was a terrible offense. Nothing was said about the attack on that coach, and the fact that, had it not been for that gun, he would have been badly beaten over a trifle. This is what we have come to in this country, as anti-gun fools speak widely about their stupid thinking about guns. Carrying a legal gun for self defense should NEVER be reason for a firing, but in today’s world, it seems to be. With Obama’s lax border controls allowing Islamic terrorists to come into the U. S. at will to do their dirty work, people who carry guns might be a real deterrent to their atrocities. But not if everybody who uses one for any reason gets punished just for HAVING a gun. (Guns SaveLives)

Misusing the Constitution

If there’s a dirty trick Harry Reid hasn’t used, I don’t know what it is. But he has actually come up with a new one this time: “In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a key decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  The decision removed unconstitutional restrictions on the ability to speak freely at election time of grassroots groups like NRA and others. But now, some are trying to reverse the decision–and while they recognize that they must amend the Constitution to do so, their amendment would gut the First Amendment rights of organized political groups as we know them.” Attempts to gut the Constitution are not anything new to Harry. But this IS something new. He KNOWS the Constitution protects free speech, but he wants to change all that and SHUT UP his critics, and that’s what this proposed amendment does. (Daily Caller)

Negating Your Own Argument

Why would a well known anti-gun fool show up at rally with three—count ‘em- THREE armed guards? If he truly believes in gun control wouldn’t he dispense with those three armed bodyguards? Isn’t he ADMITTING his arguments are delusional when he goes around with armed guards? I can’t understand the reasoning of these people. Maybe that’s because they have no logic? Is he afraid somebody will jump him? Isn’t one of his arguments that only paranoid people think that? Maybe he thinks it’s okay because HE isn’t the one carrying the guns. Never mind most of us can’t afford to hire people to carry our guns for us. Moms Demand Action Against Guns leader Shannon Watts has also been known to go around with her own armed guards. The anti-gun fools only want the right to carry a gun to be removed from other people—not themselves. (Guns Save Lives)

A Growing List

There’s a growing list of businesses I will not enter, under any circumstances. Target, for one; Jack in the Box for another. Any business that sports a sign out front telling me to leave my gun at home. It’s a STUPID policy, and it leaves me vulnerable to the criminals who don’t obey such signs and, in fact, make it a point to visit such places with their guns and shoot people. Just like the woman who had a “carry permit” but had to leave her gun in her car when she and her parents entered a Texas restaurant. It had such a sign, and the “bad guy” knew it when he entered and started shooting. So she had so lie there on the floor and watch him murder her parents because of that shortsighted and stupid policy. I don’t think she sued the restaurant, but I would in a similar situation. The latest entry on that list is “Panǽra Bread,” which recently made such a STUPID policy and posted their signs. I predict they will be the victim of an armed criminal very soon. It’s too bad; I was there once, and I liked it. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

Why Do I Want A Gun?

Because there are crazy people out there and I want to be able to defend myself against them. Does that make me paranoid? Not even; if people are a danger to you, it’s not paranoia, It’s common sense. Criminals are everywhere, and they have no trouble getting guns. I don’t plan to be helpless when I’m attacked. Then there are the militant Muslims who walk the streets picking fights with American citizens. I just watched an impromptu video of a spontaneous argument between an American and a Muslim that ended with the Muslim hitting the American guy in the mouth when he figured he’d lost the argument, and using his cell phone to call all his friends to help him beat up the American if he got out of his car in what is now a Muslim neighborhood. The American used to live in that neighborhood before the Muslims took it over. This is what is coming. I’m 77 and can barely walk. I want “the difference.” We need to send in several cars containing big uglies with a hatred of terrorists to counter that. (Patriot Action Network)

Teachers "Packing?"

The question is, “Should teachers be allowed to carry guns in school?” The answer is ABSOLUTELY! Yes! ANYBODY who has a “carry permit” should be allowed to carry his/her gun wherever he/she goes. Any responsible person should be allowed to bring their guns into schools, restaurants, and even bars. That’s why we HAVE “carry permits.” Those people are examined to see if that ARE responsible people. Keeping guns out of schools is STUPID. It tells potential shooters there will be no unexpected guns there to “take them out” if they come in shooting. “Gun-free zones” of ANY kind KILL people; I remember the Texas woman who was forced to leave her legally carried gun in the car when she and her parents went into a restaurant that did not allow guns. Of course, that didn’t stop the guy who came in and killed her parents and others in front of her eyes while her gun remained out of reach. Shooters not knowing who might be armed is the best way to deter such shootings. (Just common sense)

Common Senswe Gun Safety

Damn! I sound like an “anti-gun puke,” don’t I? I hesitate to even use those words because the anti-gun fools have so messed up the definition of “common sense.” But those words DO still apply, especially when you talk about teaching a nine-year-old girl how to fire an Uzi. You can talk about it all you like, just don’t do it. Why? Doesn’t that child have the right to know how to fire an Uzi just like everybody else? No, she doesn’t. First of all, she’s too young to have good judgment in using such a gun. Second, she’s too SMALL to be able to handle such a gun. Yes, teach the child about GUN SAFETY. Always. You can even teach her how to FIRE certain guns under tight security. But an Uzi? No. Not at 9. It can quickly get out of control, as was proven recently when such a girl accidentally shot and killed her teacher when he looked away while she was firing it. It “rode up” and he was killed. It was not the girl’s fault. She should have NEVER been holding a loaded Uzi or any other kind of fully automatic weapon. It’s just too much of a gun for her. The parent who allowed it was NOT using COMMON SENSE. Neither was the instructor, who should have known better. Now he will never learn better. Yes, children used to regularly carry their own guns back in the 1800s. But they were single-shot muskets and easy to handle. An Uzi is not. Always use common sense when teaching children about guns. Putting a loaded UZI in the hands of a 9-year-old is NOT common sense, and that instructor learned it, and gave the anti-gun fools ammunition to use against us. (Just common sense)

Their INSANE Campaign

The campaign against gun ownership for honest people (which is what it is) is INSANE and IRRATIONAL. The very people who push it often run around surrounded by men with guns or have CCWs themselves (as with Sen. Feinstein, one of the most vociferous anti-gun fools in he Senate). They really believe in carrying guns for protection for themselves, but not for us. I still remember the loudly anti-gun columnist who took a gun and ran a trespasser off his property. This is the kind of fact that anti-gun fools IGNORE, and want us to ignore. They just can’t get it through their thick skulls that keeping guns out of the hands of HONEST people is not the way to go. They’ll never understand that the ONLY way is to punish USE of guns in crimes. They’re too damned ignorant to understand. But unfortunately, they happen to be in positions where they can continue to attempt to force their ideas on us. We need to vote ALL those who show ANY tendency toward the usual brand of “gun control” out of office with a permanent ban on their running for, or holding ANY kind of elected or appointed office where they have ANYTHING to do with making laws for their betters. (Gun Watch)

Anti-Gun Fools Are Wrong

First of all, they’re OBSESSED with the AR-15 or guns like it. That’s not what we want. I personally wouldn’t want one, and I am an adamant PRO-gun activist. If I ever came up AGAINST a criminal armed with one, yes. I would want one. But not as everyday protection from criminals who have no trouble getting their ILLEGAL guns. The guy who went into the Kroger store carrying one is INSANE. He did nothing in that action but give the anti-gun FOOLS “ammunition” to use in their drive to stop us from being able to defend ourselves from ILLEGALLY-armed criminals. They call the NRA’s idea that “government thugs will go door-to-door confiscating (stealing) our guns irrational.” But is it? History proves it is a real danger that, if the government ever found out where ALL the guns were, governments have been KNOWN to do just that. The anti-gun fools are the irrational ones. Of course, in this magazine article, they use a “leggy blond” showing her legs almost up to the juncture to further minimize what we do. Oh, by the way: I’m not a “gun enthusiast” OR a “hunter.” I just believe I ought to have the right to defend myself, and to own and carry the means to that end, a gun. (Marquette Magazine)

Banning Guns Without Banning Guns

That’s what AG Eric Holder is after. He wants to MANDATE that ALL guns in the future be “Smart Guns” that recognize their owners and will not function in the hands of other people. That way he can ban ALL guns EXCEPT those without really violating the Constitution and make almost every other gun ILLEGAL. What a BONANZA for illegal gun sellers! “We don’t ban guns; only those who don’t recognize their owners and not work for somebody else. That’s not ‘taking guns away,’ it’s only a ‘common sense solution’ (their favorite phrase) to guns being stolen and used for crime.” This is made possible by a computer chip in the gun that can be programmed to recognize a specific person and not work in the hand of someone else. We all know about “computer glitches.” What if your gun doesn’t “recognize you” when you’re being threatened by someone else with an ILLEGAL gun and thus doesn’t work? This is a typical liberal “solution” that doesn’t work, but will be “praised to the skies” by other liberals and get people killed when it fails to work as advertised. (World Net Daily)

Guns Can't Kill!

Surprise, surprise! Anti-gun fools want us to think guns are our ENEMY. That if we don’t watch them, and keep them away from us, they’ll KILL us. But, as usual with anti-gun fools, that’s a “pipe dream.” An unloaded gun is an inert object. It cannot load itself and pull its trigger. To do that, it needs a human being. Guns are good, OR bad, depending on the person holding them. The proof is, when you see danger coming your way with a gun in its hand, who do you call? You call other men with guns, that’s who you call. They need their guns to oppose the “bad guy” with a gun. So guns are NOT inherently bad. Guns in the right hands keep us safe. But anti-gun fools forget that. Or they just don’t know it. They’re s stupid enough. The guy in this video did everything he could to make his gun mad enough to load itself and shoot him, with no response. So their BASIC ideas are flawed. We don’t NEED law against guns. We need laws against the USE of a gun in the commission of a crime. We need to make it a “career-ender” to be caught committing a crime with a gun, with those laws MANDATED to be enforced, not used as a “bargaining chip” to get convictions in other crimes. (Patriot ActionNetwork)

Thanks, NRA

They’re blaming the NRA (National Rifle Association) for a known criminal being found to be in possession of several guns, a police badge, and some pot. How they get that is really beyond me. Criminals are in possession of such things every day, NRA notwithstanding. I doubt ANY of those things are in that man’s possession LEGALLY. It’s not the NRA’s fault if somebody violates the law. But the anti-gun fools will take ANYTHING to twist in an attack on people who champion the constitutionally protected right to carry a gun (for non-felons). I think it’s instructive that the organization that puts up this web page carries a pro-Obama ad, as well. So we know where their sentiments lie. Operative word, LIE. They say that because of the NRA, a criminal can buy a gun at a gun show with NO background check, which is an outright LIE. And even if it were true, background checks do NOTHING to stop gun violence. Criminals don’t buy LEGAL guns. They speculate that this felon either stole or illegally bought his guns, both of which the NRA could do NOTHING to promote. Their reasoning is faulty, but they put it forward, anyway. This organization is “anti-Tea Party,” which tells me a lot about them. They have no idea that the Tea Parties are the best friends they’ll ever have. They’ve “bought the BS” liberals have put out about the Tea Parties, which terrify them. (Americans Against the Tea Party)

Sheriff Defends CCW

Mike Lewis, Sheriff of Wicomico County, MD, couldn’t agree more that criminals should have it made harder for them to obtain their guns. In the next breath, he says, “But we don’t need to strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.” He says he will vociferously fight any attempt by the feds to take those rights away from his citizens, which, I presume, means he will ARREST any federal agent who tries, and charge him/her with a crime. I think it goes without saying that we need a lot more sheriffs like him to offset all the cops who go about hassling people who LEGALLY carry their guns, as if they were criminals. Too many cops see an armed man on the street who has a “carry permit” carrying a gun, and hassle him. This is wrong, and it needs to stop (The Patriot Post)

"Guns Shock and Sicken Me" (Again)

I’ve written about this before, but I think it should be written about over and over because it illustrates a major problem in our society: legislators who are unalterably AGAINST guns making laws to limit their ownership by honest Americans. State Senator Jeanie Darnielle, of Tacoma, WA, stated categorically that she was unalterably AGAINST guns, and was sickened and frightened by them. Except when someone with an illegally-owned gun threatens her and she has to call other people with guns to help her. As long as we allow such people to make laws against guns, there will BE no “gun control.” Only more unarmed victims for criminals to victimize. We need some kind of a system that keeps such people OUT of lawmaking bodies. Not because she’s against guns, but because she’s “shocked and sickened” by them. That’s way too much animus. And she’s not alone in that. Most anti-gun fools don’t talk so openly about it, but they’re just like her, even if they “make light” of it. (Daily Caller)

Maybe They're Waking Up

For years, politicians have tried to make laws that actually DO reduce gun violence, and they have failed, because they were aimed in the wrong direction. They aimed at the guns, themselves, when keeping guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS is impossible. Criminals will always be able to get their guns because other criminals are willing to risk imprisonment in order to sell them. The way to do it is punish USE of guns in crime, stiffly. It should be made a “career-ender” for a criminal to be caught using a gun in the commission of a crime. But they weren’t listening. As many times as we tell them, they STILL made the same mistakes, over and over again. Maybe this bunch is starting to get it. I don’t know. I certainly hope so. (GOP USA)

Bad Old Ideas

Anti-gun fools never give up on their “bad old ideas.” They still think CRIMINALS will “turn in their guns” if they offer them a few bucks for them. That this is a stupid idea is so obvious I don’t even need to say it. Yes, SOME criminals will turn in old, barely serviceable guns to get the money to buy newer, working guns from other criminals. But you can bet a criminal will NOT “turn in” a serviceable gun. This idea is as bad as the one that makes them think registering a legally-bought gun will make criminals “register” the guns they buy out of the trunks of cars in back alleys. We’ve told them and told them these ideas don’t work, but they keep on “dusting them off” and bringing them out again and again. What is it that was said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Oh; that’s the definition of insanity, right? Is it something they’ve been smoking? Are they taking stupid pills, what? (Bradenton Herald)

Novelist Imprisoned for His Novel

He’s a school teacher, and this is his second novel, both set in the future, What angered “school officials” and, apparently fools among the cops, was its subject matter: a school shooting. Is this what we can expect in the future from our government? Writers imprisoned because SOMEBODY didn’t like his plotline? This is what a “tin-pot dictator” does. We USED TO BE a free country. But no longer if a NOVELIST can be imprisoned because of what he is writing. This is what they say about the arrest: “Pending the release of further information, it’s impossible to tell if McLaw did or said anything beyond authoring novels reflective of contemporary commercial fiction that gave authorities credible reason to believe he was a real threat to himself and/or others. [But they use that as an excuse to imprison him because they don’t like his subject matter. –RT] Without such details, speculation about “Soviet-style punishment for a novelist” are to be expected, as is an equally likely possibility that this could simply be the type of zero tolerance insanity that results in bizarre gross official overreactions, like a student being suspended for writing about shooting dinosaurs.” “Soviet-style punishment for authors.” How appropriate. Well, I guess it’s only a matter of time before I get a visit from several men in black suits wearing mirrored sunglasses who don’t like what I write. (The Examiner)

Are We Irresponsible?

The anti-gun fools still insist honest potential gun owners just aren’t able to control themselves and will be getting in gun fights over fender-benders or differences of political opinion.  What they can’t answer is why CRIMINALS, who get their guns in SPITE of tight gun laws don’t engage in gun fights over fender benders or other unimportant things, now. Do they think criminals are more responsible than responsible Americans? Their arguments are infantile and stupid. Now they’re saying that, when the army switches over from an old gun to a new one, that “the emergency rooms will have to gear up for an onslaught of gun wounds” as people get them and “go wild” with them, shooting people randomly. That this is a fool notion goes without saying. But they don’t care. All they want to do is frighten ignorant people. They understand ignorant people because they ARE ignorant, and know NOTHING about guns. (NRA-ILA)

Pro-Gun Dorks

There are many dorks out there, and some of them are even “in our camp,” unfortunately. In one case, they tried to “educate” a woman who had lost a loved one to gun violence. But it didn’t go over well. It’s too soon after for her to be thinking logically. She has “bought” the lies told her by the ANTI-gun dorks and won’t hear anything else. It’s too bad the anti-gun dorks use such tragedies to advance their aims, which do nothing but provide criminals an unlimited supply of UNARMED victims. I wish the PRO-gun dorks would just “go away” and stop giving the ANTI-gun dorks material to use against us. (LiberaLand)

400 Words

A writer of a letter to the editor of The News-Times, of Danbury, CT, used 400 words (an estimate—I didn’t count ‘em) to do what could have been done in his final sentence: “Just banning guns will most likely not get the desired results because those who want to do evil will always seem to find a way.” (Spelling and word usage corrected, but the original quote is still there, at the end of the letter, if you want to see if I significantly changed what he said) the whole point is, more words than necessary are always used in the argument for, or against guns, and these words simplify it, which is good. More than necessary arguments are used, too, such as the emphasis on “hunting.” It’s not about hunting, it’s about self-defense, and taking guns away from responsible people will NEVER “get rid of the gun violence problem,” though you’ll never convince the anti-gin fools of that. Their lights are on, but there’s nobody home. (News-Times)

Kroger to MOMS: "Go to Hell!"

MOMS Against guns (or whatever) is giving Kroger Stores holy hell about them allowing openly armed citizens to come into their stores with their guns, as if that says they’re allowing people to “go nuts” with their guns in their stores. Kroger, in effect, told them to “Go to hell; we trust our customers to be responsible.” Of course, there’s no telling how many guns gang members and other criminals bring into their stores, hidden. How many Kroger Stores and their customers have been robbed by such people, who don’t obey laws, NOR “company policies?” Kroger is one of the few companies with INTELLIGENCE, and they show it even more by telling MOMS off. (Myrtle Beach Post)