GOP Stabs Us

Where? In the back, of course! They COULD have defeated the vote on Lynch for AG at several points, but McConnell fiddled with the rules on several occasions while many of the Senators who had pledged to vote against Lynch (and DID, in a vote that didn't count for anything) flipped and voted FOR her. I don't know who got to him, but it's so obvious that SOMEBODY did, it isn't even funny. But if the anti-gun fools think they've won by what they did here, they're WRONG. This is ONE BATTLE in an ongoing war in which WE have won most of the battles and will continue to do so. Americans INSIST on being able to defend themselves! They KNOW the cops can't do it. All they can do is “document the crime” and MAYBE apprehend the criminal, LATER. AFTER the damage has been done. Guns, in the hands of honest Americans who are ON THE SCENE when crooks try and victimize people CAN make a difference (and HAVE, on many occasions). And laws to keep criminals in prison longer if they USE a gun in the commission of their crime can keep them off the streets longer, if they're just USED, and not “waived” to get convictions in other crimes. (Gun Owners of America)

"Helping Reduce Gun Crime"

One criminal at a time.” This man heard a criminal breaking into his home and shot him to death. End of story, except for the paperwork the cops bring to the equation. This is how things SHOULD be everywhere, but aren't, due to the short-sightedness of way too many politicians who have no confidence in the “average human being” not to become a violent criminal, just because he can carry a gun. This guy has helped reduce gun violence, at least where he lives, by reducing, by ONE, the number of armed criminals in existence, alive. Putting him in prison for a longer time by punishing USE of a gun in a crime would be good, too. But not as good as PERMANENTLY ending his criminal career. People who break into other people's homes KNOW they're in danger of being shot, so this should come as no surprise to this guy. He learned a hard lesson, though it won't do him much good in the future. He HAS no future. (Gun Watch)

Mass Shootings? Ban Guns!

Have mass shootings led to more “gun control?” Absolutely. Liberals get all excited when some guy comes into a school or other crowded place and kills a few people while there is NOBODY there with a gun to kill him before he can kill any more people. So let's take away guns from EVERYONE. Let's DISARM everybody who could have stopped this guy in his tracks and let him kill people (mostly children) at will. All because the anti-gun fools have told us if everybody were allowed to have a gun, they'd be shooting each other over fender benders or even getting their order wrong at McDonald's—which is a complete LIE. Criminals have NO TROUBLE getting their guns ILLEGALLY and they DO shoot each other over fender benders. There's no way to stop that. Criminals do not OBEY laws. That's why they're called CRIMINALS. But the ONLY way to stop them is to give people the right to own and use the means to oppose them. But ignorant politicians won't hear of it while they go around with the gun-carrying thugs they HIRE to carry their guns FOR them. (Here and Now)

How Can This BE?

I thought making laws against carrying guns stopped people from carrying guns! That's what liberals tell me, anyway. But it doesn't seem to work in California, the state that has the toughest “gun control” laws, period. But they don't seem to be working. Surprise, surprise! Now the city of Oakland is going to “call in” gang members and offer them things in return for their “promise” to stop shooting one another. You know, things like counseling and support services. This is under a program called, “Ceasefire,” which started in Boston and has been tried in Oakland before with “mixed results,” which is code words for “it failed.” So they're gonna try it again and will AGAIN get “mixed results,” while the gangs keep on shooting one another in the state with the tightest gun laws on record. The cops say “Ceasefire” is responsible for a recent reduction in violent crime. Yeah, right! I think it was caused by more good people ignoring their “gun laws” and shooting the thugs. Oops! I used the word, “thugs!” I guess I should apologize, like the Baltimore mayor did (but I won't), for using the proper descriptive word, even if they don't like it. (San Jose Mercury-News)

What difference Does It Make?

“WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?” No. this item is not about Hillary and her opinion about the four embassy people murdered on her watch in Benghazi because she wouldn't send help. It's about the uselessness of today's “gun laws.” This guy should never be allowed NEAR a gun but he has one. He had so many warrants out on him he shouldn't have been ABLE to buy a gun. But he had one—along with all the drugs and other illegal stuff he had when the cops caught him. He was caught in possession of meth and pot, and a shotgun, with a lot of ammo. This shows graphically that laws against criminals and drug dealers/addicts having guns are USELESS when it comes to stopping them from getting them. When are the anti-gun fools going to realize this and change the direction of their laws from disarming honest people to USING a gun in the commission of a crime? So we can at least get illegal gun owners off the streets for a longer time? It ain't gonna happen in MY lifetime, I guarantee you. (Fairfield Daily Republic)

New Surgeon General

Confirmed without much fanfare (because nobody much gives a damn) in the turmoil surrounding events in Baltimore, MD, our new Surgeon General is an “anti-gun fool,” as have been most of them, so it's not a surprise that a person appointed to such a position would be IGNORANT on “gun control” issues. In his first pronouncement after being confirmed in a “lame-duck session” while most people's attention was focused elsewhere is this: “Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of [National Rifle Association]. Guns are a health care issue.” Funny: isn't that what gun grabbers do? He doesn't know that making a law WILL NOT stop criminals from getting their guns illegally. That the way to self-defense is NOT to DISARM ourselves. He has, not surpriusingly, “bought” the bullderm of the usual gun-control methods, which do NOT work, and only make things worse, by creating as many UNARMED VICTIMS as possible. Of course, he called for “common sense,” which is the liberal “code word” for “stupid.” (Daily Caller)

Tying Their Hands

Obama 's “rules of war “tie the hands” of his soldiers behind their back in dealing with Islamic terrorists. One of the “rules” is that they may not fire on a terrorist or terrorist group until, or unless they fire first. That may seem “fair” in a non-war zone, but not where everybody you see might be an enemy combatant. Another is that you can't fire on a child (children being defined as a teenager or younger). But that same “child” can fire a gun as well as any adult, and in this particular war zone, they are taught, from BIRTH, to hate Americans and that killing them is okay, according to their “religion.”

I suspect my own brother had to kill a nine-year-old child in Vietnam right after the kid blew his sergeant's head off, just to stay alive. So why do we have to “give them the first shot?” I've no doubt that instruction alone has caused many American soldiers to be killed before they even know they're under fire. The attached article talks GENERALLY about “rules of war,” and one sentence alone stands out for me. It is the one where they say, “The only way evil people can be stopped is by other people willing to be more vicious, more violent. Violence wins wars.” Which serves to illustrate the complete stupidity of government spokesperson Marie Harf when she said, “We can't win this war by shooting people.”

What? How STUPID is that? A crack about war by someone who has NEVER been to war and doesn't know her rear end from her nose about war. And we should LISTEN to her? What we should be doing is removing all those limiting “rules of war” and tell them to simply “Shoot anybody who has a gun pointed at you, whether or not they fire first. Bring 'hell fire' down on the enemy.” Make them KNOW that to shoot at an American will mean their DEATH, in the most painful way. Believe me: if we don't “ramp up” our response to our enemies in this war overseas, soon we\'ll be fighting it right here in our own streets. And I guarantee you if that happens, I will not “give them the first shot.” You can depend on it. (Guns)

"Open Season"

The Police Chief in Austin, TX says, “Open carry is “open season” for armed criminals and extremists!” WRONG! It is this kind of thinking that is what's wrong with the whole IDEA of “gun control” these days. All their kind of “gun control” does is create an “open season” on UNARMED citizens who OBEY laws. Criminals do not. And what ignorance makes this cop think a LAW will stop them from getting their guns ILLEGALLY, as they do now? Only an armed populace that does not wear a uniform and are thus not known to be there will stop armed criminals from holding “open season” on honest people by shooting back. And the more criminals they KILL will bring crime stats down in a hurry, as has been PROVED in many places. If you're dead, you can't commit crimes. One of the silliest things gun grabbers do is hold “gun buy-back” programs where criminals bring in old, barely serviceable guns, then take the money they get and buy better guns on the black market while the cops and politicians congratulate themselves on “getting guns off the street.” (Guns)

"No Place In Church"

In Lansing, MI, one priest thinks ALL members of his church should be armed, at all times, And that means bringing their guns to his church. He's even willing to teach a class on gun safety IN the church. But his Bishop doesn't agree, and as Bishop, he has the authority to shut this priest down and get some people killed. He says all Catholic churches are “gun-free zones,” and that's not going to change. Yeah? Even if some yahoo comes in and starts shooting one of his churches up? Not possible, you say? It happened in Colorado Springs, Colorado not too long ago. And if it were not for one small woman parishioner who was carrying a legally-carried gun, it could have been a massacre. In fact, the shooter DID kill two people before he even got INTO the church. That Bishop is as short-sighted as are ALL anti-gun fools. They want us to WAIT for the cops to come. But that's stupid. While the cops are on their way, the shooter can kill a lot of people. An armed person there the shooter didn't know about can (and does) make all the difference in the world—and DID in that Colorado Springs church. (Guns)

The Heights of Arrogance

The family of Brandon Lincoln, a robber who was shot to death while attempting to rob a pawn shop owned by Arturo Rios, SUED Rios for “wrongful death.” That illustrates the arrogance and ignorance of thieves and bandits, who apparently think they shouldn't be shot while committing a crime and would be very surprised if their intended victims sued THEM if they killed them during that crime. What we need is a FEDERAL law BANNING this kind of suit in all 50 states, making it impossible for the family of a CRIMINAL to profit from his death while engaged in a crime. Currently, if he finds the right judge, he MIGHT be able to do so. Fortunately, in this case, the judge had some INTELLIGENCE and threw the case out of court. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

How Could This Happen?

An elderly man was being assaulted in the parking lot of a Kroger store. As I remember it, Kroger Stores told “Moms Against Guns (or something like that) to “stick it” when they attempted to get them to BAN guns from their property. That was supposed to eliminate the possibility of a shopper being assaulted by someone with a gun on their property. It would (supposedly) also eliminate a “concealed carrier” coming to the RESCUE of an unarmed old man being assaulted (by SEVEN guys) because there would BE no guns there. SEVEN men were beating on this old man (who turned out to be their uncle) and “MOMS” would recommend that gunman let that old man be beaten to death while waiting for the cops to belatedly arrive. He didn't do that, so the guy is still alive and (I think) his seven nephews are in jail. Which would NOT have been the case if Kroger's parking lot had been declared a “gun-free zone” and the gun-carrier did not have a gun. Which AGAIN shows the usual short-sightedness of what “MOMS” are attempting. (Truth About Guns)

Grandma Saves the Day!

A thug puts a knife to her throat and this 74-year-old grandma puts her gun in his mouth and says, “back off.” He did, and his attempted robbery ended at that moment. She found out that day how big a man's eyes could grow when there's a gun pointed at his front teeth from about an inch away. She also found out how fast a frightened would-be robber of a “defenseless” old woman could run as he “headed for the tall timber.” Which is more evidence that the anti-gun fools LIE when they say this kind of thing NEVER happens. They want us to think that little old lady was more apt to shoot herself than “ward off” the advances of a robber. Which shows you just how smart they are. Will they take note of this and “wise up?” Not a chance. Truth means NOTHING to them when it doesn't support their agenda. (Breitbart)

Don't Mess With Grandma!

I just caught a story on TV about a “grandma” who. When threatened by a man with a gun, took it away from him and told him to “back off or I'll blow your head off.” Since his own gun was shoved up his nose, his eyes widened, and he “ran away” from this “little old lady.” Which proves that even a “little old lady” with a gun can scare the brown out of a thug. It proves another thing: most criminals don't even know how to USE a gun. They certainly don't go through training classes, which is what it made it easy for this lady to “take it away from him” and use it on HIM. It was just a “passing story” on Fox, so I didn't get the details, but I thought it was very funny. I don't think that thug thought it was funny, though. They can probably find him at the end of his “brown trail.” He should be easy to “take into custody” though. Remember, he no longer has a gun, and never did have any guts. (Just common sense)

Williams Has It Backwards

Juan Williams says the NRA is “Whipping white America into hysteria over gun control.” by promoting “self-protection from crime” as a reason for gun control. Funny; that's the MOST IMPORTANT reason for carrying a gun. Self protection from criminals and crazies who already HAVE their guns, ILLEGALLY. The NRA falls for a phony premise by promoting guns for “sports purposes.” Hunting is just a SMALL part of it, self-defense is the biggest part of it, and you can't minimize that by simply saying so. In actuality, it is OBAMA that is “whipping up” BLACK “race hatred” of WHITES every time he gets a chance. And his “followers” do likewise. And they're succeeding. Black thugs everywhere are taking that as SUPPORT for them to kill--white (and black) cops. The black cops because they consider them traitors to their race. Which is a RACIST position, but you'll never convince them of that. Racists (on both sides) are never deterred by reality.(Breitbart)

Vet? No Guns for You!

Obama has started a new program: to put the names of vets on the FBI's Criminal Background Check List. Apparently, to be listed there alone denies people the right to have a gun. How that is, I don't know, with every American (except felons) having the Constitutional Right to own a gun. Probably under some unknown (except to Obama) unconstitutional “regulation” that disallows gun ownership, just to be on that list. Since they can put ANYBODY'S name on that list, that allows him to take (steal) people's guns at will. In this, he's enlisting the Department of Veteran's Affairs to get those names on this list. I don't think that's very hard, considering all the trouble the VA is in, anyway. Just the offer to “go easier” on them is probably enough to get their cooperation. They do this by sending him supposedly PRIVATE medical records, which is ILLEGAL in itself. Damn! I swear! Obama is about as obvious a CRIMINAL as I've ever SEEN with his butt in the Oval Office chair! Something needs to be done about him, and NOW! (Daily Caller)

"It Makes Sense Now?"

Sen. Joe Manchin (Democrat, of course) says,“ Gun control made sense in 2013 (after Sandy Hook) and it makes sense now.” Which shows his typical (for a Democrat) LACK of sense at either time. It makes NO sense to think a CRIMINAL or a CRAZY will obey a LAW that says he/she can't be armed. That's proven every day. It makes no sense to think that the way to self-defense is to DISARM YOURSELF. That's pure stupidity. Gun control (as we know it today) has NEVER “made sense,” and WILL never make sense. Because they're going at it from exactly the WRONG DIRECTION. They're limiting gun ownership for HONEST people while crooks and crazies never have any trouble getting their guns ILLEGALLY.

They need to punish USE of guns in a crime with longer prison sentences for USING a gun in the commission of a crime. That, at least, would keep potential gun violence perpetrators off the streets longer—if the cops would just quit using such laws as “throwaways” to get convictions in other crimes. If we made THAT illegal, we'd get a lot further in reducing gun violence. Removing illegality from gun ownership will NOT mean “more guns on the streets.” That's already happening, and most of them are in the hands of wrongdoers. It would mean that criminals would run into guns aimed at THEM when they try and rob an honest person. And that's good. (Breitbart)

Sheriff Ain't Buyin' It!

The mayor of Milwaukee, which has suffered a BIG increase in violent crime lately, blames it ALL on the recent “concealed carry” law sponsored by Republican Governor Walker. Sheriff says, “Uh, uh!” How many of those gun violence acts were carried out by “concealed carry permit” holders? Seems like they're done by “the usual suspects,” criminals, who don't OBEY laws. And he's right. Just wait a bit, and the crime stats will come down, after CCW holders shoot enough criminals. The mayor, who is one of the founding members of Bloomberg's anti-gun bunch, blamed it on one gun store: “Badger Guns,” so Badger stopped selling guns and what happened? Gun crimes went up. Obvious evidence to be IGNORED by the politicians. The sheriff says the mayor's chief responsibility is to reduce crime in his city. He failed to do so, so he “drags out” his usual “whipping boy,” guns. (World Net Daily)

Surprise, Surprise!

Liberals in Chicago have said, many times, that increased numbers of honest people carrying their own guns would have NO EFFECT on the crime rate, except to INCREASE the “gun violence” rate. But as usual, they're WRONG. Increased numbers of people carrying their own guns has significantly REDUCED the crime rate in several areas: homicides, robberies, and even car thefts as honest people take care of their own self-defense; a job the cops can't seem to do. Just last month an 86-year-old man who has a “carry permit” shot at a fleeing criminal, “freezing him” in his tracks, until the cops could (finally) get there and “take him into custody.” Since the court threw out Chicago's law against “concealed carry” permits last year, leading to a significant INCREASE in honest people with their own guns, there has been a 20% REDUCTION in gun crime and NO increase in “gun violence” by permit holders. Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said, “Just the fact that criminals DON'T KNOW who is, or is NOT armed, has made a significant difference in the crime rate.” (WashingtonTimes)

"Whether Or Not It Works"

This is typical thinking for liberals. Cleveland, OH City Council President said that “working” should not be a “litmus test” on whether or not we should pass “gun control” measures like those they're pushing. My question is, “Why not:?” If they don't work, why waste the time and money to even PASS them? Simply by saying this, he is ADMITTING their measures DON'T WORK, and saying that “doesn't matter.” He says, “Gun control should pass because it is a “reflection of [the] council’s values and is good public policy.” Which is yet another way of saying, “Our good intentions are what matter, not RESULTS.” This is typical of the INCOMPETENT liberals we (not me) keep electing to office. Why we do it, I don't know. I guess they can always count on the “stupid factor” among the voters. That will always be there, because politicians work HARD to keep them stupid. (Breitbart)

Finally Getting Through

The NRA is finally getting through to those who have been fooled by the anti-gun fools on gun control, and the gun grabbers don't like that one bit. Gun ownership (legally) is growing in America, and to those who want to DISARM us at any cost, that is bad. They keep calling the TRUTH the NRA tells simply “scare tactics.” It's not. It's merely outlining reality, something the gun grabbers can't seem to grasp. There are a couple of simple truths they can't grasp, as well. One, that the way to self defense is NOT to DISARM ourselves. Two, you can't stop CRIMINALS from getting their ILLEGAL guns by making a LAW. These people don't OBEY laws. The only effect of such laws is to DISARM honest people and make them “easy victims” for ILLEGALLY-armed criminals. So their laws to "reduce gun crime" only INCREASE it. (NY Times)

"Terrorism: The Latest Scare"

Huffington Post calls all the NRA efforts to inform us of the truth, “scare tactics,” as if what they say is not true, but JUST “scare tactics.” Of course, you and I know everything the NRA says is true, and is NOT merely scare tactics, no matter how much “The Huff” protests. They say the newest tactic that came up in their PR meeting is the “terror threat” as an ADDITIONAL reason to “be afraid. It poo-poos it as “unthinkable. I wonder how unthinkable residents in the Middle East who are being MASSACRED by the Islamic terrorists think it is. Meanwhile, thousands of Islamic illegal aliens are coming in every day through Obama's “porous borders,” and setting up their “cells,” ready and waiting for some Imam to come along and tell them who to kill and how to do it. And, from what I can tell, there is no shortage of Imams in this country even now, preaching hate for America and Americans keeping all non-Muslims OUT of their mosques so we won't hear what they're telling their “flock.” It's only a matter of time before we have Muslim gangs going around murdering Christians here in America. There are neighborhoods NOW in the U. S. where ONLY Muslims go for fear of being ganged up on by Muslims who are summoned by cell phone. And that INCLUDES cops! And that idea is NOT “original” with the NRA. Many people (including me) have been warning of it for a long time. (Huffington Post)

Guns Are Necessary!

Liberals have, for a long time, tried to convince us that a majority of the American people agree that “gun control” as THEY envision it, is necessary and right. They have said, many times, that it's “common sense.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Now that purchase of guns is on such an “upswing,” they can no longer claim that, they're trying to say it's a “recent trend.” It is NOT. People who fear attack from criminals carrying ILLEGAL guns (and that's ALL of us) have ALWAYS been in the majority, no matter what liberals say while they're trying to fool you. The Founders knew this. They knew that if the government were allowed to DISARM the populace, it would be easier for them to control us. That's why the SECOND AMENDMENT to the Constitution maintained the RIGHT (not a “privilege”) of ALL Americans to have, and to carry weapons for self defense. The only right more important was the right to CRITICIZE the government without fear of punishment, because without the First Amendment right, the Second could not survive. (World Net Daily)

More Liberal Incompetence

I keep talking about liberal incompetence. They think a law will stop criminals, who don't obey laws, will stop them from getting their guns; they also think the way to self-defense is to DISARM yourself. Everybody like me keeps telling liberals that arbitrarily raising minimum wages to such levels business can no longer afford to pay their employees more than they're worth and must raise their own prices sky high or go out of business, they never listen to us. They go right on and make the stupid laws they make, out of IGNORANCE about the facts of business, ignoring the possible consequences to their constituents. When their constituents suffer, they also ignore that and go right on with their stupid ideas and make some more stupid laws.

It really astounds me how liberals can actually SEE the “unintended consequences” of their stupid, short-sighted laws and say, “That didn't cause that,” knowing it DID. It's happening now in Seattle, WA, where the actually PASSED the ordinance forcing businesses to pay a minimum wage of $15.00 an hour for jobs whose wages should not be even as much as HALF that because those holding them have NO TALENTS or abilities and have to be taught even how to flip a burger or have a cash register that will tell them how much change to give the customer because they have no idea how to count change out of a cash drawer. Now FOUR major restaurants that have been “mainstays” for many years have closed, rather than pay that much to people who aren't worth HALF that much.

And there will be more to come, not only in the restaurant industry. They think their stupid laws don't cost young people their jobs? They look at the jobs their laws HAVE cost them and deny they did. They're totally BLIND to the consequences of their actions. That's total incompetence. I could go on and on about their stupid basic reasoning in other areas, such as their thinking that making a LAW against guns will keep CRIMINALS (who obey NO laws) from having them or that the way to self-defense is to DISARM yourself—as in guns, AND in nuclear power. Yet we (not me) keep electing these fools to office in spite of their incompetence. Why we (not me) do that is incomprehensible to me. (Western Journalism)

Clinton A Gun-Hater

She's a gun-grabber supreme. She doesn't want ANYBODY to have a gun and be able to defend themselves. Meanwhile she goes around surrounded by gun-carrying thugs. Why? For self-protection, of course! The same kind of self-protection she wants to DENY to you. Like most elected gun-grabbers (and some NOT elected), she thinks she's better than you. Maybe she just realizes she's in more danger than you are because of what she does politically. But, like I say, “What's good for the goose is good for the gander.” For those who don't understand that, it means we have as much right to self-defense as she does—and we can't always afford to hire people to carry our guns for us as she can. We've never been able to convince the gun-grabbers of this. But when have we EVER been able to penetrate those “cement-heads” of ANYTHING? She has called gun owners “terrorists.” Does that mean SHE is a “terrorist once removed?” (Federalist Papers)

Criminals Obey Laws--Right?

WRONG! That's a logical fallacy followed by the anti-gun fools who think all they have to do is make a law and criminals, who obey no laws, will obey one that says they can't carry a gun. How then, did this pretty redheaded woman (who is already a FELON for carrying a gun before, able to get the gun they found on her this time? Could it be that she just went out and bought it ILLEGALLY? Or STOLE it? And then after they let her out on bail for THAT charge, she went out and got ANOTHER gun. This woman really DOESN'T obey laws, does she? And she doesn't have any trouble GETTING a gun, does she? Which means all the laws these people make have NO EFFECT on her getting a gun to use in victimizing honest people, who would have to BECOME criminals to get a gun for self-defense against her and her kind. Sounds like a futile effort, doesn't it? Why? Because CRIMINALS don't OBEY laws. You know that; I know it. But those so-called “experts” who pretend to know more than we do, DON'T know that. Or they do, and they don't care. They just want to DISARM us as much as possible. (Baxter Bulletin)

"Why Do We Need Assault Weapons?"

Rep Rosa DeLauro, Democrat from Connecticut (where else than the NorthEast?), ADMITS one of the necessities for them is self-defense. But she discounts that, saying they're mostly for hunting. Which is a common FALLACY adhered to by gun-grabbers, and is NOT true. Has anybody noticed that more and more gang members AND simple criminals have them? Why were the cops outgunned in that famous LA bank robbery standoff a few years ago? Why did they have to go to a GUN STORE to get guns to "come equal" on armament? Does she think the crooks get them LEGALLY? Frankly, we need them to be “equally armed” with the criminals and gang members who will confront us now, and in the future. She says those who “turn them in” qualify for “as much as” $2,000 tax credit (Qualifies, and MAYBE they'll get it, maybe not). What she DOESN'T say is that NOT ALL those “turning them in” will get $2,000. It's a CON, folks! Run by a LAWMAKER! She says her bill would not FORCE gun owners to “turn in” their guns. She doesn't admit this, but it might CON them into it. They can always make it "mandatory" later. (Second Amendment Insider)

Criminals Obey Laws--Right?

That's a logical fallacy followed by the anti-gun fools who think all they have to do is make a law and criminals, who obey no laws, will obey one that says they can't carry a gun. How then, did this pretty redheaded woman (who is already a FELON for carrying a gun before), able to get the gun they found on her this time? Could it be that she just went out and bought it ILLEGALLY? Or STOLE it? And then after they let her out on bail for THAT charge, she went out and got ANOTHER gun. This woman really DOESN'T obey laws, does she? And she doesn't have any trouble GETTING a gun, does she? Which means all the laws these people make have NO EFFECT on her getting a gun to use in victimizing honest people, who would have to BECOME criminals to get a gun for self-defense against her and her kind. Sounds like a futile effort, doesn't it? Why? Because CRIMINALS don't OBEY laws. You know that; I know it. But those so-called “experts” who pretend to know more than we do, DON'T know that. Or they do, and they don't care. They just want to DISARM us as much as possible. (Baxter Bulletin)

It's Happening Again!

Anti-gun legislators are facing a recall vote in Oregon because of their anti-gun votes. Last year, three legislators (in Colorado) were ”shown the door” after they voted for anti-gun legislation (that Colorado legislators who will be gone next election failed to repeal this year). They never seem to learn, do they? They just can't understand that the CITIZENS want to keep their guns in case they need them to fight off ARMED criminals. Of the “Colorado three,” two lost recall elections, and the other “saw the handwriting on the wall” and resigned in the face of her own recall election. Something people discount is that soon we'll be fighting ISIS-type Islamic terrorists in the streets of America and we need guns to do that. We keep telling them that, but their incompetence doesn't allow them to see the truth of it. Further incompetence is shown by Obama in his actions to LOOSEN UP the border, making it easier for these people to sneak in while fighting “tooth and nail” to make it even HARDER for an honest citizen to buy a gun. Then there's his plan to actually IMPORT thousands of Islamic terrorists, calling them “refugees.” Those incompetent politicians will be the DEATH of us—and themselves. (Guns)

Politicians Never Get It

The Mayor of Milwaukee (a Democrat, obviously) blames Gov. Scott Walker (a Republican, of course) for some recent gun deaths. That's because of recent laws Walker signed into law having to do with “concealed carry.” But he doesn't say anything about whether or not the people who DID the shooting had a “carry permit,“ or not. The Milwaukee County Sheriff says just the opposite: “There is ZERO evidence that concealed carry permits have led to an increased number of guns on the streets.” That makes no difference to anti-gun fools when they want to blame everything BUT what THEY do. The fact is, if these shooters HAD been “licensed,” that fact would have been “shouted to the skies.” And what everybody ignores is that the blame should go to those who sell guns ILLEGALLY in back alleys somewhere, and to those who BUY them there. It's NOT the existence of LEGAL guns that's to blame, it's the easy availability of ILLEGAL (ILLEGAL!) guns that's to blame—and their laws NEVER take that into account, and never make laws that punish the USE of a gun in the commission of a crime. Will they ever “see the light?” Not likely. That would take INTELLIGENCE. (Fox News)

Light Sentence For Criminals

This is a good illustration why we should “vet” judges before they're allowed to take the bench. This black judge is obviously BIASED in favor of black people. He gave a light sentence to some black home invaders and actually got MAD because a THREE-YEAR-OLD child was frightened by a bunch of black home invaders. He even had the GALL to say this CHILD was “racist” because she was frightened by some goons (black OR white) invading their home waving guns about. This is a good illustration of the twisted thinking of today's “hate whitey” racism that Obama is pushing. The big problem here is that once the man is proclaimed a judge, he gets to “rule” in favor or against somebody based on his own prejudices, not the law. So those prejudices ought to be inspected BEFORE that judge is ALLOWED to BE a judge. (Weasel Zippers)

Anti-Gun Fallacies

Bloomberg's failing anti-gun outfit, “MOMS Against Guns (or something like that) hates to be ignored worse than anything. It's boss, Shannon Watts, constantly uses the specter of a shopper carrying an automatic weapon into a grocery store (which is exceedingly rare and only done for political reasons) while they attempt to get holstered handguns banned in those stores, in spite of laws ALLOWING it. What REALLY made them mad is that they could only draw 150 people to a rally held in response to the NRA meeting, which got more than 750,000 attendees. Such a disparity in attendees plainly shows her LACK of support for her outlandish views. Their BASIC fallacy is the belief that a LAW against criminals carrying guns will stop CRIMINALS, who don't obey ANY laws, from bringing their guns into these places. Another fallacy is thinking that the way to self-defense is to DISARM honest people. (Bearing Arms)

Can't Ban It

So make it hard on them. Nevada lawmakers can't ban guns, so they work around that by discriminating against people who HAVE guns. In this case, they banned a law-abiding couple from being able to become foster parents because they LEGALLY owned guns after an earlier home invasion attack. They've never been in trouble, and are “honest as the day is long.” Owning guns should NEVER be an excuse for denying them what is a right for anyone else. Laws should be made against THIS. This is how the anti-gun fools operate: stop honest people from doing honest things because they own guns, which is a legal action on this couple's part. They make laws that DISCRIMINATE against gun owners. Naturally, they're fighting it. And, of course, the chief opponent for them is a Democrat. (Second Amendment Insider)

MOMS Really Powerful!

Yeah, right! “Moms Against Guns (or something like that) held a rally to “counter the NRA meeting in Nashville. NRA drew more than 70,000, roughly 9,000 MORE than they expected, while MOMS drew—wait for it—150 fools. 150! Boy, MOMS is really powerful, aren't they? Frankly, if you can't draw more than 150 anti-gun enthusiasts to such a meeting, you'd probably better slink on home to avoid being embarrassed like that, again. They still claim gun ownership is declining, while figures from the REAL WORLD show that just is NOT so. Yet they still operate as if they were a powerful organization, putting pressure on company after company to declare their stores “gun-free zones,” therefore making them VULNERABLE to armed criminals' attack. To people of Intelligence (which doesn't seem to exist among MOMS) such places are an open invitation to criminals and crazies to bring their guns and shoot them up (as has been proved in Target parking lots). We keep telling them that, but they keep not listening and making their embarrassing mistakes. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

New Technology

It bamboozles politicians. They make the stupid and short-sighted laws they PRETEND are designed to “stop gun violence,” but actually INCREASES it, and then somebody comes along with something they didn't think about, like “printed guns.” Soon, you'll be able to inexpensively buy a device much like a Xerox printer that will “print” 3D parts for whatever kind of a gun you want, without all the government-mandated folderol—and they can't figure out what to do about it. They BAN certain types of ammunition, forgetting that people can make whatever type of ammunition they want (or import it), using inexpensive machinery in their garages. Americans are (thankfully) way ahead of the politicians, at all times. And they don't know what to do about that, so they bluster around and make unenforceable laws that do just the opposite of what they intend, doing nothing but INCREASE gun violence. (The Right to Bear)

"Cops Raid Gun Shop"

"Find GUNS!” Surprise, surprise! They found GUNS in a GUN STORE! Talk about a news headline that says the OBVIOUS. This sounds like a job for “Obviousman!” You've probably seen him in the comic strip “Non-Sequitur.” He hears somebody saying something STUPID and stands up to correct them. I don't always agree with what the artist on this strip says, but so far, the “Obviousman” has never been wrong, at least that I've seen. Why do you, at 77, still read the comics, you say? That's easy. Today's comic strip artists often stray into the “editorial scene,” sometimes right, sometimes stupidly. Doonesbury is one whose political observations are usually stupid, and sometimes border on the INSANE! Another one is “Candorville.” Just because I'm OLD, don't think I'm DEAD. I like a good laugh as much as anyone. And I can usually get one or two every day in “the funnies” while sometimes gaining good material for my work. Besides: it's good breakfast reading. (Candorville)

Our "Facination" With Guns

Calvin Williams, Chief of Police in Cleveland, Ohio, is critical of the whole idea of having guns in the house where children can get their hands on them, after a boy of 3 picked up an unattended gun and killed a one-year-old boy with it. But, as usual, he's WRONG. It's not the PRESENCE of the gun that's at fault, it's the CARELESSNESS of its owner. Way too many people are completely clueless about how to HANDLE guns, mostly because the anti-gun fools (like him) prevent too many people from GETTING gun safety schooling because they don't want ANYTHING regarding guns to happen “in their backyard.” He talks about our “fascination” with guns, forgetting the “fascination” with getting RID of guns (which we have a RIGHT to have, for self-defense) on his side.They think if they deny the very EXISTENCE of guns, they won't exist. It's like their general approach to “gun control.” They DO NOTHING to PUNISH the USE of a gun in the commission of a crime while working HARD to disarm all Americans (who OBEY laws). That, of course, ELIMINATES those who get their guns ILLEGALLY from consideration while DISARMING innocent people, who are HONEST and OBEY laws. I get tired of saying this, as I'm sure the gun-grabbers are tired of HEARING it. But I'll keep saying it until SOMEBODY listens. Nobody has, so far. (The Blaze)

Gun-Grabbers Lie Again

They commissioned a “study” that supposedly shows that 9% of licensed gun owners “have a history of violent behavior,” “like to smash things,” or “get into physical fights,” among other unprovable crap. And 1.5% of these people carry their guns outside the home. Sounds scary, doesn't it? It might BE scary if it were true. But, like most “studies” commissioned by people with a definite finding in mind, it is NOT. They say the more guns you have, the more prone to violence you are. Of course, their “findings” say nothing about the fact that most gun violence is committed by people who have their guns ILLEGALLY and are criminals, to begin with. They give no numbers on how many people with “carry permits” are involved in committing a CRIME with their guns (they don't have any). Their figures don't bother to take that into account. They don't say that mostly NOBODY who legally owns a gun has used it illegally. This is their way of “backing up” their efforts to DISARM America—an effort fully supported by liberals in out government, including Obama, who says he will “get rid of firearms administratively, if his "servants" in Congress won't do it, completely disregarding the fact that gun ownership is a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT and Congress is NOT a "servant" of the president. Notice the “study was done by a liberal organization and reported by a liberally-oriented newspaper. (L A Times)

Hidden Gun-Grabbing

There's an increasing situation here of cops “grabbing guns” even when crimes cannot be proven and KEEPING them, even in the face of court orders to return them. In this case, the guns were irreplaceable, and the money the owner got was meaningless to him. He wanted his ANTIQUE guns back. But the cops, even under court order to return them, not only kept them, they DESTROYED these priceless antiques. They're using this to “confiscate guns under the table” because most people can't spend $10,000.00 to get the return of a $500 gun. In one recent case, cops got a “:bad odor” complaint from a man's neighbor. So the cops showed up and stole his gun collection, valued at $25,000.00. New Orleans (former) mayor, “School Bus” Ray Nagin, ordered ALL legally-owned guns in New Orleans confiscated (stolen) after the hiurricaine, leaving citizens completely defenseless against the ILLEGAL guns already in the hands of the criminals—who don't register their guns. Lawsuits have gotten some of the guns back, but many are still in the hands of the cops. There are more such outrages elsewhere, but we don't have room to list them here. Read the article linked to find out more. (Fox News)

Presidential Discrimination

Obama hates discrimination, of any kind—or does he? He has told banks to close accounts belonging to outfits that either make, or sell guns—which are not only a LEGAL product, they're CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. So on what basis do banks have the TEMERITY to arbitrarily close their accounts and disrupt their business? Further, what law gives Obama the POWER to even MAKE this recommendation? Because guns are “of questionable value?” To WHOM? Guns in the hands of CRIMINALS will not only be UNAFFECTED by this action, it will make it EASIER for their ILLEGAL owners to victimize honest people who will no longer be able to buy guns because those businesses find it hard to DO business. And some of those people will be POLICE agencies. If there are no gun sellers, where will the COPS get their guns? Furthermore, isn't this as much DISCRIMINATION as refusing to make a cake for a gay “wedding?” It really pains me the STUPID things people do! (Guns)

Gun-Grabber Stupidity

I continue to be amazed at the abysmal STUPIDITY of people who make laws to “stop gun violence.” The kind of laws they make do NOTHING to “stop gun violence,” and in reality, create an atmosphere that INCREASES gun violence by DISARMING honest people so they cannot defend themselves against the ILLEGAL guns already on the streets. Every one of the laws they sponsor make it easier for ILLEGALLY-armed criminals to prey on honest people. We tell them that, over and over, and they ignore us. Their minds are made up, and don't want to be bothered by FACTS. Gun registration, for instance. It makes many lucrative jobs for a lot of bureaucrats to keep track of all those figures, but does NOTHING to stop criminals from ILLEGALLY obtaining their guns, while it DOES help the criminals by making it harder for HONEST people to get guns for self-defense, thus leaving them defenseless.

Meanwhile, cop shops use the EXISTING laws that punish USE of guns in the commission of a crime as “bargaining chips” to get convictions in other crimes, usually dropping those charges. If a law was offered REQUIRING these laws be PROSECUTED, I'd be all for it. But the gun-grabbing fools aren't listening to reason OR logic. They seem to be out to DISARM the PUBLIC who DO obey laws, while doing NOTHING to stop CRIMINALS from getting their guns. Another completely stupid law is that creating “gun-free zones,” such as in schools. All those do is tell potential shooters WHERE they can go to shoot people at will, with little possibility of there being a gun there to oppose them. It's an OPEN INVITATION to shooters. People who have BEEN mass shooters admit to LOOKING for gun-free zones in which to do their killing, and staying AWAY from non-gun-free zones. (Guns)

Self-Defense Is Enough

There's a big fight in California over whether or not the need for self-defense alone is enough cause for people to be issued a “carry permit.” One sheriff in California was FORCED to accept that until the 9^th "Circus” Court decided to take it up again--in ”en blanc”--which means more judges. Which effectively set aside their previous ruling, and the Orange County sheriff went back to her “old way” of doing things, requiring people to prove extraordinary circumstances and provide proof before she would issue. According to California law, the sheriff alone can decide what constitutes a good reason to issue such a permit. Which, of course, is wrong: Self defense should be the ONLY reason to carry a gun, and ALL of us qualify for that, since criminals already HAVE their guns—ILLEGALLY. The only effect of current “gun laws” is to provide plentiful UNARMED victims for these ILLEGALLY armed criminals to victimize. More people with their own guns would be an effective deterrent to these criminals, who now can be pretty sure their intended victims will not be armed. (Orange County Register)

Disarming America

Obama has told us he has “not given up” on disarming America, even though the NRA (the American people) is a “formidable opponent.” What he doesn't say is that our right to be armed is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, and to “go around” the Constitution SHOULD get him a prison sentence. But he has ignored the Constitution so many times, in so many ways, why should he stop in this instance? He'll just “issue a presidential order” to further limit our access to guns, which is committing a CRIME on his part because to issue such an order REQUIRES a LAW, passed by Congress, to precede it. This is a requirement he has ignored many times in the past, and will ignore here. Only the fact that the Founders neglected to provide a PUNISHMENT for politicians who make unconstitutional laws, outside of their “enforcement efforts” being stopped if somebody actually has any GUTS, which never happens with Obama. With him, “the fix is in,” and NOBODY has the GUTS to do anything about what he does. (The Gunalizer)

Gun Control Backfires

Obama put a lot of time and money in his efforts to disarm America, but it has backfired on him terribly. Since 2013, the last year for which figures are available, gun manufacturing has DOUBLED because of “unprecedented demand.” America is telling him, “butt out!” Even his underhanded effort to get the banks to refuse to do business with gun people has failed. But is he listening? Not even! He has pledged to “do it administratively” if his “servants” in Congress will not “obey his orders.” People with common sense want guns, so they can defend themselves against criminals, who are ALWAYS armed. Sometimes they're even wearing badges. Not to mention the threats made by Islamic terrorists to come to America and do what they've done elsewhere. Even in “The Republic of California,” where the gun laws are the tightest, they processed 200,000 “background checks for people who wanted guns for self defense. They're not going to be able to withstand this kind of pressure forever without some sort of DICTATORIAL act, which WILL precipitate a REVOLT. (Washington Times)

Kroger to Moms: "Stick It!"

Moms against Guns (or something like that, which means nothing) put pressure on the Kroger grocery chain to ban guns in their stores (which include “King Soopers” in Denver, and were told to “take it and stick it.” Not in so many words, of course. Kroger officials are more polite than I am. But they told “Moms” they were not going to change their policy about guns—now, or ever. They could demonstrate all they wanted, and even sponsor a boycott, and be damned. Kroger makes its own decisions on policy and they might as well stop wasting their own time. I guess Kroger is run by people with guts, not the lilly-livered pansies who run other companies, such as Starbucks, who not only ban guns on their premises, but also have tried a “discussion” on race—which lasted ONE DAY. (Second AmendmentInsider)

Christie's Right Decision

Shaneen Allen unthinkingly brought her gun (which she was legally allowed to carry in her state) into New Jersey, which TARGETS people from easy “concealed carry” states, HOPING they will do what she did, and forget their guns so they could arrest them. This single mother of two boys got a permit after previously being robbed and thought her permit would be recognized in New Jersey. She was wrong. New Jersey, where anti-gun FOOLS are plentiful, does NOT recognize it. So she spent 40 days in jail before she could come up with the money for bail. And she has been “under the gun” since 2013, figuring she might go to prison for years for an innocent oversight.. She couldn't even successfully look for work as long as this was held over her head. Which makes it hard to provide for her family. Christie may have done this because he wants to run for president, but whatever reason, he deserves credit for “righting a wrong.” (Julie on Politics)

"Safe Haven" Gun-Free Zones

That's the theme of a presentation by Katie Pavlich, a “conservative columnist” for Town Hall Magazine. It points out the fact that anti-gun freaks miss entirely, that “would-be mass killers” SEEK OUT “gun-free zones” in which to do their wanton killings. Gun-grabbers keep saying “gun-free zones” are “safe havens,” but they're NOT. They're very dangerous places to be because defensive guns are kept OUT. This is what she said: “Safe Haven takes a step back from the public discourse on gun control and analyzes mass shootings in gun-free zones, as well as individual crimes where the presence of a legal firearm was denied by law. Using original interviews with victims of crime in gun-free zones, as well as politicians and other commentators, the documentary poses the question: Do gun-free zones work or are we creating an environment for criminal activity to run rampant?” The answer to this theoretical question is obvious to those with any intelligence at all: “gun-free zones” are an OPEN INVITATION to shooters to “come in and kill us.” (Women's Outdoor News)

Still Can't Get It Right

Like “The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight,” Democrat legislators keep trying to pass legislation to increase the registration of guns. Oregon Democrats are doing just that, and at least one sheriff is telling them to “go to hell' with their legislation. He refuses to enforce it. Democrat state Senator Floyd Prozanski is behind the legislation and Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer has made it very clear he, at least, will NOT enforce the law, should it pass. He called it “borderline treasonous.” Lawmakers were told (again) that “criminals, by definition, are undeterred by laws. For those in Rio Linda and the Oregon State Legislature, that means they don't OBEY laws. That's why they're called, “lawbreakers.” Which means this law, like just about ALL the others, will be USELESS in “stemming the gun violence.” What they need is a law STOPPING police agencies and prosecutors from using such gun laws as “throwaways” to get convictions on other crimes, therefore punishing the USE of guns in a crime, rather than punishing law-abiding citizens by DISARMING them in the face of ILLEGALLY armed criminals. I hate to keep repeating this, but I will keep doing it until SOMEBODY on the “gun control” side notices, and does something INTELLIGENT. (Western Journalism Center)

What? He Had A Gun?

(Sarcasm on) Impossible! He's a FELON! Felons Can't Have Guns—Right? (sarcasm off) At least that's what the law says. But criminals don't give a sh-t about laws. That's why we call them “lawbreakers” and criminals. In this case, he got caught with 90 grams of meth, some pot, AND a gun, according to Sheriff Dean Howell. Is anybody with ANY intelligence surprised that this felon, who was recently released from prison on a previous drug charge, not only had a considerable amount of drugs, but also a GUN? But the gun-grabbers are. They “bitterly cling” to their idea that a LAW can stop a CRIMINAL from carrying a gun, just because it's illegal. Are they STUPID, or what? (Sun-Herald)

GOP "Steps Up" In Maryland

Republicans, newly elected in Maryland, are actually DOING what they were elected to do—oppose the crappy actions of Democrats. Unlike what the GOP fools in DC are doing, they are sponsoring efforts to overturn the “tight” anti-gun laws now in effect. Laws that do nothing to stem “gun violence,” but DO do a lot to INCREASE it by DISARMING honest citizens so as to make them UNARMED VICTIMS of criminals, who don't OBEY laws, anyway. Politicians seem to seamlessly think DISARMING people is the way to stop gun violence MUST be “taking stupid pills every day. You don't protect yourself against ILLEGALLY-armed criminals by DISARMING yourself. And their vision of people running around all over shooting each other over trivial things is just that: a “vision,” and would in no way be true. The only people getting shot would be the CRIMINALS, when they attack an ARMED citizen. Maybe the politicians just want a disarmed populace so they can “do their dirty work,” stealing whatever they can, without worrying about running into a gun. (Second Amendment Insider)

More "Dirty Tricks"

There doesn't seem to be a law against banks discriminating against gun shops and manufacturers, so Obama is using the banks to “put the pressure” on them by closing their bank accounts. I guess discrimination practiced by the PRESIDENT is allowed, even if other forms of discrimination are not. Obama can't just BAN guns, so he's doing everything he can to make it hard, not only on gun owners, but on gun makers and sellers. Somebody needs to slap this fool down. If gun makers can't make guns, where will the cops and “federal agents” get theirs? Does he really think this will make guns disappear from the Earth? If he does, he needs to take his “rose-colored glasses” off. It ain't gonna happen. He's only forcing law-abiding citizens to become criminals in order to defend themselves against criminals, who have no problem getting their guns ILLEGALLY. And if they can't be made or sold in the U. S., they'll be imported, and make billions of dollars for illegal gun dealers, whose numbers will increase markedly as fewer guns are made and sold legally here. He will have CREATED an illegal market, as they did for illegal booze when they passed prohibition, which is the reason that “:organized crime” (not the government) became very strong. (Daily Caller)

Basic Gun Fallacy

The whole idea that a LAW will stop CRIMINALS from buying or stealing guns to use on all of us. The idea that the way to self-defense is to DISARM ourselves. Or that having a list of gun owners will do ANYTHING to reduce ”gun violence.” All that will do is give the government the names and addresses of honest people (not the criminals) who own guns and OBEY the law, so they can go there and “confiscate” (steal) them. NONE of the laws and regulations today's (and yesterday's) anti-gun fools get passed do that. All they do is give criminals and crazies a steady stream of UNARMED VICTIMS. The “anti-gun fools” don't care about “gun violence,” although they SAY they do. They just want to DISARM every American who OBEYS laws. And they're well on their way to doing that. (Just common sense)

Second Amendment Enforcement Act

Like most acts in DC, this one is misnamed. It sounds just like the kind of acts that become law in DC all the time. But this one is different: it seeks to STOP those laws. Which means it is “controversial.” When a law is “controversial” in DC, that usually means the liberals are against it. And since this one seeks to undo some of the things that are “nearest and dearest to the hearts of liberals,” they're “gearing up” for a big fight. And if it's a fight they want, a fight they're going to get. The NRA is also “gearing up” for a fight, and they have proven to be most effective (in most cases) in such fights. The Act was introduced by Sen, Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). Republicans, of course. The kind of Republicans we need to SUPPORT, who aren't afraid to take on even the Republican leader(less)ship. Washington's “effective gun ban” didn't reduce crime, as predicted by people who KNOW about such things (who aren't among the gun grabbers). This is the obvious target of this Act. Now, if the gun grabbers could come up with something that would WORK, there might be something we could talk about. But not before. (The Hill)

"Need That Many Guns?"

That’s a question often asked of people who buy more than one gun. Especially by anti-gun fools. The right answer is, “What’s it to you?” Like in other areas where they try and belittle what we do by saying we don’t NEED to do it, it’s not their right to decide what we NEED to do. Thought they try and TAKE that right, simply by asking that question. More people need to answer simply, “It’s not your business.” They hope to “shame you” into thinking their way in areas where they can’t make LAWS to do so by asking you, “Do you NEED that? I don't know where they get the idea they can DICTATE what you "need." (The Bang Switch)

"No Gun Needed"

This woman doesn’t need a gun to deal with most purse-snatchers. She just kicks him in the gonads, punches him in the face, and takes back her purse. This guy tried to rob the wrong woman and is now sitting painfully in jail. She hit him in the eye so hard she broke her hand and the doctor who treated her said, “You’re my hero! The treatment is on me.” The robber was restrained by two men who witnessed the whole thing, while a woman vacuuming her car nearby called the cops. When they (finally) arrived, they took the man into custody, and stopped by the hospital to get stitches for his eye. And I don’t think that treatment was free. This brings up a point: most people who do things like this aren’t armed, because they can’t afford guns. And if they have anything less that a gun, you can beat them. Especially if you are carrying a stun gun or pepper spray. Lacking that, just beat the hell out of them. (The Blaze)

"Cop Lives Matter?"

The newest chant among black racists is, “black lives matter!” Meanwhile, they tell black people to “arm themselves against police.” “The head of the Georgia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote nonviolent social change, on Tuesday advocated African-American families 'exercise their Second Amendment rights' in response to recent police shootings of unarmed black men.” The truth is, there is NO INCREASE in shootings of UNARMED black men. There IS an increase in shootings of ARMED black men who are responding to the rhetoric put out by fools such as this and making TARGETS of all cops, who respond by being HYPER-sensitive and now much more likely to “shoot first and ask questions later,” in self-defense. There was another cop shot and killed just a mile from my home the other night. One organization wants to DISARM NYC cops. But it ain't gonna happen. If they ever disarmed, they'd DIE. And they're not gonna do that. (AJC)

"Why Can't I Carry A Gun?"

That's the question asked by a woman who was recently raped in her own home. She wants to know why she can't have a gun in her own home? So she can protect herself from people like her rapist? She says she'd rather “be judged by 12 than carried by 6,” referring to being judged by a jury rather than be carried by pallbearers. And she's right. I have considered that, myself. If I carried a gun ILLEGALLY, as most criminals do, I WOULD be “judged by 12” if they caught me. Or if I used it in self-defense. But I would still be alive, which I might NOT be if a criminal confronted me with his ILLEGAL gun and I did not have one. I'm old, and without help, I'm defenseless against the hoodlums out there WITHOUT a gun. So why can't I carry one? I'm a responsible person who won't run around shooting everything in sight, as you stupid gun-grabbers try to make people think I would. But I WOULD shoot somebody who tried to hurt me. And I should be allowed to do that. The Constitution says I can, no matter what stupid politicians say. (The Gun Feed)

"We Don't Need Guns"

“We don't need guns in this country,” says a movie producer whose companies have bought many guns for use in his movies. He signals his stupidity on the subject by saying this. “We don't need guns?” Right. Back when every man carried a sword, would he have said, “We don't need swords in this country?” Guns are the “weapon of choice” for CRIMINALS, and the only way to “even things up” is for us to have guns, too. In an “real world (from his viewpoint),” guns will not exist. If that ever happened (and it never would), what would he have as a staple in all his movies?), so criminals would select something else to kill and maim us with. As usual, gun-grabbers don't recognize that the “gun violence problem” is not because of the GUNS, but because of the PEOPLE. And if guns disappeared today (not gonna happen), they'd find something else just as deadly to kill us with. By the way, Harvey, I don't think the NRA will even NOTICE your movie you claim will “make them wish they were never born.” They never notice small-minded people like you. (World Net Daily)

Managerial Incompetence

It is a lot more widespread than most people imagine. It becomes more obvious when an airline pilot succumbs to his depression and flies his airplane into a mountain, killing himself and all aboard. His company KNEW of his depression and did not stop him from flying. They certified him okay to fly, therefore condemning hundreds of people to a horrible death. It's obvious in the federal government every time Obama makes a decision. For instance, his REFUSAL to call Islamic terrorism what it IS, therefore condemning thousands of non-Muslims to death—and even some MUSLIMS who don't believe exactly right. It's obvious when he tells his troops to “cut and run” and leave their guns and equipment, therefore ARMING the enemy while maintaining “plausible deniability.” It's obvious in cities like Detroit where they spent and spent until they had no more to spend—and , unlike the feds, they can't PRINT money while other liberals have yet to come to their aid with YOUR money. Obama has done so many stupid things I can't even keep up with them, let alone list them here. Places like Target Stores, who declare their stores “gun-free zones,” clearly INVITING armed criminals to come there and shoot them up, since there will be no guns there to oppose them. Anti-gun fools who still believe the way to defend yourself is to DISARM yourself. That is incompetence personified. (Just common sense)

One Way to Ban Guns

California wants to make every gun in the state that is not a “smart gun” illegal. That's the gist of the law now making its way through the California legislature. That's how politicians work. They violate the Constitution in reality, but they call it something else and say the Constitution doesn't cover it. They say this law will NOT “ban guns,” but that's the effect it will have, unless everybody who wants to have a gun can afford to buy a new “smart gun.” the fact that under current technology, “smart guns” only work SOMETIMES doesn't even enter their thinking. This is their way of “getting around the Constitution” and they're going to do it. (Gunalizer)

Buying Guns A "Privilege?"

It amazes me how politicians can IGNORE the Constitution with impunity simply by making an untrue statement and pretending it's true. Oregon gun-grabbers are doing that with the law they're now making to OUTLAW all private gun sales except those between “close relatives” (who gets to decide HOW close?). The law also says that gun buying is a “PRIVILEGE,” not a right. This in spite of the very SIMPLE statement in the Constitution that it IS a RIGHT. Who the hell do they think they are? Naturally, the man sponsoring the bill is a DEMOCRAT. Background checks are part of his bill, even though background checks did NOTHING to stop numerous mass killings in the past and many of the killers PASSED background checks. The fact that what he is proposing is USELESS doesn't bother this FOOL. He wants to pass the bill into law, anyway. The law will “crush you” with a $250,000 fine for a second "offense," doing what the Constitution says you CAN do. (Breitbart)