Racist anti-gun bigots grasping at straws

After Saturday's shooting in Idaho, I saw a couple of racist anti-gun bigots taunting "white" people, asking what they would say now that this shooter was a "white" guy with a "white" name.

Yeah, they were weird comments. There are a lot of evil losers, and many of them are, and have been, "white". So?

I don't personally care who the evil loser is or what he looks like; I'm going to call him out as an evil loser. 

Skin color is one of the most irrelevant superficial traits there is. You don't choose that the way you might choose a religion or a political ideology. It's an accident of birth and has zero bearing on WHO YOU ARE. Anyone of any "race" can choose to be a positive force or a negative one; a good person or an archator. No one is locked into a particular path because of their skin color, their ethnicity, or where they were born.

An evil loser isn't one of "my people" even if he looks exactly like me. We have nothing of importance in common.

Racism is stupid and evil, and so is anti-gun bigotry. Racists and anti-gun bigots are left grasping at straws, while better people look at them like they are freaks.

Imagine being so useless that you care more about the "race" of a murderer than about his actions. Getting giddy at the thought that this one doesn't look like your relative isn't a win.

Imagine wanting regular people to be helpless when confronted by evil, or imagining they should be forced to wait for the Blue Line Mafia to finally arrive to draw chalk lines and "save them". All because you hate guns more than you care about people- of any "race".

The racist anti-gun bigots should be ashamed, and probably would be if they were smarter.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Good guy with a gun

Good guys carry guns and don't wear badges. And sometimes, they wear hats!

That the evil loser took time out of his murder spree to shoot Tesla vehicles tells you everything you need to know about his motivation. Yeah, it was at least partly political (Politics makes people stupid and, usually, at least a bit evil).

When I did a "search" for the incident, I had to go halfway down the page before it even mentioned or showed the hero. 

When I specified I wanted news about the hero, it kept pairing photos of him in his shooting stance with the words "Idaho shooter causes multiple fatalities". Not clarifying that this man wasn't the shooter, but the hero who saved lives with his gun.

It feels intentional.

Because it is.

I've noticed the anti-gun bigots are really mad over this incident- not at the evil loser, but at the good guy and his gun. They are clearly signaling that they are also evil losers. And they v*te.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Both are tools

Statists- especially anti-gun bigots- like to compare government and guns. They'll point out that both are tools. Everything depends on how they are used.

I agree.

You have a right to form a government.
You have a right to own and to carry weapons, including firearms.

You have no right to impose your government on others against their will.
Just like you have no right to start shooting randomly into a crowd of people.

You have a responsibility to govern yourself, but no right to govern others. You have no right to force your government on others, even if they refuse to take that responsibility upon themselves. (In that case, you have the right to defend yourself from them.)
You have a responsibility to stay armed so you can defend yourself and others, but you have no right to start shooting random people just because you have a right to "keep and bear arms". You also have no right to force others to own and carry weapons- even though it is their responsibility to do so.

V*ting, as an expression of your right to form a government, is the same sort of behavior as shooting random people as an expression of your right to own and to carry weapons. It's archation in both cases.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

"For your own good"

No one ever disarms you for your own good.

But they'll lie and try to brainwash you into believing that's the reason they do it.

No one ever surveils you for your own good.

But they'll lie and try to brainwash you into believing that's the reason they do it.

No one ever governs you for your own good.

But they'll lie and try to brainwash you into believing that's the reason they do it.

And far too many people- usually the loudest, most ignorant minority (there's a strong correlation there)- will fall for it and cheer to have it imposed on us all.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Yankee Doodle stuck a feather in his cap and the State called it a felony

Yankee Doodle went to town
A-ridin' on a pony.
Stuck a feather in his hat
And called it 'macaroni'.

Then a Blue Line Mafia goon, commonly called a "police officer", alerted to a possible "sovereign citizen" [sic] by the Flock cameras he was watching his ex with, rushed to the scene to cause trouble.

Cop: "License, registration, and the animal's health certificate and vaccination records."

Yankee Doodle: "What?"

Cop: "You heard me. Are you resisting?"

Yankee Doodle: "...?"

Cop: "Where are you going, what is your business there, and where are you coming from?"

Yankee Doodle: "Why?"

Cop: "I need your identification."

Yankee Doodle: "My name is Yankee Doodle."

Cop: "That's obviously an alias, and that gives me reasonable suspicion to arrest you."

Yankee Doodle: "What's going on?"

Cop: "Do you have anything on you that I need to know about?"

Yankee Doodle: "No."

Cop: "I smell marijuana- possibly alcohol, too, and is that a gun?"

Yankee Doodle: "I don't understand the questions. This is America."

Cop: "Hey, that looks like an eagle feather in your cap. You're going to prison, boy!"

Yankee Doodle: "I found this feather on the ground, but I don't know what kind it is. I call it my 'macaroni'." 

Cop: "So, you are on drugs... "

Yankee Doodle: "What? No, 'macaroni' means..."

Cop: "Stop resisting! DON'T MOVE! PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND HAND ME YOUR PAPERS!!"

In the scuffle, while attacking an innocent traveler and dragging him from his horse, the cop manages to shoot himself in the foot because of the extraordinarily dangerous situation he created. 

Cop: "SHOTS FIRED! Officer down! Send backup NOW!!!!!!"

FOX News reports that a probable Antifa-affiliated Democratic Socialist commie attacked and injured a heroic officer who was just trying to keep us all safe. "He should have complied faster." Fortunately for the sake of "lawn odor", he was neutralized by the responding thugscrum. Two officers were injured in the firefight, but it isn't clear who fired those shots. The department promises to "thoroughly investigate" itself before finding that none of its officers did anything wrong.

CNN reports that another "white nationalist" has committed "gun violence", which shows again that only government employees can be trusted to have guns.

MSNBC, or whatever it calls itself now, sat and drooled while eating crayons and paste.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?
Please?

LPR (Flock) cameras are watching you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 8, 2026)

One of the most important fights in our lifetime, a fight for the future of America, is shaping up right over our heads. It's the fight against license plate reader cameras and the related spyware that is already being used against you and your liberty...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Suppressors- none of the State's business

Once I discovered that suppressors didn't silence a gunshot, I lost nearly any interest in having them.

I understand the arguments in favor of them (hearing protection, and it's your right). 

I also know the arguments against them (criminals will use them to silently murder) are based on imaginary TV/movie silencers that work like I wish they really worked. The people who want them banned or regulated are coming from a place of supreme ignorance and fear.

I'm just not personally willing to put a big, expensive cylinder on the end of a pistol for so little benefit. I'm completely in favor of you being able to order one online and have it mailed to your door without any paperwork or proof of ID.

I've noticed the politically addled people have two arguments they keep pushing: that "silencers" are "arms", and that they aren't. They each seem to believe this doesn't change government's "authority" to regulate them. it just shifts the direction a little.

If suppressors are "arms", then they believe this gives the illegal ATF the "authority" to regulate them. I believe this makes it a crime for the ATF criminals to do so.

If they aren't "arms", then some people believe this means they aren't protected by the Second Amendment, and thus are subject to regulation by the aforementioned illegal ATF. I believe this puts them outside anything the criminal ATF believes it has the "authority" to do.

Either way, the unconstitutional ATF has no legitimate say over suppressors. Nor does any other government agency or bureau or employee.

And they know it, even if they won't admit it. They are just trying to buy time until they can get a new crew of Supreme Courtjesters to agree with them.

Which leads to another argument in favor of getting a supressor: make them so ubiquitous that it doesn't matter what anyone says about them-- make them as common as flies at a feedlot.

-

Thank you for reading.
Itching to subscribe or donate?

"Brandishing"

The claim that a cupholder can't "legally" qualify as a holster (didn't say it's a good holster), brings up another nonsense "gun offense" that I've seen used against people more than once: "brandishing".

Simply being seen to be armed can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.
Holding a weapon in your hand, ready in case it's needed, can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.

To be a real crime, brandishing must mean pointing a weapon at an innocent person (someone who isn't violating anyone's life, liberty, or property at present). 

Pointing a firearm at a violator is what you should be doing in some cases, and it's not "brandishing" as a crime.
Letting a bad guy know you're armed by showing your weapon is a peaceable attempt to discourage the bad guy and convince him you're not an easy target, not a crime. Only a criminal would treat such an act as a crime.

I hate the way the anti-gun bigots of government use this word to mean whatever they want it to mean to excuse their crimes against self-responsible, prepared people. 

Just so they can shoot their friendly labradoodles, probably.

And, of course, the armed goons who work for the state never get punished for ACTUALLY brandishing in a dangerous manner* when they point their weapons at- or shoot at- innocent people. That's how you can tell it's a nonsense "offense" made up by copsuckers and other government supremacists.

-

*There's a specific case I'm thinking of, and I remember at least one photo showing a family in a car, the man who was driving holding his hands up, and a cop pointing a rifle in his face. It seems the image has been scrubbed from the internet; flushed down the memory hole. Unless I'm imagining the whole thing. I don't think I am.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

I don't think Texas knows what the word means

Any state that allows its armed goons to molest, rob, kidnap, or murder anyone for a "gun offense" is NOT a Constitutional carry state. It's a criminal organization. Its "law enforcers" are the criminals.

A Constitutional carry state would fire (and probably arrest) any law enforcer who attempted to enforce any such illegal rule. 

It wouldn't then compound its crime by illegally prohibiting its victim from being armed while the case is active- there would be no case. This is yet another violation of the Second Amendment. Two strikes, at least!

The Constitution doesn't allow government to dictate how a weapon "may" be carried. Shall NOT be infringed! 
Ethics don't allow a government to have any say in how a weapon may be carried.

Even if it did (it doesn't), who do they think they are to even make the spurious claim that a cupholder can't be a holster? If it is being used to contain a gun, it is a holster.

I don't know the basketball player, James Harden, or anything else about him. It's irrelevant. I don't care why he is being mistreated this way, or who is being mistreated this way; I only care that he is being mistreated by a supposedly "Constitutional carry" state that is showing what it really is.

Do the right thing. Drop the charges, fire the cop and any prosecutor or judge that allowed this case to be brought against him, give him their personal property as restitution, and stop being a criminal gang committing criminal acts!

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

BBQ Guns

I occasionally see videos where the topic is "BBQ Guns"- a gun you would wear, openly, to a gun-owner-friendly BBQ where that was the dress code- or even kind of the whole point.

I want to go to a BBQ like that! I've never been to one, but it sounds like a lot of fun. 

Anyway, the point is that you wear a really nice, or at least unusual/interesting, gun to show off a little.

I don't have any highly polished, gold-plated guns. I tend to find those boring, even if they look nice. But I do have a couple of ideas of what I'd wear in such a case.

My DL-15, shown above, is probably my top choice. It might not be anyone else's idea of a BBQ gun, but I really like it. And, judging by the reactions I get at the shooting range, it's interesting and unusual.

If I had to choose a backup, or if the invitation demanded a BBQ revolver, I'd wear my "Man With No Name" 1851 Navy.

If you were to pick a BBQ gun for yourself- either from your collection or from your want list- what would you choose?

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Fear

I'm more and more convinced that fear is the foundation of statism. Not evil intentions, not ignorance, not greed. Fear.

I asked the question, "What justifies government?", and got a lot of input from Statists. I did my best to ask the question in a non-biased way, and even to ask unbiased (as possible) follow-up questions of those who answered flippantly. It’s hard because I’m obviously biased for liberty, and after I had the answers I sought, I let my bias shine.

A pattern emerged in those answers. 

Fear is the most common excuse I see used to justify government. It's what every justification I've encountered distills down to, even when they try to frame it otherwise. They are scared and feel safer under government.

Don't want the government taking its "laws" off of machine guns, even though you acknowledge all such rules are illegal under the Second Amendment, because you're afraid of criminals having machine guns? That's advocating statism because of fear. (The most dangerous criminals already have machine guns if they want them, and always will.)

Justify "borders" because you're scared of what migrants do or might do? That's advocating statism because of fear.

Over and over again, I watch the same thing.

Maybe you're afraid that poor people would die without government help. There it is: fear. 

Maybe you're afraid children would remain ignorant without govschooling.
Maybe you're scared that without government, children would be exploited, violated, and killed.
Maybe you're afraid the natural environment would be wiped out without government making up rules protecting it.
Maybe you're afraid that corporations- a government creation- would take over the world without government stopping them.
Maybe you're afraid criminals would run rampant without "laws", police, and a "justice system".
Maybe you're afraid people would drive dangerously without government traffic enforcement.
Maybe you're afraid there would be no roads to drive on at all; all we'd have are cow paths and potholes.
Maybe you're scared your culture will be eradicated without government propping it up in some way.
Maybe you're afraid radio signals would overlap, and the airwaves would be nothing but unintelligible gibberish without government allocating frequencies.
Maybe you're scared of drugs, and think that without prohibition, people would die of overdoses and contaminated drugs.
Maybe you're scared of being invaded and having foreign rulers replace the rulers you've grown accustomed to.
Maybe you're scared of having to figure out what time to set your clock to without government guidance.

I could go on like this forever. This doesn't begin to cover the answers I got, but there's a common root.

It's all fear, and it's all misplaced and misguided, since the worst-case scenario is almost guaranteed to happen, not prevented but actually facilitated by the entity statists look to for protection. 

And, if you address the fear, questioning the justification for government, you'll experience their anger.

Everyone feels fear. Not everyone gives in to it and sacrifices the world to their fears. Statists do.

Giving in to fear is cowardice. Even if it just means excusing government's existence.

Do not be afraid. It’s one of the most common messages in religions (even Statism).
You don’t need government. Fear makes you believe you do. Fear not. And reject that which is justified by fears.

-

Related: Statism is terrorism
        And Curing Statism?

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

They'll do what's "best" for you, even if it kills you

They believe they know what's best for you, and they intend to impose it on you. Consent is irrelevant to them. That makes them archators.

Whether it's intentionally spreading a disease that makes people allergic to red meat, trying to criminalize self-defense, collecting all our data to use against us, or filling the streets with their weaponized drones, it's for "the common good".

And, yet, they'll lie and claim that those of us who don't want any of this garbage are imposing our wishes on others. On them. Oh, the poor babies!

No, this goes only one way.

Telling the control fetishists to leave us alone isn't us imposing our will on them. It's drawing a boundary and telling them we expect it to be respected. They can do whatever they want to each other, just leave us out of it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Looking at the problem backwards

It's not that "Democrat run cities" are "soft on crime"; it's that they are hard on defense of life, liberty, and property. Really, just about all cities, states, and countries are. It's a universal feature of government. It's that whole "monopoly of violence" scam.

I saw another story recently where someone focused on the wrong thing. Again. As always.

“A man in New York City walks into a bakery with a large bag and cleans out the entire display case. The same witness ran into him half an hour earlier at Home Depot where he was stealing there too. Two stores. One morning. One bag. Zero consequences. This is what happens when you decriminalize theft in a Democrat run city.”

No.

This is what happens when you criminalize defense and the proper tools with which to carry it out.

It’s not a case of too little “law”, but of too much, and aimed at the wrong people.

Government coddles criminals because government is made up of criminals. It’s professional courtesy.

It's your right to defend your property, or any property with which you've been entrusted. Or anyone else's property you witness being violated. Government "laws" violate this right in favor of criminals. 

It's not kindness or compassion. It's slavery. You are being enslaved by a coalition of freelance criminals, governing criminals, and their hired goons.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate, 

The government never stops growing

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 15, 2026)

Why does government continually grow in size and in power? If you look at a roster of things it meddled with a century ago compared to today, you'll notice today's list is much longer and more comprehensive.

Government is never satisfied; it never has enough control. It won't give up control or take "no" for a final answer. If it loses in court (which it controls), it acts as though it didn't. Often, it doubles down on its illegal activities. This is because there are no immediate, painful consequences for its defiant criminality.

It lies, and many people still believe it.

"This new tax will only apply to billionaires"- until it doesn't. Then it will apply to you. "It's only a 3% tax"- until they increase it. Now they are even plotting to tax money you didn't make, but could have made if you'd sold something you didn't sell. They call it an "unrealized capital gains tax", but it's the theft of your hopes for a better future.

"This law bans the purchase" of an imaginary category of firearms ("assault weapons"), but "it doesn't affect the ones you already own". Until next year, when they decide this wasn't enough, and now you're a "criminal" for things the Constitution says government has no say over.

"It's a crime to drive drunk". Until they change the law and say it's now illegal to drive "impaired". Before you know it, it's a crime to think of something that might be intoxicating when you are within one-hundred feet of a car.

Government is your enemy. It's not the only enemy you have, but it is the worst one.

Other criminals rarely affect your entire life. An embezzler won't usually also blackmail you, steal your car, molest your cousin, say which job you are allowed to work, and demand an annual ransom on your house. Government is the all-encompassing criminal enterprise. There's no part of your life it doesn't claim control over. Go on: name one part of your life which remains unaffected by government. You can't, unless you're being dishonest with yourself.

It will only get worse until enough of us have had enough. I don't know how that day will look or when it will occur, but it will come. It always does. Government contains the seeds of its own demise, because its entire existence is focused on taking more.

Liberty is your birthright. Live like it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Yes, machine guns, too.

If you're not in favor of getting rid of the government's illegal rules against machine guns, you: 

1. Don't really believe in the plain words of the Second Amendment.
2. Don't believe in the natural human right to own and carry arms, which exists regardless of the Second Amendment.
3. Allow your fears to determine what rights others exercise.
4. Favor letting political criminals determine what rights you have and are allowed to exercise.

It doesn't matter if you think machine guns are scary and don't want "those people" (whoever they may be) to have them. The worst people already have them.

I was disturbed to talk to someone who is generally pro-gun and find out he draws the line at machine guns. His reasoning is that he's scared of criminals having them, and because of this, he doesn't care what the Second Amendment says about the matter.

It's disappointing. 

It's the same when someone believes "felons" lose rights.

-

Thank you for reading.
Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

Worse than useless

The latest wanna-be assassin demonstrated a truth I've been preaching all along. 

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers; they encourage them to run through and start shooting immediately. They don't care if the alarm is ringing and the lights are flashing as they start their rampage.

Metal detectors don't stop evil losers from having and using their weapons to harm the innocent; they stop the good people from being armed where their guns are essential.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Liberty and "safety" both have costs

Whenever anyone calls for "common sense gun regulation" to "keep people safe", then whips out the zinger that if you don't agree with them, you "don't care if children die", a thought starts forming in my head. This is my attempt to flesh it out.

When my daughter Cheyenne was killed by a drug-impaired driver, I was devastated. But I didn't start being in favor of prohibition, checkpoints, or vehicle kill-switches to make sure no one is allowed to drive impaired. Those measures also kill people, destroy individual liberty, and violate individual rights. The trade-off isn't worth it. (Plus, none of the liberty-killing measures that are already imposed saved her anyway.)

Weak, unethical people advocate violating the rights of others because tragedy has touched them personally. They disgust me more than I can express. It's personal.

I am sad that my daughter was killed, but life in a police state isn't worth living. Liberty is dangerous. The dangers of liberty are obvious. The dangers of "safety" are often hidden from you until it's too late.

There are those who respect your liberty and your rights, and there are those who want you controlled. They may say it's for your own good, for the good of society, for the safety of children, or for the good of the nation. It's not.

There is no "good" in those excuses, and any "safety" is counterbalanced by the dangers and deaths they'll pretend don't happen. Or, that the victim "deserved" for not surrendering their autonomy to the State.

Yes, if you respect people's rights, some innocent people will die. Imposing "safety" on society just shifts the deaths somewhat; it doesn't prevent them. Some different people will die as a result. But you won't be guilty of violating everyone's rights in a misguided attempt to "save" some while sacrificing others.

It's easier to find (and lie about) the actual deaths which have occurred; it's harder to come up with realistic numbers of how many will die in the future from your "safety" rules. 

It's also easy for them to ignore those who have died in the past through the enforcement of that type of rule.

Liberty is worth the costs; slavery... not so much.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Are statists getting dumber?

Recently, the quality of statist debate seems to have plummeted noticeably, while the quantity has increased a lot.

I'm not sure if statists are getting dumber, if the entire species is getting dumber, or if "the AlGorithm" is funneling the most pathetic examples in my direction. It does seem like something is going on, though.

I'm seeing it everywhere, on every topic: guns, war, taxes, politicians, "laws", cops, prohibition, and even mailboxes.

In the mailbox example, someone was trying to argue that something called "Just War Theory"* means you can't fortify your (frequently destroyed) mailbox because it might hurt the next vandal. That protecting your property is less important than respecting the well-being of the vandal.

No.

If someone chooses to vandalize private property, I really don't care if their actions cause them harm. Fortunately, that defender of vandalism was taken down by hordes of people taking the same position I take. This time.

It reminded me of an argument from years ago made by a (probably former) "libertarian" (probably a socialist now) who was arguing in favor of shoplifting because "who owns the box of mac and cheese?" The only relevant answer is "Not you, until you pay for it".

Advocating for theft, vandalism, disarming the people, and other acts of archation is what makes statism the most unethical ideology out there. It's a popular position, but they are getting worse at making their case. It seems like this should be good for liberty, but I don't see it paying off yet, which makes me think it may be our entire species in cognitive decline.

Time will tell. If statism is still as, or more, popular in a century or so, we'll have the definitive answer.

-

*"Just War Theory": "a moral and legal framework that balances the need to prevent unjust aggression with the ethical, restricted use of violence." So, rather than being about defense, it's mostly legalistic statist drivel to justify collective violence. Trying to apply it to the mailbox problem, where the only aggression (in the form of property damage) was coming from the vandal, was quite a stretch.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

"I can't refute what you say, so I'll complain about the words you use!"

The other day, someone objected to my phrasing when I said cops (one in particular) are "dishonest yellow-bellied tail-tuckers". 

He couldn't refute the facts; he just didn't like the creative way I called them "lying cowards" (and he kept harping on the particular words I used) in a response to the post about the cop who shot a teenager in the back and killed him, then lied that the victim was "holding a gun" (it was a phone).

So, he compared me to Yosemite Sam.

In a follow-up comment, he tried taking a potshot at my "yellow flag" and said I was the real coward because I never "served my country" [sic].

Sometimes, I am heartened by the low quality of those who hate the things I say, but who, instead of trying to use reason, resort to assumptions and ad hominem. It's kind of awesome, actually.

People who will fight on behalf of a government are the same sort of people who can be brainwashed into flying airliners into buildings. Yeah, it's bravery, but a twisted, worthless sort of harmful bravery.

There are things that some people get very excited about that I find completely reprehensible. That gulf will never be bridged. But you can make a counterargument, or you can flail around looking silly. He chose the looking-silly path.

And, if a cop thinks the reasonable response to seeing an armed individual (or someone he is scared might be armed) is to murder him, the cop has no business being out in public. Exercising your natural human rights isn't a capital offense. Unless you encounter a cop who is a lying coward, apparently.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

More evil losers making news

An evil loser in Louisiana decided to murder his kids. Eight of them. 

The usual idiots are blaming "guns!"

Smarter people blame the evil loser who chose to murder 8 kids.

People who've been made stupid by politics are calling this a "mass shooting" so they can pad their anti-gun narrative with whatever they can find and twist to fit. Just like gang-on-gang killings.

A few decades ago, there was a guy in Arkansas who decided the Christmas holiday was the ideal time to kill his entire family. I don't remember ever hearing his horrible crime called a "mass shooting", even though this evil loser also used a gun in many of the murders. I guess people are getting dumber or more dishonest- or more political.

This is mere days after an outspoken anti-gun bigot shot and murdered his wife and then removed himself from the roster of the living. I'm no longer surprised when an anti-gun bigot does something like this. It's completely on-brand.

Yet, I'm seeing the usual idiots screaming to ban guns because of the acts of these recent evil losers. It's predictable, pathetic, and counterproductive. Not to mention, banning (and regulating) guns is a criminal act.

It's not the guns. It has never been the guns. It's the evil losers who decide to murder others. They use whatever tools are available. If the anti-gun bigots managed to get guns banned, and all the guns magically disappeared so evil losers had no access to them, the murders would continue. They might even increase since guns do more to protect the innocent than to empower bad guys who often have a lifetime's training in hurting people.

No one calling to ban or restrict guns is doing this for your benefit. They are your mortal enemy, functionally the same as an evil loser who is coming to shoot you and your children.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.