Source: TheFirearmGuy
January 7, 2017
Here is about about a senior citizen lady who was armed and took care of an armed intruder with her gun. This lady teaches all of us the value of awareness, preparedness, and having a defensive mindset.
Category: Second Amendment
Facebook Banned Me Today!
Source: MrGuns&GearChannel
December 14, 2016
Yes, Facebook banned me for showing a photo of a Colt BCG. I’m not joking. That’s what really happened.
FBI Releases October Background Check Numbers
Source: BearingArms.com
via: MadMedic.com
November 2, 2016
On Tuesday afternoon, the FBI released the October report from the National Instant Background Check System (NICS). Over 2.3 million background checks were performed during the last month, an increase from 1.9 million in September.
What’s most interesting is the dramatic rise in overall background checks within the last decade. Only 1.1 million background checks were performed during October 2008, and that rose slightly to just 1.6 million background checks in October of 2012.
Is this increase just a general trend in gun ownership, or is this a result of Second Amendment lovers recovering from an Obama presidency and preparing for Hillary Clinton?
Here are some background check numbers from the October report broken down by states of interest:
- California – 180,968
- Florida – 111,657
- Illinois – 169,348
- Pennsylvania – 103,05
- Texas – 144,467
And the big winner? Kentucky performed 378,973 background checks last month!
Every state had an increase in background checks, except Louisiana. The Bayou State had a 1 percent drop since September.
Mind Control Vs. Freedom
Has it occurred to you that virtually no college in America teaches a course in individual freedom?
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
September 13, 2016
Fingers pointed like a gun. A pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. A toy gun. A screen shot of a gun.
For several years now, all over America, schools have been exercising what they call zero tolerance policy to suspend young children packing “suggestions of guns.”
Behind this practice is the idea that populations can be conditioned against owning real guns. Start early, indoctrinate the kids, and society will change.
In turn, such thinking rests on the premise that human beings are Pavlovian dogs. Programmed biological machines. If the program currently running is faulty, and fails to obey the mandate of “greatest good for the greatest number,” change the program.
As this Pavlovian approach expands and spreads, people begin to believe that a model of radical reconstruction is viable and good.
For instance, how many people would now respond favorably to the idea that “everyone can be programmed to forget guns even exist”?
Too far-out? Try this:
How many people would agree to a program that “guaranteed” racial prejudice would be wiped from human memory?
How many people would happily respond to the notion that environmental destruction, as an impulse, could be removed from the brain?
How many of these people would even notice that such programs eliminate freedom and choice? And if they did notice, how many would care?
The idea that you can obliterate “bad parts” of the brain and preserve the good parts is now embedded in standard science. It is childish, absurd, and dangerous to the extreme.
Brain researchers are, on the whole, disinterested in law. They aim to create a new species for whom no laws will be needed. People will do the right thing, because their upgraded brains tell them to.
Make no mistake about it, the technocrats/social engineers have a plan. They intend to program brains to fit their values-agenda. Whatever opposes that agenda is called a “mental disorder,” which needs to be corrected and erased.
Selling their work as social progress, these self-appointed elites will attempt to shape brain activity so it fulfills a goal of “cooperative impulse.” That means people would never think of their own desires, but instead would “serve the greater need of all.” Automatically.
No contemplation or independent thought necessary. Or required. Or possible.
All present attempts to achieve this goal—peer pressure, legislation, coercion, politically correct language, surveillance, dumbed-down education—are crude stopgaps, and pale by comparison to brain reprogramming.
The holy grail is a brain that can’t consider consequences, or even choices. It merely responds to stimuli along narrow channels.
For example, a clumsy indoctrination program which currently lasts four years in a “progressive” college could be installed in hours.
The enemy of all this is:
Freedom.
Not only laws that protect it, but, more importantly, the understanding of it within the individual BY the individual.
Has it occurred to you that virtually no college in America teaches a course in individual freedom?
When you step back and think about that, you know how far the nation has descended into a morass of “altruistic” derangement.
Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_________________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
3 Bad Shooting Habits That Should Be Broken – TheFireArmGuy
Source: TheFireArmGuy
August 22, 2016
Here are three bad shooting habits that should be broken. They are basic concepts that mean a lot with shooting?
WEBSITE: http://www.thefirearmguy.com
University Of Chicago Accidentally Proved That Gun Control Laws Don’t Work
Criminals don’t follow the law, and they especially do not follow gun control laws.
Source: AmericanPatriotDaily.com
August 4, 2016
The city of Chicago has some of the toughest and strictest gun control laws on the books out of all the major cities in the entire country.
But every day the newspapers and TV stations of Chicago fill the airwaves with devastating reports showing innocent Americans being murdered by criminals carrying guns.
The city is a shining example of how gun control doesn’t stop criminals from obtaining and using guns to commit robbery and murder.
Instead of allowing law abiding Americans the chance to easily acquire a firearm for self-defense, politicians and public officials in Chicago call for harsher anti-gun measures almost daily.
The anti-gun crowd refuses to accept reality and the fact that criminals don’t obey gun control laws. They would rather disarm law abiding citizens who accept and obey the law.
A recent study by the University of Chicago proved this point after conducting a study to figure out how criminals in Chicago were acquiring their firearms.
Not surprisingly, administers of the study quickly learned these criminals do not acquire their guns from licensed dealers, private sellers, or even the Internet.
The study looked at inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who face gun charges or who have a history of firearm related convictions.
They learned zero criminals have used gun shows or the Internet to purchase their weapons.
The reason why? The method is too easily traceable by law enforcement.
Instead, the preferred method for criminals was to purchase firearms available on the streets, where they are harder for law enforcement to track.
Harold Pollack, University of Chicago’s Crime Lab co-director, also said criminals, “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”
Basically, the University of Chicago admits that the city is so dangerous, criminals would rather risk going to jail than not being able to effectively defend themselves.
The study also showed:
“The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.
As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”
Gun rights groups have long claimed universal background checks are nothing more than a step towards a federal registry of all gun owners – which gun rights groups also argue would consequentially lead to outright confiscation of all firearms in America.
So while the anti-gun crowd pushes a purely fictional narrative that background checks stop bad guys from getting guns, the actual statistics and facts say their argument couldn’t be further from the truth.
Hillary: ‘I’m Not Here To Take Away Your Guns’ – But She Will
Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 29, 2016
Hillary Clinton at her DNC speech: “I’m not here to take away your guns” … Hillary Clinton wants you to know one thing about her position on gun control: “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.” She elaborated further on her comments, which she made at her Democratic National Convention speech accepting the presidential nomination: “I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” –Vox
During her acceptance speech, see above, Hillary said she wasn’t going to take away guns in the US, but this is untrue.
She knows just how to do it.
First of all, she will make guns more expensive with new back ground checks.
Second, she will make guns manufacturers liable for selling guns that later are used in crimes.
But that is just the beginning.
Hillary doesn’t actually believe that people in the US should have guns.
In a Fox post HERE entitled, “Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president,” John Lott points out that in an appearance on ABC, Hillary would not say whether citizens had a constitutional right to own guns.
George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”:
“But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”
Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”
Clinton like other gun opponents, believes an overabundance of guns are responsible for the shootings that take place in the US, especially in mass shootings.
But there are many questions about these mass shootings.
David Steele, second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence and former CIA clandestine services case officer, has said this HERE:
“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.”
Such FBI involvement leads one to ask whether there are forces in and behind the US government that are manufacturing violence in order to justify continued anti-gun agitation.
Authoritarian governments and those who back them don’t want people to have guns because without guns, it is much easier to force people to obey. When people are not armed, genocide becomes a more viable and convenient option.
Government killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century. The 21st century may equally bloody, especially if guns continue to be confiscated.
In the US, many citizens have fought back against gun confiscation. But if Hillary wins the presidency, discussions about gun control will become moot.
Guns will be confiscated. Lott explains it this way:
Until 2008, Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban. It was also a felony to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun. In effect, this was a complete ban on guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws.
But the constituency of the Supreme Court is changing. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Bill Clinton appointees. Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Obama as was Elana Kagan.
“If Hillary wins in November, she will appoint [Antonin] Scalia’s successor and the Supreme Court will overturn the Heller decision. Make no mistake about it, gun bans will return.”
Only one more appointee is needed.
Conclusion: Hillary herself will not have to “pull the trigger” on gun confiscations. She will let the Supreme Court do it for her.
TYRANNY REIGNS: Massachusetts Bans Sale Of Modern Sporting Rifles [AR-15s and AK-47s]
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
July 21, 2016
“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”
– Hitler
Massachusetts recently became the next state to infringe upon the people’s rights to self defense.
History has taught us countless times that when tyrants rule, the citizens are disarmed in droves. This, is no different. First, California fell. Now, Massachusetts folded.
Keep in mind, criminals do not obey laws, never have, and never will. The ones who suffer are LAW-ABIDING citizens that follow the rule of law.
Not only that, but this type of law makes victims out of law abiding citizens that wish to defend themselves.
It’s a another very disturbing day for our Nation. The lack of respect for our freedoms is coming home to roost, and this won’t be the end of it if people continue to focus on things that don’t matter and refuse to see the smoke on the horizon.
The video below [by a graduate of the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Center] speaks about this issue.
Media’s Fevered Rhetoric Aimed At Gun Confiscation
Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 9, 2016
The Horrific, Predictable Result Of A Widely Armed Citizenry … The killings in Dallas are one more reminder that guns are central, not accessory, to the American plague of violence … They are central now, when the increased fetishism of guns and carrying guns has made such horrors as last night’s not merely predictable but unsurprising. The one thing we can be sure of, after we have mourned the last massacre, is that there will be another. –The New Yorker
Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker is very upset about people carrying guns. He makes the standard arguments, but the post is unusual for its vituperation.
Gopnik, in fact, has authored a number of shrill, anti-gun articles over the years. But we’ve noticed, generally, that media-based anti-gun arguments are growing louder – as if rising decibel level will make up for lagging logic.
Often when a drastic legislative decision is taken, the mainstream media, or parts of it, seem alerted in advance.
It is speculative, therefore, but not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the current rhetoric is laying the groundwork for yet another legislative or executive confiscatory effort.
Yes, President Barack Obama may want at least one more dysfunctional and ruinous, broad-based executive action to punctuate his term in office.
His party is already cooperating. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has authored a bill banning gun purchases for anyone on Homeland’s no-fly list.
In June after the Orlando attack, President Obama top spokesman said Obama was not ruling out executive actions regarding gun confiscation
“The president has taken substantial executive actions using as much executive authority as he can,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. “I’m not going to rule out additional steps … he’s not going to hesitate to act.”
Obama’s initial statements regarding the Dallas shootings weren’t focused on the shooters but dealt with the weapons themselves.
In media interviews, Hillary Clinton reinforced the point: “We did have an assault-weapons ban for 10 years,” Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “I think it should be reinstated.”
Not long ago, Vox Media writer Dylan Matthews tweeted for President Obama to “unilaterally” remove guns.
“This is not Dems‘ sales pitch but I’m totally down with letting the prez unilaterally ban people (hopefully everyone!) from buying guns,” Mr. Matthews tweeted.
Here’s some more from The New Yorker:
… Weapons empower extremes. Allowing members of any fringe of any movement to get their hands on military weapons guarantees that any normal dispute—political or, for that matter, domestic—can quickly lead to a massacre.
Our guns have outraced our restrictions, but not our imaginations. Sometime in the not-too-distant past, annihilation replaced street theatre and demonstrations as the central possibility of the enraged American imagination.
The article restates the point in several ways, and at one point indicates that those who support concealed-carry rights “guarantee that the murders will continue.”
The article finishes: “The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on? “
Apparently Gopnik has forgotten that governments killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone. Had those people access to weapons, they might have been able to defend themselves.
What’s interesting about the latest New Yorker rhetoric, is that it seems to expand the groups of people who should not be allowed guns to “members of any fringe of any movement.”
Since Homeland Security considers people who believe in the US Constitution to be operating on the “fringe,” this statement may signal an entirely new frontier of potential gun confiscation.
Conclusion: In any event, the media agitation seems to be rising and that may indeed signal that there are more definitive executive or legislative actions on the proverbial horizon.
Sudden Change Strip Veteran’s Access To Medical Marijuana
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
June 29, 2016
A lot of times, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. That was the case with a proposal that would have let doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prescribe medical marijuana to veterans.
It looked like the proposal was close to becoming law, but Congress removed it at the last minute from the VA’s annual budget.
The legislation, which had been sponsored by Oregon lawmakers, had cleared the House and Senate but was axed on June 22 during final closed-door negotiations. Had it passed, the bill would have cleared the way for the VA to recommend medical cannabis to patients in states where it has been legalized.
In a joint statement released June 24, Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Jeff Merkley, both Democrats from Oregon, said it was “outrageous” that the proposal was pulled from the bill.
They added:
“To add insult to injury, the legislation was released in the middle of the night, not even giving members of the House an opportunity to review the language before voting on it.”
House Republicans brought the stripped version of the bill up for vote on the night of June 23 while attention was focused on the Democrats’ sit-in for gun control legislation.
TheBreakAway 