http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/
Ruling is in and it says YES the Constitution applies to everyone. Unfortunately, it was a close one with a 5-4 vote and I am sure you can guess who voted which way.
Celebrate but don't let you guard down. Just because Obama is not openly coming after guns, there are plenty of libs who are. Daly, the mayor of Chicago, new this was coming and has openly been looking for ways around it. There are even reports that he has gone to the UN to take our guns away. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC, has created a group of Mayors across the country trying to take away our best means of defense. His group is called Mayor's Against Illegal Guns, but just like so many titles it is not just against illegal guns and its charter would take away guns from everyone.
Fortunately, Bloomberg's lies did not last to long and the honest mayors backed out of the group when they found it was targeting law abiding citizens as well.
Keep up the good fight and make sure to educate yourself and your friends.
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Monday, June 28, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Concealed Carry passes the legislature
It will soon be legal for law abiding citizens to carry a fire arm concealed on thier person without a license, the governer just needs to sign off on it. There are limits on where a nonCCW card holder can take their gun, but for the most part anyone who open carried can now put on a jacket or wear their shirt untucked without fear of breaking a law. Women can carry in their purses without breaking the law.
Not everyone agrees with this bill including pro-2nd amendment people. So sound off on your views and maybe we can change some minds!!!
Not everyone agrees with this bill including pro-2nd amendment people. So sound off on your views and maybe we can change some minds!!!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Police Officer doesn't like non police to have guns
I love cops and I greatly appreciate what they do for us on a daily basis. But cops like this guy Tuason scare the shit out of me. They have a badge and a gun and they think they are the only ones who should have them.
It is law enforcement officials like this that allow governments to take over peoples lives. Without the "soldiers" to do the down and dirty work, the dirty politicians have no power. I am all for freedom of speech but if your speech speaks out against the very freedoms you took an oath to uphold then you need to find a new line of work. I am sure he can find work in China where he can lawfully jackstomp civilians.
This guy gives good police officers a bad name. The scariest part is that according to a friend and writer on this blog, MOST police officers feel this way.
Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that "open carry" supporters should be shot.
East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend's status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like "Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto" and not just in "hoity toity" cities.
"Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!" Tuason replied. "He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!"
Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California's Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.
"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!" -- referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.
Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason's termination.
John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the Facebook thread confirmed gun owners' worst fears.
"Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America's gun owners," Taylor told FoxNews.com. "It's an affront."
California's Penal Code makes it illegal to carry concealed weapons without a county-issued license. But it is legal to carry an unloaded weapon in plain view in a holster. In most cases, it is illegal for an unconcealed weapon to be loaded
Taylor, of Arlington, Va., who has a concealed weapons permit in his home state, said he planned to write a letter to the East Palo Alto Police Department demanding that Tuason be fired.
"The targeting, harassment and intimidation of law-abiding citizens who are peacefully agitating for their rights by a police officer is an abomination to the Constitution, and is in fact the exact reason our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment," Taylor said. "Police officers who think they are going to get between law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights are going to find themselves in the line of fire."
Tuason's comments were first noticed by California attorney Kevin Thomason, who posted a screen grab of the detective's remarks on his Web site on Sunday.
"[Tuason] didn't realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook," Thomason wrote. "Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend's page. Basically, he's saying 'prone them out' (face down on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them. I don't make this crap up."
Thomason, a member of the National Rifle Association, wrote that Tuason's comments were "worth a call" to the East Palo Alto City Council, as well as to his superior officers.
Tuason, who has since removed his Facebook profile, did not return messages seeking comment on Friday. He is reportedly being investigated by the police department's professional standards division regarding the Facebook remarks.
East Palo Alto Police Sgt. Rod Norris said he was unable to comment on the matter, but Capt. Carl Estelle told the San Jose Mercury News that police officials must be careful not to violate Tuason's First Amendment rights, since the comments appeared on his personal Web site.
"In no way are his personal comments reflective of any policies or procedures here at the department nor does he speak for the police department," Estelle told the newspaper.
It is law enforcement officials like this that allow governments to take over peoples lives. Without the "soldiers" to do the down and dirty work, the dirty politicians have no power. I am all for freedom of speech but if your speech speaks out against the very freedoms you took an oath to uphold then you need to find a new line of work. I am sure he can find work in China where he can lawfully jackstomp civilians.
This guy gives good police officers a bad name. The scariest part is that according to a friend and writer on this blog, MOST police officers feel this way.
Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that "open carry" supporters should be shot.
East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend's status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like "Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto" and not just in "hoity toity" cities.
"Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!" Tuason replied. "He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!"
Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California's Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.
"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!" -- referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.
Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason's termination.
John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the Facebook thread confirmed gun owners' worst fears.
"Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America's gun owners," Taylor told FoxNews.com. "It's an affront."
California's Penal Code makes it illegal to carry concealed weapons without a county-issued license. But it is legal to carry an unloaded weapon in plain view in a holster. In most cases, it is illegal for an unconcealed weapon to be loaded
Taylor, of Arlington, Va., who has a concealed weapons permit in his home state, said he planned to write a letter to the East Palo Alto Police Department demanding that Tuason be fired.
"The targeting, harassment and intimidation of law-abiding citizens who are peacefully agitating for their rights by a police officer is an abomination to the Constitution, and is in fact the exact reason our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment," Taylor said. "Police officers who think they are going to get between law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights are going to find themselves in the line of fire."
Tuason's comments were first noticed by California attorney Kevin Thomason, who posted a screen grab of the detective's remarks on his Web site on Sunday.
"[Tuason] didn't realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook," Thomason wrote. "Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend's page. Basically, he's saying 'prone them out' (face down on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them. I don't make this crap up."
Thomason, a member of the National Rifle Association, wrote that Tuason's comments were "worth a call" to the East Palo Alto City Council, as well as to his superior officers.
Tuason, who has since removed his Facebook profile, did not return messages seeking comment on Friday. He is reportedly being investigated by the police department's professional standards division regarding the Facebook remarks.
East Palo Alto Police Sgt. Rod Norris said he was unable to comment on the matter, but Capt. Carl Estelle told the San Jose Mercury News that police officials must be careful not to violate Tuason's First Amendment rights, since the comments appeared on his personal Web site.
"In no way are his personal comments reflective of any policies or procedures here at the department nor does he speak for the police department," Estelle told the newspaper.
Monday, November 23, 2009
No Guns in the Library
I read this article posted by The War on Guns which tells about a law abiding citizen who went to the library armed with a pistol on his hip. He caused no trouble, did want he went there to do, and left. BORING!?!?!?! Apparently not, the fact this man had the audacity to come into a library armed caused such a ruckus that Library Director, Larry "I'm a Sheep" Frank, put into motion steps to get signs that say no guns allowed.
This story, while mundane and boring, brings so many anger inducing thoughts.
A sign doesn't do a damn thing. Just as laws are made to be broken; signs are made to be ignored. A sign does announce that there is a great chance that 99.99% of the people obeyed it so you can feel free to go do bad guy stuff. This story also shows that anyone with a gun is scary and it demonstrates the importance of keeping your firearm concealed. It makes the armed person less worried of what people think and it allows the sheep to keep grazing undisturbed.
Sick Thought or Teaching Moment?:
I would like to walk into a library, restaurant, or some other event with no security but a sign that doesn't allow individuals to bring their own security. I would then like to pull out a bright orange fake gun, something obvious, and here is the speech I would give:
I would then walk out and leave everyone to ponder what the hell just happened. I would never do this for the simple fact that I do not know the legal ramifications for such an act and I have no urge to go to jail much less prison. But it would sure be fun to see all the faces and be a fly on the wall afterward.
I am interested in knowing if any of my readers has a valid argument on why it should be illegal to carry a gun anywhere there is not armed security present for your protection? I add that caveat because I understand the need to prevent strangers from carrying guns in certain venues, but all those venues provide armed security, ie: Courts, White house, Congress.
This story, while mundane and boring, brings so many anger inducing thoughts.
- Signs do not prevent crime or stop bad guys/gals!
- Signs let bad guys know good guys are unarmed!
- How does a law abiding citizen cause such an uproar?
- This is the reason concealed carry is so important.
- The sheepdog scares the sheep if he walks around with his teeth showing.
A sign doesn't do a damn thing. Just as laws are made to be broken; signs are made to be ignored. A sign does announce that there is a great chance that 99.99% of the people obeyed it so you can feel free to go do bad guy stuff. This story also shows that anyone with a gun is scary and it demonstrates the importance of keeping your firearm concealed. It makes the armed person less worried of what people think and it allows the sheep to keep grazing undisturbed.
Sick Thought or Teaching Moment?:
I would like to walk into a library, restaurant, or some other event with no security but a sign that doesn't allow individuals to bring their own security. I would then like to pull out a bright orange fake gun, something obvious, and here is the speech I would give:
A lot of you are dead!!! The ones who would have made it out alive would have had to do it while climbing over dead bodies. I walked by that sign with this gun and it did nothing to try and stop me. I was going to go shoot up the place across the street but it didn't have a sign so I was worried there might be someone with a gun over there. I figured in this place with a no gun sign only criminals would be carrying a firearm. So I came here where I know I can take at least 25% of you with me before I commit suicide because I am a depressed loser who blames all of you for my lack of a life. I got my idea after watching that guy in Pittsburgh who shot up that gym because the women wouldn't go out with him. Have a nice day!!!
I would then walk out and leave everyone to ponder what the hell just happened. I would never do this for the simple fact that I do not know the legal ramifications for such an act and I have no urge to go to jail much less prison. But it would sure be fun to see all the faces and be a fly on the wall afterward.
I am interested in knowing if any of my readers has a valid argument on why it should be illegal to carry a gun anywhere there is not armed security present for your protection? I add that caveat because I understand the need to prevent strangers from carrying guns in certain venues, but all those venues provide armed security, ie: Courts, White house, Congress.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
My New Favorite Blogger
Please read the blog post pasted below, written by The Northern Muckraker. He is quickly becoming a favorite read and a man after my own heart.
I can not say it better so I will not add anything to it. Feel free to comment though and to check out Muckraker's site.
Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 25
Because brutal sociopaths like Vincent Scott, Gary Solomon and Marcus Solomon roam the streets of the metro area where we currently reside. These "men" beat and robbed a man simply because they felt a need to "get out some aggression", the trio apparently told Mesa, Arizona police.The total haul this group of feral parasites on normal society gained from this unprovoked attack on an innocent pedestrian, which left the victim with multiple injuries?
"Fritos, bean dip, M&Ms and a Kit Kat bar".
We certainly hope those tasty snacks were worth the years in prison these scumbags are facing for their senseless act.
No amount of proactive policing could have prevented this assault, and the cops certainly weren't around to interrupt these animals in the middle of carrying out their random, spur of the moment crime. If the victim had been legally armed with a handgun, the odds certainly would have been changed in his favor, and he just might have been able to successfully fend off his attackers before suffering injury.
Tell us again how firearms never benefit polite society at large or are simply of no use to victims of violent crime, Ms. Brady?
I can not say it better so I will not add anything to it. Feel free to comment though and to check out Muckraker's site.
Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 25
Because brutal sociopaths like Vincent Scott, Gary Solomon and Marcus Solomon roam the streets of the metro area where we currently reside. These "men" beat and robbed a man simply because they felt a need to "get out some aggression", the trio apparently told Mesa, Arizona police.The total haul this group of feral parasites on normal society gained from this unprovoked attack on an innocent pedestrian, which left the victim with multiple injuries?
"Fritos, bean dip, M&Ms and a Kit Kat bar".
We certainly hope those tasty snacks were worth the years in prison these scumbags are facing for their senseless act.
No amount of proactive policing could have prevented this assault, and the cops certainly weren't around to interrupt these animals in the middle of carrying out their random, spur of the moment crime. If the victim had been legally armed with a handgun, the odds certainly would have been changed in his favor, and he just might have been able to successfully fend off his attackers before suffering injury.
Tell us again how firearms never benefit polite society at large or are simply of no use to victims of violent crime, Ms. Brady?
Bias in the news: Guilty until proven innocent
I found this on another blog: The War on Guns
If things went down as they are explained in the original article who do you think is at fault?
Apparently, the author or the editor saw the error of their ways. I doubt they understand the error, they understand that people were upset about the wording.
You just can't believe the idiocy of these people. Even the title makes it sound like the shooter is the criminal. How hard is it to realize that defending yourself is not a crime, but a right?
Original:
Edited:
Man shot in apparent Detroit road rage incident
Christine MacDonald / The Detroit News
Detroit -- A 33-year-old man is in critical condition at a local hospital after he was allegedly shot by another man following what appears to be a road rage incident in Detroit on Friday afternoon.
Two men -- the 33-year-old male who was shot and another driver, a 29-year-old man -- were traveling east on I-94 when police say the 33-year-old was cut off by the other driver, said Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens. Both men exited the freeway at Cadieux and pulled up next to each other at a red light.
The older driver got out of his car, knocked out the other driver's window and began to pull the man out of the vehicle. The 29-year-old then shot at the 33-year-old, hitting him twice, Stephens said. The 29-year-old had a valid permit for the gun.
The 33-year-old was driven to the hospital by a female passenger and was in critical condition as of Friday night, Stephens said.
The 29-year-old remained at the scene of the shooting and was interviewed by police. A report will be forwarded to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, which will determine if any charges will be filed, she said.
If things went down as they are explained in the original article who do you think is at fault?
Apparently, the author or the editor saw the error of their ways. I doubt they understand the error, they understand that people were upset about the wording.
You just can't believe the idiocy of these people. Even the title makes it sound like the shooter is the criminal. How hard is it to realize that defending yourself is not a crime, but a right?
Original:
Edited:
Man shot in apparent Detroit road rage incident
Christine MacDonald / The Detroit News
Detroit -- A 33-year-old man is in critical condition at a local hospital after he was allegedly shot by another man following what appears to be a road rage incident in Detroit on Friday afternoon.
Two men -- the 33-year-old male who was shot and another driver, a 29-year-old man -- were traveling east on I-94 when police say the 33-year-old was cut off by the other driver, said Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens. Both men exited the freeway at Cadieux and pulled up next to each other at a red light.
The older driver got out of his car, knocked out the other driver's window and began to pull the man out of the vehicle. The 29-year-old then shot at the 33-year-old, hitting him twice, Stephens said. The 29-year-old had a valid permit for the gun.
The 33-year-old was driven to the hospital by a female passenger and was in critical condition as of Friday night, Stephens said.
The 29-year-old remained at the scene of the shooting and was interviewed by police. A report will be forwarded to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, which will determine if any charges will be filed, she said.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Protesters vs. Revolutionaries
Protesters vs. Revolutionaries
Protesters:
I have no problem with protesters no matter what side they are. I may have called Code Pink a bunch of idiots but I never had a problem with them protesting. Oh, I just thought of one I do have a problem with. The only time I have a problem with protesting is when those idiots protest Military Funerals. Hell, protesting ANY funeral is just horrible and is not freedom of speech it is just being assholes.
Protesting is an American Right and I encourage it.
Revolutionaries:
The big hubbub right now is about the man who wore a gun on his thigh to a protest and had a sign that said “Its time to water the tree of liberty”. This guy had balls. WOW
The gun alone is not an issue of mine as it is our right to carry one. I don’t think I would have open carried to an event the POTUS was going to be at, but maybe that makes this guy a better man then me.
The sign was out of line. In my opinion it was a threat. I have run it through my head over and over again. I can not see it as anything other than a threat. Matched with the gun, I am not surprised people are upset.
Now this guy supposedly is from Arizona and belongs to a so called “right wing extremist group”. According to the news the website calls for a return to the values of the US Constitution.
THERE ARE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES.
A Question I have been thinking about:
What is the difference between a revolutionary and an insurgent?
• Nothing according to the thesaurus, they are synonyms.
• Is it all dependent on whether the revolution was successful? I think so.
When does one know when it is time to rise up?
At what point did the Founding Fathers know enough was enough?
What is wrong with going back to the basics of the Constitution isn’t that what the so called right wing extremists are asking for?
Is revolution only capable by the right?
• How can the left stand up and revolt when the right has the majority of the guns?
• I guess that the belief that the left are a bunch of wimps went out the window when they started fighting at the town hall meetings.
Protesters:
I have no problem with protesters no matter what side they are. I may have called Code Pink a bunch of idiots but I never had a problem with them protesting. Oh, I just thought of one I do have a problem with. The only time I have a problem with protesting is when those idiots protest Military Funerals. Hell, protesting ANY funeral is just horrible and is not freedom of speech it is just being assholes.
Protesting is an American Right and I encourage it.
Revolutionaries:
The big hubbub right now is about the man who wore a gun on his thigh to a protest and had a sign that said “Its time to water the tree of liberty”. This guy had balls. WOW
The gun alone is not an issue of mine as it is our right to carry one. I don’t think I would have open carried to an event the POTUS was going to be at, but maybe that makes this guy a better man then me.
The sign was out of line. In my opinion it was a threat. I have run it through my head over and over again. I can not see it as anything other than a threat. Matched with the gun, I am not surprised people are upset.
Now this guy supposedly is from Arizona and belongs to a so called “right wing extremist group”. According to the news the website calls for a return to the values of the US Constitution.
THERE ARE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES.
A Question I have been thinking about:
What is the difference between a revolutionary and an insurgent?
• Nothing according to the thesaurus, they are synonyms.
• Is it all dependent on whether the revolution was successful? I think so.
When does one know when it is time to rise up?
At what point did the Founding Fathers know enough was enough?
What is wrong with going back to the basics of the Constitution isn’t that what the so called right wing extremists are asking for?
Is revolution only capable by the right?
• How can the left stand up and revolt when the right has the majority of the guns?
• I guess that the belief that the left are a bunch of wimps went out the window when they started fighting at the town hall meetings.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Arizona Shooter
Are you a normal citizen and have no idea what is going on with your country and your states? Do you wonder what would happen if the constitution was actually followed and states controlled themselves and the fed staid out of it? Well I do. I believe in the constitution as it was written. i believe the fore founders where visionaries and foresaw what would become of our country before it ever happened. The bible says the meek shall inherit the earth and a good question is, do liberals equal meek? Because that is what is happening. The weak are running things and the hard willed are forced to break the law in order to defend themselves and their family.
I am a life long conservative, maybe even a life long libertarian. I believe that our fore fathers wanted limited government and wanted the states to rule themselves. I believe that people are different and that when it comes to our major issues as a country they can be separated as a country by the states making their own rules. California and the other coastal states that seem to be liberal can run themselves that way, while central states maintain conservative views.
We can remain the United States as long as each state is allowed to maintain it’s own views. I hail from Arizona which has allowed both Democrat and Republican leadership, while maintaining its second amendment rights. My belief is that America is made up of different ideologies but have similar goals. America’s main goal is the freedom of all people. Second is the allowance of difference of opinion. Third is the freedom of persecution. Meaning, all people are allowed to do as they want as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, including the young and influential. That last part could be confusing so let me elaborate. People are allowed to act as they want as long as they do not impose on others and do not raise their children based on outlandish ideals.
Here is where we get controversial. I do not believe that all humans are allowed to procreate and keep their children. I believe that GOOD people are allowed to procreate and raise children. Bad parents should lose their children and be given to good people who actually want children.
This blog is written by an American in hopes to better America. I have served my country and I hope to see it prosper a long, long time. I fear that the meek have weakened it and wish to turn it into a criminal heaven based on double meaning and innuendo. I long for the politician to come along that is able to create legislature that rewrites the laws into English that all Americans can easily understand and no lawyer is needed to interpret.
I am a life long conservative, maybe even a life long libertarian. I believe that our fore fathers wanted limited government and wanted the states to rule themselves. I believe that people are different and that when it comes to our major issues as a country they can be separated as a country by the states making their own rules. California and the other coastal states that seem to be liberal can run themselves that way, while central states maintain conservative views.
We can remain the United States as long as each state is allowed to maintain it’s own views. I hail from Arizona which has allowed both Democrat and Republican leadership, while maintaining its second amendment rights. My belief is that America is made up of different ideologies but have similar goals. America’s main goal is the freedom of all people. Second is the allowance of difference of opinion. Third is the freedom of persecution. Meaning, all people are allowed to do as they want as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, including the young and influential. That last part could be confusing so let me elaborate. People are allowed to act as they want as long as they do not impose on others and do not raise their children based on outlandish ideals.
Here is where we get controversial. I do not believe that all humans are allowed to procreate and keep their children. I believe that GOOD people are allowed to procreate and raise children. Bad parents should lose their children and be given to good people who actually want children.
This blog is written by an American in hopes to better America. I have served my country and I hope to see it prosper a long, long time. I fear that the meek have weakened it and wish to turn it into a criminal heaven based on double meaning and innuendo. I long for the politician to come along that is able to create legislature that rewrites the laws into English that all Americans can easily understand and no lawyer is needed to interpret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
