Fighting Back

I wrote the other day about a bakery fighting back against gay activists “searching them out” because they KNEW they would refuse to bake a cake for their “gay wedding,” then suing them for big bucks, by counter-suing the activists, proving that BOTH SIDES could sue. Now a new gun store in Arlington, Virginia, is fighting back against a “conspiracy” to keep them from opening the ONLY gun store with a storefront in Arlington, by making scurrilous claims in letters to their landlord in an effort to get their lease canceled, They're SUING the 64 people involved in the conspiracy, which included members of the legislature, the leader of which is a Democrat, of course. It's about time somebody fought back against the “bullying tactics” of the left. We can sue, too, and force them to spend their money to fight OUR suits. (Patriot Outdoor News)

No Finger On the Trigger

Gabby Giffords (who got her brains scrambled by a bullet not too long ago) was pictured recently in the same manner as Sen. Feinstein, holding an automatic weapon (shudder!). Seems like that's almost REQUIRED of anti-gun fools these days. But luckily, her finger wasn't on the trigger as was Feinstein's. The picture was taken to promote her support of a measure to “prevent the flow of guns into the State of Illinois." Like that's going to help any. Remember, Chicago is in Illinois. Chicago is also in Illinois, and has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation. Some of them have even been reversed, as unconstitutional. Yet Chicago remains the city with the HIGHEST number of gun deaths, DESPITE those tight gun laws. Chances are, they've tried every measure those boobs will try, and they have failed. What it's all about is the launching of the- Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Coalition, an organization formed to pressure the legislature into making even more USELESS gun laws. That's even though they already have too many that don't work. They don't really know what to do about “gun violence,” so they flail about starting such organizations as this, hoping it will do SOMETHING. even though it is a forlorn hope. (ABC 7)

Stupid Comedy Routine

I just watched the stupidest comedy routine ever. Designed to con people into believing “guns are bad.” It's full of the usual anti-gun fool LIES, like guns are so easy to buy legally, even if you are a felon or are on the no fly list, all of which are pure LIES. It ends with one of the performers seeming to drop the gun and shooting himself (which was so predictable). And the juiciest part of it is that the female in the skit is Amy Schumer! Apparently she doesn't care about having to LIE to make her anti-gun point. Like that you can buy a gun at a gun show without ANY problem, and with NO necessity to obey their other stupid, useless gun laws. This skit is so stupid, it wasn't even funny to intelligent people, though it was probably hilarious to liberals. (Gun Mart)

Self Defense Is Not Legal!

Because the attacker, if killed, is “deprived of his legal rights.” Izat so? That's what Huffington Post thinks, anyway. Whoever wrote this is completely devoid of knowledge of human rights (or anything else, for that matter). Human rights demand that we be able to defend ourselves against an attacker, even if we kill him/her in the process. It will be defined as “justifiable homicide.” He/she is NOT “entitled to a fair trial if he/she gets killed in the process of trying to victimize others. The fact that he/she threatens OUR rights with his/her gun is reason enough to kill him/her WITHOUT a trial. His/her threat with a gun is prima facie evidence he/she plans to kill somebody, and deserves to be killed, him/herself. “ To say this is probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read would be an  understatement.  It is certainly an indicator of how far the left will go in it’s “reasoning” to deny you the use of a gun and your basic right to self-defense. I said “basic” but self-defense is indeed an inherent right. You need no one’s permission to exercise it because you own your life and without protecting it, you would obviously cease to exist.“ (Elm Tree Forge)

They Call It "Common Sense"

If you want to fool a bunch of uninformed, or misinformed people of something stupid, just call what you're doing “common sense.” That's what the anti-gun fools do when they propose yet another USELESS law to keep guns out of the hands of honest, law-abiding people when violent crime rates committed by ILLEGAL gun owners rise. They insist on calling their stupidity “common sense gun laws.” but they are anything BUT “common sense.” You take guns away from law-abiding people, you leave them defenseless against the ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals and other “bad guys.” But they insist on doing it. Even victims of illegal guns and their survivors push for passage of more and more USELESS “common sense gun laws” after they suffer from an ILLEGAL gun.

They've got people convinced that their idea of “common sense gun laws” are the only way to go, and never look elsewhere. Then there are their “gun-free zones” that gun-carrying thugs ignore, like one did recently at Wal-Mart, where he shot two cops and got himself killed—IN a Wal-Mart store. They LAUGH at signs saying, “leave your guns at home,” or “no guns allowed,” or some such stupidity. Gun locks and “unloaded” requirements for openly carried guns just make the guns USELESS in the event of an emergency caused by a criminal with his ILLEGAL gun, which they always seem to be able to get, REGARDLESS of the laws. The only answer is to let law-abiding people have guns with which to oppose them. But they never listen when we tell them that. (America's First Freedom)

Another Useless Law

I've written many times about the USELESS anti-gun laws they keep passing that do NOTHING to reduce gun violence. One such law is the “high-capacity magazine ban” they like to pass everywhere. Where they have been passed, they have had NO effect on gun violence. In fact, they have contributed to an INCREASE in gun violence. Other laws, such as the “empty gun” requirement in a state where “open carry” is allowed if the gun is empty, which makes the gun USELESS, are the norm, and they don't work, either. Likewise declaring a “gun-free zone” only keeps guns owned LEGALLY out, leaving things open for thugs to bring their ILLEGAL guns in and victimize people without opposition. Every idea they have seems to be totally USELESS in reducing gun violence, but they keep making their useless laws anyway, in their stupidity. I can only describe it as stupidity, because it is OBVIOUS to intelligent people that the laws they have so far passed DO NOT WORK, and they know it, but insist on making more of the same USELESS laws, over and over. (Breitbart)

Crime Out of Control

In Portland, Oregon, “crime is out of control,” says Nathaniel Williams, founder of “Unify Portland.” He says further, “They all have guns, and it's not going to stop.” What he fails to say is that all the guns he's talking about are ILLEGAL, and owned by people who don't OBEY “gun laws.” So he has no idea what to do about it. Most of the armed violence is committed by gangs, and even the “Crips” and “The Bloods” are complaining. Of course, they don't talk about the guns THEY carry. Open carry is legal in Oregon, but the gun must be unloaded. As usual, such a law makes the gun USELESS in an emergency. That's how liberals “get around” then Second Amendment. They can't just BAN guns, they make laws that make them USELESS if you're a law-abiding person—which gang members and other criminals are NOT. (Portland Tribune)

Burglar Sues His Victim

Yes, this homeowner shot him. But he was in the process of robbing the man. It was dark, and the homeowner didn't know what the burglar's intentions toward him were. Yes, he was running away. But the homeowner had no way of knowing that. It was dark. Yes, he might have hurt somebody else by shooting down that alley that way. But that's not the concern of the burglar's suit. He says that, since he was running away, the man had no reason to shoot him any more. I don't know what kind of a judgment the judge will impose, but my point here is that a criminal should have NO standing to sue a homeowner he was robbing for anything he suffered in the process. The laws in this country are way too loose if they allow a CRIMINAL to sue his victim after getting hurt in the process of robbing him. And they should be changed, so burglars cannot do such a thing. This is by far not the first time this has happened, but it should be the last. (The Blaze)

A Sign of Truth

This gun shop just wanted to sell guns, so it put up a sign reading, “How to piss off Obama—buy a gun.” They hoped a little chuckle would bring some people who wanted a gun to their shop. But some wag took a picture of it and put it on the web. It “went viral” right away. The sign was posted after Obama's recent speech, where he advocated banning gun sales to people on the “No fly List,” another of his “get-arounds” to the Second amendment. People can be put on the “No Fly List” at someone's simple wish. There are no guidelines, except what Obama places on it, at his whims, and they are so broad, he could put Mother Theresa on the list, at will. With no reason required to be given. Truth is, Americans have bought 100 million guns since Obama came into office, making him the best gun SALESMAN ever! A designation he fervently wishes to avoid. (Tipsheet)

Double Standard Rules

In Target Stores, law-abiding gun owners aren't allowed. At the same time, MEN are allowed in women's rest rooms and changing rooms, where the women often have to be naked, if the man “identifies” as a woman. Gee, golly, gosh! Does that mean that if I want to see some naked girls, all I have to do is SAY I'm a woman, and dress up like one, to be allowed into their dressing rooms? Wow! Somebody at Target has had a “stupid attack!” Meanwhile, owners of illegal guns can bring their guns into Target Stores, at will, because they don't OBEY such rules. All this means simply that, as an “unarmed American,” I'm in increased danger in a Target Store because I DO obey the law, and even “store policy” in stores operated under stupid rules. Will their policies be worth anything to me if I get shot to death by a criminal who brings his gun in their store while I'm there? (Breitbart)

Using Any Excuse

Obama is using anything he can think of to deny the constitutional right to gun ownership to as many groups as possible, so as to “get around” the Constitutional prohibition on BANNING guns, period. Now he is having vets who have people other than themselves handle their finances deemed “mentally defective,” even though they aren't. But his bureaucrats so deem them, and he has a “policy” of denying them the right to have, and use guns for self defense, in spite of the Second Amendment. Remember, these are people this government employed and TRAINED to handle guns for the defense of this country. And now they're “:mentally deficient” because they let others handle their money? What a damned FOOL idea that is! But it is the one he is promoting. I guess there is simply NO underhanded scam he will not use to get his way. (The Gun Shots)

"Only the Cops"

Should have guns, according to the anti-gun fools. “They're the only bunch who are responsible enough,” they say. As usual, they're not only wrong, but MASSIVELY wrong. In 1991, researcher L. B. Johnson did a study of domestic violence amongst police officers. His findings are amazing. He found that a full 40% of police officer's families experienced domestic violence, as opposed to just 10% among non-police families. The particular story linked here involves a cop who got in a gun battle with other cops. Are they REALLY the only group responsible enough to have guns? Not a chance. In fact, they're MORE apt to be involved in domestic violence than us “regular folks.” But the anti-gun fools persist in insisting otherwise, in the face of facts. But facts mean nothing to them, especially if the facts go against their preconceived notions. Notice this happened in Baltimore, where the mayor and the state's attorney hate cops. (Truth About Guns)

OK: Gun Freedom Near

Some tome ago, the Oklahoma governor vetoed a number of bills in what was called “a tantrum.” One of those was a bill which, if passed, would allow “:permitless open carry,” which, frankly, the Second Amendment actually guarantees, and which anti-gun politicians have wantonly violated, for years. Now a similar bill is up, and the question is, will she sign it? Or will the legislature override her veto this time? The governor has several options to veto the bill, but there is plenty of time left this time for an override. The big question is, what will she do? It's really too bad a biased politician can hold up a bill supporting a constitutional right, in fact, if not in theory. Owning and using guns is a Constitutional right, but politicians have perverted it to support their own biases. Slowly, we're winning. But not without stout opposition from anti-gun politicians who want guns only in the hands of themselves and their cohorts, but never in the hands of the “serfs.” (Gun Watch)

Gun-Free Zone

Guns aren't allowed at Wal-Mart. So how did two cops get shot, and an armed suspect killed there? Could it be that the suspect ignored their no-gun policy? Noooo! Why would anybody do that? I thought laws and policies that didn't allow guns would mean people are safer there. They're not, you say? Are those anti-gun fools WRONG? Everybody says they're so smart. But it seems like every time their laws, policies, and regulations are tested, to turn out to be useless. Surprise, surprise! At least, to them. But not to INTELLIGENT people, who know all about criminals and other “bad guys” who don't bother to OBEY their laws, policies, or regulations. So what do they do when people ignore them and bring their guns, anyway? Other than dying, they just make more of them! Seriously, folks, when are we going to be smart enough to throw these people in the sh-tcan and elect some intelligent people? (Town Hall/AP)

They Never Learn

Politicians everywhere think private citizens owning and using guns for self-defense is a bad thing, This despite the REALITY that stopping law-abiding people from owning them is counter-productive. It does just the opposite of what it's meant to do. Every time it is tried results in MORE crime. But do they learn? Not a chance. They think they know more than what reality predicts. That's what they thought in El Salvador, where they pretty much BANNED guns in the hands of ANYBODY except cops, government officials, and people the politicians approved. And what happened? As predicted, crime skyrocketed, and more and more people died at the hands of people who ignored their laws—as law-abiding people do not. They just can't understand that hindering law-abiding people from having guns CREATES higher crime and murder rates. In that way, they're INCOMPETENT. But people (not me) keep on electing them, and suffering from it. (Daily Caller)

"Getting Around" the Constitution

They can't ban guns. It's in the Constitution. But making selling guns so expensive they can't do it, is NOT. So that's what California is doing. They're making it so expensive to BE a gun dealer that they can no longer afford to be in business there. That effectively bans guns in California. It will be a boon for ILLEGAL gun dealers, who don't have to worry about regulations, like LEGAL gun dealers do. Those legal dealers will go to another state, where they aren't quite so stupid and sell their wares to the ILLEGAL gun dealers, who will then bring their guns back into California and sell them on the black market. It's inevitable. Make ANYTHING hard to get, ANYWHERE, and there will soon be a black market in that product. (Allen West)

A Step In the Right Direction

The governor of Mississippi has signed a bill into law allowing guns in churches, thus eliminating one giant “no-gun zone. Which will eliminate the possibility of a mass shooter in most of his churches, because the shooter might get shot before he can kill very many people. We have been saying this for a long time, but few politicians are listening. Apparently they're listening in Mississippi. Of course, the law limits it to people who have gone through rigorous training in gun handling, which is only logical. And it will probably involve the NRA, since they're way ahead of anybody else in training people in proper gun handling. I wish there were more intelligent politicians like these elsewhere, especially in Colorado, where I live. Maybe more people would get to stay alive longer. (Town Hall)

Gun Ban Unconstitutional

Remember the story we ran a few days ago about the total gun ban in the Northern Mariana Islands (an American territory)? It didn't take the Supreme Court long to declare it unconstitutional. I don't know what the politicians there thought they could get away with, but this is apparently not one of them. Just how the Constitution applies to the Northern Mariana Islands is complicated, since it is not an actual state, but merely a “territory. But it is solid that the Second Amendment DOES apply there. Maybe they thought since they were an insignificant territory, nobody would notice if they banned guns. But the Second Amendment foundation did, and they took immediate action, which resulted in this decision. One of their citizens wanted a gun after his wife was brutally beaten, but the Island government didn't recognize family protection as a good reason for him to have a gun (as governments usually do, in their ignorance and incompetence). SAF took interest because of the seriousness of his need for a gun, and “righted a wrong.” This decision nullified the government's opposition, as it should have. (Second Amendment Foundation)

They're Always Wrong

The anti-gun fools are always wrong in what they tell us. Sometimes it's an honest mistake, other times it's an outright LIE. They always poo-poo the whole idea that if honest Americans had their own guns, crime stats would drop. And they always do. Even in California, where they are excessively paranoid about gun ownership. Since 2003, gun sales started an upward trend, and have continued upward, ever since, in spite of their excessively stricy gun laws—and guess what? Gun violence has gone DOWN right along with the rise in legal gun sales. They really hate that, because it destroys their narrative. But it keeps happening. Not just in Calofornia, but everywhere it has been tried. Florida, for instance. It was predicted by the anti-gun fools that crimie rates would climb fast as they instituted their “loose gun laws.” But they have NOT, to their dismay. You'd think things l;ike that would cause them to rethink their position. But NO! It only makes them mad, and they not only continue to do stupid things, they do even stupider things—like banning BB guns. (Cal Gun Laws)

Proving It Again

In Venezuela, they don't have a Second Amendment. So they banned gun ownership for the citizens (but not for government agents and cops, of course), and, as predicted, crime rates have gone up. The homicide rate, particularly. It went from 73 per 100,000 to 83 per 100,000 since the ban. Not a spectacular rise, but enough to again prove our contention that fewer guns in the hands of honest citizens would mean lower violent crime. Will the anti-gun fools accept that? Doubtful. Their minds are made up, so don't confuse them with facts. They don't care about facts, anyway. Especially when the facts go against their preconceived notions. Places like Venezuela, where the government is not prohibited from banning guns, become our best “showcase” that banning guns does NOT reduce crime. It only makes citizens more vulnerable to criminals—both the common kind, and those in government, whose crimes are not reported with the activities of common criminals. Homicide rates were already rising in Venezuela before the gun ban, so the rise in violent crime was not dramatic. But they INCREASED the rise after it was passed, again proving our thesis. (Crime Prevention Research Center)

Here We Go Again!

Tuesday morning at about 3AM, our power went off. It took them the better part of two days to get here, then they fixed it in about two hours. Somewhere during the outage our Internet box got turned off. I thought I had turned it back on, but apparently I did something wrong, and the people who know what that might be are not here, as this is written. You will know when we get the problem solved. You will then be able to read this message. I'll get us up and running as soon as I can. I have a lot of work to do before I'm ready to post.

It's Not A "Gun Problem"

Anti-gun fools keep telling us we have a “:gun problem.” That if we would just get rid of guns, the problem would go away. What a damned fool notion that is! If there were no guns, they'd kill us with garbage can lids. Or heavy ash trays! Or their bare hands, if nothing else were available. We don't have a “gun problem,” we have a THUG problem. People who want to intimidate and hurt others, and use guns, because they kill easier. But if guns were not available, they'd still find a way to kill people. Whatever delusion makes these people believe that making laws against honest people owning guns will eliminate all the ILLEGAL guns owned by the thugs, I don't know. I DO know that the ANSWER to the gun violence we see is MORE GUNS in the hands of honest, law-abiding people, so they can kill the thugs as they try to intimidate them. They will NEVER “eliminate guns” by making laws against their ownership and use. So the best defense is guns in OUR hands. (Bearing Arms)

Could Have Called 9/11!

That's what the family of a thug who entered a convenience store and forced the employees to the ground, wielding his ILLEGALLY-owned gun are saying. Meanwhile, a friend of one of the employees got his LEGALLY-owned gun and killed the thug. Fat chance that would do any good, unless a cop was parked right out front and could have done what he did, which is doubtful. Sure, the cops could “document the scene,” get rid of the body or bodies, and MAYBE apprehend the killer or killers later, but what the hell good would that do the victims? Families that criticize people for defending themselves against their illegally-armed thugs are STUPID. The guy who killed the thug is NOT the “bad guy” here. If that thug had not threatened the people in that store with HIS gun, he wouldn't be dead now. I feel no sorrow over his death. He brought it on himself. (Bearing Arms)

They Wanted Drugs

But they got some lead, instead. They knew this old man had a lot of prescription drugs in his home. He's old (so am I). And most old people have to get a lot of drugs (me, too). They wanted some, so they broke in his house and threw him down on his couch, right next to where he kept his gun. So he shot one of them, and both fled, one with wounds. He went a hospital later, and was arrested. We don't know if he “flipped” on his unwounded buddies, but this should be a lesson to thugs like those. You don't get old by being dumb. The Gawker thinks “old folks” shouldn't have guns because they aren't strong enough to handle them. Why then, do so many “old folks” shoot so many burglars and holdup men? It's like most things anti-gun fools tell us. It's WRONG. (Second Amendment Insider)

Ya can't Ban It

So tax it unmercifully! Make it so expensive nobody can afford it! Obama has been searching desperately for ways to stop people from being able to buy guns, so he placed an unreasonable tax of $1,000.00 PER GUN on the purchase of guns. Guns are so expensive anyway, that, alone makes it almost impossible for many people to buy a gun. I know it would, me. But to put that much of a tax on the purchase is really STUPID. But Obama doesn't care about that. It will accomplish his purpose of DISARMING America, to some degree. To inhibit our right to own and use guns for self defense is unconscionable, but Obama doesn't care. It's what he wants, so that's what we're going to have. It will no doubt cause the purchase of guns to decline significantly in the areas that tax is in operation. Not because people don't want them, but because they just can't AFFORD that UNREASONABLE TAX he has put in their way. Obama has his own armed thugs to protect HIM, but he denies the rest of us the same right. That's what fools like him, do. So far, this tax is only effective in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U. S. Territory, but it WILL come here. Bet on it. (The Blaze)

"Why Buy A Gun?"

That's what “the experts” are asking. It amazes me how abysmally STUPID people who are called (and call themselves) EXPERTS, are. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that the most obvious reason people have for buying a gun is for self defense against the fools who have ILLEGAL guns and use them to victimize them. The reason these “experts” don't know that is because they are BIASED against gun ownership. Why intelligent people call these people “experts” when they are ALWAYS wrong is beyond me. Maybe it's because they try and tell us what those who call them “experts” say, and by tagging them with the “expert” label makes their words seem more important. This is how they push their absurd notions onto the rest of us. But it's only those who proudly don't “pay attention to politics” until politics stomps on them, who believe their BS. (Rasmussen Reports)

They Just Don't Know!

Anti-gun fools in Baltimore just can't understand why their recent drive to “confiscate” illegal guns from known criminals didn't result in lowered gun violence. I know why. As usual, their ideas are WRONG. All it did was cause thugs to go out and buy more guns on the black market. Or steal them, more likely. Which they predictably use to commit violent crimes. The fools running this operation are completely blind to this, and will stay that way. They never learn from experience. They just keep on doing the same things, over and over. What they do doesn't work, but they keep on doing it. This is the DEFINITION of insanity, but they don't know that. It's insane in the first place to think that making a LAW against guns will ever stop criminals from getting their guns. They don't obey ANY laws, so why should they obey this one? The answer is more guns in the hands of HONEST people, so they can “kill off” some of the bad guys when the bad guys try to victimize them. That will reduce gun violence. You can't shoot people if you're dead. (Baltimore Sun)

He's Gonna "Fix It"

I'm trying to stay neutral here, but Ted Cruz is doing things that make me lean more and more to his side and away from Trump. Of course, since he isn't yet a government electee, he can't do the things Cruz is doing. But Cruz is going “right to the heart” of Obama's scheme to make life miserable for gun dealers. He has sponsored a bill (with Mike Lee, of Utah) to put a stop to Obama's regulatory abuse of gun dealers. It's “The Financial Institution Consumer Protection Act.” This act, if it becomes law, will put a stop to Obama's regulatory agencies bullying financial institutions into denying gun dealers loans unless they have good and solid, LEGITIMATE reasons. I only hope this bill will pass, considering how many anti-gun FOOLS are voting. Not to even mention all the subservient to Obama Republicans who are voting, too. The Deck is truly stacked against gun dealers, who are selling a legal product, now. (Courtney O'Brien)

Finger On The Trigger

FINGER ON TRIGGER: I've talked, several times, about Sen. Feinstein, one of the most rabid anti-gun fools, who knows NOTHING about handling guns, waving an automatic weapon around in a room filled with cringing politicians with her finger on the trigger. Here is a picture to prove it. (Just common sense)

Guns Come From Vermont

That's what Hillary is intimating when she says “Most guns come from small, rural states,” although they are used in the “big cities” to commit crimes. In saying so, she is blaming Bernie's home state for the “crime problem.” That's a clear stretch, but many of the fools who “pay no attention to politics” and get their information only from the headlines and TV will believe her. This is a common liberal scam, used in elections, to slander an opponent. They also say Hillary could pull the large crowds Bernie commonly gets, if she wanted to. So why doesn't she? I can't believe she doesn't “want to.” I'm really getting sick and tired of the horse manure being spouted on BOTH SIDES. She ignores Bernie's anti-gun stance in doing this, of course. It pains me to see all the anti-gun fools running for powerful offices, where they will try to make more of their STUPID “gun laws” that do nothing but DISARM honest, law-abiding people, while IGNORING all the ILLEGAL guns that are sold to criminals. (Leah Barkoukis)

Anti-Gun Fairy Tales

The NRA has come up with a couple of “fairy tales” showing what would happen if the victims in the tales had been armed. One is “Red Riding Hood,” the other is “Hansel and Gretel.” Both ended with the wolf or the “wicked witch” no longer a problem. The “Brady Bunch” came up with their own “fairy tale,” starring “Alice in Wonderland.” It was supposed to reinforce their “fairy tale” that lots of kids kill themselves because they think guns are “playthings,” by having her shoot herself. Which it does. But one thing it IGNORES. The fact that families who TEACH their kids about guns and gun handling, and that they are NOT “playthings,” fare better in that respect, than families who treat guns as “the item that shall not be named.” Those kids have a much higher number of gun accidents than do families who actually TEACH their kids about guns—which is what NRA is all about, in addition to resisting all efforts to DISARM honest people, leaving the field open to ILLEGAL gun-owning criminals. (Nate Jackson)

Are We Terrorists?

Hillary thinks we are, if we have, or want to have guns for self defense. This is a typical liberal way to assign false images to her opponents—and we ARE her opponents, in this issue, and many others. But I have never murdered anybody. I have not beheaded any children to make a point. Nor have I ever raped anybody or done the other things terrorists do. I RESENT the implications of her portrayal of me, just because I don't want to be defenseless if a thug or real terrorist confronts me with HIS gun. This opinion, on her part, is but one more reason why she should never be allowed NEAR the Oval Office. Not even as a visitor. Somebody needs to slap this fool down (figuratively speaking, of course, for you feds looking for “key words.”). This is a common scam used by liberals forever. Call their opponents names, and intimate they're “really bad people.” They do the same when asked a “tough question” they can't answer without hurting themselves. Just call the questioner names, and impute nastiness into what they're saying, without even ATTEMPTING to answer their question. People like that are SCUM, and should not be considered for ANY elected, or appointed office. (Eagle Rising)

Increasing Suicide Rate?

Liberals are “concerned” that lowering the age of those in the military who could have guns after separation would increase the military suicide rate. Why, that's jist turribl! Seems to me if they're in the military, whose business is to kill people and break things. They SHOULD be allowed to carry guns in order to accomplish that. Of course, in their jobs in the military, they CAN carry and use a gun. But when they come home to Colorado, they can't get one unless they are 21! Do they really think somebody contemplating killing themselves will care about breaking a law against buying a gun? This antiquated requirement completely ignores the fact that they are highly trained to use guns, and are dependable in their use. A Greely politician is trying to change that, sponsoring legislation to lower that age for underage members of the military, or those honorably discharged from same. I doubt the bill will go far in the Democrat-dominated Colorado legislature, but it's a step in the right direction. (Greely Tribune)

Gun Sales Up, Crime Down

That's something the anti-gun fools want to admit, but it's true. They whine and moan about “rising gun violence,” but the REALITY is, gun crime is now at it's LOWEST since the FBI began keeping the figures, back in the sixties. And it's NOT because of their USELESS gun laws. It's because more and more honest, law abiding folks are getting guns, in SPITE of the government's efforts to put a stop to it. The anti-gun fools keep telling us that more legal guns on the streets will mean “skyrocketing gun violence.” But to their dismay, it doesn't. Gun deaths might rise for a while, as honest people KILL illegal gun owners who try and victimize them, but soon it will go down more as there are then FEWER illegal gun carriers being killed. You'd think the anti-gun fools would get the idea. But they aren't intelligent enough, apparently. (Second Amendment Insider)

"Ready! Fire! Aim!"

As usual, they're aiming in the wrong direction when somebody got killed with an ILLEGAL weapon, which it is ALREADY ILLEGAL TO OWN or carry. The New Orleans Saints reporter Brian Alee Walsh is calling for more of the same “gun control” crap that has NOT worked in the past, and which only disarms honest, law abiding people. Of course, that makes it easier for people like the fool who killed former New Orleans Saints player Will Smith, over a “fender bender” (it appears). One day maybe, we'll elect some INTELLIGENT politicians who will “take aim” in the right direction before passing laws that DO NOT do what they are supposed to do, and pass laws that WILL “reduce gun violence.” But since turning blue doesn't appeal to me, I won't be holding my breath until that happens. (Bearing Arms)

"Officials Wonder"

In N. Carolina, “officials wonder” why gun permit applications have DOUBLED in Cumberland County. They do note, however, that a base cause might be that the citizens are expecting the feds to “take their guns.” How buying another gun would nullify that, I don't know. I'd bet rising violent crime rates have something to do with it. They just want to be able to defend themselves against criminals, crazies, and the Islamic terrorists Obama insists on foisting upon us. That's MY reason, anyway. If somebody takes a shot at me, or otherwise attacks me, I want that to be the last thing he does in his life whether I live or die. Politicians, as usual, disregard self defense as a reason to want be armed, period. So when we go out and get the means to self defense, they are “puzzled” as to why we would do such a thing. They think the only viable reason to want a gun is hunting. (Fayetteville Observer)

"Old Folks Can't Shoot?"

We recently commented about a liberal news source (Gawker) saying elderly people shouldn't be allowed to have guns because they're too “old and weak” to use them. But don't try to tell that to the guy who was trying to break into this elderly gentleman's home. Oh. I forgot. You can't. He's dead. This “old guy” fired a “warning shot” that killed him. So much for “old folks” not being able to properly use guns for self defense. The other two bad guys are probably still running. “Gawker alert!” You were wrong, and your article showed age discrimination. That makes you bigots. But you can tell the “bad guys” this “old guy” properly handled his gun if you ever find them in the “tall and uncut,” where they were headed when last seen. That should be a warning to burglars who want to “target” old folks because of that Gawker article—DON'T. Not if you want to stay alive. And don't bring a baseball bat to a gunfight. Not if you want to go home tonight. The “authorities” are wondering why this old guy had a gun near at hand. But the answer is simple: to deal with such as those three thugs. Or any others that might show up. And, being old, he might not have been able to get to his gun fast enough if it was hidden away in the “gun safes” some laws require. Or if it was secured by a “gun lock.” (Bearing Arms)

Is He Stupid? Or What?

The Army Chief of staff says guns in the hands of soldiers at Ft. Hood would not have stopped the killing there. What kind of crap is he smoking? This guy is the boss of the Army. And he thinks if his soldiers had been armed, they couldn't have stopped ONE Muslim FOOL from killing other soldiers? And this guy is RUNNING the Army? We're DOOMED! If the guy running the Army doesn't think armed soldiers can't stop one loony Muslim from killing a bunch of people on a military base, he's not fit to be an Army commander. He's “following Obama's stupid line of thinking,” which is going to cause us to LOSE. If people like him remain in charge, soon we'll all either be Muslim, or dead. (Town Hall)

Black Lives DON'T Matter!

Not to black thugs, apparently, anyway. Who shot and killed Will Smith, the football player, over a fender bender”? A black man? Or “whitey:?” A black man, of course. Anti-gun fools keep assuring us that if we allow honest, law-abiding people to carry guns for self protection, there'd be killings in the streets over something trivial, like a fender bender. Guess what? We largely don't allow them to be armed, and we STILL get killings over fender benders! Why? Because criminals don't OBEY laws! The “Black Lives Matter bunch say there isn't any “black on black crime.” What would they call this murder? That bunch of fools only want to intimidate cops so they hesitate in shooting black thugs long enough so the black thugs can kill them. At the same time. They PROMOTE the idea of killing cops, so as to make them nervous and more “trigger happy,” so as to create the conditions they SAY were already there. Of course, they'll call me racist for pointing these things out, but they'd be wrong. I judge people as INDIVIDUALS, not by the group they happen to be in. And I judge these “Black Lives Matter” individuals as fools. Black, white, or purple with pink polka-dots. (ABC News)

The People Speak

The government proposes, the people oppose. Obama and his fools think we should not be armed and able to defend ourselves against ILLEGALLY armed criminals, crazies, and soon Islamic terrorists, which he is importing at taxpayer expense, by the hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile, the people buy more guns than ever before, and gun sales go “through the roof.” More guns have been sold recently than ever before. And that doesn't even count the guns sold by illegal dealers, to criminals and other “bad guys,” under the table. Sorry, Obama, the people insist on being able to defend themselves. And they have the right to do so, guaranteed by the Constitution. And that right remains, in spite of all your attempts to do away with it, and all your attempts to put roadblocks in the way of gun ownership and use, like gun locks, forcing owners to store their guns inaccessibly, gun-free zones, etc. You're governing against the will of the people, not only in gun rights, but other rights you have successfully taken away or diffused with excessive regulation, like penalizing people for objecting to letting men stand beside women in the same restroom while they “do their business.” You are a FOOL, and we will be well rid of you in January, 2017. If not, we will “take you out.” You can only walk on free people for so long before they get rid of you. (Town Hall)

He's Not Satisfied

Obama is not satisfied with the current number of Islamic terrorists being allowed into this country, so he's going to have his own “surge,” which will INCREASE their numbers considerably. Apparently, he's not satisfied with the low number of Americans being killed by Islamic terrorist attacks here. So he's doing something about it. More Americans killed by guns (which Islamic terrorists use a lot, when they're not beheading or raping children and adults), which will give him excuses to make even more of his USELESS “gun laws.” He wants to import 10,000 of them by September 30th. That's going to cause many more gun deaths in America, especially in California, Chicago, and other places where “gun laws” as we know them, are tight. In support of this hair-brained idea, he's “interviewing” 600 Muslims a DAY, which is costing US a LOT of money to pay those “interviewers.” Plus the money he spends to pay their way here. All of which he steals from the taxpayers. (Washington Examiner)

"It's Outrageous Claptrap!"

That's what the NRA has to say about the recent article claiming “old people” should not be allowed guns because they're “too feeble” to be able to use them. That this was a bigoted and condescending statement is obvious. Only a FEW “old folks” are “too feeble” to use a gun, but that doesn't make them legally banned from owning one. The article suggested they “just wait for help to arrive,” which could be their DEATH. I agree with the NRA on this, because I am one of those “old folks” and, while I can barely walk because of old injuries, I'm fully able to aim and fire a weapon if necessary. Such things should only be decided on a “case by case basis” with only the most infirm “old folks” being affected. If such people even WANT to be armed. To get a gun probably isn't something that's on their minds. In this article, the NRA gives many good suggestions on gun handling for folks with somewhat less hand strength, for automatic weapons. Revolvers, however, are a lot less trouble for “old folks” and I recommend them. Yes, they have smaller amounts of ammunition without reloading. But if an old person needs more than six, he/she's in trouble, anyway. (America's 1st Freedom)

Is Schumer The Dumbest?

Is he the dumbest anti-gun politician out there? NO. There are many stupid politicians and a lot of other dumb people vying for that title. I'm reminded of that female politician in Washington State who is known for her anti-gun attempts, and who blurted out one day, “Guns shock and sicken me," thus admitting publicly her bias. But Schumer is one of the strongest stupid politicians on gun issues, because of his position. He's against the “cell phone-looking” two-shot, hard to reload derringer as if it would be a real danger. It's not. But don't tell him that. It's a gun, isn't it? And he doesn't want ANYBODY in America to have a gun, of any kind (except for him or his liberal friends, of course). This gun is a perfectly legal product, but he is “calling down” the full weight of the federal government on the company proposing it, even though it has not yet even come up with one. In a real world, the manufacturer would be able to sue him for slander after the LIES he has told about their product. But unfortunately, they made laws that exempt themselves from such things that us peasants must suffer under if we libel anybody. What he's doing is feeding the “anti-gun hysteria” among liberals, and hoping we'll take it up and allow him to BAN it. (Bearing Arms)

"He Disagrees! Fire Him!"

Like most liberals, they just can't stand opposition, of any kind. Richard Jurgena, recently appointed to the board that gets to decide who may be allowed to “concealed carry,” thinks the requirement that an applicant have “good reason” to need to carry a gun is unconstitutional—which it is—should be removed from the board, They say they want to make sure their board members are not “philosophically opposed” to what they do. Meaning they want them to be “philosophically BIASED in FAVOR of what they do. They just can't stand the idea that one of their own would be philosophically opposed to ANYTHING they do. So they naturally want to get rid of him. They'd prosecute him and imprison him if they could. Like they want to do to “global warming deniers.” Oh. I forgot. It's “climate change” now, so they can attribute ANY kind of weather anomaly to it. They're deathly afraid of ANYBODY who disagrees with them. Just like they are, here, and want to get rid of them, at ALL costs. (Baltimore Sun)

They'll Use Any Excuse

Any excuse to make it harder on gun owners, or potential gun owners. What is a “bullet button?” It's a magazine lock. They want to BAN all guns USING a “bullet button” and make it so current owners would not be able to transfer ownership to a relative, or transfer it to anybody else. And if you own one, you will be in a “special file” at the Department of Justice. That's in SPITE of the law preventing the feds from creating ANY new databases, passed in the seventies. The bill would also BAN future sales of these weapons, and if you have one, your kids can't inherit it. I'm sure they use the “bullet button” aspect of it to say banning them is constitutional—it is NOT. But again, they'll use any excuse to make it more difficult for law-abiding people to own and use guns in self defense while ignoring the existence of all the ILLEGAL guns out there. Leaving illegally armed criminals free to victimize you, since they neither register their guns, NOR follow their silly “gun laws.” Defending yourself is not a sufficient reason to have a gun, according to them. (AmmoLand)

"Gun Maker Immunity"

That's what Hillary is whining about now. She thinks people victimized by criminals, using ILLEGALLY-obtained guns, should be able to SUE the maker of that gun for damages. It's just one more way for liberals to make it harder on honest Americans, who only want to be able to defend themselves against those criminals. If she gets this passed, no manufacturer of ANY product will be safe against such suits, for which they are not responsible. For instance, if a “crazy man” steals a car and drives through a crowd at a bus stop, should the car maker be responsible? Hell, no! The maker can't be responsible every time somebody misuses his product. This idea is DESIGNED to kill the gun industry, but, as usual, liberals don't look at the big picture. Thus, they don't see how this can destroy commerce, period. (Bearing Arms)

More Roadblocks

They can't just BAN guns. So they're doing everything they can to make the guns we do own USELESS. They make laws to impose gun locks, that slow us down in getting the gun into operation when we're threatened by an ILLEGAL gun-wielding criminal. They insist we keep your guns in “lock boxes” that again slow us down when attacked. They impose “gun-free zones” and sponsor “gun buyback programs,” which spend a lot of our money and give criminals more money for their old, unusable guns to use in buying newer, better ones. The next thing is to make it more expensive and more difficult to buy ammunition. A gun without ammunition is a door stop. They now want to REGISTER those buying ammunition and LICENSE them, after a BACKGROUND CHECK on the purchaser.. And they want to TAX the purchase, making ammunition more expensive.(Eagle Rising)

Improbable Wishes

That's all the anti-gun fools have: improbable wishes. But they keep wishing, and making more and more useless “gun laws” that don't work. Gun buybacks, for instance. Everywhere they have been tried, they haven't worked. they create bigger and bigger gun black markets, as they did in Australia. Just like banning booze did in our own history. It created a big black market in booze and led to the rise of the Mafia and organized crime. Ban something, and you inevitably have a black market in it. Gun locks are another pipe dream. They make legally-owned guns useless because it takes too long to get them into operation when you're threatened by a criminal with an ILLEGAL gun, which is ALREADY in action. Then there are “gun-free zones.”

Whenever I see a sign to that effect on a business, I “beat feet” in the other direction, taking my business and my money with me. Because that sign tells me my life is in more danger there because it's an “open invitation” for a criminal to bring his gun in there and kill people. Universal gun registration is just as stupid because all it does is (maybe) help the cops find a shooter AFTER the killing, and that's only IF the shooter used a legally-owned gun, which criminals usually don't. The list of such damfoolishness is long, and I don't have room here to list all of them. But it does seem that ALL of them make it easier for ILLEGAL gun owners to victimize honest people who OBEY laws and regulations, which criminals do not. If they ever come up with a law that really DOES reduce gun violence, I'll be right with them. But I'm not fond of turning blue, so I'm not holding my breath until it happens. (Town Hall)

They Just Don't Get It!

Anti-gun fools keep trying to figure out why Americans are so against “gun control.” Just like they can't figure out why we're concerned about Islamic terrorism, while wondering why they're so mad at us, even though they've told us, many times. They're always coming up with “reasons,” that don't hold water. One of those reasons today is “white resentment,” which predictably introduces racism into the equation. Since Obama's first election, racism has been used as an excuse to ignore and explain away opposition to everything Obama wants to do. He said it would no longer happen if we elected him, but he has been PUSHING racism ever since he got elected, calling ALL OPPOSITION racism. They just can't seem to understand that Americans just want to be able to defend themselves against the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there, in the hands of murderous people. It's as simple as that, and we still have constitutional protection for that right. They can't just make laws against gun ownership because of that, so they do everything they can to make the guns we do own USELESS. Like “gun locks,” and forcing us to store the guns inaccessibly so it takes too long to get it into action when we're attacked by an ILLEGAL gun-wielding criminal, who has no such restrictions on his gun. (Washington Post)

Switzerland Safer Now

I wonder why? Could it be that gun permit applications are up? And more Swiss are armed and can defend themselves against illegally armed criminals? Our politicians say no. But reality proves otherwise. Switzerland has a “militia system” where citizens are considered to be members of a “national militia” and are required to keep guns in their homes. We “flirted with” such a system at the time the Constitution was written, which is the reason the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution. But guns were only ALLOWED, and not REQUIRED. In the long run, it was mostly abandoned, as the left-wing anti-gun fools became more successful in blaming the guns for “gun violence.” Switzerland, however, maintains it, which means armed criminals have a tougher time of it, since “looser” gun laws always mean more difficulty in getting illegal guns. As I have always said, more guns in the hands of law-abiding people means more crimes with “sharp instruments.” Gun crime hasn't gone down everywhere, but lower gun crime has been a TREND in most places there. We could take a lesson from them, but with our incompetent politicians, we won't. And we will keep fighting over whether or not honest people can be armed, while criminals continue to get their guns illegally and kill more honest people. (Swiss Info)

Creating Gun Violence

Everything Obama does, it seems, increases things Obama says he is against. He SAYS he is “against gun violence,” but then he releases 33 felons convicted of gun violence, so they can INCREASE the amount of gun violence and give him an excuse to make more and more “gun laws.” That's the only reason I can see for him to arbitrarily release criminals KNOWN for their “gun violence,” so they'll increase gun violence in the service of his campaign to disarm America (except for his people and the cops, that is). Importing Islamic terrorists in the guise of “refugees” is another. He KNOWS that many of them are Islamic terrorists who will help him increase gun violence as they go about killing Infidels, so that fits well into his plan. That more people will die in both cases does not concern him. He figures “you gotta break eggs to make an omelet,” so their lives don't matter. (CNS News)

More "Gun-Free" Ignorance

Greensboro, NC based “Fresh “Fresh Markets” caved in to the demands of “Moms for insensible gun policy” (or some such damfoolishness) and is now “asking” their customers not to bring guns into their stores. If I lived there, that would be a signal to me that they don't want me to bring my BODY or my money into their stores, either, because, with a “stroke of a pen” they made any visit to their stores more dangerous for me. All because they're IGNORANT of the fact that criminals, who have their ILLEGAL guns, and no fear of violating their policy, can be pretty sure law-abiding people will not be armed there, and they will meet no armed opposition. In other words, an “easy target.” No gun policies, like ALL the current “gun laws” or “policies,” do not work, and make it more dangerous for honest people to be where such policies are in force. Soon, there will be several illustrations of this, as armed criminals (who obey NO LAWS or “policies”) come in and victimize the UNARMED people in their stores. (Bearing Arms)

What Are They Smokin?'

There seems to be a malady affecting all anti-gun fools: the belief that all they have to do is “pass a law” and that will “solve the gun violence problem.” But that's not all of it. Everything they come up with has the same drawback: they don't work. Like “gun locks.” All they do is make it harder for law-abiding people who HAVE guns to get them into action fast enough to be able to repulse an ILLEGAL gun owner who is trying to victimize them, and will CERTAINLY cause an increase in “gun deaths” Everything they do seems like it is designed to make it harder on honest gun owners while doing NOTHING about ILLEGAL gun carriers. Then there are the “gun buybacks,” which allow criminals to “trade-in” their old, broken down guns for money to buy newer, better guns to use in victimizing honest people. And gun registry lists, which do nothing except give them lists of LEGAL gun owners while IGNORING illegal gun owners who do not register their guns. Everything they do ONLY affects LEGAL gun owners, while doing NOTHING to reduce “gun crime.” Are they all “drinking the same Kool-Aid?” (Just common sense)

Clinging to Their Stupidity

We tell them and tell them their ideas don't work. Their laws get people KILLED, and do NOTHING to “stem gun violence,” and it's as if we said nothing at all. They keep declaring certain places as “gun-free zones,” and the very next day, or next week, some fool brings a gun into that place and shoots somebody. It's like they want to prove us right. But the anti-gun fools STILL don't “get the message.” They call for “more gun laws” and spend time and money making the same old, tired laws that accomplish NOTHING. They establish databases listing legal gun owners that ignore ILLEGAL gun owners who don't “sign up” for their vaunted databases. Business owners put up signs saying, “no guns allowed” and right away some fool comes in and robs them at gunpoint. And they call for more gun laws that do NOTHING. This is repeated every time some fool uses a gun to kill people.

They cling to their stupidity, no matter how many times we point out what stupidity it is. What's WRONG with these people? All they have to do is give honest, law-abiding people the right to own and use the means to their self-defense, a gun, and soon all the ILLEGAL gun owners who try to victimize people will be either dead or in prison. And when they're dead, they won't be “committing gun violence” any more. And when they're in prison, they won't either—as long as they stay in prison, if Obama doesn't “commute their sentences.” That will significantly reduce gun violence. But they won't hear of it. They ridicule people who suggest it, even though it has been PROVED it works everywhere it has been tried. How many people have DIED in Chicago, where every stupid law they push has been tried? We need to re-educate these people if they're capable of learning ANYTHING. (Breitbart)

Chicago: The "Showcase City"

Most cities would treasure the nomination to be a “showcase city” for one thing and another. But Chicago would probably just as soon NOT be the “showcase city” for the most shootings and killings. Rahm Emanuel would just as soon Chicago would not be known as one of the BEST cities in the nation in which to get killed by gunfire. It's a panic. But Rahm can't figure out how to “make the most of this panic.” He's one of those fools who think making a LAW against guns will actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while the laws he makes serve only to DISARM honest, law-abiding people and give “free-rein” to ILLEGALLY-armed criminals, who find it easier to get their guns illegally when “gun laws” are the tightest—which they are, in Chicago. Their laws, instead or LOWERING gun crime, have almost DOUBLED it. Murders are up 72%, while shootings are up 88% in the first three months of 2016, over that of 2015. Chicago is, indeed, a “showcase city” that other cities should learn from. Not as a GOOD example, but as a BAD example. (MSN)

Spreading Stupidity

Liberals seem like they're “spreading their stupidity” faster and faster these days. One example is the $15.00 an hour minimum wage damned foolishness that is GUARANTEED to increase both unemployment, and the advent of businesses, particularly those using beginning members of the workforce who aren't WORTH $15.00 an hour because they have no skills or ability and have to be expensively trained to do the simplest things go out of business. As 700 restaurants in Seattle, which made such a law, do within DAYS of the law's imposition. Businesses that can't afford that will either get rid of jobs for those people by firing them, or by “robotizing” the jobs, making such employees unnecessary. Businesses who can't find any other way to function without those inexperienced workers will simply go out of business.

But don't try to tell the liberals this. They're deaf to reality. Then we have the FOOLS who support Bernie Sanders, the admitted SOCIALIST. He draws big crowds of ignorant people who have no idea the suffering socialism will bring them if they elect him president (which, fortunately, is unlikely). Then there are the “anti-gun fools,” of which Bernie is one, who think all they have to do is make a LAW against guns and that will make CRIMINALS, who obey NO laws, say, “Oh; it's against the law for me to use a gun to commit a crime, so I won't do it.” They also think putting people's name on a “gun registry” will stop criminals, who get their guns ILLEGALLY and don't register them, from using them to commit crimes. I could list many other stupidities, such as the “no gun zones": the liberals force upon us, but I just don't have the room here. I'm sure you could come up with a few of your own—that is, if you have any intelligence, at all, which I hope you do. (Just common sense)

Laws for Us, Not for Them

That's how it is with politicians. They make laws we have to follow, and exempt themselves from them. This is true in the Arizona legislature, as well as many other places, where pro-gun laws get “shot down.” Maybe next time you see that headline, you should see if they were shot down with real bullets, since Arizona lawmakers can carry guns into their lawmaking body, whereas we can't. You can bring a gun into the legislature, but not if you're not a member of the House. They recently quietly removed the “No Guns Allowed” sign from the back entrance (the one used by the legislators, of course). But they left the signs up on the front entrance—the ones we peasants use. The Speaker of the House says it's “perfectly legal” to make laws that apply to us peasants, but not the “exalted” lawmakers. (Arizona Central)