Big Dogs House

Government Defines AR 15 As Suitable For Personal Defense

Feb 7, 2013 Political

The term assault weapon is a manufactured term applied to firearms that the anti gun crowd finds scary. The state and federal government’s anti gun folks and their stenographers in the media use this term to demonize those who own them. This is why you hear the term assault weapon whenever an AR 15 is used. They want you to think that this is some magical firearm that can be used to kill more people than a firearm that is not designated as an assault weapon.

The anti gun (which means anti Constitution) crowd banned these firearms in the past. The bans were based on cosmetic items and had nothing to do with functionality. Any firearm that did not have the cosmetic items but fired exactly the same was not an assault weapon.

Bans do not work. Columbine happened in the middle of the last ban.

When people who own these scary firearms say they use them to hunt and for personal protection the anti gun folks say that no one needs an AR 15. These firearms, we are told, are only suitable for the battlefield or for the police. Taking the battlefield argument out of it (despite what we have been told, America is not an actual battlefield) why do the police, the people who interact with citizens in America, get to have them? If the people do not need them then neither do the police.

Hell, the very same people who tell us that items that are suitable ONLY for the battlefield should not be on American streets are all too happy to have police departments and government law enforcement agencies patrolling around in vehicles designed for battle with people who carry weapons designed for battle.

But I digress.

The gun grabbers say your AR style firearm is not a personal defense weapon.

However, the government has designated these types of firearms as suitable for that very purpose. In fact, a DHS solicitation for 7000 select fire weapons (semi automatic AND fully automatic) indicates that the department solicited for 5.56mm NATO select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense

If the firearm the DHS will use is suitable for personal defense then the civilian model of that firearm is certainly suitable for the same purpose.

Those of us with a brain already knew this and can see the hypocrisy of the words used in the solicitation.

The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms and that Amendment does not define what those arms shall be. SCOTUS rulings have already made it clear that firearms protected under the 2A are those with a military function and our Founders made it clear that citizens were to be allowed arms equal to those used by a standing army to ensure we had the ability to fight our government should it become tyrannical.

Politicians at all levels of government have limited authority to define what kind of firearms free people may possess. It does not matter what they like or feel the 2A is clear. Government has no authority to limit the number of rounds one can buy or the number of rounds a magazine can hold. It has no authority to ban or confiscate firearms that it does not like.

Period.

Our Founders protected our right because of the very things we are seeing today.

It would be unwise for any government to try and disarm us. DHS knows it because it has purchased 7000 personal defense firearms to fight the people with dangerous assault weapons. /snark

The government is setting up the perfect storm and it is preparing for the unrest it is encouraging. The government has purchased many more firearms than this and has purchased over a billion rounds of ammo. That is enough to wage a war the scare of Iraq at the highest level of ammo expenditure for 30 years.

Any question about what they are planning?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

[jpsub]

Tags: 5.56mm nato, ar 15, assault weapon, dhs, lies, personal defense firearm, Second Amendment, tyranny

The Terrorist Gays

Aug 16, 2012 Political

Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security is quick to label people who are affiliated with the TEA Party or right wing as terrorists even though none of these people have been shown to cause violence against government or any group of people. TEA Party rallies have been peaceful and the places where they gather are always left in better shape than when they arrived.

The violence committed has been committed by the left. The recent violence has been caused by people with leftist beliefs.

Despite this, the Democrat media contorts itself to make some connection to the right. They will falsely claim that a right winger is the cause or blame Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh for the violence when the truth is that left wing nut jobs cause the problems. The left loves to try and make right wingers out to be terrorists (the DHS calls them potential terrorists).

The latest terror attack was against a conservative group by a radical gay activist who has taken the violence of the gay movement to a new level. The gays have been physically violent and verbally abusive when they do not get their way. They have been known to attack little old ladies just because those ladies disagree with the gay agenda.

Now, gay activist and terrorist Floyd Corkins II of Virginia is the latest left wing nut job to commit violence and this time the violence was against a conservative group. Corkins walked into the Family Research Council and opened fire after denouncing their policies. He shot a guard who was able to subdue him despite his injuries.

The media that is quick to label anyone as a right wing terrorist when the target is a left wing entity has remained relatively silent about this shooting. Perhaps this is because the media is happy about it. The left wing groups have labeled FRC as a hate group so it only stands to reason that those who attached the label are responsible for the violence.

After any other shooting involving a left wing victim the media goes out of its way to blame Palin, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity and any other right wing public figure. It is their “hate speech” that incited the violence, they say.

If that is the case then it stands to reason that the various liberal entities that have labeled the FRC as a hate group are responsible for the FRC shooting.

Though I doubt you will hear anyone in the liberal media jump to make that claim. Hell, I doubt they will ever make that claim. If anything the media will claim that the gunman was pushed to it by the right.

When a nut uses a gun to cause harm the liberal left is always ready to ban guns and blame the right (even though most of the violence is caused by the left) so I want to know if the FRC shooting shows we need to ban gays…

Sources:
Infowars
CBS

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: conservative, dhs, gay activist, liberal violence, media, terrorist

Be Prepared, Be Very Prepared

May 11, 2012 Political

Why do you think the government is purchasing millions of rounds of ammunition? Why are prices going up? Why do they not work to keep energy prices down? Why are they not actually doing anything to solve the economic and unemployment problems?

They need as much civil unrest as possible in order to keep Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) in power so the transformation of America can be completed.

Progressives from both parties want the collapse of America and one world order. They want a single currency and they want to have us under their thumbs. They have been incrementally taking our rights while we sat back and ignored them. Now we happily allow them to grope us before we fly. We allow them to stop us on the streets. We allow them to creep into our personal business.

Soon, very soon, all hell will break loose and they will look to squash us and silence any resistance. They believe they are like the Borg and that resistance is futile.

Metaphorically speaking, there’s a revolution going on in the U.S., propped up by three legs. Economic chaos, chaos through racial division, and chaos through class division, all joined by one core element: Barack Hussein Obama and his stable of unelected czars. Obama is using the lessons learned in 1968 as the template for 2012, and many of those who were active in the late 1960s are now calling the shots for 2012.

“The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S.,” stated my source. Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” stated this source. He added that they are using some lower level DHS agents to make the payments under the context of tracking subversives, but they are the unwitting subversives. “It’s like Fast & Furious” but in the social realm,” he added.

“Obama is using some high profile people as pawns to foment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.” Canada Free Press

Be prepared because the time will come for you to keep you and your family safe and fed. Be prepared because they want you and everyone else to scream for federal and UN intervention.

Why do you think they got a GPS position for every house during the Census? Our folks would know how to find a street but would a foreign soldier acting on behalf of the UN?

Prepare for the worst and pray for the best.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: civil unrest, civil war, dhs, Obama, occupy, planned attack, un

Where Is Big Sis With These Terrorists

Nov 4, 2011 Political

A few years ago the DHS and Big Sis released their report on potential threats here in the US. Conservative right wing folks were labeled as potential home grown terrorists along with TEA Party members and folks who are opposed to abortion. Yes, Big Sis and the government were worried and they wanted everyone to know that the right was dangerous and that law enforcement across the country should be on alert for these radical right wing madmen.

The report was full of BS and was politically motivated in an attempt to paint the right as radical so as to push the left’s agenda. In all the time since this report was released, no member of the TEA Party has committed a crime while involved in TEA Party protests. There are not large numbers of right wing folks out causing trouble, damaging property, raping women, selling and using drugs or committing any acts of terror whatsoever. That makes no difference because the left has made up its mind. The facts have never gotten in the way of their agenda.

The real terrorists in this country have been the Occupy terrorists. These people have committed the crimes that Big Sis and her DHS said the right would commit. The Occupy folks are out rioting. They are burning things. They are attacking the police and they are disobeying the laws.

In addition, the terrorists in the labor unions are involving themselves in the issues and they are calling for terrorist acts to be committed. Leo Gerard, president of United Steelworkers international has stated that the movement needs more militancy. Gerard, a moron union thug (and terrorist, Big Sis), said that if the Occupy Wall Street movement does not convey the message (if Wall Street does not get it) then a resistance movement is needed that involves more militancy. He thinks people should be blocking bridges and doing “that kind of stuff.” I see this as a call to the union thugs to cause civil disturbance through militant acts. Gerard is calling for militant acts, acts that are combative and aggressive, by definition.

In other words, Gerard is calling for terror. Where is the DHS report labeling the Occupy folks and the labor unions a threat to this nation? Where is the report that labels these people the same way the right wing was labeled? Where is the nationwide alert for law enforcement?

These people are actual threats to this country. They are a threat to other people. They are a threat to our system. They are actual threats that are not labeled as such by Big Sis and her DHS. In fact, the Democrats have praised the Occupy folks and have declared their support for them. Democrats are in support of people committing acts of terror and are proud of that support. The report from Big Sis on the potential for right wing violence is unfounded and has never come to fruition. The left is out terrorizing and Big Sis ignores it.

The left is trying to cause riots. Obama is in favor of rioting. He was a community rabble-rouser and he is a student of Saul Alinsky. The ends justify the means and the left wants riots to get its way. The sock puppets on the left who are easily led are obliging the masters at the top by rioting and Gerard is calling for combative and aggressive acts in order to get things done.

Could someone point out a riot or anything similar to the Occupy movement from the right?

No.

Gerard, if you want combative and aggressive acts you go right ahead. Don’t be surprised when you get driven over by someone fed up with your antics (I want Gerard to block a bridge I am trying to cross).

I guess it would be wise to understand that militancy can go both ways and your right to protest ends when you infringe upon the rights of others.

Or as someone once told me, be careful what you ask for.

Funny thing though. If a right wing person discusses watering the tree of liberty or taking back the country the liberals get their pink panties in a wad and scream about how radical they are and then somehow end up calling it racism because a black guy is occupying the White House.

Let some whack job union thug scream for militancy and the left is in love with him.

Three words folks;

Bring it on…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: big sis, dhs, liberals, right wing, terrorists, union thugs

Where Is OSHA For Border Patrol Agents?

May 1, 2009 Political

I have stated several times that I think the whole swine flu issue is being blown out of proportion but that does not mean there is no threat of getting sick from the virus especially if one visits Mexico or has contact with someone who did. There is still a need to protect ourselves and the most efficient way of doing this is to wash our hands often.

Another method, for those who have constant contact, is to wear masks. The masks, if properly worn, prevent airborne droplets from being inspired and causing infection.

However, Janet Napolitano and the DHS have decided that border patrol agents who are in contact with people crossing the Mexican/American border every day are not allowed to wear masks and if they do they will face disciplinary action. An ABC News 10 report indicates that border patrol agents have requested to wear a mask while performing her duties and this request was denied. Over 80 agents asked to wear the masks but they were told they may not. ABC News 10 reports they have copies of the denied requests and those copies indicate that the agents may not wear the masks because of how it looks and because of the potential for public panic.

The DHS is putting politics ahead of the safety of the workers.

The DHS denies that it ever told agents that they may not wear the masks which directly contradicts the report from ABC News 10 and the memos presented in the report. DHS states that the science does not indicate that wearing the masks is appropriate.

Employers are required to provide respiratory protective equipment when required by the work environment (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.134):

A respirator shall be provided to each employee when such equipment is necessary to protect the health of such employee. The employer shall provide the respirators which are applicable and suitable for the purpose intended. The employer shall be responsible for the establishment and maintenance of a respiratory protection program, which shall include the requirements outlined in paragraph (c) of this section. The program shall cover each employee required by this section to use a respirator.

The employer must provide it when the equipment is necessary to protect the health of the employee. DHS is getting around this by stating that the science does not support the wear of a mask (which is a respirator under the standard).

Has the DHS done any air monitoring to determine the potential for contamination? The outbreak started in Mexico and that country has been the hardest hit. People in Mexico are wearing masks to prevent spread of the disease and a lot of them cross the border each day. In the absence of monitoring data the atmosphere becomes and unknown and it makes sense to protect workers from the potential of exposure to a flu that will take them from their duties.

Does it make sense to make a politically correct decision and risk a large number of workers becoming ill and therefore unable to do their jobs?

The masks are inexpensive and the Mexicans are already wearing them so it is not like they don’t know what is going on. The idea that DHS is creating an atmosphere where its workers are potentially exposed to a virus that leads to illness is unconscionable. The CDC discusses the use of masks in settings where contact with potentially infected persons cannot be avoided (such as on the border with the country where it originated):

When crowded settings or close contact with others cannot be avoided, the use of facemasks1 or respirators2 in areas where transmission of swine influenza A (H1N1) virus has been confirmed should be considered as follows:

1. Whenever possible, rather than relying on the use of facemasks or respirators, close contact with people who might be ill and being in crowded settings should be avoided.
2. Facemasks should be considered for use by individuals who enter crowded settings, both to protect their nose and mouth from other people’s coughs and to reduce the wearers’ likelihood of coughing on others; the time spent in crowded settings should be as short as possible.
3. Respirators should be considered for use by individuals for whom close contact with an infectious person is unavoidable. This can include selected individuals who must care for a sick person (e.g., family member with a respiratory infection) at home.

The masks might help even if the science does not indicate they should be used. More importantly, the employees want to wear them. If wearing them will give them peace of mind and allow them to do their jobs more efficiently, why not let them?

There is no reason and no excuse for denying employees a method to protect themselves from infection.

Tags: border patrol, dhs, infection, masks, swine flu