Too Many SWAT Raids

Are we now in a “police state?” Yes, according to the author of a new book, called, “Police State, USA” by Cheryl Chumley. One of the examples she uses is the one where Jose Guerena, a 26-year-old Iraq veteran, thinking the SWAT raid on his home was a gang home invasion, came down with a gun in his hand (his right, in his own home) and was shot sixty times by police who were, by the way, at the wrong address. The cops paid his family $3.2 million, but he’s still dead. They can’t change that. One of the factors she cites is SWAT teams being used to serve warrants where there are no lives at stake and no violence expected. I don’t hate all cops, but I DO think many cops are too “trigger happy,” which is proven all the time by stories about cops shooting unarmed people they THINK are carrying a gun and are threatening them with it (That eliminates cops who shoot a giant thug who is trying to kill them). Then there are the numerous stories about cops shooting dogs that were doing nothing but “looking for a little love.” I think cops should be better trained in the use of their guns, and that SWAT Teams should be used ONLY in cases where lives are at stake and their expertise is needed. By the way: I get no “kickback” from sales of this book. I just think it’s a good book to read. (Gun Owners of America)

Castle Rock Wins!

They had an election, where their local anti-gun fool laws were decided, and the town lost. “Castle Rock’s recent special election, one which was riddled with conflict and lawsuits, had its results certified today. Both initiatives have passed, thus removing the ban on open carry on town property, limiting the power of the town manager and putting decisions on future second amendment restrictions into the hands of the citizens.” They tried hard to limit their citizens’ right to own and carry the means to self-defense, but they lost. Anti-gun fools have lost almost everywhere they’ve tried recently, as Americans "wised up.". One of the most notable places was Chicago, where the court threw out their most onerous anti-gun laws as unconstitutional and gun crime promptly “tanked.” They says it’s because of “better policing,” but they haven’t changed a thing in their policing methods, so that’s a lie. That proves again that their fools will NEVER admit they’re wrong, and start making REAL gun laws that punish the USE of guns in crime, rather than DISARMING honest people. (Pagosa Daily Post)

Doing Dumb Things

The 9-year-old who accidentally killed the instructor who was teaching her how to shoot an UZI raises an important question: “Should we be teaching our kids to shoot automatic weapons?” And, “Should we make laws to prevent it?” Which brings up another question: “Are 9-year-old children responsible enough to be able to shoot such guns?” I have always been in favor of teaching kids about guns, stressing safety and responsible handling of a gun. The very first attempted school shooting was scotched when the would-be shooter was ventilated by bullets from many guns in the hands of the children, who then (in the 1800s) all had guns and took them to school without a problem because they were taught about shooting and regularly used them to help provide food for the table). But teaching a 9-year-old to handle an UZI? Not smart. They’re way too young at that age to handle such a gun. Teach them about gun safety (including safety in handling ALL guns, including an Uzi) and allow them to shoot lesser guns under tight supervision, yes. But a gun like an Uzi is a bit much for them to handle at that age, and that instructor, and his boss, were remiss in allowing it. This killing gives anti-gun fools way too much information they can use against us. (LA Times)

Why Are They Always Wrong?

The anti-gun fools are ALWAYS wrong in the direction they want to go. This bunch lost their kids to “gun violence.” But nobody ever seems to ask, “Were the guns used legally bought?” “Were the kids members of gangs?” Or were they being ‘pressured’ to join gangs?” "Did any of them have records?" What were the details in these shootings? Would the same tired, old ideas of gun registration and requiring HONEST people to get permits work while young gang members and other criminals ignore the laws? I don’t think so. I think they need to get some new thinking into the gun control business. Ideas like making USING a gun, legal or illegally owned, in a crime more costly in terms of time spent in prison or even the death penalty for murder with a gun. But they don’t listen when I suggest that. They’re fixated on their own ideas of what they should do, even if it hasn’t EVER worked. Instead of trying new ideas, they keep on doing the same ol’ same ol’, hoping they will get a different result. Isn’t that the DESCRIPTION of INSANITY? (News Channel 3)

"Common Gun Sense"

That’s what today’s anti-gun fools call the laws they cause to be made by gullible politicians, who don’t know any better, but who want to be SEEN as “doing something” about “gun violence. They just don’t understand (any of them) that DISARMING honest people is NOT the way to stem “gun violence.” They react with horror at the very MENTION of arming more (honest, reliable) people. They think that doing so would “create a wild West atmosphere” where people would be shooting each other over a fender-bender, or something else, even LESS important. They think we just have NO control and discount completely the FACT that criminals, who DON’T obey ANY laws, still get their guns easily; even more easily where gun laws for honest people are tight. In that, they’re WRONG. They ALREADY have a “Wild West atmosphere” in places like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, where fun laws are the tightest. And those laws are the REASON why. But you’ll never get them to admit that. They think they can’t possibly be wrong; they’re too smart. (Yeah, right!) If they’d just get their hands OFF our constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to bear arms, the world would be a better place, but they’ll react in horror to the very suggestion. (Just common sense)

We Aren't Buying What "Moms" Is (Are) Selling

Shannon Watts, chief “Mom” of “Moms Demand Action Against Guns lies volubly about the NRA, since there are no truths she can say about them. “The National Rifle Association is in a quandary. The organization's leadership, which is sullied by a long history of sexism and misogyny [sic], must continue to grow its market for guns in order to protect gun manufacturers' profits [sic]. Over the past decade, more guns have been sold to fewer people - mainly men [sic]. As a result, gun manufacturers desperately need women to start buying guns. [sic] There you have ir: FOUR lies in one simple statement. They’re stepping up their failed effort to disarm Americans, whatever it takes—constitutional or UN-constitutional, lies or truth. (Just common sense)

Not Liberal or Conservative

Liberals like to say anti-gun control is a “conservative” thing. It is NOT. There are gun advocates and anti-gun advocates on both sides. The anti-gun advocates on the liberal side don’t make as much noise though, as a usual thing, because they know they’ll get in trouble with anti-gun advocates. Yes, most of the anti-gun fools you hear from ARE liberals. But every once in a while you hear about a KNOWN liberal who shoots an intruder on his property or is caught with an “illegal” gun in his/her possession. One of the best known liberals going HIRES gun-toting “security” for her kids. A well-known anti-gun senator has a concealed carry permit. A noted liberal anti-gun legislator in California is arrested for “running guns. So it’s not a liberal/conservative thing, it’s a smart/stupid thing. (NRA Sharp Daily)

Reversing Their Opinion

That’s what DC is trying to do to the court that decided (rightly so) that the ban on carrying a gun (for anybody but a government agent or a cop) was unconstitutional. Their argument (a weak one) is that this constitutes an “error of law,” in that carrying arms in public “does not fall within the Second Amendment.” How STUPID is this? The Second amendment says that, “Congress may make NO LAW restricting the right of the citizen of the United States to keep and bear arms.” Where in that can they get that the Second Amendment does NOT apply? What is there about NO LAW that they don’t understand? They’re getting desperate, folks, to even TRY such a fool scam. But what worries me is that some of the Justices may be sufficiently liberal to buy this BS. (Reason Magazine/Hit & Run Blog)

No Gun for Perry

Because of the phony “indictment” his enemies got in their attempt to destroy him, Texas Governor Perry can no longer carry a gun or even purchase ammunition. Seems to me an “indictment” shouldn’t have this effect, since Americans are considered “not guilty” until CONVICTED of a crime. Of course, that doesn’t hurt Perry in practice because he has plenty of men with their own guns to surround him. But it’s the while idea of prohibiting someone who has NOT been convicted of a crime from owning a gun or being able to buy ammunition that I don’t like. It sounds too much like some bureaucrat deciding he’s guilty before a conviction. It’s more of the “overdoing it” I’ve come to expect from liberals. (The Blaze)

Gun Control Hypocrisy

In New York, they want to pass a law requiring all people who have ever used a gun in the commission of a crime (even if they just HAD one on their hip when stealing a lady’s purse or got caught with one without a license) to be “registered” in much the same way as a sex offender is. They SAY it is so the public will know where the gun offenders are, but their REAL purpose is to “single out” criminals who use guns and exclude those who use knives or other instruments to commit their crimes, so they can quote false numbers to support ither “gun laws.” Further, it’s up to some nameless, faceless bureaucrat somewhere to DECIDE just what is a “gun crime,” and WHO should be on the list. There’s no “oversight” for this, and you can be put on the list if you’ve ever just been CAUGHT with a gun in your possession illegally, or even in your home. Or they twist things inside out and put your name on the list without ANY kind of “gun crime” in your past. (Mississippi Gun News)

Chicago Crime Down

Surprise, surprise! After the courts struck down Chicago’s very tight gun laws, allowing easier granting of “concealed carry,” their crime rate has gone down. Robberies alone have gone down 20%, which is a BIG number. Of course, local police politicians put it down to more “intelligent police strategies,” completely ignoring what REALLY caused it. Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, says different. He says the cops have not changed their tactics one iota. He says, “It isn’t any coincidence that crime rates went down when concealed carry was permitted.” He further referred to the fact that criminals can’t know who is, or isn’t armed being a major factor. Of course, Chicago bosses are working feverishly to stop people from buying guns in many other ways, hoping to mute the effect of the new “carry” law. Will they admit their error? Not likely. (The Blaze)

Maybe They're "Wising Up"

We’ve been preaching for a long time that “Gun free zones” don’t work. They only serve as an INVITATION to thugs with a message that there will be no guns there to oppose them when they come in with their guns to victimize people. Places that heretofore banned guns from their premises are now reversing that policy, While SOME outfits, like Target Stores and Jack In The Box restaurants do not, and continue to be robbed by thugs who just ignore their signs “banning” guns. They’re beginning to realize that criminals do not OBEY laws and signs banning guns. They know only people who OBEY laws will not bring their guns, so they will have no trouble robbing them. So now more and more businesses are ALLOWING guns on their premises. (Alabama Media Group)

Murder Ouitside "Gun Ban" Target Store

I don’t know what drives these fools who think “banning guns” will keep people bent on doing violence with a gun away. Do they really think such people will OBEY such “bans?” It has been my experience that such people IGNORE such things as a “gun ban.” They’re bent on committing crimes a lot worse than ignoring gun bans. So what would make an INTELLIGENT person think they would obey a gun ban? But then, the kind of people who think these gun bans will work aren’t too intelligent, or they would learn from example. That they don’t tells me a lot about their intelligence. So Target, which HAS such a ban, has AGAIN had a murder with a gun happen in the parking lot of one of their stores. (World Net Daily)

Got Guns? No Looting

Did anybody notice? The only stores that didn’t get looted in Ferguson, MO were the ones protected by men with guns. Which once again proves my theory that the BEST way to protect yourself is to have your own gun. Looters came by, but when they saw men with guns lined up outside the stores, they went elsewhere. That’s the way it is with petty criminals; they see a gun in the hands of their intended victims, they go in the other direction. That’s even more evident when looters are in the equation. If more people had guns, there’d be a lot less looting, as well as other kids of crimes because criminals are basically cowards. They prey on UNARMED people, but RUN when they see a gun turned against them. (World Net Daily)

It Disturbs Me

That local police agencies are getting $5 billion dollars’ worth of MILITARY gear. Even small communities like Greenwood, Indiana are getting what amounts to armored cars and automatic weapons. I’m sure they’re getting bullet-proof vests, too. The guns and bullet-proof vests don’t worry me because the criminals are getting the same equipment to use against the cops (Albeit not from the feds. They steal them or buy them illegally.). Example: the bank robbery a few years ago in LA where the cops had to go to a local gun store to obtain automatic weapons to use against the automatic weapon-armed bank robbers. What DOES disturb me is the rest of the gear and training the feds are providing (sometimes for FREE). It effectively makes police agencies the EQUIVALENT of the military. Posse Comitatus prevents the use of the military from acting as police officers, and for good reason. It does NOT stop police from acting as the military, and that is one way the feds are “getting around” “Posse Comitatus.” Why are they doing it? Do they EXPECT a revolution? And is this a way of PREPARING for one? There’s a good reason for Posse Comitatus, and arming and training the police agencies as military violates the SPIRIT, if not the actual law. Criminals are not the only people who violate the law. (Guns Save Life)

"No Guns" Signs Are Useless

As far as ending gun violence, that is, anyway. What immediately happens to a restaurant chain or even  single restaurant that posts a sign saying, “NO GUNS?” Very soon, somebody who doesn’t obey laws and who DEFINITELY isn’t going to obey a SIGN posted in a restaurant comes in with a gun and victimizes them. Jack-In-The-Box did it, and within two weeks men with guns came in and robbed them, KNOWING there would be no guns there to oppose them. A Mexican restaurant chain posted a sign and within HOURS were robbed at gunpoint. Would-be gunmen CHOOSE “no-gun zones” in which to “ply their trade,” because they KNOW they will be “easy pickings.” They might as well post a sign saying, “come in and shoot us.” But you can’t convince anti-gun fools of that. The operative word here, is FOOLS. One man who shot up a school and killed several people had a choice of two different schools to attack and SAID later that, of the two, he CHOSE the school where he knew there would be no guns. What could be plainer? But anti-gun fools persist in their “gun-free zones” while those zones KILL people. And the blood is on THEIR hands. (CincinnatiUSA)

As Usual They Aim Wrong

New York is pushing for a mandatory two year sentence for anybody found carrying a gun illegally. But that does NOTHING to punish the USE of a gun in a crime. It’s a good idea, but as usual, it doesn’t go far enough. They still routinely use those charges as a “bargaining chip” to get information or convictions in other crimes. Also there’s still no deterrent to using a gun in committing a crime. Yes, two years longer in prison just for CARRYING an illegal gun is a “step forward.” But I’d bet most criminals say they could do TWO “standing on their heads” because they don’t think they’ll be caught carrying. If they were worried about it, they wouldn’t BE carrying. And a gun is a useful and necessary tool in their business. (Philadelphia Enquirer)

Refusing to Face Facts

New York City cops are blaming the increase in gun violence in SPITE of the tight gun laws on the cops “finding fewer guns on the streets” than before (because of the rescinding of “stop and frisk”), hoping people will think their anti-gun laws have done some good in keeping guns off the streets. But as usual, they’re wrong. The increase is due to the law keeping guns out of the hands of honest people, who OBEY the law, and do NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS, who DON’T. Those writing the story are at pains to point out that the majority of those “stopped and frisked” were black, completely ignoring the fact that most of the CRIMINALS (the cops KNEW were criminals) were black. They always ignore that fact, so they can grouse about black people being “oppressed.” (Last Resistance)

Blocking the Feds

The federal government has become so overbearing on gun laws that at least eight states have made laws to make enforcing their laws illegal. Which may even lead to the ARREST of “federal agents” who attempt to enforce them. A majority of states have made laws making “concealed carry” much easier than the feds like. This tells me that the feds are way “out of touch” with the wishes of most Americans and they are going to continue to LOSE when they attempt to make laws to further inhibit our right to keep and bear arms for self defense. They love it when pro-gun people talk about “guns for hunting” because that is NOT the important thing. It diverts our attention from the important thing, which is SELF-DEFENSE, not hunting. Hunting today is a SPORT, not a necessity for having something on the table at dinnertime. But self-defense, even against members of our own government, is MOST important. It is the whole reason they put the First Amendment in the Constitution, in the first place. They said so, in many places, many times. (News 21)

Maryland Judge Upholds Ban

Judge Catherine C. Blake, recently handed down (up?) a decision that upheld the “assault weapon ban and the large magazine ban” in Maryland. Not surprisingly, she is a Bill Clinton-appointed liberal judge (maybe one of his former lovers?) She says the Second Amendment only covers guns in “general use,” even though the Constitution does NO such thing. Even so, the AR-15 is one of the most commonly-owned guns in the nation with Americans owning 8 MILLION guns LIKE the AR-15. So her reasoning fails on TWO counts. But that doesn’t count to a liberal who just wants to make it more difficult for potential gun owners. Anti-gun fools NEVER take reality into account. If the facts defeat them, they just ignore them and make up their own “facts.” (Daily Caller)