Chicago Is Murder Capital
Sep 19, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
In 2012 more people were murdered in Chicago than in New York even though Chicago has a third of the population. The linked article has a lot of information regarding the murders and how many of them are related to bad people who use firearms but the overarching theme is that nearly every city on the list has a strict gun control policy.
Another reality is that many, if not all, are heavily populated with Democrats and run by liberals.
There is no denying that liberalism and Democrat leadership are the root cause of the high murder rates because liberal policies encourage this kind of behavior.
Liberals do not believe in personal responsibility. One needs look no further than Barack Obama who has never taken any responsibility for anything bad that happens under him. He blames everything bad on George Bush or the Republicans in Congress or the TEA Party.
He is quick to take credit for anything good. He took credit for the death of Osama bin Laden even though the military took him out.
Look at the two politicians recalled in Colorado. They are blaming voter fraud, misinformation and anything they can think of rather than the reality which is they thwarted the will of the people.
These murder cities, led by Chicago, have dense populations of liberals who support liberal politicians so they can get their “free” stuff. Get me my food stamps and Obama phones and I will vote for you while my children and peers are out knocking off liquor stores and committing welfare fraud.
The criminal elements in these cities prey on the poor and the defenseless. It is nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to own or carry firearms in Chicago and many of these other murder cities. The criminals, on the other hand, get plenty of weapons including firearms.
Liberalism is hazardous to your health.
This is Obama’s Chicago. It is his buddy Rahm’s Chicago.
Obama was a ghetto organizer before he got into office and those ghettos are now well organized.
Don’t worry though. In keeping with the lack of responsibility inherent in liberalism they will blame this on everything from Bush, to guns, to poverty. Remember, the people who are doing this are not responsible for their actions.
They must be victims of something other than the liberalism and liberal policies that they have in common.
These cities have been turned into shooting galleries and murder-hoods.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: chicago, FBI, firearms, liberalism, lies, murder rate, Obama
We Need To Ban Video Games
Sep 18, 2013 Political, Second Amendment
When someone uses a bomb to blow up a building we go after the bomber not the bomb. When a person uses matches to light a building on fire we go after the arsonist and not the matches. When someone drinks and drives we go after the drunk driver and not the car or the alcohol.
For some reason though, when someone uses a gun to commit a crime we go after the gun. Not only that, they go after the guns of all the people who had nothing to do with the crime.
When I wrote for some reason above I knew the reason and you know it as well. They use incidents of violence with guns to go after guns because they want to disarm all of us. Gun control is not about the gun it is about control and government knows that if it can disarm its citizens it can control its citizens.
This is why we have a Second Amendment. Despite the stupidity of people like Andrew Cuomo of New York the Second Amendment is not there to protect hunting or sport shooting. It is there to protect the population from its own government and any other that tries to attack us.
Make no mistake about it, our Founders protected our right to keep and bear arms so that we would never be held as slaves under a tyrannical government. We would always have the ability to fight our government should the need arise.
This is not a radical idea as our Founders did just that to gain our freedom.
But gun grabbers want to disarm everyone. I know they claim otherwise with nonsense terms like “common sense laws” and such but their plan is to incrementally impose more and more bans until we are disarmed. Places like Maryland are already well along in the anti gun, gun ban, confiscation scheme. Communist Governor Martin O’Malley and the Democrat idiots in the legislature have passed gun laws that are unconstitutional and will hopefully be negated by the Supreme Court (though one can never tell with the outside influences blackmailing justices).
In any event, the shooting at the Navy Yard elicited the same visceral response we have come accustomed to. The immediate reaction of the gun grabbers was to call for more gun control. The reality that the shooting took place in a city that has strict gun control on a military base with strict gun control has not even dawned on the people who are so hell bent on enslaving us that they were screaming for more gun control while the dead bodies were still warm.
Barack Obama lamented that we are once again dealing with this kind of tragedy. I will shoot his words back at him. We are once again dealing with you exploiting a criminal to disarm non criminals. You danced on the bodies of the dead children in Newtown and you are dancing on the dead at the Navy yard.
The narrative was the same in the media as we were bombed with stories of an AR 15 and assault this and assault that.
Turns out the gun used was a shotgun and the pistols used were taken from the guards who were shot. Not to worry, the media came to the rescue like they did when George Zimmerman turned out to be Hispanic instead of white (and thus became the new race of white Hispanic) and invented the new AR 15 shotgun…
We are now finding out that the shooter had a real problem with mental illness and that it was reported months ago but not acted upon by the very government that wants to disarm you for the deeds of the shooter. It also turns out that this guy would spend up to 18 hours at a time playing the Call of Duty video game. It is reported that the game took him to his dark side.
In other words, the video game influenced this mentally ill man to act on his inner dark side. Thus, he sneaked a firearm onto a post and went around shooting people like in the video game.
So now that we know this is it safe for us to conclude that we do not need to ban guns we need to ban video games? The game caused the problem and made this man shoot others. In order to stop this senseless violence we must have the following:
- All people who want to buy a video game must be 21
- All people who want to buy a video game must pay money and submit an application with a set of fingerprints
- All people who want to buy video games must sign a release for a medical and mental health records check
- All video games must no longer be capable of being played longer than 2 hours in a 24 hour period. This is our ban on high capacity video games
- Anyone who purchases a video game must wait 3 days before picking it up so a background check can be completed
- No one can buy more than one video game in a 30 day period
- Online video gaming will no longer be allowed so we can close the internet loophole
These are a must because there are millions of people out there using video games. These games cause people to turn violent and result in death. It is not the person, it is the game and you should never forget that.
We must do this…
…for the children.
However, in keeping with the spirit of Barack Obama’s tenure video games may be given to terrorists.
Yep, Barack Obama wants to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms and wants to impose even tougher restrictions on law abiding citizens while at the same time he has waived the law disallowing us from sending arms to terrorists so he can arm the Syrian Rebels.
Think about it folks, Barack Obama trusts terrorists with firearms but does not trust you with them.
And he knows the terrorists would fail the background check. That is why he waived the law…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: communism, gun control, lies, navy yard, Obama, tyranny, video games, violence
I Agree With Senator Feinstein
Sep 17, 2013 Commentary, Second Amendment
[note]This article assumes the shooting at the Navy Yard was not a false flag operation. I have no doubt in my mind that the government or its agents are capable of using mentally unstable people to get what it wants. Life means nothing to those who want to infringe upon our freedoms. If they cared about life they would not allow children to be murdered in the womb. Obama will use Executive Orders to get what he wants leading to speculation of a false flag operation.[/note]
It is not often that I agree with any liberal particularly Dianne Feinstein and particularly on gun control but I find myself in agreement with her statement after the senseless shooting at the Navy Yard. Feinstein stated:
“When will enough be enough?”
~snip
“Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.” Washington Times
This statement is mostly true (more later) but the solution is where we part ways.
First of all it is important to note that the deaths from mass shootings account for an extremely small part of the number of murders. It is less than one-tenth of one percent. These statistics do not count gang related murders and shootings where a person kills relatives or others linked to him. Even those do not put us at an epidemic.
The sensationalism involved makes these things seem much more common and Obama lamenting that once again we are dealing with a mass shooting makes it appear that way. It is like air travel. It is the safest way to travel but a plane crash that kills hundreds of people gets more press than the few people at a time that die in traffic accidents.
More children in the womb are murdered than all the gun related murders combined.
Shootings like the one at the Navy Yard lead to a push for more gun control and the banning of more types of firearms even though these things will not work. Washington DC has very strict gun control laws and federal property, particularly military installations, have extreme gun control (thanks Bill Clinton). One does not just walk around a military post with a firearm unless the job requires them to carry one. Unless there is on post housing or an on post range there are no private firearms registered on the installation. If there are registered firearms they must be properly secured.
In addition, one must go through a secure point when entering a post. The fact that DC has strict gun laws, military posts have even stricter gun rules (and I might add, infringing rules), and that one must pass through a security entrance to gain access did not stop the shooter from murdering a dozen people at the Navy Yard.
Just as the on post rules and security did not stop a radical Muslim soldier from murdering over a dozen people at Fort Hood.
Laws only affect the people who are inclined to obey them in the first place.
[note]The AR 15 is a firearm hated by the left. The initial reports indicated that the shooter used one at the Navy Yard however; new reports indicate he used a shotgun (he sneaked in) and two pistols he took from security guards. This will not stop the gun grabbers from blaming the black rifle and calling for a ban on it.[/note]
No gun law in the world would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place. None of the gun laws passed after the shooting in Newtown would have stopped that event. The gun laws passed in New York, Maryland and other places were all knee jerk reactions that took advantage of a tragedy to get more control over our lives. It matters not to Governor O’Malley of Maryland that his unconstitutional gun laws would not have saved those children. He does not care if children die. His major concern is his next elected office. If he can use dead children to promote his cause he is perfectly OK with that.
But Big Dog, you said you agree with Senator Feinstein, how so?
I agree with her question; when will enough be enough? I also agree with her statement that we must do something to stop the endless loss of life.
OK, I mostly agree because it is not endless. That is hyperbole and drama to make it seem worse than it is but I agree we need to end these shootings.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The solution is not what Feinstein wants, it is just the opposite. We need to end having gun free zones and we need to stop infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The guy at the Navy Yard was able to do what he did because once he illegally sneaked his firearm(s) onto post he had a shooting gallery of trapped, unarmed workers. All citizens who are not otherwise disallowed (felony conviction, mental illness, addiction, etc) should be allowed to carry a firearm either openly or concealed. Teachers and other workers at schools should be allowed to carry firearms. Workers at federal facilities should be able to carry firearms.
We would not have active shooters if they did not have helpless prey to hunt and government does nothing but make us helpless and make us prey.
Feinstein is perfectly happy to continue the failed government policies that have resulted in the very murders she laments because she is not affected. She is part of the protected class. You know who they are. They have armed guards or permits to carry firearms.
The police, by the way, are not the answer. In Newtown every person was dead before the police arrived. At the Navy Yard the on base armed security that effectively had a criminal on a locked down facility could not neutralize him before he murdered a dozen people. Anyone of his victims could have stopped the carnage had they been armed.
If you want to end the violence, and I mean if you truly want to end it, then stop disarming the people who suffer from unconstitutional gun laws.
No law stops criminals from committing crime.
Let us not forget that it is already against the law to murder people…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, feinstein, gun control, navy yard, Obama
Obama Embraces Bush Doctrine
Sep 10, 2013 Political
The Bush Doctrine of preemption is one that has given liberals like Barack Obama fits. They are opposed to military action but generally only when Republicans want to take it. Liberals, even those who really are opposed to violence, are mostly silent when one of their own is proposing military force.
Barack Obama, the alleged Constitutional Law professor, seems to have a few problems. First, when he was a candidate, he stated that the president does not have the Constitutional authority to attack another nation unless the US has been attacked or there is an imminent threat.
Now the Constitutional Law Professor is saying he has the authority to do just that. He is working on plans to attack Syria even though that nation has not attacked us and there is no imminent threat to us from Syria.
It would seem that a liberal Constitutional Law Professor is one who believes the Constitution authorizes whatever a liberal wants to do. Simply put, it is a flexible document that can be interpreted as a liberal sees fit.
Before John Kerry said that Syria could hand over its chemical weapons to avoid a strike Barack Obama was working on getting authorization to strike Syria. Obama believes he can strike without Congressional approval but is seeking it anyway. It is rough going as many oppose a strike. Obama was on several news shows to make his case and this is what he had to say when trying to justify the strike:
“But we are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria. Failing to respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could be used again; that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us, and it would send a horrible signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons. All of which would pose a serious threat to our national security.” [emphasis mine] UPI.com
So, in this long drawn out roundabout way, the chemicals in Syria might end up in the hands of bad people who would use them against us so that is an imminent threat and we can strike Syria. This is a stretch by any measure but if this is the path Obama wants to follow the question becomes how is this any different than the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike that liberals violently opposed? I see the difference in that there is no actual threat the chemicals could be used against us. It would be different if Syria threatened to use them on our troops in the area. This is a threat and could justify a preemptive strike but saying that some third party might get them and then use them on us is several layers removed from being a threat.
But if this is how Obama is playing it then he is trying to claim the right to a preemptive use of force. The very use of force liberals decried when Bush used it.
The reality is that if we allow Obama to use this contorted view we could basically justify preemptive force against anyone. North Korea or Iran might lose control of their nuclear materials and a terrorist group might get it and use it on us so let’s bomb North Korea and Iran.
Someone might steal Russia’s smallpox virus and sell it to terrorists who might use it on us so let’s attack Russia.
This is the theater of the absurd.
Not to mention the reality that if we attack Syria and destabilize things (even more than they are) there is a greater risk that Syria will lose track of chemical weapons which then could end up in the wrong hands.
In other words, the act Obama wants to prevent (or that he is using to justify force) might be aided by the very attack designed to prevent it.
Yep, it is still amateur hour at the White House.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bush doctrine, chemical agents, kerry gaffe, lies, Obama, preemptive strike, putin, Syria
Amateur Hour At The White House
Sep 9, 2013 Political
First Barack Obama makes an unwise comment about a red line and now John Kerry has given a deadline. Both of these deeds have come back to bite America in the behind.
I know that Barack Obama said he did not lay out the red line but he did. It is he who is saying it and there is no doubt about what he meant when he did. All of his claims to the contrary are designed to help him save face because he is trying to put the blame on someone else. He put it on Congress and he put it on the international community (which refuses to back him) but the reality is that Obama opened his mouth and inserted his foot.
He claims the onus is on the international community because of the Chemical Weapons Convention but the reality is that Syria never signed that treaty. How can that country be held to a treaty it did not sign?
The other aspect of this is that Syria’s use of nerve agent had no impact on the US. That country did not attack us, it did not attack our territories and it did not attack our troops. It attacked its own people (and there is doubt as to who actually attacked, the government or the rebels).
This is Syria’s civil war and we do not belong in it.
But Obama and his Democrats are banging the war drums. John Kerry, who protested the war in Vietnam, is working hard to convince people that the US needs to attack Syria. The Democrats who were anti war when Bush was president are largely silent over the rumblings of war coming from their Nobel Peace Prize receiving president.
It is amateur hour at the White House. Obama made the first mistake by laying out the red line and now John Kerry has shot himself in the foot by opening his mouth.
Kerry said that Syria could avoid an attack by turning its chemical weapons over to the international community (where they would be inventoried and destroyed). Kerry, like Obama, miscalculated. Obama figured if he set the red line that Syria would not use chemical weapons. Someone did and it was either the government spitting in Obama’s face or the rebels using Obama’s declaration to draw the US into the conflict and help them beat Assad.
Kerry figured Syria would not turn over its chemical stockpile. Not so fast. Russian President Vladmir Putin told Syria to take Kerry up on his offer and Syria is considering it.
It is unlikely that the chemical weapons will be turned over BUT the gaffe by Kerry gives that country time. Syria can say it will turn over the stockpile and then the UN will get involved and there will be inspectors. It will take months, if not years, to sort things out.
John Kerry opened his big mouth and gave Syria a get out of being bombed free card.
It is not bad when one considers we should not be bombing Syria over its use of chemical weapons when we were not attacked in any way but the entire episode shows the Obama regime to be a bunch of amateurs who are piss poor at diplomacy.
Obama opened his mouth resulting in talks of bombing Syria for the sole purpose of saving face for the resident and Kerry has now thrown a monkey wrench into the Obama war machine by giving Syria a way out.
A way out that was recognized by Putin who took advantage of the rookies in the White House.
The world is laughing at us and our man child resident who is demonstrating that he was not prepared for the job and has not learned anything in the five years he has held it.
The bad guys in the world will be emboldened.
But not until after they stop laughing.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: amateur, Kerry, lies, nerve agent, Obama, putin, Syria