Guns Up Crime Down In Virginia
Aug 6, 2013 Political
This comes as no shock to people who live in the real world. Gun ownership in Virginia has increased by 16% and violent crime is down 5%. It is important to note that it is not just the ownership that has resulted in lower crime. The important factor is that in Virginia people can carry firearms concealed with a permit and are allowed to open carry.
That is an important distinction and one we see in all of the states that do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms. In states where people can carry openly and/or concealed there is a lower crime rate. Increased ownership in and of itself will not reduce violent crime if the people who own the guns are not allowed to carry them. There will likely be a decrease in crimes at homes that are occupied since criminals will not know if there is an armed person inside but if that same person must go out without a firearm then he is at a greater risk for violent crime than a person in a free state.
The state of Maryland has seen a huge increase in the sale of firearms because the Governor and his minions in the State Capitol passed unconstitutional gun laws that take effect in October. But the people in Maryland (a state that calls itself free) are not free to carry firearms. The State Police deny most applications. People need to be politically connected to get a carry permit or they need to demonstrate good and substantial reason (something not defined) and then if they are lucky enough to be blessed by the state their permit is usually a restricted permit.
[note]Maryland boasts a high approval rate but the reality is most people do not apply because the process costs about $150.00 and there is little hope of getting approved. Only those who have a real good shot (the connected or people who own a business and carry valuables) apply because anyone else is just throwing their money away.[/note]
So yes, Virginia has a lower violent crime rate commensurate with an increase in firearm ownership but the real reason crime is down is because people are allowed to carry their firearms. Criminals do not know who is and who is not armed so they would rather not take a chance. Instead, they go to neighboring Maryland where people are made prey by their elected elites.
This pattern repeats itself across the nation. Places with strict gun control have a lot of crime (violent or otherwise) and places where people are free the rate is down. Chicago, strict gun control and lots of murder and mayhem. Texas, Virginia and Florida, lots of people carrying firearms and not a lot of murder and mayhem.
Armed places are safer places.
That is just an undeniable truth. And even though it is, morons like the Governor of Maryland continue to push gun control. Keep in mind that he is surrounded by armed guards all the time so he is safe. The rest of us, not so much.
Martin O’Malley wants to run for President of the US in 2016. He wants to do to America what he has done to Maryland.
He wants to enslave the entire country and make us prey to the criminal elements in society.
I know there are plenty of people who hate guns and agree with O’Moron, Obama and the rest of the gun grabbing anti American pukes so why don’t they just move to a place where guns are banned? You know why and so do I. Hell, why don’t Obama and O’Malley get rid of their armed guards?
Because they want a chance to live. The elites (like the Hollywood libs) want guns banned but only our guns and not the ones they use in their movies or that their bodyguards carry. All liberals are hypocrites (particularly the elitists).
In any event, Virginia is a shining example of what happens when people are free.
We in Maryland can only long for our freedom.
But one day we will have it.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: anti american, constitution, crime, firearms, lies, martin o'malley, virginia
Berkeley Works For The Military
Aug 10, 2008 Political
It is well known that University of California at Berkeley is a bastion of liberal idiocy and that the people of that town and who attend that college, by and large, are anti American and have supported our enemies in this and in past wars. The people of Berkeley are so anti American that they have allowed anti war groups to protest a Marine recruiting station. Berkeley also has trouble with recruiters on the campus and the legislative body has passed resolutions calling the Marine recruiters uninvited and unwanted.
The Berkeley campus is full of liberal twits who oppose our military and its use. They want other Americans to stop supporting the troops and they want the country to stop spending money in Iraq. So why is it that this anti American, anti military college accepts money from the military to do research?
A news story today indicates that researchers at Berkeley are working on a process that will make things invisible by a process that involves bending light waves. While this is an interesting story the money shot is this paragraph:
Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, whose work is funded by the American military, have engineered materials that can control light’s direction of travel. The world’s two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, are expected to report the results this week. [emphasis mine] Times Online UK
Now why is it that this college would accept money from the military for research? How could they possibly be taking money to do work that could be used to help our troops have an even bigger advantage on the battlefield?
Perhaps the holier than though college with so many high and mighty “enlightened” people is nothing more than a war profiteer. They are actually nothing more than what they claim Halliburton is and that is an entity that makes money off the backs of the military and off the government war machine.
Berkeley is nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites who claim to be morally superior to the rest of us for their opposition to the war but in reality they are war profiteers who will accept the military but only when there is money involved.
Tags: anti american, Berkeley, Military, war profiteer
Pelosi: Iraq is a Failure
Feb 10, 2008 Political
Squeaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that Iraq was a failure and that the surge has not produced the desired effects. Pelosi made certain to praise the troops while attempting to disparage a strategy that is working albeit not as quickly as we might like. The ground game is much better, fewer of our troops are dying there than citizens are on American streets and here we are not engaged in a “civil war.”
It is amazing to me that Pelosi and her brood insist on telling the Iraqis at what speed they need to move and how they should be progressing when our own Congress is off more days than it works, accomplishes little, and has divided the country. I see Pelosi’s remarks as nothing more than empty rhetoric designed to inject the Iraq war into the presidential campaign in a fashion that does not openly demonstrate the left’s hate of our military. Pelosi wants Iraq to be a failure because it will help her party with power and she cannot really show failure without making it all up.
Iraq is moving along slowly. Our country took a long time to establish as did those Japan and part of Europe after WW II. These things do not happen overnight but with little mention of the war lately (because it has been good) the Democrats need to ramp up the negativity so they can try to win more seats and the presidency. They want it to be bad because what is good for the country is bad for the Democrats and they cannot have that. Pelosi joins fellow Democrat (and fellow idiot) Harry Reid in declaring failure. If only Democrats would fight our enemies as hard as they fight to win and keep office, we would win and win quickly. It gets difficult to fight the enemy over there and the enemy here at the same time.
Pelosi also said that Afghanistan was not settled because President Bush took his eye off the ball. This is one of their canned phrases and it is one that rings hollow. Bill Clinton is the one who took his eye off the ball. He created the atmosphere that allowed us to be attacked because he failed to respond to force with force. He allowed bin Laden to live on at least three occasions. He and his toadies deny this but many in the know have attested to it as true. Perhaps this is what Sandy Burglar stole form the National Archives, information showing Clinton took his eye off bin Laden. Actually, he allowed bin Laden to escape.
This is because Bill Clinton could not pull the trigger. He would not give the order to shoot. Clinton has a nasty history of not completing tasks (think blue dress) and his inaction allowed our enemies to attack us. There are many on the left who deny this but there is too much evidence to ignore it and bin Laden himself said that Clinton’s weakness in Somalia is why he attacked us, thank you very much.
Pelosi is a partisan hack who has no idea whatsoever as to what is taking place in Iraq. Pelosi visits with our enemies instead of our troops so she has no idea what is taking place. Not that she would take the word of our troops over the word of our enemies anyway.
I said it before and I will say it again. It is too bad the Capitol was not hit on 9/11. By sparing that building and the people in it, they were able to become complacent with regard to our security. If many of them had died then we would be having a different discussion. The wrong people died on 9/11.
Screw Nancy Pelosi. She is a troop hating, liberal twit who could not lead a group of people out of a burning building. She will certainly rot in hell, hopefully sooner than later.
Source:
The Politico
UPDATE:
I wonder if Pelosi told these guys about our failure?
Tags: anti american, iraq war, Pelosi, surge, troop hater