Did FBI Murder LaVoy Finicum?

For nearly a month a group of people describing themselves as militia have been occupying a federal wildlife refuge in protest of the federal government’s intrusion. The feds have obtained a lot of land in violation of the US Constitution and they have been putting ranchers out of business and obtaining their land along the way.

We can debate the tactics of the people and the sanity of this mission some other time. What is not open to debate is their adherence to non violence. They stated they would not shoot first but that they would not tolerate federal agents pointing guns at them. Their position was likely exploited and allowed the FBI to kill LaVoy Finicum. Many claim that Finicum did not shoot (in fact it has been reported that the only three shots came from law enforcement) and that he had his hands up when he approached the police.

I was obviously not there but if he intended to shoot someone I am sure he would have gotten a few rounds off and possibly harmed one of the LEOs before he was shot. He was not a threat to anyone’s life so why was lethal force used?

These officers had many more people, pepper spray and tazers. They did not have to shoot this guy, at least based on what we know at this time.

You can bet that no officer will face any discipline or investigation for this shooting, a shooting that looks like cold blooded murder.

Even if Finicum was charging at the police he did less to them than Michael Brown did (he assaulted an officer and then charged him and tried to take his gun) so why are there no protests? Why are there no hands up don’t shoot rallies and why are there no people telling us that cowboy lives matter?

Obama was on Brown’s side as was the majority of the liberal establishment. The very people who think Brown was executed think Finicum got what he deserved.

Did he? There is no way to convince me he could not have been taken alive. A trigger happy LEO murdered him.

The government can kill without consequence. We see it each and every day.

I do not know what the response to this will be but if this man was walking with his hands up and was unarmed and they shot him then the reaction should make Ferguson look like Disneyland.

Perhaps people should burn places to the ground and engage in huge riots that destroy millions of dollars in property. I mean, that is what happened in Ferguson and Baltimore and the subjects of those outbursts were in the wrong. If they murdered this guy (and it sure looks that way) then it might just be time to raise hell. There is no honor in the FBI and there is no honor in any police agency that violates its oath.

Perhaps this will spiral out of control or perhaps it will be forgotten in the next news cycle.

In any event, if you ever have to deal with the FBI or other law enforcement agencies just keep in mind they will murder you. Do what you have to to stay alive keeping in mind surrendering or complying is no guarantee you will remain alive.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Should Monica Sue The Cigar Company?

Hillary Clinton and the rest of the anti-gun zealots in this nation want the ability to sue gun manufacturers if their products are used in any manner that causes harm. One assumes they mean unlawful harm as I doubt anyone would want a gun manufacturer to be sued for a police officer that shot someone in the performance of his duty.

Regardless what they really want the entire idea is stupid. Firearms are manufactured and sold in this country. So long as the manufacturer provided them legally and they were not in some way defective then that manufacturer should not be held accountable for what the end user does with the product.

This is another overreach by the people who routinely violate the US Constitution. These people are tyrants and they will try everything they can, legal or not, in order to rule over people with an iron fist and they can’t quite do that until they can disarm people and make it tougher for them to get firearms.

How many firearms companies would go out of business if they could be sued because some moron uses a gun illegally and someone gets harmed? How many could stay in business if a legal owner shoots a home invader and the invader’s family sues the firearms company because the product caused harm?

It is moronic to hold the companies responsible in these instances.

The law in place has many provisions that would allow manufacturers to be sued but she [Hillary] wanted the version that allowed lawsuits for improper use of the gun by the end user (Sanders voted against that one and she is attacking him for it). Someone using the product in a manner that harms others SHOULD NEVER BE something a company can be sued for.

For those of you who think this is a good idea let me ask:

  • Should Microsoft or Dell be sued if someone uses Microsoft software and a Dell computer to steal identities?
  • Should Apple be sued because a person using a cell phone and not paying attention walks off a cliff?
  • Should a sports company be sued because a person uses baseball bats to beat the hell out of people?
  • Should condom companies be sued because rapists use their condoms when committing rape?
  • Should a small appliance company be sued because an idiot used a hair dryer in the tub and died of electrocution?

The obvious answer to these questions is no. The companies did not do anything wrong and the companies did not use its products in a manner that harmed someone. This is just as true for the gun makers.

But guns are scary and liberal bed wetters do not like them so they have to have ways to do it. They don’t like guns so they want to sue the people who make them rather than go after the people who use them illegally.

This is the liberal mind set. It is never the fault of the person who did it. There must be some reason and the blame game begins. No matter what problems people have in life liberals will always find someone or something to blame for those problems. Look at any person in Baltimore picked up for a violent crime and that person has a record a mile long for other violent or gun related crimes (along with drugs) and the joker is still on the street. The problem is not some other thing, the problem is the person who did it and a liberal justice system that refuses to punish offenders.


But I am latching onto Hillary’s idea here. I think we should be allowed to sue politicians who enact laws and make decisions that harm the public. We should be able to sue the hell out of any politician who does anything that violates the Constitution.

Then we might get some reform in this country.

As for Hillary and suing gun makers, a stupid idea from a stupid person and makes as much sense as Monica suing the cigar company for the harm done to her…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Obama Assumes He Has The Power

All tyrants do…

It is not hard to figure Barack Obama out. He was a drug using spoiled brat kid raised by Marxists and Communists who has grown into an adult who thinks he knows everything and that what he wants done is best for all. He also thinks that the Constitution and the laws do not apply to him and that he can ignore them as he sees fit.

This is evident in the actions he has taken. I will not list them for you. Suffice it to say any time he has used his pen and his phone or issued some executive action he was usurping his authority.

It is important to note that Executive Orders do not have any weight of law for, and do not apply to, the citizens at large. They are orders for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the government and are designed to instruct that branch on what it must do. So when Obama tries to issue an EO telling us we must do this or that keep in mind his orders have no authority over you.

Obama met with Attorney General Lynch today and he then told reporters he has some actions he will take in the coming days. You know that they will infringe on our rights and be illegal by the way he described it.

He said the actions he is taking are completely within his legal authority. Anytime Obama says that he is trying to convince the dunderheads who support him that what he is doing is legal. IT IS NOT. He said that about a few things and the courts have told him otherwise. Remember, Obama told us he had the legal authority with regard to his immigration plans but a court told him otherwise. Of course that did not stop Obama the Tyrant as he ignored the courts.

He also said that a majority of people agree with him.

This is a lie. Congress took this issue up several times and the members of Congress decided against this based on what constituents were saying. People do not agree with Obama on this mess. People do not agree at all.

But, if that is the standard we now use then why is Obamacare the law? A huge majority of people were opposed to it when Obama and the Democrats were debating it and when they passed it. If Barack Obama actually cared about what the people wanted he would have scrapped Obamacare.

He did not because that is what he wanted. This is the same for his gun control measures. He wants this so he really does not care what the people want. He will tell the world that the majority agrees with him but that is a lie.

Obama lies to get his way and he ignores the Supreme Law of the Land. He bypasses Congress and he does things the way he wants and he really does not care if anyone likes it or if it is legal. It is what his magnificence wants so that is what he will do.

Well Barry, you ignore the law and that is fine with you and your idiot followers. Even Martin O’Malley thinks you did the right thing on this issue and you can’t get more of an idiot following you than O’Malley so let me be clear.

I will not obey any order you impose. I will NOT follow anything you say I have to do. I do not care if you like it because you work for me and I am not obligated to follow unconstitutional laws and since you have no authority to even make law I am certainly not going to follow what your pea brain comes up with.

So go fornicate yourself because we will not comply.


Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Maryland Gun Control, Absolute Failure

We are well aware of the failures of places with tough gun control laws. Chicago has thousands of shootings this year and it is nearly impossible to legally own a firearm there. California’s gun control failure was on display in San Bernardino last week when Muslim terrorists murdered a bunch of defenseless people.

Maryland is not far behind the crowd of gun control hell holes where criminals get guns and murder people while the law abiding are denied their protected right and are treated like the criminal class.

Martin O’Malley, former governor and presidential candidate, is responsible for pushing through these restrictive and unconstitutional laws. He relished in the moment and thought it would increase his bona fides with the liberal base. O’Malley, like his fellow Democrats, called for more gun control exploiting the dead while they were still warm and before all the facts were known.

The Second Amendment Deals With An Individual Right

The reality is these people were defenseless because their government made them so. The reaction of those in charge is to increase security from unarmed guards to armed guards. The only folks that there was no mention of arming are those who will suffer at the hands of bad people, the citizens.

It has been nearly two years since Maryland passed all the tough gun control. Baltimore City has over 300 murders this year, most of them with firearms and there are plenty more shootings where people were only injured. Perhaps the criminals did not get the memo about gun control because they keep getting guns and they keep using them.

Case in point, the first line from a Baltimore Fox 45 (WBFF) article indicates that police have taken two more guns off the street. They arrested two men who were involved in drug distribution and each of them had a gun. The article clearly indicates that neither of them was legally allowed to possess a gun and yet, they both had one.

You see, criminals do not obey the law, period. It is against the law to murder people and yet that happens. What makes anyone think that gun control laws will keep criminals from getting guns?

In fact, the two who were arrested had 200 bags of cocaine in their possession and I know that possessing, buying, selling or using cocaine is against the law.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Gun laws only affect the law abiding and they make us sitting ducks for those who have no regard for the law or for human life.

Martin O’Malley brought this to Maryland (mostly the urban areas as most of the suburbs are full of conservative people who own guns and obey the law) and now he wants to bring it to the nation.

I have no time and no desire to be lectured about guns by people like O’Malley particularly ones who are protected by armed guards.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Confiscating Guns Won’t Work But Let’s Do It Anyway

I have ranted about gun control for a long time partly because I live in the oppressive state of Maryland but mostly because I believe in individual freedom and that includes the freedom to keep and bear arms. This freedom was so important that our Founders protected (not granted) the right in the Constitution.

I have no problem with people who do not like firearms or who do not want to own them. They are free to choose those actions just as I am free to choose otherwise.

That is where the problem lies. Those who do not like guns blame them for all the bad things that happen with them. They then use their blame of guns to push an agenda that includes disarming America.

Some of these people are actually foolish enough to believe it will make a difference. Those in power know it won’t but they do not care because their goal is to control people and they can only truly control people once they have been disarmed.

Study after study using the government’s own numbers shows that even though we have more guns than ever before violent crime is way down. It has been shown time and again that the most violent places where the gun crimes occur are places with the strictest gun control laws and in places where people are free to carry firearms it is relatively safe.

These facts are indisputable but facts never get in the way of a good cause where the liberals are concerned. They want control and they need to take the guns to get it so that is what they are going to do.

Or try anyway…

There are far too many tragic shootings and something has to be done about it. What needs to be done is vastly different from what Barack Obama and the rest of the tyrants will tell you. They say that we need common sense gun laws even though all the gun laws we now have did not help and those they propose would do nothing to stop the bad people from doing bad things.

What needs to be done is to immediately get rid of all gun laws in each state. People who are not otherwise prohibited and who pass the background check to purchase a firearm will be allowed to carry it openly or concealed anywhere they want (private businesses could still ban them on their properties as could homeowners). This will allow people to protect themselves from those hell bent on doing harm.

The left wants a complete gun confiscation. They want to make America a gun free zone. This thinking ignores the fact that these mass shootings take place at locations that are designated as gun free. The criminals pick these places exactly for that reason. They know that law abiding people will not be armed there and that they will have a target rich environment.

The left’s idea of a gun free America is not really gun free. They want it gun free with regard to private citizens. Agents of the government (and no doubt special people) will still have guns and be allowed to carry them. It is amazing that these people are the first to attack police officers when they use firearms in the line of duty as trigger happy but want them to be the only ones to have firearms.

The left holds Australia up as the model we should emulate but as they announced their praise for that nation someone there shot and killed an employee of the police. How could that happen in a place where guns are banned?

The left explains gun confiscation like this:

They turn to [Columbia University psychiatrist] Appelbaum again who is ready to endorse the Australian approach with one caveat–he wants to be sure everyone knows that we should still expect to see mass shootings. Appelbaum said, “I don’t think anyone could say honestly that if we tighten up on the availability of guns and the ease of purchasing them, and reduce the number of weapons that are largely produced to kill large numbers of people, that the problem will go away completely.” He added, “Some people who will be able to get their hands on guns and be able to do horrible things with them” no matter what actions are taken. [emphasis mine] Breitbart

This line of thinking demonstrates a few things. One is that even with a complete confiscation and ban people will get guns and use them to murder people. So it demonstrates that even a total ban will not work.

It also shows what freedom lovers have been saying all along and that is criminals do not obey the law and gun control does not affect them. The only people harmed by gun control are the law abiding people who will not use firearms illegally in the first place.

Only in liberal land could a solution to a perceived issue be proposed that will not solve the perceived problem and then be touted as a great idea.

Of course if the real goal is to disarm law abiding citizens so they cannot defend against tyranny then the plan makes perfect sense.

At least until they actually try it…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog