Big Dogs House

Stacked And Packed; Chicago Women Arming For Defense

Oct 29, 2009 Political

Chicago Illinois is a city where the gun laws are very strict and yet it is at or near the top in gun related crimes. The reality about laws is that criminals do not obey them. This is no different for gun laws. Make it illegal to own a gun and the only people who are harmed are those who actually have a Constitutionally protected right to own them. The guy who robs stores or is involved in street corner drug deals does not really care if he is breaking a gun law by possessing a gun.

Women in Chicago are not happy with the crime there and they have decided to do something about it. Women are purchasing handguns and are taking classes to learn how to use them. This has even more impact when one considers all the hoops, the cost and the nuisances that the government in Chicago requires those who want to legally own guns to accomplish before they may actually own one. These women are going through a lot to exercise a right that is not supposed to be infringed so that they can provide the protection that the police and their elected officials cannot.

I believe that when a liberal city, and Chicago is very liberal, has citizens starting to buy guns for protection it sends a clear message that the liberals running the place have failed the population. Liberals generally oppose private gun ownership. The increase in women buying guns must necessarily include liberal women because of the heavily Democratic population.

This might seem like a contradiction but it is not. I believe that all citizens who are not criminals should be allowed to buy and carry firearms. I have no problems with an armed population (unless the only ones armed are the criminals) because an armed population is a civil population. In conservative areas where they allow people to carry they do so as a matter of protection and to exercise their rights. In liberal areas people are generally opposed to gun ownership. The liberals believe that people can all sit around, hold hands, and sing songs. They believe that government can and will protect them. If those liberals abandon that belief then they are waking to the fact that the liberal pap they have been fed is untrue and that the philosophy is a failed one.

Major cities run by liberals are the ones failing (economy aside) and they are the ones that are always raising taxes and increasing spending on social programs. Liberals like to point to red states and say that they consume more of the tax money in welfare while overlooking the reality that in many of those red states there are densely populated, major cities that are overwhelmingly liberal. That is where the money goes.

Women in Chicago are awakening to the reality that liberalism is a failed experiment. Perhaps they are even seeing that liberalism is evolving into Socialism and Communism. Perhaps they are realizing that they have been sold a bill of goods and are looking for a way out.

Then again, Obama is from Chicago. Perhaps these women see that while he opposes gun ownership he has thousands of armed people who protect him every minute of his life and they have decided that if a gun is good enough to protect Obama, it is good enough to protect them.

Whatever the reason, it is good to see them exercising their right. With any luck, Chicago’s Draconian gun laws will be struck down and they will not have to navigate so many obstacles to get and keep their weapons.

There is nothing hotter than a woman with a firearm…

Source:
CBS 2 Chicago

Share on Facebook

Tags: chicago, gun control, gun purchases, Obama, women

Al Franken And The Constitution

Oct 5, 2009 Political

Al Franken was questioning Assistant Attorney General David Kris with regard to the Patriot Act and Franken was particularly interested in the roving wire taps. Franken asked a few questions and then pulled out the copy of the Constitution that he received when he was sworn in and cited the Fourth Amendment. He then asked if Kris believed that the roving wire taps were in accordance with the Amendment. Kris explained that they were and cited the courts that have ruled on the issue.

Kris further explained that they actually go above and beyond what the FISA courts require.

It is also important to remember the Fourth Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures.

I wrote long ago about the wire taps and the precedent as well as the court rulings. Carter, Clinton and a host of other presidents have done the same thing because it has been ruled as Constitutional and not unreasonable.

I agree with John at Powerline when he states:

Still, one can only commend Franken for reading that copy of the Constitution they gave him when he assumed office. Maybe he’ll let us know whether he finds anything about owning automobile companies and controlling American citizens’ health care.

I commend Franken for reading the Constitution even if he is fuzzy on what he has sworn with regard to it (“And I was sworn to uphold it, or support it anyway, and protect it”).

I have a copy of the Constitution that I carry with me. Every citizen should have one and every citizen should actually read it.

I would like to know how Franken weighs in on gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms. I wonder if they get to that debate if he will wave his Constitution and cite the Second Amendment (which is the one that ensures all the others) while proudly affirming that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or will he decide that this Amendment is different and does not deserve support. You see, Franken has been against gun ownership and for tighter control and only changed his views when he ran for office:

Franken has expressed past reservation about private gun ownership and admitted to attending marches for gun-control; in Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot And Other Observations, he wrote that having guns in the home was “too dangerous” and included mocking language about needing a shotgun for every room of the house. In 2003’s book Oh, The Things I Know! he also wrote that those who donate to the NRA should volunteer at hospitals that treat gunshot victims. During the campaign, Franken took a more moderate stance, saying he supported the right to own and bear arms for protection and hunting, but it’s unclear how those statements will transfer to his Senate votes. Who Runs Gov

So it would seem that Franken is one of those folks who waves the Constitution but believes that only parts of it apply. He, like many liberals, believe that the Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment, so I wonder if Al will have his Constitution when that debate ensues.

I also wonder if Al could find that passage in the Constitution that allows abortion (Franken is strongly pro-abortion). Perhaps he could find the part that allows the government to take money from people and give it to other people (he is a proponent of heavily taxing the wealthy to pay for government largess). Like John, I would like to know what part allows government to own car companies and I am particularly interested in where the Constitution first defines the right to free health care and then where it says that the government has the right to force other people to pay for it. I would also be interested in the part that gives government the authority to force people to buy it.

I would like Franken to reconcile his positions that run contrary to the Constitution since he has waved his copy and decided that it should be followed (even if he does not understand when things are being legally followed).

Anyone who has Franken’s ear, please ask him how he can put on such a charade when his positions run contrary to the Constitution.

I would be interested in how he answers the questions though I have a feeling he would rationalize his unconstitutional positions.

Totally unrelated link to The Other McCain

Share on Facebook

Tags: al franken, constitution, fourth amendment, gun control, Second Amendment

About Guns And Rallies

Aug 23, 2009 Political

There have been several incidents of people with weapons being present at rallies or town hall type events. I have heard no reports that these people were breaking the law. A man in New Hampshire carried a sidearm to a rally and followed the established rule; he had to stay 1000 feet away from the building where Obama was speaking. The local police spoke to him and told him how far away he had to stay and to top it off, he was on private property and had permission to be there. In other words, he was breaking no laws. He was simply carrying his sidearm just as he does any other day.

Several other rallies have featured people carry slung rifles. These people were obeying the law and were evidently legally allowed to carry their arms. The media have gone nuts over this and MSNBC cropped a picture of a man carrying a rifle and then injected race into the debate. Black man in the White House, nuts carrying guns. The inference was that it was some racist white guy.

The photo that was cropped was of a BLACK man carrying a weapon. He was exercising his Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

The problem is, the people who are opposed to guns automatically assume that anyone carrying one is looking for trouble. The man in New Hampshire said that no one around him was troubled by his gun because people in that area are accustomed to seeing people carry weapons. He indicated that the folks bused in from Massachusetts were the ones who had a problem (and of course, the media).

I agree with him. People who are supporters of the Second Amendment have no problem seeing people carrying a weapon. I have no problems seeing people carry weapons. If any of these people had intended harm it is unlikely that they would draw attention to themselves by openly carrying a weapon. They were simply exercising their rights and that is something everyone should be comfortable with.

Anyone who sees a problem falls into the category of people who assume that a person with a weapon is intent on causing trouble. I see this as no different than the people who attend rallies and exercise their Constitutionally protected right to free speech.

The funny thing is that people who really used weapons to intimidate voters were given a free pass by the Obama Justice Department. Black Panther thugs in Philadelphia brandished weapons and intimidated voters. The slam dunk case was dropped by the Justice Department. Interestingly, Black Panthers showed up at the Republican National Convention in Houston with rifles in order to put on a show of force. Paul Begala celebrated them showing up with weapons.

Ken Shepherd at Newsbusters reminded us that 9 years ago during the Texas Republican Party Convention in Houston, TX, a dozen New Black Panther members showed up with rifles and putting on a show of force. Interestingly, Paul Begala celebrated the New Black Panthers’ showing up with weapons. Also, Kyle Drennen highlighted MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer lumping all gun-toting protesters together as white racists, even the black ones. Of note, one guest on Contessa’s show mentioned that there’s “anger about a black person being president,” but failed to mention that every assassination or attempted assassination of a U.S. president was carried out by a Leftist. Red Sounding

As long as they were legally carrying and were not trying to intimidate people then they were exercising their rights (though the show of force and their anger over a Bush decision might be viewed as intimidation). Besides, I doubt they would have had much success causing trouble. A lot of people in Texas carry weapons and the dozen Black Panthers would have been easily outgunned.

Where were these self righteous media types on these issues? Does anyone remember them making a big stink about thugs threatening people with batons? Did they devote any air time to discussing the hatred and impropriety of the acts of these thugs who were actually breaking the law? Where were they when Black Panthers were carrying rifles?

The Second Amendment is designed to keep the power with the people. Our right to keep and bear arms keeps us from being the victims of a tyrannical government.

It is also helpful when confronted by thugs at polling places wielding batons and communicating threats.

Other sources:
NewsBusters
MSNBC Cropped Video of black man with weapon. They clearly identify him as a white man.
ABC 15 News Video that shows the entire man. He is black.
Zomblog Shows the many signs advocating the death of Bush. Another example of media bias.

Share on Facebook

Tags: constitutional rights, gun control, media bias, Obama, Second Amendment

And Maryland Still Infringes On Gun Rights

May 6, 2009 Political

The state of Maryland has an oppressive set of rules with regard to issuing a hand gun carry permit. The Second Amendment states that the right shall not be infringed but Maryland infringes. In order to get a carry permit one must demonstrate that something of value is carried (jewels, narcotics, guns, money) and the gun can only be carried when the items are being transported. One may also receive a gun permit from the lord masters if there are documented threats or assaults upon the individual. You have to be a victim AND PROVE IT, before you can defend yourself.

These preconditions infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and even though the idiot governor of the state claims we have a permitting process, he is ignoring the obvious barriers placed to prevent people from carrying.

Why should the governor worry? He has an armed State Police Officer with him all the time. The governor has the executive protection unit so he is always protected. If it is so safe, as he claims, then why does he need protection?

Not everyone has the oppressive rules forced upon them. Police officers can get a permit to carry a weapon off duty (a personal weapon, not an issued one). Friends of the well connected like the governor and the State Police Superintendent can get permits (and getting on their bad side can result in them being revoked). Judges can get a carry permit.

The rest of us are on our own, forced to call the government sponsored Dial A Prayer (911). While the governor has a police officer there all the time, the rest of us only see them AFTER the crime has been committed.

An off duty correctional officer was waiting for carry out food in Baltimore a little after midnight (a few nights ago) when three young kids approached him and brandished what turned out to be a toy gun. The officer drew his weapon and fired striking one of the kids in the stomach. The other two fled. The one who was shot faces charges when he recovers from his injury.

I watched the news report on this and at the end the reporter stated that officials state a government issued weapon was not used, the officer fired his privately owned weapon for which he had a permit to carry.

Being in a special class allowed this guy to defend himself. Yes, it was a toy gun but that was unknown at the time and in Baltimore it could have been real. All that gun control has resulted in shootings all the time. If this had been a regular, non connected, citizen the robbery might have taken place. The law abiding people in this state are not allowed to defend themselves unless, of course, they are well connected and can get a gun permit.

The officer would never have gotten a permit to carry that weapon if he were not a correctional officer.

The rules in Maryland INFRINGE.

The protected elite do not care because it is not their families being shot down in the streets.

And the anarchy that results from gun control gives them more reason to infringe even deeper. They can use the crime to justify the oppression.

Just the way they like it.

Source:
WJZ

Share on Facebook

Tags: crime, elite, gun control, Maryland, Second Amendment

Obama Does Not Understand The Constitution

Apr 28, 2009 Political

I have heard time and again that Barack Obama was a Constitutional law professor and this was supposed to mean that his word held some kind of weight on issues regarding the Constitution. I have written before that Obama is no scholar when it comes to that important document and he has discussed how the courts should have undone constraints the Founder’s placed on government. Obama is a believer in judicial activism and thinks the courts should decide in favor of undoing what the Constitution enumerates.

Barack Obama has nominated a pal from the University of Chicago Law School to be his “regulatory czar.” Cass Sunstein is an anti Constitution moron who wants to enact things that he admits violate the Constitution. Sunstein is interested in regulating the Internet because, to him:

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.” World Net Daily

Perhaps this Chicago thug and absolute moron is unaware but America is all about limitless individual choices whether it is in communications or any other arena and that this is absolutely in the best interest of citizenship and self-government. To this schmuck, we should ignore freedom in order to regulate FREE SPEECH. I wonder if he feels that burning a Flag is OK or if that is not in the interest of citizenship…

This moron is also in favor of a system that would not allow emails to be sent for a 24 hour “cooling off period” in order to regulate the nasty emails that sometimes get sent. I agree that people often send emails when they are mad and regret it later but that is a decision with which they have to live. It is not up to government to regulate how we communicate in the name of civility.

He is also in favor or requiring posts on the Internet to have links to OPPOSING views. Call it the Internet Fairness Doctrine. He does not believe that you have the right to seek out only the opinions that you desire. In other words, you should be required to look for differing views. This guy is an idiot and has admitted as much when he stated that this view would “almost certainly [be] unconstitutional.”

This guy is an absolute disaster and as anti American as they come. He should not be confirmed to run anything and should be locked up in Gitmo for his anti American activities and beliefs. Here are a few other things this Communist, anti American believes:

• In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
• In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.”
• In his 2004 book, “Animal Rights,” he wrote: “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”
• In “Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer,” he wrote “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”

This guy believes that all gun control legislation is in agreement with the Constitution and believes that the Second Amendment does not confirm an individual right to bear arms. He is absolutely WRONG on this. The guys who wrote the Constitution had a big discussion on this and they all said that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one. That settles the issue. We do not need revisionists changing the Constitution. We need to stick to the Founder’s intent and we will have no problems. What kind of Constitutional scholar is unaware of this?

This guy also believes that hunting should be banned and that animals have the right to sue and have humans as their representatives. Is this man on some of Obama’s leftover stash? The guy is out of his ever loving mind and if he is confirmed we will have all kinds of unconstitutional things flying around.

Why should this guy surprise us? He is no different than Obama who believes the Constitution is too restrictive. Hell, Obama must agree with this brain dead parasite because Obama selected him and then praised him:

“As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics,” said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. “He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”

All one needs to do is read what this guy wrote and listen to what he beleives and it will be clear that he is not a Constitutional scholar, he is not distinguished, and that he is not uniquely qualified.

He is anti American and he is an idiot. His brain is rotted from too many drugs.

I don’t know if he will be confirmed or not but if he makes it in I intend to ignore anything he wants to regulate.

No dissenting links, no ban on hunting and no gun control for me.

And if he and Obama do not like it they can go back to law school and learn what the real Constitution says.

Share on Facebook

Tags: chicago, constitution, Democrats, gun control, hunting, liberals, morons, Obama, regulatory czar, sunstein, thugs