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
Another Judge Without A Clue
May 19, 2014 Second Amendment
Imagine if a judge declared that you were only allowed to buy one book a month and that 12 books a year is more than enough. Also imagine that in addition to the limit on the number of books the judge allowed to stand a rule that some books were banned and in order to buy your books you had to go through an extensive and expensive background check and obtain a license to buy the books. Now imagine that once you satisfied these demands you had to (re)register your books every three years.
Sounds like an infringement on your right to participate in free speech. The government is not allowed to ban books or require you to register to buy them. The First Amendment allows people to sell even the vilest pornography and allows you to buy them (reasonable age restrictions aside).
A federal judge upheld a D.C. law requiring guns to be registered every three years, the requirement for fingerprints and photographs of the purchasers/owners and the limit of one handgun purchase per month.
Judge James Boasberg dismissed the challenge to these Draconian (and unconstitutional) laws. It seems that this judge feels it is his duty to decide what protects society and then rule based on his opinion. I am no legal scholar but it seems to me that a judge is required to rule based on the Constitutionality of the issue in question.
People in D.C live in one of the strictest places with regard to gun laws and, like their restrictive allies in places like Chicago, suffer the highest rates of crimes committed with guns. D.C. is not safer because of these gun laws and the way this judge handled the case shows not only he is a disgrace to the bench but he also has no concept of reality.
I am pretty sure how he would have ruled had the case been the scenario I described above and I am absolutely certain how he would have ruled if this case were about restrictions on abortions instead of guns.
The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and the history regarding the inclusion of that Amendment leaves no doubt what the Founders wanted when they included it.
Unfortunately, we now live in a society where people like this judge dishonor our Founders by violating their oath in the name of feel good (though ineffective) laws that infringe on our very rights.
My advice to people in D.C is to move outside the city limits (but not to Maryland, another Socialist nightmare) to escape the tyranny.
Escape the tax burden and unchain the shackles of tyranny and be free.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: court, DC, gun control, judge, lies, oath breaker
How Did A Gun Crime Happen In DC?
Jul 2, 2013 Political
Washington DC has very strict gun laws, in fact some of the strictest in the nation. Politicians who pass these gun laws tell us that they will keep us safer in spite of the fact that criminals do not obey the law. Ronald Reagan was shot in Washington DC even though he was surrounded by armed guards and there were even striter laws at the time. This proves beyond a doubt that criminals do not obey the law and even the most protected are vulnerable to a determined criminal.
Recently in DC, a man was carjacked and forced, at gunpoint, to sign his vehicle over to an evildoer. The man advertised his 1998 van for sale and agreed to meet a prospective buyer at a location other than his house. The prospective buyer and another person met the seller and took the vehicle for a test drive. The prospective buyer had a wad of cash and a gun. The seller asked why he had a gun and the man nodded to his friend in the back of the van.
Both men pointed guns at the seller and forced him to sign the title to the vehicle over to one of them.
You can read the whole account of the story here.
The point of this post is to ask how could this happen? How could two armed men force another, at gunpoint, to sign a title over in a city that does not allow people to carry guns?
If gun control is the answer to the problem of gun crime then how did this happen in a place that has such strict gun control?
The Democrats in Maryland passed a new gun control law in order to reduce gun related crime so they should take note of what happens in places like DC. The gun laws do not stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes.
The only thing gun laws do is make victims out of law abiding citizens.
Gun control laws do not work, they do not stop criminals from using them and they do not reduce crime. Maryland has tough gun laws now and Baltimore is the City that Bleeds. Things will get worse when the new laws take effect.
Just like they are in DC and every other place where people are denied their Constitutionally protected right to keep and BEAR arms…
Wake up America and wake up People’s Republik of Maryland.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, DC, gun control, lies, Maryland, rights
Round Up Of The Absurd
Jun 14, 2013 Political
A sampling of the moronic things taking place in this country.
DC residents can apply for a pot card
BUT G_D FORBID THEY WANT TO GET OR CARRY A GUN.
Looks like people in DC can start registering to receive medical marijuana. The dope will be dispensed once people start getting their government approval to get high.
Don’t take this the wrong way. I think that marijuana can be of value as a medication for certain things. That is for the medical community to decide. The reality is that many folks will get a card for some bogus medical condition so they can get, and smoke, pot. There will be a huge spike in certain medical conditions and that spike will involve conditions that, coincidentally, can be treated with marijuana. There will not be background checks to see if these people have a valid reason, they will just be allowed to obtain and smoke pot.
Let some poor chump try to buy a gun, or better yet, try to get a permit to carry a gun in DC and the entire force of government will come down on the evil schmuck. If he is allowed to proceed there will be hundreds of dollars in fees and significant checks that will become huge barriers to purchasing a handgun. If the request is to carry a handgun then there will be a lot of money spent to be denied. This is just like the People’s Republik of Maryland.
One of these things is a right protected in the US Constitution. Sadly, very few people either know that or follow it.
Your Tax Dollars Pay For IRS Employees To Do Full Time Union Work
An FOIA request reveals information that should make your blood boil. It is not bad enough that the IRS is targeting certain people in a political witch hunt now we have information that 201 IRS employees work full time on union business and we TAXPAYERS foot the bill.
The collective bargaining agreement allows them to work full time on union business and receive a taxpayer provided salary. This is what happens when the people who pay the bills are not involved in the bargaining process. The union negotiates with the politicians and they agree on terms. We pay for whatever they decide AND the unions funnel money back to the politicians. They are a laundering operation to get your money to unions and politicians under the guise of a legal contract.
This is why public employees should not be allowed to have unions.
Nazi passed background check to live in US for over 60 years
A Nazi commander from WWII was able to escape to the United States in 1949 by claiming he had not performed military service. He lied. The US allegedly did a background check but some items could not be verified so they let him in. The 94 year old man has been exposed and will likely be deported to stand trial for war crimes.
Big deal, right? Well, if the government could not ensure a Nazi was not allowed into this country what makes you think the government can ensure the millions of illegals currently here are properly vetted before legal status is bestowed upon them?
How many of these folks will be allowed to stay here legally because their background could NOT be verified? How many mistakes will there be that will cause us problems?
This assumes, of course, that the government will actually do any kind of background check. The only people the government wants to do complete background checks on are those who wish to purchase or carry a firearm. Then, anal probes are conducted.
The world is upside-down and this country needs an enema.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
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