House member Ted “Showboat” Liew of the People’s Repugnik of Kalifornia (PRK), in protest walked out during the moment of silence for the victims in the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The WEENIE said that he wants more gun laws passed and he was protesting that the opposing side of the aisle won’t take action.  I assume he believes that more laws would have magically stopped the evil perpetrator.

Teddy, Teddy. Take a chill pill and think about this a bit. Last time I looked, MURDERING 26 people is already ILLEGAL! In fact the penalty in Texas for murder includes the DEATH PENALTY. Do you honestly believe that more laws are the answer to the problem? Would you make the penalty of violating your new gun laws the death penalty to ensure compliance?  “Comply with my will or die”.  Oh, you will probably argue that if we banned the weapon used in this crime, then the tragedy wouldn’t have happened. Um, let’s see an ISIS sympathizer rented a truck and killed 8 people in New York. Last year another ISIS sympathizer rented a truck and killed 86 people in France.  How about introducing some legislation to ban truck sales in this country?   No one need more than a moped to get around.  Or how about introducing a law to prevent followers of Islam from renting trucks?  Both sound like wonderful ideas to me, you idiot.

Teddy, YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE AWAY EVIL.  Let’s have a new all encompassing law.  “Hence forth it will be illegal to do anything illegal”.  That should stop every crime.  If you haven’t been keeping up with current events, criminals tend to break law.  If you could legislate away evil, don’t you think sometime in the past 241 years we would have already passed that law?

Hey Showboat, let’s look at another part of the problem. We already have laws that prevent certain people from obtaining firearms.  Here are the categories taken directly from the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau website:

“… unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• who is a fugitive from justice;
• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
• who is an illegal alien;
• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”

Apparently, the Air Force did not update the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) with their prosecution and punishment of the perp for prior domestic violence crimes and his dishonorable discharge, as required by law. If the database had been correctly updated, the NICS check would have prevented him from buying the weapon.  That’s a FAILURE of BIG GOVERNMENT of which you are an integral member. Additionally, as a member of Congress you hold the purse strings of the military as well as holding oversight of their actions. So the bottom line is that this FAILURE of BIG GOVERNMENT to follow the laws your congressional body enacted is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Some of the BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS.  Own it, buddy.

Of course a WEENIE such as yourself probably will not feel a single hint of responsibility. Standard excuses of, “I didn’t know this was happening”, “I’m not on that committee”, or “It was before I was here”.

Teddy, “WITH LEADERSHIP COMES RESPONSIBILITY”.

F’ing weenies.

According to the Lib-whack-pack, no one needs a firearm because the police are there to protect us. As the motto of the Los Angeles Police Department say, “To Protect and Serve“. All part of the “reasonable” argument when the topic of gun control comes up.
Ask this simple question, “Does law enforcement have a duty to protect you?”

The answer to that question is quite simple. The answer is NO.

In the June 27, 2005 The Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in the case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the justices in a split decision concluded that law enforcement DOES NOT have a Constitutional requirement to provide ANYONE protection under the law. Protection by law enforcement is in fact discretionary according to the Supreme Court.

Here’s an excerpt from the decision written by the late Antonin Scalia, who is quoting from the American Bar Association’s Standards for Criminal Justice.

“In each and every state there are long-standing statutes that, by their terms, seem to preclude nonenforcement by the police… . However, for a number of reasons, including their legislative history, insufficient resources, and sheer physical impossibility, it has been recognized that such statutes cannot be interpreted literally… . [T]hey clearly do not mean that a police officer may not lawfully decline to make an arrest. As to third parties in these states, the full-enforcement statutes simply have no effect, and their significance is further diminished.” 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 1-4.5, commentary, pp. 1-124 to 1-125 (2d ed. 1980) (footnotes omitted).

When a anti-gun nut says that the police are there to protect you, you now know how much that statement is worth.  They will protect you as best they can, at THEIR discretion.

This is not a slam on law enforcement.  They have limited resources and need to prioritize what they respond to.  The Supreme Court made the correct decision as this decision protects law enforcement from law suits and liability if someone whines about why the police were not there at their beck and call, to act as that individual’s personal protection force.

Unless you want to hire your own private 24 hour security detail, you’ll need to figure out how to protect yourself.