1,000 Knife Attacks A Month

Great Britain has effectively BANNED guns. Often, even the COPS are not armed. So the criminals are killing with abandon, using KNIVES! Which proves my thesis that if guns are not easily available, criminals will still find a way to kill if that is their objective. In London, they're discovering that. Will the politicians take notice and return to sanity? Doubtful. If there's one thing that personifies politicians, it's that they NEVER learn from current events. They maintain their damnedfool notions in spite of hell. They'll keep their gun restrictions, and now they'll want to ban KNIVES! That knives have many uses BEYOND killing will mean nothing to them. in their narrow view, all they see is the TOOL, not the perpetrator of the crime. They'll think if they can just “keep knives out of the hands of criminals,” they can reduce crime. They're wrong, but they'll never know that. They're too stupid. (London Evening Standard)

"Increased Gun Violence"

Liberals decry the “increased gun violence” in this nation, and it's a LIE, promoted BY those same liberals. And Barack Obama TOLD that lie again the other day. Gun violence is DOWN (DOWN!) all over the country, and that's attributable to the wise actions of SOME politicians in making it easier for honest, responsible people to have, and carry guns for their own protection so they won't have to depend on police, who can't be everywhere at once, and thus can't protect us. They can only “clean up” the scene after we have been victimized, and document the crime. But if the crime is murder, we're still dead. The ONLY answer is to have OUR OWN guns so we can defend ourselves from criminals, who never have any trouble getting THEIR guns. Letting honest people have guns will NOT increase gun violence, except to criminals. It will only allow them to defend themselves. (National Review)

Protecting Yourself

Figures show there are 8,000 home invasions in America every year, most by criminals using ILLEGALLY-OBTAINED guns. Most people, if they abide by the law, have their guns locked up in their bedroom and in such a way they cannot get them into action quickly enough to deal with a home invaded, whose gun is already in his hand. At least one home invader who beat a man to death, and also beat the man's wife horribly, was seen licking their blood off his hands and saying, “:I love doing this.” With people like that out there, we NEED to have guns that are readily available to us in seconds, yet in such a way that children cannot get their hands on them. Add to that the fact that Islamic terrorists are coming here by the THOUSANDS, helped along by Obama, who is PAYING THEIR WAY in some instances. They have TOLD US they plan on killing as many “unbelievers” as they can. If we don't have guns readily available to defend ourselves, we will die. Some time in the future it is going to be the same way here it is in Afghanistan today with Islamic terrorists running around killing people randomly for no other reason than they don't “believe right.”

If we aren't prepared for that, many of us will die. Our politicians are working HARD to take away our RIGHT to be armed for self defense. We need to dispense with such politicians, who want to DISARM all Americans. And NOW. If that's not possible, I recommend you do what the criminals do, and get a gun ILLEGALLY. If a black activist can go on the RADIO and tell blacks to kill cops without going to the clink, I can certainly advise you as I have. There's a “coming WAR. Several. In fact. There's a war defending ourselves against Islamic terrorists in the future, but there's a was NOW running to defend ourselves against ILLEGALLY-armed black men who THINK they're being abused, as that fool who killed those two newspeople did. And we need to be ARMED to do it. One way or the other. I'm 78 years old. I can barely even WALK. If a bunch of thugs break into my house, I'm DEAD. Because I will FIGHT. And I don't HAVE a gun, so I will die. I need to GET a gun so I can effectively defend myself. If the law prevents me from doing that, I will get one ILLEGALLY. If that statement incriminates me, so be it. (Just common sense)

Ferguson 3.0

That's what they're trying to create in Texas. A teenager (liberal translation meaning “innocent child”) They never recognize the possibility that “teenager” might be a seasoned criminal. Or even a gang member. Trevon Martin was buying ingredients to use in making dope. He “targeted” “that white man” who he thought was following him and tried his best to kill him before he, himself was killed. Mike Brown (in Ferguson, MO) was a huge thug who BULLED his way through life intimidating everybody he came in contact with until he met a cop he couldn't

intimidate. In this case the guy was clearly committing many felonies, was obviously high on drugs that cancel out pain, and the stun gun had no effect on him. Guys in that situation don't need a gun to be deadly, so he was shot. The cop was white. So of course, the liberals go bananas. Not so outside of Houston, where a black man sneaked up BEHIND a while cop and shot him to death. To demonstrate against that doesn't advance their agenda, so no riots. I think we need to start looking at these cases OBJECTIVELY, not according to the incendiary words used in liberal media coverage. (Daily Caller)

Going Way Too Far

Chuckie Cheese has a “no-gun policy” in its stores, which makes “sitting ducks” of its customers, and INVITES fools to “come in and shoot us up.” One of which DID not too long ago. Usually such a policy doesn't apply to police officers, who carry guns as a means both for self-protection, and to protect us all. But not to Chuckie cheese, apparently. When this cop came in one of their stores, with a gun on his hip as part of his uniform, they refused him service, and threw him out. Is there any limit to the STUPIDITY of the “anti-gun crowd?” I wonder if they would ban that cop from their store if he/she came in response to a report of an “active shooter” shooting up the kids having a party there? Would they try and throw the shooter out without the help of a “good guy with a gun?” I've always thought the “anti-gun crowd” wasn't too smart, but this reveals an ignorance that exceeds all expectations. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

Phony Gun Control, As Usual

Terry McAuliff, former DNC Chairman, and now governor of Virginia, is doing the “knee-jerk” thing and calling for “renewed” gun control in the wake of the television personality shootings that happened on the air. He's calling for increased background checks (proven to do NOTHING to hinder gun ownership), notwithstanding the fact that the killer PASSED background checks and even endured “waiting periods” to buy his gun. That there wasn't anything (on paper) in his background to stop him meant he could buy a gun without a problem, regardless of the already in effect laws. As I've said many times, a man contemplating MURDER is not worried about violating a piddling “gun law.” Nor is he worried about “gun-free zones,” since what he's contemplating is a lot worse than these piddling laws that are designed only to disarm honest people and make them “easy targets” for illegally-armed criminals. (The Hill)

Fightback Begins

Some police agencies have been wantonly violating the law by wrongfully arresting people, and “confiscating” (stealing) their guns. Now the Second amendment Foundation (SAF) is suing the City of San Jose for doing this. They seized somebody’s guns under their “Welfare and Institutions Code,” whatever that is. Of course, you won't be reading ab0ut this in the liberal media. This is the kind of story they ignore, except to criticize it. A woman had her guns seized after her husband was placed in a hospital under a psychiatric order. No proof of wrongdoing on her part, now or in the future. Guns stolen by the cops. Any excuse to take their guns. “The City of San Jose or any other jurisdiction simply cannot be allowed to seize someone’s legally-owned property because of the actions of a spouse or some other third party,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb observed. “We have looked at the state code and have serious concerns about the policies and procedures in San Jose. Lori Rodriguez should get her firearms returned.” This is obviously a case of overreaction by a police agency. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

His Gun Was Legal

The black, gay killer of two newspeople ON THE AIR bought his gun legally. Which means no amount of laws (that are allowed) would have even slowed him down. There was nothing in his background that would have prevented it, even though he was KNOWN to be a racial malcontent who imagined that everybody was “slighting him” racially and was “mad as hell” about it. He got even madder when he was fired from the station because he was a constant troublemaker with IMAGINARY objections, and had to be forcibly removed from the property by the cops (which had happened to him many times before). None of that was known when he went into a gun store and bought the gun he used to kill these two innocent people. There was no KNOWN reason to refuse him. What kind of gun laws would have stopped this homicidal maniac? None of the kind they're making today, which is why I appose them all. If they came up with some that would DO anything, I'd be right with them. But that ain't gonna happen. There IS no “law” that will do it. (Daily Caller)

Why Are Guns So Popular?

Every time you turn around somebody gets killed with a gun. Sometimes it's murder, and sometimes it's self-defense. But it seems like in nine out of ten killings, there's a gun involved—why? The answer is simple. A gun is the very best tool to use if you want to kill one or more individuals. And in response, another gun is the best tool to use in DEFENSE. Back before guns existed, they used knives and swords. At one time, EVERYBODY carried a sword or a knife—or both. Back in the “stone age,” not even knives or swords existed, but they still found ways to kill each other. Back then, the best tool for killing people was a heavy object—like a club. So everybody carried a club around and merrily killed one another with them. Had there been guns way back then, those who wanted to kill each other would have found a way to get a gun—or he'd be DEAD. The obvious point here (but which is not obvious to gun-grabbers) is the PEOPLE. If they want to kill, they want to use the very best tool for killing individuals—a gun. Back in the stone age, it was a club. So that's what they used.

The whole point is that if somebody wants to kill somebody, they'll get a gun, in most cases, legally or illegally, in SPITE of any laws people make. That has been proven, time and time again. No matter how tight you make gun laws, people will find a way to get one, or will use something else to do their killing. So what's the answer? Create a “level killing field,” or “playing field,” as liberals are so fond of saying by allowing honest people innocent of crimes to have and carry their own guns. Cave men all carried clubs, and there was no movement to “ban clubs” because “clubs kill people.” Back then, they were smart enough to know that it is the PERSON who did the killing, the club was only the TOOL he used. Since you can't ban PEOPLE. You can only arm yourself for self-defense. As Robert Heinlein famously said in one of his fine books, “An armed society is a POLITE society.” But that's only if everybody has the means to defend him/herself, be that a gun or a club, or a sword, whatever the best self-defense tool is available at the time. That's where the gun-grabbers go wrong. They target the GUN, not the PERSON. (Just common sense)

"Guns Readily Available"

Hillary (and other anti-gun fools) say that “If guns weren't so readily available there'd be fewer killings. ” What a bunch of horse manure! If there weren't guns, those who wanted to kill would just find something else to kill with. Before guns were knives and swords. Back in “cave-man” days, it was clubs. But nobody ever suggested making clubs less easily available. Maybe they were smarter back then. At one time, everybody carried some kind of a blade. You can't stop the killing by getting rid of the TOOL. Only by getting rid of the killers. What they don't understand, and what they never WILL understand—they're not smart enough—is that the gun is not the culprit. The culprit is the PERSON. If there were no guns in the world (their major goal) they'd find another way to kill. If they couldn't find an INSTRUMENT with which to kill, they'd do it with their bare hands—and HAVE done so when guns or other killing tools could not be obtained. If they did manage to get rid of all the guns in the world—and that's an impossibility, guns exist, and there's no going back to a time when they didn't, killing would still go on. That's a truth these fools will NEVER understand. Feel sorry for them. It's a “forlorn hope.” (Story Leak)

High Capacity Magazines Responsible?

That's one police chief and his mayor say. How do such FOOLS get into such high places? They're incompetent to do their jobs, but are very good at conning their way onto them. Do these fools think we don't know better than to believe it's the “high-capacity magazine's fault” that many people are murdered? It's the fault of the PEOPLE who USE the guns to commit murder that are at fault. Not an in inanimate object like a gun, or a high-capacity magazine. It's fools like this who INCREASE gun deaths by misleading people as to the real cause, for their own purposes. Other police sources tell us they don't track the usage of high-capacity magazines, so there is no basis for this idea and the statements of the cops and politicians in charge in DC, except for their “crystal balls.” (Fox 5 DC)

Liberal Media "Cheap Shot"

The liberal media has come out with an opinion: that every legal gun owner shares responsibility for people getting shot and killed. What a bunch of horse manure that is! Tell me, MSN, how many shootings have been done by LEGAL gun owners? How many by people who got their guns by buying them ILLEGALLY or STEALING them? This kind of thing reveals the bias that is general in the liberal media that causes them to report on stories about gun violence, but never on people who have PREVENTED gun violence with their LEGAL guns. The “findings” of these liberal “journalists” are based on “statistics” that are either wrong, or are falsified. That the liberal media has an agenda to use the graves of these heroes to remove the gun rights of all Americans is painfully obvious. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

Concealed Carry In All States

Did you know that “concealed carry” is now allowed for most people in ALL states, today? Illinois was the last state allowing it. Remember the Clackamas “mass shooting?” It was stopped by a “Concealed Carry” holder without firing a shot. The “perp” saw the guy preparing to shoot and killed himself instead of others. 'Result? Only two (besides the gunman) killed, in a case that could have been much worse. There have been several other instances where a would-be mass shooter was foiled by a legal gun carrier, and there will be more, as more and more people become legally armed. But legislative FOOLS will continue to try and make laws that disarm honest people. Laws that don't affect the ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals. Some will succeed, and some will fail. Obama has said his most frustrating thing is his failure to take away more of our guns. Where guns are allowed for honest people, crime predictably goes down, as would-be shooters go into other forms of crime because they fear being shot themselves by their intended victims. This is also as predicted by us “gun nuts.” Meanwhile, in places like Chicago, where they have the tightest gun laws around, gun crime has gone up. Just recently, “Mother Jones,” not a gun-friendly magazine, flubbed, and reported that where guns are legal, crime goes down. I wonder who got fired over that. (Breitbart)

VA Taking guns?

The Veteran's Administration is using a specious scam to “confiscate” (steal) guns from people who USED guns to protect our rights because they don't handle their own finances. I can think of numerous reasons for a senior citizen to let somebody else handle their finances that do NOT make them “unfit to have a gun.” But the VA is doing this on Obama's orders, and Obama is using everything he can think of, legal and ILLEGAL, to reduce the number of guns in the hands of honest, reliable citizens. They trusted this guy with a gun (which THEY provided) when they depended upon him to fight for them and his country, and then they INSULT him by saying that, just because he lets somebody else handle his finances, he is now “not fit” to own a gun. It's a feeble excuse, but Obama doesn't care, as long as it lets him confiscate guns. (Second Amendment Insider)

It'll Never Work

Seattle, one of the least gun-friendly cities in the nation, has made a law imposing a $25.00 tax on each gun purchase and a nickle on every bullet. Like always, it puts a burden on LEGAL gun-users, not criminals. Why? Criminals don't obey laws. So again they punish the VICTIMS of gun violence, not those CREATING it. It's like putting their crime VICTIMS in jail while not touching the criminals. But that's the way politicians think: find the most obvious thing, right or wrong, and tax it, or ban it. That should solve the problem. That it won't, they don't even think about. And another thing: there's a constitutional prohibition on banning guns, so they can't do that. But they CAN make guns useless by making bullets harder (or impossible) to get (which is why Obama is buying up all the ammunition he can buy, to make it in short supply) and more expensive when you can find any to buy. You tell them and tell them their foolish laws won't work, but they ignore logic and continue with their foolishness while people die because of it. They're too stupid to do otherwise. And you KNOW stupid people are too stupid to know how stupid they are. (Right to Bear)

Brady Criticizes National Guard

The “Brady Bunch” is criticizing the Indiana National Guard for asking the NRA to train its people. Like they said on this blog, “the 'Brady Bunch' put politics ahead of the safety of the Guard members.” Training the people charged with defending us is NOT like training civilians in how to handle guns. Whatever, training ANYBODY who is going to USE a gun in how to use it safely is one thing this bunch doesn't want. If a gun is involved, they want to stifle it. I'd like to ask them a question. Was the guy who shot Brady and Reagan using a LEGAL gun? Probably not, and if not, NO LAW would have stopped him from shooting those people. This is what these fools forget, if they ever KNEW. Laws will not stop people bent on the worst crime possible, murder, from getting their guns. (NRA Blog)

Does Gun Control Work?

Not the way they go at it today. They make laws that disarm honest people and make them “easy targets” for criminals, who don't obey laws. They need to figure out a way to punish USE of a gun in a crime, to keep such criminals in prison for longer periods, which will work better at keeping more gun-wielding criminals off the streets. They DO have laws that do that, but they are too often used as “bargaining chips” to get convictions in other crimes. We need to make laws to prevent that. “Gun-free zones” don't work. They're just an OPEN INVITATION to criminals to “come in and shoot us up” to the illegally-armed criminals. It speaks wonders that almost ALL mass shootings HAPPEN in “gun-free zones.” That incident in the French subway, for instance: ALL France is a “gun-free zone, and that subway station surely is. Even most COPS in France are unarmed (which is stupid in itself)! We're just lucky there were three heroes there who recognized that the shooter's gun was jammed and “took him down,” beating him unconscious. They should have kept “working him over” as an object lesson, not to do what he was planning. (Gunalizer)

They Can't Outlaw Guns

So they outlaw “high-capacity” magazines to make the guns useless. Almost every gun that uses magazines is a “high-capacity” gun, so this action in Los Angeles amounts to the confiscation of almost all guns in that city. Once this law is in use for a while, they'll expand it to include even “low-capacity” magazines, thereby eliminating just about ALL guns in the city, leaving gun ownership to the CRIMINALS, who don't obey laws. That's how they operate. "creeping restrictions." I hate to keep harping on this, but I hope one day one of those INCOMPETENT legislators just MIGHT take notice. It's a “forlorn hope,” I know. But I'm a “hopeful person.” I'm sure I'm wrong. But maybe not. Only time will tell. They work really hard to “get around” the constitutional prohibition on banning guns. Frankly, I don't think they CARE about the constitutional restrictions. They plan on “getting around it,” any way they can, by “hook or crook.” (Second Amendment Insider)

With Police Chief's Blessing

In Detroit, they've finally got the right idea. With the number of cops on the streets dwindling, due to budget cuts necessitated by the city's impending bankruptcy, the citizens, who are tired of being victimized by illegally-armed criminals, are arming themselves and killing criminals who try and victimize them, with the blessing of the police chief, who, in December, 2013, sent out a “call to arms,” which was answered by citizens. This call, coupled with easing of the restrictive Democrat/liberal “gun laws” that effectively DISARMED the citizens, meant they could “arm themselves” and do what the cops couldn't. One man in particular, has done so TWICE, once killing a car thief who was about to shoot him as he drove off in his car. And nobody even THOUGHT about charging him with a crime. Overall crime rate figures are not yet available (and may never be, with Democrats still in charge), but home invasions are down, due to burglars being “uneasy” about breaking into homes, where they might be killed by the homeowner. I'd be willing to bet money that the overall crime rate (which Democrats will try and hide) will go down precipitously in the near future. Something people like me have predicted, and which ALWAYS happens where citizens are made able to carry their own guns for self-defense. (Fox News)

Murder Rates going Up

That's in Canada, where they have no “Second Amendment,” and gun ownership is considered a “privilege,” not a right. One such limitation is that it takes 60 days from the beginning of a purchase to actually getting the gun, with some of that time involved in taking a class on gun ownership. And I'd bet there are other laws restricting gun ownership for honest people, but not for criminals, who obey NO laws. They THINK their tight gun laws have “insulated them” from the mass shootings we see in America, but that's a “pipe-dream.” Criminals, and people who want to do mass shootings still have no trouble getting their guns in Canada, where gun stealing is on the rise. And you can bet that guy in the back alley with a trunkful of illegal guns for sale is all over Canada, too. Toronto can't figure out why murder rates are going up, while other kinds of crimes are going down. Politicians are notoriously blind to such facts. (CBC News)

Chief Blurts Out Truth

DC Chief of Police Cathy Lanier blurted out the truth liberals don't want us to hear. That all the tight gun laws have done NOTHING to reduce the amount of guns available to criminals in DC. Actually, since those laws went into effect, there has been a 30% INCREASE in murders. She admitted, in a press conference, that DC had seen “a huge influx in guns and high-capacity magazines,” something which I, and other INTELLIGENT people predicted. If that trend continues, DC will have a SIX-YEAR HIGH for the city. Lanier doesn't understand why homicides are so plentiful, even though she notes, that at least TEN new homicides were committed by people who had been previously held on murder charges. It doesn't dawn on her that RELEASING murders could lead to MORE murders. It is incompetent people like Lanier, who seems to be CLUELESS, that leads to high murder rates. The answer is the DEATH penalty, sooner, rather than later. After you EXECUTE murderers, they cannot murder again. (Freedom Outpost)

Blaming Someone Else

Baltimore, MD's failed mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake hasn't a clue that her “dissing” the police department in Baltimore l;ed to more than 200 new deaths there. That “throwing her police department under the bus” didn't “empower” criminals to kill more. She cites similar increases in other cities (who also have very tight “gun laws”), thinking we will buy that excuse. Meanwhile, she and her “state's attorney” are still trying to prosecute six cops for the death of Freddie Grey, who accidentally killed HIMSELF while trying to incriminate the cops. Like most of the Democrats running those cities, they ALL blame everything but what's at fault, the “gun laws” that merely DISARM honest people while doing NOTHING to disarm criminals, who don't obey ANY laws. They just will not admit that it is their policies that lead to those murders, committed by those in the “drug culture” they have created, mostly, while they kill each other, sometimes blaming the cops. (Bearing Arms)

"Negative Light On Islam"

Imagine that? CNN is afraid that stories about ISIS raping, beheading, and otherwise killing people all over the world (true) will “cast a negative light on Islam.” Ya THINK? I can't think of a better group to “cast a negative light “ on. Their very RELIGION commands them to rape and kill people who don't believe the exact same way they do, and beheading them is their own idea—unless you consider the instruction in the Koran to “strike them on the neck.” And if there were “moderate Muslims” who hated what the extremists do, they're either frightened to speak up, or they AGREE with what they're doing. And Obama is importing them by the hundreds of thousands into this country. It's only a matter of time before the Muslim extremists get really going on killing Americans in America. We'd better step up our efforts to keep our right to self defense and to own and use (unimpeded) the means to that, a gun, or guns before they “get it in gear.” Or we could just do like the criminals do. Go buy one from that guy in the back alley with a trunkful of illegal guns. A gun kills just as well if it was illegally obtained. (Town Hall)

The "Unarmed Victim" Lie

The big hooraw about cops shooting and killing UNARMED black men without cause is fast being exposed for the lie it is, in most cases. In this case, the call was an overreaction by the female when this huge black man knocked on her door asking for help, having been in an accident. The cops didn't know that. All they knew was that their Tasers had no effect on him and he was “charging” them. Why, I don't know. Neither did they. Maybe he was mad at being “Tased.” So they fired in self defense. And, of course, their “cop shop” didn't “have their backs” and, like in Baltimore and Ferguson, tried to convict them of a crime. But the facts, when they came out in court, prove otherwise. As they will in most cases. Yes, there ARE a few cases where the cops DO act precipitously. But their bosses (and the press) need to be very careful in ASSUMING the cops are in the wrong. They might not be. They should wait until ALL facts are in before “rushing to judgment,” as the Baltimore state's attorney and the “authorities” in Ferguson did NOT. (Bearing Arms)

"What Are You Afraid Of?"

If you carry a gun, what are you afraid of?” That's the question often asked of pro-gun people by anti-gun nuts. As if carrying a gun for self-protection was, somehow, “unmanly.” But the proper answer is, “I'm afraid of all the people who carry ILLEGAL guns and want to use them to victimize me!” In short, I want to “level the playing field” (which is a favorite saying of liberals). Anti-gun nuts seem to think the only danger from guns comes from LEGAL gun owners, when it actually comes from the owners of ILLEGAL guns, about which all the current type of “gun laws” do NOTHING. They ignore completely the danger out there from people who carry ILLEGAL guns and use them daily to victimize innocent Americans. Not even to mention the Islamic terrorists Obama is importing by the THOUSANDS, who have PROMISED to kill as many “Infidels (non-believers)” as they can. And America, which is a CHRISTIAN nation, is “fertile ground” for people who want to kill “unbelievers.” (Gun Link)

Panama Sees The Light

They've decided to change the law to allow their citizens to carry guns for self defense. They cite the rise in crime as the reason, and the Public Safety Minister Rudolfo Aguilara says, “Everything seems to indicate that there is no direct correlation in the aphorism that says more guns mean more crime,” Which makes fools of anti-gun freaks who maintain it does. They will, however, maintain stringent background checks to make sure known criminals and the insane cannot legally get guns. Ex (Panama) Congresswoman Teresita Arias said bitterly, “The issue of security will not be solved because every citizen has a gun to defend themselves.” A typical gun-hater comment. We'll see, we'll see. I'm personally going to be watching the crime rate in Panama in the next couple of years. Arming honest people has certainly worked everywhere else it was tried. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

Another Phony "Study"

The “American Journal of Public Health” has come out with a new “study” in which they “prove” that states with more guns are the places where more cops are killed. Of course, that got lots of coverage in the liberal media because it advanced their agenda of eventual gun confiscation (from honest gun owners, leaving all the guns in the hands of NON-legal gun owners). One example of how they skewed the results is this: if a state passed a gun law at the same time the national gun death rate was dropping, they attributed this reduction in deaths to that law, though they knew it wasn't. People are still saying that murder rates are so low in England because of the recent gun ban—but they went UP 50% after the ban went into effect. They cite lower gun murder rates as if they were the RESULT of the law when they are the result of the fact they STARTED OUT a lot lower than those in the U. S. In other words, like most “gun haters,” they TWIST the figures until they cry out, so as to make their fool point. (Crime Prevention Research Center)

Carson Not Against Guns

Dr. Ben Carson, former brain surgeon who is running for president because it was DEMANDED, made some regrettable mistakes early on in his campaign, that Democrats seized upon in an effort to deplete his support among gun owners and would-be gun owners. He said, “Actually, my stance has never changed. My stance was articulated in an awkward way early on, when I entered the political fray, I subsequently learned that when you talk about things like the 2nd Amendment, your first statement is, “The 2nd Amendment cannot, in any way, be compromised.” It is such an important part of our freedoms. It was Daniel Webster who said that people of America would never suffer under tyranny because they are armed, and I believe that with all my heart and would never compromise the 2nd Amendment. What I did say is that I would prefer not having a situation where dangerous weapons fell into the hands of unstable people, because then they’re likely to wreak havoc with them." But, you know, that’s way down the line in terms of things that I think are important, and I simply, early on, didn’t recognize that you can't assume that people know what you're talking about.” (Breitbart)

He Wishes He Hadn't

Don Rogers, legally armed Vietnam veteran, was waiting for change when heard a guy behind him tell the clerk to “put the money in the bag” and knew it was a holdup. He drew his own gun and turned, whereupon the robber took a shot at him and missed (from a foot away). He fired three times and didn't miss. The guy ran and left in a car, but called the cops a few minutes later when he realized he was in big trouble and needed medical attention, fast. The cops, who quickly put it all together, arrested his accomplice right there, and he is still in critical condition in the hospital—and will be in jail when he is released—if he lives. Are you wondering why you haven't heard about this? That's because the liberal media gives stories like this, where guns do some GOOD, a “collective yawn” because it doesn't advance their narrative that “guns are bad and should be banned.” Rogers, unlike the “trigger-happy crazed fool” the liberals like to paint pro-gun people as being, wishes this had never happened, but he just “did what he had to do.” (The Right to Bear)

Cuomo Intimidates Pro-Gunners

They got together to protest NY Gov. Cuomo's latest attack on the Second Amendment. 3,000 of them came, and many brought “replica” guns with them. Cuomo had his pet state cops harass them and even confiscate their toy guns under his law. All this was not only UNLAWFUL, it was also UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and was done ONLY for the “intimidation factor.” But Cuomo doesn't care. He's taking a page out of Obama's book. He's IGNORING the Constitution, because he CAN. Because there's no PENALTY for a politician who does it. Maybe he'll be reversed later, and maybe he won't, if the judge that hears the case is sufficiently anti-gun, him/herself. That's the way it is in the Northeast. That's the way it has been for CENTURIES.

Even back in the 1800s, when Westerners went about with guns on their hips and periodically shot it out among themselves, Northeasterners derided gun ownership and tried their best to make laws against guns and gun ownership (except for the CRIMINALS, of course, who obey NO laws, and LOVE their anti-gun laws because they DISARM honest people and create more DEFENSELESS victims for those CRIMINALS to abuse). They will never learn the obvious truth (obvious only to INTELLIGENT people, that is) that disarming honest people only plays into the hands of the CRIMINALS, and makes it easier for the Islamic terrorists who have PROMISED to come here and kill as many of us as they can, and “raise the terrorist flag over the White House” to do so. What a bunch of FOOLS live in NY! (Town Hall)

NY Times Out of Touch

They can't have ANY idea what the American citizen is thinking if they call those who wish to have and use the means to self-defense, a gun, “fanatics who own the Republican Party through intimidation.” How out of touch with Americans are they? Criminals HAVE guns. That's a given. It's proven every day as they go about victimizing people because they have no guns to use in their own defense. And, to the NY Times, if you want to be able to defend yourself, you're a “fanatic.” The real fanatics are the fools who sit in their comfortable chairs and write such drivel, protected by armed guards at their doorways. And they don't even see the contradiction that entails. They can afford to HIRE people to carry their guns for them, just like the politicians who make such fool laws as are made by the “gun-grabbers,” who walk around behind a WALL of such armed guards, but deny us the right to self-defense. It's no wonder their readership is shrinking so fast they are laying people off by the dozens. Nobody wants to read their drivel any more. (Daily Caller)

"Negative Light On Islam?"

Imagine that? CNN is afraid that stories about ISIS raping, beheading, and otherwise killing people all over the world will “cast a negative light on Islam.” Ya THINK? I can't think of a better group to “cast a negative light “ on. Their very RELIGION commands them to rape and kill people who don't believe the exact same way they do, and beheading them is their own idea—unless you consider the instruction to “strike them on the neck.” And if there were “moderate Muslims” who hated what the extremists do, they're either too frightened to speak up, or they AGREE with what they're doing. And Obama is importing them by the hundreds of thousands into this country. It's only a matter of time before the Muslim extremists get really going on killing Americans in America. We'd better step up our efforts to keep our right to self defense and to own and use (unimpeded) the means to that, a gun, or guns before they “get it in gear.” Or we could just do like the criminals do. Go buy one from that guy in the back alley with a trunkful of illegal guns. A gun kills just as well if it was illegally obtained. (Town Hall)

Pushing What Doesn't Work

Castle Rock, WA police are distributing FREE gun locks, and have been so doing for a long time. What nobody tells you is that gun lock are like most “anti-gun” measures today, they only make it hard for HONEST people to get their guns in operation when confronted by an ILLEGALLY-armed criminal, who doesn't bother with such foolishness because he doesn't OBEY laws. Any laws. That's the one fatal flaw in ALL their foolish “gun laws.” They don't work like they're intended to. They're supposed to REDUCE gun violence, but all they do is INCREASE it by keeping honest people DISARMED, while criminals have no trouble getting their guns out of the trunks of other criminals in a back alley, somewhere, or by STEALING them.

They used to have a law in New York City that DID help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It was called the “stop and frisk” law, that depended on the instincts of experienced police officers who could tell, by body language, if a thug on the street was armed, and were ALLOWED to stop him and frisk him. That did more to take guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS than anything I've seen, before, or since. But insipid, limp-wristed liberals put a stop to that, so the cops couldn't “stop and frisk” anybody, based on their instincts. They had to have real “probable cause,” which put a stop to almost ALL “stop and frisk” actions, which usually only affected thugs on the streets. (The Daily News)

Gun Poll Tainted

Ain't it the truth? ALL polls put put by the “anti-gun fools” are tainted because they LOVE to lie to support their spurious claims. It had 727 Democrats and only 427 Republicans. They ASSUME that 13% of DEMOCRATS are pro-gun, which we KNOW to be false. But their figures are BASED on that false number. It's “heavily weighted” with women and the Gun Mart Blog says it is “contrived and cherry-picked.” See if you don't agree. It's easy to see this is a “put-up job” because MOST of their “polls” are. You can't depend on them to tell you the truth because there IS no truth on their side. They are just BENT on disarming Americans, and out corrupt politicians are right there with them. They want us disarmed so that crooks (some among them) can victimize us at will and not have to worry about meeting a gun, themselves. It can't possibly be worried about so many people being armed, because we ALREADY have way too many people (most of them crooks) armed, and they shoot each other daily while some innocent people get caught in the cross-fire. (Gun Mart Blog)

"Guns Shock And Sicken Me"

I've posted this before, but it deserves posting again--and again, because it shows graphically the mindset of many of the anti-gun fools who happen to be in a lawmaking position, if truth be told. That’s what a Washington State Senator admitted during a hearing there. During the hearing, State Senator Jeannie Darneille of Tacoma frankly revealed what lies behind much of the support for I-594 and other gun control measures across the country. As captured by a video of the hearing, the senator told those assembled, ‘I am not a person who handles guns. I don’t own guns. I don’t…they shock me, quite frankly.’ ” And these fools are the ones who make laws that keep us from being able to defend ourselves against ILLEGAL guns. To a human being, guns are not frightening unless they’re in the hand of a criminal, aimed at you. Lying on a table with no human hand upon them, they’re like a rock; completely unable to harm anybody. But not to such as Sen. Darnelle. She really believes we can completely eliminate guns from existence by making a law. The fact we can’t is lost on her and people like her. Thus we get more and more laws that disarm us, but not the criminals and crazies who like to shoot up schools. (Daily Caller)

Denying Reality

Nancy Peelosi again reveals that she does not live in the real world. She says, “Sanctuary cities are not the problem, GUNS are the problem.” What? Does she mean guns are ALONE the major problem in her (and our) life? Not PEOPLE? Sanctuary cities ARE the main problem, since many murders and other violent crimes are rampant in “sanctuary cities,” as authorities RELEASE violent criminals who are ILLEGAL aliens, instead of PUNISHING them, as they should. The killing in San Francisco (her home town) is only ONE of the violent crimes that can be attributed to “sanctuary cities” by illegal aliens. The killer was deported FIVE TIMES, and the most recent time he was apprehended, he was AGAIN released, because he was an illegal alien. More recently, “authorities” released an illegal alien who “went on a crime spree” right afterward. This again shows the complete INCOMPETENCE of the people “in charge.” (Breitbart)

Hillary Wrong: As Usual

Same as ALL liberals, who blame everything bad on guns. Completely ignoring the fact that guns are used for good things, too, mostly by people who OBEY laws. In this case, she's telling the chief race whore Al Sharpie....er, uh, Sharpton that the reason more black men are in prison or killed by cops is because all the cops are biased against them. Which does a LOT to support their “fantasies.” Cops aren't biased, black men shoot other people at a higher rate, and steal from them more often than anybody else. This is not a “pipe dream,” it is backed up by the numbers. More black men commit crimes, and thus are more often to be found in jail or prison—or killed by cops who are doing their duty or defending themselves against them. Of course, they'll call me a racist for writing this, in a “knee-jerk reaction,” based on the example set by OBAMA, who blames ANY opposition to his policies on racism, since he is half black. But they've worn that out so well, it's now meaningless. But then, what better way is there to get votes from black people? Just feed their imaginary bugaboos. (Weasel Zippers)

How They Think

“Black Lives Matter” promoter Deray McKesson thinks when a black criminal is shooting at them,cops should just stand there and take it. How stupid is THAT? He thinks cops should just leave their guns in leather and let the criminal KILL them. This is an example of how such FOOLS think. They can't give a good reason for that kind of thinking, they just insist they're right. He (and other fools) maintain that Officer Darren Wilson was guilty of murder when he shot Michael Brown in self defense. He also questions the facts in the case of Tyrone Harris, Jr., saying the cops LIED when they said Tyrone was firing at them. This is an example of an activist whose mind is made up and you can't “confuse him with facts.” He'll just call you a liar. He can't prove it, but that's what he thinks, so that's how it IS, according to him. And of course, this guy (and other race whores) were in Ferguson when a bunch of black men started shooting at cops and got what was coming to them. (Mediaite)

Gun-Grabbers Horrified

They hate it when things like this happen. John Lott, who is known for his ACCURATE information about guns, has published a report saying that murder rates have DECREASED in areas where honest citizens are allowed to carry their own guns for self defense. The gun grabbers deny this vehemently, but they can't come up with true studies to dispute it, so they just bluster and call Lott and people like him liars, without being able to describe just HOW he lies. But there's more to it. What if Obama or somebody like him decides to ignore the Constitution and come after what's yours? As Thomas Jefferson (one of the Founders of this country) said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Politicians decry this reason, saying it is treasonous. But it's true. Tojo declined to attack the American mainland because, as he said, “there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.” And the same thing is true regarding our own politicians if they decide to go “all out,” and just TAKE what's ours, including ALL our rights. And it's not treason to defend your rights and property from government politicians. (Gun Watch)

Navy Gets Smart

Following the killing of five innocent people at a recruiting center, the Navy took notice and have decided to ARM their personnel at those centers. I don't know if that order also included them being armed on other military reservations, but it IS a move in the right direction. This shooting caused governors in several states to authorize military personnel to be armed at recruiting centers. I don't know how that affects military personnel, who are under MILITARY law at those centers. I don't think state action can overcome that. I haven't heard anything about similar action on the part of the other services, so I guess their people will just have to depend on the Navy to protect them. More on that, later. Of course, even ordinary people TRIED to “stand armed guard” on recruitment centers, but they were told to “go away.” (Guns)

No Sooner Signed

Kansas passed a law allowing honest people to carry their own guns in self defense, and the “anti-gun fools” predicted much “wild gun violence.” As usual, it didn't happen. Instead, a man who had his gun with him stopped an armed holdup. Three men and a girl were robbing a gun store and he decided to take a hand. He stopped the holdup without firing a shot. The thugs ran after dropping the guns they were stealing (with which, no doubt, they planned even more violence). The cops found them close by and arrested them. This story proves conclusively that the “unleashed violence” lie told by gun-haters is a LIE. Which just about everything the gun-grabbers say always is. This guy was “carrying” because the new Kansas law LET him carry his gun without a permit, and he gave due credit to that law. This was NOT a case of “uncontrolled gun violence” as predicted by the gun-grabbers. It was an individual who stopped robbers from stealing a bunch of guns which, no doubt they would have used in future robberies, maybe even murders. The law worked the way it should work. (The Right to Bear)

The Answer? More Taxes!

As usual, politicians equate “solving a problem” to taxing it. In Seattle, they're trying to create a “gun violence tax” on all gun owners and purchasers of ammunition. A thinly disguised attack on gun ownership for HONEST people, which will not get NEAR the owners of ILLEGAL guns, who are the ones responsible for ALL the “gun violence.” As usual, their “solution” doesn't get NEAR a “solution” to the “gun violence” problem, because it targets HONEST people who DO obey laws and pay taxes, even if they are laid for the wrong reasons. In all cases of gun violence, I notice they do not say ANYTHING about the fact that the “gun violence” was perpetrated by UNLICENSED gun owners, which just about ALL gun violence is done by. They couldn't afford to do that, because it would undermine their drive to disarm all honest Americans, by “hook or crook.” (Minuteman News)

Reality Intervenes

Susan Gonzales hated guns with a passion. Until one night, a gun-wielding thug invaded her home and tried to kill both her and her husband. He had already shot her husband, when she grabbed her husband's gun and shot the attacker, who later died. It's a little different when it's not happening to “the other guy.” The other guy is usually what gun-grabbers always are talking about when they talk about the need—or lack of it—for honest citizens to have their own guns, with which to defend themselves from criminals and their ILLEGAL guns, which they usually have no problem getting. Until reality intervenes and gun-haters find themselves in mortal combat with a thug who has a gun he obtained ILLEGALLY, either by buying it from another criminal, or STEALING it. It's amazing how fast people change their minds, then. (Second Amendment Insider)

Despotic State

The reason Obama wants to disarm as many people as he can is that he is a “despot in waiting.” He knows he cannot take COMPLETE control over all of us if most of us are armed. Tojo said he didn't want to invade the American mainland because “there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.” And he was right. He is also right when it concerns would-be despotic “rulers.” It has been said that “gun control is inherently an aspect of state despotism." It's not about self defense against criminals, although that is a factor. It's being armed to make would-be despots think twice before trying to control us all in our every move, every day of our lives because we are well-armed and able to repulse his thugs. They SAY it is to “reduce gun violence,” but they know it isn't. The gun laws, as they are today, and as the current gun-grabbers want them to be do not “stem gun violence.” They only increase it by disarming innocent Americans while criminals never have any trouble getting their guns ILLEGALLY. They'll deny it to their dying day, but that's the real purpose of “gun control.” (Second Amendment Insider)

"Gun Rights Created In 2008"

What a LOAD of stinky brown stuff. A columnist in the Baltimore Sun thinks that, since the Second amendment has been in dispute ever since it was ratified, we did not have gun rights until 2008 after the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Since when does “being in dispute” affect the “law of the land?” If that were so, Obamacare would be eliminated from consideration as a law. The Second Amendment IS “the law of the land,” and this is one of the most IGNORANT ways sought to do away with that. Anti-gun fools will try ANYTHING to weaken, or eliminate the Second Amendment as “settled law,” but, in spite of opposition from a few malcontents, it has BEEN the “law of the land” since the 1700s. Live with it, anti-gun fools!. (Breitbart)

Not Forced To Ask

In Florida, they HAD a law forcing doctors to ask their patients if they had guns. A recent court case was decided that doctors had no reason to ask anything about gun ownership UNLESS the answer actually had something to do with the patient's well-being. That leaves a lot of states with such “directives” still in force. I don't know how it is in my state (Colorado), but if my doctor asks me if I have a gun and demands an answer, I'll tell him it's none of his damned business. What's he going to do? Have me arrested? Fire me as a patient?Report me to the feds? I don't care what he does. If answering questions about things he has no right to ask about causes me to have to get a new doctor, then so be it. The very IDEA of that is an invasion of my privacy, and they can take their questions to hell with them as they go. (The Right to Bear)

Gun-Free Zones KILL!

It's not a “pipe-dream,” it's FACT. In the last eight years, 105 innocent people have been KILLED, and another 150 people injured IN GUN-FREE ZONES. Every shooter in those instances but ONE passed a background check and was able to buy his gun legally. That one just STOLE his guns. What is painfully obvious here to anybody with any degree of INTELLIGENCE is that gun-free zones are only gun-free to people who OBEY laws, Not to criminals, who are bent on committing even worse crimes than those puny little gun-free zone violations, and those zones make them pretty sure there will be nobody there shooting back at them. Further, background checks do NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of the people bound and determined to kill as many innocent people as they can. Gun-free zones are an OPEN INVITATION to such people to “come in and shoot us up. We won't oppose you.” But are “the usual suspects” who make the same old, tired, and USELESS laws over and over again smart enough to take notice of this? Not a chance. Their minds are made up, so don't confuse them with facts. They are responsible for many deaths. And they are blissfully unaware of it. (Breitbart)

CNN: "Need for Gun Control"

Liberals can twist ANYTHING into a call for their useless, murderous “gun control “laws. CNN says the latest theater shooting (where the only bullets fired came from cops' guns) is proof we need more gun control. What a big LOAD of stinky brown stuff THAT is! The poor guy didn't HAVE a gun. All he had is a PELLET gun and an axe, and he was shot down like a dog by cops. Maybe we should have more “axe laws.” All that proves is that if a crazy wants to be a “shooter” he will use a CAP gun, if necessary. All their “gun laws” would have made NO DIFFERENCE. How CNN equates this as “need for more gun laws,” I can't fathom. But then, I have trouble with a lot of liberal “thinking.” It lacks logic. In fact, liberals have been known to deny the EXISTENCE of logic. Most of their thinking lacks logic. And they're “in charge” almost everywhere. That isn't very logical, either. (Conservative Byte)

Sharpton should Be IN PRISON!

Sharpton should Be In PRISON! Louis (Calypso Louie) Farrakhan should be in prison. He DAILY works HARD to create a race war where none would exist, but for his big mouth. He calls for the KILLING of white people who have had NOTHING to do with his mostly imagined racism. His entire organization (and his very nice living) depend on him “whipping up” racism, where none existed before he (or his fellow race whores like Jesse Jerkson and Al Sharpie....er, uh, Sharpton) came on the scene. But now he is blatantly advocating MURDER, and that's akin to “shouting fire” in a movie theater and should NEVER be considered “free speech.” He's fomenting violence, pure and simple. Any black man who kills a white man in response to his exhortations should be laid at his doorstep—and any black man KILLED while TRYING to kill a white man, likewise. The world would be much better off without this FOOL, or other people like him. (Minute Men News)

Another Theater Shooting

This time in Nashville, Tennessee. What's the reason? Why are theaters so popular among crazy mass shooters lately? The answer is simple to intelligent people. Most theaters are, by nature, “gun-free zones.” Mass shooters discovered that when a man went into one in Aurora, Colorado and killed 12 people before he was apprehended. Before that, nobody thought about it until that Aurora theater shooting called attention to it. Now, it seems, theaters are a “favorite place” for would-be mass shooters to “do their dirty deeds” without much fear of being opposed by anybody in the audience who has his own gun. That's because law-abiding people OBEY that prohibition while non-law-abiding people do not. Which means theaters are choice shooting spots. In this latest one, the shooter never got a chance to kill anybody, but that was because of the happy accident of the presence of a police officer, who traded shots with him before a SWAT team came in and killed him. But you can't count on there being a cop close by when some fool comes into a theater and starts shooting people. I'm waiting for TWO SHOOTERS to choose the same theater at the same time. Now THAT will be different! (WSMV TV)

Anti-Gun Lies

Anti-gun activists lie all the time. They have to because facts don't support their fatally-flawed positions and the only way they can hope to prevail is to lie or twist the truth way out of shape. Example: they emphasize tragedies such as a baby getting hold of Mom's gun and killing her. That almost NEVER happens, and wouldn't if Mom knew how to properly handle a gun. With proper training, such things would NEVER happen. But the gun-grabbers talk like it happens every day. They say “Ownership of a gun makes the owner much more apt to be the victim of a gun accident, or simple murder," which is a patent LIE. A BIG LOAD of stinky brown stuff—you know what I mean. The truth is, a gun in the home makes it much more probable that people will be safe from outside attacks, from simple criminals, to Islamic terrorists out to kill everybody they can who doesn't believe the exact same way they do.

But they don't recognize that truth. They only recognize their own version of “the truth.” Gun truth promoter John Lott says, “Every place in the world that has tried to ban guns has seen a big INCREASE in gun violence and other violent crimes. You'd think that, at least in one such place, one time, the opposite would be true, but it's not.” It's as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning and going down at night. But do gun-grabbers see it? Not a chance. They are completely myopic when it comes to the truth. He says, “No one knows how many times the presence of a gun in the hands of a potential victim PREVENTS a violent crime without a shot being fired. But these instances don't get reported and thus don't end up in some government database somewhere (paraphrased).” An estimate by the Violence Policy Center says this could be happening tens of thousands of times a year. But do the gun-grabbers take note? Does a walrus have a big brush mustache? (Town Hall/John Stossel)

Alabama DOT to Ban Guns

All guns at rest stops, whatever THAT means. So soon there will be no guns at rest stops in Alabama in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Only in the hands of CRIMINALS, to whom the DOT rules mean nothing. So you can count on the fact that there are going to soon be more people shot to death at Alabama rest stops as criminals take advantage of these new “gun-free zones.” this is how the government INCREASES gun violence: by making laws and rules that only seem to apply to HONEST people, leaving them DEFENSELESS against ILLEGALLY-armed criminals. I don't know what's wrong with these people. Every time they “take action” to “stem gun violence,” they INCREASE it, and you can't talk them out of it. They think their ideas are “perfect,” and not to be argued with. More and more people die, and they blame that on LAWFUL gun owners, and ignore the fact that most, if not ALL gun violence is performed by ILLEGAL gun owners. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

Making Guns Useless

The government can't just BAN guns. They know the Constitution makes that blatantly illegal and, in this case, they'd never survive ignoring the constitution. But they've tried every way they can to “get around” that constitutional prohibition on taking away our right to self defense and to own and use the means to that end, a gun. And failed. Obama says his biggest disappointment in his administration is his failure to disarm America. HIS FAILURE TO DISARM AMERICA! Good for America. So now he's trying to make the guns we are legally allowed to own WORTHLESS. In that popular sitcom, “Mayberry,” Andy wouldn't let his “dumb as a box of rocks” deputy have but one bullet, and that was not allowed to be IN his gun unless Andy let him load it. That's the purpose of Obama's latest efforts to eliminate AMMUNITION from America.

To that end, the government is buying up as much ammunition as it can, banning other kinds (bullets are not mentioned in the Constitution), and forcing manufacturers to add prohibitively expensive micro-printed “identification” to every bullet they make, making ammunition itself prohibitively expensive, as the makers “pass along” the added cost. This has been a lot more successful than just prohibiting guns, themselves. Guns are just good doorstops” without bullets, and his people have most of them—until Americans get “on the ball” and make more that he doesn't know about. When the government prohibits things we think are necessary, as we did when the government prohibited booze, it creates a market, and some people are always willing to “jump in the breach,” and supply that market. Unfortunately, as with prohibition, these people are criminals. And the government's efforts only create more criminals. (Daily Caller)

Churches "Lock and Load"

After the in-church shooting in Charleston, SC, that left nine dead, many churches are now ALLOWING guns in their churches for legal gun carriers. Some have even gone so far as to sponsor gun classes. Of course, there are people (the usual suspects) who think they've gone too far. Gun trainer David Van Buren says, “Churches should have an emergency plan and a trained security team.” I go further than that. I say ONE person in the congregation who has a gun and knows how to use it (whose presence is unknown to the shooter) can make all the difference in the world, even WITHOUT a “security plan.” It certainly did in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where a single small woman put an END to one gunman's “shooting spree” by putting a couple in him. Some people are tired of hearing about that, but that remains the very best illustration of my contention that ONE GUN, in the hands of ONE honest person who knows how to use it, can make all the difference in the world. What if there had been a cop (or other legal gun owner who disregarded that theater's “no-gun policy) in that theater in Aurora when that fool came in and started shooting? Maybe some lives would have been saved. But, NO! The fools who make all the USELESS “gun laws” don't agree, while more and more people get killed, while they never learn. (Chesterfield Observer)

Ban All Defense Firearms

You thought Obama was a real gun-hater. But socialist Bernie Sanders is even worse. Obama at least gives “lip service” to the Second Amendment, while he tries every way he can to “get around it.” Bernie doesn't even RECOGNIZE the Second Amendment as being a deterrent to his wish to ban ALL personal defense guns. Naturally, he exempts guns designed for “hunting” from this edict (like they couldn't be used wrongly). He thinks gun ownership is a “privilege” granted by the government. This is how Bernie thinks. So it's a wonder he gets as much support as he does, It's a testament to the ignorance of many people that his candidacy has taken on ANY semblance of seriousness, especially since he self-admitted to being a SOCIALIST, which should have signaled a “death knell” to his candidacy. But it has not. (Bearing Arms)

Another Democrat Gun Epidemic

Seattle is a Democrat-run city. Has been for the last five mayors. The Seattle Times says gunfire has become so commonplace in Seattle it is considered “mere background noise.” According to the cops, they get so many “shots fired” calls they no longer even mention it on their public outreach web site. They've had 227 shooting incidents there already this year, which is a 24% increase over last year, and a 40% increase over 2013. It's important to note that Seattle has “strong” gun laws, restricting gun ownership for HONEST people who OBEY laws, but, as usual, do NOTHING to restrict guns in the hands of CRIMINALS, who do NOT. Their “Gun laws” are in opposition to the state's “open carry laws,” which ALLOW open carry without a license. And more than 100 Seattle businesses have joined a program to tell gun carriers they don't want their business. Seattle joins Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, New Orleans, and St. Louis as Democrat-run cities with SOARING gun violence rates. (Breitbart)

I Wouldn't Come

Dana Perino, on Fox's “The Five” show, said the other day that if she were invited to the White House today, she would go. That “anybody” who was invited there would go, even if they didn't agree with the current president. WRONG! I wouldn't. I wouldn't pee on Obama if he was on fire, much less respond to a “request” (order) for me to appear. I'd tell his minions if he wanted to see me, he knew where to find me. Some people would say that would be “disrespecting the president.” Okay, so what? Nobody disrespects this president more than I do.

“WHEN I BECOME PRESIDENT”: Hillary sez, “I'll let you know my position in the Keystone Pipeline when I become president.” What? That's something like Nancy Peelosi saying, “We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it.” That's the kind of smarmy crap that comes from people who think they're KING and just don't have to let their “subjects” know what they'll do if (when) they get in office. What a cocky old bag she is! “When” she becomes president? With an attitude like that, it'll be NEVER.

$1200.00 HAIRDO? I don't know if this is true, or just a rumor. But it sounds like something Hillary (or many other politicians, mostly Democrats) would do. Pay more than it would take to keep one family fed for a year (in Obama's place of birth) to get her hair done. Where she gets the money to do such a thing would be a mystery if I wasn't aware of how much she STEALS from us. I'm reminded of the time Bill held up an entire airport while he imported a barber to cut his hair. These people think their sh-t doesn't stink, but it does. It reeks to high heavens, and they can't smell it.

“BEAT HIM LIKE A DRUM!” Trump answered Obama's boast about winning if he just could run again as only Trump can. He said, “I'd love to run against him.” I'd beat him like a drum. (paraphrased). I think Obama is preparing for a campaign to get the Constitution changed so he COULD run again since (he thinks) the “American people” want him so badly, he “shouldn't be kept out by a technicality.” Which is a PIPE DREAM for him.

LION VS. THOUSANDS OF BABIES: The world is up in arms about the killing of Cecil, the “friendly lion” in Africa, but apparently, they couldn't care less about the murder of thousands (maybe MILLIONS) of innocent babies before they even get a CHANCE at life. All for the CONVENIENCE of the parents, who didn't bother to use a rubber when they had sex and now want to kill the result so they won't have to bother with raising that child. Yes, killing that lion wasn't nice. But killing millions of babies is a lot worse. But convince the liberal media of that.

AWWW....POOR BABY! According to The Hill, the efforts to reject the Iran “deal” are “embarrassing” to Secretary of State John Kerry. Sorry about that. I didn't know it was a sin to oppose anything done by a politician in America. That's only true in other countries; countries run by a DICTATOR or a KING. Which we aren't (yet), although Obama seems to think we are. With his policies of making deals with tyrants without letting his “serfs” even know to what he agreed. Somebody needs to slap him down, right along with his brown-nosing “follower.”

.

Out of Control Stupid

The top officers in Chattanooga must be taking stupid pills. That's the only reason I can think of why they would want to charge the “hero of Chattanooga” for shooting BACK at the terrorist who killed several people in that recruiting center. Yes, that center WAS a “gun-free zone,” but the fact that it was is a reflection of the STUPIDITY of those “in charge.” And to punish the guy who tried to defend those UNARMED victims (including himself) is the HEIGHTS of stupidity. Yes, I used the word “stupidity” several times. That's because that's the best word to describe the actions of these people, who have NOT been “in the line of fire,” either here, or overseas. They have no idea of what it's like. This Marine and sailor did what many intelligent Americans are going to do if Obama's ILLEGAL efforts at “gun control” are successful, and carry their guns illegally, becoming criminals, themselves. But they'll still be alive. (Weasel Zippers)

Why Do We Want Guns?

Is it just to defend ourselves against home-grown criminals, who always have guns, no matter what the law says, because they don't OBEY laws? That's part of it, but there's more. Obama is WELCOMING Muslims by the millions into the United States, just as did other nations in the past—like Egypt, whose CITIZENS further extended that welcome—until the incoming Muslims started killing them, left and right. Americans are likewise “welcoming” Muslims. And we need to have laws allowing honest people to have their own guns to combat those murderous Muslims that are coming here and setting up their “cells” while planning to KILL as many “unbelievers” as possible. And it's not just disgruntled misfits planning to do that, it's “mainstream Muslims,” who follow the teachings of the Koran, which tells them it's okay to LIE to “unbelievers” and kill them if they don't convert to “the religion of peace.” But the whole idea of Islam BEING “a religion of peace” is PROPAGANDA, designed to “put us to sleep” so they can sneak up on us and KILL us. We NEED to have our own guns to be able to stop that. Obama wants to disarm us for his own purposes. But he's playing right into the hands of Muslims (willingly or unwittingly, it doesn't matter). I think it's WILLINGLY, but who listens to me. (Freedom Outpost)

Why Govt. Hates Guns

They're the biggest buyers of guns, but they want fervently to deny us, the citizens (peons, to them), the right to own and use them for the same reason they do, to defend ourselves. Why do they think they have the right, but deny it to us? It's the old “us and them” thing. To them, the world is divided into two groups: first, the cops and government agents (at all levels) and second, the peasants. Government people have the “imperial right” to be armed against the peasants, but the peasants have no right to be armed against the government, or anybody else. Further, some of the things they do are sure to foment a revolution, and they want to make sure they're the only ones who have guns when it happens. Some of the most “gun-hating politicians” are themselves armed (Such as Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), one of the most vociferous gun-haters in other people's hands, who has her own "carry" permit). And most of them go around in the center of a circle of armed security. But one thing they can't control is the fact that CRIMINALS don't obey laws. Only honest people do. So those left owning guns are the worst kind of people. (Just common sense)

Why Do Some People Hate Guns?

It seems like some people are BORN hating guns. Why, I can't figure. Guns themselves, without input from a human being, are simply an inert object, incapable of hurting anyone. But that means nothing to some people, who are so frightened they wet their pants at the mere SIGHT of a gun not in the possession of a cop or other government agent. And what difference does being in the possession of a cop make? I recall a recent story about a guy getting on a bus wearing a loaded cartridge belt. Not a gun in sight. And the cartridges were phony. But people who saw him called the cops, and the cops cooperatively arrested him. Wiser heads eventually prevailed and he was released, the phonied-up “charges” dropped. In another case, a man simply walked into a Wal-Mart with a gun on his hip in a state where concealed carry was LAWFUL without any kind of a permit. The cops there also arrested him, charging him with disturbing the peace, a “catch-all” charge they use when nothing else fits. But why are people so afraid of the very SIGHT of a gun? And moreover, why are so many LAWMAKERS also afraid of guns to the point where they make, and continue to make, USELESS “gun laws,” calling them “common sense gun laws,” when they are anything BUT “common sense?" They IGNORE real common sense and evidence that they are WRONG, and keep on insisting on making USELESS LAWS that only serve to keep HONEST people, who DO obey laws disarmed, and “easy pickings” for CRIMINALS, who DO NOT. They refuse to listen to reason while people DIE every day because of their silly laws. (Just common sense)