Another "Victory" for Gun Control!

Twelve or more people are dead in New York City at an immigration center. There was NOBODY there with a gun and the will to use it to stop him. That’s because New York has some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the country. Did that stop this guy? Not for a second. When a criminal wants to use a gun to commit a crime, NO amount of laws that say he can’t do it while armed are going to stop him. Only the presence of someone in the crowd who can kill him early in his “shooting spree” and reduce the death toll. Only his not knowing if there was someone there who is armed so he can’t target the only armed person he knows is there, first, as the Columbine killers did. Only laws that allow honest people to be armed and able to defend themselves from such people will help. But ignorant politicians will never allow that. Even if this killer’s gun or guns were licensed, it makes no difference. If they were not, it’s the same. Anti-gun laws, as we know them, are STUPID and have KILLED many people. As long as honest people are not allowed to be armed for self-defense, we will continue to hear about such shooting sprees, and they will be successful. This is the second such shooting spree I’ve heard about in as many days. The other one was in a “REST HOME,” fergawd’sake! How many people have to die before the “anti-gun freaks” wake up? (Yahoo News/AP)

It's NOT An "Iraq War!

Iraq is just ONE THEATER in an overall “war against terrorists.” It doesn’t matter what we do in Iraq, that war will go on and on until we’ve killed or crippled enough Islamic terrorists to make it impossible for them to continue to attack us. Afghanistan will be the next “theater” in that war, and I’m sure Iran will come soon after. If the “doves” in our society continue to gripe every time we make a move to win this war and this government LISTENS, we will LOSE that overall war and the Islamic terrorists will be bombing indiscriminately in the U. S., which they have not been able to do up to now because Bush kept them busy in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is it about “self defense” these “doves” don’t understand? These are the same people, no doubt, who think the way to personal self defense is to DISARM yourself while CRIMINALS, who have no problem violating a law that says they can’t be armed, see us as “easy targets.” I’m getting sick and tired of these “doves” running things while making it more dangerous for us to live. If I arm myself to avoid becoming the victim of one of these illegal guns, then I become a criminal who will go to jail if the cops find me armed. That’s a load of bull droppings. (Just common sense)

Zapping Coyotes

Coyotes are becoming a major problem in Colorado lately, coming into settled areas and attacking people and animals. Now they have come out with (“new”) device (which has actually been around for a while, designed to stop human predators) they mistakenly call a “Taser.” “Taser” is a registered trade name for one of the first of its breed, the stun gun. Just the sound scares off some animals (though maybe not human animals). But the “shocker” is that it carries a 150,000 volt bang that will put down the biggest animal, human or coyote. Works on dogs, too, and is a lot better than shooting them, according to the cops. (Just common sense)

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)