Apr 2, 2013 Political
The gun debate in the state of Maryland is hot and heavy with the anti gun, oath breaking politicians running roughshod over law abiding citizens. The Constitutional rights of American citizens living in the People’s Republik of Maryland are being trampled on by tyrants led by overlord Governor O’Malley.
The gun debate in this country is hot and heavy as the anti gun, oath breaking tyrants in Congress (led by the Imperial President Obama) work to deny law abiding citizens their rights.
The United Nations is working to take guns from everyone all over the world and the tyrant leading this country is on board with the UN.
Anti gun politicians are also working on ways to restrict gun ownership in case all out bans and confiscation fail. They are trying to impose oppressive taxes on ammunition, require licenses and certificates to buy guns and ammo (respectively) and they have introduced legislation to require gun owners to purchase insurance or face a $10,000 fine. All of these are designed to make it difficult or impossible for law abiding people to get and to effectively use firearms.
The people doing this are traitors to this nation, its people and its Constitution.
We had a Revolution when this nation was founded and that revolution was due, in part, to an attempt by the British to confiscate our firearms. There were plenty of other reasons we decided to declare our independence but gun confiscation was one of them.
Let us make no mistake, people who are disarmed by their government are slaves. Free people are not deprived the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. That concept was so natural to our Founders that they ensured the right (a right that preexisted the Constitution) was protected in the US Constitution. They worded the Amendment to include the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Everything the government is doing infringes on our right.
We live in a nation where women have the right to murder their unborn children, gays have a right to marry their same sex partners, and people have a right to have their health care provided by the government. None of these things is anywhere in the Constitution but the people who are trying to disarm us will fight tooth and nail to protect these alleged rights while fighting even harder to take away a right that is specifically named and protected by the Constitution.
The line in the sand has been drawn and it is well past time for free people to fight back. We need to put the politicians in their place. We need to remind them they work for us. They need to be removed from office and they need to stand trial for their crimes.
We are a nation of many and there are more gun owners in this nation than there are armed agents of the government. When one considers that many of those armed agents will refuse to disarm citizens our numbers are even bigger. We need to use our strength and our numbers to put crushing pressure on all of the anti gun politicians and we need to hold their feet to the fire. We need to crush them completely.
We can only pray that we can accomplish this by peaceful means but, to put it in the words of our government, all options are on the table.
We fought one Revolution against a tyrannical government and we can fight another. The time has come for us to tell them, no more. We will not comply. We will not bow down. We will not give up our rights because a few bad people did horrific things.
The reality is that those horrific acts pale in comparison to the horrific acts that governments have taken when they successfully disarmed their people. Governments have murdered millions of people after disarming them.
The gun grabbers say this could never happen here. After all, government has not murdered millions of us.
No, because we are armed. Our Founders knew that we needed to be armed to keep our government in check. They knew if we did not have arms we would be slaves and we would be ruled by tyrants.
The people in office now know this as well and this is exactly why they want to disarm us. They want to rule us with the iron fists of tyranny.
And we must not let that happen.
By any means necessary we must defeat this gun grab agenda.
Or die trying.
Never surrender, never submit.
Imperial President Barack Obama is set to use Executive Orders to violate the Constitution in order to push gun control. While Obama is not the first leader to abuse Executive Orders he is the only one in recent memory to use them to so blatantly abuse the power of his office and to violate the rights of US citizens. Obama will have children present when he makes his big announcement.
He is walking on the graves of those kids murdered in Connecticut and he is using the children at his announcement as props to garner sympathy. He has no shame and will do anything to push his Socialist agenda.
Executive Orders have their place and that place is to issue orders to agencies of the Executive Branch in order to manage their operations. Executive Orders can also be used by Presidents in order to pursue Acts of Congress which have delegated some power to him.
Executive Orders CANNOT be used to enact a new law, change an old law or govern the American people.
The reason Barack Obama is using EOs is because he will not be able to get what he wants through Congress and that does not suit him. He will, instead, do an end run around Congress. This is a violation of his authority and the Constitution and it is the duty of Congress to ensure he does not get away with this.
There is one Republican lawmaker who has vowed to file articles of impeachment against Obama if he tires this power grab. Unfortunately, many Democrats are urging Obama to usurp their authority because they do not believe any bills violating the Second Amendment will pass through Congress.
In any event, nothing he tries to impose via EO will apply to the public and accordingly, I refuse to comply.
I will not comply with any order or law that violates my rights. Other citizens are free to do as they wish, comply or not, but I will not. I see how things work. They will impose some rule and rush to remove guns from society and then the issue will make it to the courts and by the time the issue is ruled in favor of the Constitution all the surrendered firearms will have been melted into plows. People will never get their property back and will have no recourse. Additionally, once you allow one right to be taken the rest will fall if they interfere with government’s desires. The Second Amendment is the one that protects all others.
The oath I took to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic does not have an expiration date and I intend to uphold my oath under all circumstances.
Obama and many in this government are working to violate our Constitution and that means they are domestic enemies.
Additionally, I will not follow any law enacted at the state level if that law violates the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection to all people of the state. Basically, states can’t do things in violation of the US Constitution and enacting laws that violate the Second Amendment violates the law.
What harm could a little EO do?
Keep in mind that it was an Executive Order that led to the unlawful confinement of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting and it is not about sport shooting. It is there to protect the means citizens have to keep their government in check. It allows us to shoot at tyrants in our own government.
But, Piers Morgan and other liberals say this is nonsense and that the US government will not abuse it people.
Really? What about the previously mentioned Japanese Americans? What about the blacks who were brought here and sold as slaves? These folks were denied their liberty and it was sanctioned by the government. It was eventually changed but how long did our government allow people to be held in bondage before it changed? If one thinks the government would not do bad things to a disarmed population should ask the Native Americans how things worked out. Government massacred them.
Then, after it changed, southern states tried to deny blacks the right to keep and bear arms. It is easier to round up people and lynch them when they are not armed.
Governments will eventually become corrupt. Look at how massive and corrupt our government is now. Imagine how bad things would get if those in charge knew they could do what they wanted because people lacked the means to resist.
Executive orders and unconstitutional laws are detrimental to society and I refuse to follow them.
I and many others will honor our oath, period.
One last point. I keep hearing the question; “why do you need a magazine that holds more than ten rounds?” I need it because I want it and I am free. I need it because that is what the military has and I am to be armed as well as the individual soldier.
My question is why does Obama need so many people with guns protecting him? Won’t one guy or maybe two do the trick? Why does Governor O’Malley of Maryland need an armed detail of at least six police officers to protect him? Won’t one guy with a gun suffice? Hell, why are we paying for their protection when they are working so hard to deny us ours?
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 11, 2011 Political
A law is being considered that would require that alcohol detection devices be installed on cars to keep people from driving while intoxicated. The interlock devices must be blown into and an alcohol level below a determined limit (the article states 0.03) must register before the vehicle will start. The devices are designed to require the driver to blow at intervals to ensure that a sober person did not initiate the original air that allowed the vehicle to start. If a person is over the limit six times the car will no longer start.
Interlock devices are sometimes court ordered for DWI offenders as a condition of keeping their licenses.
Installing these devices on all vehicles is a bad idea. The nanny state is now trying to force all drivers to prove they are not over the limit before starting a car. This would be another loss of freedom in this country. Forcing the millions of people who do not drive while intoxicated to do this because a relatively small number of people drive drunk is ridiculous and another infringement into our lives. Since the records can be downloaded it is another way for Big Brother to see what you have been up to. I can imagine a future where the records are pulled each time a person goes to renew a driver’s license and that person being denied because they tried to drive after a few too many.
I have no problem with people who have DWIs being required to have one of these on their cars. That would be a condition of their being allowed to continue to drive. They drove drunk and they have to pay the price but why does everyone have to pay the price with preemptive breathalyzer tests before they can operate a vehicle?
These things are not easy to operate and it takes time to get use to them and even then it is time consuming. Suppose some woman is getting into her car late in the evening and she notices a group of nasty looking men heading her way. On any given day she could lock the doors, start the car and leave. If she is delayed because of the device or the device does not work then she will be at the mercy of potential attackers.
Who will be responsible for that?
I am tired of the nanny state. We have laws against driving while intoxicated and we have police officers to look for those who do so. We do not need to infringe on the rest of the driving public to make some do gooder feel good about himself.
We do not need to be told what to do and we do not need to be monitored in all aspects of our lives.
Most of us are smart enough to do the right thing.
And we have laws to take care of those who are not.
But Big Dog, what if this would have saved a family from being killed by a drunk driver. That will be little consolation to the family killed because a person was busy reblowing while driving so the machine could ensure a drunk was not behind the wheel.
And how often are people killed or injured by drunk drivers? The number is small compared to the number of non impaired accidents and other ways people die.
Stay out of our lives you nanny state morons.
As for me, I will rebuild my vehicle from the ground up before I buy a new car that must have one of these and I don’t even drink.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 7, 2010 Political
Barack Obama is supposed to be a great orator and communicator though anyone with a brain can see that when he does not have a teleprompter and a script he sounds like a stuttering fool. Obama blamed the beating his party took in the last election on his inability to communicate how good his agenda was and how good what they did was for the average schmo on the street. Yep, you folks are too dense to see what is good for you.
Truth be told, Obama spoke about his health care reform more than 50 times and his minions were out on the streets trying to explain it as well. The reality is that he communicated it quite well and the American public did not buy it. We did not buy his health care, cap and trade, his ramming things down our throats or the arm twisting and back room deals that took place.
“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”
We heard it and we understood it. It was not bad communication Barack, it was bad policy.
But maybe, just maybe, your minions and you would have been able to communicate the health care bill better if say, you all had read it.
Remember, while you were communicating it to us Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to see what was in it.
That sounds like a recipe for disaster and you felt that disaster on election day.
Keep on believing that you did not communicate well enough and you will be in for another trouncing come 2012.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 26, 2010 Political
After Arizona passed its immigration law the liberals went nuts and started screaming about racial profiling even though the law mirrors federal law and even though none of them had, at the time, read the thing. The Obama regime is suing Arizona over the law saying that immigration is a federal issue and the states are not allowed to make immigration policy. If the federal government had done its job this would not be an issue but Obama is not willing to secure our borders until he gets immigration reform passed. Governor Brewer of Arizona takes issue with the regime’s claim that the border is more secure now than ever.
Imagine that. The Arizona border is so secure that there are warning signs indicating that illegal aliens and drugs are being smuggled in and that it is not safe for American citizens to be in those areas. If the federal government was doing its job then we would not need these signs and Arizona would not need to enact laws to enforce immigration. As Governor Brewer put it to Obama; Do your job.
I don’t understand why Brewer does not put her national guard troops on the border and heavily arm them. The troops belong to the state unless they are federalized. Since they have not been federalized (at least not all of them) she can use them as she sees fit to protect her state. Heavily arm them and tell them to apprehend those who enter illegally and that if violence breaks out to use lethal force.
While Obama is engaged in extortion with regard to securing the border after immigration reform the area along the border (and as far as 80 miles in) is being ceded to the Mexicans who come and go as they please.
As far as the lawsuit goes, what leg does the federal government have to stand on? Will it claim that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government and that states are not allowed to make immigration policy?
If this is the argument then how does the federal government explain sanctuary cities? Providing sanctuary to illegal aliens is an immigration policy and if Arizona does not have the legal right to make policy keeping illegals out then other places have no legal right to enact policy to keep illegals in.
If Arizona loses the lawsuit then all sanctuary cities must be eliminated.
Even if Arizona wins, it has the only policy designed to actually uphold the rule of law but I bet the liberals will never see it that way.
I am with Governor Brewer and the people of Arizona on this. If the feds can’t do their job then it is up to the adults to step in and take care of things.
Or, to paraphrase Obama; we don’t need the people who caused the mess to be saying a whole lot about it. Just get out of the way and let us get things done.
Big Dog salute to American Power
Never surrender, never submit.