Making certain drugs illegal has solved the addiction problem, so lets make guns illegal

Paradox: Does it seem strange to anyone that those who would legalize drugs for the most part are the same groups that would make guns illegal.

 Help us save not just Confederate Monuments, but all historical monuments across American that are under attack by the left by clicking HERE!

Fort Hood just another Gun-Free Zone

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY THOSE SO-CALLED MENTALLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUALS ALMOST ALWAYS TARGET VICTIMS IN THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS UNLIKELY THAT ANYONE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY IS LIKELY TO SHOOT BACK.  MANY THINK THAT AN ARMY POST WOULD BE THE SAFEST PLACE IN THE WORLD, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT A PLACE LIKE FORT HOOD OR ANY OTHER MILITARY BASE IS LIKE A SMALL CITY WHERE THE MAN ON THE STREET IS FORBIDDEN FROM CARRYING A FIREARM AND MUST RELY ON THE PROTECTION OF POLICE OR MP'S WHO ARE OFTEN MINUTES AWAY WHEN EVERY SECOND COUNTS.  FORT HOOD IS FEDERAL GUN CONTROL AT ITS BEST AND THE RESULT IS MASS KILLINGS AT THEIR WORST.  CARTOON BY CHIP BOK'S BOKBLUSTER

EMBED CODE
Code for Facebook, Blogs, Websites and Myspace.
Just copy and paste into your site.
<div style="text-align: justify;"> <a href="http://totus-blog.blogspot.com/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKLPwbNFPuu6rNsGLk05VBujIue1-Iv2K4wbZKNNYdSEGv7HQGfwGiObtWqmSubBtA7XDHG8zvC-T5qj4Yrm0Dmau_cfwhQO2eCJWVYemPiCAqnZWFhbdbo3UIDOLGX_zOkJ1hxs9SfGU/s320/fort_hood_gun_free_zone.jpg" height="302" width="400" /></a> HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY THOSE SO-CALLED MENTALLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUALS ALMOST ALWAYS TARGET VICTIMS IN THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS UNLIKELY THAT ANYONE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY IS LIKELY TO SHOOT BACK.  MANY THINK THAT AN ARMY POST WOULD BE THE SAFEST PLACE IN THE WORLD, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT A PLACE LIKE FORT HOOD OR ANY OTHER MILITARY BASE IS LIKE A SMALL CITY WHERE THE MAN ON THE STREET IS FORBIDDEN FROM CARRYING A FIREARM AND MUST RELY ON THE PROTECTION OF POLICE OR MP'S WHO ARE OFTEN MINUTES AWAY WHEN EVERY SECOND COUNTS.  FORT HOOD IS FEDERAL GUN CONTROL AT ITS BEST AND THE RESULT IS MASS KILLINGS AT THEIR WORST.  CARTOON BY <a href="http://bokbluster.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CHIP BOK'S BOKBLUSTER</a> </div>

Gun Control in the Third Reich

ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE CAN ONLY COME ABOUT THROUGH GUN CONTROL.  THE LEADERS OF THE THIRD REICH AS WELL AS THOSE OF STALIN'S RUSSIA WERE WELL AWARE OF THIS.  THESE TWO GIANTS WERE AT EACH OTHERS THROATS DURING THE WWII ERA, BUT DESPITE THE FACT THEY WERE BITTER ENEMIES THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT ON ONE THING -- PEOPLE CONTROL.  THIS BOOK IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE OLD USSR, BUT ABOUT THE GUN CONTROL USED BY THE NAZIS TO DISARM THE JEWS IN GERMANY WHO WERE CONSIDERED ENEMIES OF THE STATE, AND ROUNDED UP AND SENT TO THE EXTERMINATION CAMPS.
Based on newly-discovered, secret documents from German archives, diaries and newspapers of the time, Gun Control in the Third Reich presents the definitive, yet hidden history of how the Nazi regime made use of gun control to disarm and repress its enemies and consolidate power. The countless books on the Third Reich and the Holocaust fail even to mention the laws restricting firearms ownership, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless. A skeptic could surmise that a better-armed populace might have made no difference, but the National Socialist regime certainly did not think so—it ruthlessly suppressed firearm ownership by disfavored groups. Gun Control in the Third Reich spans the two decades from the birth of the Weimar Republic in 1918 through Kristallnacht in 1938. The book then presents a panorama of pertinent events during World War II regarding the effects of the disarming policies. And even though in the occupied countries the Nazis decreed the death penalty for possession of a firearm, there developed instances of heroic armed resistance by Jews, particularly the Warsaw ghetto uprising.

 

DIDN'T FIND WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, THEN PLEASE VISIT MY HOME PAGE AND USE THE AMAZON SEARCH WIDGET.  THANKS FOR SHOPPING AT AMAZON AND A SPECIAL THANKS FOR VISITING MY LITTLE SITE.

RON RUSSELL

More Guns means Less Crime

Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun laws since the book's publication as well as new city-level statistics. "Lott's pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data. . . . If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof."--Peter Coy, Business Week "By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott's book could hardly be more timely. . . . A model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy."--John O. McGinnis, National Review "His empirical analysis sets a standard that will be difficult to match. . . . This has got to be the most extensive empirical study of crime deterrence that has been done to date."--Public Choice "For anyone with an open mind on either side of this subject this book will provide a thorough grounding. It is also likely to be the standard reference on the subject for years to come."--Stan Liebowitz, Dallas Morning News "A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates."--James Bovard, Wall Street Journal "John Lott documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue."--Milton Friedman More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)

MORE PRO SECOND AMENDMENT BOOKS

Support Stronger Guns Laws and Provide Criminals with a Safer Workplace Environment.

NO ONE WANTS TO SEE PEOPLE GET SHOT, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE CLEAR THAT THOSE WITH THAT TWISTED PROGRESSIVE MINDSET ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT CRIMINALS GETTING SHOT THAT THE INNOCENT.  THINK THAT SOUNDS CRAZY.  BUT HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED THAT WHEN A COP IS SHOT THE LEFT REMAINS SILENT, BUT JUST LET A COP SHOOT SOMEONE BREAKING THE LAW ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE ON THE LEFT.  AND AT THE SAME TIME ITS ALWAYS, ALWAYS THOSE ON THE PROGRESSIVE SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT PUSH FOR SHORTER PRISON TERMS FOR THOSE BREAKING THE LAW.  IT SEEMS THAT THE LEFT IS ALWAYS SUPPORTING PRISONER RIGHTS WHILE CALLING FOR STRICKER GUN CONTROL RIGHTS ON LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.  NOW WE HEAR THE CALLS AGAIN  FOR MORE GUN CONTROL.  MORE GUN CONTROL WOULD MOST CERTAINLY PROVIDE A SAFER WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CRIMINALS.  THATS NOT SURPRISING WHEN YOU STOP TO THINK THAT FOLKS ON THE LEFT ARE ALWAYS MORE CONCERNED WITH CRIMINAL RIGHTS THAN WITH HONEST CITIZENS RIGHTS.  THIS IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

IF YOU WANT MORE DETAILS THAT JUST MUDDY THE WATERS GO TO ANOTHER SITE THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOU!
STOP OBAMA IN 2012! GET YOUR STOP OBAMA'S SECOND TERM AGENDA WIDGET. FOLLOW LINK FOR DETAILS.

RACIST GUN CONTROL

FIGURE THIS ONE
OUT YOU RACIST PROGRESSIVES! 

DIFFERING VIEWS ON GUN CONTROL!

Question: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans, and Southern Republicans?

The answer can be found by posing the following problem.

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.

Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges.

You are carrying a Glock and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?


Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me and not my family?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint and gardening day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing!

I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican's Answer:
BANG!

Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click...(sounds of reloading).

Second Amendment

When I was eleven years old I purchased my first gun through the Sears catalog, a .22caliber rifle. I loved that rifle and my family was happy for me. The topic of discussion at most family gatherings normally involved whatever species of animal were in season or gun control. Growing up in this environment has given me an interesting outlook on certain issues, mostly those having to do with gun control and the Second Amendment. It is my belief that the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant the pre-existing right of individuals, to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"And any statute or regulation that burdens the right to keep and bear arms on the ground that guns are a public health hazard should enjoy the same frosty reception in court that would be given to a statute or regulation that burdened the free exercise of religion as a mental health hazard. Such an individual right was a legacy of the English Bill of Rights. (Joyce Lee Malcompg79) When, as William Blackstone phrased it in 1803, "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". As with any civil right, the essence of persuasion should remain with the proponent of legislation that restricts or burdens the right to keep and bear arms, rather than, as with ordinary legislation, on the opponent. The House committee eliminated the stipulation that the militia be "well-armed," and the Senate, in what became the final version of the amendment, eliminated any description of a militia. Polsby states, the public policy of discouraging people from owning or using firearms is not, by itself, constitutionally permissible , any more than discouraging people from religious observance would be permissible to some future,oh-so-progressive government that considered religion as hopelessly taboo. The use of the word people in the Second Amendment indicates an individual right. With this wording the writers of the constitution have clearly, distinguished between the rights, states and the people. As some consider the right to keep and bear arms. As was the case in the English tradition, the arms in the hands of the people, not the militia, are relied upon"to restrain the violence of oppression". It did not change the amendments guarantee that the right of the people to have arms not be infringed. While the Tenth Amendment which reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.