Rioters Avoid Armed Citizens In Missouri
Aug 11, 2014 Second Amendment
A police officer shot and killed an unarmed black man in Missouri and the riots started. Once the riots started the looting started. People who had nothing to do with the shooting became victims of those who fail to see the irony of protesting in support of someone who was wronged by wronging other people.
The left in America tells us that no one needs guns. Oh they claim that guns are OK for some things but that no one needs an assault weapon to hunt. They ignore the fact that the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about protection. That is protection from others and protection from our government.
Call the police the anti gun folks say. Well the rioters in Missouri overwhelmed the police and the community. There were two courses of action for those who were attacked by the rioters. Either become a victim or stand their ground.
A number of business owners decided to stand their ground as people with the dreaded AR 15 style “assault” rifles protected themselves and defended their property. Yes, the bad black rifle was used for protection.
You see, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. That is a name given by the anti gun crowd to cause fear but if they insist on calling it an assault rifle I will insist that the people in Missouri showed it was an effective deterrent if you are assaulted.
The rioters were causing problems but any business that had armed people standing watch did not have trouble. The criminals (and rioters and looters are criminals) did not want to risk getting shot so they moved on to unprotected targets.
Firearms are a way of life and are necessary for a free people. Those who are disarmed are slaves to the government and victims to the criminal element.
It is tragic that the young man lost his life. It is also tragic that people feel the only way to solve the issue is to riot. Keep in mind; cops shoot people of all colors all over the country. For some reason only certain communities resort to rioting.
In any event, this episode demonstrates one of the reasons we have a Second Amendment. Thank goodness well armed citizens were there to thwart the rioters.
You have to have priorities
Well armed men guarded a liquor store from the rioters.
One must have priorities…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: looters, missouri, police shooting, riots, Second Amendment
Don’t Clown Around With Obama
Aug 13, 2013 Commentary, Political
A rodeo clown in Missouri has been banned from performing at the Missouri State Fair because he wore a Barack Hussein Obama mask and allegedly asked the crowd if they wanted to see the bull run over Obama (allegedly because the rodeo claims the clown had a mike but others have indicated the rodeo announcer asked the question). The question got plenty of cheers when it was asked and the cheers were even louder when it was repeated.
Rodeo clowns are CLOWNS and they are there to keep riders safe and to clown around with the crowd (pun intended).
That is not the case when the clown wears an Obama mask. You see, when that happens the liberals get their little panties in a knot and talk about how inappropriate it is. Can’t have people making fun of the anointed one, the messiah B. Hussein Obama himself, now can we?
Liberals get all twisted and act as if they are as pure as the driven snow when their messiah is the brunt of a joke. I can only imagine what will happen if a bank robber uses an Obama mask. He will get six months for robbing the bank (just wealth redistribution) and the death penalty for using an Obama mask. Though I am inclined to believe if Obama had a son he would look like the bank robber…
The Democrats in Missouri had to step in and they showed why no one with a brain (and that leaves out the majority that allegedly voted for Obama) takes them seriously. You see, this is no way to act toward a president:
“I am amazed that in 2013, such hatred, intolerance and disrespect towards the President of the United States could take place at the Missouri State Fair. Our fair is supposed to showcase the best of Missouri, instead, it showed an ugly face of intolerance and ignorance to the world.” ~ Rep William Lacy (D-MO)
“If what’s being reported is true, then it’s shameful and it’s unacceptable. The State Fair is funded by taxpayer dollars, and is supposed to be a place where we can all bring our families and celebrate the state that we love. But the young Missourians who witnessed this stunt learned exactly the wrong lesson about political discourse-that somehow it’s ever acceptable to, in a public event, disrespect, taunt, and joke about harming the President of our great nation. Missouri is better than this, and I expect someone to be held accountable.” ~ Sen Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Politico
Did either of these dim bulbs demonstrate such outrage at the public disrespect and taunting that George W. Bush was subjected to during his tenure? In case any of you have forgotten, Bush was repeatedly compared to a chimp (do that to Obama and you are a racist) and there are a large number of images of Bush as a chimp on the web. There is even a tic-tac-toe game where a chimp (you play the chimp’s part) plays against Bush and if the chimp wins he beat the idiot and if the chimp loses he is degraded for losing to an idiot.
Did any Democrat scream about the intolerance and disrespect? Did any Democrat condemn the message young people were subjected to? Did these two politicians specifically address the issue?
We all know the answer to this.
[note]Anyone find it ironic that Clay said the incident showed an ugly face of intolerance and ignorance when the story is about a mask of Obama?[/note]
But Big Dog, pictures of a chimp are not talking about harm coming to the president. Why, why, why, the clown was talking about a bull running down our messiah B. Hussein Obama. That is different Big Dog, it was all so violent.
Yeah, well listen up little liberal. I will type this slowly so you can keep up. A movie was made about George W Bush being assassinated. The movie was called Death of a President and it was filmed and released while Bush was in office. There was only one Democrat I am aware of who said something negative about the film and that was Hillary Clinton (to their credit CNN and NPR refused to air ads for the movie).
Where were McCaskill and Clay when this movie was released? I would not be surprised if they were in the theater taking delight in watching it while they ate stale popcorn. Regardless of where they were just imagine how they would be acting if such a movie were made about Obama…
So before you liberal bedwetters shed tears over a clown talking about a bull running over Obama remember how you reacted when a movie about Bush being murdered was released. If you were not outraged then you can’t be now. In other words, shut up.
I do not get the uproar. This is America and we are free to mock our leaders. If they don’t want to be mocked then perhaps they should not do anything that warrants being mocked.
I also do not understand why people are upset about the mask. One clown put the mask of another clown on.
Big deal.
Put on your big girl or big boy pants and buck up cupcake.
If you want something to cry about try shedding a tear for the four Americans Obama allowed to be murdered in Benghazi and instead of firing a rodeo clown fire the clown in the White House who is covering up the murders he allowed to take place.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: benghazi, Bush, clay, Clinton, democrat outrage, mccaskill, missouri, Obama, rodeo clown
Gun Confiscation; Could It Happen In America?
Feb 14, 2013 Political
There is no doubt that liberals do not like the Constitution which they view, as Obama said, as deeply flawed. They hate the Second Amendment and the fact that it protects the right to keep and bear arms, a right that preexisted the document. The Founders protected that right because they saw firsthand what a tyrannical government can do to people.
Liberals love to go after law abiding citizens when some lunatic uses a firearm illegally. The left is more than happy to punish the millions of people who did nothing wrong. Their idea on gun violence would be like solving drunk driving by banning sober people from buying cars. The big difference, of course, is that keeping and bearing a firearm is a right and driving is a privilege so even though banning sober people from owning cars is moronic, it would not be unconstitutional.
What government gives you government can take away. Government allows us the privilege of driving. The right to keep and bear arms is a God given RIGHT. Government cannot take away that which was given by God (absent a valid reason like committing a crime in which case one surrenders the right as a consequence of an action).
Obama has always hated firearms (except those used to protect him and his family). He has never wanted people to have them and has worked to get rid of them. Every time some nut uses a firearm to commit a crime Obama calls for common sense laws to prevent such things. No such laws exist and those laws enacted would only harm lawful owners. Obama seems unable to comprehend the fact that criminals do not obey the law. Obama should be aware of this because all the laws against drug use did not stop him and his Choom Gang from using drugs. Would tougher laws against drugs have prevented little Barry Obama from using pot and cocaine to get stoned with his buddies?
Liberals across the nation have trotted out laws to infringe on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In Missouri the Democrats have crafted a bill that would outlaw all firearms designated as assault weapons and all magazines designated as high capacity. People would have 90 days to surrender (render permanently inoperable or remove from the state) all such firearms or face criminal charges (another reason not to have a registry of firearm owners).
I would like to think this bill would not pass but in this day and age the Constitution means nothing to politicians, particularly the progressives/liberals, and government at all levels is becoming more tyrannical. I can only imagine that if this were to pass there would be many clashes between those who try to confiscate and those who say no.
The real danger is that this is an Overton Window. The liberals introduce this outlandish legislation and people revolt. Then they back off to what they really wanted and people say it is OK believing they averted a disaster. It is an incremental approach to banning firearms.
Say NO to this kind of stuff. There are no qualifiers in the Second Amendment that allows government to determine the size or type of firearm or magazine. There are laws that prohibit government from keeping a registry of firearm owners. As an aside, Democrats are willing to ignore those laws while expecting us to believe that criminals (private sector criminals, as opposed to those in government) will follow any law banning firearms, magazines or ammunition.
Many law enforcement officers across the nation are making it known they will not follow any law that infringes on the Second Amendment. This is for federal laws. We need such people strongly asserting that they will not follow state or local laws that infringe.
One such officer is Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania.
We, as a people, need to stand up and fight the tyranny. We have the soap box, the ballot box and the bullet box. What we choose depends on what government does.
Do you still think government will not deny your rights or confiscate your firearms? Do you think that it could not happen in America?
How would it have played out if those people were organized and fought back? How would it have played out if they were prepared and had in mind that government might confiscate firearms? How would it have ended if they had been ready before the police and NG organized?
The government is preparing. Are you ready and how will YOU respond?
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: gun confiscation, katrina, lies, missouri, nra, Obama, rights, Second Amendment