Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties

Several counties in Oregon have passed their own regulations regarding firearms and those regulations are in reaction to the gun control laws Oregon passed (Oregon Firearms Safety Act). The counties are basically saying they will not comply with state law and that they will do things their own way.

The state has supremacy in this issue and it will get dicey but the counties are saying they are Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties. They point out the state is a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants and if the state can ignore the law and be a sanctuary for that issue then the counties can ignore the state law and be sanctuary for firearms owners.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me and I can’t see how a state that ignores the law can be upset that a county has ignored a law. I do understand that liberals think they are the only ones who can ignore the law and that laws only apply to the other guy but that is just their senility showing.

If we are forced to accept that it is legal to have a sanctuary city or state for illegal immigrants then we must accept that sanctuary can be granted by any city or state (or county) for any reason.

In Oregon the liberals want to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens in violation of the Constitution and federal law. The counties want to provide sanctuary for firearms owners IN ACCORDANCE with the Constitution. Funny how following the Constitution is alien to liberals. They sure try to use the Constitution when they want to make their case though. Does anyone see the irony of this statement coming from a sanctuary state?

These county ordinances allow sheriffs to ignore this law – which gun advocates see as unconstitutional. KTVZ

The concern of the liberals in Oregon, who obviously do not understand the Constitution or firearms, is that people get hurt with guns. The largest number of people harmed with firearms is those who commit suicide. The linked article makes it clear that suicides account for the largest number of gun related deaths in Oregon.

The state is worried that someone might buy a gun and use it to kill himself. If a person decided to do that then he only harmed one person (physically) and that would be himself. If any person can’t get a gun then another way to commit suicide will be found.

The funny thing is Oregon has a Death with Dignity Act that allows doctor assisted suicide. So if you are terminally ill you can get a doctor to help you off yourself but if you just want to die you can’t shoot yourself. I guess the state does not want you taking money out of the hands of suicide doctors.

In any event, this Oregon case is just another in a long line of hypocrisies liberals are known for. Add the sanctuary for illegals but not gun owners up there with abortion is OK but the death penalty is murder.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Note To Libs: Muskets Were Weapons Of War

Liberal LogicEvery time there is a shooting in this country, that is every time some deranged liberal or Muslim terrorist shoots a bunch of people, there is always a cry to ban guns. The left wants to ban all firearms in this country regardless of what they say.

Make no mistake about that, they want to ban all firearms and all private ownership. They will do it incrementally but their end goal is a complete ban. If you listen to them you can hear them saying it. One only needs to hear them say we need what Australia has to know they want private ownership to end or be so difficult that no one has anything more powerful than a pea shooter.

The issue is not the gun, it is not the background checks, and it is not the availability of guns or the alleged ease with which a person can buy one (this ease all depends on where you live).

The firearm used was not an AR 15 though anti gun nuts keep calling it that and showing pictures of one when they appeal to the masses. They want control and nothing else.

Removing all guns will not end gun violence and the liberal model of Australia shows us that crime will actually rise as all other categories of crime did in that nation. Background checks exist and every time a person who bought a gun legally uses it to harm others liberals scream we need expanded background checks. What do they actually hope to find that government (the entity conducting the checks) does not already have access to? The government has failed in doing background checks when it fails to discover the future motives of people.

Sound ridiculous? That is what government wants you to believe it can accomplish with “expanded” background checks. It wants you to believe that it can tell what a person will do in the future if only we could look a little deeper.

The reality is most of the gun crimes committed are done by people with illegally purchased firearms and legal gun owners account for a small fraction of the murders.

It is also important to note that the government conducted a background check on the Islamic terrorist who shot up the gay night club and said he could own a gun. They said nothing in his background kept him from buying the firearm. If that is true then we just have a case of a person who had not done anything wrong deciding to do so. That happens all the time in our country though the case of legal firearms owners doing so is rare.

When these things happen we get this outcry of people who want more gun control as if restricting those who follow the law will stop those who don’t. It is more convenient to blame a gun than it is to blame the liberal moron, or in this case the Islamic terrorist, who pulled the trigger. Liberals would rather moan about one guy with a gun and claim him as the problem rather than seeing the issue was the 150 people who did not have a gun. Even if half of the club goers were carry permit holders they were banned from having their firearms in the club. Evidently the Muslim terrorist did not follow that law either.

Look, the reality is bad people do bad things and we can’t predict when they will but we can’t infringe on the rights of the law abiding as some feel good measure to make liberal bed-wetters think they are doing good. We also can’t allow liberal (and sadly some alleged conservative) politicians to take away our rights. Doing so will allow them to control us instead of us controlling them.

When they take away your means to resist they will then do as they wish, just ask some old German and Jewish folks about that.

The problem is not the firearm, it is the person using it illegally (and to some extent politicians who refuse to allow law abiding people to carry firearms). We do not ban cars or alcohol because people drink and drive. We don’t say that some person might drink and drive so he can’t own a car or buy alcohol. We don’t do these things even though more people die in alcohol related accidents than are murdered with firearms. In these cases we hold the driver responsible for his actions.

Blaming firearms for the shooting at the night club is like blaming the planes for 9/11.

I am also tired of hearing liberals tell us we don’t need these assault weapons or these weapons of war.

Alan Grayson, a moron politician and wife beater from Florida, claimed that these firearms could shoot 700 rounds a minute. A semi-automatic firearm’s rate of fire depends on how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger. To shoot 700 rounds a minute the shooter would have to squeeze the trigger almost 12 times a second and that does not include the time to change magazines. Misinformed people are easy to control and government is doing the misinforming because it wants to control people. Though in this case it is likely Grayson, who is unintelligent, does not know.

First of all, there are no assault weapons. Assault is an action and people commit that action. They use many things to do so but whatever they use is not an assault item.

Second, all firearms can be weapons of war. In fact, the musket was a weapon of war and everyone had a musket. Obviously the Founders made no distinction and neither should we.

The important words are shall not be infringed. There is no qualifier, no sentence about weapons of war or only if you need or only if government says it is ok or anything else. The words are the right of the PEOPLE (all citizens) to keep and bear arms (to have and to carry) shall not be infringed.

Remember, the people telling you that you don’t need these firearms are surrounded and protected by people who have these firearms.

How many more Islamic terror attacks are we going to allow before Obama is held accountable?

The gun is not the problem. Anti-gun politicians, Muslim terrorists and bad people are the issue. But keep pushing for gun control and one day there will be pushback and you will not like it at all.

We will not comply.


Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Why I Would Not Sign The Petition

There is a petition that is circulating to allow people with concealed carry permits to carry inside the arena during the Republican Convention. The Secret Service has said no guns will be allowed and they have the authority to do that. I do not agree with their authority and think their ability to institute such a ban undermines government.

The people with permits have passed very extensive background checks that involve all sorts of government agencies. People with permits have been vetted better than any politician the secret service protects. By banning the firearms the Secret Service is basically stating that government can’t be trusted.

Perhaps they are onto something…

The Secret Service is like the rest of the government. They are not against guns they are against YOU having them. If you are SS or law enforcement (other government people) then they are fine with you carrying a firearm. Who knows, maybe they are worried they will have to work harder and have less time for booze and hookers…

So by now you are confused. If I feel this way then why would I not sign such a petition?

It is quite simple. While I believe in the absolute right to keep and bear arms, meaning that you can carry them as you see fit (assuming you are a law abiding citizen), I also know that this event is a private event and the event organizers are in charge of the security and what takes place there. They have as much right to disallow guns at their private event as law abiding citizens have to carry those guns. But it is their event and they get to make the rules.

Your neighbor has the right to say you can’t carry your firearm on his property as do private businesses across this nation.

If you do not like the rule then don’t go there. Many people with carry permits will not patronize any establishment that does not allow firearms. That is their right and they are free to do so (and it is a position with which I agree). There are plenty of firearm friendly businesses where people can spend their money.

If the Republicans do not want people carrying firearms then that is their right. If you don’t like it don’t go.

I find it strange that the people who claim to be pro Second Amendment would have a problem with law abiding people carrying firearms and perhaps that says a lot right there.

In any event maybe those who have tickets should just not show up. Sell the tickets at a profit (if that is legal) or keep them to prevent others from attending. That will push the numbers down.

The petition will not have an effect since the SS has the final say no matter what but at least the RNC could come out in support of the idea..

In the long run though, it is a private event and those running it can do as they see fit even if they do sound like the anti gun folks on the left…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Wal Mart To Stop Selling Most Popular Rifle

Wal Mart announced it will stop selling the AR 15, the most popular rifle in America, as well as semi automatic shotguns. The retail giant claims that sales are down and that this is not politically motivated.

However, Remington Arms stated that Wal Mart accounted for 10% of the arms makers sales and if WM stopped selling them it would hurt the company. How can sales be down if WM is selling so much of one company’s goods?

Do not be fooled. Wal Mart is bowing to political pressure. There is no reason to stop selling these arms and the claim that sales are down is pure fiction. Wal Mart sells AR 15s at a reasonable price which means people get a better deal than at the gun store. And did I mention the AR 15 is the most popular rifle in America?

Wal Mart can sell what it wishes but if it is concerned about selling products that harm people (firearms do not harm people, other people do) then why stop with firearms?

Wal Mart sells all kinds of tobacco products and they absolutely harm people. Some Wal Marts sell alcohol and alcohol absolutely causes harm. More people die from tobacco related disease and more people die in drunk driving accidents than are murdered with firearms, particularly the AR 15.

Hell, Wal Mart sells all kinds of things that are dangerous and could be used to harm people. Perhaps the company should seriously consider closing down so no one will ever get harmed by a product it sells.

I have never bought a firearm from Wal Mart mostly because the ones I like are banned in the People’s Republik of Maryland. I have bought ammo there and looked at the firearms. The people I have seen there looking looked like decent people and if they decided to purchase they would have to go through a background check so it is not like Wal Mart is giving them away like candy.

In the over all scheme of things what Wal Mart sells or does not sell makes no real difference. People can buy whatever they want from other places and not worry about hurting the feelings of the morons in charge at Wally World.

But they should at least have the testicular fortitude to tell the truth. This is absolutely politically motivated.

Man up Wal Mart. We all know you are lying so just tell the truth and get it over with.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Firearms Lesson From A Smart Young Lady

It is a year and a half old but is worth the time it takes to watch. My hope is that it will sink into the heads of the anti gunners who think we should not have firearms.

Then again, it is a bit much to ask low IQ folks to learn such a valuable lesson.


Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog