Clicky

News

by -
11 795

I can’t begin to tell you how sick I am of hearing how “we have to get guns off the streets to protect the children.” It apparently never crosses the mind of a gun-grabber that crazy people are targeting schools precisely because those schools are “gun free zones” where not even faculty are allowed to carry in order to protect those children.

Then gun grabbers want to expand this faulty logic to entire cities, states, and countries. And the result where they succeed with these plans is that innocent people get hurt because criminals don’t follow the law. Criminals know where and how to get guns and will use them whether it is legal or not. Jenn Jacques writes about another tragic incident,

Reports are coming in from Chicago that at least two children have been shot outside of an elementary school on city’s Far South Side.

According to police dispatch reports, the shooting reportedly happened at Warren Elementary School, 9239 S. Jeffrey, in the Calumet Heights neighborhood, at 1:45 p.m. CST this afternoon [June 16, 2017].

The two students were outside on the playground when they heard gunshots in the street, and ran into the school for cover.

Before they could get into the school, the students both sustained non-life threatening injuries. A 7-year-old girl was shot in the thigh and a 13-year-old girl was shot in the hand.

Police scanner traffic said “numerous casings” were found at the scene with at least one witness describing the shooting as a “drive-by”.

A ‘person of ‘ is in custody and being questioned by investigators.

The wounded students were taken in serious condition to Comer Children’s Hospital and are expected to survive.

So, in case any gun control supporter is reading this, let’s be completely clear about this: this shooting happened at an elementary school (a gun free zone) in Chicago (which has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country), and innocent children were still hurt. What makes you think banning guns anywhere else in the country will prevent this kind of insanity from happening?

The simple, unpleasant truth is that gun control won’t stop these kinds of horrible things from happening, but a gun owner on the scene can prevent these types of shootings from becoming mass shootings by stopping the nutcase from firing any more rounds.

Gun control doesn’t stop shootings; responsible gun owners do.

by -
17 883

For anyone with any awareness of how the world works, it doesn’t take long to realize that, too often, the media twists the truth of a situation for their own purposes. Sometimes it’s just sensationalism so they can sell more advertising by attracting more eyeballs. Sometimes, though, it’s intentional misrepresentation for the purpose of pushing an agenda.

A recent story about an incident in Jackson, Mississippi might have you thinking that law-abiding gun owners are careless people who cause other people to be injured through that carelessness. Bob Irwin gives us details:

USA Today reports on 05-26-2017 in Jackson, Mississippi, Story Headline “She’s in jail after dropping purse — because gun inside it went off”

A 58 year old woman from Philadelphia, Mississippi was in Lakeland Family Medicine Center on the University of Mississippi Medical Center campus Thursday when she had a mishap.

The woman dropped her purse and the gun inside it discharged. Another woman waiting in a doctor’s office was wounded by the bullet. An ambulance transported the victim, whose name was not released, to the nearby hospital’s emergency room. Her wound to the leg is not believed to be life threatening.

Mississippi has one of the most permissive gun laws across the USA, allowing a person “constitutional carry” privileges of having a concealed firearm without a state-issued permit. However, the building where the incident occurred had signs outside forbidding firearms on the premises.

She was charged with three misdemeanors – possession of a stolen firearm, carrying a concealed weapon and simple assault according to the jail website. Campus police arrested the “shooter” and booked her into the Hinds County Detention Center.

Now, if you’re like many people who only read the first two or three paragraphs, you would think that it’s just that gun owners are careless and shootings like this probably happen all the time. And, hey, if gun owners are so careless, then they shouldn’t have guns, right?

But you finally get a few more details in the last two paragraphs: This wasn’t a legal gun owner (the gun was stolen). Beyond that, what the article doesn’t tell you is that the lady who was arrested was a convicted felon who isn’t legally allowed to have a gun. Oh, and she was in a building designated a gun-free zone (that obviously stopper her from carrying, didn’t it?).

In other words, this lady broke three laws that didn’t have anything to do with legal and responsible gun use.

So, USA Today implies that gun owners are the problem.

Unfortunately, I’m not surprised, and neither should you be surprised. This is why we all must remain vigilant to be responsible gun owners, to help other people become well trained responsible gun owners, and to also keep telling other people the truth about gun ownership: criminals are the problem. Not legal gun owners.

by -
10 659

“Gun Free Zones” are the bane of lawful gun owners and the gleeful dream of terrorists and criminals. Where else can crazy people and psychopaths have such easy pickings when it comes to hurting other people?

Of course, the reason these “safe places” are so beloved by those prone to violence is because they are the only ones disobeying the law by carrying guns there.

But a recent news story gives you the idea that one massive gun free zone may be opening up to allow lawful carriers to have their weapons with them. Congressman Thomas Massie, Chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus, introduced H.R. 2909, titled the “D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act.” Congressman Massie said,

“After the horrific shooting at the Republican Congressional Baseball practice, there will likely be calls for special privileges to protect politicians. Our reaction should instead be to protect the right of all citizens guaranteed in the Constitution: the right to self-defense. I do not want to extend a special privilege to politicians, because the right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege, it is a God-given right protected by our Constitution.

“If not for the heroic efforts of the United States Capitol Police at the ball field yesterday, things could have been much worse.

“What’s always evident in these situations is this: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

“To ensure public safety, we need to repeal laws that keep good guys from carrying guns, since not everyone has a personal police detail. The right to keep and bear arms is the common person’s first line of defense in these situations, and it should never be denied.”

Congressman Massie nailed it with this one, and, if Congress has any sense, they’ll pass this bill.

Unfortunately, however, Congressman Massie also was right that some are calling for special privileges for carrying in D.C. Mark Walters quotes Representative Barry Loudermilk:

“I think we need to look at some kind of reciprocity for members here,” Loudermilk said. “But also we need to look at security detail. If Scalise hadn’t been on our team, it would have been really bad.”

“We aren’t any more special than anybody else, but we’re targets,” Loudermilk said. “This is exactly why there’s a lot of fear of doing town halls at this point.”

Unfortunately, unlike Congressman Massie, Loudermilk thinks reciprocity should only be for members of Congress. Why? He seems to imply that it’s because they are in D.C. and not back home in Georgia (which Loudermilk represents).

This is utter nonsense. Members of Congress may be targets (maybe), but everyday Americans are targeted every day and use their weapons in self-defense, often without having to fire a single shot.

What needs to pass is Congressman Massie’s bill. Frankly, it should simply be put down to Constitutional carry. Why? Because their lives are no more valuable than ours, but they are more likely to get protection by Federal agents. For our own safety, we need it to be able to carry anywhere.

by -
14 803

File this under the: “How does this make any sense to anyone?” file.

A proposed bill has the specific purpose of preventing residents from one Western state from being able to purchase more than one gun per month. Yes, we’re talking gun rationing.

Now, we’re not talking about concerns that there will be enough food or other resources for everyone like was used to justify rationing during World War II. We’re just talking rationing because, apparently, State Senator Antony Portantino (D-Pasadena) thinks it’s a good idea. Never mind that it, even if it passes, it won’t apply to him. Daniel Jennings gives us more details about this lunacy in California:

The California bill, sponsored by State Senator Antony Portantino (D-Pasadena), was labeled “firearms rationing” by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” SB 497 states.

The bill applies not only to pistols but also to rifles and shotguns.

It specifically exempts law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, licensed firearms dealers, motion picture and television production companies, and licensed collectors.

Current California law makes it illegal for private citizens to purchase more than one handgun a month. SB 497 extends that restriction to rifles and shotguns.

“This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms,” the legislative counsel’s digest of SB 497 states. Dealers who violate SB 497 can be prosecuted as criminals.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 25-13. To become law, it must pass the state Assembly and then be signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who vetoed a similar bill in 2016.

What I want to know is what in the world that State Senator Portantino (and the other Senators that voted for the bill) hopes to accomplish with this bill. So, they stop someone from buying a second gun this month. The bill doesn’t stop someone from buying a gun right now (whch is all some nutcase needs to go commit a horrible crime), and the bill doesn’t stop a criminal from stealing or obtaining a gun by some other illegal manner.

All this bill will accomplish is that it will allow these State Senators to say that they helped to protect the children (without actually making any difference) and to place an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun shops to have to to through the process of making sure a customer hasn’t already (legally) bought a gun of any kind this month before selling them a gun.

It’s ridiculous and a waste of time and money.

by -
12 1943

I don’t know that I ever honestly thought that I would see this: a government which actually understands and supports the use of guns for one of their proper uses. No, I’m not talking about hunting (which is absolutely a proper use). I’m talking about self-defense.

Yes, there is a government that, in so many words, admitted what we have always known to be true: governments can’t stop evil people from doing things, so people one the scene need to be able to stop evil people from doing things. (In case you’re wondering, governments don’t prevent crime; they clean up the mess afterwards and attempt to punish the people who committed the crime. By that time, though, the damage has already been done.) Amanda Erickson gives us more information:

A couple of months ago, Czech President Milos Zeman made an unusual request: He urged citizens to arm themselves against […] terrorists.

[G]un purchases spiked.

Now the country’s interior ministry is pushing a constitutional change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists. Proponents say this could save lives if an attack occurs and police are delayed or unable to make their way to the scene. To become law, Parliament must approve the proposal; they’ll vote in the coming months.

The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe. It’s home to about 800,000 registered firearms and 300,000 people with gun licenses. Obtaining a weapon is relatively easy: Residents must be 21, pass a gun knowledge check and have no criminal record. By law, Czechs can use their weapons to protect their property or when in danger, although they need to prove they faced a real threat.

Now, to be fair, there are two points to be made about this. First: the Czech President singled out a specific group that he labeled potential terrorists when, frankly, people should be arming themselves against all terrorists, not just a specific group which may not be active in that country at all. Second: Czechoslovakia is a member of the European Union which just voted to put into place stricter gun control measures. Because they are a member of the EU, the current administration in Czechoslovakia may not be able to keep their more lenient stand on gun control.

Still, it’s nice to hear government officials acknowledging that people need to be able to defend themselves even if it is only for appearances.

by -
16 984

If you meet someone who tells you that you need to act one way because everyone needs to act that way but, then, they act completely opposite to their statement to you, what would you call that person? Yes, you would call them a hypocrite (and you’d be right).

And we have a perfect example of people being hypocrites. The specific problem that we’re talking about is that legislators in anti-gun strongholds are hypocrites when it comes to gun control. Don’t believe me? We’ll let Scott Osborn tell you the details:

The California State Senate agrees with Charlie Rangel that they “deserve” to own guns but the citizens do not! Every year they pass more and more gun control laws and NONE of them apply to themselves!

They voted 28-8 to exempt themselves from the gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the California.

You think maybe this will cause Californians to rise up? NOPE! It happened 5 years ago and since then, California has passed a plethora of other gun laws…that only apply to citizens.

Yes, you heard me right! The exemption was created in 2011 and the California legislature has passed a number of gun laws since. Pretty easy when you are passing bills that do not apply to you!

It is not the only special privileges California legislators provide themselves!

They do not pay red light camera bills or for gasoline!

So, just to repeat: the California State Senate overwhelming voted to let themselves have guns while restricting gun ownership in that state. Oh, and the don’t pay for gasoline or tickets when they run red lights.

It’s utterly ridiculous. And then you have anti-gunners wondering why people like us who are pro 2nd Amendment distrust politicians. If these anti-gunners did any research for themselves instead of buying into propaganda from the mainstream media and from politicians that lie to them to get their votes, then we’d have a lot less opposition about the 2nd Amendment.

The fact of the matter is: If it’s good enough for Senators to have guns, then it’s good enough for you and me to have guns, too.

by -
11 1458

I suppose the only question we should be asking criminals aboutCoffee drive thru sign with reflect from glass window getting guns is “Do you want fries with that?”

As gun-grabbing liberals keep trying to find ways (sometimes silly) to pass more and more gun legislation, these 10 “drive-thru” criminals from a recent KHOU-TV news report gave their opinion…

They could care less.

They’ll just take the guns, according to the report on Guns N’ Freedom:

It was all caught on surveillance video.  A group of at least 10 masked thieves used a pick-up truck to break into a gun shop in Houston.

Footage shows the Ford F-150 being used to simply rip the doors off the building, allowing the thieves to grab upwards of 50 firearms.

Just in case you thought crooks just got all their guns from that make-believe “gun show loophole” this video should provide some clarity as to how little these low-lifes care about gun laws.

Disarming the law-abiding public just makes it easier for the criminals to arm themselves and do their thing.  They (the criminals) don’t give a hoot about Obama, Hillary, and their gang of gun legislation obsessed politicians.

Insanity has been quoted as “doing the same thing over and over again … but expecting different results.”

So when are Obama and the bunch going to stop being insane?

by -
20 1177

As an adult, you know that, even when you do the right thing, that doesn’t mean that you’ll have immediate victory. There is an unfortunate story in an anti-gun stronghold which confirms this fact of life.

You see, the Michigan Supreme Court recently upheld a University of Michigan rule which banned guns on its campuses. The Associated Press notes,

In a 2-1 decision, the court said a 2001 ban doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution. The court also said the university isn’t covered by a state law that prevents local governments from putting limits on guns.

The university is a “state-level, not a lower level or inferior level, governmental entity. More specifically, it is a constitutional corporation of independent authority,” judges Mark Cavanagh and Deborah Servitto said.

All University of Michigan properties are gun-free for students, non-police staff and the general public, unless a waiver for “extraordinary circumstances” is granted by the public safety department.

Judge David Sawyer wrote a dissenting opinion, saying the university is exceeding its authority by adopting its own restrictions. The appeals court decision was dated Tuesday [June 6, 2017] but released Wednesday [June 7, 2017].

With all due respect to the majority justices in this case, this is the kind of ridiculous thinking that only can come from a state which starts from an anti-gun viewpoint. In the first place, any limitation that doesn’t involve a conflict with another right has no reasonable limitation.

Clearly (and you don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar or a genius), this ban on guns on college campuses only violates the Second Amendment rights of college students (and any visitors) in the State of Michigan. It makes those college students even less safe.

And this gun ban comes from the people crying for safe spaces who say that they are concerned about rapes on campus. But, if they really wanted to keep college students safe, then Constitutional carry would be the rule.

It’s ridiculous, and those majority justices need to be sent back to a real law school to learn their jobs.

by -
9 801

Internet trolls are some of the most annoying and, frankly, pathetic people in the world. They seem to exist purely for the purpose of making obnoxious comments on articles and blog posts. It’s like they get their jollies from simply being jerks.

Trolls about a certain subject seem to be, in many ways, absolutely the same, though. Take anti-gun trolls. They seem to be reading from a playbook (which could be the case). Lee Williams shares the commonalities that he has seen in anti-gun trolls over the years:

They’re incapable of presenting and supporting a logical argument: The trolls’ basic mantra is — and I’ve cleaned this up a lot — Guns are bad. Therefore, gun owners are bad. I have yet to encounter a single one who’s capable of supporting this “argument,” or even parroting a simple anti-gun talking point — the kind Demanding Moms and Brady are always proselytizing. All they’d need to do is visit one of their websites and write down a few catch phrases but, alas, this would require research and reading, which I’ve found are not their strengths.

They’re penis-obsessed: If I had a dollar for every time penis or one of its synonyms were used in a troll’s post I’d be able to afford a Krebs Custom KV-13 Mod 2.  Call them out on their foolishness and they’ll respond with a rant that’s guaranteed to include several variations of terms for the male member. They’re obsessed with the word, as well as with conflating it with firearms.

They’re anonymous: Trolls never post anything under their own name. They go to great lengths to conceal their identity — fake Facebook accounts and email addresses. We discovered one troll who was using a proxy server in India to post anonymously on our website. Perhaps the trolls have formed their own NSA.

They’re profane: I don’t ban anyone for using bad language. Some sites do, but for me it would be a bit hypocritical. However, the antis who have visited our site use language that almost makes me blush — especially when someone calls them out on their BS.

They’re lone wolves sheeple:  Most trolls operate by themselves. I’ve yet to encounter one who shares their bitch-and-run posts. I’m guessing most suffer from a distinct lack of social media friends or followers.

They’re anti-American: Nothing is sacred to trolls. They bash God, guns, America and our military all with equal glee. They don’t seem to understand that their right to post their foolishness was paid for with the blood of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who, of course, didn’t use penis references to vanquish our foes.

Whether you love them or hate them, it’s true that anti-gun “crusaders” appear to be reading off of the same script about how to be general pains to people who just want to live their own lives and enjoy their guns. It’s utterly silly.

Williams lists six common characteristics of anti-gun trolls. Have you noticed others? Tell us below.

by -
6 607

Some things are so common that they are, well, common sense. When you come across something like that, you wonder why someone would bother to take the time and pay the money to confirm that information. Of course, that is after shaking your head in wonder at the fact that they did take that time and pay that money.

One example of something like this is a recent study that showed that rural residents are more likely to own guns. As if anyone had previously thought otherwise. Wayne Baker gives us a bit more information:

A recent Pew Research Study indicates that rural residents […] are disproportionately more likely than other Americans to have a gun at home for protection.

The study also revealed that rural Americans are more than twice as likely to have a gun in the home than those living in large cities.

When I see reports like this, I am dumbfounded. Does anyone really think that residents of urban areas are more likely to have guns?

The flip side of the above comment by Baker is the issue that people should be thinking about. That flip side is that urban residents are disproportionately more likely than other Americans to have to put up with foolish gun control laws so that they have less realistic options to defend themselves and their families.

Maybe people should also consider why rural residents are more likely to own guns. One reason that could be pointed out is that rural residents may have more convenient opportunities to hunt and that hunting rifle or shotgun can also be used for self-defense. That is probably true.

But there’s also the possibility that rural residents are under less of an illusion about how quickly law enforcement can actually get to them to protect them. It’s like the old saying which, unfortunately, sometimes has some truth to it: When you’re in danger, the police are only hours away.

Now, my intent is not to be cruel to law enforcement, but we would be wise to be realistic. Law enforcement cannot predict and prevent most crimes. They can only come when they know about it, clean up the mess, and, hopefully, punish the perpetrator. But if you want to prevent a murder, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Maybe rural residents are more likely than urban residents to realize that a gun is an effective way to defend themselves.

Whatever the reasons, urban residents, wherever legally possible, would be wise to think like rural folks and buy a gun for personal protection.

RANDOM POSTS

0 218
I'll be the first person to admit that I'm not really a country music fan. Now, before you start a flame war in the...