Bloomberg Is What They Had In Mind

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.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]

Michael Moore Shows His Ignorance, Again

Filmmaker Michael Moore is stirring up the ashes of racism and saying that this is the reason we have so many guns in our society. His claim is that most guns are bought by white people who fantasize about shooting an invader and that our image of those invaders is black folks.

Moore further states that the US has never been invaded so we really do not need 300 million guns in our homes. He further states:

“I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what’s our excuse?” Moore said. “Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton’s donut shops on both sides of the border?” CNS News

As an aside, I could not help but laugh at the donut shop comment since it looks like Moore has been a victim of excessive donut consumption for some time…

First things first. If Moore contends that we have never been invaded so we don’t need guns in our homes I will counter with, the reason we have never been invaded is BECAUSE we have guns in our homes. I think the quote attributed to Japanese Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto puts it best; “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

So Michael, perhaps the reason we have never been invaded is because any potential enemy knows he would have to deal with millions of armed citizens.

But the meat of this issue is Moore’s misunderstanding of the reason we own guns and the reason we have a Second Amendment. While we are armed to protect our homeland the reason behind the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people have the means to fight our own government should it become tyrannical. We used our firearms to fight England when the King became oppressive and did things to us we did not like, one of which was the attempt to take our arms.

[note]This government has done far worse things to us than those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and we fought a revolution over those grievances.[/note]

We are armed so as to keep our government in check. We are armed so we have the means to resist a government that ignores the Constitution and tries to impose its will on us contrary to the tenets of our founding.

Michael, we have a Second Amendment to protect all the other Amendments and to protect ourselves against our own government.

That is why we need to keep and bear arms. It guarantees the security of the free state.

Our Founders felt it was necessary to acknowledge the God given right to keep and bear arms for protection (a right that predated the Constitution as evidenced by the words, “the right”) against our government. Since they were much wiser than Michael Moore will ever be I think I will go with their plan.

This has nothing to do with racism. The mass murder in Newtown involved a white guy and white students. If Moore wants racism then perhaps he should look at the inner cities where blacks are killing blacks each and every day. The racist government has enslaved them in an inner city prison and then taken their ability to defend themselves. Therefore, the innocent become victims of the criminals who don’t obey the law.

Moore admits that laws banning guns will not stop the violence but he wants to take our guns nonetheless. To him it is the right thing to do. Only a liberal idiot would espouse doing something that will not work and say it is the right thing to do. Like Obama and his idea of taxing the rich. It won’t fix anything but it makes him feel good because that is the “right thing to do.”

Obama is protected by people with guns. Moore uses an armed guard (who was arrested for illegally carrying his firearm in New York) and people like Dianne Feinstein have or had carry permits all the while working to disarm the rest of us.

We put armed people at banks to guard our money but we make our schools gun free zones and do not allow people there to be armed for the protection of our kids.

Unless, of course, your child has the last name Obama.

The government in charge of us tried to take our firearms once before. We all know how that worked out. Does this government really want to ignore the Constitution and try to disarm us? Is it ready for a backlash that it cannot possibly control?

Time will tell but my money is on the people.

From our cold dead hands…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]

Daley Dose Of Hypocrisy

The funny thing about people who love gun control and continually ignore the Second Amendment is that while they do not want us to be able to protect ourselves they are always on board with having their own protection. We have seen several liberals who think that all guns are bad and that people should not be allowed to carry them only to have it revealed that they have permits and carry handguns. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are two that come to mind. Then there are those like Rosie O’Donnell who don’t want to allow you protection but are wealthy enough to hire armed body guards.

The sleaziest among us are politicians who tell us how safe society is and that we do not need weapons of our own while they enjoy armed protection that we provide. The leaders in Congress have security details and the security for the president is out of this world. One might think that it is necessary and maybe so but why does a president need security in Chicago or in DC? These places have some of the most stringent gun control in the country and yet these people travel with armed men.

We all know why. Gun control does not work and when law abiding citizens are disarmed the only people who have guns are criminals (which makes those of us who can’t afford armed guards, prey).

The Governor of Maryland is one of these morons who says that all is fine and that we need tough gun control (read that as infringing on Second Amendment rights) because it makes society safer. He has a state police detail of about six armed officers who keep him safe.

We pay his salary and we pay for his protection. What makes him better than the rest of us?

The biggest hypocrite is Richard Daley, the recently retired Mayor of Chicago. This moron has been against gun ownership all his life and he has worked very hard to violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The unconstitutional gun laws in Chicago were struck down by the Supreme Court so Daley went to work and set up roadblocks that make it nearly impossible for a resident to get a gun much less carry it. There is no way anyone could call what Chicago does, reasonable.

Daley is retired** and get this. While he does not want the people of Chicago to keep and bear arms he wants an armed protection detail to look out for him. Daley wants a team of armed men paid for by the taxpayers to keep him safe while he has done everything in his power to keep the people of Chicago from being able to protect themselves. He has made them less safe while demanding they pay for his safety.

Now that is first class hypocrisy and it smacks of liberal elitism where this schmuck thinks he is better than the average guy (read this as those who pay his salary and for his protection) and that he deserves better protection than the people who actually pay the salaries of the police officers of the city.

Do you think any average citizen in Chicago could request and get an armed detail to provide a safe environment?

Not likely.

I think the people of Chicago should use whatever legal means are available to keep Daley from getting protection. He should be in the exact same position as everyone else.

He should be just as vulnerable as those whose Constitutional right he has violated.

Perhaps if these politicians were to get a dose of the real world they would wise up.

Perhaps not, especially liberals, but at least without armed protection he has the same chance of being murdered as the next guy.

That, after all, is a level playing field and we all know how much liberals think that all things should be fair and equal for everyone.

Until, of course, to comes to their lives. Then they like things tilted in their favor.

People of Chicago, just say NO.

** Daley leaves office on 17 May

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[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]

Mayor Daley Out Of Touch With The People

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.
Big Dog

Gunline

[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]