O’Malley Gun Control Plan Dismantled

As governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley pushed through gun control measures that violate the US and Maryland Constitutions and he assured the morons who follow him that this would make life better and safer. The only thing O’Malley accomplished was to make it tougher for the law abiding. Criminals in Maryland still get firearms and they still shoot people. Led by Democrats the criminals in Baltimore riot and destroy with impunity.

Martin does not dislike firearms. He was perfectly happy with all the armed State Police officers who protected him and his family. He is just not too keen on everyone else having firearms. He is a typical liberal who thinks that he is better than everyone else and that he knows how to run other people’s lives. He is wrong but in his little brain he thinks he is not only correct but that people love him and think he is brilliant.

O’Malley (or O’Moron as I like to refer to him) will unveil his anti-gun platform as he tries to out liberal the other morons running for his party’s nomination. Let us take a look at his platform and dismantle it. Each item of his plan is presented and then I will comment.

Using procurement contracts to advance gun safety by requiring manufacturers that seek federal contracts to make design changes. O’Malley says the changes will “advance gun safety and improve law enforcement’s ability to trace firearms. These include hidden serial numbers that cannot be defaced, micro-stamping, magazine disconnect mechanisms and other next-generation safety improvements.

The last thing first. Being able to track firearms is only effective for tracking those legally owned. If firearms are stolen or obtained via other illegal means they might be able to track back to an individual but not necessarily the person who used the firearm illegally. As for forcing firearms manufacturers to make design changes in order to secure government contracts, what happens if none of them do so? Suppose the gun makers decide not to make changes and not to bid on contracts for government purchases? What happens when government can’t get firearms because of this insanity? I think fewer government agents having guns is a great idea and would applaud any manufacturer who told O’Malley to pound sand. Imagine a President O’Moron {{{shudder}}} who has Secret Service without firearms because no one would buckle to governmental pressure. The government should not be using OUR money to force compliance. Imagine how O’Moron would react if a contract required a company bidding on a government contract to NOT provide abortion services in its employee health care?

Ending the federal defense of gun dealer immunity by stopping enforcement of a 2005 law that O’Malley says protects irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits by victims and families of victims of gun violence

Irresponsible by whose definition? There are already laws that define how gun dealers must act and how they must conduct business. If they are doing things incorrectly then they should be fined or lose their license. But a blanket statement such as this opens the door for lawsuits based on some arbitrary idea of irresponsibility. Someone could be shot with a legally purchased firearm that was later stolen and an idiot like O’Moron would claim the dealer should have known it would get stolen so he is irresponsible and therefore subject to litigation.

But hey, let’s take this idea a little farther. The government at all levels allows the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those affected by its irresponsible permission for the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government KNOWS people will be harmed by these products and that is why there are warnings on the labels of tobacco and alcohol products. So the government is being irresponsible in allowing these items to be sold. Based on what O’Moron thinks about firearms dealers the government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those harmed by these products.

Strictly enforcing existing bans on gun ownership for domestic abusers and stalkers, to “disarm those convicted for committing domestic violence

This is a tricky one. The first thing that needs to happen is that we ensure people who did not actually commit domestic violence or stalking are not convicted or charged or discriminated against. A single incident that involves two people might be domestic violence or it might not. By all means, if a person is involved in domestic violence then that person (he or she) should not be allowed to own a firearm. But before we take away this right we need to make absolutely certain and there should be a method to regain that right if circumstances warrant it.

The reality though is we already have laws that prohibit these folks from owning firearms. If these people decide they want a firearm they will get one. No law preventing the ownership of a firearm will prevent a person who wants to get one from doing so. Protective orders and orders banning a person from owning firearms are only pieces of paper that will not prevent a person from getting and using firearms. These work no better than gun control laws because those inclined to break the law will do so. This is more of a method for government to define what a person did as domestic violence and then remove guns that way. How will government strictly enforce this as O’Moron wants? It can’t enforce the gun control laws liberals have already enacted. If they could Baltimore and Chicago would be safe places instead of shooting galleries. The best thing to do would be to ensure the victims of such violence can get and carry a firearm for protection. But O’Moron opposes this. Once again, you are not as important as he and his family.

Banning so-called “cop killer” ammunition by working to close loopholes that O’Malley’s campaign says “have made hundreds of kinds of dangerous cartridges available for sale.” The campaign says he will act in his executive capacity as president to tighten current regulations

This is one of those slippery slope deals in that he can ban “cop killer” ammunition and then define all ammo as cop killer. There are bans on the manufacture of certain types of ammo and those laws should be good enough. If manufacturers are making this ammo then they need to be dealt with. But let me be clear, if government agents are allowed to have this ammo then so should the general population. Once again O’Moron talks about tightening current legislation as if that will stop people from breaking the law. It is illegal to buy, sell, possess or use Heroin but people do so every day and no law has ever stopped that. People can buy ammo from other countries and get it in here. If we can’t stop millions of illegals from walking in we sure as hell won’t stop illegal guns and ammo from getting in (though with Obama and Holder it went out of the country instead).

A new “electronic alert system” to inform local law enforcement officials when those who are prohibited from purchasing firearms attempt to do so. The campaign says the system will be “modeled on the FBI alert system used when fugitives purchase guns” and will help law enforcement officials identify which attempted sales to prosecute

This is Mickey Mouse stuff. What happens if a person is unaware that something in his past prevents him from owning a firearm and he attempts to buy one? Would not it be more prudent for the dealer to inform the person and tell him who to contact in government to see if this can be rectified? Then a notation can be made that the person was so informed and if that person attempts to buy firearms later then the police could be notified? In fact, it might be better for the dealer to inform the police of the first attempt and that the person was notified and then for the dealer to notify law enforcement of any subsequent attempts. If the system were properly annotated and working correctly this would be quite easy. O’Moron is looking for a bigger government boondoggle to further gum up the works.

Requiring the safe storage of firearms in homes by issuing and enforcing federal rules that make clear safety standards for gun locks and safes

Here is the short story. What I do in MY house with MY property is none of the government’s business and I will not be regulated by them. The reality is there are two ways to determine if you did not secure your firearms the way people like O’Malley want you to. The first is for there to be a problem with the firearm (like a child getting it and shooting someone). The second is government coming to check. Government will NOT be checking in my house to see what I do with MY property. Responsible people do not leave firearms in an unsafe manner. Yes, we hear some stories about some kid getting a gun from under a bed and shooting himself or someone else but the story usually involves a firearm that was not legally owned by a person who should not have it. Regardless, if you want to leave a loaded shotgun in the corner of a room, that is YOUR business.

Strengthening enforcement and audits of licensed dealers to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. The campaign says this action includes “conducting background checks of gun dealer employees; ensuring that dealers who have their licenses revoked do not become unlicensed sellers without first liquidating their inventories; and using audit inspections to check dealer inventories for stolen guns

This is harassment of licensed gun dealers. They already have to comply with a mountain of laws and paperwork. They get inspected and they have to renew their licenses regularly. I am fairly sure most, if not all, of this is in place. I would also imagine that a dealer runs a serial number before purchasing a firearm so it would be unlikely that he would have a stolen one in his possession.

Martin O’Moron is an elitist who thinks that responsible people should not have firearms and should have their lives run by people like him, you know, their betters. He is a low life cretin who infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens for political gain and so that he can control them. He is not bothered by the firearms that protect him but he does not want others to have that protection.

Given the rumors of O’Malley’s extramarital affair(s) perhaps he should spend more time taking care of his own life and less time getting in our business.

I do not like this troll and I sincerely hope he is never elected to another office. It is time for him to get a real job and earn money that did not come from the sweat of OUR brows.

To paraphrase George W Bush, you are either with the Constitution or you are against it. If you are against it then you are a domestic enemy. My oath says I have to protect against people like you, Marty….

MOLON LABE Marty, you little twit.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Eleanor Holmes Norton Needs Remedial Driver’s Ed

The attitude in DC is that the laws and the things the commoners are required to do just don’t apply to the elites. They don’t pay their taxes, they exempt themselves from laws, they drive under the influence, they run their own servers and one of them uses his pen and phone to circumvent Congress and violate the Constitution.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non voting member from DC, is one such person who thinks she does not have to follow the same standards as the rest of us. Se was recently recorded as she attempted to park her car. The lines marking the spaces were on one angle and she tried to park on another angle. As seen in the video every other car is angled in the opposite direction in which Norton tries to park.

She wanted that spot and she wanted to park facing the direction she did and nothing, including the correct way, was going to stop her. She is recorded for a number of minutes and she rubs against a properly parked car at least once. There is no indication she left a note letting the other driver know his car had been struck. Once again, the rules don’t apply to her. Perhaps she could not fathom that she was wrong because she is an elitist member of Congress so it must have been the others who were in the wrong.

Of course there are many reasons this could have happened that might have nothing to do with entitlement though I am sure that mentality played into it. It is quite possible that at the age of 77 she could not comprehend that the other cars were parked on a completely opposite angle. Perhaps she thought she left a note like she claims (even though the recording does not show her doing it) but she was frazzled by the 30 minute parking ordeal and failed to do so.

Perhaps she is just incompetent.

Maybe, given her past of seeing racism in everything, she was dead set against parking in the direction of the lines because they were white.

Hell, for all we know she was distracted because she was practicing her hands up don’t shoot move so she could impress her friends.

Holmes has made some really stupid statements in the past so her intelligence has always been in doubt and her inability to park in the correct direction (forget the lines the cars were all facing a different way) does nothing to dispel the notion that she is not very bright.

I am glad that a few folks were there to record this otherwise she probably would have denied the entire thing. She did claim to leave a note even though we do not se her do it (she and someone else just walked away) so it would not be beyond reason that she would deny ever parking that way or ever striking another car.

After all, she is the one who said:

“You don’t have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government.”

You don’t have the right to know…

But we do know. We know you either can’t drive or don’t think you should have to do what everyone else does.

Probably a little of both.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


The Other Rich Need To Do Something

Moochelle Obama was out on the campaign trail, no doubt proud of her country for the first time in her life, and she was talking about how the rich need to do more for the poor. She is likely unaware that the top 50% of wage earners (the rich would be located at the top of that group) pay all the federal income taxes in this country and the bottom 50% get that tax money in the form of social programs. She is also probably not aware that social programs enacted by Democrats have enslaved people to government and kept them from achieving.

Obama asked:

“Will we be a country where success is limited to the few at the top? This country is strongest when we are all better off.” Washington Examiner

Obama is not aware that success is not limited to the few at the top. Anyone in America who has the desire and the education can succeed. What Obama really means is are we going to allow people on welfare to get fewer benefits because the rich are already taxed too much? Yes, the rich pay most of the federal taxes in this country and progressives have redistributed that money for all kinds of unconstitutional and unnecessary programs in the name of social justice.

They do not care that their programs keep people enslaved. Let me rephrase, they care but not for the reasons sane people would. They care because they want, no they NEED, people to be enslaved to government. It is how they continue to get people voting for them and their agenda to rob the rich to pay the poor. Theirs is a plan that has always led to failure. It has taken nearly a century but the failure of Democrat social programs becomes more evident each day. It will only get worse.

The ironic thing is that Obama and her hubby, Barack, are both rich and they also live life high on the hog on taxpayer money. Moochelle goes on expensive vacations (16 in the last three years, some with her husband, some without) that cost the taxpayers lots of money. The argument that it is part of the gig does not hold water. We are in tough economic times and we cannot afford such extravagance. If Obama and her hubby want people to sacrifice (they keep saying we all need to sacrifice – shared sacrifice they call it) they need to lead by example. Every few weeks she is off on another trip with hoards of people and he is on a golf course someplace. Sacrifice, yes for you but not for them. They are American royalty, after all.

Another ironic thing is that Moochelle was saying all of this to people who are very wealthy and who paid a lot of money to hear her talk. The money was raised to help keep her husband in office.

It was probably a drop in the bucket since Barack has been using billions of dollars in taxpayer money to buy votes and get donations. His waste of taxpayer money on green energy companies that end up going out of business and leaving the taxpayer with billions in losses is a scheme to get him more campaign cash. This is also true of his union bailouts and gifts of taxpayer money.

This group of thugs is a criminal enterprise. It is nothing more than Chicago style politics and that means it is corrupt from beginning to end.

Maybe instead of asking the wealthy to sacrifice more than they already have Moochelle could ask unpatriotic folks who pay NO taxes to pony up and get some skin in the game.

And maybe she and hubby could give up those expensive meals they love to stuff in their faces

It is hard to discuss how we are all better off by having the rich sacrifice more when the Obamas routinely eat $150 a POUND Wagyu steak.

Moochelle does not care if we are all better off as long as she is better off.

I guess she is living in one of those two Americas John Edwards used to talk about.

And you can bet your paycheck that it is not the poor one and that she wants to stay there and that she does not care where you are.

It is how progressives work. They use class warfare to pit people against each other. They pretend to worry about the poor while pushing policies that keep people in poverty (or in the case of Barack, put even more people in poverty) and they work hard to make sure they are wealthy and remain that way.

Let’s fire them in November and put some people with class in the White House.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Obama Is Just One Of Us

Isn’t it interesting how things change when politicians get elected? All during the campaign Barack Obama portrayed himself to be one of us, an outsider who was here to change politics as usual. He was an average guy like us and the campaign was not about him but about all of us. No one on the left paid attention to the political connections he has and the money that was thrown his way. This so called average guy has a million dollar home partly paid for by friends and his wife got a high paying job because of his political clout. But pay no attention to that, the guy is an average Joe the Senator…

Here we are in tough economic times (though the crowd at the malls this weekend tells me they are not that tough) where Americans are losing jobs and people are forced to cut back. We have unemployment rising and people losing tens of thousands of dollars in the market and from their retirment accounts. It is a mess and we are all in this together.

All of us except Barack Obama who purchased a $30,000 ring for his wife. He bought her the ring (actually it is being specially made) for supporting him which is kind of strange because married people are supposed to support each other. My wife supports me and I her and neither of us feels compelled to buy the other a $30,000 ring. The last celebrity who bought his wife an expensive ring (that was made newsworthy) was Kobe Bryant and that was because he was having sex with another woman. Obama will screw the nation but that does not count as infidelity.

In today’s economic climate it would have been a lot better if Obama had waited or had kept this quiet. Now he looks even more like a hypocrite.

One also needs to ask about the material for the ring. It will be made of rhodium which is rare. Only a small quantity is mined each year in Africa. What kind of conditions do those miners work under and how did this purchase help to exploit them. The ring will have diamonds so one has to wonder what kind of mine they came from as well.

Also, it might have been a good idea for the guy who claims that jobs left America under George Bush to have an American company make the ring. Instead of outsourcing the job he could have had it made here with American materials. It would have been nice if his $30k had been pumped into the American economy…

But then again, Democrats (especially the liberal elitists) believe that you should do as they say and not as they do.

Daily Mail UK | Luxist

Some Bling For the First Lady of Commietown [Democrat Equals Socialist]
Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.