Panic Buttons Will Not Help When Bad Guys Arrive
Feb 22, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
The public schools in Marietta GA have installed panic buttons that can be pushed in the event of an emergency. The buttons were installed in the wake of the Newtown Connecticut shooting and their purpose is to immediately place a call to 911. The police say that once the button is pushed they will send everything they have until they figure out what is going on.
The panic button will not reduce the number of people murdered and it is nothing more than a feel good measure.
How can that be?
It is quite simple. Notification of 911 was not an issue in Newtown. Records indicate that a call was made within a minute of the incident. That is as fast as recognizing a problem, getting to and pushing a panic button. The problem is it took nearly 20 minutes for police to arrive. By the time they got there the children and teachers had all been murdered.
To recap, notification was not the problem, response was.
A panic button addressed a problem that never existed in the first place.
Governments at all levels across this nation have been working on gun control. This is allegedly in response to the Newtown shootings but the reality is that the shootings were a catalyst to put into place that which the socialist left has wanted all along; a disarmed America. Armed Americans are a threat to their evil intentions. It is nearly impossible to enslave an armed population. The left (the same left that supports murdering unborn children) knows this and will walk on the graves of murdered children (children who were murdered because of government policies) in order to disarm the law abiding. This is why the federal government, through its agents in the VA, are classifying veterans as unable to own a gun. Veterans will defend this nation against the domestic enemies so the government is working to keep them from being armed.
The anti gun crowd wants us to call people with guns and let them come address the issue. Give up your guns and you can just call 911 when there is a life threatening issue. Guns were already banned in this school so how did the gun ban there work out?
Their answer is for you to call the police and wait for them to arrive. During the wait you end up murdered like those in Newtown. Once again, almost all of the murders in that school took place after the police were notified.
One armed person in that school could have reduced the number of lives lost. If the right person had been armed (or more than one person) then it is likely no one in the school would have been murdered.
The politicians who want gun bans are surrounded by armed guards. Obama, Biden (who is no friend to gun owners, no matter what he claims), Bloomberg, and countless others have armed security details for themselves (and in some cases their families) while they work at keeping you from being protected by the same tool their guards have at their disposal.
Our money is protected by guns, our gold is protected by guns, there are armed guards at nearly all government buildings and politicians have armed guards. For some reason they seem to think that these things are more important than us or our children which is why they want us disarmed and they designate our schools as gun free.
My children and grandchildren are more important than any of these things including the politicians and they deserve as much or more protection. Our children deserve to be protected by people with guns.
Banning guns will not stop gun crime any more than prohibition stopped the manufacture, distribution and use of intoxicating beverages (our politicians drank during prohibition). Gun bans will be no more effective than laws against illegal drug use. Criminals simply do not obey the law.
Gun control is about control of people and has nothing to do with guns.
It is time to push a button. Not a panic button in a school and not one that alerts government agents with guns.
It is time to push the button that musters patriots who will fight the tyranny of government.
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: gun control, lies, newtown, panic buttons, Second Amendment
Bloomberg Is What They Had In Mind
Jan 28, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
Reporter Jason Mattera approached New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at the governor’s conference in DC and asked him if he would disarm his security guards in the spirit of gun control. Bloomberg responded that he would get back to Mattera on that. His five armed guards worked to keep Mattera away from the Mayor and were not too happy about the questions. It seemed the question about why Bloomberg has armed guards when he wants to deny others the right to protect themselves struck a raw nerve.
As Bloomberg was whisked away by some of his detail one of the New York police officers who protect him approached Mattera and asked for ID. Mattera provided his press credentials and the officer asked for his driver’s license. Mattera told the officer he did not need that but the officer explained he needed to make sure the name on the press credentials matched the person presenting them. I am not sure if this officer had any authority in DC to make such a request. In any event, Mattera showed his driver’s license and the officer started to write down information until Mattera said something about him doing so.
This was nothing more than an attempt at intimidating Mattera. It was an attempt to make Mattera feel threatened and to let him know they were going to investigate him. Why else would the officer need to write anything down? Do you suppose he would have asked Chris Matthews for ID?
The officer followed Mattera around DC and asked him his date of birth (more intimidation) to which Mattera responded that it was none of his business.
Mattera had it absolutely right. Here is Bloomberg, in our Nation’s Capital, and he is surrounded by at least five armed guards. Why is he any more important than the people of DC or New York? Why is it the taxpayers of New York foot the bill to protect this jerk when he is bound and determined to deny those people the right to protect themselves? He has no problem taking their money and spending it on his own protection (when he is a billionaire to boot) but will not let them have guns to protect themselves. If they don’t need guns then he does not need armed guards, period.
Michael Bloomberg is the kind of politician our Founders had in mind when they protected our right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment. The right preexisted the Constitution and the Amendment does not give us the right, it acknowledges that it existed prior to the Constitution and protects it.
Any politician who tries to disarm American citizens is a traitor and should be treated as such. These are the kinds of people our Founders were wary of because they will usurp the Constitution and then abuse the people. Governments have disarmed people around the world and then murdered lots and lots of them. In fact, governments around the world have murdered more of their own people than any citizens ever have.
[note]When people are armed sometimes mass shootings occur. When they are disarmed genocide occurs.[/note]
I have added Bloomberg to my terror watch list. He joins Barack Obama and Martin O’Malley (among many others) on a list of people who are represent threats to the Constitution.
Mattera showed what happens when the elitist traitors are confronted about their hypocrisy.
Mattera had better watch his back of he might end up Breitbarted.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: armed guards, bloomberg, gun control, hypocrite, liar, Second Amendment
Feinstein And The Other Oath Breakers
Jan 24, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
Senator Dianne Feinstein of Commiefornia has introduced her anti Second Amendment bill and in that bill she and several other oath breakers list 150 different firearms that they want banned. Her anti American bill also calls for a national registry ala Adolph Hitler and most other dictators.
Feinstein introduced this bill and the national registry provision would violate Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act, which prohibits a national database. This law was the result of documented abused by the ATF in enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968.
That should come as no surprise since the attempt to ban firearms is in and of itself, unconstitutional as it violates the Second Amendment.
Keep in mind, Feinstein had her own carry permit because she was threatened with harm. She had one while claiming other women do not need to have firearms because women are not strong enough to use these machines of destruction.
She was joined by Chuck Schumer of New York, another gun grabber who has a New York carry permit AND has armed officers surrounding him when he is in New York.
Banning firearms will not stop the next lunatic from shooting people because criminals and those who have mental health problems will not follow the law. They will still be able to get firearms, banned or not, and they will still be able to get magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. These are facts and have been demonstrated time and again. The Columbine shootings happened in the middle of the last “assault weapons” ban so it would appear as if the ban did not work.
It is important to emphasize the point that laws do not keep criminals from doing bad things. The overarching thing to remember when it is reported that someone murdered people with a gun is that MURDER IS ILLEGAL. If laws against murder are not obeyed what makes anyone think laws banning the instruments used by criminals will be obeyed?
The very people who want to ban firearms are against the death penalty. They claim that the death penalty does not deter crime. That is an issue for another time but someone please tell me, if the death penalty is not a deterrent how will a gun ban deter criminals from using guns to do bad things?
This whole anti American bill from Feinstein and her cohorts is nothing but a move to further control people’s lives. Millions of gun owners do not commit crimes each day but they suffer for the criminals who do.
We have not banned banks to prevent bank robberies. We have not banned cars or alcohol to prevent drunk driving. We have not banned forks to prevent obesity but somehow banning guns will prevent gun crime.
Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.
[note]References:
Washington Times
Weekly Standard
CBS San Fran
Daily Caller
Guns Save Lives
Reason
State Department Memo 7277, September 1961[/note]
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: criminals, dianne feinstein, gun ban, lies, oath breaker, Second Amendment
What Happens When Legislation Is Rushed Through
Jan 19, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
By now most people know what happens when legislation is rushed through because we have the glaring example of Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to see what was in it and things come to light each day. Hell, Obama said there was nothing in Obamacare to prevent doctors from asking about guns in the home but he must not have read the thing because there is (page 2308). A section dedicated to the rights of gun owners prevents such questions and prevents establishing databases.
The state of New York enacted even tougher gun control after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. The legislation was rushed through as New York Governor Cum-o waived requirements (calling it an emergency) so it could pass and be signed quickly. The first problem is that there was no emergency that required waiving the three day legislation requirement (there were no school shooting rampages in New York) and it is obvious this was done for political reasons. Cum-o wanted to get it passed before opposing views could be presented and he wanted to sign it quickly to avoid a rush on gun purchases.
This is all about controlling people and not addressing the issue of criminals using guns illegally to do things that are against the law. Keep in mind that every time someone uses a gun to commit a crime he is already breaking a bunch of laws. The reality is that liberals want to take guns away so they can impose tyranny on the country. Unarmed people are slaves and the Democrat Party is the party of slave owners.
The problem NY faces is that the legislation was rammed through so quickly that there was no exemption on the size of magazines police officers can use. This means that police officers will be in violation of the law.
I am not opposed to that as I do not believe that the police should be allowed to have higher capacity magazines than law abiding citizens. In fact, since we all know that these laws only affect the law abiding, the criminals will be the only ones with higher capacity magazines. This is something that has not escaped the notice of the police in NY:
State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he’s going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, “You can’t give more ammo to the criminals” WABC
This statement is a direct admission that the new law will do NOTHING to prevent criminals from keeping higher capacity magazines. It is an admission that the law will only affect the law abiding. It is an admission that the goal is to disarm the law abiding and an admission that criminals do NOT obey the law.
How many NY police leaders stood with Cum-o and agreed with him? How many are OK with law abiding citizens being shackled while criminals are left untouched? How many realize that the law they want an exemption to will affect people the way they want to avoid?
This law should not be amended unless the amendment is to repeal it. The police in New York should suffer the same fate as those they are supposed to serve. There is no reason for the police to have more ammo than the average citizen when we all know the criminals will always have more and that the police will arrive afterthe crime has been committed.
MOLON LABE
Related Items:
Obama regime does not have time to enforce current law
Will the GOP cave on Second Amendment?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: ammo, exemptions, governor cum-o, gun law, lies, New York, police
Again, How Will More Gun Laws Or Bans Help?
Dec 26, 2012 Political, Second Amendment
The anti gun zealots are out in full force trying to usurp the Second Amendment by removing guns from society. Some members of Congress (and other politicians) are touting outright bans on specific types of guns as well as laws forcing people who already own such firearms to sell them to the government, in a sort of forced buyback program. These people are either mentally deficient or are hiding their true agenda. You see, gun laws and gun bans do not stop people who are intent on doing harm with a firearm from doing so.
This is evident in nearly all mass shootings since about 1950. In all but one of them the criminal opened fire in a place where guns are not allowed. The one where guns are allowed is Arizona where Congresswoman Giffords was shot. The gunman, by the way, was stopped by a citizen who was legally carrying a firearm.
I do not think these folks are mentally deficient (they might be but that is not the issue here) because they know what they are doing. They are using mass murder incidents to gin up public support for disarming Americans. They want this because one of the steps to Socialism requires people to be disarmed of the tools that would allow them to resist. Once all firearms are outlawed then government becomes the holder of the weapons and is free to impose its will on those who will no longer have the means to resist. These people need to have citizens willingly turn in their guns (or try to force them to sell them back) because an outright confiscation would lead to a lot of dead government agents. Americans will not be disarmed by force and there are many more gun owners than there are government agents.
Besides, many of those agents have stated they would not follow any order to disarm their fellow citizens.
But will these laws actually work? We have seen time and again that laws banning guns do not stop criminals from using guns. Chicago is a glaring example. In fact, no law stops criminals. The very nature of a criminal is that he breaks laws. Even everyday people break the law (hell we probably break a lot of laws each day because we do not know they exist) as when they go over the posted speed limit. How many non handicapped people park in a handicapped spot? How many times do people drink alcohol and drive? Those who would do violence are no exception to this except they do not know where to draw a line. They will use firearms (that they are not legally allowed to buy or posses) to commit crimes regardless of what society has deemed via its laws.
David Gregory of NBC is not a stupid person. He is an educated man who is quite successful. He is a liberal so he obviously has a brain deficiency but he is otherwise intelligent. He is under investigation for breaking a DC firearm law. Gregory displayed a 30 round magazine on his Sunday show. It is against the law in DC to posses a magazine with a capacity larger than 10 rounds. New reports have indicated that Gregory was made aware of this prior to his show and yet he chose to go ahead and display the magazine.
This means that he knew it was against the law to posses that particular item but he decided to break the law anyway.
The law did not stop Gregory from possessing the magazine and knowledge of the law did not keep him from displaying it to the three or four people who watch his show. He knew he would be in violation but did not care enough about the law to obey it.
We can argue all day about the stupidity of size limits on magazines (they are worthless laws) but the reality is, this is the law and Gregory broke it.
How would any other law have kept him from consciously deciding to break the law? How would any other law have prevented him from doing what he did when the law already on the books failed to accomplish that?
The truth is laws do not keep people from breaking them. They only provide a framework for the law abiding to follow and a system for the legal process to function once someone breaks the law.
We do not need more gun laws, we have plenty of them. We need the government to stop infringing on the Second Amendment rights we all have by virtue of our birth. If law abiding people were not restricted then criminals would think twice.
Laws only hamper those who follow them as the criminal is unencumbered by such things.
Ask David Gregory who unintentionally demonstrated why more laws are not the answer.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: criminals, david gregory, DC, gun laws, investigation