"Let Me Count the Ways"

How many different ways can you say the same thing? There is one basic premise to this blog, and I've said it every way I can think of. It is, very simply, this: "The way to self defense is NOT to disarm yourself." But no matter how many times I say it, and in how many ways, I can't get through the thick skulls of the anti-gun fools. They are bound and determined to take away every legal gun they can, under Whatever pretext they can come up with. That this not deter armed criminals in any way seems to elude them. The criminals still get their guns, any way they can. They buy them illegally, from other criminals in a back alley, somewhere. Or they steal them from an unwary legal gun owner who doesn't take sufficient care to prevent their theft. Writing down the names of legal gun owners will not; nor will designating places where guns cannot be brought, will not; "safe storage" laws will not. Nor will all the other laws and regulations they make to disarm law-abiding people. The ONE WAY to defend against an illegally armed gunsel is another gun--in the hand of a law-abiding person. That person can reduce gun violence by KILLING that gunsel. Experience proves that a dead gunsel kills very few people. (Jusr common sense)

Watts Ends Political Run

The mouthpiece for "MOMS Against Guns" (or something like that) spent the summer considering a run for the senate. She even moved to Boulder, CO so she could run for the seat to be vacated by Jaren Polis, who plans to run for governor, and score an easy victory over no incumbent opponent.. She says she decided her efforts to subvert the Second Amendment to the Constitution were more important. But I suspect that, more important was a certain inability to raise enough money and support in Colorado to get the job done. But anti-gun fools everywhere should not worry. Another anti-gun fool, Ken Toltz, is running for that seat, and probably win, since Dumocrats usually win in Colorado. Almost everything here is blue. One day I'm going to ask an anti-gun fool how they can justify making their life's work to subvert the Constitution that lays the boundaries for ALL our laws. Maybe they can give me a cogent answer--maybe not. (Breitbart)

Typical Anti-Gun Ignorance

The Scientific American, no less, has come out with an article that says basically that "more guns equals more crime and more rape." Which is a very ignorant statement. Only more guns in the hands of "bad guys" means that. More guns in the hands of the law-abiding means LESS crime, rape, and murders. These people are supposed to be in the "upper echelon" of Intelligence. Instead, they prove themselves to be as ignorant as are ALL anti-gun fools who think they can eliminate crime by getting rid of guns. Intelligent people know that even if you COULD get rid of all guns in the hands of law-abiding people, the thugs and murderers, and rapists would have a field day in the absence of ANY meaningful opposition. Those who don't obey laws will always be able to get guns. They can't stop that, so they content themselves with disarming the law-abiding, and think they're doing something good. Crime continues on, and even INCREASES when honest people don't have the means to self defense. But they pat themselves on the back and keep on doing stupid things.(Scientific American)

Intent vs, Effect

The anti-gun fools will confidently tell you that they INTEND to get rid of guns, period, and thereby "stop crime in its tracks." But they don't know how to stop CRIMINALS, who don't obey laws, from getting the guns they nuse to victimize the law-abiding, so they content themselves with disarming the law-abiding. The net EFFECT is to INCREASE crime by making the law-abiding people DEFENSELESS against the ILLEGAL guns held by the criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists, who have pledged to kill as many "unbelievers" as they can. They will tell you confidently that, if they can get rid of all the guns not in the hands of "the authorities," crime will stop. This is a "Pollyanna effect." First of all, they will NEVER be able to get rid of ALL the guns not in the hands of the "authorities." And if they could, who will then put limits on "the authorities," some of whom commit their own crimes? They really think that the way to self defense is to become defenseless. That's another "Pollyanna idea." I think, way down deep, they WANT the criminals to succeed, and this is the way to do it. (Just common sense)

McAuliffe Must Be Mad

The court in Charleston, W VA, a close neighbor of the state of which he is governor, ruled AGAINST the prohibition to legal gun carriers bringing their guns onto some city property, anywhere (mostly). School property was excepted. That's pretty close to anti-gun Virginia. Does that show a trend in the area? Will other cases be similarly decided, and will some anti-gun laws be repealed? That'll sure make Terry mad. The City of Charleston has enforced these unconstitutional laws for the last four years while the issue made its way through the courts. Will they work to eliminate the effects of their illegal decisions? Probably not, unless the courts order them to do so. It really frosts me how so many politicians (and bureaucrats) can be so stupid as to make laws they have to know are unconstitutional if they are intelligent--and I don't think they are simpletons, although they make it look like they are. (AmmoLand)

Bobbies Getting Smart

"We live in dangerous times," say London's cops, as more and more of them want to be armed. As if they didn't "live in dangerous times" before this. But it is true. with criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists being routinely armed, cops don't want to be counted among the defenseless when confronting these people--and they're smart to do so. It is the politician and bureaucrat, who doesn't have to come face-to-face with these criminals, who insist on keeping cops AND law-abiding citizens disarmed, and therefore defenseless against these criminals, who always seem to get their guns, legal or otherwise. That little fact is always ignored, in their hysterical efforts to eliminate as many guns as they can. Their laws do NOTHING to "stem gun violence," and if they're intelligent, they must know that. But they insist on making these useless laws, making honest people DEFENSELESS against these "bad guys." I can only assume that they WANT honest people to be "sitting ducks." The simple answer is to arm these people so they can "clean out" those criminals. But the politicians and bureaucrats, who are safe in their castles, don't agree. (Independent)

Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

I've been telling them for years that the way to slow the criminals down in their gun use is to make using a gun in a crime much more costly for them in terms of the longer sentences that can bring. But the anti-gun fools disagree. They say that mandatory minimums are "ineffective" (I don't know how they can support that) and expensive (Sure, it costs more to keep crooks in prison longer), as well as racially discriminatory (sure, always racism) and unlikely to reduce recidivism (I don't think they have ANY figures to support that)." And recidivism is not the problem. It is the FIRST crime that is the problem. Making it more costly for the criminal WILL have the effect of making them think twice before using a gun in committing a crime, lest it get them much longer prison sentences--and it WILL work the same way in keeping them away from guns later. Remember, these are the people who confidently think the way to self defense is to make yourself DEFENSELESS. (City Lab)

Befuddled Thinking

The mayor of Milwaukee thinks passing "constitutional carry" would "flood the streets with more guns, and we don't need more guns on the streets." Wow! Just where does he think all those guns will be coming from? Passing it would simply allow the law-abiding to have guns to defend themselves against all the ILLEGAL guns out there in the hands of criminals and other bad guys. It would NOT increase the number of guns out there, only the hands in which they reside. Bad guys do not register their guns, nor do they buy them legally, as a rule. Yes, there are a few fools who haven't YET committed a crime who can buy a gun legally--until they use it in a crime--but, as a rule, those with crime in mind get their guns illegally, or just steal them. So concealed carry would not significantly INCREASE the number of guns out there. It would just give the law-abiding an equal chance against the illegal guns. And soon the number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals will decrease, because the law-abiding will kill them when threatened. (Keep and Bear)

It Happened Again!

A citizen with a gun stopped a mass shooter before he could kill more than one in a church in Nashville, Tenn. The citizen was a church usher, who shot the shooter as he randomly was shooting people in the church, killing one, and wounding about 7 others. He was wounded, and stopped from killing any more people. The anti-gun fools say this never happens, but it is happening more and more as more and more people are allowed to buy and carry guns for self defense. The shooter is a Sudanese immigrant, and nobody's saying if he is a legal resident, or not. After he does his earned prison time, he should be sent back to the Sudan where he can shoot people as much as he wishes. This proves again that the anti-gun fools don't have a clue. Armed citizens CAN, and DO make a difference, and they do NOT "go nuts" and shoot people for trifles, as the anti-gun fools maintain. When are they going to learn? Probably never. Their minds are made up. So don't confuse them with facts. (Liberty Headlines)

Gun Grabber Has Gun

Camiella Williams hates guns. She had been an anti-gun fool for a long time, since she has lost several family members to gun violence. And the rhetoric put out by other anti-gun fools is what she hears, all the time, so she "bought" it, and became an anti-gun fool herself. But that isn't completely true. she got her first gun at age 12 (which was illegal because she was underage), and has been a gun owner ever since. Meanwhile, she worked hard to keep everybody ELSE from having a gun for self defense. This is getting to be a pattern for anti-gun fools. Work to disarm everybody else, while owning their own guns. Sen. Feinstein, one of the loudest anti-gun fools, goes about surrounded by armed security. And even that is not enough. She has her own gun, and a "carry permit." This is typical liberal hypocritical behavior. There was once a liberal columnist who was an avid anti-gun fool, who revealed his hypocrisy by taking a shot at a teenager he found using his pool without permission. This is becoming so common, it's not even unusual, any more, for an anti-gun fool to quietly own his own guns while opposing that right for others. (Bearing Arms)

They Don't Reduce Crime!

As is noted in the linked article, gun buybacks get many headlines, but do NOTHING to reduce crime. In fact, they give the "bad guys" an opportunity to get money to buy NEW guns, by turning over old, unreliable guns to get money from the cops to buy new ones that are reliable to use in their crimes. They steal cheap guns, then sell them to the cops (or whatever gullible people are running the buyback). The cops get nice pictures of piles of guns, most of them inoperable, for the local papers, and crime continues, unabated. The cops pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves on "getting x number of guns off the street." Meanwhile, the crooks use the money THEY provided to get new guns. They have to know this, but it doesn't even slow them down in their quest to disarm the law-abiding. The "authorities admit it makes no difference, but it's an "easy thing to do" and the public demands it. Not a good reason to waste time, money, and effort. (The Buffalo News)

Gun Control Is Stupid!

It just plain does not work! It's amazing to me that an entire group of people can remain as STUPID as are the anti-gun fools! They have to know that not a single one of their laws work, and that they even INCREASE gun crime by disarming the law-abiding and making them "sitting ducks" for those who do not obey their laws. But they use every instance of a mass shooting (or any kind of a shooting, even a NON-shooting) to advance their silly goals. If somebody takes a KNIFE, or a BAT, or any other weapon and hurts people with it, they clamor for more of the same stupid laws they KNOW don't work. I'm beginning to believe their purpose is NOT to "stem gun violence," but to make the law-abiding helpless when THEY come to take what's theirs. They don't want any of their agents falling victim to an armed citizen when they come after their property. And they HAVE done so in the past. I remember fully the story of a rancher whose property a sheriff coveted for a new sheriff's station. He wouldn't sell, so they phonied up some "drug charges" and raided him in the early morning. He didn't know what was happening, and came out with a gun in his hand. so they killed him, and bought the ranch for a song from his grieving widow. It seems to me that's what they're after. (Just common sense)

Are We Obsessed With Guns?

Are we obsessed with guns, or does the media just want people to think we are? The answer is, No. And yes. the media DOES want people to think we are obsessed with guns. The truth is, it is the anti-gun fools who are obsessed with guns--taking them away from all law-abiding citizens, that is. And we have to meet them with significant opposition to KEEP our constitutional right to be armed for self defense. Truth is, owning and using a gun IS a RIGHT, not a privilege, to be regulated tightly. But that's not what certain politicians think, wrong though they may be. And they continue to make unconstitutional laws and regulations that we must oppose, at every turn, or LOSE that right. No, it's NOT an obsession, on OUR part. It IS, on THEIR part. They think (or PRETEND to think) that taking guns away from the law-abiding will stop those who DON'T obey laws from getting their guns. That's been proven wrong, time and time again, but they never tumble to reality. (Liberty Park Press)

Wrong Again!

In Dallas County, a judge thinks if he ASKS a known wife/girlfriend abuser to turn in his guns, he'll do it. There's no way to be sure he does it, and he can ignore the judge and keep his guns. So if he wants to use them on his wife or girlfriend, he can. How many men who want to do violence OBEY the laws that say they can't do it with a gun? And how many guys who DO give up their guns use other means to hurt their women? As with other anti-gun fool laws, it DEPENDS on lawbreakers to OBEY their law. They call them lawbreakers for a REASON. They BREAK laws. so how does this judge (and his political friends) think this law will do a BIT of good? Of course, it won't. But will they notice? Probably not. they're not intelligent enough to SEE that it won't, so they will probably make excuses when it doesn't, and then make even more USELESS laws. That's their pattern. Take guns away from as many law-abiding people as possible, leaving the ILLEGALLY-armed people to victimize them. (Dallas News)

These People Are Insane!

They keep talking about HUNTING as a reason to allow the average, law-abiding person to own and use a gun. They don't know, or PRETEND not to know that hunting is only a "side issue' to self defense against all oppressors, criminal, crazy, Islamic terrorists, and even GOVERNMENT. Yes, against government. Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founders actually said so. that in the final analysis, a gun may be required to defend ourselves against an oppressive government. Jefferson was very forward-looking. He could actually SEE what we are facing, today; an out of control, oppressive government that is today, much worse than the British government against which we rebelled. Of course, the way they did it was "gradualism," something King George just didn't understand. His power was absolute, and he wielded it that way, which was against everything the colonists stood for. Revolution was inevitable. The fact remains that the chief reason for the Second Amendment is SELF DEFENSE. For INDIVIDUALS, not for government establishments such as "organized militias," which did not exist at the time the Constitution was written. (Dana Milbank)

Australia Without Guns

It's illegal in Australia cities to carry even a small pocket knife--unless you have a "good reason" to do so. But the "good reason" restriction there is an easy one to pass. One is that it is a "useful tool" in your life. Another is "food preparation." In America, they regularly abuse the "good reason" requirement. In Australia, they don't, much. In the "outback," knives are freely sold in many stores, and universally carried by most people. Just not in the cities, and not in schools or bars. Knives are carried in "the outback" because there is always a "good reason" to carry them, and the cops rarely stop people for a search. They have almost completely banned guns for the law-abiding (but the NON-law-abiding still carry them, as usual), so knives and other kinds of weapons are popular with the law-abiding. And as quickly as people come up with effective weapons, "the authorities" try to ban them or make them difficult, or impossible to carry, as they do in America. But it's a losing proposition, since even a heavy ashtray can be a deadly weapon, and who wants to ban heavy ashtrays? (Gun Watch)

"Affects Only Honest People"

The late columnist Charlie Reese once wrote about gun laws, and he was absolutely correct when he said that "gun laws only affect honest people. Gun control is not about crime. It's about a small elite who fear and despise the common people." He couldn't have been more right. Gun control is NOT about guns. It is about CONTROL. The politicians who tell you they want to ban your guns or make you buy a license to exercise a constitutional right are telling you they don't trust you, and that is not only insulting, it is WRONG. Elite politicians realize what many "average people" do not. As Thomas Jefferson 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.” And since their purpose is to install a tyranny, it is incumbent upon them to eliminate our right to carry guns for self defense. which is why so many of them are "anti-gun" fools. (Just common sense)

Contradiction In Terms

A "liberal gun club." Now I've seen it all. A bunch of self-styled liberals with a gun club. Hoo, ha! A gun club goes against all things liberal. So to claim to be a "liberal gun club" is a definite contradiction in terms. I don't know what their platform is, but I suspect it, in the long run, is bad for gun ownership for self defense for the average citizen. They say they favor enforcement of current gun laws, rather than the giddy passage of new ones--to that, I agree wholeheartedly--except, of course, those laws that do NOTHING to "stem gun violence," and those are many. They say they're "not sure" about universal gun registration. They try again, to convince the world that 48% of voters are liberal and vote for Dumocrats. To that, I say, why then, can the Dumocrats not win elections? (Liberal Gun Club)

"Poverty and Hopelessness"

That's what's at the bottom of a lot of the "gun crime." The "authorities" recognize this, but keep on making laws to make honest people defenseless. The most of the "gun violence" everywhere is committed by street gangs, many of whom RULE their areas. Even the cops, in some areas, leave them alone unless they get way "out of control, as they are wont to do, sometimes. In some places, they even DEFER to them, as if they were a LEGITIMATE organization. In Sacramento, they even want to PAY them not to kill people. Is that insane, or what? But if "poverty and hopelessness" is the impetus, why don't they go after that, rather than take guns away from HONEST people, leaving them DEFENSELESS against those who obey NO laws? Their every effort works to INCREASE gun violence, but try and convince them of that. Their minds are made up, so don't confuse them with facts. Telling them facts that don't agree with their preconceived notions is like throwing a rock at a boulder. It just bounces off without effect. (Just common sense)

"Guns on the Street"

Surprise, surprise! Potential criminals tend to buy their guns (those that don't just steal then) "off the street," not from gun stores. And those who buy from gun stores are not generally the crooks; so why do they keep making it harder and harder on honest, law-abiding people to get guns to use in self defense? I don't thiink they do it to make things easier for criminals to victimize us, but that's the sum effect of ALL their highly-touted "gun laws." And you can't convince them of this. Are they just STUPID, or what? I think most of the anti-gun fools just have an unreasonable hatred of guns, period. They can't get at those who get their guns illegally, so they go after the guns they can find--those bought and owned by people who actually OBEY their laws, and think they're actually DOING something to reduce gun violence. Meanwhile, gun violence continues, unabated, and even INCREASES. Which frustrates them no end, and they work harder and harder to do away with every gun in the world, except those in the hands of cops and government agents (and crooks, crazies, and Islamic terrorists). Is there no "antidote?" There is. Just stop electing these incompetent fools who demonstrate an unreasoning HATRED of guns, But will we? Probably not. There are still too many anti-gun fools voting. (Bearing Arms)

Realtors Face Reality

I hate to use that term to describe real estate brokers, because it is inaccurate. The term, "Realtor" is a word used to describe real estate brokers who are members of a specific organization, but has been taken to describe ALL real estate brokers. But the words "real estate brokers" takes up too much room in a headline. But the facts are there. Real estate brokers have been suffering "gun violence" at the hands, mostly, of unlicensed gun carriers, and they want to be able to fight back--something the "authorities" seem to be against. I guess they just want the real estate brokers to succumb to the victimization intended by those criminals. In 2015, the number of Realtors who carried was 12%. In 2016, it rose to 16%, and in 2017, to 19%. Significant numbers, but still not enough. The number ought to be 100%. Being a real estate broker can be a dangerous profession, and they, like ALL Americans, ought to be able to defend themselves. But brain-dead politicians just don't agree. (Gun Watch)

Anti-Gun Misinformation

The "Violence Policy Center" says, "Concealed carriers don't stop crimes, they commit them." Unfortunately, they have no proof that this is true. Yes, some of the mass shootings have been committed by people who had not yet committed a crime and are thus able to get gun rights. Which only proves that their highly-touted registration laws do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down people who wish to commit mass murder. If they can't get their guns legally, they just steal them, as some have done, or buy them illegally, which is easy. They try, and they try, but so far, they haven't come up with a real "cure" for gun violence. And they never will, as long as they aim at the guns instead of the PEOPLE, and depend on LAWBREAKERS to OBEY their laws when they obey no others. Yes, a very FEW permit-holders commit crimes. But the vast majority do NOT. That's something they don't tell you. (Truth About Guns)

Gun Laws Don't Work?

Amazing! None of the laws that are supposed to stop gun violence did a single thing to dissuade that student who was obsessed by mass shootings from shooting his classmates, IN a "gun-free zone," a school. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the people who made them are too STUPID to realize that not a single law against gun ownership will dissuade CRIMINALS, crazies, and Islamic terrorists from bringing their guns and shooting people? They HAVE to know their laws are aimed in the wrong direction when they're aimed at the gun. The gun is but a TOOL to be used for good OR evil. And to ban guns in the hands of the law-abiding is to make them DEFENSELESS against the fools who misuse guns. Something must be done about the PEOPLE, not the guns. Anybody with a modicum or INTELLIGENCE knows this. That's why I call all those who make anti-gun laws stupid. They know their laws do NOTHING, but they keep making them. Not to control guns, but to control PEOPLE. (Just common sense)

When Will They Learn?

We've been telling them and telling them for years, that their anti-gun laws and rules don't work, but they ignore us, ridicule us, and keep right on making them, every time they can. They even use instances of VEHICLE violence to advance their silly gun laws that do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down gun violence. What are they THINKING? Gun-Free Zones have become "killing zones" because shooters know most law-abiding folks will not be armed there, since they OBEY laws and regulations. Criminals do NOT. Gun Safes and other "safe storage laws only keep honest people from being able to get their guns in action fast enough to be effective if they're attacked by an ILLEGAL gun-wielding criminal. Limiting magazine capacity accomplishes nothing, either. Even if they can't get higher capacity magazines, it's easy to have more than one magazine. My favorite in the silly law department is the state that allows concealed carry, but the gun carried must be UNLOADED! What the hell good an unloaded gun does you, is anyone's guess. But they wanted a law, and they got it. (Just common sense)

Banning All Guns

The Chicago Diocese of the Catholic church has banned all guns from all church properties. Which means all the guns brought there will be brought by people who care not about their "rules and regulations," and those who do care will, as usual, be defenseless when one of those who don't comes in to shoot up the place. This action merely shows the abysmal IGNORANCE of this bishop, Bishop Blaise Cupish. Like all anti-gun fools, he firmly believes such rules will actually keep the "bad guys" from bringing their guns to church with them. Father Michael Pflegler, equally ignorant, Tweeted his thanks to Bishop Cupish for his action. Both Cupish and Pflegler are anti-gun fools and they say this will "slow crime" in Chicago. Really? Like all Chicago's tight gun laws have kept Chicago from being the "gun crime capital of the country?" (Guns)

Anti-Gun Baltimore Sun

They don't allow gun ads--unless they amount to five-or six-figure prices. I guess they don't care if there's enough money involved in their pockets. For many years, even when they actually had a classified section, they didn't accept ads to buy or sell guns. Why then today, do they accept ads for the Rock Island Auction Company? I guess their justification is that a gun valued at $25,000.00 or more isn't likely to be used to commit a crime, nor to defend oneself. It's a distinction without a difference. The Sun is adamantly against private gun ownership in any form--except this one (except for the armed guards that control entrance to their news building, of course). Which proves one thing--money talks. Never mind the Constitution of the United States guarantees citizens the right to own and use a gun for self defense. The Baltimore Sun (BS) apparently thinks their opinion should supersede that of the Constitution. (Baltimore Sun)

Medical Emergency

Sorry, folks. I missed a day recently. I had a medical emergency that required TWO trips to the hospital and one to a specialist to correct They told me it wasn't really serious, but they weren't experiencing the pain I was. I fought to keep updating these blogs, and did it, although I got seriously behind on my research. I'm pretty much caught up now, and I thank you for your patience. Still, I AM 80 years old, and these things will happen. I will continue bringing you the truth as long as I can.

Not Right Or Left

Politicians and others love to say politics is a matter of "right or left." What they mean by that, I don't know. What I DO know is that, on the left is totalitarian government, usually brought on by collectivism (socialism, communism, etc.) A form of government that relies on total power over the populace, While on the "right," you find freedom, the free market, the right of the INDIVIDUAL to make his/her own decisions, not encumbered by the decisions made by nameless, faceless bureaucrats appointed by elected politicians who think THEY know best, and we know nothing. Each person is BORN with certain rights, by right of BIRTH. The Founders called these "inalienable rights," or "God-given rights." Whether or not you are a religious person, those rights belong to each and every INDIVIDUAL who is born. Basic of these is the right to make your OWN decisions, and have them stick. If that includes the ownership and use of a gun for self defense, you have that right, too. Unencumbered. Yet lawmakers work HARD to "encumber" that right and CONTROL you, and the decisions you make. The government does NOT have the right to tax you unmercifully to pay for the giveaway programs they propose, which are basically collectivism. If this is "left and right," I'm on the right, forever and ever. (Just common sense)

Armed Attack: Big Mistake

Two armed men burst into a Taco Bell and ordered the five employees to "get on the floor." They didn't follow orders. Three of them who were armed, opened fire on the fools, killing one. The other one "lit out for the tall and uncut," and is suspected to still be running. Apparently, Taco Bell doesn't have a problem with their employees being legally armed, for all they did was offer "counseling" to the employees; both those involved, and those who were not. This again illustrates what can happen when the average citizen is "allowed" to carry their legal guns and are attacked by criminals who are ILLEGALLY armed and expecting those law-abiding citizens to be unarmed.. Politicians ought to notice this, and "change their ways" accordingly, They will not. They will continue to :make sure this never happens again." They apparently would LIKE for those Taco Bell employees to have knuckled under to the illegally-armed criminals. They did everything they could to make THAT happen, and will continue to do so, until we defeat anti-gun fool politicians at the polls. (New York Post)

Why Is There Poverty?

In the richest country in the world, there is still poverty. It is that, they blame for the "gun violence" and gang activity. But why IS there poverty in a country that is the richest in the world? Why are there pockets of poverty? The reason is drugs. Some people get rich selling them, and others get POOR buying them. The next thing they have to do to "support their habits" is start stealing. They can't make enough money to support their habits by working, and the drugs increase the tendency to do NOTHING, rather than go out and work to improve their lot in life. The next thing you see is them living in squalor, not caring about anything except where their next "fix" is coming from. The only "work" they do is robbing, burglarizing, and even KILLING to get enough money for the next "fix." And that's the basis of gun crime--not the gun, itself. But they ignore that and go after the guns, which is useless. But they'll never know that. they're too STUPID. (Just common sense)

What's Their Purpose?

The anti-gun fools will tell you their purpose is to "stem gun violence" by getting rid of all guns. They must be stupid not to know there is NO WAY to "get rid of all guns." The bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get their guns to use in victimizing the law-abiding. The simple effect of all their "gun laws" is to INCREASE gun violence, not reduce it. Their laws only serve to disarm the law-abiding. So it becomes obvious (to intelligent people, at least) that their purpose is to make it easier for the bad guys to victimize the law-abiding--and that's exactly what they're doing. If they can't stop people from buying guns legally altogether, they make laws to make it harder to get the ones they do have into action fast enough to deal with the holder of an ILLEGAL gun, or make their guns impossible to use. Laws that defy understanding, like that one in one state that allows people to "concealed carry," but the gun carried must be UNLOADED. What the hell good an unloaded gun does is not explained. I think, for some reason, they WANT the bad guys to prevail, so they can make ever more stringent gun laws. It's like a "circular firing squad." (Just common sense)

Constitution Says No

But the politicians do it, anyway, How is this possible? Because there is NO PENALTY for violating the Constitution. One of the best recent examples of this is DACA. Obama's "executive order" that "protected" people brought here as children by their parents from deportation. Obama spent much time telling us he had NO AUTHORITY to help those people. Then he did it, in complete VIOLATION of the Constitution, which is the BASIS fir ALL our laws. Now President Trump is trying to put that to rights, and is being VILIFIED in the press for it. Otherwise, look at all the anti-gun laws. Each one is an INFRINGEMENT on our constitutional RIGHT to be armed for self defense. Without conditions. Yet they put MANY conditions on gun ownership. Basically, it if does not conform to the Constitution, a law cannot be made, or enforced.

But many such laws ARE enforced for years before being reversed by the Courts. But there is NO PUNISHMENT specified for a politician who does so, either blatantly, or in secret. That was a basic mistake made by the Founders. Apparently, they thought just reversing the effect of an unconstitutional law was enough. Unfortunately, the effects of such laws remain, long after they are reversed. They thought the politician involved would be sufficiently embarrassed as to never do it, again. Not so. apparently, some politicians are incapable of being embarrassed.. A law needs to be made to PUNISH politicians who ATTEMPT to make unconstitutional laws. But the problem is who must make that law. The very people who would be most affected by it. And it's going to be difficult, almost impossible, to force them to make such a law. Almost. (Just common sense)