No Proof, Just Suspicion

There is a new bill in Congress that would give the Attorney General the right to BLOCK gun sales to people he “SUSPECTS” of being terrorists. No proof required, only his “suspicions.” That means he can BLOCK any gun sale, at HIS discretion, and all he has to do to justify it is say he THINKS that person MAY be a terrorist. This has nothing to do with terrorism. It has EVERYTHING to do with giving the AG the power to DENY the right guaranteed under the Constitution, to self-defense, and to own and use the means to that end, a gun. This is the latest way to “get around the Constitution” for the anti-gun crowd (of which Obama is a prime member) and, if allowed to pass, it will be hard to ”root out.” This is how they “screw Americans.” And they're working on it, every moment, of every day until they finally manage to disarm Americans completely. Every time we "beat them back" in one place, they come up with a new scheme. It's like the "Whack-A-Mole" game. (The Blaze)

"Lassitude and Passivity"

That's how columnist Charles Krauthammer described Obama's reactions to Islamic terrorist atrocities. We needn't even mention him (Obama) going out golfing right after ISIS announced the MURDEROUS beheadings of 21 Christians, exhibiting his complete disdain for the Christians and APPROVAL of the terrorist actions. Throughout, Obama has done many things to HELP the Islamic terrorists, among them refusing to even MENTION the Islamic nature of the terrorism while RELEASING bloody murderers from GITMO (for NO reason) to go back and kill more non-believers. I'm almost reluctant to use the word ATROCITIES to describe what the ISLAMIC terrorists do, because it's so overused. But I can't find a more expressive word that hasn't also been overused.

And they're LISTENING. They even referenced Obama's bogus comparison of the Crusades (which was the Christian RESPONSE to the ATROCITIES BY THE then Islamic terrorists) to their CRIMES, as if there were a good reason to do so. What we need is ANOTHER “Crusade,” less atrocities committed against US, to search for sympathizers. We need to “go after” the Islamic terrorists with EVERYTHING we have, instead of continuing the TEPID RESPONSE Obama has tried, so as not to hurt them too much, while keeping his “plausible deniability” about his APPROVAL of their atrocities. We need to treat this as the World War it is, instead of just trying to “limit” them and “control” them. We need to DESTROY them, “root and branch.” Another thing we need to do is see to it ALL Americans can be armed, to defend ourselves when they come to our shores to kill US. They have promised to do so, and I BELIEVE them. Frankly, I think many of them are already here, just hiding and waiting for orders. (Just common sense)

Mall of Americas Bans Guns

Do they really think that will keep the terrorists who have threatened them away? Al-Shibab has already threatened to attack them. That's against the law. Do they really think a sign saying guns are banned will make them stop and say among themselves, “Hey! They don't allow guns here! So we'd better go somewhere else.” How stupid ARE they? Frankly, ALL “no-gun zones” are stupid. They presume that LAWBREAKERS will OBEY their “rules?” Not a chance! Such rules and posted signs are an INVITATION to those who want to come in and shoot up the place. Moreover, they should be REMOVED for the safety of their customers. Their customers should DEMAND it! For their OWN safety. And they should do their shopping somewhere else if they refuse. Are they REALLY as stupid as to think that a CRIMINAL, who disobeys laws by his very profession, will OBEY their “no-gun” rule? (Washington Times)

More "Suspected" Terrorists

They're preparing to take guns away from honest Americans by saying they “suspect” them of being terrorists. NO proof needed, Just their “suspicions.” Which explains them saying “right-wingers” are “terrorists.” It gives them backing to say YOU are a terrorist because you are against big government, high taxes, and all the other atrocities the liberals impose on you. It's yet another “go-around” of the Second Amendment, like Obama's “administrative” ban on certain kinds of ammunition. If you're determined to disarm the nation, ANYTHING that will make guns useless works. They're doing everything they can to make it hard for American citizens to have the means of self-defense at a time when Islamic terrorists are threatening to bring their atrocities here, where the only thing that stopped the Japanese from invading the mainland was the idea of “a gun behind every blade of grass.” Mark it. Obama is going to get you killed. (The Blaze)

Stupid Mayor

I know that's a misnomer, because there are MANY stupid mayors (and other politicians) out there, who think they “know it all,” when they don't. Mayor DiBlasio of New York City is now telling his cops to “close their eyes and take a breath” when confronting angry people. Meanwhile, they're laughing up their sleeves because they know that's one of the best ways of getting yourself KILLED. But this mayor is so incompetent he doesn't know that. He has never been confronted by an angry person who might be armed (he has his own armed people to do that for him) so it doesn't occur to him that closing your eyes while confronting an “angry person” is the quickest way to get yourself dead. Why the hell do we (not me) keep electing these stupid, INCOMPETENT people? Damn! He calls that “smart policing.” I call it SUICIDE. (Weasel Zippers)

"All Gun Owners Are Criminals?"

That's what “ironically-named” Leah Gun-Barrett, head of “New Yorkers Against Gun Violence” thinks. She actually SAID it recently. She's about as stupid as the politician who said that “right-wingers” are worse than Islamic terrorists.” If that's true, maybe we should put all the cops and government agents in prison. What? her statement didn't include them, you say? That's about as stupid as SAYING it. I know those who think a LAW will stop a CRIMINAL, who doesn't OBEY laws, from having a gun are really stupid, but this shows a level of stupidity I didn't think existed. The “anti-gun crowd” all think there is NOBODY who is responsible enough not to kill people over trifles if they were able to carry their own guns. Which just illustrates how STUPID they are. But to come right out in the open with it? That's just ABYSMALLY stupid. (Bearing Arms)

Why Must She Be Half Naked?

I Just watched a video that showed a foxy female shoot a gun and almost kill herself when the recoil made the gun hit her in the nose. But the most interesting thing is that she was almost NAKED from the waist up. Above the waist, she was wearing only a black bra while the MAN in the picture was fully dressed. Don't get me wrong. I like seeing a foxy chick half (or all the way) naked as much as the next guy. I just question her being that way in this situation. It's like my criticism of the new Fox show called, “Outnumbered,” featuring four sexy women wearing dresses that go no further than five inches below their crotches when they sit down, and ONE man, fully dressed. It's almost like that is a “dress code” for women involved in ANYTHING. The man is always fully dressed, and the woman is half naked. It's the same in magician shows, and dance shows. I think that's unfair to women. It's not that I want to see MAN half-dressed (ick!), I just feel insulted by the way they treat women. (Bearing Arms)

Anything to Criticize

The family of a burglar who got shot practicing his “profession” are now complaining that the homeowner didn't “warn” the criminal before shooting him. How STUPID is that? Why the hell SHOULD they “warn” him? He knew that was a chance he was taking by breaking into somebody's home. He didn't NEED warning. It goes with the territory. If you're going to break into somebody's home, you're taking a chance on being shot by a frightened homeowner. I would certainly shoot an intruder before he could hurt me! It's only human nature. Maybe a COP, who has a lot of training and experience in confronting criminals, might be able to have the presence of mind to “warn” a criminal before he shoots him, but not an elderly man, home alone at night, with a stranger climbing in his window. Apparently this crook's family thinks breaking in does not merit “deadly force” being used, But Texas law disagrees.. This story wouldn't even merit mention if not for the burglar's family's ignorant reaction. (Bearing Arms)

"Pop Tart" Gun Bill

In Nevada, they are trying to pass a bill into law that would forbid “school authorities” from punishing kids for pretending different things (such as pop tarts, or even their fingers) are guns. It will also protect kids who wear clothes with images of guns to school. All the things “school authorities do that are STUPID. It's really too bad they have to make a LAW to prevent “school authorities” from being STUPID. “States including Florida and Texas have passed similar legislation after a highly-publicized 2013 incident in which a Maryland second-grader was suspended over a half-eaten Pop-Tart chewed into the shape of a gun.” Politicians are well known for wasting time arguing and voting on unimportant things. Some people argue THIS is an unimportant thing. But it IS important, to protect “school authorities” from their own stupidity. (Reno Gazette-Journal)

Citizens With Guns

I don't like to publish stories about how a private citizen foiled a crime in progress with a gun, because they have become so common. It's like “shooting fish in a barrel.” And there are other sites who do that very well. But they never faze the anti-gun fool crowd. They just ignore them and go right on saying it never happens while it's happening, all around them. But this case merits attention because this business owner who was legally armed, saw a notice by the cops about this criminal, whom he recognized from the cop's output, ”got the drop” on him, and therefore stopped a real “crime spree.” The “takedown” was not perfect, as noted in the article. But apparently the “bad guy” didn't know the things noted. (Ammoland)

"Background Checks Don't Work"

But the Washington Post still supports them, as well as several other anti-gun laws that don't work. I guess they, like other anti-gun fanatics, just don't care if their useless laws don't work to accomplish their stated goals. They just want to disarm everybody who OBEYS laws, as criminals do not. At least two foreign reporters say, “In Europe, getting a gun may be difficult, but terrorists still don't have much trouble getting guns.” Foreign reporters have always been a lot smarter than American reporters. It's instructive that the recent terrorist attacks in France were committed with fully automatic rifles that are ILLEGAL in France. So what the hell good did their anti-gun laws do for those eleven people who were murdered in the name of Allah? Reporters note that these killers, who used to be small-time crooks, got their guns with “relative ease.” (Daily Caller)

Crook's "Risk Assessment"

A recent study that asked convicted criminals what they feared most in committing a crime proved (again) what I've been saying, all along.” Their answer was, to a man: “the possibility of an armed victim.” One small Pennsylvania town is listening, and is DOING something about it. In most other towns, they're purring up signs saying “this is a gun-free zone” and getting people killed. This town is putting signs up saying, This is NOT a gun-free zone” and criminals are staying away from it like it was a “Plague” zone because they FEAR any place where their intended victims MIGHT be armed. Of course, one fearful liberal just had to whine, ”I think it gives the area a feeling that I’m not sure the people want to convey,” Deb Garber said. “Knowing guns are around doesn’t make me feel any safer.” Naturally, she blames the guns, and not the people (crooks). This is typical liberal knee-jerk reaction. (Raw Story)

Comedian Blows Gun-Grabbers Away

I swear, the anti-gun fools will say ANYTHING to get their false and useless “gun laws” passed. They're claiming the founders only meant MUSKETS should be freely owned. That they were so STUPID they couldn't possibly have foreseen the improvements in gun technology. But the Constitution applied to the type of guns that are in use in ANY time period. It's also obvious that they KNEW gun technology would not remain the same to this day so the Constitution was made to apply to those guns IN USE at any given time period. Anybody with ANY intelligence knows they wouldn't make the Constitution apply ONLY to guns in use in THEIR lifetime. That WOULD be stupid. To think so is STUPID! But they don't really think so; they just want US to think so. Maybe somebody needs to remind them that CRIMINALS don't OBEY laws. Naaahhh! They wouldn't listen. They hear only what they WANT to hear. (Freedom Outpost)

"Killed Over Road Rage?"

The anti-gun fanatics say that if everybody were able to carry a gun, we'd soon have people shooting each other for being “cut off” on the highway,. But it doesn't take “everybody having guns” for that to happen. It DID happen in Nevada, where a guy shot and killed a woman because she honked at him and, as this is written, they have this guy's house surrounded and are ready to “go in and take him down.” So far, nobody has revealed whether or not the gun he used was licensed, but that's not important. What IS important is that if this woman had had her own gun, the story might have had a very different ending. Her son did, but he was only a peripheral player. The whole point is, fools will overreact to a minor slight, whether or not everybody is able to have a gun..Responsible people don't kill others over trifles. Now the word is, she knew her killer and was a "mentor" to him.  Now he's not supposed to be a "stranger." It's hard to know WHAT is real in this case. (WQAD 8)

Ask A Dumb Question

One question being asked on the Internet today is this: “Would you go into a restaurant that allowed guns?” My answer is an emphatic “Yes.” “Gun-free zones” are an INVITATION to those who would VICTIMIZE people stupid enough to believe good people with guns are dangerous to anybody but a criminal. So, yes. I WOULD go into a restaurant that allowed guns so, so I wouldn't be like a woman doctor in Texas, who had to watch while a shooter murdered her parents because Texas law wouldn't allow her to carry the gun she was LICENSED to carry into the restaurant. It is stupidity like this that gets people KILLED. We''re living in an increasingly dangerous world, as witness the man who walked up to some people waiting for a bus just outside Detroit and stabbed them when they answered, “No” to his question, “Are you a Muslim?” More and more it has become obvious that we MUST have our own weapons to be safe, today. (Just common sense)

"Constitutional Carry" Passes

But it's not over yet, not by a long shot. Passing the Senate in Colorado is just one step in the process, and you can count on the fact that the anti-gun fools are “gearing up” to make sure it doesn't go any further. The governor is KNOWN to be anti-guns,” but whether or not he signs it if it passes the other House is still in question. He knows which side of his bread holds the butter and he knows the majority of Coloradans want it to pass and be signed into law. He's definitely a typical “tax and spend” Democrat, but he's not so strong on the anti-gun issue as are other Democrats in this state, which is mostly Democrat, in Denver, but decidedly conservative elsewhere. So it's possible for it to happen, but I'm not holding my breath. I know one thing. If it becomes law, I'll buy a gun the same day, before they change their minds. (USACarry)

Still Arguing About Guns

College officials are still creating “gun-free zones” on their campuses so would-be shooters can come in and kill their students at will without fear that those students (or staff) might be armed. Most of their students are ADULTS, and should be allowed to defend themselves. But, NO! The “powers that be” don't agree. They're STUPID, but they're “in charge” on campus. So their students are in imminent danger, which they deny in their ignorance. Even would-be shooters agree that they would prefer to go where there is little chance of guns being used against them when coming on campus to kill people. But are the “officials” listening? Not hardly, while people die. (Just common sense)

They Can't Ban Guns

So they want to ban bullets. The gun-haters will do anything to make the guns they can't ban by law USELESS. They're making it obvious that they want to ban guns, in spite of the fact that they can't. There's no REAL reason why they SHOULD ban the ammunition for the AR-15 except to make them useless in our hands. They give an exemption for ammo that is used “primarily for sporting purposes.” What that has to do with anything is a mystery to me. That's a typical politician's answer to not being able to do what they want, in spite of the law. Somebody needs to “rein in” these damned fool politicians who keep wasting time and (our) money trying to ban the guns that are SPECIFICALLY protected by the Constitution. We (not me) need to quit electing these FOOLS. Way back in the 1800s when they started talking about getting rid of guns, they were roundly ridiculed. Today, not so much, though they ought to be ridiculed for their stupidity. They will NEVER LEARN that they will NEVER eliminate “gun violence” with a LAW, until they start making those laws punish USE of guns in crimes, rather than trying to keep guns out of the hands of EVERYBODY. All today's gun laws ignore the fact that the reference to an “organized militia” in the constitution referred to “ALL THE PEOPLE,” not just to members of a type of militia that was unknown at the time it was written. (The Patriot Post)

Yet Again

I forgot this Tuesday, and for that, I apologize. Once again, I was stymied in my effort to bring you the truth. This time by a silly incompetent installation of a bathtub faucet a couple of weeks ago. They ended up taking out half a wall in the bathroom, which shares a wall with my office—the one against which my desk sits. This made it impossible for me to do any work Tuesday. My apologies. I'm only one guy with a computer and it doesn't take much to slow me down, though it's impossible to stop me as long as I'm breathing.

One More Story

The gun grabbers hate it when somebody stops a crime with their own gun. They hate it even more when that person happens to be an 11-year-old girl. That happened recently when a thug broke into a house and was confronted by a small girl with a very BIG gun. He'd still be running if he hadn't been caught. This little girl was “home alone” when he openly drove his pickup into her driveway before breaking into the house. Undaunted, this little girl picked up her shotgun and hid in the bathroom. When he opened the bathroom door, he saw her. It's a good thing he was in a bathroom, considering what he probably did before he fled the scene. I'd have LOVED to have seen his face when he saw her.

He probably left a brown trail out to his pickup. Made him easy to find. Liberals will probably tell their usual tale about how this little girl could have hurt herself with that gun, but more important is that she didn't, and “ran the robber off” with it. The liberal opinion has more to do with lack of proper training in the handling of guns, which is something they see to with their insistence that children never know anything about guns before a certain age. The NRA takes care of that, which is why they hate them. Frankly, I don't like to run stories about the use of a gun to stop crimes. They're too numerous, in spite of the propaganda put out by the gun grabbers. (Right to Bear)