Anti-Gun Activists Can’t Stand That Armed Citizens Stopped The TX Church Attack

This weekend’s shooting in Texas has once again made it clear that no matter how much Moms Demand, Everytown, and other gun control groups might proclaim they’re not opposed to the Second Amendment but just want a few commonsense gun safety measures, they simply can’t say anything positive about owning or using a firearm in self-defense. Since that’s the core purpose of the Second Amendment, it’s impossible to take them seriously when they pretend to support the right to keep and bear arms or care about your safety and that of your family.

Anti-Semitic Attacks Show Need for Arms

THE STOOPID! IT BUUUUURNS!

How else does one stop a machete-wielding villain from chopping up one’s loved ones? Kind words?

Jewish people in the United States have a longstanding aversion to firearms ownership. It’s a ridiculous one, to be sure, since the Torah actually commands Jews to defend their lives with lethal force, if need be. Given Jewish history and the continued anti-Semitic abuses of the Jewish people, it’s hard to believe that so many Jews think that doing nothing and remaining passive victims is the way to stop anti-Semitic attacks.

On the pro-gun side is the famous Talmudic dictum: If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first. This statement from the Talmudic sage Rava is derived from a passage that permits a homeowner to kill an intruder in self-defense if the trespasser arrives in the night.

The Torah commands self-preservation, and Jews who stubbornly refuse to see it while preaching gun control, and claiming that Judaism’s prohibition on putting oneself in unnecessary danger proscribes gun ownership, are blinded by stupidity. How is sitting in one’s own home, celebrating the High Holy Days unnecessarily dangerous – even more so than owning a firearm for self defense?

Explanations?

Rabbi Dovid Bendory has several hypotheses why so many Jewish people refuse to take up arms in their own defense – even when anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise.

1. A desire for utopian moral purity
2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
3. A quest for power through victimization of peers
4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,”
crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place
5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based
behavioral problems that develop in childhood
6. The Ostrich Syndrome
7. Garden-variety hypocrisy
8. Adulterated religion — Jews In Name Only (JINOs)
9. Feel-good sophistry
10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior

Here's what happens when people rise to defend themselves.

The Mass Shooting You’ll Never Hear About

A mass shooting at a school in California was averted.  This is what happens when the government doesn't fail, like the FBI and the police failed at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.

From the LA Times:

Gardena police found several guns and a cache of ammunition at the home of a high school student who threatened campus violence in two social media posts this week, authorities said.

The investigation began Thursday when police received a call regarding a threat to Serra High School, according to the Gardena Police Department. Investigators identified a student who posted a threatening message earlier this week.

The teen posted a more specific threat Thursday, saying that violence would take place on campus. Detectives arrested the teen, who was not named, on suspicion of making criminal threats and possessing a firearm as a juvenile.

It’s a shame, but this case will be forgotten by next week. Meanwhile, we’ll still be debating about AR-15’s and 30-round magazines. We’ll still be arguing over whether someone should be able to buy a long gun at 18 or 21. We’ll still be having these discussions because the system that has nothing to do with gun control actually worked.

That’s probably the biggest shame of all of this. When everything goes like it’s supposed to, such as in this case, it’s quickly forgotten. It takes a Parkland for the discussion to last more than a day or two, and then it goes in the completely wrong direction. Then it becomes about taking away people’s rights.

No. Just no.

Use the system in place. Use it correctly. Making threats is a crime. It’s grounds for investigating further and, if necessary, arresting someone for more than making a threat. Use that to end these horrible tragedies.

Don’t punish people who had nothing to do with it.

Why It’s Time To Raise The Voting Age Back To 21

The teens going on television to agitate for gun control after the Parkland shooting make the case, not for lowering the voting age, but for raising it.

Read the whole thing. Excerpt:

Consider the case of David Hogg, the one you’ve probably seen on TV the most. A few days ago he was responding to the unraveling of the Parkland narrative—the revelation that armed sheriff’s deputies had arrived at the shooting while it was in progress but made no attempt to stop the killer—by excusing the deputy, asking, “Who wants to go down the barrel of an AR-15?” (Never mind that the deputy had no way of knowing what weapon was being used.) Just a few days later, Hogg was on television (again), blaming the deputy’s inaction on…Florida Gov. Rick Scott.

These elected officials are the boss of these sheriff personnel and just like the president is the boss of the FBI, Governor Rick Scott is essentially the boss of Scott Israel, the sheriff, and as such he should be held accountable. He can’t just blame this on the bureaucracy and expect to get re-elected.

Aside from the blatant contradiction of Hogg’s earlier views, the main thing you should notice about this statement is that it is factually wrong. Scott is not the “boss” of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel any more than Scott is the “boss” of the state’s mayors or legislators. The sheriff is an independently elected position. That’s a widespread feature of our Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement, which today’s young people might know if they weren’t too busy being taught to be shocked and offended by the phrase “Anglo-American.”

911 What's Your Emergency?

"911, what's your emergency?"

"There's someone breaking into my house. Could you send the Broward County Sheriff's Department to water my garden while I kill the intruder?"

— Jesse Kelly® (@JesseKellyDC) February 24, 2018

What does @CillizzaCNN call a cowardly cop who acts in a fatally negligent way?

What does @CillizzaCNN call a cowardly cop who acts in a fatally negligent way? "A good guy." https://t.co/akglxhKFz2

— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) February 24, 2018

Jake Tapper a Former Spokesman for Handgun Control, Inc.?

So says Gateway Pundit, quoting an old news story identifying one "Jake Tapper" as a spokesman for Handgun Control, Inc. (which would later become the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence).

Now, I suppose it's possible that the Jake Tapper mentioned here is not the same Jake Tapper who a large number of cucky "conservatives" have homoerotic (at the very least) crushes on, but I've scanned Jake Tapper's twitter feed for a claim like this -- "Wrong Jake Tapper," that kind of thing -- and as far as I can tell he's just completely ignoring it.

And when someone in the media simply ignores a charge that they obviously have the power to respond to -- well, you can decide for yourself.

Of course, CNN did not disclose this before, during, or after its rowdy, Beer Hall Putsch-style "townhall," nor have they ever disclosed it, as far as I know.

By the way, a father and daughter have come forward to accuse CNN not of "scripting" questions as another Parkland student alleged, but at least of only soliciting a certain kind of opinion for their political advertisement masquerading as news.

FOX BUTTERFIELD, IS THAT YOU?

James Taranto has moved on from his daily online Best of the Web column and his recurring documentation of New York Timesthink under the catchphrase “Fox Butterfield, is that you?” Butterfield was the Times reporter endlessly befuddled by, or indignant over, high incarceration rates coupled with low crime rates. Invoking Butterfield, Taranto noted cases of reported contradiction where correlation was more like it.

CBS Minnesota affiliate WCCO introduces Pat Kessler’s story on gun ownership with this classic of the genre: “More people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains relatively low.” Kessler himself reports: “Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI. And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.”

NPR head doesn’t get it even after spending a year going into “Darkest America.”

The former head of NPR, Ken Stern, decided to imitate European explorers who trekked into darkest Africa to discover how the natives lived.  For the head of NPR, Middle America is unexplored territory.   He decided to attend their native festivals, observed their native religious ceremonies, ate their native food.  He even went on a native hunt. 

But let us echo his actual words:

I decided to venture out from my overwhelmingly Democratic neighborhood and engage Republicans where they live, work and pray. For an entire year, I embedded myself with the other side, standing in pit row at a NASCAR race, hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon’s radio show.

He was surprised to find out that the natives were not all headhunting cannibals.

I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press and imagined by presidents (“cling to guns or religion”) and presidential candidates (“basket of deplorables”) alike.

Attending the natives quaint religious ceremonies he didn’t understand the theological imperatives that brought them together, but he was shocked to discover that hate was not the guiding impulse.

I spent many Sundays in evangelical churches and hung out with 15,000 evangelical youth at the Urbana conference. I wasn’t sure what to expect among thousands of college-age evangelicals, but I certainly didn’t expect the intense discussion of racial equity and refugee issues — how to help them, not how to keep them out — but that is what I got.

He was surprised to find out that the native spear carriers were not mindless killing machines.

None of my new hunting partners fit the lazy caricature of the angry NRA member.

He even found that the natives were upset because the ruling class ignored their needs.

I also spent time in depressed areas of Kentucky and Ohio with workers who felt that their concerns had long fallen on deaf ears and were looking for every opportunity to protest a government and political and media establishment that had left them behind.

Of course, while the natives issues have been ignored (or ridiculed), the ruling class means well.  The people who are currently leading them are terrible people, they’re agitating for change, they’re inappropriate who don’t use the right knives and forks.  And it’s having an unfortunate effect: the rulers are losing the respect which are rightly theirs.

Some may take pleasure in the discomfort of the media, but it is not a good situation for the country to have the media in disrepute and under constant attack. Virtually every significant leader of this nation, from Jefferson on down, has recognized the critical role of an independent press to the orderly functioning of democracy. We should all be worried that more than 65 percent of voters think there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media and that our major media institutions are seen as creating, not combatting, our growing partisan divide.

 

Some of this loss of reputation stems from effective demagoguery from the right and the left, as well as from our demagogue-in-chief, but the attacks wouldn’t be so successful if our media institutions hadn’t failed us as well.

 

None of this justifies the attacks from President Trump, which are terribly inappropriate coming from the head of government.

Stern believes that the media needs to focus more on the benighted natives, yelling at them in in their own curious language, dominating their discussions, telling them the “right-think” in their tribal events, their religious ceremonies, their governing councils.

You can’t cover America from the Acela corridor, and the media need to get out and be part of the conversations that take place in churches and community centers and town halls.

Whoops.  The Liberal Culture has gone a little too far driving the rest of us away from the things that interest the inhabitants of the Acela corridor.  Having taken over total control of Hollywood, music, the arts, the press, academia and the courts they are absolutely gob smacked to find out that they no longer have the respect - or the attention - of the natives.

Why Did it Have to be … Guns?

L. Neil Smith

Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like “Constitutionalist”—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man—and you’re not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn’t true, is it?

No.

Libertarians are the shits.

News Flash: Chicago gang bangers don't get their guns legally!

A recent study that was conducted by the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab has learned that Chicago criminals do not acquire their guns from gun shops, gun shows or the internet.

The study examined and interviewed inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who are either facing current gun charges, or have a background consisting of firearms related convictions.

The study learned that virtually zero criminals have ever used the internet or gun shows, because that method is easily traceable. It’s much safer for a criminal to acquire firearms on the streets where they’re harder to keep track of, and that’s most criminals method of choice.

Furthermore, University of Chicago Crime lab co-director, Harold Pollack, said that criminals “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

What would we do without experts?  And this is why more gun laws don't work.

I wonder if this will come as news to the editors of the Virginian Pilot who seem fixated on ending gun violence by passing more laws keeping criminals from getting guns.  But then, the Virginian Pilot writers and editors drive for gun control laws is really a lie.  They want you disarmed because a disarmed people are more easily controlled by the government and they are the Party of Government. Fascists with a smiley face. 

Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA

Scott Adams on "gun control" from the Democrat and Republican perspectives.

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.

Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.

Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.

If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.

So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”

—

*I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.

After Lying For 30 Years, New York Times Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth”

“Assault weapons” is a made-up term, used to scare citizens into thinking that military weapons were commonly being sold and used on the streets of the United States. Thanks to a dishonest and incompetent media, millions of Americans thought (and still think) that machine guns could simply be purchased at the local gun store. The reality that the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons for the civilian market in 1986, was always hushed up.

For those who have to read the lies directly in the Times, here's the article.

Remember when they lied "No one wants to take your guns?"

The New Republic, mouthpiece of the Vanguard of the Proletariat (when that title isn't taken by the NY Times) finally admits that what they want: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

And there you have it. You are not to be trusted with a gun because if you are not a killer now, you may become one.  If you are evil you can't have a gun; if you are not evil you can't be trusted with a gun because Phoebe Maltz Bovy doesn't want anyone to have guns. The how and he why is a detail that can be worked out and then the world will be at peace again.

What's interesting is not that Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a nutcase who doesn't use her screed to make the case that banning guns will actually, you know, make guns go away. What's interesting is that the "Enlightened" see the last year of the Obama administration as the last great opportunity to take guns away from the American people. And they can only do it by coming out of the closet and admitting their goal. As Obama has proven by not defeating Radical Muslim extremism, you can't achieve your goal unless you are willing to come out and honestly articulate your goal.

Harvard University Study Reveals More Guns Equal Less Crime

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.... But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens.

The popular assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate, says the Harvard study, is a throwback to the Cold War when Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. In a strategic disinformation campaign, the U.S. was painted worldwide as a gunslinging nightmare of street violence – far worse than what was going on in Russia. The line was repeated so many times that many believed it to be true. Now, many still do.

Today violence continues in Russia – far worse than in the U.S. – although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed. “Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.,” note Kates and Mauser . Kates is a Yale-educated criminologist and constitutional lawyer. Dr. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist at Simon Fraser University with a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error.”

By the early 1990s, Russia's murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, “in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia,” say Kates and Mauser, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”

“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated," the statement “is, in fact, false.”

There's a how-to manual for gun grabbers on how to exploit tragedy.

“And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual that has been put out for gun control advocates?” asks Snyder. “This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control.” It’s a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide, an 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.” It also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” In other words, they time their propaganda carefully. Just when it will alarm you the most."

Do we want to be more like the UK?

Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK? The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU. The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

What if the News Media Were Being Killed Instead of Schoolchildren?

We have known for years that madmen with guns target schools, and yet I have never seen a single member of the mainstream media ask an official in the aftermath why in God’s name there was no increase in security.

There are IMMEDIATE solutions to these school shootings. Not fool-proof solutions, but common sense solutions that could be implemented TOMORROW: remove the gun-free zone signs that advertise sitting ducks and armor up with armed guards and personnel.

How many of our veterans are unemployed?

How many off-duty cops are looking to pick up a few extra bucks?

Yes, it would cost money. But the primary job of our government — including at the state and local level where this should be arranged — is to protect us.

These are IMMEDIATE COMMON SENSE solutions. This is also the OBVIOUS course the media itself would take if it were under attack by random mad men.

Why then won’t the media call for this solution?

Why then won’t the media shame local officials who did nothing to increase security during this epidemic?

The answer is painfully obvious and painfully revealing: if the school shootings stop, the best leverage Democrats and their media allies have to pass gun control vanishes.

The media’s priority is not to protect schoolchildren.

The media’s priority is to use piles of dead schoolchildren as sacrifices to The Cause.

James Alan Fox: Umpqua shooting - a tragedy, not a trend

According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.

But school shootings are a useful political tool for the Left that wants Americans disarmed so that they are powerless before the government.

COLLEGE GUN MANIAC 'WAS A BRIT'...

Wanted to be 'welcomed in hell and embraced by devil'...

Student narrowly avoided massacre thanks to 'gut feeling'...

CRIMINOLOGIST: 'Hype and hysteria on rise, not gun violence'...

Media wrestle with naming mass shooter...

Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there’s only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it’s similar to “Screw you.”

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers’ infamous observation that ‘fundamentally transforming’ America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.