O’Malley Gun Control Plan Dismantled
Nov 3, 2015 2016 Election, Political
As governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley pushed through gun control measures that violate the US and Maryland Constitutions and he assured the morons who follow him that this would make life better and safer. The only thing O’Malley accomplished was to make it tougher for the law abiding. Criminals in Maryland still get firearms and they still shoot people. Led by Democrats the criminals in Baltimore riot and destroy with impunity.
Martin does not dislike firearms. He was perfectly happy with all the armed State Police officers who protected him and his family. He is just not too keen on everyone else having firearms. He is a typical liberal who thinks that he is better than everyone else and that he knows how to run other people’s lives. He is wrong but in his little brain he thinks he is not only correct but that people love him and think he is brilliant.
O’Malley (or O’Moron as I like to refer to him) will unveil his anti-gun platform as he tries to out liberal the other morons running for his party’s nomination. Let us take a look at his platform and dismantle it. Each item of his plan is presented and then I will comment.
Using procurement contracts to advance gun safety by requiring manufacturers that seek federal contracts to make design changes. O’Malley says the changes will “advance gun safety and improve law enforcement’s ability to trace firearms. These include hidden serial numbers that cannot be defaced, micro-stamping, magazine disconnect mechanisms and other next-generation safety improvements.
The last thing first. Being able to track firearms is only effective for tracking those legally owned. If firearms are stolen or obtained via other illegal means they might be able to track back to an individual but not necessarily the person who used the firearm illegally. As for forcing firearms manufacturers to make design changes in order to secure government contracts, what happens if none of them do so? Suppose the gun makers decide not to make changes and not to bid on contracts for government purchases? What happens when government can’t get firearms because of this insanity? I think fewer government agents having guns is a great idea and would applaud any manufacturer who told O’Malley to pound sand. Imagine a President O’Moron {{{shudder}}} who has Secret Service without firearms because no one would buckle to governmental pressure. The government should not be using OUR money to force compliance. Imagine how O’Moron would react if a contract required a company bidding on a government contract to NOT provide abortion services in its employee health care?
Ending the federal defense of gun dealer immunity by stopping enforcement of a 2005 law that O’Malley says protects irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits by victims and families of victims of gun violence
Irresponsible by whose definition? There are already laws that define how gun dealers must act and how they must conduct business. If they are doing things incorrectly then they should be fined or lose their license. But a blanket statement such as this opens the door for lawsuits based on some arbitrary idea of irresponsibility. Someone could be shot with a legally purchased firearm that was later stolen and an idiot like O’Moron would claim the dealer should have known it would get stolen so he is irresponsible and therefore subject to litigation.
But hey, let’s take this idea a little farther. The government at all levels allows the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those affected by its irresponsible permission for the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government KNOWS people will be harmed by these products and that is why there are warnings on the labels of tobacco and alcohol products. So the government is being irresponsible in allowing these items to be sold. Based on what O’Moron thinks about firearms dealers the government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those harmed by these products.
Strictly enforcing existing bans on gun ownership for domestic abusers and stalkers, to “disarm those convicted for committing domestic violence
This is a tricky one. The first thing that needs to happen is that we ensure people who did not actually commit domestic violence or stalking are not convicted or charged or discriminated against. A single incident that involves two people might be domestic violence or it might not. By all means, if a person is involved in domestic violence then that person (he or she) should not be allowed to own a firearm. But before we take away this right we need to make absolutely certain and there should be a method to regain that right if circumstances warrant it.
The reality though is we already have laws that prohibit these folks from owning firearms. If these people decide they want a firearm they will get one. No law preventing the ownership of a firearm will prevent a person who wants to get one from doing so. Protective orders and orders banning a person from owning firearms are only pieces of paper that will not prevent a person from getting and using firearms. These work no better than gun control laws because those inclined to break the law will do so. This is more of a method for government to define what a person did as domestic violence and then remove guns that way. How will government strictly enforce this as O’Moron wants? It can’t enforce the gun control laws liberals have already enacted. If they could Baltimore and Chicago would be safe places instead of shooting galleries. The best thing to do would be to ensure the victims of such violence can get and carry a firearm for protection. But O’Moron opposes this. Once again, you are not as important as he and his family.
Banning so-called “cop killer” ammunition by working to close loopholes that O’Malley’s campaign says “have made hundreds of kinds of dangerous cartridges available for sale.” The campaign says he will act in his executive capacity as president to tighten current regulations
This is one of those slippery slope deals in that he can ban “cop killer” ammunition and then define all ammo as cop killer. There are bans on the manufacture of certain types of ammo and those laws should be good enough. If manufacturers are making this ammo then they need to be dealt with. But let me be clear, if government agents are allowed to have this ammo then so should the general population. Once again O’Moron talks about tightening current legislation as if that will stop people from breaking the law. It is illegal to buy, sell, possess or use Heroin but people do so every day and no law has ever stopped that. People can buy ammo from other countries and get it in here. If we can’t stop millions of illegals from walking in we sure as hell won’t stop illegal guns and ammo from getting in (though with Obama and Holder it went out of the country instead).
A new “electronic alert system” to inform local law enforcement officials when those who are prohibited from purchasing firearms attempt to do so. The campaign says the system will be “modeled on the FBI alert system used when fugitives purchase guns” and will help law enforcement officials identify which attempted sales to prosecute
This is Mickey Mouse stuff. What happens if a person is unaware that something in his past prevents him from owning a firearm and he attempts to buy one? Would not it be more prudent for the dealer to inform the person and tell him who to contact in government to see if this can be rectified? Then a notation can be made that the person was so informed and if that person attempts to buy firearms later then the police could be notified? In fact, it might be better for the dealer to inform the police of the first attempt and that the person was notified and then for the dealer to notify law enforcement of any subsequent attempts. If the system were properly annotated and working correctly this would be quite easy. O’Moron is looking for a bigger government boondoggle to further gum up the works.
Requiring the safe storage of firearms in homes by issuing and enforcing federal rules that make clear safety standards for gun locks and safes
Here is the short story. What I do in MY house with MY property is none of the government’s business and I will not be regulated by them. The reality is there are two ways to determine if you did not secure your firearms the way people like O’Malley want you to. The first is for there to be a problem with the firearm (like a child getting it and shooting someone). The second is government coming to check. Government will NOT be checking in my house to see what I do with MY property. Responsible people do not leave firearms in an unsafe manner. Yes, we hear some stories about some kid getting a gun from under a bed and shooting himself or someone else but the story usually involves a firearm that was not legally owned by a person who should not have it. Regardless, if you want to leave a loaded shotgun in the corner of a room, that is YOUR business.
Strengthening enforcement and audits of licensed dealers to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. The campaign says this action includes “conducting background checks of gun dealer employees; ensuring that dealers who have their licenses revoked do not become unlicensed sellers without first liquidating their inventories; and using audit inspections to check dealer inventories for stolen guns
This is harassment of licensed gun dealers. They already have to comply with a mountain of laws and paperwork. They get inspected and they have to renew their licenses regularly. I am fairly sure most, if not all, of this is in place. I would also imagine that a dealer runs a serial number before purchasing a firearm so it would be unlikely that he would have a stolen one in his possession.
Martin O’Moron is an elitist who thinks that responsible people should not have firearms and should have their lives run by people like him, you know, their betters. He is a low life cretin who infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens for political gain and so that he can control them. He is not bothered by the firearms that protect him but he does not want others to have that protection.
Given the rumors of O’Malley’s extramarital affair(s) perhaps he should spend more time taking care of his own life and less time getting in our business.
I do not like this troll and I sincerely hope he is never elected to another office. It is time for him to get a real job and earn money that did not come from the sweat of OUR brows.
To paraphrase George W Bush, you are either with the Constitution or you are against it. If you are against it then you are a domestic enemy. My oath says I have to protect against people like you, Marty….
MOLON LABE Marty, you little twit.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, elitist, gun control, liberal, lies, martin o'malley, moron, statist
Underestimated Or Ignored
Sep 29, 2014 Political
Barack Obama claims that his regime underestimated the rise of ISIS and overestimated the ability of the Iraqi military to fend off that group. Obama made these statements in a 60 Minutes interview.
George W Bush warned that leaving Iraq before the place was stabile and not having a small force in place would result in some group filling the void. He was pretty clear this would happen.
Mitt Romney reiterated this during the debates with Barack Obama. Obama laughed him off.
It is now obvious that Bush and Romney were correct and Obama was wrong. But did Obama underestimate?
Probably not. He is a narcissist and thinks he knows everything. He was aware of what Bush said and Romney told him point blank what would happen so he knew.
He just chose to either ignore or not believe the information. I believe he ignored it because he did not want to give any credit to Bush or Romney. He did not want to say that they were right because he was supposed to be so smart.
He ignored it and now we are using our military to clean up the mess he made. It is pretty telling that the man who said that we could not solve the issues there with our military is now saying we need to use our military to solve issues there.
He should have listened and with ears that big he certainly was able to hear.
Perhaps he was unable because of where he keeps his head…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Bush, incompetent, isis, liberal, lies, Military, Obama, romney, war
Hillary: Gun Rights Way Out Of Balance
May 7, 2014 Political, Second Amendment
Hillary Clinton was at the National Council for Behavioral Health conference and she addressed firearms in this country. She said the nation’s gun culture had gotten “way out of balance” and the idea that everyone could have a gun was not in the “best interest of the vast majority of people.”
Who is Hillary to determine what is in the best interests of people and, for that matter, how is she even qualified to make such a claim? There is no way to quantify this and it is nothing more than an emotional statement followed by a few examples of shootings, many of which were committed by people who were not allowed to own a firearm.
There is also a flaw in this claim that everyone could have a gun. The first problem is that not everyone can. Felons and the mentally ill are not allowed to own them. How do they get them? Some are not caught on the government background check (the same government that let the 9/11 terrorists in the country) and most buy them illegally. Just because something is banned, illegal or forbidden does not mean people won’t have access. I think the experience with prohibition demonstrates that quite clearly as does the problem with Heroin overdoses.
The second problem is the statement “could have a gun” as if a right is something the government is allowed to dole out regardless of circumstances. In other words, we have laws that forbid some folks from owning firearms because they have shown they should not have them. To Clinton government should decide if you could have the gun no matter what you have demonstrated.
If you are a law abiding citizen who is not otherwise prohibited you CAN have a firearm regardless of what Hillary thinks.
If Hillary is so willing to decide that the gun culture is out of balance and needs government action what other right will she infringe upon?
She had a real tough time of it when her hubby was caught having sex with an intern. Drudge broke the story. Hillary is getting a lot of press about her failure in Benghazi (she did not do too well with that 3 am phone call) so what if Hillary decided that the information culture has gotten out of balance and the idea that everyone can post information is not in the best interest of the vast majority of people? Perhaps people would need to jump through the same hoops they do to purchase a firearm. Perhaps information will be as regulated as firearms and the only people with access will be the politically connected.
What if Hillary decided that there are too many religions in America and religion is way out of balance and the idea that everyone could worship as they see fit is not in the best interest of the vast majority of people? Perhaps she will deem that there are too many religions and only certain ones are worthy to exist. Maybe she will force people to go through the same process to join a religion as to purchase a firearm.
Rights are not something the government deemed we could have and they are not something that government granted to us. They preexist our government and they are protected (not granted) by our Constitution.
This is the problem with liberals. They think they know what is best for you and who can blame them considering the number of people willing to be enslaved by the government?
Liberals want control and they know they can’t get it outright so they incrementally take rights away from a population too busy worrying about American Idol than what is going on in this country. Liberals keep upping the ante and then one day rights are gone because people sat by and allowed them to be eroded away by a tyrannical government.
I think, to paraphrase Hillary, the political class has gotten way out of balance and this notion that elites can make a career out of politics is not in the best interest of a vast majority of people.
The difference between our statements is I am correct.
I am willing to bet that the four Americans who Hillary allowed to be murdered in Benghazi would have loved to have a bunch of Americans (citizen or soldier) with guns the night they lost their lives because of her incompetence.
Hillary’s incompetence is responsible for more American deaths than all my guns combined.
And how many armed guards watch over her anyway?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: benghazi, gun rights, Hillary Clinton, liberal, lies, moron, political elite, sex scandal
Especially With Someone Else’s Money
Apr 21, 2014 Commentary
Moochelle Obama was talking to a group of child reporters and she told them that “splurging is the key to life.” She was talking about splurging or having an occasional snack so long as one eats healthy foods and exercises.
I know Moochelle was talking about food (and she likes to splurge on French fries and chocolate) but splurging is how she spends most of her life. I am not talking about food because I don’t care what she eats as long as she pays for it.
Which is the problem. She splurges on the taxpayer’s money. She takes a vacation about every other week and when she splurges like that it costs us millions of dollars.
So yes, she likes to splurge but she likes to do so when others foot the bill. I doubt she would be so extravagant if she had to foot the bill.
Liberals are like that. No cost is too high so long as someone else pays the bill.
Remember the liberals who had their insurance rate increase thousands of dollars because of Obamacare? Their response was that they knew it would cost money but didn’t think they would have to pay for it.
Liberals are always generous with other people’s money.
They like to splurge as long as you pay.
Look at any grocery store that accepts EBT cards and it is all the clearer.
Moochelle was telling the kids how to eat and live. To paraphrase Pink Floyd:
Hey Moochelle, leave those kids alone.
And leave our money alone as well.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: diet, exercise, kids, liberal, moochelle, Obama, splurge, vacation
People Vote With Their Feet
May 30, 2012 Political
New York has lost residents whose income amounts to almost 46 BILLION dollars as people vote with their feet to avoid taxes. New York has lost millions (if not billions) in tax revenue because people got tired of forking over their hard earned money to pay for ever increasing social programs and union payoffs.
New York saw a net outflow of about 1.3 million people, about half of whom moved to Florida. Yes, Florida has nicer weather but, more importantly, it has no state income tax and it has no estate or inheritance tax.
New York is not the only state that has seen a decrease in population as other heavily taxed states have lost citizens as well.
Additionally, Florida is not the only state that has seen an inflow of people. The states of Arizona and Texas, both low or no tax states, have seen an increase in residents particularly from California.
People who are able to move from high tax states do so. Those who will not move are either unable because of finances or their jobs or are on the welfare rolls.
From 2000-2010 the states of Texas and Florida have seen a net increase of nearly a million people each, many of whom left their high tax states for tax relief.
Yes, the people have figured that they can’t effect change at the ballot box so they must vote with their feet and move to where they get to keep more of the money they earn. You can only rob people so many times before they decide to pack up and go.
Maryland is seeing this kind of movement as it continues to raise taxes on everything possible. The Democrats in charge, led by Martin O’Moron, think the money belongs to them and that the people should be happy they get to keep some of it.
This will continue to happen until the states change their positions. Look at what Scott Walker is doing in Wisconsin. He brought them to fiscal sanity (and the liberals want to remove him and go back to the losing policies that caused their problems).
We can’t vote with our feet at the national level unless we give up citizenship and that is not an option, at least not for me. The change there must come at the ballot box and we must replace Obama, the liberals and the RINOs.
It is November or never.
Until then, look for Texas and Florida to keep gaining Congressional seats while New York and California continue to lose them.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: california, florida, liberal, migration, New York, Obama, taxes, texas, vote