Gun Or No Gun

I've always said it doesn't matter if a gun is involved or not, if somebody wants to kill, they'll do it. Gun-grabbers disagree. they think whenever somebody wants to kill somebody, they always go get a gun. WRONG! People who have LEGAL guns don't kill over trifles, as a rule. People who DO kill over trifles will do it with a rock, if necessary. In this case. The weapon was a knife, many of which are “easily available” in a restaurant, such as where this occurred. These two got into an argument over how much SPICE to use in a gumbo dish, fergawdsakes, and it ended when one man stabbed the other to death. Should we BAN KNIVES to keep such fools from killing each other? I don't think so. Banning knives would be as stupid as is banning guns. People will kill each other with STICKS if they're bent on murder. The presence of a gun makes no difference. (ABC News)

"Throw Soup Cans At 'Em"

In another example of ignorant thinking, some liberal gun-grabbers are saying students should all bring full soup cans to school with them in case a “crazy shooter” comes to their school to kill a few of them. Of course, those fools who recommend this completely ignore the fact that throwing a soup can at such an attacker would guarantee that the throwers would be the first kids he shoots. What they don't understand its that “you don't bring a soup can to a gun fight.” The guy with the gun can kill you before you can get the can in action. I'd just like to know whose idea this is, so I'll know who the stupidest person around is. I'd like to send him/her into a gun fight armed with only a soup can, hoping his aim is true. You name the stupid ideas, and you can count on the gun-grabbers to put them out there. They're THAT stupid. (Tea Party Bulletin)

Obama Wants Your Guns

And he's coming to get them, whatever subterfuge he must use. “Let's Not Mince Words. Barack Obama And His Far-Left Cronies Want Your Guns... And They're Not Going To Let That 'Pesky Second Amendment' Get In Their Way!" Recent events have obscured what is actually happening behind the scenes in Washington. Bolstered by the senseless tragedy in Charleston, South Carolina, those who 'never let a good crisis go to waste' are presently maneuvering behind the scenes to shove another gun-grab through the United States Senate.” Never mind that what they call “gun control laws” do NOTHING to control gun violence, and all they do is DISARM honest people and make them “easy targets” for the “bad guys” who have no trouble getting their guns in a back alley somewhere, buying them from other criminals—or just stealing them. And if they can't get their laws passed, they put so many “requirements” on the purchase of a gun that it becomes impossible to afford to anybody but the richest of people. So much for the laws being “equally applied.” (Freedom Outpost)

The "Dumbest Democrat"

I know, it's hard to figure out which Democrat is the dumbest. There are so many of them who are dumb as a box of rocks. But this guy works HARD to show he is the dumbest. Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, you'll remember is the one who worried about the population of Guam so overloading Guam that it would “tip over” the Earth and Guam would fall off. Now, after a man came into an airport (outside the areas where guns are prohibited) carrying a loaded AR-15, he sponsored a bill: “The Airport Security Act of 2015,” to stop people from bringing guns into airports, period. Like somebody who really WANTED to shoot up an airport would OBEY his law. He's as dumb as the “gun-grabbers” who keep making useless laws, hoping criminals (who don't OBEY any laws) will obey them. I keep telling people how stupid these laws are, but nobody with any power listens. How such stupid people GET into power amazes me. (Conservative Newsroom)

He Killed Himself

And eight others. Dylan Roof chose this church BECAUSE it was a “gun-free zone.” And it was that because of a vote by its own pastor, who voted FOR the law that CREATED that “gun-free zone” in churches, all over SC. Roof tried to get into a college (which is also a gun-free zone, but had better security), but finally settled on this church. He KNEW there would be NO OPPOSITION to his attack BECAUSE it was a “gun-free zone.” This is a fact NOBODY in the liberal community (which includes most of government) will ever admit, much less talk about. The point is, “gun-free zones” everywhere are an OPEN INVITATION to people like Roof to come in and kill people there. And they take advantage of it. This is just another illustration of how the short-sightedness of the gun-grabbers get people killed, sometimes themselves. (The Right to Bear)

SF Makes Us Less Safe

They have banned hollow point bullets in San Francisco. Apparently, in their incompetence, they think a bullet designed for less penetration is more dangerous than one that is designed for MORE penetration. What this means is more people are going to get shot, maybe killed by bullets that have already passed through somebody else. Liberal politicians (which abound in California) are notoriously incompetent, and when they do such things as this, they prove it, again and again, while people die of their stupidity. I'm surprised they don't ban bullets, altogether. That's the kind of stupid things they do. If these politicians had to take responsibility for all the people their laws kill, they' ALL be in prison, awaiting execution. (Second Amendment Insider)

Gun Grabbers Are Fools

They tell us confidently that background checks will help stop crime. How stupid is that? A background check will NEVER stop a criminal from stealing a gun, buying one out of the trunk of a car in a back alley somewhere from another criminal, or some other illegal way to acquire a gun. All a background check will ever do is help the cops connect a gun to a LEGAL buyer of a gun if he/she ever commits a crime with it. It will do NOTHING to help them identify a criminal, who usually does not register the gun or guns he/she acquires. The problem with ignorant or stupid people is they have they're ignorant or stupid. They usually think they're the smartest person around. Like those gun-grabbers who insist on passing all kinds of USELESS laws that aim in the wrong direction, toward honest people, not toward punishing the USE of a gun in a crime. Such laws would keep more criminals off the streets for longer periods of time, which, in itself, would reduce gun violence, since he/she will be in prison. (NRA-ILA)

It's His Own Fault

This may seem crass and unfeeling, but it isn't. I say this in complete sympathy for the pastor at the Charleston, AME Church. He brought his death upon himself. Not purposely, but through ignorance. The ignorance that tells him that banning guns from his church will keep guns away. It did keep guns away. Not the one that killed him, but the guns it DID keep away were those that would have been in the hands of honest, responsible, law-abiding people who could have immediately taken Dylan Roof out as soon as he revealed his intentions. I don't know how many lives that could have saved—that depends on how fast they realized what was going on and were able to get their guns in action. Maybe he would have still died, but some of the nine parishioners may not have died, as well. The fact remains that BANNING guns from his church ended in his death, and the deaths of eight of his “flock.” That's fact. Indisputable. Liberals and gun-grabbers will call that hate speech, but hate speech is what THEY spout every day. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, one tiny woman stopped a similar attempt COLD, by making the shooter eat one of HER bullets. The pastor in that church was “smarter than the average bear” when he asked her to “act as a security guard” while there, and is probably still alive because of it. (Just common sense)

"We Need More Cops!"

New York City residents are crying for more cops to defend them, while doing everything they can to “run them off.” Al Sharpton and his cronies march, saying, “What do we want? More dead cops!” (Sharpton should be in PRISON for that. Him, and everybody else who advocates killing cops. I should say that the same groups of people are not all doing it. Crime is rising in New York—and Baltimore—and Ferguson, MO, and they wonder why. Can they really be that STUPID? The cops are their last, best source of protection from our enemies, but they're making it as hard as possible for them to do their jobs, and even to walk around wearing their uniforms! Who do you call when someone attacks you? The local gangs? The terrorists? No, you call the COPS!

Terrorism is a growing problem in New York City, and there is a distinct shortage of cops experienced in dealing with terrorists. I don't know if that's how Obama PLANNED it, but that's the way it's working. The more we put targets on our cops, the less they're going to WANT to be out there taking a bigger chance on being murdered BECAUSE they're wearing that uniform—and who is going to suffer? WE are! Meanwhile, the government is working HARD to DISARM us, and keep us defenseless against ALL threats—from local criminals, to terrorists, who have PROMISED to come here and “do their dirty work.” Best we ARM OURSELVES and grit our teeth, and be ready to KILL terrorists as soon as they raise their ugly heads. (Town Hall)

It's Still Not Enough

A lot of people will want to move to Wisconsin as long as people like Scott Walker are making the laws there. He recently signed two bills into law that common sense and logic would tell ANY politician is a good thing. One reverses Wisconsin's decades-long “waiting period for gun buyers,” probably after the highly publicized murder of one woman while she was waiting for approval of her application for a gun permit after being threatened by her husband. The other allows FORMER POLICE OFFICERS to carry their guns on school campuses. It's a move in the right direction, but it's not enough. What's so special about ex-cops? Why not just allow ALL citizens to carry their legally-carried guns on school property so the potential mass killers will never know if there will be somebody there, armed and ready to “take them out” as soon as they start shooting? Politicians need to accept the obvious: that the “bad guys” will bring their guns on school grounds, whatever the law, so we need honest, reliable people to be armed, too, to counter that. (Outdoor Hub)

Hypocritical Pope

The Pope says, “Do we need unholy guns in holy places?” Then he gets in his “Popemobile, surrounded by ARMED men and goes home to the Vatican, which is surrounded by ARMED people determined to protect him, at all costs. If you try to get in and hurt him, they'll KILL you with their many guns. It's hypocritical for the Pope to make such a statement while himself being surrounded by people who carry his guns FOR him. For him to come out against Americans being able to carry guns for self defense is hypocritical. We can't all afford to be surrounded by people carrying guns for us. Supporting global warming is STUPID. I don't care if he IS the Pope. He is STUPID if he “buys” that global warming claptrap. He is fast proving he is much less of an intelligent man than are past Popes. (Religion News Service)

Over and Over and Over

The anti-gun fools just can't admit their mistakes. Or they just aren't smart enough to REALIZE their mistakes. The worst thing about it is, that for some reason, they always seem to retain the power to make their stupid laws that kill people, time and time again. Soon after an insane kid killed 9 people in a church shooting, the “usual suspects” jumped on the “gun control bandwagon,” touting the usual outmoded, many times discredited gun control methods like registering gun buyers, stopping honest people who do obey laws from owning guns, designating certain areas as “gun-free zones,” gun safes, trigger locks, etc. Obama gets on his “soap box” and lies like a rug, as usual, saying, “Other countries don't have this problem, even though they DO. Then Hillary climbs on, too, while running around with her ARMED security. And all the others we can expect to join in the din to make more and more useless laws that will NEVER do what they claim they will do: stop gun violence. They only kill people. They forget another church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, that turned out a little differently—because ONE PERSON in the congregation had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it.

She STOPPED the shooter in his tracks—by SHOOTING him. Irrefutable evidence that ONE PERSON with a gun in the crowd who ISN'T bent on mass murder can make all the difference in the world. But will these blockheads listen? Not a chance. They have their minds made up, and you can't confuse them with FACTS. They called her a “plain-clothes security guard,” but in reality she was a member of the congregation who was ASKED to be a “security guard" during the service. This kind of thing can SOLVE the “gun violence problem.” But, with the possible exception of local; news, it isn't noticed, and those making the laws not only don't notice it, they actively deny it. Will that church in S. Carolina change their policy and start allowing guns in their church so guys like this will meet opposition when they come in to commit mass murder? Doubtful That wouldn't be “politically correct.” So more people will die because of their useless laws. (Town Hall)

Don't Fink On the Boss

Taylor Johnson, a senior investigator for the Department of Homeland Security Investigations Division (DHS) found that out the hard way when she uncovered a program that represented corruption within the agency. Apparently, she was only supposed to “investigate” things happening OUTSIDE DHS. When she went to her boss, did they compliment her and act on her findings? Yup. They sure did (No compliment). They took her job away without even the honor of being fired. They transferred her to job that amounted to “being in purgatory” so she couldn't even get a decent job. They took her gun and company car away, and told a social worker trying to verify her employment that she was “no longer with them, due to criminal actions.” They neglected to say the “criminal actions” were THEIRS, not hers. Then CPS got involved, and she very nearly lost her child. They not only took her work gun away, they told her she could no longer own or carry a gun, period: a clear constitutional violation. This is how DHS handles whistleblowers. (The Right to Bear)

They're Dead?

Eric Ward thinks conservative think tanks are dead because society no longer values facts or reason. I beg to differ. As long as there is ONE person left who DOES value facts and reason, conservative think tanks will never die. I am one of those, and when I go (soon, as old as I am--that's a fact, which I must face) there will be others. I hope they come from among those I have mentored. He says, “What solace is there to know we're right while society collapses around us?” The answer is, none. It is very frustrating to “throw out nuggets of knowledge” and have them be ignored by a majority of people. That's what I do, every day. But I will keep doing it until I can no longer do it. For the benefit of the FEW who can benefit from it. I feel sorry for those who can't, and their numbers are legion. It is a fact that ignorant people have no idea they're ignorant, and mostly think they're the smartest people around. That applies to a majority of politicians in Washington and elsewhere. The evidence is the belief many of them hold that socialism is something to be desired, and that all you have to do is make a law against carrying and using guns in crime and criminals will obey it. (American Thinker)

Hey Al, Where ARE You?

There was a big mass shooting in Detroit where nine people were killed. In Philly, 10 people were sent to the hospital. And one toddler and two older children were injured in a mass shooting at a block party. Where ARE you, Al? Jesse? What? You aren't coming here to spout your usual hate speech against white cops? Oh. Everybody involved is black; shooters and victims. So you aren't interested. Why am I surprised? Why is ANYBODY surprised? All Al and Jesse want to do is whip up black hatred for whites, and blacks shooting blacks does nothing to advance that narrative. And it won't put money in their pockets, so they're “too busy” elsewhere. Like Baltimore or Ferguson, MO, where they can twist things to make it SEEM like whites are “oppressing” blacks, who, in actuality, are more often oppressing whites. Like Michael Brown, who “bulldozed” his way out of a convenience store carrying stolen cigars, than, when he was found “ditty-bopping” down the middle of the street and asked to stop, tried to kill the single cop on the scene, who was about HALF his mass, even trying to take his gun to shoot him with. Everybody was surprised when he got shot for his trouble, and riots ensued. Maybe we should start ignoring people like Al and Jesse so they'll stop making money from other people's woes, Or put them in adjoining cells in prison for their extortion schemes. (Twitchy)

Add Rove to the List (?)

The list of stupid politicians who think that BANNING guns will do ANYTHING to “stop gun violence.” That's if you believe what he told Chris Wallace on Fox recently was true, and not a “tongue-in-cheek” comment. Of course, the gun-grabbers leaped on it, since Rove is a conservative. But I don't believe Rove is that stupid. If he was, he'd have shown it before now. The fact remains, as I've said many, many times, you can't eliminate guns from the landscape by making a law. Criminals don't OBEY laws, and will not obey this one. I think Rove was just spoofing those stupid people who think that way. I'm pretty sure that's not the way he really feels about gun control. He's smart enough to know that arming law-abiding people is the way to go, even if it'll never happen in today's world. Fortunately, they won't repeal the Second Amendment in today's world, either. I hope. If they ever do, I'll become a criminal. (CowboyByte)

It's His Own Fault

This may seem crass and unfeeling, but it isn't. I say this in complete sympathy for the pastor at the Charleston, AME Church. He brought his death upon himself. Not purposely, but through ignorance. The ignorance that tells him that banning guns from his church will keep guns away. It did keep guns away. Not the one that killed him, but the guns it DID keep away were those that would have been in the hands of honest, responsible, law-abiding people who could have immediately taken Dylan Roof out as soon as he revealed his intentions. I don't know how many lives that could have saved—that depends on how fast they realized what was going on and were able to get their guns in action. Maybe he would have still died, but some of the nine parishioners may not have died, as well. The fact remains that BANNING guns from his church ended in his death, and the deaths of eight of his “flock.” That's fact. Indisputable. Liberals and gun-grabbers will call that hate speech, but hate speech is what THEY spout every day. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, one tiny woman stopped a similar attempt COLD, by making the shooter eat one of HER bullets. The pastor in that church was “smarter than the average bear” when he asked her to “act as a security guard” while there, when he found out she was legally armed, and is probably still alive because of it. (Just common sense)

Should She Be Arrested?

I never heard of a “reality star” named “ 'Lil' Bit” before, but I'm way older than 20 and don't watch those “reality” shows. But apparently she has made the gun-grabbers mad with a picture she took of her husband, asleep next to her newborn baby. What got to them was the gun, laying on the bedside table, right out in the open, where that child, if it had even been able to get out of its child-holder been able to muster the strength to pull the trigger, might be a problem. This is an example of the absolute INSANITY with which gun-grabbers approach “gun control.” I agree that the gun might be better protected, but with a NEWBORN? In North Carolina, where she apparently lives, it's a misdemeanor offense to leave a gun in the open where a child could easily get to it. But not this child. Not for a while, yet. She probably couldn't even LIFT the gun, much less pull the trigger, at her age. Yes, she could be a lot more safety conscious with her gun, but I don't think it's a jailing offense in this case. Of course, those gun-hating fools would violently disagree. They're not too bright, and are focused on that gun, in all cases. They wish that gun wasn't there, at all. (The Right to Bear)

What's the Answer?

WHAT'S THE ANSWER? It didn't seem as if there were very many mass shootings, especially in schools and churches, when I was growing up. I don't know if that was because there weren't any, or because they didn't have the “24-hour news cycle” like they have now. I do know there weren't nearly as many news outlets then as there are now. But the main question today is, “what's the answer to stopping it?” Not only mass shootings, but gun attacks in general. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know what they're doing is NOT the answer. Taking guns away from responsible, law-abiding people is NOT the answer to gun violence. You don't defend yourself by DISARMING yourself. I remember that a major reason why the Japanese didn't attack the American mainland during WWII is that they figured “there would be a gun behind every blade of grass and pointing out of every window.” To me, that spells PREPAREDNESS as security.

Translated to personal security, that means someone bent on a massacre should not be able to believe there will be NO guns there to oppose him. The only church shooting I can remember that didn't work out the way the shooter wished was in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where the would-be shooter walked into bullets fired from a gun held by a small female parishioner who had been asked to ACT as “security” while there. That tells me it isn't the gun that's at fault in such cases, it's what's in the mind of the HOLDER of the gun. I know liberals hate the whole idea of arming law-abiding people, because they don't trust them to contain themselves if they have “heat” on their hip. But nonetheless, I think that ARMING honest people IS the answer—at least in individual cases. If a would-be shooter comes in to kill people and is, himself killed by someone there with a gun, maybe other would-be mass killers will think again about what they have in mind. Nobody wants to die for nothing, and being killed before you can carry out your plans to kill others stops you from being successful. (Just common sense)

No Gun Involved

In Graz, Austria, a man ran his car into a crowd of people, then stepped out and began stabbing the survivors, including a policeman, killing 3 and leaving 34 injured. Among the dead, is a 4-year-old boy. This is as bad as those highly-publicized mass shootings in the United States and elsewhere, with one exception: NO GUN was involved here. Thus proving that if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, he'll do it, even if he doesn't have a gun. I don't know how tight the gun laws in Austria are, but it makes no difference if he couldn't buy one or just didn't have one. The gun is NOT the problem. It is the MINDSET of the killer that's important. If he wants to kill, he'll kill, with whatever he can find. This proves again the FALLACY of preventing law-abiding people from owning and carrying guns for self-defense. But will the gun-grabbers take notice? Even if they do, will it make any difference in their feeble thinking? Not a chance. Their minds are made up. Don't confuse them with facts. (The Daily Mail)

"Greg Abbot Is Crazy!"

That's what Obama thinks. He's the current governor of Texas, and he recently signed into law, a measure that allowed those who have the legal right to carry a gun otherwise, to also carry it onto a school property. Crazy, right? There'll soon be daily gun fights on campus, everywhere, right? WRONG! That sounds like a prediction made by one of those ignorant gun-grabbers who think allowing honest, law-abiding people to carry their guns onto school grounds is wrong, and will result in regular gun fights. It won't, but you just cannot convince them of that. They're too stupid. It doesn't dawn on them that ALL of the “mass shootings” have HAPPENED in “gun-free zones.” So many of them on school grounds that it has become a cliché. That making laws against guns will not stop people bent on murder and mayhem from bringing their guns along with them. They just don't understand that there are ALREADY many guns on campus, carried by people with less-than-friendly motives that the presence of other guns in the hands of people without unfriendly motives might counter. All they can see is the GUN, while those hidden guns don't enter their thinking. (The Right to Bear)

Do Gun Laws Work?

The shooter in Charleston, SC, bought his gun at a gun store, and PASSED a background check. How the hell does ANYBODY with any amount of INTELLIGENCE at all believe that such laws would have stopped him from what he had planned? MAYBE, if he had done it before, they might. But he wasn't a “career criminal.” He was just a “screwed up kid” who thought black people were the cause of all his problems, and thought he'd go out and kill a few. So he went out and bought a gun, and did it. How in HELL is a LAW going to stop such as him? We have to make it “unprofitable” for anybody to do what he did, for any reason. We can do that by making sure there are other ARMED people in the crowd in the place he has chosen to shoot up, so he can be shot down before he can shoot as many people. (ConservativeByte)

"Didn't Stop Crime!"

Surprise, surprise! Gun control didn't stop crime in the big city! So ATF and the NY cops are “teaming up” to fight crime in the big city. I predict that it will have no effect on crime, so long as they use the same old, tired, theory of taking guns away from honest people while criminals have no trouble getting their guns in any case. And if they continue to use the laws that DO punish USE of guns in the commission of a crime as “bargaining chips” to get convictions in other crimes. We've told them this time and time again, but they're not listening. They think they “know it all” when it comes to gun control, and we don't know anything. The typical thinking of the elite. That this thinking doesn't work seems to escape them. (Breitbart)

Doesn't Happen Elsewhere

Obama says things like the SC shooting didn't happen in other countries, whose gun laws are much more strict than ours are. That's a usual Obama LIE. It DOES happen in other countries. It even happens in communist China, whose anti-gun laws are ABSOLUTE. People still get their guns if they're willing to break the law to do so. Taking guns away from law-abiding people will NEVER stop gun violence because criminals will ALWAYS get their guns. You have to deal with the PEOPLE, not the inanimate object. Obama continues to display his INCOMPETENCE to run our government by this opposition. It matters NOT whether gun laws are absolute, or non-existent. Criminals will ALWAYS get the guns they need to intimidate their intended victims. This is a fact you can't seem to beat into the stone-like heads of most politicians, who want to see NO guns in the hands of their constituents, so THEY can better intimidate them when they come after what's theirs. This shooting reminds me of another church shooting, years ago, where ONE member of the congregation was armed, and STOPPED the shooting before it could get started, by shooting the shooter. But the gun-grabbers don't want you to remember that. (Conservative Byte)

They're Always Wrong

Whenever something happens like the recent S. Carolina church massacre. Everybody with an .audience rushes to the microphone to pontificate on how to ”solve the gun violence problem.” the only problem is, they are, to a man (or woman) WRONG on what to do to put a stop to it. They trot out all the old “solutions” that have never worked, like registrations of all guns legally owned (it's impossible to list those ILLEGALLY owned, of course), stopping everybody who have gotten upset over a nosebleed from ever owning a gun. Banning returning heroes from owning a gun because they might use it, since we trained to to do so, or putting trigger locks on all guns or keep them in gun safes, to keep people from being able to get them into action fast enough to use them for what they were DESIGNED to do, defend us.

Then there are those infamous “no-gun zones” that shooters SEEK OUT for their shooting sprees. None of these “solutions” have EVER worked. Yet every time a killer emerges with a LEGALLY-bought, stolen, or ILLEGALLY obtained gun and shoots up a bunch of[people, they trot them out, again. They think if they could just BAN guns out of existence, everything would be okay. But that is a STUPID notion; a pipe-dream.” Guns exist. Like toothpaste, you can't put it back in the tube. If guns didn't exist, the people who want to maim and kill would find some other way of doing it, as they did in the years prior to the invention of guns, and the killing would go on. The only way to end gun violence is to KILL those who insist on perpetrating it. Not just go out and kill them, but allow honest, reliable, law-abiding people to own and carry guns so that, when a criminal confronts them, he can be shot to death, not just “put in the prison system” to be abused and angered so that when he gets out, he does worse things than what got him in there, in the first place.

You can't just eliminate guns,” you have to eliminate the people who USE them to hurt others. It's amazing that these incompetent politicians can't figure out something so simple as the truism that a CRIMINAL, who doesn't OBEY laws of any kind, will not obey one that says he can't be armed, or will register his illegal guns, or will stay out of a “gun-free zone. They need to go in another direction, like punishing the USE of a gun in a crime severely enough to keep him off the streets longer. Or just arm honest citizens and let us take care of it more permanently. Law-abiding people don't randomly kill each other over trifles. NON-law-abiding criminals do, and they are already armed. You can't stop it. Ban their guns and they'll get them elsewhere. I've always thought our politicians were incompetent. They are, And the way they handle “gun violence” proves it. (Just common sense)

Disarm the "Other Guy"

It's the usual solution for ANYTHING. Disarm “the other guy.” Forget the fact that a majority of gun crime is at the hands of black men, holding ILLEGALLY-obtained guns. Of course, they deny this, just as they deny that the reason blacks outnumber whites in prisons is because blacks commit the most crimes. But denying it doesn't make it true. And whites believe them, or at least, PRETEND to believe them, for their own purposes. One liberal comedian called for an immediate ban on gun ownership for WHITE people only, while calling for the NRA to be designated as a “hate group.” How STUPID is this man? Not so stupid that I'm not afraid there are people in government just as stupid, and might attempt to do what he suggests. Then only black people will have guns, and white people will be TOTALLY defenseless unless WE become criminals and buy our guns illegally, as do most black criminals.(Conservative Byte)

Feel Safer With Guns

That's the finding by a Rassmussen Report: 68% of people asked would rather live in a neighborhood where people living there were allowed to have guns. that reminds me of a recent question about “Would you eat in a restaurant that allowed people with guns to eat there?” Stupid people would have answered, “no.” I answered, “absolutely.” I would much rather stay alive if somebody comes in to shoot it up, by having unexpected people with their own guns already there to protect me. In fact, I'd likely be one of them. It's STUPID to believe the way to self-defense is to DISARM yourself and be DEFENSELESS. That way lies DEATH. People who think that are FOOLS. The average person is not going to “go wild” and shoot everything up, just because he is allowed to be armed. Cops are “average guys,” and they're armed. But they don't “shoot up the landscape (usually)” unless really provoked while on duty. The fact is, the anti-gun fools just don't trust people to be relied upon not to “go wild” with their guns. That's insulting. (Town Hall)

"People Running Around With Guns"

Bill Clinton says. “We can't have people running around with guns, you know.” Why the hell NOT, Bill? We already have people “running around with guns” every day, and every one of them are criminals. Not BECAUSE they carry guns. They carry their guns because it is a TOOL for criminals to use to intimidate UNARMED people. If we ever eliminated ALL legal guns, that situation would become much worse. If we got more guns in the hands of honest, reliable people, the situation would get better as those reliable people killed off the criminals who “tried” them. The whole idea that the way to self-defense is to DISARM yourself is a self-delusion and, like most liberal politicians, you're suffering from it. You still got your armed security, Bill? There's a good reason to have armed security for a man like you. For us, too. But since we can't afford to HIRE someone else to carry our guns, we must resort to self-carry as long as self-satisfied fools like Clinton don't prevail with their stupid anti-guns for honest people laws. (Town Hall)

Bribing the States

Last I hears, almost 40 states have intelligent gun laws, and that, the feds just can't have. So now they're passing a law (“Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act”) to allow them to use taxpayer money to BRIBE the states into making tighter antigun laws. At least, the NAME of the law is honest, which is a rarity these days. They cite phony figures to show that tightening gun laws (as we know them today) reduce gun deaths, while loosening them INCREASES them, which is a patent LIE. But then, we expect that of the anti-gun fools. They can't use truth to prove their pipe dreams, so they naturally use lies. Making lists of gun owners does absolutely NOTHING to limit gun violence. They know that; you know that. But they still insist on passing these USELESS laws. Further, they still think taking guns away from honest people is a good way to defend yourself from the ILLEGAL guns in the hands of CRIMINALS, who never obey laws. Thus, their names never appear on lists of registered gun owners, though they have guns. (Daily Caller)

Kroger Under Fire

Because they won't “knuckle under” to the demands of “Moms Against Guns” (or something like that) to make their stores and the property they sit on “gun-free zones.” Never mind that mass shooters SEEK OUT “gun-free zones” because they can be pretty sure there will be no guns there to oppose them. They think Kroger ought to “bend to their will” because, after all, their “hearts are in the right place.” Only problem is, their BRAINS are not in the right place. They really think making Kroger stores a “gun-free zone” will make criminals and crazies NOT bring their guns there. That pipe dream has been dispelled by the many gun attacks in Wal-Mart and Target parking lots after THEY “bent over forwards” for these fools. (Daily Caller)

Reagan: Smart Man

This author learned, quite by accident, that President Reagan carried his own gun, everywhere he went. Even on Air Force One, in case something broke out there, and an attacker got through the Secret Service—which they did the day he was shot. The author, Brad Metlzer, who writes political thrillers, was told this by members of the Secret Service one day when he was on a tour of the secret Service offices. Most presidents don't carry their own “heat,” but they should, liberals notwithstanding. They're the number one target for crazies the world over, and the Secret Service is not perfect, though they've done a pretty good job thus far—except the day Reagan got shot. The president himself, should be the last line of defense, no matter what the anti-gun fools think. Who cares what they think, anyway? I think the only reason he approved of the Brady gun Bill later was out of respect for Brady, even though he knew it wouldn't work. (Daily Mail)

Colt Goes Bankrupt

That ought to cause a few parties in the White House. They ought to be dancing in the halls of the West Wing. They can't just go out and make guns illegal, but if the people making the guns go out of business, that means fewer guns on the streets. Oh, wait: that means fewer guns for cops and “federal agents,” too. Since Colt had been the biggest maker of guns since the 1800s, that'll cut down on the guns criminals can get, too. But you can bet they'll find a way. Or they'll use something else to kill with, because when a criminal wants to kill, he's going to do it, even if he has to do it with his bare hands. When guns are gone, knives will be king, as they were for many years before guns were invented. (Grand View Outdoors)

The Lynchinhg of George Zimmerman

George was a “cop wannabe” who “stalked” this innocent kid and killed him because he was black. And the “authorities” looked the other way and acquitted him of murder. But they wasn't it, at all. Trayvon Martin was a small-time hood who was, himself, a drug dealer, who loved “purple Drank,” a drug made by combining cough syrup and candy like Skittles. Martin had a history of street fighting and had taken “unarmed combat courses.” He was almost home when he called his girl friend and told her about Zimmerman following him and, instead of continuing home, he turned back to confront Zimmerman, who was returning to his car. He knocked Zimmerman to the ground and commenced beating his head against the sidewalk, who could have meant DEATH for Zimmerman. So Zimmerman shot him to death. This was NOT a case of a “cop wannabe” killing a defenseless CHILD. It was a case of a properly authorized neighborhood watch officer who was in danger of being MURDERED by a well-trained martial artist thug. They decided he was a monster who killed a child, for no reason. They were wrong, and when he was ACQUITTED by “wiser heads,” they “went bananas. (Backwoods Home Magazine)

USS Gabriel Giffords

The first completely defenseless US Navy warship. What they plan on it doing, I don't know. They say it not only honors Ms. Giffords, but helps dispel the idea that the Navy is “promoting a culture of violence." Seems to me the very basic nature of the Navy is to “promote a culture of violence” to out ENEMIES. I guess they plan on this ship being a “garbage scow” for the other ships, because, without arms, it's not much good for anything in battle conditions. What's next? The USS Trevon Martin or the USS Michael Brown? Damn! I can't believe the STUPIDITY of the new “wussified” Navy! (Gun Free Zone)

Star Speaks Out AGAINST Gun Conntrol

A major star (whose name escapes me right now) just spoke out AGAINST gun control, and other stars immediately excoriated him. What he said, I, and others like me have been saying for years, but nobody noticed. But this guy, being a major star, gets noticed. I don't know if any of the meat heads in FAVOR of today's brand of gun control laws have had their minds changed (probably not), but the people who believe the laws being made today KILL people instead of save their lives, have taken notice. The thing that gets to me is how famous people ARE listened to, at least enough to get them criticized, while most of the “anti-gun nuts” don't even bother to criticize me. They just “write me off” as a “gun nut (Notwithstanding the fact that I don't own a single gun {my son does}. I just think we should have that right, so we can defend ourselves against ILLEGALLY armed criminals.),” and don't even bother to give what I say even one second of thought. When a famous person speaks out, they give it a little more thought, but NOTHING changes the minds of these “stone heads.” Their minds are made up. So don't confuse them with facts. Facts like, you don't defend yourself by DISARMING yourself; or that criminals, who obey NO laws, will obey one that says they can't be armed. (Just common sense)

All Guns to Be "Smart Guns?

That would be blatant a violation of the Constitution, and not even that fool, Obama, is ready for such a blatant violation as to BAN guns altogether. So why not make a “rule” that has that effect? Such a rule is the law being considered in Congress now to require ALL guns be “smart guns,” which would effectively BAN all guns that are NOT “smart guns—which are almost all of them. Then all they have to do is make another rule to make a “smart gun” impossible to get into action quick enough to do any good, and–viola! No legal guns out there. Of course, that does NOTHING to get rid of those ILLEGAL guns out there, about which they can do nothing, since illegal gun buyers don't register their guns, nor let the government know they have them. The current law under consideration just wants all guns “retrofitted” to be “smart guns,” but you can be sure one day in the future, it will be a REQUIREMENT for all new guns manufactured. (Outdoor Hub)

"It's Disgusting"

It's okay to use the death of a woman while waiting for permission to buy a gun to promote the “anti-gun” movement, but according to nj.com, using it to illustrate how gun control laws as they are known today KILL PEOPLE, it's “disgusting! How twisted ARE people in the New England area? They used a lot of “if onlies” in their effort to try and convince people that she COULD have (maybe) defended herself WITHOUT a gun (none of which she did successfully), none of which would have worked. One of the stupidest things they said: “Various aspects of how New Jersey’s gun-permit laws work in real time are a legitimate topic for discussion. But the Senate president bears no responsibility for the death of Carol Bowne, and to say otherwise shamefully exploits a tragedy.” In fact they DO. Without her own gun she was COMPLETELY defenseless. Even a bad shot would have a chance, whether or not they think so. She could have at least scarfed him away. Their arguments are twisted and imbecilic. (The Truth About Guns)

Don't Shoot Yourself

That's the first rule of gun safety. I don't know how many times I've seen anti-gun legislators (who know NOTHING about guns) do stupid things with guns as they try to make their points. My favorite is Sen, Diane Feinstein waving a loaded automatic weapon with her finger on the trigger in a crowded room during one of her anti-gun tirades. Another is the picture of an unnamed lawmaker aiming a gun at his own face while a smarter man quickly pushed it away and two others dove for cover. Recently, a 3 YO shot himself to death with his mother's gun—which, was, of course, left within his reach. Stupid. The first thing you must do when getting a gun is learn how to USE it,and keep it safe! Another thing is for pro-gun activists not to do something stupid like walking into a Wal-Mart with an automatic weapon strapped to his back, even if it IS legal for him to do so. To do that makes us all look stupid and sets the gun rights movement back while making trouble for himself. (Bangor Daily News)

Banning Plastic guns

Liberals have now shown their abject fright concerning guns, or anything that even LOOKS like a gun. They're not worried about people getting shot, they just want to get rid of anything that SMACKS of a gun. It's an unholy fear of an inanimate object. They say, “Plastic guns are worse than real guns because they can be hidden easier.” Thus proving they're afraid of anything that LOOKS like a gun. If it won't shoot a bullet, how CAN it be worse than a real gun? The logic of their thinking escapes me. As it would ANY intelligent person. If they're allowed to continue, one day they'll make laws against even THINKING about a gun. They'll ban even speaking the WORD gun. Then they'll ban a child's index finger because it can be played with as it if were a gun. These people are INSANE. How can we let them continue to make laws that affect human beings? We need to make being against guns grounds for refusal to allow them anywhere NEAR a lawmaking body. Ever. (Last Resistance)

Obama's Hidden Gun Control

That's what they call it. But actually, it's not so hidden. It's right out in the open. First, it's his “Executive Actions, which “bypass Congress” illegally. Next, it's false 'ammo shortages,” which he creates, by buying up as much ammo as he can using your tax money. Then he uses the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make phony regulations that allow him to BAN the use of “lead-bearing” ammo on phony environmental grounds. And then there's the hidden measures in Obamacare that has allowed him to “confiscate” (steal) people's guns on “mental health” grounds. One of those is the one that allows confiscation of a person's guns if he has EVER confessed to his doctor (in what he THOUGHT was a confidential consultation) that he has “anxiety issues,” while the doctor is REQUIRED to report that to the feds, and cannot tell him, under pain of federal prosecution, loss of his license, and maybe even prison time. No, Obama cannot just BAN guns. But put all this together and he can get rid of a LOT of legally-owned guns, but NOT those guns ILLEGALLY owned by criminals. I recommend all HONEST people buy some ILLEGAL guns that they don't know about so they can't come and take them on specious “reasons.” And keep them hidden. You'll need them after Obama takes all the LEGAL guns. If that recommendation gets me a jail sentence, so be it. They'll have to feed me, and maybe have to pay for my funeral, as old as I am. (Save My Rights)

"Unbiased" Gun Seminar

Bloomberg's “Everytown” Against Guns (or something like that) is holding a seminar billed as “unbiased” (gurgle, guffaw!) about guns and how to report about them. But it is instructive to note that 15 of 17 panelists come from “gun control groups.” How is this possible that such a panel would be “unbiased?” Sounds like the usual “smoke and mirrors” usually provided by the anti-gun crowd. They have no “facts” to support their contentions, so they must LIE and fool everybody in order to advance their agenda. And that's what they're doing. You'd expect an “unbiased” panel to be made up of at least an EVEN number of pro- and anti-gun people. But NO. There are THREE panelists expected to espouse gun ownership for honest people out of 14 expected to have an anti-gun opinion.. This is “unbiased?” What kind of FOOLS do they think we are? Do they really think any kind of person with any intelligence, at all, to believe this crap? (Guns 'n' Freedom)

Damned Fools In Charge

Anybody with ANY degree of intelligence, at all, knows that you don't DISARM yourself to defend yourself. But the incompetent politicians in California still can't understand that simple truth. They recently passed a bill to remove the ability of people with concealed carry permits being able to carry their legal guns on school campuses. Which leaves the field wide open to CRIMINALS and crazies, who don't bother with “such foolishness” as “concealed carry” or “registering.” They ignore such laws and bring their guns on campus, anyway. guns they got illegally, anyway. they don't care about such laws. They don't obey ANY laws. How do such ignoramuses as these incompetent politicians even GET such powerful jobs, anyway? Maybe because there are so many ignoramuses among the voters that keep them in office. (The Right to Bear)

Doesn't Blame Guns

This grandmother has lost TWO of her children to gun violence. But, surprisingly (to the media and the anti-gun fools, anyway) she doesn't blame the guns. She blames society and the practice of “keeping their mouths shut” when they witness such violence, which handcuffs the cops. They can do NOTHING if nobody speaks up. I know, I know, the thugs go out of their way to intimidate these people, causing them to shut up. And bail laws don't help much, since it lets the “bad guy” out of jail to PERSONALLY intimidate the witnesses. But if more people spoke up, more thugs would be in jail, and maybe a message could be sent that would intimidate the THUGS. “Hurt us, and you're going away.” Meanwhile, you have to work harder to keep witnesses safe. That means first, you don't allow their names and addresses to be given to the thugs on a “silver platter” when their lawyers demand all the police paperwork BEFORE trial, then let the thugs see it, or redact the name and address of the witness until trial. The best way to get guns off the streets is to keep the guys holding them in jail longer—or just kill them. The cops need to stop using the laws that provide for more jail time for the USE of a gun in a crime as “bargaining chips” to get convictions in other crimes. Laws need to be made to PREVENT that. And they need to stop DISARMING the potential VICTIMS. (The Right to Bear)

Gun Laws KILL!

This woman was threatened by her husband. So she applied for a gun permit. While she was waiting for the bureaucrats to approve her application, her husband killed her. That's what's wrong with ALL the “gun laws” today. They get people KILLED. “Gun safes” and “gun locks” designed to make it harder to get the gun you own into action when you're threatened have killed many people as they try mightily to get the safe or the gun lock open in time to defend themselves against a man who already has an unencumbered (probably illegal) gun in his hand. Waiting periods likewise get people killed. One of my favorite stories was of a Denver woman in the same position, who applied for a gun permit when her husband threatened her. But she didn't docilely wait while the bureaucrats dithered. She went out and bought a gun, illegally, and ended up shooting him to death when he came to kill her while she waited for her permit. She got a little jail sentence out of it, but she's still alive. He isn't. (The Blaze)

Computer Went Nuts!

Last Saturday my computer, which had been showing signs of craziness since the day I brought it home, finally “went round the bend”and did some of the strangest things I've ever seen a computer do. I rushed it to the computer hospital, but it didn't make it. It is now doing duty as a doorstop in the computer mausoleum, which is just about what it's good for now. This one's better, but it has a strange keyboard it will take me a while to get used to.

Gun Laws KILL!

This woman was threatened by her husband. So she applied for a gun permit. While she was waiting for the bureaucrats to approve her application, her husband killed her. That's what's wrong with ALL the “gun laws” today. They get people KILLED. “Gun safes” and “gun locks” designed to make it harder to get the gun you own into action when you're threatened have killed many people as they try mightily to get the safe or the gun lock open in time to defend themselves against a man who already has an unencumbered (probably illegal) gun in his hand. Waiting periods likewise get people killed. One of my favorite stories was of a Denver woman in the same position, who applied for a gun permit when her husband threatented her. But she didn't docilely wait while the bureaucrats dithered. She went out and bought a gun, illegally, and ended up shooting him to death when he came to kill her while she waited for her permit. She got a little jail sentence out of it, but she's still alive. He isn't. (The Blaze)

Obama to Muzzle Gun Blogs

He can't do it, according to the Constitution, but this foreign-born president who never stepped foot in the United States until he was an adult, doesn't have much respect for the Constitution. Like most foreigners, he just doesn't realize its importance. He thinks it's just “advice” on making laws in the United States, with no power to really influence anything. He just can't understand that it is a BINDING document, and that laws cannot be made that are against its provisions. Which is why he actually believes he can create a world where ANY writing about guns can be funneled through him, and subject to his approval, before it can be published. I'd like to see him try that with me. If he does, he'll be feeding, clothing, and housing me for a long time, because I will NOT be “muzzled.” If he comes to me to try and shut me up, what I'll tell him, I would tell him with words I would not use here. It would have to do with impossible bodily functions. I guess his next move in that direction will be to jail those who realize global warming and its offshoots are a scam—a swindle, and SAY so. (Bearing Arms)

Obama's "Stupid Pills"

I can't believe some of the stupid things he does. Arbitrarily deciding returning veterans are “mentally incompetent" as a means to take their guns away, and demand the guns owned by anybody who lives with them is about as stupid as it comes. He MUST be taking stupid pills to do that. And then to go on to sell that vet's Second Amendment rights back to him is stupider, yet. The problem here is that these men (and women), who have put their lives on the line to defend us, are being ARBITRARILY deemed “mentally unstable” without so much as an examination by a psychiatrist or any legal process. In 2009, Obama released a report that said, “Returning veterans have skills that would be helpful to right-wing extremists.” Thus, we must ban them from owning guns, for that cause. Yes, there are extremists, at both ends of the political scale. Left AND right. But that's no real reason to deprive them of their constitutional right to be armed.

Often vets don't even know they're not allowed to own guns until they try to buy one. It is only then they're told their names are on the the NCIS list of people not allowed to have guns, and no one can, or WILL, tell them why. They mention the ability to buy their gun rights back in the article, but there is nothing there but a simple mention of it. No system for it is detailed. But the major problem here is that NO American citizen can be deemed unfit to handle his/her own affairs without COURT action, and PROOF of the reason why. This is being completely IGNORED by this action, and is being applied to the very people who fought and DIED to retain these rights. The bureaucrats who are enforcing this should be IMPRISONED, and so should Obama, for ALLOWING it. (World Net Daily)

An Act of War

How long are we going to put up with this? We go out of our way to oppose lawless forces in the Middle East and elsewhere, but ignore all the “acts of war” that come from our own neighbor country, Mexico. In this case, a helicopter was attempting to interdict a drug shipment coming across from the Los Zitas Cartel headquarters in Nueva Loredo, Mexico. It was on the US side of the border when it was SHOT DOWN by gunfire from the MEXICAN SIDE of the border. What really infuriates me is that, under Obama's “rules of engagement,” we're not allowed to shoot back. So the drug cartel people can do what they want and we can't do ANYTHING. Add to that the ease with which illegal aliens (Spanish and otherwise, including Muslims from the Middle East) waltz across the border into this country, to set up their murderous “cells” and wait for orders to kill Americans, and you have a real problem, CREATED by our president. (Breitbart)

"Fear of an Armed America"

 That's what is happening today, chiefly because of liberals, who ARE “afraid of an armed America” because they listen to other liberals and anti-gun fools. Actually, as an INTELLIGENT American, I fear an UNARMED America. Because there is no such thing as an "unarmed America. Criminals will ALWAYS have their guns, usually bought in a back alley somewhere out of some other criminal's car trunk, or STOLEN. The only people who will be unarmed for REAL are HONEST people who OBEY laws. Like a question that was asked some time ago about whether I would eat in a restaurant that allowed people to carry guns there. My answer was a resounding ABSOLUTELY! Because with so many guns there in the hands of honest, reliable people, I'd be safer than in one which only allowed those guns that were ILLEGALLY carried, because they didn't know they were there. (Just common sense)

CCW Permits Double

And more. Nationally, they're up 136 %. In Ashville, NC, one of the tightest places when it comes to being liberal, they're up 101% since 2011. What do you think accounts for that, since the feds are trying to convince us that most Americans favor “gun control?” Of course, what they mean is gun control as THEY envision it, which is NOBODY not connected with the government or the cops having a gun—which will never happen. If they ever accomplish a complete gun ban, criminals will still have guns—and they will soon have everything else, because they'll just take it, since they will be the only citizens who still have guns. Damn, I wish our ignorant politicians would “get smart” for a change. ANYBODY with INTELLIGENCE can see that taking guns away from honest citizens is NOT the way to self-defense. But they refuse to see it, and keep taking guns away from honest people, making them “easy targets” for illegally armed criminals, who don't OBEY laws. Will we EVER find an intelligent politician who can figure this out? I doubt it. If we do, he'll probably be “shouted down” by the fools. (The Right to Bear)

Twisting the Facts (Again)

That's what those activists are doing when they say white cops shoot black males more often than they shoot white men. But that's a lie. After Ferguson and Baltimore and the resulting campaign about “Black Lives Matter," the Washington Post investigated those claims. First of all, they found that almost ALL shootings were in self-defense. And the number of whites shot (171) in their study numbered almost TWICE (100) the number of blacks shot by cops. That doesn't line up very well with what those activists are putting out. But the activists are liberal, and MOST of what liberals put out are LIES. So an “epidemic of cops killing black males for no reason” does NOT exist. It's MADE UP. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

That Old Idea?

Obama and the United Nations are dusting off that old idea: “A Program for the General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.” This failed many times in the past, chiefly because it required us to give away our sovereignty. Part of THIS measure allows the UN to have “peacemaking capability,” which means they can raise an army and use it to ENFORCE disarmament WITHIN the United States. That means the UN will have the authority to declare martial law upon us. This time, I think the president means to make this a REALITY. Which scares me to death. I don't want to think, for one minute, the possibility of giving an organization MADE UP of dictators and absolute rulers, which has nothing like the Second Amendment, the authority to declare martial law on us, come into our homes, and TAKE our guns—legally. (Freedom Outpost)

Sorry About Yesterday

I told you about “good days and bad days.” Yesterday was a “bad day.” I'm 77. What can I say? I spent most of the day in my doctor's office. Turned out to be nothing serious, but it was bothersome. And it took up enough time to make me so late, I just didn't have enough energy to post anything. Being 100 degrees didn't help.

What If I Were A Gunslinger?

The way things are going today, if I was delusional (as is Obama) and thought I was a “gunslinger” from the 1800s who was “trapped in the body of a normal man,” I should be able to just dress that way and go around packing a brace of .44s, and sue people to FORCE them to accept it. Or more efficiently, SHOOT them if they don't. If what Bruce Jenner is famously doing “catches on,” (and I know at least two others who are doing the same thing, including one prisoner), I should be able to force my beliefs on others. Yes, there are laws against “going around heeled.” There are constitutional guarantees that people have the right to make their own decisions about religious beliefs that seem to be being ignored. So why can't those “laws” against “going around heeled and shooting people” be ignored, too? Boy, the world is “going to hell in a handbasket.” People are ENFORCING things that are NOT backed by a law, and ignoring laws and constitutional protections that are there. So why CAN'T I do this, if I want to? Think about it. (Just common sense)

Kills Two Robbers

Several guys trying to move into an apartment building were confronted by four teens who tried to rob them at gun point. They got a big surprise when one of the movers pulled out his own gun and shot two of them to death, wounding another. The fourth guy is probably still running. And what are the cops worried about? Did the guy who shot them have a “carry permit” and was HE legally carrying a gun? It's a really screwed up world when the cops worry more about the legality of the gun who saved people from being victimized by illegal guns in the hands of robbers. Back in the 1800s, if you killed someone who was holding you at gunpoint, there was no questions asked about the legality of YOUR gun. They were more intelligent, then. (9 News Denver)

"Blue Lives Matter, Too!"

Declaring war on the cops is probably the biggest mistake liberals have ever made. They're creating a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” They accuse cops of wantonly killing unarmed blacks when they're not doing anything of the sort—as a group. Now, the cops will spend more time looking over their shoulders than they do finding and helping punish criminals, and they WILL become “trigger happy” in self defense. Yes, there are a few “bad guys” among them, but as a whole, cops do a hard, thankless job, and they mostly do it well. There are cops killed every day in America, but except for local coverage, you never hear about them. One of the most recent was a female cop, the day before she was to take maternity leave. Another was a CADET who hadn't even had a chance yet to BE a cop, who saved a man's life and was killed doing it.

These are the stories you don't hear about because the media seems to have a certain enmity for the cops. And they're taking a cue from Obama's nasty rhetoric about cops. Whenever a cop does something wrong—or APPEARS to do something wrong, they have a “field day” with it and cause riots, looting, and killing sprees. But when a COP dies, they're not interested. They're right: “Black Lives Do Matter.” But ALL lives matter. And cops are the only thing we have between us and the savages; moreso as more and more laws get made to disarm the populace. The feds aren't satisfied with the result in the Cleveland case, where the prosecution failed to prove that cop's bullet was the fatal one. So they're going to “further investigate” it and come up (again) with a “report” condemning the entire police force so Obama can take control of yet another local police force in his quest to control ALL local policing. (The Blaze)

Proving Ingenuity

This video proves the ingenuity of the American people. If people like Obama think they can't come up with something to replace the things they BAN, they're STUPID. And these are already on the market! And available in any hardware store! Yes, it's a little slower than a regular repeating rifle, but isn't that what liberals want? A return to the past, where all guns were one-shot guns? But with no repeating rifles around, they were perfectly adequate. You say these are just small caliber rounds? Yup. But do you think they can't make them bigger? Or come up with a real bullet they can't ban? Believe me, the American people are a lot smarter than the average politician. If you don't beieve it, just look at the things they espouse. Remember the Soviet Union? The laws there completely BANNED guns in the hands of anybody BUT “officialdom.” But do you think guns were non-existent there? Wake up and smell the roses! Wherever gun laws are the tightest, that's where guns are more readily available than anywhere else. And that's where ILLEGAL guns abound. (The Right to Bear)