Guns on Campus A Comforting Thought

At least to those who have been killed by insane idiots who have had no trouble getting their guns, OR bringing them on campus. What the hell makes politicians think “BANNING” guns from campuses will make them safer? What makes them think such people will OBEY a law that says they can’t be armed? People bent on killing people will NEVER have trouble getting guns, no matter how many “anti-gun” laws are passed; and they don’t give a second thought to anti-gun laws. So honest people, especially people on school campuses, are “fair game” for those weenies. If the principle of Columbine High School in Colorado had had a gun in his pocket and the will to use it when he “looked around a corner and watched one of the shooters firing into a room,” he could have “put a couple into the shooter’s head” and maybe reduced the death toll. An armed part-time security guard at a church in Colorado Springs, Colorado DID end a shooter’s rampage in her church when she shot him before he could kill more than two people there. How many times must it be proved that having more guns in the hands of responsible, honest people can reduce such shootings because the criminals won’t know for sure their intended victims won’t be armed and able to shoot back? The “anti-gun fanatics” seem to think the very presence of guns is dangerous. In actuality, the presence of guns those shooters don’t know about can stop them cold (or maybe cold and dead). For my part, if someone shoots me, I want it to be the last thing he does in HIS life. (Indianapolis Star)

Kills Intruder With His Own Gun

I'd like to hear more of this kind of story. This woman, when faced by a man with a shotgun who wanted to rob them, took it away from him and gave it to her husband, who shot and killed one of the two bumbling attackers. The cops say since they were defending themselves, they "probably" won't be charged. "Probably?" The Constitution still allows deadly force in defense of your life or family. The woman says she isn't glad someone is dead. I am. More of this kind of person should be killed. Maybe others would get the idea that people aren't going to be "easy targets" any more. (Fox News)

"Anti-Gun Fanatics" Refuted Again

"Another bogus argument of gun control extremists--that sensible concealed carry laws create an increased threat to police officers--has been refuted by statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and published by USA Today. The number of officer fatalities due to gunfire is the lowest in 50 years, noted Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A report out Monday said that this year, 41 officers have died from gunshot wounds, down 40 percent from the 68 who died by gunfire in 2007. Yet the number of concealed carry permits issued by the states has risen, dramatically in some areas, in the past 12 months. 'Better training and equipment have contributed to this decline,' Gottlieb stated, 'but it must be noted for the record that growing numbers of legally-armed citizens have not resulted in more police slayings. That has been one of the many lame arguments offered by gun control fanatics over the past few years when they fought against expanded concealed carry rights.’ " We refute them again and again, but they keep insisting on their flawed reasoning and their flawed assumptions. When we do it, they call us names. That’s when we know we won the argument. (CCRKBA)

"Gun Control" Doesn't Work

It didn’t work in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India where TEN people killed HUNDREDS in a country with tight gun laws. It doesn’t work in Australia, which suffered a 300% INCREASE in gun violence after effectively BANNING guns. In America, we have periodical massacres, sometimes in schools, other times in churches and colleges. Some have been done with ILLEGAL guns; others with LICENSED guns. Nothing the anti-gun freaks have tried has worked. If someone wants to go on a shooting spree, he/she always seems able to get guns, legal or not. Whatever makes politicians think that the way to self-defense is to DISARM ourselves; or that criminals, who don’t obey laws, will obey one that says they can’t be armed, I don’t know. Stupidity, maybe? If the Columbine school principal (during their massacre) had had a gun and the will to use it when he peeked around a corner and watched one of the shooters firing into a room and could have “put a couple in him,” maybe the death toll wouldn’t have been so high. In Colorado Springs at a church, it was different. There was a female parishioner there who had been asked to bring her gun to services and act as a “part-time security agent.” She shot the shooter after only two deaths. So he killed himself, knowing it was “all over.” The point is, no amount of “gun control” has EVER been able to “control” guns. So why not allow innocent people to carry guns for self-defense? Maybe violent criminals will find something else to do if they can’t be sure their intended victims aren’t armed and ready to shoot THEM. What good are “gun laws” if they can’t get rid of guns? Only violent criminals meeting guns in the hands of their intended victims will lower gun violence. That’s an absolute. (Just common sense)

More Guns, Less Crime

That’s the name of a best-selling book and a basic truth, as some people in England are discovering. The shootings in Mumbai should have stilled forever the voices of those who think defending ourselves requires that we disarm the populace. It should have destroyed forever the MYTH of “gun control.” But that won’t shut them up. They’re not smart enough. Anybody who really thinks disarming ourselves is the way to self defense is an idiot (and that includes politicians). That’s why a think tank in England is mulling the idea that “if each of us carried a gun…” They’re taking note of the fact that every gun used in the Mumbai massacre was a “prohibited weapon” under Indian law, yet the gunmen had no trouble getting them. So where did they get them? The black market, of course. Those “gun control laws” guaranteed they would not be met with real resistance, as usual. No massacre in history ever happened where mere mortals (not cops or “government agents”) find it easy to be able to carry concealed guns (as in Florida, whose violent crime has gone down since they made it easier to carry a gun). When violent criminals can’t be sure people aren’t “carrying,” they’ll soon go into a less violent kind of crime. That’s what I’ve been preaching for years, but nobody has been listening. (Times Online)

UN Goes Ahead on Gun Control Measure

People who believe self defense involves DISARMING ourselves are idiots. They’re stupid. But that doesn’t slow down the United Nations, which thinks of itself as a “world government,” although it is NO kind of a government, and hopefully will not be one in my lifetime (admittedly short). What the hell makes them think that disarming the populace is the way to self-defense? That way lies idiocy! But you can never “shut up” the anti-gun idiots. They think they know more than the rest of us, although it’s painfully obvious to intelligent people they’re not. When are they going to “wise up?” Never, if I know the anti-gun jerks. (WTOP News)

Ireland to Ban the Glock

The Glock is the gangster’s favorite gun, so Ireland is going to ban it. Completely. Does anybody really think that will reduce the number of Glocks used in crimes in Ireland? I don’t. I think the number of Glocks in Ireland will INCREASE, as do all things banned. Remember prohibition in the U. S.? Booze in this country didn’t “disappear,” as those pushing prohibition predicted; it INCREASED exponentially. People were making booze in their BATHTUBS. Criminals will, as usual, have no problem getting Glocks in Ireland, or any other kind of gun, actually. And they will make a lot more money doing it. When you ban something, you create a black market and even more of that item is sold than ever before. Politicians (everywhere) never learn that. What idiots they are! (Herald.ie)

Finally Gave Their Guns Back

New Orleans finally gave back the guns they stole under the cover of "cleaning up" after the hurricane. But they didn't do it on their own. They fought "tooth and nail" for THREE YEARS when the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association sued them. They shouldn't have had to file this suit in the first place, to force New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to follow the Constitution and allow his citizens to defend themselves against the ILLEGALLY armed criminals who don't OBEY laws. The "anti-gunners," including Nagin, are doing everything in their power to DISARM honest Americans and make of them "easy targets" for criminals. What makes them think a CRIMINAL, who doesn't OBEY laws, will not be armed if they make a law against it, I don't know. All I know is, like the Chinese and Japanese in history, we must find a way to "get around" their asinine anti-gun laws. The Orientals came up with "unarmed combat." The government couldn't stop them from having their arms, legs, feet, and other effective weapons. Can we find as effective a counter for the laws our liberals make to keep us disarmed and "easy pickins" for criminals (some of whom even wear badges)? (Common Sense)

Guns in Church?

Two people are dead as a result of a man coming into the St. Thomas Syrian Orthodox Knanaya Church. In New Jersey, where guns are not allowed, and killing his estranged wife and a parishioner. In Colorado Springs, a man came in and started killing people in a church protected by a part-time security guard who was also a parishioner, who shot him, stopping his rampage. In a Scientology Church, a man came in with a sword and tried to kill some people, but was shot to death by a security guard. Anti-gun freaks say there should not be guns in church. But how many people have been killed in churches by people who don't obey rules, nor laws? I think concealed guns should be allowed EVERYWHERE, so people can defend themselves against such people. The "anti=gun freaks" say that will make America a "wild-west" society where people "settle scores" with guns at the slightest provocation. What a LOAD! Back when everybody DID carry a gun, gunfights were rare, and it was a "polite society." Today, when people carrying guns are rare, we have more shootings per square inch than ever before because people who want to shoot someone don't care about how many laws they break while the people they want to shoot, do. What makes politicians think a CRIMINAL, who does not OBEY laws, will obey one that says he can't be armed, I don't know. Only honest people do, and we don't have to worry about them. (Associated Press)

More Guns Needed

In New Zealand, "dairies" (their equivalent of a convenience store") are arming themselves because of a recent increase of violent crimes against them. They call the job of clerk in their stores as "one of the most dangerous jobs out there." Some keep baseball bats, cricket bats, knives and other weapons short of a gun because of the tight gun laws that do nothing toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (who don't obey laws) but DO keep guns out of the hands of most honest people--those who really NEED them. But some are actually putting guns under their counters in defiance of the law because "it's better to be judged by 12 instead of carried by six." I agree. If I had such a job, I would DEFINITELY have a gun close to hand, law or no law. (New Zealand Herald)

School Shooting in Finland

"KAUHAJOKI, Finland - A masked gunman whose violent YouTube postings prompted police to question him a day ago opened fire Tuesday at his trade school in western Finland, killing ten people before shooting himself in the head." Who was it that said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?" After this shooting, Finnish "authorities" say they need MORE gun control. They already have some of the most restrictive "gun control laws" in the world. How is making more going to stop this kind of thing? Especially since the gun this guy used was LICENSED and had to be left in his home after they questioned him yesterday following some "disturbing" YouTube postings he made? Last November, a gunman killed eight people in a school, igniting a lot of talk about "gun control," though the law didn't get changed significantly. This is yet more evidence that customary "gun control laws" do NOT work. Again I say: if there had been ONE person in that school with a legal gun and the will to use it (maybe that janitor), maybe the death toll would be smaller, as it was in the church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where a female part-time security guard (actually, a parishioner attending the church, but who had been asked to bring her gun) with a licensed gun shot the shooter, stopping his "killing spree. But who is listening? Nobody, apparently. (Yahoo News)

Are Guns A "Good Thing?"

They are if they're in the hands of honest people. You can't stop criminals from getting guns, so why make it easier for them to terrorize honest people by keeping those "honest people" from having the means to self-defense? John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime" notes: " . . where guns are banned, crime increases." The USA is often criticized for having widespread gun ownership, but Lott states that "the states with the highest gun ownership rates have by far the lowest violent crime rates. And similarly, over time, states with the largest increases in gun ownership have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime." This is unarguable. But the gun-control freaks continue to "make noise" about "dangerous guns." Guns are NOT "dangerous." CRIMINALS with guns ARE "dangerous" and they'd be less so if honest people were allowed the right to own guns, as "guaranteed" by the U. S. Constitution. The bureaucrats and politicians get around this and get away with effective gun bans by saying, "Sure, the Constitution allows Americans to own guns. But that doesn't stop the need for reasonable restrictions." What is a "reasonable restriction?" That is subjective and is usually "defined" by those politicians and bureaucrats to suit themselves. And by the time honest people can successfully contest it, criminals have already killed them with their ILLEGAL guns, which HAVE no such "restrictions." One of the stupidest "reasonable restrictions" is the trigger lock. There's no point in having a gun around for self-defense if you have to fumble with a gun lock while the criminal is already armed with a gun unfettered by such a silly thing as a trigger lock. Sometimes I think the "anti-gun freaks" want to kill everybody who wants to own a gun for self-defense. I think every person who wants a gun should be allowed unfettered access to them; even criminals. They're going to get them anyway, so why shouldn't their intended VICTIMS be able to defend themselves? (The Progress Report)

Tough Old Guy

I just watched a video of an attempted robbery of an elderly man in a convenience store. When the thief tried to take a bunch of twenties sticking out of the old man's pocket, the old man, who is an ex-marine, a former steelworker, and a former Golden Gloves boxer, commenced "beating the hell" out of the "bad guy." With the help of a store clerk, he restrained the thief until the cops came. He proved that robbing elderly citizens isn't always a "piece of cake," but is sometimes a bad idea. He spent six months in jail after he got out of the hospital. In another video, a man tried to rob an old woman in a convenience store with a sawed-off shotgun. She grabbed the barrel and ran this cowardly criminal off, proving that most criminals aren't very tough, even WITH their guns. Another video showed an old man who jumped an armed robber because this robber aimed his gun at his daughter. They finally ran the criminal off, firing many shots in his direction. Don't count those "oldsters" out. You might get hurt. ("Most Outrageous")

In the Stomach, Huh?

A would-be robber burst into a Texas home and shot himself to death while trying to pull his gun out of the front of his pants. I suspect the newspaper was being "careful" when they described him as "shooting himself in the stomach." Pulling a gun out of the front of his pants would usually result in him shooting himself elsewhere, more likely. Shooting himself in the stomach, while not impossible, would be unlikely in this situation. But that's okay. We don't need to know what he blew off. He won't need it. He's dead. Criminals have been getting dumber and dumber lately. They've even got a weekly television show devoted to "dumb criminals." That takes a lot of stories. (Dallas News)

Subtle "Anti-Gun Propaganda"

I've been reading some old "Li'l Abner strips on the Internet and Capp did something I wouldn't expect of him. After a series where "the Scraggs" wanted to continue an old feud and kill all remaining Yocums , causing "Mammy" and "Li'l Abner to kick the heck out of them and get them to promise to go away and never return, Abner asked Mammy if she was really going to shoot them. She replied: "Of course not. Only fools use guns. Smaht folks uses brains and sometimes a smack in the nose helps." Apparently, he doesn't realize that this statement is self-contradictory. A "smack in the nose" is just a lesser form of the violence represented by guns," and the THREAT of their use. Without this lesser violence being successful, resort to actual use of guns would be necessary to stop the violence the Scraggs were bringing to them. That is the REAL lesson to be gained from this strip. (Li'l Abner)

Wimping Out to Muhammed

"McDonald's latest bid to attract more customers -- Muslim fast-food lovers -- has caused uproar among customers. The fast-food chain has introduced halal products at two Melbourne restaurants, significantly boosting sales. However some non-Muslim customers are furious they were not told their hamburger meat was slaughtered (facing East) and blessed in accordance with Islamic rules laid down in the Koran. McDonald's consulted Muslim leaders before introducing halal products at its Brunswick East and St Albans stores." Why have they never offered food that would appeal to their Jewish customers? I have yet to see MacDonald's come out with Kosher foods, and probably won't, in my lifetime -- unless they decide to "wimp out" to both sides. Even so, my question is WHY do they think it's a good thing to "wimp out" to our enemies, rather than out friends? (News Busters)

"Vietnam Prosperous Because We Left"?

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is locked in a "fanciful" version of history. Like most elite liberals, he thinks Viet Nam is now "prosperous" because we left. Never mind all the South Vietnamese bloody bodies that were left in the wake of our leaving. He also says Bush "let" two "war heroes" be "swift-boated," (like Bush could stop it) one of them being John Kerry, who spent only about two months over there trying very hard to get a purple heart any way he could. If "swift-boated" means "told the truth about," that's true. But that's not what he means. He also denies that Iraq is a key piece of the puzzle in the war on terrorism. He even denies the very EXISTENCE of a "war on terrorism." That should tell you a lot about his intelligence -- or lack thereof. (News Busters)

Sardineville

The liberals seem bent on gathering us all together in small groups that are more easily killed by Islamic terrorists. They want to put us all in "high-density housing" that can be easily hit with a bomb and kill a maximum number of "lemmings" who don't know any better that to live so close together. They want us to sell our cars and start using mass transit. They SAY it is easy, quick, and convenient. It is NONE of these things. It is difficult, slow, and INconvenient. So why do we "buy into" their schemes? Because they jeer at us if we don't. Many people respond to that. I don't. I live in a HOUSE. I drive my own car. I haven't been on a bus or train in 20 years, and don't plan to do so soon. I do not fly unless absolutely necessary. Usually, I drive. If some get through and start blowing innocent people up in shopping centers and pizza parlors like they do in Iraq or Israel, I won't be among the victims because I'll be somewhere else. They say "there are no innocent Infidels." And they expect us to adhere to a strict "hands off" policy on Muslims. Sheesh! (Just common sense)

Gunman KIlled Robbing Store

And his girlfriend wants the storeowner who killed him "punished" for "shooting him too many times." What the hell? My thinking is simple: if you go out to violently rob someone, you shouldn't be surprised if you meet a violent end, and the person who "violently ends" you is NOT in line to be punished, under any circumstances. "Shot him too many times?" Hell, in his position I'd have "emptied my gun" into him, too. Many years ago a man tried to rob me with a knife. He made the mistake of taking his eyes off me long enough to look for the door handle (I was driving a cab) and I "brained him" with an old Radio Shack five-cell plastic flashlight. He didn't wake up for three months and never spent a minute in jail because he was, from that point on, "not right" (not that he was so intelligent before he robbed me, either). A cop asked my why I hit him so many times, and I responded, "I've never hit anybody in the head before. I was scared, and I kept hitting him until he stopped moving." I suspect the same is true of this storeowner. He kept shooting until the guy stopped moving. In any case, he was trying to stay alive himself, and shouldn't even spend a night in jail because of it. That's MY take. But liberals want to punish ANYBODY who uses a gun in self-defense, while "protecting" the criminal who forced it to happen Sheesh! Boortz's last sentence makes me wonder. If not McCain, whom? Does he think Obama will make the "gun thing" better? Sheesh, again! (Neal Boortz)

"Suicide More Probable if You Have A Gun?"

That's what the "anti-gun freaks" are trying to convince you of now. As usual, they're "blaming the gun," not the person. The illogic of this is so obvious I shouldn't even have to mention it. But they don't realize it and think you don't, either. "Anyone who acquires a firearm, we are told, is inviting a bloody death by suicide. So says Matthew Miller, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years,” he told The Washington Post." If you have any amount of intelligence, you know that if someone wants to commit suicide and DOESN'T own a gun, he/she will. He/she will find a way. But this "anti-gun frwak" doesn't think so. He thinks just the presence of a gun in your house makes you WANT to commit suicide. This crap falls into the category of "you're more likely to shoot YOURSELF than a criminal if you have a gun." It completely disallows competence in handling a gun on the part of the innocent citizen, while imputing that competence into a criminal. I've owned guns, and have never even CONSIDERED suicide. (Atlasphere)

"Shoot Down" Gun Control

It's interesting to note that the politicians who make these "gun control" laws that DISARM honest people and do nothing to disarm criminals, who never have any problems getting their guns either go around armed themselves ("gotta protect ourselves, don'tcha know?") or are surrounded by gun-toting bodyguards who are paid by whom? You and I, that's whom! Others get their politician "friends" to have them "deputized" so they can "carry (They do no law enforcement, it's just a scam so they can "carry.")." But if you and I are caught "carrying," guess what happens? They put us in jail and make felons out of us, so they can forever deny us the right to carry guns for self-defense. What's wrong with this picture? It's time we made politicians aware that we will no longer stand for their "reasonable" rules that keep us disarmed while they have their ways of "getting around the law" and being legally armed. (Common Sense)

Clerk "Beats Up" Robber

I just saw a video on Fox News (yesterday) where a robber came in to rob a place, starting off by hitting the clerk in the mouth. Many criminals rely on intimidation, and many have no weapons at all. This guy picked the wrong clerk to attack because the clerk "put him down" in short order. He didn't use any kind of a weapon but his fists, just proving arrogant criminals aren't always "the big guys" when they try and rob people. This should be a message for criminals. If you don't go out to rob people, you won't run into people like this guy. (Just common sense)

Open "Packing"

Did you know that in most states you can carry a gun without any kind of a license as long as it is openly carried? Although you will be accosted by police officers who will try and intimidate you, and irrational citizens who are just "afraid of guns," if you stand your ground and carry a copy of the law that allows it, there's nothing they can do. Private property owners, however, have the right, however irrational, to ban guns on their property (such as "Blockbuster." Who does.). The Los Angeles Time had a story about it recently. Below is my answer: " I think there are way too many people out there who are irrational about guns. It is not "guns" that hurt people; it is the people who USE them wrongly that hurt people. I have a blog called, "The Unarmed Citizen" on Blogspot to talk about such things and discuss other means of self defense WITHOUT the guns our government will not allow us to have and use for self-defense. Their idea is that self-defense is best accomplished by DISarming ourselves and allowing the illegally armed criminals to have a steady stream of unarmed victims." One question "anti-gun zealots" will not (cannot) answer is this: Do "anti-gun laws" reduce violent crime where they exist?" The answer is no. But they'll never admit it, so they just call me names (such as "gun-lover") to avoid answering it. Do "looser" gun laws reduce violent crime? Yes. But that's another one they will not, cannot answer. I was even accosted once by a cop who suggested that the metal flashlight in my pocket could be considered a weapon. I laughed and said, "Sure, if I ever use it to attack someone. We can discuss it then. He laughed and turned away. Fortunately, he wasn't serious and I remained friendly. (Los Angeles Times)

Control CRIMINALS, Not Guns!

Professor Walher E. Williams asks an intelligent question: "The people who murdered Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski were violent convicts released on parole. So what is responsible for his death: guns, or a criminal justice system that cuts soft deals for such criminals?" Unfortunately, this is not a question people who "hate guns" will ever ponder. They think if they can "get guns out of existence (a "fantasy dream"), violence will disappear. It won't. It existed long before guns were invented, and people would STILL find ways to kill each other if guns simply "disappeared" (which isn't going to happen, and is a little like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube) I have another question I always ask "anti-gun nuts," but which they never seem to be able to answer. They just start "calling me names" without attempting to answer it. It is, "Why would a CRIMINAL, whose entire life is dedicated to breaking the law, OBEY a law that says he can't be armed while committing other crimes?" I asked that question a few years ago of Andrew Hudson, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb's "press flack," and instead of even attempting to answer it, he accused me of "sending spam." Apparently, he can't tell the difference between spam and a personal e-mail. Another irrational thing "anti-gun nuts" do is create "no-gun-zones," such as Virginia Tech (where a crazy man killed 23 people with a gun that was "illegal" on campus) and other schools such as Columbine, where an armed man killed 13 people. Then there's the restaurant in Texas where a woman who had a license to carry had to disarm herself before entering and had to watch while a crazy gunman killed a bunch of people, including her parents, who were eating with her. What kind of stupid people ARE these "anti-gun zealots?" Guns are not what should be banned. Judges who "slap violent criminals on the hand" are what should be banned. (Walter E. Williams)

A Metal Flashlight

I used to carry a metal flashlight called "The Mag-Lite"® as part of my equipment back when I was a security officer. It served as an excellent flashlight to help me see in places where the light was low. But also, it served as an excellent "nightstick" if needed. One night as I "walked my post," I encountered a man trying to break into my building. He immediately attacked me, no doubt being of the "oft-repeated" criminal opinion that "rent-a-cops ain't nothin'." But he found out different as I drove the back end of the Mag Light into his throat. He immediately went down, out cold, trying hard to breathe, as I had crushed his larynx. I "cuffed him" and called the police, who came and took him away. Anybody could have done that, and Mag Lights are not illegal to carry (I DID take a course once in "nightstick management," which came in handy this time, as this makes an excellent "nightstick"). I once encountered a policeman in a convenience store in civilian clothes while carrying a 2-cell in my back pocket. He said, "You know, that flashlight could be considered a weapon." I grinned at him and said, "But it's not, unless I use it as an attack weapon. If I ever do, we can discuss it then." He laughed and turned away. My favorite of their line is the 2-cell. It's plenty big enough and CAN be carried in the back pocket. It is NOT a "deadly weapon" unless used to ATTACK someone. If used in self defense, it is not. The smaller ones can be used if you have some knowledge of unarmed self defense. Think about it. (Mag LIte®)

The Way to Self Defense

In China many years ago, government made laws against "peasants" being able to defend themselves with weapons. So the "peasants" responded by inventing "unarmed combat," making deadly weapons of their hands, feet, and other parts of their bodies the government could not ban, and which could not easily br identified by the government as a weapon. Today in America, the government has similarly made laws against allowing "peasants" (citizens) to have and use the best means of self defense there is, their own guns, in spite of the Second Amendment recognition that ALL Americans should not be denied the use of arms. So again, we're forced to "get around" these laws by inventing "hidden" devices capable of giving citizens that one or two seconds needed to get away from an attacker. Now there are stun guns that look like pagers and cell phones that will stop an attacker in his tracks. Similarly, there are pepper spray guns that look like pens, pagers, key chains, lipsticks, and rings. As government evolves, they may enlarge "anti-gun" laws to include such items. If you want to learn how to defend yourself with your bare hands, there are excellent books and DVDs to teach you how. You don't have to become a victim. Learn how to defend yourself against violent criminals. I've seen some of these books and DVDs. They tell you how to defend yourself in ways your attacker will not usually know or expect you to know, and which do not require you to learn complicated systems, as do karate and others of the "Eastern Martial Arts." What they teach you are simple moves even an "old duck": like me can still use when attacked (Warning to "bad guys: don't attack that old man with a cane. That cane can be deadly!). One of the things I learned was how to make a weapon out of just about any item within reach. (Personal Defense Consultants)

Disarming America

Does Obama really think the "way to peace" is through disarming America? That's pretty much what ALL liberals think. They think the "bullies" of the world will go away if we just prove to them we aren't a threat. Life doesn't work that way. The only reason for a bully to "go away" in real life is if you beat them within an inch of their lives with a baseball bat. If you disarm yourself, they'll think you're weak and beat you up some more. Or if the bully is a dictator, he'll just kill you. "Anti-gun freaks" are constantly braying that we need to "get rid of guns" and they hope that'll solve the problem. But it won't, because gun-wielding criminals don't obey laws. To take guns away from their intended victims is to give them an unlimited supply of "easy targets." It doesn't work. It amazes me that people who THINK they're smart enough to "run things" and tell us all what to do and how to do it just can't understand this simple thing. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There are many "simple things" they don't understand, although they'll never admit it. They probably aren't even smart enough to know it. (Rush Limbaugh/Barack Obama)

What Criminals Don't Want You to Know

Criminals don't want you to know that they're afraid, too. Afraid you won't be completely disarmed by your government so they can rob or assault you at will. They're afraid you have a gun, with which to shoot them. They're afraid you have tear gas or pepper spray, with which to blind them for the few seconds necessary for you to get away from them. Or that you might have a stun gun you can use to completely flummox them for the same amount of time and for the same purpose. That's all it takes. Just a few seconds, if you don't "stand around and admire your work." In 2004, there were 401,326 robberies. Only a small percentage of them were attempted with a gun, and if they don't have a gun, you can have "the difference" if you have any of the above mentioned items and aren't afraid to use it. There are about 38,000 carjackings each year, and only 74% of them are done with a weapon. How many of those weapons are guns, I don't know. Not many, I'd guess, because most violent crimes are committed without a gun. There were about 854,911 aggravated assaults. Firearms were used in only 19.3% of the cases. Most were done using knives or other cutting instruments, clubs, and fists or feet. Many are family assaults: husbands and boyfriends beating on or killing their wives or girlfriends. But most of them can be overcome if you have the means to disorient or blind your attacker for those few seconds required for you to get away. You can get these items from Personal Defense Consultants or other vendors.

Empty Holsters "Frighten" Students

What a bunch of weenies they are! To be "frightened" by an inanimate object. Schools are well known to be a "gun-free zone," telling criminals, "come on in and shoot us. We don't have guns with which to protect ourselves here." "During the week of April 21-25, 2008, thousands of college students throughout the United States, organized under the banner of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and school policies that stack the odds in favor of dangerous criminals and armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else." Notice, one of the things they're demonstrating against is not even allowing those who are LICENSED to carry concealed on campus with their guns. That this policy does not even slow down those bent on killing people on campus was proven at several schools, one of the recent ones Virginia Tech, where more than 20 people were killed because none of the students OR faculty--or even security could carry a gun to use in defense. School "authorities" say they're opposed to this demonstration because it "frightens" students. I'd say they'd be even more "frightened" if someone bent on killing them brings a REAL gun into their classroom. Do they really think a student or a faculty member would "go crazy" if guns were allowed in classrooms? Do they think a ban on guns in schools will actually keep "crazies" out? Come on! (SCCC)

For Want of a Gun . . .

If Steven Daniel Furtado had been allowed to carry a gun for his own protection he and his sweetheart might still be alive. But NO. Not in California, where a "weapon" is still described as something "that can be directed at a person in such a way as to cause him discomfort or injury." It was that way in the sixties when I first took up the sales of less-than-lethal self-defense items and it remains so to this day. This is so "vague" and wide it even covers my hands and feet, which I can CERTAINLY "aim at someone and cause him discomfort or injury." Did the ex-boyfriend "project something at Steven" that could injure him? Was what he used LEGAL? No. But if Steven had been armed, maybe he and his girls would still be alive. A typical result of liberal anti-gun laws. (Sacramento Bee)

High Court Slaps Bloomberg Down

New York Mayor Bloomberg wanted to sue gun-makers into bankruptcy (Makes you wonder where his cops are going to get their guns), but the High Court "slapped him down." They said, " The Second Amendment Foundation said today’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed against the firearms industry by anti-gun New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg should send a clear message that “courthouse demagoguery and harassment of law-abiding business is not the responsible way to fight crime.” Maybe Bloomberg ought to start allowing honest citizens to be armed to defend themselves against those ubiquitous illegally-armed criminals who have made his city one of the "murder capitals of the world." (SAF)

"Wild West Shooting?"

What it actually was, is one customer started shooting and the store clerk decided not to kill him because he was a "lousy shot. Meanwhile, Drudge headlined it, "Managers, customer all (all?) draw guns in West Palm Beach grocery..." leading to the thought that the liberals were right. But they weren't. It was the same thing that could have happened anywhere in the country, but because the clerk had a "license to carry," the "crazy" didn't kill anyone and because the clerk thought fast, even the attacker was not killed. Completely different from the picture painted by the headlines. This was NOT a "wild west shooting." It was ONE man shooting at a clerk, who decided since he was a lousy shot he (the shooter) was not dangerous and so did not kill him. Proof Again, that more legal guns in the hands of honest people can reduce crime.But these headlines put me in mind of a movie I once saw where two gunmen went into a bar to hold it up. Turns out it was a "cop bar" and soon they were surrounded with cocked guns. Funniest thing I've ever seen. (Palm Beach Post)

I Knew It!

While the Republicans were "in charge" in Colorado, they FINALLY managed to pass a law making it easier to carry a concealed weapon. One of the things I knew was coming up when the Democrats became the majority in the Colorado Legislature was to destroy that law, and they're already talking about it, using a "gun problem" they had in the Capitol building itself as an excuse. Funny; ad I remember it, harder "concealed carry laws" would not have changed anything in that situation where a man actually got into the building with a gun (he conned a government employee into carrying in) and was killed for his trouble. Seems to me the problem is with the building's security, not with "concealed carry" laws. (Defense Mechanism)

Useless "Gun Laws"

In Chicago, Illinois, where they have some of the most draconian "anti-gun" laws, there have been 35 shootings and 9 deaths over ONE weekend recently. If that doesn't show the futility of making laws against gun ownership for honest people, I don't know what does. In prison, where they don't even allow the GUARDS to carry guns, there are many murders. Some with smuggled-in guns, and others with home-made knives. Which just goes to show that if guns suddenly disappeared from the world, murder and violence would not. If there were no guns, people who want to commit violence will find a way.

Obama: "Americans Don't Need Guns!"

Well, there you have it. Obama is an "anti-gun nut." He ignores all the shooting going on in "gun-free zones" and in other places where gun laws don't allow HONEST people who OBEY laws to be armed to protect themselves from ILLEGALLY-armed criminals who don't obey laws, anyway. What is it about Democrats that they can't see the truth when it stares them in the face? I don't know very many "anti-gun" Republicans because most Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats. Ann Coulter was right when she titled one of her books, "If Democrats Were Intelligent, They'd Be Republicans!" Obama SAYS he "respects the Second Amendment," but local gun laws are okay. How can that be if you can use logic? The Constitution and its Second Amendment is there specifically to STOP "local laws" against gun ownership and the carrying thereof. It is there to CONTROL the laws made by the states. But like a typical ignorant liberal, he "speaks out of both sides of his mouth" when he says we "don't need guns." We DO. To defend ourselves against the illegally-armed criminals the laws he likes will create. (On The Issues)

Beat Up by a Granny

I wonder how much "street cred" a 46-year-old burglar has when his friends find out he was repeatedly stabbed by a 95-year-old granny in a wheelchair (!) with a screwdriver as he tried to break into her house? Seems like he couldn't get far enough into her house to stop her from stabbing him. Soon he passed out from blood loss and the granny called the cops, who took him to the hospital, then to jail. What an embarrassment! Maybe he'll go into another line of work. (Paul Harvey)

"Gun-Free Zones" Are "Death Zones!"

The "anti-gun jerks" are still trying to use mass school shootings as an excuse to make yet more "anti-gun laws" instead of making the use of a gun in the commission of a crime mean many more years in prison for criminals--which would be a good response. Another good response would be to allow potential victims to be armed in their own defense so they can KILL such a crazy before he can kill more people. But NO! They don't trust innocent people to have their own guns for self-defense. They still think a CRIMINAL, who breaks laws every day, would OBEY a law that says he can't be armed, which is patent stupidity. Did any of those CRIMINALS who went onto school campuses (Which were "gun-free zones") even stop and THINK about the guns they were about to use to kill innocent people were ILLEGAL? No. They knew they probably wouldn't survive it themselves, so why worry about obeying laws?The only answer is to kill them before they can complete their "mission." But the "anti-gun freaks" never learn. They're stupid and they're determined to stay that way. (CCRKBA)

Typical "School Official" Stupidity

In North Carolina, "school officials" at East Wake School have banned the attendance of its school shooting team at a state-wide competition because of its "zero tolerance" for guns on campus. Apparently that includes this shooting team and all its activities. The only trouble with "zero tolerance" policies is that they leave NO ROOM for an individual school official to use his/her own intelligence in dealing with such things. Maybe this school will change its policies if a student (or anybody else) comes into the school and kills a few people. Naaah! They'll probably just demand harsher "anti-gun" laws. They just refuse to understand that "no-gun zones" are an "engraved invitation" for criminals to come into their schools and kill people with impunity. (CCRKBA)

Oughta Happen More Often

A burglar entered a home in Boulder County, Colorado (where self-defense is frowned upon) and got killed by the residents for his trouble. His own knife was taken from him and used to stab him to death while the woman hit him with a baseball bat. This kind of thing should happen more often, Maybe then, other burglars would go into other businesses.

I Hate to Keep Repeating Myself

But nobody I ask seems able to understand me when I ask the same question over and over again: "What makes you think a CRIMINAL, whose entire life is dedicated to breaking the law, will OBEY a law that says he can't be armed? I once asked that question of the Denver mayor's (Wellington Webb) press hack and he accused me of "sending him spam." I asked him if he couldn't tell the difference between spam and personal correspondence, but got no answer.) In Philadelphia, the mayor thinks he can just ignore the state and make his own laws and criminals will obey them. In Washington, DC, they want to go into citizen's homes without warrants (asking "permission" and making them out to "have something to hide" if they refuse) to search for the guns the United States Constitution recognizes their RIGHT to own and use for self-protection. But notice when those cops bull their way in, what they're carrying on their hips; a GUN, naturally. It's strange that they must "enforce" unconstitutional laws against gun ownership with THEIR OWN GUNS! Governments that want to become dictatorial know they must first disarm the populace, so they won't be met with guns when they come to steal what's not theirs. What is it about this question that politicians just cannot understand? The better answer is simple: just make it a lot WORSE for a criminal if he is caught armed. That's a lot better than giving him a bigger bunch of unarmed victims. (SAF)

DC Cops to Search Homes for Guns?

They want to come to your door and "politely ask" to search your home for guns, whether or not there is any enforceable law against them, and without a warrant. They do not tell you they'll "confiscate" (steal) any guns they find. " 'SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) founder Alan Gottlieb condemned the plan as a public relations effort designed to influence, through crass dramatics, Tuesday’s scheduled oral arguments on the constitutionality of the District’s handgun ban before the Supreme Court. Launching this effort on the eve of Supreme Court arguments over the city’s horribly failed handgun ban underscores the Draconian mentality that lies at the root of gun laws like the District handgun ban.' Arthur B. Spitzer with the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, D.C. was right when he told the Washington Post that this ‘sends a message to the public that the police ought to be able to search your house anytime for any reason’.” If you refuse, guess what? They'll find "probable cause" for a warrant in your refusal. They'll tell the judge, "If they had nothing to hide, why refuse?" Frankly, if they came to my door, I'd not only refuse, I'd tell them not to come back -- and I don't have a gun in my house, legal OR illegal -- yet. I don't want some "ham-handed cop" rifling through my private possessions ANY time, for ANY reason. (SAF)

Pull Out of Washington!

We have 160,000 troops in Iraq., and a total 0f 2112 deaths (as this is written). That's 60 per 100,000. The death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000. You're 25% more likely to be killed in Washington, DC (which has some of the strictest "gun-control" laws in the country) than in the war zone in Iraq. Conclusion? We should move our national capitol to Iraq and "pull out of Washington." The liberals make a lot of noise about Iraq casualties, but ignore those casualties in U. S. cities where the average person is not allowed to carry a gun for self-defense while criminals have no problem getting guns. The CCRKBA says we should all buy guns for self-protection. (CCRKBA)

Releasing prisoners to "Save Money"

They apparently can't see the effect on prison populations of their policies of imprisoning the victims of the "drug scene. So they're going to release drug dealers and other criminals, some of them violent criminals. They also go out of their way to imprison people who get their own means of self-defense to defend themselves against these selfsame criminals, who have no trouble getting and carrying guns. They by them illegally on "the street" or just steal them. It amazes me how ignorant our politicians are on the WAY to solve our problems. They continue to adhere to their liberal notions that the way to self-defense is to DISARM honest people, rather than to enforce the "throw-away" laws already on the books to make crime worse if the criminal is armed. Instead, they regularly dismiss the "concealed weapons" charges if the criminal "cops a plea," But if they catch honest people carrying guns, they enforce the law to "the letter." The "Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" advises honest people to ignore those silly "anti-gun laws" and get their own guns with which to defend themselves. I don't blame them. If a criminal shoots me, I want it to be the last thing he does in his life. (CCRKBA)

"40-Hour Ban on Murder"

In Los Angeles, they want to "ban" murder for 40 hours! I always thought murder WAS banned, everywhere! Have you ever heard anything so incredibly stupid? Will they ALLOW murder after that 40 hours? This is the kind of incredibly stupid laws passed by liberals when they gain power in government (as they have in California). These are the same people who make laws against people carrying guns that only seem to apply to people who OBEY the law while criminals, who don't, remain armed and have a steady supply of unarmed victims. They don't know that laws against carrying guns, which criminals don't obey anyway, will NOT stop criminals from carrying their guns. Do they REALLY think a 40-hour ban on murder will stop, or even slow down, the murder rate in Los Angeles, or anywhere else? That illustrates, for me, the incredible stupidity of those people to waste the city's money and time to even CONSIDER such a thing. It amazes me that these people are even able to collect a salary while showing this kind of idiocy. (Los Angeles Times)

Was Christ A Pacifist?

Maybe not completely. I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day saying, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" Actually, that's not such a smart sentiment. Jesus wouldn't need to "bomb" anything. He could destroy it with a look, or a thought. But no matter how Christians read pacifism into his way, from his own words and actions, he was not a complete pacifist. "At the last supper, Luke 22: 36-38 --Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." When Peter cut off the ear of a Roman who would arrest him, he did not chastise him, although he did "heal" the ear. When he saw the "money-changers" in the Temple, what did he do? He "cleaned them out," using a whip." This is not to denigrate Jesus, only to bring out that there WERE times when He was not completely pacifist. And if you are a Christian, you don't need to be completely pacifist and be "easy prey" for criminals in order to be a "good Christian." The quote above shows that Jesus was fully cognizant of the need for self defense and condoned the use of weapons to do it. I have heard from Christians who feel otherwise, but a perusal of the scriptures shows Jesus would agree that we SHOULD be willing to use what is necessary for self defense, especially including disguised stun guns and pepper sprays, had they been in existence in His time. If this item "offends" some Christians, I'm sorry. If quoting scripture "offends" some Christians (or others), I'm sorry, too. But this is the "way it is." (Just common sense)

Totally and Stupidly Wrong!

"A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks. The editorial board wants 'the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth.' ” How stupid is that? Suggesting that the way to self-defense is to DISARM OURSELVES? And the people at the Times think they know what's best for all of us. Even to the point of criticizing the U. S. Interior Department for thinking about allowing us to defend ourselves. I wonder what those at the Times would do if confronted by a gun-waving criminal? Besides lie down and die, I mean. You can't make criminals obey gun laws. they break laws for a living. Only honest people, who are usually the VICTIMS of those illegally-armed criminals because they are gullible enough to OBEY those same gun laws. Gun laws KILL innocent people and the blood of all those innocent dead is on the hands of the "anti-gun crazies." If a criminal points a gun at me, I want it to be the last thing he does in his miserable life. (John Stossel)

Tasers Shouldn't Be Pink

That's what the writer linked below thinks after Taser released their pink Taser. She thinks self-defense devices should not be pink because it "trivializes" them. I disagree. The whole idea of these devices is to surprise the hell out of the "bad guy" and give yourself time to "get gone" while he is still wondering what just happened to him. You don't parade around with a "weapon-looking" Taser and give him an opportunity to take it away from you before you can get it into action. You want him to not know you have "the difference" in your hand when he attacks you. Personal Defense Consultants has the Taser line, as well as hundreds of other disguised self-defense items. (The Wildcat Online)

What Don't They Understand?

The Second Amendment is a simple passage in the Constitution. It speaks to "the INDIVIDUAL'S "right to keep and bear arms. The Bush Administration agrees . . .they think. The Solicitor General filed a brief in the recent case, Heller v. District of Columbia, that said it agreed, but didn't. If the framers hadn't put in those unnecessary words about a "militia," which meant all the people, with no understanding that the government would start a government-controlled "militia" many years later, the anti-gun freaks couldn't use that "militia" sidebar to confuse the issue and allow gun-haters to make laws limiting or banning citizens from owning and carrying the means to self defense. People who want to run our lives and steal our money and property, whether they be "honest criminals" who don't pretend to be "doing it for our best interests" or the government itself, want to make sure when their thieves wearing badges come to steal our money and/or property they won't be met with a gun. (Human Events)

Armed Guard Keeps Pro-Gun Student Out of Class

"Captain's Quarters tells the story of Tony Scheffler, a student at Hamline University that dared question the ban of concealed weapons on his campus after receiving an email from the school offering extra counseling and assistance for students coping with the VA Tech murders. The schools reaction? David Stern, reaching back to the grand tradition of the Soviet Union, decided that dissent had to involve some sort of psychological disturbance and bounced Scheffler out of Hamline. Rather than wait to the end of the semester and then invite Scheffler to continue his education elsewhere, though, Hamline treated him like a psychotic and barred him immediately from campus until he got psychological help. Thank you, Comrade Stern. Glad to see you're looking out for your students. Scheffler obeyed the campus ban and didn't go to class, but his classmate, Kenny Bucholz, told him a police officer was stationed outside the classroom. 'He had a gun and everything,' Bucholz says. Dean Julian Schuster appeared at the beginning of class to explain the presence of the cop, citing discipline problems with a student [a patent lie -RT] Although Schuster never mentioned Scheffler by name, it didn't take a scholar to see whose desk was empty." Talk about a "totalitarian regime!" To brand a good student as "a discipline problem and in need of "psychological help" because he disagreed with the school's "pronouncement" stinks to high Heaven." (Find the Boots)

. . .And Again

Families Gather at Victims' Funeral

Again a crazed gunman has taken a gun into a "gun-free zone" at Northern Illinois University and killed a lot of people, including himself. The "gun-free zones" fallacy has claimed some more victims. This again proves my thesis that just ONE PERSON there who had his own gun and wasn't afraid to use it could have cut the death toll by putting a couple into his head before he could kill that many people. People such as this Sun-Times columnist are already trying to further limit the constitutional right of people to carry the means to self-defense. He says, "I've already been hearing from those who would use the NIU incident as a jumping-off point to either place more restrictions on gun ownership or to allow gun owners to carry their weapons in public. I'm anti-gun, so the conceal-and-carry crowd can save its breath for some other columnist. More guns is not the answer. I don't care what your study says." In other words, he doesn't care about the truth. More guns ARE the answer. I don't care what your gut tells you. The fact is, if this shooter had faced ONE GUN he didn't know about in advance, he would be history after killing fewer people. That's fact. He can't refute it with logic or reason. If someone had sneaked up behind him and hit him with a stun gun, he'd be in jail and many of his victims would be alive. THAT'S fact, and irrefutable with his kind of "reason." One gun in tha hands of a small lady at the church in Colorado Springs, Colorado made this kind of difference by shooting a man who had walked in and started shooting up the congregation. Only a few were killed, not the many he had planned on killing. The key here was that he did not know an armed person was there. And that armed person, in a CHURCH, fergawd'ssake, did not "go on a rampage" herself, just because she had a legal gun. Letting criminals and crazies loike this know a certain area with a lot of people in it KNOW there are no guns there is STUPID! It's like an INVITATION to someone like this shooter to "come on in and kill us." He IS right that something should be done to improve reporting on the "crazies" who live among us so guys like this shooter have a harder time getting their guns. Unfortunately, if he can't get it legally, he'll buy it out of the trunk of a car in "lower downtown" So that's not the answer. The only SURE answer is a legal gun there to meet him. His answer is to sell more NIU caps and make more money out of it or put in a "Peace Center." All of which are nice things to do, but do nothing to solve the problem.

"Gun-Free Zone Body Counts"

Assam and the Pastor

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said, "Gun-free zones have given us nothing but body counts." But typically, those in the "anti-gun crazy" bunch aren't listening. They're already pushing for more and tighter "gun laws." I call them "criminal assistance laws." The more "gun-free zones" there are, the more people will die because such people as those who go onto a campus to kill KNOW full well there will be no one there to stop them by putting a bullet into their skulls. At the church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, there was a woman there who had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it who stopped him from killing more people by "giving him her gun one bullet at a time." Soon he realized "all was lost" for him and he took his own life with several of her bullets in his body. There's no telling how many lives she saved by shooting this idiot. Soon after, there appeared stories in the news about how this heroic woman "left her earlier police job under a cloud." Anything to "cloud" the heroics of this amazing woman. This woman proved what I've been saying all along: there'd be a lot fewer "mass shootings" in "gun-free zones" if they weren't "gun-free." But you'll never convince the "anti-gun crazies" of this. They don't care how many people die, so long as innocent people don't have the means to self-defense. (Just common sense)

I'd Druther Be Tasered

In Pittsburg, PA, the cops broke into a man's house without a warrant, and upon being informed this was his home and that he was not armed, hit him with a taser. Later they claimed he was guilty of several burglaries, but provided no proof. They took him to the hospital (after keeping him at police headquarters for a long time), but he got no medical help. After being released without charges (probably downtown, with no way home being offered) he went to another hospital, where he was treated for back and neck injuries, and nerve damage. "Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. determined that the officers did not commit a crime in their treatment of Hicks. The FBI also reviewed the case and determined Hicks' civil rights were not violated, a spokesman said." His civil rights were NOT violated? How do you NOT violate his civil rights when you invade his home and use a taser on him without cause, take him downtown and keep him in a cell for several hours, and not give him proper medical care while accusing him of all kinds of crimes without proof? I do agree, however, with the police chief when he said he's rather be "tasered" than shot. In the old days, they'd have just killed him out of hand and lied about it afterwards, as happens often in Denver, Colorado (I can count at least three instances in the last few years).(Observer-Reporter)

San Francisco Gun Ban Overturned

The courts earlier told SF they couldn't enforce their gun ban, but the mayor ignored it and continued on. This is where the mayor okayed same-sex marriages in opposition to the law, remember. He was overruled again, but his record suggests he will probably ignore this ruling, too. Maybe the mayor needs to be dealt with by the court. (NRAILA)

94-Year-Old Man Killed

"This poor man was supposed to die peacefully on a front porch swing, not like this," (Sheriff) Jarnigan said. Three young people, one of them female, two of whom were armed with a knife, could not rob this old man without killing him and cutting off his hand. Then they were stupid enough to keep the hand so it could be found in their car. If this man had been armed with a stun gun or pepper spray, would he be alive today? (Breitbart)

Gun Control Results

In Australia, guns are all but prohibited for everybody but policemen, government agents, and criminals. The reason criminals are on this list is because when gun control laws are tight, guns become much easier to obtain illegally "on the street." Meanwhile, criminals are wreaking havoc on "unarmed citizens" while the cops tell those citizens they have no responsibility to protect them, only to "write it up" and catch the "bad guy" after the fact. This is not acceptable to me. If the government will not allow us to be armed in self defense, then we must do something to stop these atrocities. One of the most effective ways to stop crooks in their tracks is the stun gun. You don't have to spend $200-$500 for an effective stun gun. You can buy a 350,000 volt stun gun for $40 from Personal Defense Consultants, or one up to 950,000 volts for $60. Or you can get one with an 80,000 volt charge for $22. I wouldn't be without one, even at home. I stopped a man from "beating up this old man" for shaking his head at his stupid driving by stunning him when he reached into my car window one time. All you need is something to surprise the "bad guy" and make him unable to think for a few seconds while you "get thee gone." These items will do it, and they are legal in almost every state. They'll tell you which states prohibit any kind of personal protection device. The Aussie blogger, "MK's Views," says this: "There is only one answer, allow the citizens their guns, once that is done, the responsibility falls to the citizens to learn to use them and use them when necessary. Until the citizens grow up and accept this reality, we will continue to be picked off one by one. The lesson must be learned, the only choice we have is to learn the hard way or the easy way." He's absolutely right. It's time everybody stopped allowing people elected or appointed to office to stop us from being able to defend ourselves without the police, who are the first to tell us they have no responsibility to protect us.

DC Anti-Gun Suit Loses

Many cities, including Washington, DC, have filed "junk lawsuits" in order to harass the LEGAL gun industry to bankruptcy. They failed in Washington, DC, and will fail in other cities, as well. But not without costing the gun makers a lot of money fighting these phony suits. They can't get around the Second Amendment, so they try "end-runs" around it by filing these phony suits. (Second Amendment Foundation, 1/10/08)

Typical Anti-Gun Crazy Response

A Virginia Tech Ambulance

In the days following the massacre at Virginia Tech, I predicted that anti-gun crazies would be falling all over themselves to use this tragedy to further their own agenda. "BELLEVUE, WA – Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has fallen back on one of the oldest, and most shoddy, tactics in the gun grabber playbook by using the Virginia Tech tragedy to launch an attack on gun shows, when the crime had nothing to do with gun shows, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today. 'Neither of the guns used by Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was purchased at a gun show,' noted CCRKBA Legislative Liaison Joe Waldron. 'Attacking some mythical gun show loophole will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns illegally, because it has been shown statistically that criminals rarely get firearms at such shows.” But Kaine, being a typical gun-hating politician, uses this tragedy to promote his own agenda, to make sure people like the victims at Virginia Tech never have their own guns to use to kill this madman before he can kill them. The whole point is, if just one of his victims had been armed and willing to use the gun in self-defense, the death toll at Va. Tech would have been a lot smaller. Even a stun gun might have helped in the right situation, especially if he didn't expect it. The point these people always miss is that criminals never have a problem getting their guns because they don't care about obeying the law. In this case, if anybody had cared to follow the law, he'd have been arrested when he tried to buy his first gun because he was known "head case" (But nobody bothered to put his name in the right database). Does this governor really think laws would have stopped this massacre? If he does, he's not smart enough to be a governor. (CCRKBA, 1/9/08)

Pushing Zappers

They're pushing zappers costing hundreds of dollars at the Electronics show with up to 425,000 volts of zap. But you don't need 425,000 volts to put a "bad guy" down for the few seconds necessary for you to disappear from his sight. The ones sold by Personal Defense Consultants start at $22.00 and produce from 80,000 volts upward. If you insist on buying one of the expensive ones, they have them, too. But they aren't necessary. My personal favorite in their line is the "Runt," which looks like a pager. It's only $40 and puts out from 350,000 up to 950,000 volts -- and the crook will have no idea you're so equipped until it's too late. I also like the ones that look like cell phones, but they're a little more expensive: from $60 to $70. Look them up. They won't "bite you." (PDC,)

Taser Parties

Debi McMahon, right, celebrates with her
Taser C2 at a Taser party in Mesa, Ariz.

Leave it to the women. Some recognize the efficacy of Tasers in self-defense, others do not. Apparently, those in Amnesty International don't agree. They think ANYTHING that has the POSSIBILITY of being used offensively should not be allowed to the "average person," lest they use it wrongly. I disagree strongly (Apparently, they're "anti-self-defense fanatics." I wonder what they'd do if confronted by an illegally-armed criminal.). The "average person" ought to be allowed to carry a gun, and carry it concealed, so that the criminals, who all are carrying ILLEGAL concealed weapons of some kind, and who "intend to use them wrongly," will not have plenty of "easy targets." They will have no way of knowing which are, and which are not "easy targets," and cannot find out the answer until it is too late (That's what makes "zappers" work for long enough for the intended victim to get away). As Robert Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society." I agree with that woman in the article. I'd rather be illegally Tasered by a criminal than shot. But there is no way I think that to be able to defend yourself, you should be DISarmed. Yes, there is a small danger that criminals might adopt these items as offensive weapons, just as they have done with guns. But that's no reason to deny them to honest people who will then have no means of self-defense. Yes, cops do sometimes overdo their use of Tasers, and some overdo their use of guns or even their fists or batons. Some people can overdo it with anything. There are "bad apples" anywhere. I think "Taser Parties" are a great idea. I may try it myself. There are many "zappers" selling for a lot less money than those. Some as low as $20. They're lower-powered, but with enough power (80,000 volts) to do the job without killing somebody. I can personally attest that they do the job, from personal experience. (Fox News, 1/6/08)

Cops Still Don't Know the Difference

The cops (mostly the police politicians with bars or stars on their shoulders) still don't know the difference between a "semi-automatic" weapon and a machine-gun, which is already heavily regulated and whose use in "street crime" is almost unheard of since the twenties. But they're still trying to make you think such weapons are "proliferating" on our streets, which they're not. Even if they were, they wouldn't be the cause of "excessive street crime." They would simply be a "weapon to use" in street crime, as the knife has been for criminals who can't get guns (too few). Back when there were no guns, everyone carried a sword or a knife of some kind and people were very polite to one another, lest they be "rent asunder." There were probably liberals even then pushing for "anti-sword" laws. Whatever the weapon of choice for "bad guys" is, some liberal, somewhere, will try and ban it, hoping people who want to rob, hurt, and kill people will stop doing it, just because their weapon of choice is not available. Unfortunately, wherever gun laws are tightest, guns are most easily available to people who don't obey the law. All they serve to do is disarm those who do and make them into "easy targets." (NRA-ILA, 1/4/08)

She Left It Home

Willie Trimble, alleged rapist

Last year I gave a large pepper spray to a lady friend of mine (we're not "an item"). We worked together and I had one left over. She couldn't afford to buy one. Unfortunately, she didn't take it with her the other night when she went to her second job. On the way, she was attacked, raped, and left for dead. But she wasn't dead. She was found screaming in an alley and taken to the hospital, where she had a massive heart attack brought on, no doubt, by the rape. She died, but not before she told the police who raped her. He is now in jail, awaiting charges which, since the victim of his felony died, will include murder. It didn't have to happen that way if she had carried her pepper spray with her that night. (Denver Post, 12/21/07)

What Are They THINKING?

The liberals, including Hillary, believe that the best way to defend ourselves is to disarm ourselves (Ask Hillary, or any other anti-gun politician, what they'd do if attacked, and they can't tell you so they just "call you names"). But if you ask them how that facilitates self-defense, they tell you it "gets guns out of the hands of criminals." Unfortunately, it doesn't. It gets guns out of the hands of honest people, who are the only ones who obey laws. Politicians ignore the fact that when the Constitution was written, a "militia" was simply, "all the people." At the time there were no "organized, state-operated militias." So how could anybody with any degree of intelligence, think the Second Amendment, alone among constitutional amendments, refers to a "governmental right" instead of a "personal right." Do they really think American citizens can't understand the difference? The court is soon going to for the first time, decide whether or not the Constitution does refer to a "collective" or an individual right in the Second Amendment when it takes up the question of Washington DC's literal ban on the ownership of guns by citizens not cops or government employees or armed security. It may make the wrong decision, I don't know. But at least now it is talking about it. (Jed Babbin, in Human Events, 11/26/07)

Second Amendment Is An INDIVIDUAL Right!

"Our Founding Fathers insisted upon including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they recognized the fundamental human right of self-defense, whether against government tyranny or individual criminal aggression. Those on the Left, however, conveniently deny the Second Amendment's terms while simultaneously concocting imaginary Constitutional 'rights' -- access by foreign enemy combatants to domestic federal courts comes immediately to mind -- and dismiss the right to keep and bear arms as a mere anachronism. To these left-wing activists, the notion that individual citizens might employ arms to protect against governmental or private aggression is a quaint remnant of a long-bygone era [Meanwhile, when push comes to shove, they're found to have their own guns. -RT]. In their perfect world, government would possess an absolute monopoly over firearms and use of force. Such ideologues ignore events as recent as the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when Korean shop owners defended themselves against rioting thugs bent on murder and mayhem amid the absence of police protection. During those riots, Reginald Denny could certainly have benefited from a firearm [Or at least a Taser. -RT] when he was instead savagely dragged from his truck and beaten nearly to death. Such activists also ignore the fact that law-abiding citizens defend themselves against home invasion on a daily basis, providing further illustration that the Second Amendment is still vital." But nooooo. They find "reasons" to deny guns for self-defense to honest and reliable people because those people might "go nuts" and shoot up a mall somewhere. But they completely ignore the fact that people who want to shoot up a mall or a church have no problem getting their guns, either legally or illegally while there are usually no guns on the scene in the hands of someone who could put a stop to the madness and kill the shooter as there was in the Colorado Springs church shooting. "Now, the tiny isolated town of Aguila, Arizona provides the latest evidence that the right to keep and bear arms remains critical. Even in today’s Internet age." The closest Sheriff's station was 25 miles away -- until they closed it. Now the closest one is 60 miles away. Of how much use do you think it would be if a bunch of thugs wanted to "take over" this little town? Does this tell you anything about how much your "authorities" care about your safety? The "authorities" will no doubt object. But when a 911 call results in a sheriff's visit 24 hours later, what can residents do except rely on what the liberals [Most of whom live within minutes of a 911 response. -RT] call "an outdated right." (CFIF, 12/12/07)

The Armed Citizen

"NRA member and county commissioner Greg 'Lumpy' Lambert is known for his pro-gun stance, but that was apparently news to an alleged robber. Police say the suspect approached Lambert, who was wearing his 'Friends of NRA' cap, and feigned interest in a car at Lambert's car dealership. Lambert went inside to retrieve the sales paperwork. When he returned, the man pulled a handgun from his jacket. Lambert countered by producing his .380 pistol. 'I told him to drop his weapon, and he said he didn't want any trouble,' said Lambert. The robber laid down his gun and fled, but left behind his driver's license which police used to locate and charge him. Chillingly, police linked the suspect to a murder committed 10 hours before Lambert disarmed him. (Knoxville News Sentinel, Knoxville, TN, 11/13/06) This is but one of many such stories of private citizens who confronted armed criminals with their own guns and routed them without a shot being fired, or killed them, saving their own livers, and possibly that of their families. Save this link and go back regularly. There's a new list every month of just a few of the MILLIONS of examples that happen each year. (Armed Citizen, 2/07)

Thank God She Was There!

Ordinarily, you don't expect "armed security" in a church, but there was in this one, and it's a good thing Jeanne Assam was there when a shooter walked into a Colorado Springs, Colorado church and began shooting in all directions. Assam, a former police officer and licensed to "carry concealed," had been "co-opted" as "volunteer security staff" because of it. She had had to pull her gun many times as a cop, but had never had to fire at a human being. That ended that day, and the shooter was dead before he could kill the hundreds of innocent people he planned to shoot. This proves again my thesis that if there was just one "responsible person" there with a gun and the will to use it, such shootings would be minimized. I spoke to a convenience store clerk the other day and she said, "I'd hate to see some of the characters that come in here be allowed to carry a gun." I responded that if some crazy came in here, wouldn't you like to be able to defend yourself? The "operative word" is "responsible" person. I don't advocate allowing everybody to carry a concealed weapon. There should be measures in place to deny legal guns to violent felons and crazy people. But if "responsible people" were able to get licenses easier, and we did not put up signs to say "No gun zone. Come on in and kill us" on schools and other places, maybe we'd all be better off. the point is, if there were more licensed guns out there, such people as this killer would not be able to go into a crowded room and kill at will. (7 News Colorado, 12/10/07)

Shot Dead by a Local Attorney

"On March 6, 1915, businessman Monroe Phillips, who had lived in Brunswick, Ga., for 12 years, killed six people and wounded 32 before being shot dead by a local attorney. Phillips’ weapon: an automatic shotgun." He was busily killing people but was instantly stopped by another man who had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it. Back in 1915, the anti-gun freaks hadn't yet been able to take the guns away from everybody, so this attorney still had his, and stopped this mass killing. When are they going to learn that people who wish to kill a lot of people will get a gun, any way they can -- they don't care about legalities -- and the lack of guns in the hands of responsible people allows such crazies a "free hand" in killing others because there are no other guns in the area to use in stopping them. (Just common sense)

Is It The Gun Availability?

What's behind the recent spate of mass killings? Some blame the easy availability of guns. That's silly. If guns were not available, they'd use swords; or knives; or baseball bats; or anything else that would kill. The availability of the means to kill has nothing to do with the motivation to kill. What's behind these mass killings is the "shielding" of our children from failure, which does not allow them to learn how to deal with failure and they blame others for it. The urge to kill those they blame is not far away. Liberal gun-haters are already pushing for more useless anti-gun laws that do nothing but make it easier for such people to kill because there are no guns present except theirs (Every one of these shootings has taken place where guns are prohibited). If some responsible person (say, a teacher) had been armed during most of these mass killings, the death toll would have been lower. (Ray Thomas 101)

9 KIlled in Another "Gun-Free-Zone"

"BELLEVUE, WA – Eight more innocent Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness at Omaha’s Westroads Mall this week, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today that the real outrage of this crime is that it happened in a “gun free zone” where law-abiding private citizens are disarmed by mall rules and state statute. 'In the wake of this horrible crime,' said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, 'gun control extremists are already demanding more useless gun control legislation. A prohibition on firearms at Westroads Mall did not stop Robert Hawkins, but it did give him a risk-free environment in which to unleash his rampage.' " When are these people going to learn that anti-gun laws do not stop people who are determined to kill? The "common denominator" in the major shootings in the United States is that they have happened in "gun-free-zones." What the hell do they think more anti-gun laws will accomplish? Do they think THIS shooter cared about how many laws he violated (beyond nine murders)? Did the shooter at Virginia Tech care about how many laws he broke (beyond 23 murders)? (Alan Gottlieb, 12/6/07)

Better Oversight?

How do activist judges get away with "finding" continuously FOR one side or another where their bias is so transparent it's obvious to all? The answer is simple. There is NO "oversight" on judges. They're "autonomous." The "chief judge" is supposed to keep track of the bias in judges under his/her sway, but they don't. It's so unheard of to call a judge to account for his decisions that most people don't even try. This case is so important, however, that the Second Amendment Foundation has demanded this judge "retire" and go home to "write his memoirs," and no more "gun cases" ever be sent to his court. I agree wholeheartedly. (Second Amendment Foundation, 12/4/07)