Maryland, led by Martin O’Moron and his band of merry idiots, enacted strict and unconstitutional gun laws in the state. Crime rates and crimes with firearms have not dropped but law abiding citizens are regularly infringed upon in direct violation of the Second Amendment.
He and his pack of idiots were warned that this would not be good and now, to quote Obama’s favorite pastor, the chickens have come home to roost. Beretta Firearms is moving its entire production facility from Maryland to Tennessee (look at the picture and tell me he is NOT a doofus) and the move will result in the loss of hundreds of jobs in the state.
O’Malley has lived off the taxpayer for nearly his entire adult life and he has never really run anything outside of government. His track record of running things inside the government is of failure. He has raised taxes time and again and he has trampled the Constitution as he plods toward a run for the presidency.
America, this half baked twerp is as bad as Obama. He has no real life experience and he is a progressive who believes in big government and keeping his boot on the throats of citizens. He is a jack booted thug who cannot see the error of his ways through his liberal colored glasses.
His policies have resulted in a lot of people voting with their feet and they are taking their money with them. Now Beretta is voting with its feet by moving to a more firearm friendly state where the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed. Beretta will operate in a safer state because the people are armed.
Meanwhile the people of Maryland are sitting ducks for the criminals who do not obey the laws enacted by the moron and his henchmen.
There is no way O’Moron should ever be considered for the presidency. He is inept and he does not follow his oath. He tramples the Constitution and the rights of the people.
While all of that makes him an ideal liberal the only place he should be is in a federal prison.
Thanks Marty for chasing away the jobs. I know you want to be president but we already have a guy who is chasing the jobs away and that is not sitting too well with those who would like to have a job, not be bothered by government and live in a safe environment where the criminals do not have the upper hand.
By the way, are you interested in being president because you get more armed guards than you currently have? You are less important than anyone of the people in Maryland particularly those who pay your salary.
Why do you deny those folks the right to bear arms while you travel with well armed troopers by your side?
Choose wisely America. You selected dumbass Obama and that did not work out too well. Please don’t think about doubling down by selecting the Teflon Leprechaun.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 11, 2014 Second Amendment
Barack Obama will tell you he supports the Second Amendment and he will tell you he does not want to confiscate your firearms but he is a liar. Barack Obama is lying about firearms related incidents by telling people that these incidents are off the chart. Well they are but they are off the bottom of the chart. The number of firearms related incidents is down and are now at their lowest in over 20 years.
Even Washington DC has seen a decrease in murders by firearm.
Interestingly, these numbers are down despite the huge increase in firearms ownership and the large stockpiling of ammunition. These numbers are down even though many states are shall issue states and some do not require a permit to carry a firearm either open or concealed. These numbers are all going down.
Except in places like Chicago where gun control is alive and well. In that city people are murdered with firearms all the time. They are murdered with firearms that they are not allowed to have.
How could that possibly happen and how could places where the Second Amendment is not infringed upon have lower firearms related incidents? How could DC have a drop in firearms related murders?
More guns equal less crime. Criminals do not want to try bad things in places where someone else might have a firearm and might actually use it. In DC the Heller decision seems to have given criminals pause.
The availability of firearms in free (or freer) places keeps crime down.
It is not gun control and it is not any kind of scheme where people are restricted as these schemes always lead to more firearms related crime. Once again, look at Chicago (and for that matter any place run by liberals where gun control exists) and you will see what happens.
Criminals simply do not obey the law.
Barack Obama is upset that Congress will not work on gun control measures so he has decided that he will do all that he can through executive action. Obama will circumvent Congress and the Constitution in order to infringe on a constitutionally protected right.
And his actions will not involve registration and background schemes. No, Obama will look for a way to ban and confiscate firearms. He has already given support for that kind of law.
Obama praised Australia’s gun laws that took effect after a mass shooting. Australia banned most types of firearms and confiscated them. There are still plenty of firearms related incidents in Australia (how can that happen when gun have been banned and confiscated) but that is beside the point. Obama praised Australia’s gun law and part of that process was the confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Obama would love nothing more than to confiscate all firearms but not because he thinks that will make us safer (people are not safer in so called no gun countries). He wants to confiscate guns because they are the means to resist tyranny.
Obama knows that he could not push too far (though the compliant media and testicle lacking Congress let him get away with too much) so long as people have the means to fight back. The standoff at the Bundy Ranch showed what well armed people can do to tyrants from the government.
The article in National Review is spot on when it indicates that Obama cannot praise the Australian Law without praising the mass confiscation program.
Obama envies the Australian government because it confiscated firearms. He wishes he could do the same and might just try some variant via executive action.
We need Congress to reel Obama in and stop him from his lawless acts. He is far more dangerous to this country than citizens with firearms.
Citizens who, by the way, will never allow their firearms to be confiscated…
Jun 7, 2014 Second Amendment
In Washington DC there is an uproar among the police because Chief Cathy Lanier has issued an all hands call requiring officers to work for five weekends in a row. Officers balk that this will leave the public less protected on the higher crime days like Tuesday and Wednesday. The person who made the assertion then gives an example (that interestingly takes place on a Thursday) where an officer needed help and no one was free to assist.
For example, on Thursday night in the Seventh District, a school resource officer radioed for help in trying to control two kids, but no one was free to answer.
He said, “I heard a radio transmission. A lieutenant needed some assistance on Suitland Parkway for a possible DUI suspect. It was a good five to ten minutes before anybody backed him up. Because of the manpower issues, we have minimum staffing on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays. [emphasis mine] My FOX DC
There is a saying that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Looks like this is true even for officers.
Why is this important? The people who oppose the Second Amendment and who do not want law abiding citizens to carry firearms always tell us that this is what the police are for and that if we have a problem we should call 911. Why do you people need firearms when the police are here to protect you? If we have all these guns out there more folks will get hurt. We don’t want to confiscate them we just don’t want YOU to have them.
And on these assertions go. The leaders of most police forces are politically appointed and they do the bidding of their puppet master political bosses. This has been very evident in Maryland where Governor Martin O’Malley pulled the strings of his appointees and prevented others from discussing the Maryland gun control laws because safety was not really the concern. It was all politically motivated because O’Malley, a man who has armed officers around him at all times, does not like guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and he wants to tout his liberal gun control success as he aspires to higher office. He does not believe in freedom, he believes in tyranny and control of the masses and he believes in screwing the public to advance his career.
In any event, the DC situation and the example given clearly demonstrate why law abiding citizens must not have their Second Amendment right infringed upon. It took a long time for a fellow officer to get help and officers rush to help their own. They are not so motivated when it is some schmo they do not know or work with.
Most rank and file police officers prefer armed citizens. There are the few anti social morons who shoot dogs and innocent people and get away with it under the cover of I feared for my life but most of them try to do a good job and get home at the end of their shift. They realize that armed citizens provide extra protection in society. They know that there is less violent crime in areas where people carry firearms because criminals do not like to face opposition and they don’t want to die.
In places where people’s rights are infringed upon (like DC and Maryland) the crime rates are higher and crimes committed with firearms increase. Bad guys don’t obey the law so they get guns anyway. Most officers are comfortable with law abiding citizens who own and carry firearms because they know that is a force multiplier. They know there are people who can protect others when the police are not around and they know the prospect of armed people deters criminals. How many of these mass shootings could have been stopped before huge loss of life had people been allowed to carry firearms where the shootings occurred?
It is possible that many of the leaders in law enforcement feel the same way but can’t express it because their liberal, anti gun political bosses forbid them from doing so. That to me is weakness and a failure to uphold an oath but this is how people in power often act. Though my gut tells me they agree wight heir bosses or they would not have been appointed to their positions…
In any event, the cops in DC don’t like to wait for assistance. Well here is a newsflash for them and their bosses. We the people, those who PAY your salaries don’t like to wait either. We don’t like to be at the mercy of criminals because we have been denied the right to defend ourselves.
Keep in mind, the police are a reactive force not a proactive one. The cops come AFTER a crime and take a report and try to find who did it. Cops don’t show up 2 minutes before a crime and wait to prevent it.
Why should we be denied the ability to prevent crimes (or at least minimize them) when the police can’t do so?
Why should we be denied the right to keep and bear arms that is enshrined in our Constitution?
Because liberals want to control us. As many have stated, it is not about guns it is about control.
As far as DC and its police chief go, she can do what she wants. The officers will have to deal with it and perhaps they will understand what the people who pay them are subject to each and every day.
An armed society is a polite society but liberals do not want polite, they want control. Keep in mind that an armed society is free and the disarmed are enslaved.
There would not have been slavery had the slaves owned firearms…
Never surrender, never submit.
Or the knife or the car…
Elliot Rodgers stabbed people, shot people and hit people with his car. He was a nut who had real issues. One only needs to read his words to understand that he had serious mental issues and that his view of the world and of life was skewed. He murdered people, an act that is already against the law.
The liberal left is using this event to once again ratchet up the anti gun rhetoric. The liberals want more gun control and more background checks even though this nut was from one of the most anti gun (and restrictive) states in the Union. None of the laws liberals want would have stopped this guy from murdering people. He stabbed several and used his car as a weapon. Without the gun people still would have died.
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office identified the three men found dead in Rodger’s apartment as Cheng Yuan Hong, 20; George Chen, 19; and Weihan Wang, 20. Hong and Chen were his roommates, while Wang was visiting the apartment, the sheriff’s office said. The three students died from “multiple stab wounds” before the shooting rampage, the sheriff’s office said. [emphasis mine]
No one is calling for a ban on guns or more strict requirements for a driver’s license. They are focusing on the gun which was just another tool used by a mentally deranged person to murder people.
Who to blame is the first question from liberals when these things happen. The response in this case is the NRA and Republicans.
No one has stated the obvious and that is the murderer and ONLY the murderer is responsible for what happened.
The knife did not murder or injure people. The car did not murder or injure people and the gun did not murder or injure people. Rodgers did all of that and he used those items to do it.
If a person is determined to do harm there is nothing that can be done to stop him. The fact that he used a knife and a car shows that he did not need the gun to inflict pain and cause mayhem.
Six policemen showed up at Rodger’s home in Isla Vista on April 30, but they found nothing alarming. So they told Rodger[sic] to call his mother and they reassured her that he was OK, according to Astaire.” (Seems to me this might be enough to get a court order to remove any weapons until they were sure he was not unhinged ~ BD)
There will be more calls for gun control from all kinds of people who don’t really care about the victims. They care only about a political agenda and that agenda includes disarming those who had nothing to do with this (or any other) event. Liberals do not care about the victims and they actually like when these things happen. It allows them to push a false narrative to further their dream of disarming Americans.
All the shooters in these events turn out to be left wing nut jobs so perhaps we should ban liberalism and end the violence.
I pray for the victims but I will never agree that America has a gun problem.
America has a liberal problem, particularly nut job liberals.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 19, 2014 Second Amendment
Imagine if a judge declared that you were only allowed to buy one book a month and that 12 books a year is more than enough. Also imagine that in addition to the limit on the number of books the judge allowed to stand a rule that some books were banned and in order to buy your books you had to go through an extensive and expensive background check and obtain a license to buy the books. Now imagine that once you satisfied these demands you had to (re)register your books every three years.
Sounds like an infringement on your right to participate in free speech. The government is not allowed to ban books or require you to register to buy them. The First Amendment allows people to sell even the vilest pornography and allows you to buy them (reasonable age restrictions aside).
A federal judge upheld a D.C. law requiring guns to be registered every three years, the requirement for fingerprints and photographs of the purchasers/owners and the limit of one handgun purchase per month.
Judge James Boasberg dismissed the challenge to these Draconian (and unconstitutional) laws. It seems that this judge feels it is his duty to decide what protects society and then rule based on his opinion. I am no legal scholar but it seems to me that a judge is required to rule based on the Constitutionality of the issue in question.
People in D.C live in one of the strictest places with regard to gun laws and, like their restrictive allies in places like Chicago, suffer the highest rates of crimes committed with guns. D.C. is not safer because of these gun laws and the way this judge handled the case shows not only he is a disgrace to the bench but he also has no concept of reality.
I am pretty sure how he would have ruled had the case been the scenario I described above and I am absolutely certain how he would have ruled if this case were about restrictions on abortions instead of guns.
The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and the history regarding the inclusion of that Amendment leaves no doubt what the Founders wanted when they included it.
Unfortunately, we now live in a society where people like this judge dishonor our Founders by violating their oath in the name of feel good (though ineffective) laws that infringe on our very rights.
My advice to people in D.C is to move outside the city limits (but not to Maryland, another Socialist nightmare) to escape the tyranny.
Escape the tax burden and unchain the shackles of tyranny and be free.
Never surrender, never submit.