Aurora Shooter Did Not Get The Memo
Jul 23, 2012 Commentary, Second Amendment
An Occupy anarchist named James Holmes busted into a theater in Aurora Colorado during a midnight screening of the new Batman movie and shot dozens of people. When he was done there were 12 dead and many more wounded. Among the dead are young children.
As with any mass murder involving a firearm the left wing went into hyper drive in an effort to blame right wing talk and to ban guns. Twitter was all atwitter as left wing moonbats blamed Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the right wing and talk radio while politicians stumbled all over themselves to declare we need more gun control.
The shooter turned out to be an occupy anarchist type who is a registered Democrat and who reportedly voted for Obama. Does this mean that Obama and the left wing are responsible for what happened?
Of course not. There is only one person responsible for this, and that would be the shooter.
Unless, of course, we find out that Eric Holder and Barack Obama supplied him with guns ala Fast and Furious so that they could push forward with their gun ban agenda.
But I digress.
I want to know how this could have happened. The movie theater was a gun free zone which means even though Colorado citizens are issued concealed carry permits they are not allowed to carry those firearms in that theater. Cinemark Holdings does not allow firearms in its theaters so no guns are allowed.
So I must ask; how did the shooter get a gun into the theater? The rules are pretty clear, no firearms and yet Holmes was able to enter with firearms.
Oh, that’s right, he ignored the rules. This is why all the calls for more gun control are way off base. The people who will do these kinds of things will not obey the rules. If gun control worked then Chicago would not have hundreds of murders by firearms. That city has twice as many as Phoenix and people in Phoenix are free to carry firearms (and it is my understanding they don’t need a permit from the government to do so).
If one person in the theater had a firearm the outcome might have been different. I know that we cannot tell what might have been but at least there would have been a fighting chance.
People like Nancy Pelosi will tell you that if another person had a gun it would have resulted in a shootout and more people would have been injured. Let me translate that for you:
A good guy with a gun is a danger so when a bad guy shoots you should just die in a bloodbath because otherwise others might get hurt too.
Ask any person who survived that ordeal and I bet you will hear that they would rather have had a fighting chance. They would have been happy if someone would have shot at the bad guy. It beats getting shot like sitting ducks.
I wonder what advice Pelosi would give to people who might get raped…
If more people with guns would end in a shootout and more people would be hurt then Nancy thinks, by extension, that you should accept your fate and get murdered. With this in mind perhaps we need to end the Secret Service or police protection for Pelosi and Obama and all the others who think they are more important than the rest of us.
If some shooter pops up and the hundreds of armed guards that protect these people respond there will be a bloodbath and more people will get hurt or killed. It is best to disarm the guards and if a shooter pops up the politicians will just have to hope for the best.
It is always easy for those who are surrounded by armed guards to tell the rest of us how safe we are and what we need for protection.
Our Founders ensured the Second Amendment was in place so that the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms would not be infringed.
The incident in Aurora demonstrates that we need more armed citizens and not fewer. The rules there were clear, no guns, and yet guns were used to cause death and destruction.
No gun ban, no law, no method of infringing including the complete ban on all guns would ever stop this kind of thing from happening.
Bad people will always get what they want because they do not care about the law.
If laws banning things actually worked there would be no cocaine or heroin users in this country.
It is time to stop the nonsense of trying to ban guns and trying to blame every act of violence on the right.
As an afterthought, how many DUIs are there in this country each year (whether they result in death or not)? Do politicians try to ban driver’s licenses or alcohol because of the DUIs?
Then why ban guns because of murder? As far as I know murder is against the law. In other words, murder is banned in this country and yet people still murder.
I read somewhere this weekend that after an incident like the one in Aurora they always want to take guns away from the people who had nothing to do with it.
That is true because gun control is not about guns it is about control. The government wants to control the people and it can do so much more easily by taking away their arms.
Incidents like the Aurora shootings are just a means to accomplish the goal of total control. It is a convenient excuse for the left and keeps them from having to commit crimes to get what they want.
The shootings are not a tragedy they were mass murder and my thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims. They deserved better than to be the victims of a senseless act by a deranged person.
And they deserved to be in a safe environment instead of a free fire zone of a no guns theater. Perhaps people should avoid businesses that do not allow citizens to exercise their right to carry a firearm.
[note]Signs at businesses where firearms are not allowed should read “No Firearms on Premises (Except Criminals)”.[/note]
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: aurora, gun control, james holmes, lies, murder, Second Amendment
Create A Crisis And Then React To It
Sep 12, 2011 Political, Second Amendment
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.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: executive orders, fast and furious, gun control, illegal activity, obama regime, Second Amendment
A Truly Moronic Liberal
Dec 31, 2009 Political, Second Amendment
El Capitan over at the Baboon Pirates blog has an article about a recent school shooting incident. The following is from a math teacher at Brockton High School. It was published at Boston.com:
I am a math teacher at Brockton High School, the site of a school shooting earlier this month.
Current school security procedures lock down school populations in the event of armed assault. Some advocate abandoning this practice as it holds everyone in place, allowing a shooter easily to find victims.
An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.
Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.
Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.
But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
DOUG VAN GORDER
Quincy
[emphasis mine]
Two things here. The first is that only a true moron would rather bury his children (or any loved one) rather than defend them. This kind of person, one who will not defend himself of his family, by any means necessary, is the lowest form of life. It is the kind of person who stands around in times of trouble waiting for someone else to fix the problem. This is the kind of person who is devastated by a Hurricane Katrina and stands knee deep in water, yards from dry land, looking for someone to help.
There is no lower form of man than one who will not defend his children. You can extrapolate a lot from what he said. He could just have easily stated, I would rather watch my wife or daughter get raped rather than shoot the attacker. I would rather see my son get sodomized rather than shoot his attacker.
The term self-defense in and of itself means that it is not a crime regardless of what one uses for defense. All people are entitled to the right of self-defense.
All people except those whose only claim to being a man is the Y chromosome.
The second problem is that this twit is teaching children. Who wants their children taught by such a weak and unmanly person? This is the kind of person who has a lot to do with forming the minds and thoughts of the youth in this country. His article will be seen by many children and he will be asked about it. How will he justify to them the cowardice he demonstrates in the piece?
Will his position encourage impressionable children into believing that even the lives of their loved ones are not worth protecting if one has to use a firearm to do it?
If you are a criminal up in this area you might want to visit this guy’s house. You already know he will not offer resistance no matter what you do.
He would rather bury his children than protect them.
What kind of cowards are we producing these days?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: coward, school shooting, self defense
Rules Regarding Our Rights
Dec 27, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
The last presidential election demonstrated that we need some controls on who we allow to vote. I had suggested that people should have to pass a test in order to vote or that people should receive more votes based on how much money they pay in taxes. This is not my idea and has been explored by others. The idea is like those who own stock in a company. Those who own more get more votes and in the case of elections, those who pay more in taxes would have more votes because they are providing more of the capital to run the country.
I remember when I made these suggestions I had a few folks who said that what I wanted amounted to racism and discrimination because I would require people to qualify to exercise a basic right. I see nothing wrong with giving a person a basic civics test and making him pass before he is registered to vote but for some reason this gets the panties of some in a wad. The videos in the bottom right siderbar clearly demonstrate why some folks should not be allowed to vote but even the stupidity displayed is not enough reason for the crowd that believes people should have unfettered access to the polling places (unless a Black Panther is intimidating people).
It is interesting to me that people would oppose an idea that would impose qualifications on a so called right. Keeping in mind that the Constitution does not give anyone a right to vote we will assume that it does for the sake of argument. That and that states have set up voting as the method to select people for office. Why would people feel offended that we would impose a qualification to exercise a right?
The very same liberals who get bent out of shape at some sort of litmus test to exercise the right to vote have no problem setting up barriers for those who want to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. The Founders used wording that acknowledged the right existed prior to the founding of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But it is infringed each and every day. Many states impose restrictions on who may and who may not own a gun and they are very strict on allowing people to carry them. In Maryland, assuming one meets all the checks for criminal record and mental health, one must demonstrate that he is in danger or has been the victim of threats. In some states people must register the gun, submit to a background check, attend safety classes and then, if the state feels generous, the person might get issued a carry permit. These permits and the background checks all come with fees that the gun owner must pay.
Imagine if there were a fee to register to vote. Suppose a person who wanted to vote had to fill out a form, pay a fee and then get a background check and pass a test before being allowed to vote? The ACLU and many other alleged civil rights organizations would be lined up to file the lawsuits crying about the denial of a right. They seem pretty comfortable with these restrictions on a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
Suppose that Congress made a law that people who wanted to go to church had to pay a fee and have a background check before they could attend services or be affiliated with a religion. Suppose people had to pay fees and pay to get speech training before they could exercise free speech. All of this would not sit well with the very liberals who attacked me for my suggestion that there be a voting test and yet they remain silent when it comes to the rights of the citizens to own and carry firearms.
Well, they are not exactly silent. They are usually speaking out in favor of gun control and against the rights acknowledged in the Constitution. These are the folks who will vote for candidates who want to exercise extreme gun control and who want to ban certain types of weapons (so called assault weapons). They seem to be able to rationalize that it is OK to infringe on one right if they disagree with the right but not on any right they hold sacred.
The “right” to an abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution. The word abortion does not appear in the document and yet the Supreme Court found that right in Roe vs. Wade. This decision overturned all the laws states had regarding abortion and now the left is so wrapped up in this murderous practice that anything sensible is an assault. Require minors to tell their parents, a violation of the “right.” No abortions after the third trimester, a violation so let’s go on and have partial birth abortions to ensure that babies are murdered any time the woman wants to exercise her “right.” God forbid any lawmaker tries to write some kind of law that places any restriction whatsoever on abortion because then the left gets up in arms and sees it as an affront to a basic “right.”
Not so much for gun ownership. The left wants to impose extremely restrictive rules on the law abiding citizens who want to exercise a right that, unlike abortion, is clearly spelled out.
As we move into the anti gun administration and as people like anti gun Caroline Kennedy look to be put into office we will see more restrictions put forth in bills at the federal level. States will try to impose even tighter control. As they do, ask how you would react if these impositions were directed at the other rights that are held as sacrosanct.
Barack Obama said that he felt the government could impose common sense restrictions on rights (he was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms). If this is the case then my common sense restrictions can be placed on voters. I am all in favor of a criminal records check to buy a firearm so that criminals do not buy guns. I am also in favor of a common sense approach to voting. I wonder if Obama will feel that voting should have some common sense restrictions placed on it…
Without the Second Amendment there would be no First and if the liberals get their way it too will be in jeopardy.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: abortion, free speech, gun control, Second Amendment, voting
Obama Will Give Amnesty And You Will Pay For It
Oct 29, 2008 Immigration, Political, Second Amendment
Not to long ago nearly the entire Congress, John McCain included, tried to ram an amnesty package down our throats. That package would have given million of illegals a path to citizenship by largely ignoring the fact that they committed a crime to get here. The country went nuts and flooded the switchboards at the Capitol and the legislation went down in defeat.
More than 80% of this country opposed the idea of allowing illegals a pathway to citizenship that amounted to nothing more than amnesty. Now, a large portion of that opposition is prepared to elect a man who has stated that he wants to give the illegals a pathway to citizenship. Barack Obama is in favor of allowing millions of people to become citizens and thus gaining the right to vote. Obama will put politics ahead of country and allow millions of Democratic supporters to infiltrate our voter rolls and change the dynamics of politics for generations to come.
Under Barack Obama these new “citizens” will turn Texas into a deep blue state and it will take many of the other southern states with it. Traditional Republican strongholds will be infiltrated by millions of people eager to keep the party that gives away taxpayer money in power. This will spell disaster for the Republican party but more importantly, it will spell disaster for our country. Millions of people will flood government offices for Social Security benefits, medical care, and any number of other taxpayer funded social programs thus evaporating already scarce resources.
People need to wake up and see what is happening. Obama’s open secret is that he believes in Socialism. He told that to Joe the Plumber and said it in 2001 during an interview. Barack Obama believes that wealth in this country should be taken from people who earn it and given to those who do not. His idea of Utopia is wealth redistribution and no matter how Joe Biden tries to spin it and no matter how his supporters try to ignore it the plain fact is, the words came out of Barack Obama’s mouth.
If it isn’t bad enough that Obama is willing to give taxpayer money out like candy at Halloween, the government wants to confiscate more of your money in order to redistribute it to others. There is a plan being bounced around to force you to move all of your 401 (k) retirement money into government accounts. The plan will either involve putting it in a different pool or adding it to “your” Social Security fund which is a misnomer because the money goes to the general fund where Congress takes it and spends it. To top it off, government will require you to contribute 5% of you pay to the fund thus taking more of your money to redistribute.
This plan, which was discussed by some economist, involves redistribution of wealth. She said that it would give everyone an equal share (wealth redistribution). This is money that you have worked for and that you have invested in different accounts that, despite current problems, will do well for you. The government will require you to pool all the money you saved with the money of others and then the government will decide who gets how much of it. If you have $100 and someone else has $50, you both get $75. In other words, Obama and the Democrats will redistribute $25 of your money to someone else.
If Barack Obama becomes the president and allows millions of illegals to become citizens they will be standing in line with their hands out waiting for you to hand them the money you saved for your retirement.
I have said before that Social Security was a method used by the government to gain and keep control over people. They hold Social Security hostage in order to influence the lives of the elderly and the way they vote. They keep people dependent on government so that the government can control the population. Allowing them to take your retirement will ensure that instead of retiring and living the life you worked hard to achieve, you will live the life government decides you should live.
That, my friends, is nothing more than Socialism and it starts with Barack Hussein Obama.
Polling agencies have been using inaccurate methods based on unrealistic projections and Obama is continually reported to have a big lead. The race is much closer and this is evident by several things. One, Gallup used the traditional polling method in its last poll and Obama only has a 2% lead. Obama is reported to have a 10% lead in Pennsylvania and yet he and Biden are spending huge amounts of time and resources in that state. If their internal polls showed the 10 point lead the external polls show they would be campaigning in other, more closely contested states. The fact that they are spending all that time in a state they are shown as winning easily speaks volumes about how close this really is. Last night’s Rasmussen polls showed Obama with no larger than a 4% lead in any battleground state. The pollsters do not want to be wrong on this so now they are reverting back to the proven methods and those methods are showing a very tight race.
Don’t let the intentional deception of the last few weeks keep you from voting. John McCain and Sarah Palin can win this election but they will need all of us who oppose Socialism to go out and vote. No matter what the weather is like, no matter what else is going on, no matter what you hear, you must get out and vote. If all the people who oppose illegal aliens getting citizenship and those who oppose Socialism as well as gun owners (those of us who cling to them) get out and vote we can defeat Obama.
They have told us what they want to do. They want to increase taxes, make illegals citizens, spend 300 billion dollars more on a stimulus package, ban guns, and cut military spending by 25%. Barack Obama has told us he wants to spread our wealth around. We can stop that by getting out and voting.
But if you vote for Obama or if you sit this one out, don’t say you weren’t warned because they told us what they will do to us and if they control Congress and the White House that is exactly what they will do.
Your money will no longer be yours and Karl Marx will be laughing from the pits of Hell.
Related article:
Newsmax
Tags: gun bans, ILLEGAL immigration, Obama, socialism, tax increases, wealth redistribution