GOP Stabs Us

Where? In the back, of course! They COULD have defeated the vote on Lynch for AG at several points, but McConnell fiddled with the rules on several occasions while many of the Senators who had pledged to vote against Lynch (and DID, in a vote that didn't count for anything) flipped and voted FOR her. I don't know who got to him, but it's so obvious that SOMEBODY did, it isn't even funny. But if the anti-gun fools think they've won by what they did here, they're WRONG. This is ONE BATTLE in an ongoing war in which WE have won most of the battles and will continue to do so. Americans INSIST on being able to defend themselves! They KNOW the cops can't do it. All they can do is “document the crime” and MAYBE apprehend the criminal, LATER. AFTER the damage has been done. Guns, in the hands of honest Americans who are ON THE SCENE when crooks try and victimize people CAN make a difference (and HAVE, on many occasions). And laws to keep criminals in prison longer if they USE a gun in the commission of their crime can keep them off the streets longer, if they're just USED, and not “waived” to get convictions in other crimes. (Gun Owners of America)

"Helping Reduce Gun Crime"

One criminal at a time.” This man heard a criminal breaking into his home and shot him to death. End of story, except for the paperwork the cops bring to the equation. This is how things SHOULD be everywhere, but aren't, due to the short-sightedness of way too many politicians who have no confidence in the “average human being” not to become a violent criminal, just because he can carry a gun. This guy has helped reduce gun violence, at least where he lives, by reducing, by ONE, the number of armed criminals in existence, alive. Putting him in prison for a longer time by punishing USE of a gun in a crime would be good, too. But not as good as PERMANENTLY ending his criminal career. People who break into other people's homes KNOW they're in danger of being shot, so this should come as no surprise to this guy. He learned a hard lesson, though it won't do him much good in the future. He HAS no future. (Gun Watch)

Mass Shootings? Ban Guns!

Have mass shootings led to more “gun control?” Absolutely. Liberals get all excited when some guy comes into a school or other crowded place and kills a few people while there is NOBODY there with a gun to kill him before he can kill any more people. So let's take away guns from EVERYONE. Let's DISARM everybody who could have stopped this guy in his tracks and let him kill people (mostly children) at will. All because the anti-gun fools have told us if everybody were allowed to have a gun, they'd be shooting each other over fender benders or even getting their order wrong at McDonald's—which is a complete LIE. Criminals have NO TROUBLE getting their guns ILLEGALLY and they DO shoot each other over fender benders. There's no way to stop that. Criminals do not OBEY laws. That's why they're called CRIMINALS. But the ONLY way to stop them is to give people the right to own and use the means to oppose them. But ignorant politicians won't hear of it while they go around with the gun-carrying thugs they HIRE to carry their guns FOR them. (Here and Now)

How Can This BE?

I thought making laws against carrying guns stopped people from carrying guns! That's what liberals tell me, anyway. But it doesn't seem to work in California, the state that has the toughest “gun control” laws, period. But they don't seem to be working. Surprise, surprise! Now the city of Oakland is going to “call in” gang members and offer them things in return for their “promise” to stop shooting one another. You know, things like counseling and support services. This is under a program called, “Ceasefire,” which started in Boston and has been tried in Oakland before with “mixed results,” which is code words for “it failed.” So they're gonna try it again and will AGAIN get “mixed results,” while the gangs keep on shooting one another in the state with the tightest gun laws on record. The cops say “Ceasefire” is responsible for a recent reduction in violent crime. Yeah, right! I think it was caused by more good people ignoring their “gun laws” and shooting the thugs. Oops! I used the word, “thugs!” I guess I should apologize, like the Baltimore mayor did (but I won't), for using the proper descriptive word, even if they don't like it. (San Jose Mercury-News)

What difference Does It Make?

“WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?” No. this item is not about Hillary and her opinion about the four embassy people murdered on her watch in Benghazi because she wouldn't send help. It's about the uselessness of today's “gun laws.” This guy should never be allowed NEAR a gun but he has one. He had so many warrants out on him he shouldn't have been ABLE to buy a gun. But he had one—along with all the drugs and other illegal stuff he had when the cops caught him. He was caught in possession of meth and pot, and a shotgun, with a lot of ammo. This shows graphically that laws against criminals and drug dealers/addicts having guns are USELESS when it comes to stopping them from getting them. When are the anti-gun fools going to realize this and change the direction of their laws from disarming honest people to USING a gun in the commission of a crime? So we can at least get illegal gun owners off the streets for a longer time? It ain't gonna happen in MY lifetime, I guarantee you. (Fairfield Daily Republic)

New Surgeon General

Confirmed without much fanfare (because nobody much gives a damn) in the turmoil surrounding events in Baltimore, MD, our new Surgeon General is an “anti-gun fool,” as have been most of them, so it's not a surprise that a person appointed to such a position would be IGNORANT on “gun control” issues. In his first pronouncement after being confirmed in a “lame-duck session” while most people's attention was focused elsewhere is this: “Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of [National Rifle Association]. Guns are a health care issue.” Funny: isn't that what gun grabbers do? He doesn't know that making a law WILL NOT stop criminals from getting their guns illegally. That the way to self-defense is NOT to DISARM ourselves. He has, not surpriusingly, “bought” the bullderm of the usual gun-control methods, which do NOT work, and only make things worse, by creating as many UNARMED VICTIMS as possible. Of course, he called for “common sense,” which is the liberal “code word” for “stupid.” (Daily Caller)

Tying Their Hands

Obama 's “rules of war “tie the hands” of his soldiers behind their back in dealing with Islamic terrorists. One of the “rules” is that they may not fire on a terrorist or terrorist group until, or unless they fire first. That may seem “fair” in a non-war zone, but not where everybody you see might be an enemy combatant. Another is that you can't fire on a child (children being defined as a teenager or younger). But that same “child” can fire a gun as well as any adult, and in this particular war zone, they are taught, from BIRTH, to hate Americans and that killing them is okay, according to their “religion.”

I suspect my own brother had to kill a nine-year-old child in Vietnam right after the kid blew his sergeant's head off, just to stay alive. So why do we have to “give them the first shot?” I've no doubt that instruction alone has caused many American soldiers to be killed before they even know they're under fire. The attached article talks GENERALLY about “rules of war,” and one sentence alone stands out for me. It is the one where they say, “The only way evil people can be stopped is by other people willing to be more vicious, more violent. Violence wins wars.” Which serves to illustrate the complete stupidity of government spokesperson Marie Harf when she said, “We can't win this war by shooting people.”

What? How STUPID is that? A crack about war by someone who has NEVER been to war and doesn't know her rear end from her nose about war. And we should LISTEN to her? What we should be doing is removing all those limiting “rules of war” and tell them to simply “Shoot anybody who has a gun pointed at you, whether or not they fire first. Bring 'hell fire' down on the enemy.” Make them KNOW that to shoot at an American will mean their DEATH, in the most painful way. Believe me: if we don't “ramp up” our response to our enemies in this war overseas, soon we\'ll be fighting it right here in our own streets. And I guarantee you if that happens, I will not “give them the first shot.” You can depend on it. (Guns)

"Open Season"

The Police Chief in Austin, TX says, “Open carry is “open season” for armed criminals and extremists!” WRONG! It is this kind of thinking that is what's wrong with the whole IDEA of “gun control” these days. All their kind of “gun control” does is create an “open season” on UNARMED citizens who OBEY laws. Criminals do not. And what ignorance makes this cop think a LAW will stop them from getting their guns ILLEGALLY, as they do now? Only an armed populace that does not wear a uniform and are thus not known to be there will stop armed criminals from holding “open season” on honest people by shooting back. And the more criminals they KILL will bring crime stats down in a hurry, as has been PROVED in many places. If you're dead, you can't commit crimes. One of the silliest things gun grabbers do is hold “gun buy-back” programs where criminals bring in old, barely serviceable guns, then take the money they get and buy better guns on the black market while the cops and politicians congratulate themselves on “getting guns off the street.” (Guns)

"No Place In Church"

In Lansing, MI, one priest thinks ALL members of his church should be armed, at all times, And that means bringing their guns to his church. He's even willing to teach a class on gun safety IN the church. But his Bishop doesn't agree, and as Bishop, he has the authority to shut this priest down and get some people killed. He says all Catholic churches are “gun-free zones,” and that's not going to change. Yeah? Even if some yahoo comes in and starts shooting one of his churches up? Not possible, you say? It happened in Colorado Springs, Colorado not too long ago. And if it were not for one small woman parishioner who was carrying a legally-carried gun, it could have been a massacre. In fact, the shooter DID kill two people before he even got INTO the church. That Bishop is as short-sighted as are ALL anti-gun fools. They want us to WAIT for the cops to come. But that's stupid. While the cops are on their way, the shooter can kill a lot of people. An armed person there the shooter didn't know about can (and does) make all the difference in the world—and DID in that Colorado Springs church. (Guns)

The Heights of Arrogance

The family of Brandon Lincoln, a robber who was shot to death while attempting to rob a pawn shop owned by Arturo Rios, SUED Rios for “wrongful death.” That illustrates the arrogance and ignorance of thieves and bandits, who apparently think they shouldn't be shot while committing a crime and would be very surprised if their intended victims sued THEM if they killed them during that crime. What we need is a FEDERAL law BANNING this kind of suit in all 50 states, making it impossible for the family of a CRIMINAL to profit from his death while engaged in a crime. Currently, if he finds the right judge, he MIGHT be able to do so. Fortunately, in this case, the judge had some INTELLIGENCE and threw the case out of court. (Guns 'n' Freedom)

How Could This Happen?

An elderly man was being assaulted in the parking lot of a Kroger store. As I remember it, Kroger Stores told “Moms Against Guns (or something like that) to “stick it” when they attempted to get them to BAN guns from their property. That was supposed to eliminate the possibility of a shopper being assaulted by someone with a gun on their property. It would (supposedly) also eliminate a “concealed carrier” coming to the RESCUE of an unarmed old man being assaulted (by SEVEN guys) because there would BE no guns there. SEVEN men were beating on this old man (who turned out to be their uncle) and “MOMS” would recommend that gunman let that old man be beaten to death while waiting for the cops to belatedly arrive. He didn't do that, so the guy is still alive and (I think) his seven nephews are in jail. Which would NOT have been the case if Kroger's parking lot had been declared a “gun-free zone” and the gun-carrier did not have a gun. Which AGAIN shows the usual short-sightedness of what “MOMS” are attempting. (Truth About Guns)

Grandma Saves the Day!

A thug puts a knife to her throat and this 74-year-old grandma puts her gun in his mouth and says, “back off.” He did, and his attempted robbery ended at that moment. She found out that day how big a man's eyes could grow when there's a gun pointed at his front teeth from about an inch away. She also found out how fast a frightened would-be robber of a “defenseless” old woman could run as he “headed for the tall timber.” Which is more evidence that the anti-gun fools LIE when they say this kind of thing NEVER happens. They want us to think that little old lady was more apt to shoot herself than “ward off” the advances of a robber. Which shows you just how smart they are. Will they take note of this and “wise up?” Not a chance. Truth means NOTHING to them when it doesn't support their agenda. (Breitbart)

Don't Mess With Grandma!

I just caught a story on TV about a “grandma” who. When threatened by a man with a gun, took it away from him and told him to “back off or I'll blow your head off.” Since his own gun was shoved up his nose, his eyes widened, and he “ran away” from this “little old lady.” Which proves that even a “little old lady” with a gun can scare the brown out of a thug. It proves another thing: most criminals don't even know how to USE a gun. They certainly don't go through training classes, which is what it made it easy for this lady to “take it away from him” and use it on HIM. It was just a “passing story” on Fox, so I didn't get the details, but I thought it was very funny. I don't think that thug thought it was funny, though. They can probably find him at the end of his “brown trail.” He should be easy to “take into custody” though. Remember, he no longer has a gun, and never did have any guts. (Just common sense)

Williams Has It Backwards

Juan Williams says the NRA is “Whipping white America into hysteria over gun control.” by promoting “self-protection from crime” as a reason for gun control. Funny; that's the MOST IMPORTANT reason for carrying a gun. Self protection from criminals and crazies who already HAVE their guns, ILLEGALLY. The NRA falls for a phony premise by promoting guns for “sports purposes.” Hunting is just a SMALL part of it, self-defense is the biggest part of it, and you can't minimize that by simply saying so. In actuality, it is OBAMA that is “whipping up” BLACK “race hatred” of WHITES every time he gets a chance. And his “followers” do likewise. And they're succeeding. Black thugs everywhere are taking that as SUPPORT for them to kill--white (and black) cops. The black cops because they consider them traitors to their race. Which is a RACIST position, but you'll never convince them of that. Racists (on both sides) are never deterred by reality.(Breitbart)

Vet? No Guns for You!

Obama has started a new program: to put the names of vets on the FBI's Criminal Background Check List. Apparently, to be listed there alone denies people the right to have a gun. How that is, I don't know, with every American (except felons) having the Constitutional Right to own a gun. Probably under some unknown (except to Obama) unconstitutional “regulation” that disallows gun ownership, just to be on that list. Since they can put ANYBODY'S name on that list, that allows him to take (steal) people's guns at will. In this, he's enlisting the Department of Veteran's Affairs to get those names on this list. I don't think that's very hard, considering all the trouble the VA is in, anyway. Just the offer to “go easier” on them is probably enough to get their cooperation. They do this by sending him supposedly PRIVATE medical records, which is ILLEGAL in itself. Damn! I swear! Obama is about as obvious a CRIMINAL as I've ever SEEN with his butt in the Oval Office chair! Something needs to be done about him, and NOW! (Daily Caller)

"It Makes Sense Now?"

Sen. Joe Manchin (Democrat, of course) says,“ Gun control made sense in 2013 (after Sandy Hook) and it makes sense now.” Which shows his typical (for a Democrat) LACK of sense at either time. It makes NO sense to think a CRIMINAL or a CRAZY will obey a LAW that says he/she can't be armed. That's proven every day. It makes no sense to think that the way to self-defense is to DISARM YOURSELF. That's pure stupidity. Gun control (as we know it today) has NEVER “made sense,” and WILL never make sense. Because they're going at it from exactly the WRONG DIRECTION. They're limiting gun ownership for HONEST people while crooks and crazies never have any trouble getting their guns ILLEGALLY.

They need to punish USE of guns in a crime with longer prison sentences for USING a gun in the commission of a crime. That, at least, would keep potential gun violence perpetrators off the streets longer—if the cops would just quit using such laws as “throwaways” to get convictions in other crimes. If we made THAT illegal, we'd get a lot further in reducing gun violence. Removing illegality from gun ownership will NOT mean “more guns on the streets.” That's already happening, and most of them are in the hands of wrongdoers. It would mean that criminals would run into guns aimed at THEM when they try and rob an honest person. And that's good. (Breitbart)

Sheriff Ain't Buyin' It!

The mayor of Milwaukee, which has suffered a BIG increase in violent crime lately, blames it ALL on the recent “concealed carry” law sponsored by Republican Governor Walker. Sheriff says, “Uh, uh!” How many of those gun violence acts were carried out by “concealed carry permit” holders? Seems like they're done by “the usual suspects,” criminals, who don't OBEY laws. And he's right. Just wait a bit, and the crime stats will come down, after CCW holders shoot enough criminals. The mayor, who is one of the founding members of Bloomberg's anti-gun bunch, blamed it on one gun store: “Badger Guns,” so Badger stopped selling guns and what happened? Gun crimes went up. Obvious evidence to be IGNORED by the politicians. The sheriff says the mayor's chief responsibility is to reduce crime in his city. He failed to do so, so he “drags out” his usual “whipping boy,” guns. (World Net Daily)

Surprise, Surprise!

Liberals in Chicago have said, many times, that increased numbers of honest people carrying their own guns would have NO EFFECT on the crime rate, except to INCREASE the “gun violence” rate. But as usual, they're WRONG. Increased numbers of people carrying their own guns has significantly REDUCED the crime rate in several areas: homicides, robberies, and even car thefts as honest people take care of their own self-defense; a job the cops can't seem to do. Just last month an 86-year-old man who has a “carry permit” shot at a fleeing criminal, “freezing him” in his tracks, until the cops could (finally) get there and “take him into custody.” Since the court threw out Chicago's law against “concealed carry” permits last year, leading to a significant INCREASE in honest people with their own guns, there has been a 20% REDUCTION in gun crime and NO increase in “gun violence” by permit holders. Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said, “Just the fact that criminals DON'T KNOW who is, or is NOT armed, has made a significant difference in the crime rate.” (WashingtonTimes)

"Whether Or Not It Works"

This is typical thinking for liberals. Cleveland, OH City Council President said that “working” should not be a “litmus test” on whether or not we should pass “gun control” measures like those they're pushing. My question is, “Why not:?” If they don't work, why waste the time and money to even PASS them? Simply by saying this, he is ADMITTING their measures DON'T WORK, and saying that “doesn't matter.” He says, “Gun control should pass because it is a “reflection of [the] council’s values and is good public policy.” Which is yet another way of saying, “Our good intentions are what matter, not RESULTS.” This is typical of the INCOMPETENT liberals we (not me) keep electing to office. Why we do it, I don't know. I guess they can always count on the “stupid factor” among the voters. That will always be there, because politicians work HARD to keep them stupid. (Breitbart)

Finally Getting Through

The NRA is finally getting through to those who have been fooled by the anti-gun fools on gun control, and the gun grabbers don't like that one bit. Gun ownership (legally) is growing in America, and to those who want to DISARM us at any cost, that is bad. They keep calling the TRUTH the NRA tells simply “scare tactics.” It's not. It's merely outlining reality, something the gun grabbers can't seem to grasp. There are a couple of simple truths they can't grasp, as well. One, that the way to self defense is NOT to DISARM ourselves. Two, you can't stop CRIMINALS from getting their ILLEGAL guns by making a LAW. These people don't OBEY laws. The only effect of such laws is to DISARM honest people and make them “easy victims” for ILLEGALLY-armed criminals. So their laws to "reduce gun crime" only INCREASE it. (NY Times)