A Maryland man has been shot and killed at a convenience store in Indiana. Evidently, Terry Wilson of Baltimore tried to rob the store at gunpoint when the clerk pulled a gun and shot him to death.

Wilson is from Maryland where criminal prey on the law abiding because the law abiding are not allowed to carry guns. The state and its moron governor, Martin O’Malley, will tell you they have a process to allow one to carry but that process infringes on law abiding citizens and violates the Second Amendment. You must show a reason why the state should allow you to exercise your right. According to the politicians there is no real need to carry but it is often difficult to see how dangerous things are when one is surrounded by armed police officers. O’Malley has an armed protection detail. He thinks he is more important than the people for whom he works.

In many other states law abiding citizens can carry a concealed weapon (usually red states) and crime rates are lower. Wilson probably forgot that he was not in the killing fields of Maryland when he decided to rob that store. Besides a bullet, I wonder what the last thing that went through his mind was. Toto, we are not in Maryland anymore…

If that had taken place in Maryland and the clerk pulled a gun and shot the felon the state would arrest the clerk for murder. Only felons are allowed to carry guns in Maryland.

I imagine that if several robbers were killed in such attempts in Maryland there would be fewer and fewer robberies. That won’t happen because Maryland seems to like being at the top of the crime stats list.

The morons in elected office from the Teflon Leprechaun governor to the legislators in Annapolis have no clue because they do not believe in individual liberty and in following the Constitution.

They believe in state control of the people and hell, as long as they can live in their gated communities or have armed guards, why should they actually care about the crime?

That is why we are the People’s Republik of Maryland.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

During last night’s debate Governor Perry attacked former Masachusetts Governor Romney for a change in his position on Massachusetts’ health care as it would apply to the nation. Perry pointed out that a line was changed when Romney’s book was published in paperback.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said during the Florida debate that Romney took out the single line that suggested the Massachusetts health reform law could be applied to the country. The line that is removed in the paperback version reads, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”

Romney denied there was a change but after the debate one of his people noted that there was a change and indicated that this was a common practice when books are printed in paperback and new information is available.

The problem is that the new information available, Obamacare, did not necessitate the change in the book except that Obamacare is widely disliked and Romney wants to be president.

If this were the only thing that Romney had changed one could argue that he had time to evaluate what took place in Massachusetts and what took place in the country and came to a different conclusion. The problem is, Romney has a history of changing positions. It appears as if Romney will change his positions depending on political winds.

There is no doubt that Romney has the economic and business experience but he has changed positions on abortion and the Second Amendment, to name a few, and those changes smack of political expediency.

Will a president Romney change positions or compromise his principles should he be faced with a Congress in control of the other party? We already have a guy occupying the White House who was one thing during the campaign and is totally different now that he is in office and he, of course, is not the only one. We need leadership that is principled and a leader who will not change positions on core values and beliefs for political expediency.

Make no mistake about it, Romney would be a better leader than Obama as would anyone who was on the stage last night. But we do not need someone who is, at best, better than Obama. We need a principled leader who will follow his beliefs and do what he said he would do.

All candidates from all parties have their faults. They are human beings and there are problems with all of them (though Obama supporters think differently of their messiah) but a problem with consistency is an issue that deserves a closer look.

Source:
WLS 890

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The Socialists in the Obama regime (which is all of them) believe that no crisis should go to waste. They see something they can make into a crisis, manufacture the crisis, and then push through legislation that would otherwise not pass. If they can’t get the legislation Obama uses Executive Orders to push through what he wants. The history of this regime is one manufactured crisis after another.

Enter the latest crisis. The gun problem in the states that border Mexico. The people who live in those states have no problems and are law abiding citizens but there are guns making their way into Mexico. The drug cartels are using them and some of our border patrol agents have been killed by those guns.

The regime now wants, and Obama has enacted by Executive Order, new rules requiring the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to report the purchase of two or more of certain types of rifles by the same person in a five day period. I can’t see how the regime can require some states to follow certain rules that other states do not have to. It seems to me that this is a violation of the Constitution considering the rule is via an Executive Order and not legislation passed by Congress, you know like the Constitution requires.

The real problem with all this is the manufactured crisis. The gun problem with purchases ending up in Mexico is because of illegal activity by members of the regime. There is corruption very high up and a cover up is under way regarding a program called Fast and Furious. Departments of the federal government, under orders from people in the regime, had people purchase a boat load of guns and send them into Mexico where they ended up in the hands of the drug cartels. The reported goal was to track the guns and see where they went and how they got there blah, blah.

The real goal was to manufacture a crisis involving guns so the regime could react to that crisis. Obama knows that laws violating the Second Amendment have a tough time passing in Congress, particularly if Republicans control any portion of it, so he used an Executive Order to impose new rules. It will not be long before the rules get tougher and extend to other states. This regime has manufactured a crisis in which people were killed by the illegal actions of our government and now it wants to address the crisis to further stifle our rights.

The illegal guns, the purchase of which was sanctioned by the regime, were lost. They ended up being used to kill border patrol agents and now Obama has imposed rules to solve a problem that was manufactured through the illegal actions of his regime.

This cannot go unchallenged. Law abiding citizens should be able to buy as many rifles (or any other legal firearms) as they want without having Big Sis and the rest of the nanny state government prying into their business.

Here is an idea, close the damned border and we won’t have to worry about it.

As for those wishing to buy several firearms, just buy one rifle every six days. Then you won’t be reported.

Source:
The Blaze

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The left is all worked up because Governor Rick Perry of Texas has entered the presidential race and is an instant front runner. The liberals have awakened because they are worried about Perry being so unconstitutional because he believes in his religion and he held a a public prayer which was attended by tens of thousands of people. This, according to the left, is against the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a politician can’t hold public prayer. Nowhere does it say that prayers can’t be said in government buildings. Nowhere does our Constitution say that religion can’t be part of our government.

What our Constitution says is that Congress can’t make a law that establishes a specific religion as the state religion, or religion of the government. The Constitution also says that Congress can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion (any religion) in this country.

Morons on the left don’t understand this so Perry is perceived as a person who does not follow the Constitution.

The irony is that the very left that makes such a claim is concerned about Perry’s position on firearms. Perry believes that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms if they so desire and that government should not infringe upon their ability to do so. This is too much for the left and they are worried about a Perry presidency leading to more guns in this country.

The irony is that Perry’s position on gun ownership is absolutely Constitutional (as is his stance on religion) but the left will cry about Perry not following the Constitution on one hand (even if they are wrong about it) and then oppose him for a position that is absolutely Constitutional.

The left is full of morons that view our Constitution as a document of convenience that is right when it agrees with what they want and wrong when it does not. The mob that is the liberal world is easily led astray by great speeches and false information. They are whipped into a frenzy by their mob leaders and are lied to so often that they can’t understand the truth. They have trouble with reality because they have been taught liberal BS all their lives.

This is how we get liberals who are worked up over a politician who actually follows the Constitution (at least in the two examples cited) and who can’t grasp what is Constitutional and what is not.

The mob is dangerous and the only way to defeat it is with force.

While we have a long way to go and anything can happen, Perry might just be the one to apply that force.

BTW, in the linked article Al Sharpton says:

Perry, Sharpton said, “is looking to go to the O.K. Corral and start shooting. … Rather than the left get caught sleeping, we better load up, because he is bringing it.”

This seems like violent rhetoric. Did Sharpton not hear Obama call for civility? This seems much worse than cross hairs on a map and yet Sharpton is spewing such violence. Al is the first one to point his blood stained fingers at people when violence occurs and he is more than willing to blame the right for that violence (even though it is caused by the left and sometimes by Sharpton himself) so how dare he use such violent terms?

Is Sharpton suggesting that the left should not retreat but should reload instead? My, my, my… I wonder how something like that would be perceived by the left if someone like Sarah Palin said it. Oh, wait…

How long will it take for the liberal morons who went after Palin and other conservatives after the Tuscon shooting to come to Sharpton’s defense?

We already know they will call me a racist for bringing it up.

That is, after all, the mob mentality.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

A Chicago teen, Charinez Jefferson, was murdered by a gang banger who saw her walking with a member of a rival gang. Gang banger Timothy Jones fired shots at the two and his rival ran from the scene leaving Jefferson to fend for herself (what a real man this guy is).

Jones pointed his gun at Jefferson as she begged for her life explaining that she was pregnant. Jones shot her in the head and then pumped more rounds into her body. She died and her unborn child is in critical condition.

The anti gun nuts in this country will blame the weapon for the crime but the weapon was used by a person who should not have had it (criminals do NOT obey the law) and who should have been in jail. Charinez Jefferson was the victim of a liberal judicial system that refuses to incarcerate felons. Jones has a long rap sheet.

A police source said that Jones was a “stick-up man” well known to area police. At the time of the shooting, Jones was serving 2 years of probation for a 2010 burglary conviction, Dillon said. He also has a “lengthy” juvenile record, including convictions for unlawful use of a weapon, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and burglary. Chicago Tribune

Jones should have been in jail. He was well known to police and had a history of violence, criminal activity and use of weapons. Why was this thug on the street?

He was on the street because of a judicial system that allows judges who live in protected communities to be lenient on people who have shown they are unworthy of freedom.

Charinez Jefferson was murdered and her child is in critical condition because a judge or judges refused to put the animal who eventually murdered her in a cage where he belongs.

And since Chicago has one of the most stringent gun laws in the country, Jefferson and others are not allowed to carry guns for their own protection.

They are prey to people like Jones who refuse to obey the law and who are coddled by the lax judicial system.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

It is bad enough that the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that people have no right to resist police officers who are breaking the law when trying to enter private residences, we now have a story of a gun owner being harassed and charged with a crime for legally carrying a gun. Mark Fiorino has a gun license and was openly carrying his handgun in Philadelphia when a rough and tough police officer confronted him.

The officer treated Fiorino like a child (“yo, junior, what are you doing?”) and ordered him to his knees. When Fiorino told the officer he had a license and that the law allows him to carry the weapon the officer used filthy language to indicate that if Fiorino moved he would be shot.

The officer told a law abiding citizen who was not causing any harm or posing a threat in any way that if he moved he would be shot. Other officers responding to the calls for backup wrestled Fiorino to the ground and cuffed him while throwing F bomb laced comments at him.

The officers were finally made aware that they could not arrest him because he was correct and they let him go.

The problem is that Fiorino recorded the incident on an audio device. Fiorino says he carries the device with him in case he ever has a confrontation that requires him to use his gun. He asserts that this will provide proof that he acted correctly if he ever has to use his gun.

After the incident Fiorino stewed over how he had been treated by the Nazi police officers in Philadelphia and he posted the audio to You Tube. This is where round two of police harassment began. The law in Philly (the city of brotherly love don’t you know) decided that Fiorino needed to be taught a lesson so they charged him with reckless endangerment. The rationale is that Fiorino could have been shot or the officers responding could have been hurt in an accident. This, of course, is all Fiorino’s fault and not the fault of the moron cops who did not know the law and who escalated the incident by treating Fiorino as a criminal and going all Dirty Harry on him.

To the cops in Philly, the average guy on the street is a punk who does not have a right to carry a gun. Only the thug cops can do that and they do not like it when someone horns in on that. They also do not like it when people demonstrate to the world that the cops in Philly are foul mouthed morons who treat the people for whom they work as criminals.

If anyone should be charged with a crime it is the police officers who abused and assaulted Fiorino.

Unfortunately, this will never happen because like in Indiana, the cops should never be confronted when they break the law. No, pursue it in court. Unfortunately, this incident could have resulted in addressing it at a funeral home because the mron cop made it clear he would shoot if Fiorino moved. The Gestapo at its best.

Maybe Fiorino should file a lawsuit for violation of his civil rights. He was assaulted and placed in custody by the police. I bet a couple of million dollars in a lawsuit will provide great relief.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The Democrats do not like guns. Let me rephrase, liberals do not like guns in the hands of We The People. Some of them have armed guards and some have their own carry permits but they are not too keen on the rest of us having the ability to defend ourselves. Barack Obama is looking to introduce some kind of stricter gun laws but he avoided saying anything at the State of the Union because he did not want to appear as if he was trying to capitalize on the Tuscon shootings.

But that is what he will try to do. He and his gun grabbing friends (many of whom were upset he did not call for it in the SOTU) will try to make laws even more stringent and will try to infringe on our rights even more. They will claim that loopholes need to be closed to prevent people with mental disorders from getting guns.

The loophole that needs to be changed is the loophole in the office of the local sheriff in Tuscon. The gunman had many interactions with the law and gave a number of indications that he was mentally unstable but the local sheriff ignored all of that and allowed this unstable man to run free. A background check was done on him (contrary to claims from the left that background check is required on all regulated firearms) and since there was nothing negative, he was allowed to buy the gun. If the sheriff had taken the man into custody and had him undergo a psych evaluation (and he was diagnosed with a mental disorder) then he would have been in the database and unable to purchase the weapon.

The problem lies not in the laws but in the inept members of the sheriff’s department who did not do their jobs.

Not to mention that if he could not buy the gun legally he would have bought one illegally. A person who is determined to do harm will do harm and little things like the law will not get in the way. It is that simple.

We do not need more gun laws. We have about 20,000 of them now and they do not work because the criminals do not obey the law.

Gun control does not work because criminals will get guns. Gun control ONLY disarms honest, law abiding citizens and makes them prey for the criminal class.

But Obama and his gun grabbers do not care because they do not care about the Constitution, they do not care about our rights, and they want to disarm us so they can enslave us.

Obama has no use for guns but he has quite a large number of heavily armed people who can shoot any threat to him. He does not want you to have the same ability to protect yourself and your family.

So Obama will be looking to push more gun control and he will have lots of support from the gun grabbing left. Fortunately, the right is in charge of the House. But if he succeeds all he will do is make a bunch of law abiding citizens a criminal class because they will not turn over their guns.

I got an email from a friend with an essay entitled “The Gun Is Civilization (March 2007)”. It is widely attributed to Maj L. Caudill USMC but the actual author is Marko Kloos. (Big Dog salute to WT)

It is a well done piece that makes a lot of sense. Obama and his gun grabbing elities should read it.

In fact, most people would benefit from reading it.

Perhaps those in Congress who support our rights should read it into the record…

In any event, we will have a fight on our hands as the Obama freedom wrecking ball continues to smash away.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The Republicans are set to introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare and its takeover of health care in this country. The measure will pass in the House but will not pass in the Senate but Republicans there plan on a roll call vote to get everyone on the record. Considering how voting for Obamacare ended the careers of many long time Democrats, some have to be worried about the vote (which might explain why so many Democrats and their allies in the media are saying how bad taking up repeal would be).

One of the things in the law that people oppose is the individual mandate which requires everyone to buy health care insurance. The Democrats have twisted and abused the Commerce Clause in order to force people to buy a product. This is unconstitutional and against what the Commerce Clause was intended for. I think the law will die in the courts as this mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

Without the money from those required to buy health care, the entire law unravels.

Democrats are lining up to tell us, once again, that it is perfectly legal for the government to force someone to buy something. I wonder though, how they would react if a future Congress and president enacted a law requiring everyone to buy a handgun.

I might have written about this before but I think it is worth mentioning again. Everyone is impacted by crime and people can be the targets of crime at anytime. Additionally, crime impacts commerce in this country as it costs us billions of dollars each year. The Constitution absolutely affirms our individual right to keep and bear arms. What would happen if a future Congress said that people were required to buy a handgun because deterring crime impacts commerce?

Can you imagine how the very Democrats who say it is perfectly legal to require people to buy health care insurance would react?

I know that many of them would be screaming about how it is unconstitutional and that the government does not have the right to force people to buy things, particularly a gun.

The government does not have the power to force anyone to buy anything.

And Democrats would soon realize that if people were required to buy handguns.

**This issue involves the federal government. At least one local jurisdiction has enacted a law requiring a gun to be kept in every house. Also, when we were founded all males between certain ages were required to have a firearm and ammunition in case the need to call the militia to service arose.

Related:
Two page repeal bill
Republicans move to repeal Obamacare
I am not the only one who had this thought

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Mayor Daley is not happy with the decision by the Supreme Court that says the Second Amendment applies to the states. He is an anti gun politician and he wants guns banned. He has no concern for the Constitution or for freedom. He only cares about power and how to get rich through Chicago corruption.

The people of Chicago see things a bit differently. They are happy with the decision. Some indicate that they have weapons to protect themselves even though the weapons are illegal (by virtue of the gun ban). People are willing to break the law to ensure their safety.

Daley cares not one bit and he vowed to enact a new law that will make it extremely difficult to own a gun. These tactics usually involve undue barriers that prevent people, particularly the poor, from getting weapons. The very same tactics that liberals used after slavery to terrorize the freemen.

Why should Daley care? He has armed guards to protect him.

At least the people get it. As one person puts it:

Another neighbor, 50-year-old Charlene Figgins, thinks Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is living in a different Chicago than she is and that he doesn’t understand the citizens’ need for protection.

She says it can take 30 minutes for police to respond to calls for help in her neighborhood. She says the mayor doesn’t have that problem. Chicago Tribune

Or as the bumper sticker says, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

9-1-1, government sponsored dial a prayer…

Never surrender, never submit.

The fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right is indisputable except to lefties who have trouble understanding what the words “The People” and “shall not be infringed” mean. These are the same folks who refuse to believe in individual rights even though the Founders clearly stated such in their writings.

The issue changed to one of applicability to the states once the left lost its battle against individual rights. Then the issue became, well sure it applied in DC but that is not a state. It does not apply to the states.

The SCOTUS cleared that all up today with a decision that overturned a lower court ruling and remanded the issue back. The SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states and that is because of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a long time the Fourteenth was not considered to apply to the states but that changed a half century or so ago and decisions have been reached that made the Bill of Rights (with exceptions to some portions) apply to the states. This idea is what allowed abortion to become legal and forced the states to comply. If the rights spelled out in the Constitution did not apply to the states then the Court could not have ruled that abortion was legal because it would be a federal, and only a federal, issue. This ignore the fact that abortion is not a right and is indicated only because it is “settled” law where the right was somehow found.

The Second was never considered though thinking people knew that it was included in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Which, as an aside, means the Arizona cannot violate Due Process since illegals are NOT citizens of the United States. But that is an issue for another time.

Interestingly but not surprising, gun grabbers are vowing to basically ignore the ruling issued today. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has vowed that his city will enact a new law soon that will prevent people from getting guns. This amounts to ignoring the law and is typical for Alinsky progressives. If the courts don’t rule your way then just ignore them. After all, this is what the Obama regime is doing with the drilling moratorium. They have vowed to ignore the court and issue a new moratorium.

How long will they do this before WE THE PEOPLE, decide to ignore the rules they come up with?

As for Daley, he is a first class slug and a hypocrite. While Daley does not believe that the people should be allowed to have guns, his aldermen are allowed to carry them. Richard Daley has about a dozen body guards on his detail and all of them are armed. Why is it that a person who works for the people of Chicago can have armed guards to protect him but will not allow the people to be armed to protect themselves.

No politician is any more important than the lowest in our society because even that person is the employer of the politician. I have little problem with presidents having armed security. Our enemies would love to attack a president and kill him. Other politicians are not that important and their demise would not cause turmoil in this country.

Think about it. If Richard Daley was killed by a would be criminal, would Chicago be in turmoil? No, they would replace him with another corrupt politician and keep on going. But Daley does not have to worry about that because he deems himself more important than the people who pay his salary. He is so against the people for whom he works that he will enact a law to keep people from getting guns because he knows better than our Founders, our Supreme Court and YOU.

Daley has no worries because his armed guards go with him even when he travels out of state. One of Daley’s armed guards caught an escaped criminal near the family vacation spot in Michigan while Hizzoner and the family were there. If you or I had been there we might well have been victims of the criminal.

I have a real problem with people like Daley, politicians who feel they are more important than the average folks and who deserve more protection. And the people are not even asking for taxpayer funded security. All we want is the ability to defend ourselves. This goes for people like Barack Obama who would love to ban guns and put more people in danger because average citizens are much more likely to be victims of crime than most politicians, particularly a president.

The Supreme Court put an end to the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states today and it should be as sacrosanct to liberals as the issue of abortion. If it is settled law then let it be settled and let the people have their guns.

The opinion is a good read and in it Justice Scalia excoriates Justice Stevens as well he should. Stevens (and Breyer) ignore US history and the words of the Founders in their opinion and rely on the actions of other nations as well as their liberal views. Even though the facts are completely spelled out with historical references as to what keeping and bearing arms meant (and still means), these two ignored the facts and presented the progressive view. Justices should provide a legal view, not a political one.

How nice for the dress down of Stevens to be in the record for all time and to be issued on his last day on the Court. As Scalia put it (after destroying Stevens’ arguments):

In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.

While today marks a victory for Americans and for freedom one thing is overshadowed. There are four Justices who voted against the Constitution and against the long history of this matter. They voted with the legacy of the Democrats in the south who made gun control laws that applied to blacks in order to control them.

These progressive liberals perpetuate that desire to enslave the citizenry in this nation. And this time they want to enslave all of us, regardless of color.

One last note. Any politician who is in favor of gun control and/or denies people the right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to own or carry a gun and should NOT receive armed guards.

If you believe that there should be NO guns then there can be none for you. That goes for Obama, Daley and all the other hypocrites who think they are more important than we who employ them.

UPDATE: After the Heller decision Mayor Daley predicted all hell would break loose. That has not happened and gun crime in DC has dropped to pre gun ban levels.

Never surrender, never submit.