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)