"Traffic Ticket? No Guns!"

Yet more proof that politicians will use any excuse to deny Americans their constitutional right to be armed for self defense. In NICS there's a category called, "scary fugitive," which denies that right to those listed in NICS under that category. "Authorities" have used that to deny gun rights to many people whose only "crime" is an unpaid parking ticket! Fully 13% of refusals have that listed as the category. And another thing: You'd better hope there is no scumbag out there with the same name your parents hung on you. There is no system to verify the veracity of the factors in entering names into the NICS system. Some ATF agent playing a trick on somebody can get a name on NICS, and it takes practically an "act of God" to get it off. Next, there is the lazy data entry person. The guy or gal charged with ENTERING those names into the system. Admittedly, this is a small category, but an important one for those killed by people whose name SHOULD be in NICS. Then there's the fact that somebody's name in the system stops NOBODY from buying a gun in a back alley somewhere, from another criminal. Those people don't worry about being listed in NICS. (Truth About Guns)

No, It will Not!

The anti-gun fools confidently claim that "national reciprocity" (a law allowing people with gun carry permits in one state to travel with their guns to other states) will "add to the danger to domestic violence victims." No, it will NOT. People who are determined to victimize others do not obey such laws. If they can't get a gun legally, they get one ILLEGALLY. And the national reciprocity law will allow that VICTIM to be armed, in order to defend her/himself! The anti-gun fools think that disarming the law-abiding will contribute to self defense, and that is STUPID. But then, anti-gun fools aren't too bright, anyway, since they still pass laws they KNOW do not work, which IS stupid. Not a SINGLE anti-gun law they have ever passed has done one thing to "reduce gun violence," and they have to know that, but ignore it in their zeal to disarm as many Americans as they can, for reasons unknown, except to increase their power to tell us "NO." They would make laws to make self defense a crime if they could, but they can't. So they do the next best thing, and take away (if they can) the TOOLS we can use in defending ourselves. (Quartz)

Reciprocity Causes Mass Shootings?

That's what Nancy Peelosi thinks. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that there are as many, or MORE illegal guns out there being used for mass shootings than have ever been used by legal gun owners. Yes, a small number of people who have not previously committed a crime sometimes get guns legally and subsequently go out and kill a bunch of innocent people. But far more people WITH records do so, and they get their guns ILLEGALLY. Concealed carry reciprocity has NOTHING to do with either of those scenarios, and her statement is merely a smokescreen that allows her to oppose a system that can MINIMIZE mass shootings. That she knows NOTHING about what she pretends to be talking about is obvious to intelligent people, who seem to be suspiciously ABSENT among anti-gun fools. As with all other anti-gun fools, she will say ANYTHING to mask her true intention, which is to disarm all law-abiding Americans and make it easier for those with ILLEGAL guns to victimize them. She'll deny that to her dying day, but it is obvious to those of us with brains. (NJ Herald)

Making Them Their Bitch

That's what the 4th Circuit Court did to the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court inexplicably refused to hear two cases on gun rights. "On November 27 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States once again refused to stand up to protect the Second Amendment, by turning down two cases challenging infringing state gun laws, both of which had been decided wrongly in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. " How this happened with the current makeup of the Court is strange, except maybe the conservative members were not able to vote their conscience. Refusing to hear those cases indicates a willingness to go along with the 4th's wrong decision, if it was based on the Constitutional prohibition on "abridging" the right of Americans to be armed. If this decision is an indicator of future decisions, the Second Amendment is in mortal danger. (AmmoLand)

"Threat to Public Safety"

That's what the anti gun fools say about the "national reciprocity bill." They really think the only guns in existence will be in the hands of the law-abiding, who are NOT the problem, at all. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry their guns with them when they travel can only make it safer for ALL law-abiding citizens when a lawBREAKER comes at them with his ILLEGAL gun. Allowing people to take their guns with them when they travel is NOT a "public safety threat," it allows people to defend themselves from the millions of ILLEGAL guns already out there. But the anti-gun fools just can't see that. They only see the LEGAL guns out there, and they (erroneously) see those law-abiding gun owners as a liability. They are NOT. They are our first line of defense against ILLEGAL gun owners who want to victimize us, until the cops can finally arrive, after the shooting is over. They're too stupid to see that. (Fortune)

"White Men Love Guns"

Sayeth a black man while cleaning one of his many guns, many of which were illegally obtained, so as to defend himself against other black men who would be shooting at him later. The anti-gun fools seize upon anything to make people who want to retain the right to self defense look foolish. That statement above will, of course, be called racist by the fools who make up those things. But it's not. It's a recognition of reality that MOST of the gun violence is created by one or more black men shooting at another black man who is intruding upon their "turf." I'm talking about gang members, who are overwhelmingly black or Hispanic, definitely not white. They love to promote the MYTH that "white men are gun crazy," but it is THEM who have, and regularly USE guns, thus creating the NEED for white men to have their own guns for self protection. The difference is that most white men's guns are LEGAL, and they don't usually fight over "turf." They're too busy earning a living. This is NOT an indictment of ALL black men. Most are good, hard-working people who contribute much to the community. This is about that smaller subset of gang members and other thugs. (Pacific Standard)

"Cops Keep Us Safe"

The anti-gun fools confidently tell us that the cops can keep us safe from mass murderers. Oh? How have they done so far? How many were murdered in Las Vegas recently? How about Orlando, Florida, or Sutherland Springs, Texas? Were the cops able to do ANYTHING to stop these killings? How about elsewhere? Not a chance. But the anti-gun fools still think the cops can be everywhere so they can stop a mass shooter from killing people. But the cops will be the first to tell you they can't. The cops in the trenches will honestly tell you they wish more law-abiding people could carry guns, while some police politicians (who mostly have never been in the trenches where the real action happens) think otherwise. No, the cops CAN'T "keep us safe." All they can do in most cases is "take names" of victims and witnesses and clean up the blood, and, MAYBE catch the bad guy, unless he killed himself after killing a bunch of innocent people, thus doing their jobs for them. This is yet another case where the anti-gun fools are too stupid to know how stupid they are, and that gets people killed. (Reason)

Why It Doesn't Work

We're talking about gun buybacks, and why they don't work. first off, criminals don't sell their tools of work. Some will sell old, unusable guns to get money to buy newer guns in better shape. Another reason is that the people who DO sell their guns to politically motivated buyers have no idea what those guns are worth. One .22 rifle turned in was worth five times what the seller got for it, and probably ended up in some cop's gun collection by use of simple sleight-of-hand in inventorying the guns. The basic theory in these gun buybacks is that "removing guns from the street" gets rid of "gun violence" has failed to create ANY evidence that it does. Criminals always get more guns, as many as they need to use in victimizing the law-abiding. The gun buyback simply makes politicians feel better, while reducing "gun violence" not at all. But, as with most anti-gun fool ideas, they keep trying it, over and over, while the DEFINITION of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. (All Outdoor)

Hung On Site

Some wag asked an interesting question: "What if the guy who was a five-time felon who had entered this country illegally seven times and killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco had been an NRA member? He'd have been strung up on site by a bunch of "concerned Dumocrats!" As it is, a jury of mostly liberals, with a liberal judge, in a liberal court, in a city that "coddles" criminals if they're illegal aliens, found the murderer NOT GUILTY of any kind of a crime in her death. All they convicted him of was possession of a gun by a felon, a "liberal crime." And, with "time served," he might be out on the streets next week, to kill again, since he got away with it this time. Sanctuary Cities (which San Francisco has declared itself to be) are violating the law and getting people killed, by people who have no business even BEING here. They try and tell the president that he cannot cut off their federal funds because of that, and they're WRONG--unless it comes before a liberal judge. (Keep and Bear)

"Bring Your Gun to Church"

There's a big argument going on right now about people bringing their guns with them into a "house of worship." That's because a church is supposed to be a place of peace. Unfortunately, as usual, that means nothing to those who would not only bring their guns there DESPITE the "rules," and then kill as many people as possible--IF there is nobody there with their own gun and the will to use it to protect themselves, and others. Yes. you shouldn't find it necessary to bring a gun to church. But in today's society, with fools coming into churches and killing innocent people, since most churches are "gun-free zones" and mass shooters can be pretty sure law-abiding people will NOT be armed, and able to defend themselves, and others. But REALITY says bringing a gun to church with you is only common sense. Law-abiding people bringing their guns insures "peace" when some fool comes in and starts shooting. If a mass shooter does not appear, nobody will even notice. If a mass shooter appears, that law-abiding person can KILL that shooter before he can kill a bunch of people.Then there will be "peace." And that is what needs to be done, in church, or anywhere else. Law-abiding people will NOT "go wild" and shoot up places if they're allowed to carry a gun. But they CAN "make the difference" when some fool comes in to shoot innocent people. (Just common sense)

Mass Murder Stopped

The anti-gun fools keep saying it doesn't happen. But in many cases, it DOES. In THIS case, it did. This guy obviously came there to kill a bunch of people. He was "loaded for bear," with many loaded magazines on his person when he started killing people in the parking lot of this business. His mass murder plot was ENDED after only one murder when an employee, who was legally armed, shot him twice. He is in critical condition in the hospital. It's too bad that employee wasn't a better shot, to save the state a lot of money in prosecuting him and incarcerating him for a LONG time. Once again, the anti-gun fools are proven wrong. But with the liberal media behind them, most people will never learn about this case because they will not carry the story nationally, This will remain a "local story" that is not "picked up" by the national media. This is the second time recently (that we know of) that an armed civilian stopped a mass killer in his tracks. The other one was in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where an armed citizen shot a would-be mass killer, causing him to flee, then commit suicide. (AmmoLand)

Guns for Cops?

What fool decided that cops should not be allowed to carry guns when they confront criminals, who have no qualms in carrying their guns? In Great Britain and Scotland, many cops DON'T carry guns, while criminals DO. In France too, apparently some cops are unarmed, which was revealed when some cops could do nothing but cower behind their cars and WATCH while a couple of Islamic terrorists killed 11 people at a satire newspaper for having the temerity to publish a DRAWING of their "prophet." Now Scottish cops are crying out to be allowed to carry guns, so they can defend themselves against the criminals, who HAVE guns. In Scotland, the police union says their cops "feel vulnerable and ill-equipped." Ya THINK? Why any cop would want to go up against an ARMED criminal without his own gun is ignorance, and "natural selection" will rid us of their presence. In Scotland, there are about 600 armed cops, who are only deployed in situations where there is a serious possibility of violence. But what about situations where violence was not expected, but breaks out, anyway? What happens to those cops SUDDENLY faced with an armed suspect? Do they die, while the armed cops (many of whom are part-time) are deployed? (Keep and Bear)

Banned Guns Kill Hundreds

In Egypt, where automatic weapons are BANNED for use by citizens (but not for the government agents, of course), Islamic terrorists used them to murder more than 200 Egyptian Muslims who were attending a Mosque. They used a bomb to get them to flee the Mosque, then shot them down like dogs as they fled, Then later, they, themselves, were blown to kingdom come by the government, which tracked them down and blew them to hell. Oops! I bet they didn't expect that! But the whole point here is that the very guns they used were BANNED in a country which does not have a Second Amendment, but they had those guns, anyway. How did they get them? Illegally, of course, again proving laws against guns do NOTHING to stop criminals or terrorists from getting them. Yet they keep making them. (Daily Wire)

"Trusted" To Own A Gun!

That's what the Arkansas State Police say about people who have concealed carry permits. and as such they have "entered into a contract" to not only get training, but to return to be "recertified" every few months, because some people are so stupid they "forget" basics, such as how to load a magazine. Yes, people who get guns should get trained in its use. But having to "return every few months" for further training (and to pay the fees required) is an abuse of power. First off, nobody has the right to "trust' somebody to own a gun for self defense. Owning and using guns is a RIGHT, not to be "trusted" by ANYBODY. The very idea that you must be "trusted" to own a gun is stupid. But that's how anti-gun fools think. They think they have the right to"trust" us to own a gun, which they do NOT. Even stupid people have the inalienable RIGHT to own a gun for self defense. Natural selection will "weed out" the really stupid ones. Except those in the anti-gun fool category, most of whom carry their own guns, while wanting to deny that right to others. (The Geek Blog)

Banning Guns Won't Work

The theory pushing the anti-gun fools is that if they can get rid of ALL the guns in the world (impossible), that will cause crime to dry up. That shows a complete ignorance of how things work in the world. First, there is NO WAY they will ever get rid of all the guns in the world. Second, violent crime pre-exists guns by many years. Back when guns were non-existent, thugs found other things to use in victimizing the law-abiding. Such as swords and other kinds of knives. Swords and other bladed instruments have been used for hundreds,maybe thousands of years to victimize people. The only real answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the law abiding, so they can defend themselves. Criminals will always be able to get guns to use in committing their crimes. They buy them ILLEGALLY, or just STEAL them. These people really should be intelligent enough to understand that, but apparently they aren't. Or they just want to "feel the power' of telling you that you can't own a gun. (America's First Freedom)

Total Ignorance About Guns

This columnist is totally ignorant on guns. He blames the NRA for people being killed by guns when it is the LAWBREAKERS who do the killing. Very few legal gun owners kill people who do not need killing because they are using their ILLEGAL guns to threaten people. The NRA simply stands up for the RIGHTS recognized and GUARANTEED by the Second Amendment of the Constitution for American citizens to be armed, so they can defend themselves from such people. He tells of ONE crazy killer who was a bad conduct discharge from the Air Force, who shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, but who DID, because the Air Force screwed up in not sending his name to NICS, thereby allowing him to successfully LIE in order to buy the guns he used to kill 26 people in that church. How that makes the NRA responsible is beyond my understanding. What IS responsible is the incompetence of those Air Force paper-pushers who screwed up. When they say somebody is responsible for people dying because they stand up for a constitutional RIGHT shows complete IGNORANCE of how things work. The responsible people are people who think this way, and would deprive law-abiding people of the right to self defense, and to buy and use a gun, the TOOL for that defense. (Citizen-Times/DaveWaltrop)

Fatal Gun Control Flaw

It DEPENDS on LAWBREAKERS to OBEY their laws, and they DON'T. Background checks, for instance, can only be applied to LEGAL gun buyers, while criminals just ignore them while getting their guns ILLEGALLY. Gun free zones are only observed by law-abiding people, while criminals ignore them. or even seek them out in which to do their "dirty work." "Safe storage" laws are routinely ignored by criminals, and only serve to make it easier for criminals to victimize the law-abiding. Laws limiting the size of magazines are commonly overcome by criminals by simply buying their high capacity magazines illegally or STEALING them, like many criminals do their guns. Anti-murder laws likewise suffer from this, but they are not made to PREVENT murder, but are made to PUNISH murder and get the murderer "off the street" AFTER he kills somebody. They only prevent SUBSEQUENT murders by the same murderer, and MAYBE cause future murderers to think twice about what they will do. Anti-gun laws are not for that. They wish to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals, and they FAIL, miserably. (Just common sense)

Complete Ignorance About Guns

Gabby Giffords' brain must have suffered some serious damage when that killer bounced a bullet off it. Now she wants a law requiring EVERY PART that makes up a gun to have a serial number--and, of course, to go along with that, a requirement for the "authorities" to keep track of all those numbers, including changes when new parts are installed while making repairs. She obviously has NO IDEA of the bureaucratic nightmare this would create. Whole new databases would have to be created, and kept up to date. That includes the changes when new parts are installed. She obviously is ignorant of the sheer COST of such activity, to keep track of all the parts in LEGAL guns, while the ILLEGAL guns are completely ignored. And criminals more often than not do not carry LEGAL guns. Local officials are hoping against hope that her bill does not pass into law, because I'm sure it does not include increases in their budgets to cover the insurmountable COSTS. That's even if they AGREE with her on "gun control." (The Geek Blog)

"Shall Not Be Abridged"

I wonder what there is about "shall not be abridged" that anti-gun fools do not understand? The Second Amendment could not be more clear. It is a single paragraph that says one thing: that the right of all Americans to be armed "shall not be infringed." Yet lawmakers make laws to abridge that right, every day. And the Supreme Court sometimes even upholds them--sometimes simply through INACTION, as they did recently when they refused to get rid of an unconstitutional law in Maryland that CLEARLY abridged that BIRTHRIGHT. A birthright is one held by "right of BIRTH" and cannot rightly be abridged by man. That right continues to be under attack by fools who believe they can ignore the Constitution in making their laws. There should be a law that PUNISHES lawmakers who KNOWINGLY make laws that violate the Constitution, which is the BASE upon which ALL our laws sit. But that probably will never happen, as long as that law must be made by the very people it wants to bring into line. (ABC News)

Gun Control Is Useless

In Port Lucie, FL, cops arrested a FELON in possession of many weapons. So how did he get all those guns, if, as a felon, he is not allowed to HAVE any guns? Simple: he just IGNORED the law as do all criminals who want guns. Cops found THREE automatic weapons, three handguns, and 4,000 rounds of ammunition in his home. One of the charges against him was THEFT of a gun. You think maybe he stole those others, too? He certainly didn't get them legally. This is a testament to the INEFFECTIVENESS of gun laws. Lawbreakers, who break laws for a living, are NOT going to obey a law that says they can't be armed. Why should they, when they violate so many other laws? Anybody who thinks they will is stupid. And that includes ALL anti-gun fools, who keep making USELESS gun laws for them to ignore. One would think these people would be intelligent, but that is not the case, at all. Yet they keep coming up with USELESS gun laws that the "bad guys" routinely ignore. If they were intelligent, they'd deal with that and quit wasting their time and ours with their stupid, useless, and unconstitutional gun laws. The Constitution specifically recognizes our right to be armed. Every law they make limiting that right is unconstitutional, and they should know that. But they persevere in their stupidity. (WPTV)