Will They Get A Slap On The Wrist
Jan 15, 2015 Second Amendment
A lady was fortunate to win one thousand dollars at the Maryland Live Casino. Unfortunately, two other people noticed her good fortune and followed her to her home that was about an hour away.
When she got out of her car one of the two brandished a handgun and took her purse. The couple was arrested four days later by detectives and they are charged with assault, armed robbery and theft.
Given that they committed a crime with a firearm in Maryland they should expect a stiff penalty and some jail time. But, this is Maryland and even though they broke the law they might get a plea bargain for lesser crimes and end up walking only to commit more crimes in the future.
Maryland is easy on criminals but tough on the law abiding. The man who had the gun is Mark West. He has a lengthy criminal history that includes assault, CDS possession with intent to distribute and violation of both probation and peace orders. I don’t know his specifics but this history would indicate he would not be allowed to legally own a firearm.
In many of his past cases he was not prosecuted (looks like the charges were dropped) and for those he was prosecuted he received little in the way of punishment.
Maryland would rather keep putting criminals on the street and harass law abiding citizens.
In Maryland the law abiding cannot carry a firearm at all openly (it is alleged that one may carry a long gun but that would be unwise) and concealed carry permits only go to special people. Maryland has decided that certain firearms are not allowed in the state and its citizens may not purchase them.
The laws are designed to keep the law abiding from getting or carrying firearms. Self protection is not a valid reason in the state.
It would appear though, West had no trouble getting a firearm and using it in a crime even though he has a criminal history and probably would not be allowed to have one.
The point has been made many times that gun laws only apply to people who obey the law in the first place.
This story proves that point.
Maryland is a nanny state that infringes upon the rights of its citizens.
I hope this trend reverses starting next Wednesday when a new governor is sworn in.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
State Run Media In The US
Sep 25, 2014 Political
In a free country the media would publish stories that it produced and it would not take into account the feelings of the people affected (except to protect people like minors or to clear up errors in facts). This is particularly true with regard to politicians. The media are the fourth estate and a free press (now all media) ensures that public servants are held accountable.
This is only true and only works if the media are unbiased and unhampered.
Unfortunately we have a biased media and that media, at least those reporting on the president, are hampered as the White House receives the reports from the press pool and distributes them.
This is not ideal but the White House has the ability to shoot the press pool reports to a large media audience and this is a task the press pool can’t (or won’t) accomplish. All in all this would not be bad since the White House has the resources.
The rub though, is the White House reads the reports first and has, according to some reporters, demanded that the press change the reports.
This is not how a free press or free society works. The White House should not be reading these prior to release and if there are errors noted after release then the White House can release its own statement. Items found to be in error can be corrected by the media.
We have a state controlled media with regard to the White House press pool. What happens if the reporter refuses to change the report? Does the White House refuse to forward it? Does the White House hold it until it can devise a spin or until the information loses its impact?
Perhaps it is time for the press pool to devise its own distribution framework so that the White House is not involved.
This way the White House does not influence or control the media (any more than a Democrat controlled White House already does).
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: control, demands, freedom, press pool, white house
When Seconds Count Even The Police Are In Trouble
Jun 7, 2014 Second Amendment
In Washington DC there is an uproar among the police because Chief Cathy Lanier has issued an all hands call requiring officers to work for five weekends in a row. Officers balk that this will leave the public less protected on the higher crime days like Tuesday and Wednesday. The person who made the assertion then gives an example (that interestingly takes place on a Thursday) where an officer needed help and no one was free to assist.
For example, on Thursday night in the Seventh District, a school resource officer radioed for help in trying to control two kids, but no one was free to answer.
He said, “I heard a radio transmission. A lieutenant needed some assistance on Suitland Parkway for a possible DUI suspect. It was a good five to ten minutes before anybody backed him up. Because of the manpower issues, we have minimum staffing on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays. [emphasis mine] My FOX DC
There is a saying that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Looks like this is true even for officers.
Why is this important? The people who oppose the Second Amendment and who do not want law abiding citizens to carry firearms always tell us that this is what the police are for and that if we have a problem we should call 911. Why do you people need firearms when the police are here to protect you? If we have all these guns out there more folks will get hurt. We don’t want to confiscate them we just don’t want YOU to have them.
And on these assertions go. The leaders of most police forces are politically appointed and they do the bidding of their puppet master political bosses. This has been very evident in Maryland where Governor Martin O’Malley pulled the strings of his appointees and prevented others from discussing the Maryland gun control laws because safety was not really the concern. It was all politically motivated because O’Malley, a man who has armed officers around him at all times, does not like guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and he wants to tout his liberal gun control success as he aspires to higher office. He does not believe in freedom, he believes in tyranny and control of the masses and he believes in screwing the public to advance his career.
In any event, the DC situation and the example given clearly demonstrate why law abiding citizens must not have their Second Amendment right infringed upon. It took a long time for a fellow officer to get help and officers rush to help their own. They are not so motivated when it is some schmo they do not know or work with.
[note]We see this time and again. A cop gets murdered and it is all hands on deck to find the murderer. When an average citizen gets murdered they work on it and sometimes close the case but the intensity is nowhere near that when it is one of their own.[/note]
Most rank and file police officers prefer armed citizens. There are the few anti social morons who shoot dogs and innocent people and get away with it under the cover of I feared for my life but most of them try to do a good job and get home at the end of their shift. They realize that armed citizens provide extra protection in society. They know that there is less violent crime in areas where people carry firearms because criminals do not like to face opposition and they don’t want to die.
In places where people’s rights are infringed upon (like DC and Maryland) the crime rates are higher and crimes committed with firearms increase. Bad guys don’t obey the law so they get guns anyway. Most officers are comfortable with law abiding citizens who own and carry firearms because they know that is a force multiplier. They know there are people who can protect others when the police are not around and they know the prospect of armed people deters criminals. How many of these mass shootings could have been stopped before huge loss of life had people been allowed to carry firearms where the shootings occurred?
[note]My friend Kit Lange made a brilliant observation that demonstrates this point. In Canada some nut is going around with a rifle and has already shot and killed three Mounties. There are pictures of the guy people have snapped with their cell phones. She points out that there are pictures because people see him and if they were allowed to carry firearms in Canada they could take him down but since they can’t do so all they can do is snap photos. I am sure the Mounties would not care who took him down as long as he was no longer a threat.[/note]
It is possible that many of the leaders in law enforcement feel the same way but can’t express it because their liberal, anti gun political bosses forbid them from doing so. That to me is weakness and a failure to uphold an oath but this is how people in power often act. Though my gut tells me they agree wight heir bosses or they would not have been appointed to their positions…
In any event, the cops in DC don’t like to wait for assistance. Well here is a newsflash for them and their bosses. We the people, those who PAY your salaries don’t like to wait either. We don’t like to be at the mercy of criminals because we have been denied the right to defend ourselves.
Keep in mind, the police are a reactive force not a proactive one. The cops come AFTER a crime and take a report and try to find who did it. Cops don’t show up 2 minutes before a crime and wait to prevent it.
Why should we be denied the ability to prevent crimes (or at least minimize them) when the police can’t do so?
Why should we be denied the right to keep and bear arms that is enshrined in our Constitution?
Because liberals want to control us. As many have stated, it is not about guns it is about control.
As far as DC and its police chief go, she can do what she wants. The officers will have to deal with it and perhaps they will understand what the people who pay them are subject to each and every day.
An armed society is a polite society but liberals do not want polite, they want control. Keep in mind that an armed society is free and the disarmed are enslaved.
There would not have been slavery had the slaves owned firearms…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: control, DC, disarm, lies, police, Second Amendment, seconds count
Pro Choice Liberals Not So Much So
Jul 30, 2012 Political
Everyone knows that liberals are intolerant. If people do not believe what they believe then they attack and ban. They don’t like meat, you can’t eat it. They don’t like guns, you can’t have one. Don’t agree with their messiah, well you sir, are a raaaaacist……
Nanny Bloomberg in New York is a typical liberal. I know he changed from the Republican Party to an Independent but he has always been liberal. He is very happy to ban tobacco use, trans-fatty foods, salt and large drinks because he knows better than you how to live your life. And God knows he wants to ban guns…
I thought liberals claimed they were all for choice. If a woman wants to have an abortion then liberals believe she should be able to do so. Women should have that choice. Hell, they believe it so much so that they will not limit abortions. Women, according to liberals, should be able to get an abortion at any time, at any age, and at taxpayer expense. They even believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion just seconds before a baby is born and if by chance that child actually survives the attempt on its life, liberals think the woman should be able to choose to leave her baby on a table somewhere to die.
This is the kind of choice that women can make no questions asked and without any interference whatsoever.
Let the rest of us choose to consume tobacco, salt, fatty foods, or large sugary drinks and Bloomberg is right there to stop us from doing harm because he knows oh so much.
Ironically, the same Michael Bloomberg who thinks that reproductive choice is a fundamental human right (as opposed to the fundamental human right not to be murdered) does not think women should have free choice in how they feed their newborn babies (should they decide to choose life).
Yep, you can choose to abort your baby and that is a fundamental human right BUT if you want to feed your baby formula rather than breastfeeding, Nanny has something for you. Bloomberg is working to have hospitals lock up formula to force women to breastfeed and he wants a record kept with a medical reason for issuing a bottle and formula.
How about the idea of choice? How about if the woman wants to use formula?
Personally, I think breastfeeding is best for the baby. However, that is a choice that the mother (and in a perfect world the father) will take. This choice, unlike the choice of abortion, does not murder the child. Formula is just fine for babies but it is just not as good as breast milk (not to mention the bonding that takes place).
No matter, it is up to women to decide how to feed their children.
The left is not about choice, it is about control. It wants to control what you consume and how you live your life. It wants your guns because they can control you if you have no means to resist. It wants abortion because that controls certain demographics and ensures the feminist vote. It wants to control how you feed your child because it knows better than you how to raise your kid.
To them it takes a village (and the political elite) to raise a child.
No matter what, they are only pro choice when it comes to abortion. Choose to own a gun, consume tobacco, fats, salt or sugary drinks and they are out in full force to prevent you from making your own choice.
Liberal elitists like Bloomberg are dangerous and need to be stopped. We must ensure we remove these kinds of people from office and take away their ability to control us.
That is right. They can let us have our liberty or we can come take it.
The choice is theirs.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, breastfeeding, control, liberals, lies, michael bloomberg, nanny state
More Trouble With Government Numbers
Jan 19, 2011 Political
The claim from the left has always been that there are 45 million people in this country who do not have health insurance. This number is an inflated number that counts illegal aliens and those who can afford or are offered health insurance but choose not to buy it. The real number is probably less than 20 million.
We had this health care takeover in order to accommodate these people and there will still be quite a few uninsured while we are spending trillions of dollars on an unsustainable program (refer to UK). But that is a discussion for another time.
The Democrats are not happy the GOP is going to hold a vote on repeal. They have been claiming that this is a waste of time and that the Republicans should be working on the economy and job creation instead. After two years of ignoring jobs and the economy in favor of the progressive socialist agenda, these people are now saying we need to focus on jobs and the economy.
Since the health care takeover is a job killer (yes I wrote killer) then repealing it will help with the job situation. It will also cut unnecessary and wasteful spending.
While Democrats are squawking about focusing on jobs they are also indicating that repealing the takeover will cost us money. Only in their twisted world can cutting a program that spends trillions be adding to the deficit.
The latest ploy is for the Democrats to claim that between 50 and 120 million non-elderly people will be uninsured in a few years due to preexisting conditions if the takeover is repealed. I am having a bit of trouble with this math.
Where did all these people come from? How does the regime know that this many people will have conditions that will cause the denial of health insurance? If we accept the grossly inflated number of uninsured as 45 million (or even 30 million as has been the case in some discussions) how did we get to 50-120 million?
Surely these people are here now and are insured. Since we are not getting 50-120 million people dropped every three years how can we now claim that this will be the case. There is no history to support this and since there are, according to the regime, 30-45 million uninsured, how on Earth do that many more people suddenly end up uninsured?
This is another scare tactic using information from some regime friendly report (that might have been produced by the regime) in order to scare people into opposing the repeal. This is why Democrat friendly media outlets are producing polls that over sample Democrats when asking about the repeal issue. They want to give the appearance that the folks are OK with the takeover.
The people are against this monstrosity and want it repealed. This has been shown time and again in accurate polls and it is part of the reason the Democrats suffered a historic defeat last November.
Now they are working to spin anything they can to keep the vote from taking place.
Though this will not be repealed as long as Democrats control the Senate and the White House the vote is important because the Republicans promised they would do it.
Imagine that, politicians keeping their word.
Unless the repeal is attached to the bill raising the debt ceiling there is little chance of it being repealed but we can make sure it is not funded.
Regardless of how all this takes place there is no way in hell that there will be 50-120 million people dropped from insurance due to preexisting conditions.
The Democrats lied about the takeover bill, lied about what was in it, lied about how things would take place, lied about it funding abortion and lied about death panels.
Now they expect us to believe them when they make an obviously outrageous claim about the number of people who will be uninsured.
Never trust a progressive/Socialist/liberal/Democrat.
They lie whenever they speak and they are only interested in controlling people.
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: control, health care, lies, Obama, repeal, takeover, taxes