Firearm Owner’s Freedom at the Cross Roads.

Click here to view the original post.

Thoughts For The Week.

Firearm Owner’s Freedom at the Cross Roads.

The NEW ‘NFA’ will impose the worst restrictions on our rights since the 1996 Un informed debacle of John Howard’s implementation of the UN. 23 point Civilian Disarmament Treaty. Yet, we the law abiding firearm owners have never been so well equipped to oppose it, we have over 2 million licenced shooters in Australia, (only 13 million people voted in the 2016 Federal Election) we have the Internet, and Facebook which is our means of communication, a force that is now rivalling and taking precedence over the Foreign controlled mainstream media machine. Also, like the rest of the western world the voters are tired of Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum politics, tired of getting the same result from both mainstream parties. This has caused a fine line with no large majorities in any of the Australian Parliaments.

“There are more people on the waiting list to join the Melbourne Cricket Club than there are rank-and-file members in all Australian political parties put together.” (Cathy Alexander, 18th July 2013.

“There are more members of the SSAA than there are rank and file members in all Australian political parties put together.” Ron Owen

As Party membership has dwindled the mainstream political parties have refused to make their membership figures public, but mainstream media themselves state that in 2013 the Liberal Party had 50,000 and Labor 43,000 and Greens 10,000 which by the 2016 Federal election results showed a further disinterest in the main parties and 22% voted for the minor parties.

So when the membership of our shooting associations which only 1 in 15 join (most remain hunting on rural property) are ‘mountains’ overlooking political parties of ‘mole hill’ proportion, why in a supposedly Constitutional Democracy are we dictated to by an elitist minority. Why do we have to resist and deal with politicians who seek to impose this NFA, National Firearm Agreement. We nor any representative from any shooting discipline, or association agreed, nor were we consulted. While our State and Federal Police Ministers met to unanimously vote to impose, not just a re categorisation of the Adler from A to B. All that was just part of the cover up ‘Flim flam’ creating the media ‘smoke and mirrors’ so it does not enrage the huge voting power of firearm owners.

Read if for yourself, its NOT just a Re Categorisation for the Adler Shotguns it has further impositions.

Find these in the Police Ministers, wish list.


54. Jurisdictions will legislate to allow the sale of ammunition only for those firearms for which the purchaser is licenced, and impose limits on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period.

(This means that all sales will have to be recorded to whom and which licence another register, more public servants more taxes, more impositions)

55. On the purchase of ammunition, the relevant licence must be produced.

(d) the commercial transport of ammunition with firearms is prohibited

” This Agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional, including more restrictive regulations.

Cat A

(c) Shotguns (other than semi-automatic, pump action or lever action)

Cat B

d) Lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds

Cat D.

(c) Semi-automatic, pump action and lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds

20. Heirlooms

(a) Jurisdictions agree that where the owner of an heirloom firearm is unable to establish a genuine reason for possession of that firearm and/or does not qualify for a collector’s licence, jurisdictions may issue the heirloom owner with a special category of licence. The requirements of that heirloom licence must be that:

i. before the licence is issued, the owner provides sufficient proof of inheritance of the heirloom

ii. the licence apply only to a single gun, or a matched pair or set

iii. all heirloom firearms be rendered permanently inoperable

iv. the licence not authorise the discharge of the heirloom firearm or firearms in any circumstance


i. the firearms which are the subject of the collection should be of or above a defined age

ii. firearms in a collection which have been manufactured after 1 January 1946 must be rendered inoperable (whether or not they are otherwise only required to be rendered temporarily inoperable according to paragraph 19(b))

iii. collectors may not possess ammunition for a collection firearm

iv. any attempt to restore firearms in the collection to usable condition should be regarded as a serious offence and subject to severe penalties

v. all operating firearms which are owned by the collector under separate licensing arrangements should be subject to the same level of regulation as any other operating firearm

vi. for the purposes of the collection of Category H firearms, genuine historical collectors must

1. be a member of a state or territory accredited historical firearm collectors society

2 .have their licence application endorsed by an accredited historical firearms collectors society

3. comply with strict storage requirements

4. display a commitment as a student of arms in order to collect or retain post-1946 handguns.

.43. Jurisdictions agree that the issuing of a permit must be subject to a waiting period of at least 28 days to enable appropriate checks to be made on licensees in order to ascertain whether circumstances have occurred since the issuing of the original licence which would render the licensee unsuitable to possess the firearm or which would render the licensee ineligible for that type of firearm.

45. Jurisdictions should consider imposing greater storage requirements where multiple firearms are kept on the same property.

Firearm Owners Association of Australia will be installing these 5 meter long banners on the Bruce Hyw in Gympie, if you can use one in your area they are $250. each

All shooters and all of their families and friends must VOTE AGAINST the National Firearm Agreement.
Contact your local State and Federal MP ask him to move a motion in parliament to oppose the NFA. His response will quickly inform you as to which side he is on. If he will not oppose it tell him you will vote for any other party that will. There are elections coming in Queensland and it has not been through the parliament so cannot be imposed yet. Seek them out, don’t be insulting just tell them that if they vote against law abiding firearm owners they won’t get your vote or you friends and families vote. If they vote for the NFA they will never get your vote in the future. Do not leave it to your association or your membership to a political party, it needs all shoulders to the wheel. Ten minutes on the phone now could save you years of aggravation in the future.

Where does all this anti freedom, anti human rights, anti firearm owners come from?

Please read thoroughly about George Soros and his establishment of the Open Society, and its relationship with Rebecca Peters, Anti Gun Coalition, and Save the ABC and George Sorus investment in Channel Nine, our major Banks and his investments into Australia’s political landscape. Please read Edition Owen Guns Bulletin Dec Special Christmas Edition 127, 2016

“Curiously though since Peters left, the shooting massacres, of the same style, lone gunman, have ceased! And private firearm ownership and number of firearms have doubled. Since Peters has returned to the USA, they have been subjected to the lone gunmen syndrome ever since.”

These days, this international conspiracy is not a theory it is a fact established and accepted by mainstream media such as the Weekend Australian article. “Influence Of George Sorus on Western Politics.


This coming battle at the Cross Roads against the latest NFA impositions on ammunition purchasers and Collectors firearm arms might not be the last battle, but it will the best chance we have to turn firearm legislation around and to create some sort of future for individual freedoms.

6 Guns to Buy Before a Gun Ban or Civil Unrest

Click here to view the original post.

Guns are an issue. They have always been an issue and they will always be an issue. There is always someone out there with the great utopian idea that if we simply take away all the guns we will eliminate all the crime. This idea has been proven to fail for many reasons. And yet […]

The post 6 Guns to Buy Before a Gun Ban or Civil Unrest appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

Thoughts For The Week By Owen Guns.

Click here to view the original post.

Thoughts For The Week.

Well its Anzac Day, it does not seem 5 minutes since last year, again the bands will be playing, politicians will be postulating, young officers (just out of school) will be making speeches and the dignitaries will be accepting the salutes of the veterans as they march past.

I go every year, I don’t enjoy it. It is a duty that I care about. I go to show that I respect the sacrifice of those who paid the ultimate price and to those who are still paying the price. I watch the sloppy drill of the current serving soldiers and silently lament some of the chronic renditions of the Last Post. I hear the croaking, stuttering, silences, when they attempt to sing the National Anthem. No one knows the words, no one knows what the words mean. We show our flag, it’s a symbol but very few know what the symbols on the flag are supposed to mean. Many just think that its like a product banner, like ‘coca cola’ a logo, a familiar badge that they put up and down if someone wins a medal at the Olympics.

I believe the Anzac Day Parade is done all wrong, the Veterans should be on the podium and the whole town, politicians, mayors, councillors, police, teachers, serving officers, should all march past, smartly saluting the Veterans. Show some respect for those who put their individual lives on the line, so that we can live in idle security, and give it all away.

All had some one waiting for them at home. Countless millions never came home.

All the sacrifice, the lives cut short, the loss of whole generations, the loss of whole families, the loss for the mothers, and wives whose lives were lost in grief, for what? Yes, we have been given the best country and richest country in the world, yet our apathy has allowed us to vote for traitorous politicians who beginning with the Lima Agreement in 1974 gave our country away to the international power club. The Wars to End all Wars have never really stopped, yes we have had a continuous flow of little enemies, media created bogy men, with big hats like Castro, Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot, Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong which have destroyed millions of families since World War Two, but the seemingly endless war between the international mainly faceless power brokers and the harmless Mums and Dads of this sorry world goes on, and on relentlessly. What’s more the bad guys keep winning, and we lose more freedoms every day.

Ever since the bad guys have dominated the printing press and television the people have been used and abused, dumbed down and misinformed. Our only hope, the combination of the internets distribution and the mobile phone ability to record and transmit is still only a pin prick to the mainstream media enemy. Australia’s leadership since the first sell out to internationalism, sending our jobs over seas with the Lima Agreement, destroying our manufacturing ability has been magnified by selling our real estate, selling our utilities, Electricity, Phones, Banking, Gas, and even our Water. What’s next the air we breath, or our body parts?

Would those who sacrificed their lives in days gone bye, recognise the slave state we have to-day with the future that they were promised. It seems that all threats are used to enchain and bind the people, if they do not have enough threats local enough, they will import them by mass migration, yes they will flavour it with refugees fleeing from the new holocaust but when Mad Monis, or the Monash University overseas student illegally obtain firearms, that is used as the catalyst to bind the people’s steel chains a little tighter. Bit by bit they import a threat, they even follow the suspects give them bail and wait for them to fuel a media campaign against their real enemy the free thinking freedom loving Australians. That’s us, we are our leaders real enemy. They want power and we are preventing them from having it.

Thesis and Anti Thesis allows them to conqueror with Synthesis.

In two world wars, thousands of Australian and Britons were sacrificed on countless battlefields because we our nation and our Commonwealth was sadly ill-equipped, left without secondary manufacturing industries to quickly re-equip our military forces. In the First World War the bogy men on our doorstep was German New Guinea, in World War Two it was the Japanese. They were not false bogy men.  If they had won, English would not be spoken on the Australian continent, the best they could have expected would have been to be worked to death in a labour camp. Same as today, the Islamic threat, within our borders or without, it is very real. To Islamic believers, we infidels are worth less than any edible animals.

Our government even though it spends $26 billion dollars in an ever increasing defence budget, has destroyed 95% of our manufacturing ability so we have to import all equipment.  This is why our annual defence budget is so high, it has to service our nearly non existent defence force. What’s worse a defence force which cannot re-equip itself.  Our demise will be when Australia is cut off from US and other supplier’s, on the other side of the planet. For our $ 26 Billion in US dollar terms we get 58,000 personal (although by the sound of it 50,000 work in the office). We have an official Reserve of 44000 (but if anyone inspected the turn up at the drill halls they might only ever find a quarter of them, their well intentioned enthusiasm is killed off and put to sleep) We have 59 tanks, 75 towed artillery guns, 47 ships (including patrol boats) 78 attack aircraft. While Singapore with its 5 million people, and its $9 Billion dollar defence budget has 72,000 regular soldiers and 950,000 in the Reserves, 212 Battle tanks, 212 towed artillery, 41 ships (including patrol boats) 119 attack aircraft. Singapore has 6 submarines so does Australia but they have a Merchant Marine strength of 1599 ships.  They can get re-supply, they have a secondary manufacturing industry. We have 7.7 million square kilometers to defend and Singapore only has 697 square kilometres. We have a Merchant marine of 41 ships and they are manned by foreign labour. When we wonder which threat does Singapore face to spend that $9 Billion on defence. Well they have a neighbour close at hand that is militant Islamic and has 255 million people, just to Singapore’s south and just to our North. Indonesia has 476,000 regular soldiers and 400,000 in active reserves, 468 battle tanks (they make their own) and 80 towed artillery, 58 attack aircraft and 221 ships in its fleet. Indonesia only has 2 submarines but it has 1340 ships in its merchant marine. They keep all this and only spend $6 Billion in US dollar terms. They have a manufacturing industry so they can build firearms, they can build tanks and ships and even their own aircraft, it’s a lot cheaper in the long run to do it yourself. Australia could not produce an ice cream making machine, too much government regulation, wage restrictions, dearest electricity in the world, expensive real estate and no chance of competing in the world market that the big power brokers have forced on to us.

I’m sure that America was out this way, on our last day trip.

Why worry about North Korea? As it only spends $3.5Billion in US dollars terms per year and only has 700,000 in its full time defence force and 4.5 million men in reserve. 4200 Battle tanks, 4300 towed Artillery, 528 attach aircraft, its Navel strength is 967 ships. However, its 2400 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems are worrying its close neighbours. The point is when we see what our neighbours are getting for 3.5 Billion dollars and what we get to defend Australia, a continent, we should be worried about the corruption, or worried about the betrayal, or worried about intelligence of our elected leaders who are put forward as being so much smarter than us. They can criticise the quality of North Korean tanks, or Indonesian Artillery, all they want, but Australia with 59 tanks to defend 7. 7 million sq kilometres is a world joke. In World War Two Japan started the war with 2 million men, at the end of the war it was set to field 13 million men, if the USA and Britain had not have been fighting them as well, Australia would not have stood a chance, and our history would have ended in 1943.

So they are again preparing us to be the ill equipped patsies trading the lives of Australian soldiers because we are an easy target, swapping lives because we have no bullets to fire back. Does history keep repeating itself, but even after we lose another generation can we really expect to win out for the third time. That is highly unlikely.

Maybe, they are counting on the 2 million licenced shooters in Australia to be its deterrent and saviour? That is doubtful as our leaders are bent on imposing another disaster on us.

NFA Registering Ammunition Sales.

In most of the other Australian states they have already put the new National Firearms Agreement alterations through the parliament. Queensland is again lucky, it was due to go through the House of Representatives in the first sitting of parliament this year January, it’s the end of April and it still has not been presented to the house. Premier Palaszczuk is keeping it at bay until she is forced to an election as she thinks that when the Nationals, One Nation and Katter Party vote against it that they will win votes on that subject at the election. She has not done her mathematics and does not realise that the worm has turned that the 600,000 shooters in Queensland who are increasing in numbers every year with an increase of applications of 50 % on preceding years. She does not realise that the bad news on world security increases peoples needs for individual security and she is standing in their way of getting it. Premier Palaszczuk has also not understood the new power on the block, facebook and the internet, she underestimates the new media channel. She sees the shooters detriments as the means of her success at the next election. We have to ensure that she is defeated by encouraging all our personal friends and virtual friends plus our family members to get a licence, apply for a PTA get angry and go tell it to your local politician.

We all have to be soldiers of the working day, we are lucky we don’t have to sacrifice our lives yet for our friends and families we only have to get off our chairs and put the shoulder to the wheel to get Labour and the Greens off the benches at the next election. Now, I know that the all parties have betrayed us before, or done nothing, that is no excuse to do nothing in return. Apathy grows like cancer, we have to stand up and be shining examples of Tigers,

“In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man

As modest stillness and humility:

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

Then imitate the action of the tiger.” Henry V. WS.

OR Tell  MPs to VOTE AGAINST the National Firearm Agreement.
You all should know who your local MP representative is and soon with an election coming your going to know who their opposition is. Seek them out, don’t be insulting just tell them that if they vote against law abiding firearm owners they wont get your vote or you friends and families vote. If they vote for the NFA they should not get your vote.

Read if for yourself, its NOT  just a Re Category for the Adler Shotguns its further impoistions.

” This Agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional, including more restrictive regulations.

Cat A

(c) Shotguns (other than semi-automatic, pump action or lever action)

Cat B

d) Lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds

Cat D.

(c) Semi-automatic, pump action and lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds

20. Heirlooms

(a) Jurisdictions agree that where the owner of an heirloom firearm is unable to establish a genuine reason for possession of that firearm and/or does not qualify for a collector’s licence, jurisdictions may issue the heirloom owner with a special category of licence. The requirements of that heirloom licence must be that:

i. before the licence is issued, the owner provides sufficient proof of inheritance of the heirloom

ii. the licence apply only to a single gun, or a matched pair or set

iii. all heirloom firearms be rendered permanently inoperable

iv. the licence not authorise the discharge of the heirloom firearm or firearms in any circumstance


i. the firearms which are the subject of the collection should be of or above a defined age

ii. firearms in a collection which have been manufactured after 1 January 1946 must berendered inoperable (whether or not they are otherwise only required to be rendered temporarily inoperable according to paragraph 19(b))

iii. collectors may not possess ammunition for a collection firearm

iv. any attempt to restore firearms in the collection to usable condition should be regarded as a serious offence and subject to severe penalties

v. all operating firearms which are owned by the collector under separate licensing arrangements should be subject to the same level of regulation as any other operating firearm

vi. for the purposes of the collection of Category H firearms, genuine historical collectors must

1. be a member of a state or territory accredited historical firearm collectors society

2 .have their licence application endorsed by an accredited historical firearms collectors society

3. comply with strict storage requirements

4. display a commitment as a student of arms in order to collect or retain post-1946 handguns.


54. Jurisdictions will legislate to allow the sale of ammunition only for those firearms for which the purchaser is licenced, and impose limits on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period.

(This means that all sales will have to be recorded to whom and which licence another register, more public servants more taxes, more impositions)

55. On the purchase of ammunition, the relevant licence must be produced

(d) the commercial transport of ammunition with firearms is prohibited

.43. Jurisdictions agree that the issuing of a permit must be subject to a waiting period of at least 28 days to enable appropriate checks to be made on licensees in order to ascertain whether circumstances have occurred since the issuing of the original licence which would render the licensee unsuitable to possess the firearm or which would render the licensee ineligible for that type of firearm.

45. Jurisdictions should consider imposing greater storage requirements where multiple firearms are kept on the same property.

All information has to be forwarded to the national information-sharing hub.

We all know who they share the information with.

This ‘national information-sharing hub’ seems separate to Crimtrac which is where all licenced shooters have been recorded with what they own up to date. Incomplete, though it has been, we all know that information from it has leaked to people whose only work choice is robbery under arms.

All the above affects all of us and all those in the community that are worth defending as when the bad people don’t know who owns firearms and who does not, that lack of knowledge protects the whole law abiding community.

One of the reasons why I oppose registration so vigorously is because I know it does not work. I can remember many years ago, I lived in a remote mountain country area, we had road edges with 1500 feet drops on one side. Ben Buckly a pilot, crop duster, fire spotter spotted a windscreen stuck in a tree that had a car attached to it. SES went in found the Voltswagon stuck up in a tree it had come off the road a 1000 feet above and ended up in a tree top. No one could see a body in the mountain bush so it stayed there. Some years later some hunters found human remains down below that point in a dried up creek bed. The local Policeman went it and found that the bones had a broken leg and assumed it could have been the driver from the voltswagon. He bagged and tagged the bones and sent it off to Melbourne to Police Headquarters for identification. I asked him a few years later did they ever find out who the person was. The answer was amusing at the time. He had continued to chase up the results but Police Headquarters had lost the bag somewhere between lost property and the morgue. No one ever knew who he was. Sad that the man, was lost when he went over the edge and then he was lost when he managed to get out of his car to the ground, that’s when more than likely he broke his leg, then he was lost as he waited for rescue after he crawled to the creek. His bones were found but then he was lost again by the Victorian Police. The bit that stuck in my mind, was that if they can lose a bag of human remains, if they can lose a car, how do they hope to retain all the firearm information. Well we know they cannot, but if they lose 1 % or 10 % they can never justify that the information is going to be any use as when they want to recover the information more than likely it will not be available human error will have erased it.

West Australian gun users are calling for tougher laws and communal weapons safes after a spate of gun thefts police are blaming on bikie gangs.

ABC news reported last week that due to guns being stolen from farms. A farmer,  Murray Pederick thinks a better solution would be communal gun safes in towns where they can be overseen by police.

Detectives have recently charged 10 people in connection with firearms thefts from rural properties in the Kojonup and Katanning districts.

Police Minister Michelle Roberts has promised to act.

“Theft of firearms is an incredibly serious issue, I will be raising the issue of facilities to store guns with the Police Commissioner,” she said.

So now again we have that old anti gun push for Communal Armouries where we can only draw them out when we need them.

The article does not explain that as in Queensland when firearm are stolen from licensed shooters the victim is often the one charged not the perpetrator. If the person leaves his key where it can be easily found, if he or she leaves a window open and in Western Australia police are even charging farmers for not locking up the tools that were used to break open the safe. Once they get a conviction then its another feather in the policeman hat and another conviction that they can call a firearm crime and this can be used against all of us.

The responsibility is on the Police we pay a huge amount of taxes to pay them to put away the bad guys. They neglect their duty and blame the victim, what’s worse they prosecute the victim after punishing him by forcing him to have all the security under the sun. As above in WA. CCTV, burglar alarms, safes.

The Police are culpable they prevent us from defending ourselves and refuse to defend or protect us. Then like parasites they still want a bigger pound of our flesh. Once they get huge collective Armouries all the eggs will be in one basket for them and then the terrorists or crims, or invaders will be able to come and take what they want.

In about 1960 when I was twelve, I went to the local Drill hall two nights a week and many Sunday mornings as I had joined the 22nd Cheshire Regiment Army Cadets. I knew nothing, I was always wondering where the other 21 Cheshire Regiments were. I also went to small bore shooting with the small bore club that used the same 25 yard indoor range at the back of the Drill Hall, my whole idea of being in the part time army was for shooting, but wanting to take up every opportunity I shot smallbore competition as the Army never did enough. After about six months I saved up my wages, (as a bicycle order boy) to buy a very second hand .22 BSA target rifle it had been a Martini Cadet that had been converted to.22 by BSA. It had elementary peep sites and it was slightly better then the club Mossberg training rifle that I had started off with. As I could not apply for my firearm certificate to own that .22 rifle, I only had a 10 shilling licence that could allow me to own an air rifle and a .410 shotgun, the BSA had to stay in the Armoury with the club guns. The Armoury was the territorial and army cadet Armoury it was a steal vault in a very strong brick building that had a full time guard. So everyone presumed that it was very safe, that was until a few months went by and the IRA called in on a Saturday night stuck a pistol in the face of the guard got the keys and helped themselves to everything, they must have had a truck. They had taken the Bren Guns the single Vickers Medium machine gun that I was very keen on, they took all the two inch mortars, the Enfield and Webley revolvers. They took all the .303 Lee Enfields No 4s even the one that had been issued to me, at no charge. They took all the ammunition thousands of rounds of 303, the drill practice mortars and the few real ones, .380 ammunition and all of the Small Bore Clubs .22 ammunition and what was much worse, this fairly put me off admitting to having an Irish line of descent for years, they stole my BSA. On the Tuesday night when we turned up for drill I felt disarmed, useless, so did the whole company. We were ‘gobsmacked’, at the thought of the work and labour I had put in to raise the money for my .22 BSA.  I was angry, I would have been pleased to have wiped out half of Ireland on the off chance that they might have remotely once known an IRA man. Angry and yet heartbroken, I can remember marching home that night with a tear in my eye. I was so ashamed about what the IRA had done and that I had lost my rifle.

In the weeks to come when we were re-issued with .303 Lee Enfields we took them home with us. No ammunition or course but rifle and bayonet, boots polished, belt blanco’ed and brass cap badge gleaming I proudly marched to the Bus stop and caught the number 40, then came home the same way. No one ever blinked an eye, all the older territorials and the reserve all took their rifles home. I always wanted to be the one to take home the Bren but was never picked. The message had made its mark, we had the IRA to thank for that the rifles were safer in everyone’s homes. It was un safe to make a target with all those eggs in one basket to carry out the same effect the IRA would have had to rob every one of us. The message is just as clear today, if the government does this the Islamic Bikers Groups, or ISIS equivalent will know just where to tool up. ISIS would not have the good manners to stop the truck and phone the local police, so they could go and let the tied up guard out of the Armoury. He would be dead.

Australia has never ever been under a greater threat than it is today, we can hope that the threat goes away but Australia will never be secure until it has the industry and skill to make its own arms and have them close at hand. Veterans, the few that are left  understand the importance of defence in all of its contexts, so too should we all, we have to defend our rights to self defence. Like when the chips are down its time to stand up, stand up for your mates, your friends and families. Take a part, phone up your local MP.
There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.
Ron Owen

Every Man Should Have A Rifle

Every Man And Woman should take their place at the Sea Shore.

So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,

Seeing visions “over yonder” of the war I know must come.

In the corner – not a vision – but a sign for coming days

Stand a box of ammunition and a rifle in green baize.

And in this, the living present, let the word go through the land,

Every tradesman, clerk and peasant should have these two things at hand.

No – no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss –

In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!

Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,

We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.

While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,

Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!

Henry Lawson :

Australian Self-Defence Laws. Gold Coast police ‘too busy’ to answer domestic violence call for help.

Click here to view the original post.
How often have we heard it said, “you don’t need a gun, we have the police to protect us”. Well of course that is total bullshit, and the government knows it. Not only is it illegal in Australia for anyone to carry ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence, but now in the new “National Firearms Agreement” it states that it is illegal to use a firearm in defence of self and family in a home invasion. 
Our government is our worst enemy, they want us disarmed and defenseless, WHY?

Self Defense Laws in Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Another Australian citizen is attacked and he has no way to defend himself from these thugs using machetes. It is against the law in Australia to carry anything specifically for use in self defence. We are not allowed to carry guns, knives, batons, pepper sprays, or tasers. Women are getting raped & murdered, men are being attacked and killed, but the Australian government will not do anything to help us protect ourselves, not on the streets, and not even in our own homes.

Gun control explored at Clark University program.

Click here to view the original post.

Ms. Schwoerer said firearms were around in England since the late 13th century, but didn’t play an important role in society until the early 1500s, when Henry VIII ramped up production of guns with the hopes of proving his prowess on the battlefield by making war with France. He purchased artillery from elsewhere in Europe and encouraged gunmakers to set up shop in Britain. In addition to bolstering the military, the focus on production eventually put guns in the hands of people “up and down the social scale,” she said.

Guns helped people hunt more effectively, putting more protein on the table. There was an early interest in hunting for sport and protection, but early on, increased access to game meat was a major factor, she said. In a less practical sense, the gun was a novelty and carried with it an aura of power and authority.

States agree on gun control code. AUSTRALIA.

Click here to view the original post.
States agree on gun control code

Date: 26/05/1995
Words: 590



Publication: The Age
Page: 3


The states took a tentative step towards uniform gun laws yesterday when police ministers agreed to establish a national gun-control code on shooter licensing, mail-order sale, safety training and secure storage.

The Federal Government will also further restrict the importation of ammunition and machine pistols. But those attending the Australian Police Ministers Council yesterday left unresolved a national argument on the registration of all guns.

The federal Justice Minister, Mr Kerr, described yesterday’s code decision as “a step towards uniformity”.

He said quick responses to shooting tragedies in different states in recent years had led to ad hoc, potentially conflicting standards. Now ministers had set up a mechanism to take a more considered, long-term view.

Mr Kerr said the latest statistics showed that in 1993, only about 70 of Australia’s 526 firearm deaths involved violent crime.

The planned code was welcomed by Victoria’s Police Minister, Mr McNamara, as the most significant improvement in decades, and one that would remedy Victorian concerns about the effect of more relaxed laws in other states.

“It’s the hoons and lunatics that everyone wants to see firearms removed from,” he said. “We need to look at measures where we can more closely interact with mental health authorities so that we can identify persons who should be prohibited from obtaining firearms.”

The NSW Police Minister, Mr Paul Whelan, did not attend the meeting and is awaiting a briefing. Mr Kerr was confident that NSW and the other absent states, Queensland and the Northern Territory, would agree with the proposals.

While all jurisdictions now follow the principle that firearms be securely stored, the provision was variously interpreted. A Western Australian model is being proposed in which guns must be kept in steel cabinets with separate lockable ammunition storage.

The Victorian Justice Department is to coordinate the development of the code, which will be put before the next Police Ministers’ Council meeting in Tasmania in November.

The Commonwealth’s tightening of imports will outlaw a variety of ammunition, including military ammunition greater than 12.7mm, tracer bullets, armour-piercing and flechette ammunition.

Imports of standard hollow-point and soft-nosed ammunition will still be allowed, but a prohibition on military-style weapons will be extended to pistols configured as semi-automatic machineguns.

The president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, Mr Ted Drane, said there were up to four million licensed shooters who ought to be consulted before changes were made to gun laws.

“We will never have national gun registration because that would mean that too many people (politicians) would lose their seats if they did in places like Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania,” he said.

A spokesman said Victoria’s chief commissioner of police, Mr Neil Comrie, said he supported uniform gun laws.


Recognition of licensing, perhaps with a categorisation system.

Control of mail order firearm sales.

Firearm safety training standards.

Pistol registration methods.

Secure storage standards.

Regulations governing types of ammunition are to be tightened.

Is the Australian Government a registered Corporation in the USA?!

Click here to view the original post.
Is the Australian Government a registered corporation? As I understand it, and I must admit that I am not in any way legally minded or very knowledgeable in regards to politics, the idea of a corporation is to make money for it’s investors. Now Australian citizens are not investors in a monetary sense IF the Australian Government is a corporation. So, we can’t earn any dividends from this corporation, but it is in the interest of the corporation NOT to spend money unless it can also make money.
Funding cuts to public services are obviously making money for someone, but certainly not us. Money spent of firearms registration comes out of our pockets, and again is not for our benefit. Money spent on gun control and gun confiscation is again payed for from our taxes, but again does not benefit us in any way or form. We work all our lives, and part of the deal was that we get a pension when we retire, but again, pensions have been cut and the retirement age extended! All this is putting money into the government coffers, but we the law abiding citizens are not receiving any benefits.
So, can anyone throw any light on this Australian government corporation thing? Is it fact or fiction? Is the Australian government a USA registered corporation?

These Survival Guns Are Immortal

Click here to view the original post.

Many working handguns, rifles, and shotguns are also classics. Although they are old, even those that aren’t in working condition can be repaired and used for shooting.

Being able to recognize which classic guns can be restored is an important skill for preppers. Even though you may have confidence in the guns you own now, it never hurts to know how to use and repair older guns that rely on simpler technologies.

How Old is Too Old?

For serviceable and dependable weapons, I would go no earlier than WW I. Most of these weapons are still in use by collectors and shooters alike. Some of these weapons are classics and set design standards.

Since these weapons have been popular for a long time, spare parts and other accessories are easier to obtain.

Advantages of Military Surplus Weapons

Military surplus is one of the best places to get good quality firearms. All of these weapons were designed for heavy military service and should be dependable under all shooting conditions. Most of these firearms are well over 75 years old or more.

In addition, many of these weapons can be reworked into good to excellent hunting rifles for less cost than a newer model.

Since millions of military grade weapons were produced along with large quantities of ammunition, you can find them in many surplus stores. In the past you could buy these weapons at a cheaper price, but with today’s higher supply and demand, they are more expensive.

Law Enforcement Surplus “Turn-in” Revolvers

Over the last 20 years or so, law enforcement agencies have changed from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. These revolvers are usually in good to excellent conditions with good grips and little or no holster wear. Mechanically, many of these revolvers also tend to have very little use.

As with any other second hand gun, you will still need to check it over for signs of internal wear. Surplus law enforcement revolvers are usually low cost and an excellent deal for the collector or shooter.

Click here to get your Green Beret’s Guide To Combat Shooting Mastery & Active Shooter Defense!

A Few Classic Guns to Consider

Revolvers and Pistols


S&W Model 10 revolver DA/SA in .38 Special is made of blued steel, with either a 4 inch heavy or standard barrel, and black finger groove rubber or wood grips.

S&W Model 64 revolver DA/SA is a .38 Special made in stainless steel, with a 4 inch heavy barrel, and black finger groove rubber grips.



In the 1950s this pistol was produced in Czechoslovakia for their military. The CZ-52 fires the very fast and devastating 7.62x25mm Tokarev round. This pistol was finally replaced by the CZ-82 in the 1980s which fires the 9x18mm Russian service round. As a result of this change in pistols there was a large surplus of CZ-52s and a large quantity of 7.62x25mm ammunition at very cheap prices.

The CZ-52 is of interest, in part because of its unusual recoil system. Instead of having a fully gas operated system that’s prone to failure, this gun is the only one that has a pure roller-locked system.

The roller lock on this Czech pistol is composed simply of the barrel, two rollers, and a locking cam. When not firing, the recoil spring compresses the cam which pushes the rollers outwards into the slide.

When the round is fired, the recoil opens the cam and the pressure further extends the rollers out of the detent and allows the slide to travel. At the end of the arc, the recoil spring snaps the slide forward again and the rollers are cammed back out to hold it locked.

Even in a 33-ounce gun, the fast little bottle necked round still produces a good bit of felt recoil and a muzzle blast that is sure to scare away bystanders on both ends of the gun. If you don’t mind the trade-off of heavy recoil for reduced risk of failure, this gun will work for you.

Video first seen on Gunnut357mag

TT-33 Tokarev

This pistol was a replacement for the old Russian Nagant M1895 revolvers.

It is a semi-automatic pistol that fires the 7.62x25mm Tokarev cartridge.

This cartridge was based on the 7.63x25mm Mauser cartridge that was used in the Mauser C96 Broom Handle Pistol.

The 7.62x25mm cartridge is very powerful with a very flat trajectory. This round will penetrate thick clothing or soft body armor.

Externally, the TT-33 Tokarev is similar to John Browning’s 1903 semi-automatic pistol. Internally it uses the Browning’s short recoil tilting barrel system of the 1911 pistol.

This pistol uses a much simpler hammer sear assembly than the 1911. The assembly can be removed as a modular unit. This unit also included machined magazine feed lips to prevent ammunition misfeeds due to broken magazines loaded into the gun.

The Russians were always looking for ways to make production easier. Their most notable was the simplifications on the barrel locking lugs which allowed for fewer machining steps.

Some TT-33 Tokarevs used a captive recoil spring secured to the guide rod which depended on the barrel bushing to hold it under tension.

These pistols are very heavy duty and will give you years of good service. The ammunition is cheap and plentiful. Like most Russian firearms they were designed for simplicity and to be used by poorly educated individuals.

1911 or 1911-A1 Semi-automatic Pistols

The 1911 or 1911-A1 semi-automatic pistol is the gold standard that all others semi-automatic pistols are judged by. It was designed by John Browning, who is best known for his designs featuring the short recoil principle; which he added to the 1911 basic design.

The pistol was widely copied and the short recoil system was used in nearly all centerfire pistols designs thereafter. The 1911 was a modern handgun replacement for the older revolver handguns carried by the US Armed Forces.

Since this pistol design has been in use for over 100 years, it has withstood the test of time. This pistol has always been, large, heavy framed, rugged, and built to last.

The 1911 is a single action semi-automatic that is magazine fed. This pistol was originally chambered in the .45 ACP cartridge. The US produced over 2.7 million M1911 and 1911-A1 pistols in military contracts during its service life.

In October 1986 the M1911 and M1911-A1 were replaced with the 9mm Beretta M9 pistol as the US Armed Forces sidearm.

During the 1980s and 1990s a lot of surplus 1911-A1 .45 caliber semi-automatic pistols were imported back into the US. Most of these pistols were given to our allies under the Lend-Lease Treaties that started in World War II.

The pistols are in good shape and bought by collectors and shooters. The pistols are a good bargain with their low prices, plenty of spare parts, and cheap surplus ammunition. As a cheap platform to build your own custom .45 pistol, it can’t be beat.


There are two types of rifles in surplus rifle marketplace. The fist is the bolt action and the other is the semi-automatic.

Bolt action

Mauser 1898

When the Mauser 1898 was introduced it was the most advanced bolt action rifle ever produced. This is the bolt action rifle that set the standards that all other bolt action rifles must be measured against.

There have been many variants of this rifle with the best known as the Mauser 98k used in World War I and World War II.

The early 1898 Mauser rifles shot the 7x57mm cartridge. This cartridge is a good hunting round for medium sized game like deer, hogs, and small bear. With the 98k, the ammunition was upgraded to 8x57mm. This is a more powerful cartridge for hunting medium sized game than the 7x57mm.

Many of the old 98k rifles have been reworked to different calibers such as the .30-06. They have also been reworked to accommodate big game cartridges like the .416 Rigby; which is used to hunt elephants and Rhinos.

Surplus FMJ bullet loads in 7x57mm and 8x57mm are usually corrosive primed and cheaper than commercial ammunition. This surplus ammunition can usually shoot 3 inch to 4 inch groups at 100 yards. This is not match accuracy, but it is good enough for plinking or training.

1903 Springfield

The 1903 Springfield used so many of the 1898 Mauser new design features that the American government had to pay Mauser for royalties for patent infringement.

The 1903 Springfield, like the Mausers, were very successful rifles used in time of war. The Springfield rifle was very accurate with the .30-06 Springfield cartridge and could hit targets at long ranges. This is the reason they were still used as sniper weapons in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.

The 1903 Springfield’s long history of great accuracy makes it popular with hunters and target shooters alike. It is ideal for hunting all of the medium to large game animals in America. The biggest problem you will face is obtaining a surplus 1903 rifle because the cost is high due to demand.


This rifle is the most reasonably priced bolt action rifles you can buy in military surplus. The rifle was used by the Russian soldiers during WWI and WWII, and other communist forces in Third World Countries during the Cold War.

The Mosin-Nagant is chambered in the 7.62x54mmR cartridge. This round is known for it’s hard kicking recoil and cheap price.

Buyer beware! Most of this surplus ammunition is corrosive and the rifle must be thoroughly cleaned after each use. Good hunting ammunition is available in the US, making this rifle a good budget hunting weapon.

Video first seen on hickok45

.303 Lee-Enfield

The .303 Lee-Enfield rifle saw military service from 1895 to 1957. It was one of the most successful bolt action rifles of all times. This rifle was commonly used by the British Empire around the world in British conflicts.

The .303 Lee-Enfield is a great military surplus rifle and a budget friendly for those in need of a hunting gun. It has good accuracy when chambered in the .303 British cartridge. You can hunt deer, moose, bear, and other big game animals in the US and Canada with this gun.


M1 Carbine

The M1 Carbine was manufactured by the millions in World War II. Later on, it found it’s way into the surplus marketplace where they were bought by shooters and gun collectors.

Although it shoots the under powered .30 Caliber Carbine cartridges, it is still a good personal defense weapon.

This carbine is very popular because it’s lightweight, easy to shoot, and has a mild recoil. Overall, it is a good weapon for small framed individuals to shoot and carry.

For deer hunting I feel that the M1 Carbine is too under-powered to kill deer humanely, even at close range with HP or SP ammunition. It would be better to use it to hunt hogs, small game, or varmints.


The SKS was originally a Russian semi-automatic rifle that fired the 7.62x39mm cartridge. It was there first line battle rifle until it was replaced by the select fire AK-47. The SKS was manufactured by several Russian allied countries or sold to Russian allies throughout the world.

The SKS is very dependable, reliable, and shoots more accurately than the AK-47, but is not as rugged. The price on an SKS depends on country of origin, condition of the SKS, type of receiver (milled or stamped), and the number of rifles produced there.

Although I would not choose the SKS as a deer rifle, it does have it’s uses as a varmint, plinking, or self-defense rifle.

As a surplus self-defense rifle, it would also be a good choice. It is light, rugged, quick shooting, and fires a cartridge that will stop a man quickly and easily. Surplus ammunition is cheap and plentiful.

The M1 Garand

The M1 Garand was the best semi-automatic battle rifle in World War II. Its 8 round en bloc clip was way ahead of the standard bolt action rifles used by enemy forces in World War II and Korean War. This rifle gave the US soldiers a strong advantage on the battlefield.

Aside from being able to lay down a large amount of fire power it is a very accurate rifle. This rifle has good sights, and an outstanding trigger. This enables a good shooter to accurately shoot at ranges of 100 to 1000 yards.

Though some say the M1 Garand has a heavy recoil., it is still one of the most popular military surplus rifles used by shooters and hunters alike in the US. The Civilian Marksmanship Program still sells shootable M1 Garands at a fair price to US citizens that meet the CMP requirements.


12 Ga. shotguns were used by the US Military from World War I to present day. These weapons can lay down a lot of buckshot quickly and effectively. They are excellent weapons for close quarter fighting, fighting in trenches, and jungle warfare.

The following are excellent shotguns to buy in the surplus marketplace. They are wanted by shooters and collectors alike. They are a good value, and if you take care of these guns, they will last a life time.

Winchester Model 1897 Trench Gun

Is a 12 Ga. pump action exposed hammer shotgun with a 18 inch heat shielded barrel. It was in military service starting in World War I through the Korean War.

Winchester Model 1912 Trench Gun

Was a 12 Ga. pump action hammerless shotgun with a 18 inch heat shielded barrel. It was in military service from World war I through Vietnam.

When it comes to old, classic, and immortal guns, there are some that have already withstood the test of time and are worthy of consideration. As a prepper, you can save some money by focusing on these weapons without sacrificing utility and durability.

Remember that a personal defense weapon should be something you feel comfortable carrying at all times.

Learn from the experts the secrets of self-defense! Click the banner below to grab your guide!

This article has been written by Fred Tyrell for Survivopedia.

Further reading:

Criminal incompetence: police & firearms

Click here to view the original post.
In 2010, the details of thousands of NSW firearms owners were downloaded on to the unsecured police intranet, available to general duties police officers, civilian volunteers and anyone else with access to the police intranet. Subsequently, there was a string of targeted thefts of firearms.

In a number of cases the thieves came equipped with cutting equipment and trolleys, removing the gun safe but not stealing other valuables in the house) gave shooters grave concern that the data had leaked to criminals. This gross breach of privacy remains un-remedied, with police instead claiming “there is no evidence to show there was a breach”…as if nobody could have copy/pasted on to a flash drive, or just printed a copy and taken it home. Sheer bloody-minded arrogance.

EU : You cannot stop terrorism by restricting legal gun ownership.

Click here to view the original post.

“New” National Firearms Agreement.

Click here to view the original post.
I think the main purpose of this new national firearms agreement & indeed most of the past laws & legislation, is simply to make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase & own a firearm. Now you need to ask yourself WHY would the government want to STOP us from owning a gun? What advantage is there to society in making it difficult for law abiding citizens to possess a firearm? 

Jackie Trad MP Lying To The public to score points & make a name for herself.

Click here to view the original post.
The Shooters Union has accused deputy Premier Jackie Trad of using the tragedy of the Lindt Café siege to score political points against the LNP and to target law-abiding firearm owners.

Australian Firearms Laws. Now it matters what a gun looks like!!!!!

Click here to view the original post.
This is a bolt action rifle, not a semi-automatic & not a full automatic. This rifle operates just the same as my BRNO model 2 .22 LR. It just looks different.

TASMANIA Police has released a new document clarifying the prohibition of certain guns based on military-style appearances.

The Firearms Categorisation Guidelines, which were finalised on Thursday, add weight to a clause in the state’s Firearms Act that states that any firearms which substantially duplicate a machine gun or submachine gun cannot be given a licence.

What difference is this going to make to law enforcement officers? How is this supposed to increase public safety? What is the purpose of this new legislation? More tax payer’s money wasted!!!

Clever Californians Discover Way To Get Around New Gun Ban

Click here to view the original post.

Clever Californians Discover Way To Get Around New Gun Ban

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Enterprising gunsmiths already have figured out how to get around California’s new gun control law that bans “bullet button” rifles.

When the law was signed last year, Darin Prince, the inventor of the original bullet button, said he had come up with a workaround he called the Patriot Mag Release, Vice reported. He also called it “bullet button reloaded.” Others quickly copied Prince’s idea and their inventions are now sold online.

The new workaround became necessary when California Gov. Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1664, which banned so-called assault weapons that have bullet buttons.

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

“We have had the Patriot Mag Release in the wings for many years, and it has a full utility patent (United States Patent and Trademark Office – Patent # 9,182,186),” Prince wrote on Facebook. “This new Patriot Mag Release system will allow you to only drop the magazine on a rifle when the action has been disassembled. Complying with both bills signed.”

Story continues below video

Despite Prince’s assurances, it is not fully clear if the Patriot Mag Release is legal in California, Vice noted. Incoming California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has not released an opinion on whether the new devices are legal.

What do you think? Would you buy such a workaround if you lived in California? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns. Read More Here.

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen of Owen Guns Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

Thoughts For The Week.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Last year, I mentioned that Almanacs were traditionally obtained for a New Year and predicted future annual events, foretelling tides, by the movement of the moon and stars, they also used the stars prophesying peoples horoscopes. In centuries gone by they were written by Old Moore, or Poor Richard, Pseudonym for Benjamin Franklin and some were ascribed to Father Time himself.  I’m not that old, but I did foretell in the 1980’s the coming tyranny of obscene gun laws and won the reputation as the Doomsayer of the firearm industry, until in 1996 it unfortunately all came true. For the preceding 16 years I wrote articles in Lock, Stock and Barrel warning, alerting, organising, trying to mobilise opposition to the forays from UN Civilian Disarmament, Academics such as Prof Paul Wilson (creep)and Rebecca Peters (creep ) and the media all funded by Sorus’ foundations. So for less than a penny here is Ron Owen’s Almanac for 2017.


Well first the bad news, as the new President Trump does the correct thing for America and tear’s up the international trade agreements, the USA economy and markets will gain considerably and as he spends more on defence, again their economy will grow, so to will the US dollar but in doing so will force the Australian dollar down.  Australia needs to follow suit to boost our economy.  Our pudding headed bunch of internationalist leaders, still think that a low Australian dollar is good for our economy, and will keep importing cheap labour from abroad and buying all manufactured goods off shore, which in turn drives our dollar down further and our international debt  grows immensely, again sending our credit rating and dollar into the deep south. As we import all our shooting equipment and accessories which have to be paid in foreign exchange rates, prices will continue to increase. Only when our dopy leaders read a history book and see how our leaders of a 100 years ago such as Henry Parkes and Good Iron Mac, (William McMillen) established a workable solution to further our economy without interfering in the exchange rate will they understand.  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT   “Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties. Sub Section 90. On the imposition of uniform duties of customs the power of the Parliament to impose duties of customs and of excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods, shall become exclusive.”

This economic philosophy was carried through by PM Andrew Fisher (Member for Gympie) and King Of Mally MP who founded the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1912 this made the Commonwealth Bank a bank of credit issue. This was very successful as it saved the Federal government from borrowing from the international owned banks and paying all revenue off the interest bill which is the way it works today. The Commonwealth Bank was gutted by the Bruce Page government in the early 1920s and we have been fleeced by the Big banks ever since. They even own the Commonwealth Bank now. Still the Australian governments of the 1920s till the 1960s built Australia’s industry and standard of living to be one of the highest in the world by imposing tariffs on imports and paying the revenue from that to exporters. That took the foreign exchange problem out of the equation. Our exporters could afford to supply the best prices in the world, and the high tariffs protected home industry and encouraged companies such as Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Lysaght, and Kraft to locate in Australia and export to Asia from here. Until, that is regained our economy will continue to slide into a third world quarry.

Defence, Non Existent.
Most of us who are reading and thinking people, are aware that our northern neighbours are countries that need our natural resources, yet do not need our small western population. Our defence forces are weak, almost non-existent, even though our dopy politicians throw billions of our taxpayer dollars into importing high price defence equipment which is sometimes obsolete by the time we get it. Common-sense should tell us that countries that spend big on defence research and development are going to make sure that their country has the latest and greatest and overseas sales to places like Australia are to keep the productions and factories running with second rate products. If Australia experiences a problem, because we have no quantity of ships or planes our small continent would be isolated and we could not get replacements, ammunition, or spare parts to continue. At any time the tiny island of Singapore could invade us and hold us, they might be the best option as they would be less likely to eliminates us all, as some of our other Northern neighbours would surely do.

Australia sleeps again, and again it will be left up to the little guys to save us from the mistakes of our sleeping leaders.

Our Industry.
This year again, there will be an increasing amount of Australians (more and more ladies) will buy hunting rifles, shotguns and target rifle without mentioning the real reason for their new interest in the sport of shooting, survival and defending their families. They will all enjoy our shooting sports, but all will want to keep their firearms close by. This phenomena has to be encouraged, without exposing the reason as again these new shooters increase our numbers. When they appreciate the impositions we live under, this will bring even more power to our cause, not only in our voting power but in forming networks to shape the future. We will have to sustain some small losses to win a victory, but this year as international troubles increase so to will our numbers increase, we are in the third final stage of our campaign to win back our rights. In 2016 the worm turned in the world, populations have discovered that the mainstream media has been lying to them for years, internet media now has greater credibility than mainstream, internet media is quicker and has the eyes on the spot, the mainstream takes the government, or Sorus funded approach and then quickly has to correct and make excuses. This will continue as the establishment has had the media power for so long that they have not yet accepted the plain fact that its credibility is blown. We have seen its destructive effects on One Nation, on the firearm industry, on Brexit and the latest example on Trump. It’s not working and this coming year the success of the past will form the foundation of the future. Youtube, Wikki leaks, Facebook Twitter will be our victory battle ground.

Protest Against G Soros intervention in Macedonia.
The Worm Has Turned.
The whole western world is currently in peaceful revolt.  2017 will be the end of one world and the birth of another, last year was the year for the awakening of the people, this year will see the return of nation states. Since our enemies have only one advantage, mainstream media power and their shortcomings are numbered and we have only one disadvantage no mainstream media outlets and our only advantage is power in numbers, in the past this has resulted in putting the Anti Gun people in a dominating position, now we know that the battle ground has to be fought with the internet media tools, or we will always be in this inferior position of Subjugation (Slavery by another name).  We have to be involved, ‘If we do nothing, we may well lose everything.’

On the world front after President Trump tears up the Trade agreements which have betrayed the western world since they were duped into the Lima Agreement. The UN having lost Israel and hopefully soon the USA, (Please read my recent article on the United Nations ) then followed by Australia and every other free thinking western nation. Even though China has claimed an area as large as the Japanese Empire’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of 1938 we can only hope that it does not have Japans willingness to shed millions of lives to enforce it. The boundary encompasses all of the major shipping lanes in the Asia Pacific and its southern border takes in the offshore oil reserves of Brunei. If President Trump really wants to clip China’s feathers and defend the interests of the Philippines that might be why he is so obvious in holding out the olive branch to Mr Putin as even Trump would not want to go to war with both of them at once. Of course we in Australia might serve as a large US non floating aircraft carrier like in WWII, but as our reduced capacity to defend ourselves makes us in-effectual, we may end up being the meat in the sandwich. Either the Chinese, or the Americans will drive their tanks here, or make it their battleground as no country would want to have it out in their own country. If we have a problem with China, besides having no Australian factories making toilet paper, which is another reason why Bibles would sell at a premium, China makes our army uniforms and our vehicles would come to a standstill with no car parts. ADI (Australia Defence Industries, owned by ‘Thales’ a French company) annual ammunition production would be shot away on the first day.  Current US army figures assess 300,000 rounds of .223 ammunition for each enemy killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even four government factories in the USA could not cope and the US Army had to order from IMI Israeli Military Industries. The message there is to keep a good stock of ammunition, and always have the means of reloading at hand. As one of Australia’s 2 million firearm owners you are the ‘Citizen Army’ Australia’s only deterrent and real hope.

On the State and National front its not as gloomy, due to 22 % of voters at last years Federal Election voting against the Major Parties, the Orange By Election when the Shooters Party took a Blue Ribbon seat off the National Party, Brexit Results, Trump Results have caused large cracks to appear in the hearts of the major parties. Nationals senators Bridget McKenzie and John Williams voted with Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm in an attempt to overturn the Turnbull government’s import ban on the Adler lever action shotgun.  Cabinet ministers Fiona Nash, Matt Canavan and Nigel Scullion abstained from the vote, along with backbencher Barry O’Sullivan.

Labour Police Minister Bill Byrne was sacked because he lost the first parliamentary vote on more restrictive changes to the Weapons Act Regulations. This was ground breaking as for twenty years Nationals and Liberals have voted with Labour to pile on further impositions on law abiding firearm owners.  With the Katter Party’s two votes, Labour lost the resolution, the first time in living memory that a Queensland government lost. At the COAG meeting the National Firearm Agreement decided to re-categorise Lever Action shotguns from Category A to Category B for five shots and to category C for seven shots.  I believe that this regulation change to the Weapons Regulations (Categories) which will come up early in 2017 will also fail. If LNP with Katter’s Party, and the One Nation member vote against it, (which Katter’s party have announced and LNP seem to agree) then Labour will lose another resolution in the house and to support the COAG and the National Firearm Agreement (which is supposed to be uniform in every state, or fails) the Labour Premier Palaszczuk will have to go to the Governor and call an election. This alone should ensure that the LNP opposes the Lever Action re categorisation, but if its does not and instead it votes with Labour on this subject, then the firearm owners, incensed by this repeated betrayal will walk away in droves from the LNP into the welcoming arms of One Nation. Shooters are fully aware that if it is allowed to stand, that without any justification the government can change the category of lever action rifles from Category A to category C then there is no bottom, no promise after struggling to get a licence, struggling to get a Permit To Acquire, having to suffer every indignant imposition and that’s not enough to be left alone, is the straw that will break the camel back.

At present Labour could not win a chook raffle, but at the coming Queensland election, One Nation or a coalition of One Nation and LNP and Katter party will govern this state. Labour will shortly make and offer to the Shooting Associations a proposal to try and get them to support the Category change on the hope that this will smooth the LNP to vote with them. The deal will be that everyone with a registered 5 shot lever action shotgun will be awarded a new licence which will include a Category ‘B’ and everyone with a 7 shot lever action will be given a licence which will include a “C” so all will be able to keep them.  Unfortunately they will be unable to sell them, or dispose of them and will not be able to pass them on to their family even when they die.  Only a dealer will be able to acquire them, but would be unable to resell them, making them worthless.  That has always been referred to as a Grandfather Act and leaves the law abiding shooter with property that he can shoot but has lost all its value. All this is an unwanted precedent which they can repeat whenever the urge suits COAG or any of its member states so it must be opposed.

So too is his Un-informed Gun Laws. Its take 20 year but I hope he still lives to see them thrown out.

My best prophecy for 2017 is that One Nation will take out that line in its current policy,  “Current gun laws are adequate and should remain unchanged.”
If it does not it will not get very far as it traditionally relies on shooters to man booths and hand out for them on election day. This will force the LNP in Queensland and the Nationals in NSW and Victoria to change its firearm policy and begin the walk back to freedom. Still a long way off, but due to our increased number of voters and internet media, the ‘Writing is truly on the Wall’ we are ‘defiantly’ in phase three.

To give an example of how to get involved please write to your local papers, letter to the editor, ask candidate either individually or separately  ‘how they will represent the law abiding firearm owners’, ask them in person or on face-book, or email or snail mail. If the 10,000 shooters who received this email all contacted one candidate and just told them that ‘without some evidence of them supporting shooters, they and their families will not vote for them’, that would be enough to change the direction of the politicians. Trouble is, just a few of us have to carry the burden and work harder for those who do nothing, but there again when we win, even though we might never murmur a word we know that the glory belongs to those who worked for it.

Please don’t take this final third stage of our prolonged war, too lightly as this part might be the hardest part, as when we get them all elected and in power, we then have to ensure that they carry out the instructions of those whom they represent and not betray us like the Liberal and National Party did in 1996. Remember Lots of Little Victories lead to Giant Victories.


There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.

Illegal Use Of Firearms. Law abiding licensed gun owners NOT TO BLAME!!!

Click here to view the original post.
MACHINE guns that can fire 1000 rounds a minute with pinpoint accuracy have infiltrated Victoria with the help of the owner of US weapons company, a court has heard.
Police say at least eight Thureon AR-15 assault rifles remain in the community after others were found in the hands of dangerous criminals involved in armed robberies and drug trafficking.
A former gun trader turned black-market importer has pleaded guilty before a Melbourne Magistrate to smuggling the guns into Australia.

Paul Munro, 63, has admitted to meeting the owner of Thureon Defense, Andy Huebschmann, who helped him conceal and export the weapons from the US.
Victoria Police Detective Senior Constable Paul Jones said the machine guns first surfaced in Caroline Springs in April 2014.
Armed Crime Squad detectives seized another on Williamstown in February 2015, and a third in Rockbank in January last year.
“That firearm in its fully automatic state is capable of firing 1000 rounds per minute. It’s accurate to ranges in excess of 100 metres.
“The fact that the firearms … have ended up in the hands of criminal elements linked with organised crime is a serious concern to the community,” Sen-Const. Jones said during an August 31 bail application for Munro.
The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard Munro met Huebschmann at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in early 2013, later arranging to buy six assault rifles.
In 2015 Munro bought six more, giving Huebschmann a container of car parts fitted with a concealed compartment to ship the weapons from Winsconsin to California, then on to Australia.
Sen-Const. Jones said the weapons imported in 2015 were made without any branding or other markings after Munro told Thureon Victorian criminals had been arrested with the guns.
The court heard Huebschmann fingered Munro to US authorities after admitting to the illegal export of the rifles in June last year.
Munro was arrested in possession of an assault rifle in Clifton Springs in August, after negotiating to sell five assault rifles and 10 handguns for $110,000 to an undercover officer.
“The accused has imported at least 12 Thureon assault rifles and other firearms. Police have only recovered four of the weapons, leaving at least 8 outstanding in the community,” Sen-Const. Jones said.
Victoria Police have confirmed to the Herald Sun the frightening weapons are still on the loose.
The court heard Munro, of Koraleigh, near the Victorian-NSW border, had a previous licence to sell guns, which was revoked in 2012.
He has seven convictions for breaching NSW gun laws, Sen-Const. Jones said.
Munro has pleaded guilty to several counts of importing illegal firearms and will face a plea hearing in the County Court on April 7.

Surprise! Police Support Gun Rights Even MORE Than Americans Do, Poll Finds

Click here to view the original post.
Surprise! Police Support Gun Rights, Survey Says

Image source:

WASHINGTON — Cops are more supportive of Second Amendment rights and more opposed to gun control than average Americans are, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center.

Pew’s “Behind the Badge” survey on police and public views was released Jan. 11 and found that the majority of law enforcement officers strongly support the Second Amendment, with 74 percent saying it is more important to protect the rights of citizen to own guns than it is to control gun ownership. Among the general population, only 53 percent support gun rights over gun control.

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

Police even support the rights of Americans to own so-called assault rifles, with only 32 percent favoring a ban on them, compared to 64 percent of Americans who answered that way.

The survey did find that police favor some gun control measures. A full 95 percent of police support laws preventing the mentally ill from purchasing guns, and 88 percent favor background checks on people who buy firearms at gun shows or from individuals. Those numbers are similar to the beliefs of the general public.

On the question of whether a national database should be created to track gun sales, 61 percent of police and 71 percent of the general public support such an idea.

What is your reaction to police mostly backing gun rights? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns For Home Defense. Read More Here.

Firearms Legislation Proposals 2017 and In The News.

Click here to view the original post.  (Why would the courts & government do this do you think?!)

I can understand the need to stop illegal imports of firearms, & I can understand the need to stop the Black Market sales of firearms, but what I DO NOT understand is WHY the government is so determined to disarm law abiding Australian citizens. This to my suggests that for some reason they are afraid of us. So what are they planning that should require them to disarm us? Slowly but surely, through legislation without consultation or referendum, the government has been taking away our rights & freedoms. Gun violence by criminals & terrorists is being used against us, used as an excuse to legislate more restrictions on the public. Homes can be entered without any requirement to show just cause. Firearms confiscated. Protesters can be arrested & imprisoned. Does this sound like a democratic society to you? Where is all this going? Do the majority of Australians know this is happening & simply not care (she’ll be right mate!)?
 Gun control is NOT about public safety, it is about controlling the people, controlling law abiding citizens. Police officers come into my home to inspect my firearms safe keeping, but all the time they are assuming that I am guilty of some crime until I am proved to be innocent. They are looking for any excuse to charge me with a crime. I have been accused of not registering guns, guns that are antiques & do not require registration in NSW, & it is I who have to foot the bill, I have the expense of having to defend my rights as a law abiding citizen.
The local police have informed me that I have no right to use a firearm to defend myself or my family unless I have first been shot! The police can not protect me or my family!

I pose a question to anyone out there with a knowledge of the law: Why do I have to lock my gun away in a gun safe when I am at home, & yet not have to lock my gun in a gun safe when I am away from home hunting for several days? What is the difference? In both cases I am physically there in charge of the firearm.

Californians Rush To Buy Guns Before Ban Takes Effect

Click here to view the original post.
Californians Rush To Buy Guns Before Ban Takes Effect

Gun Store / Flickr Creative Commons

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Sales of semiautomatic rifles have doubled and sales of handguns have spiked 40 percent in the Golden State ahead of a strict gun control law that will take effect Jan. 1.

Californians will not be able to buy certain weapons, including popular styles of the AR-15, after Dec. 31. The new state law will bans rifles with “bullet buttons.”

Another law that will go into effect bans magazines with more than 10 rounds. It also requires background checks for ammunition purchases.

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

The last day someone can buy an AR-15 because of California’s 10-day waiting period is Dec. 21, according to a memo from the state’s Bureau of Firearms.

Story continues below video

“Do I need the weapon I just purchased? No. Did I purchase it anyway? Yes. That’s the bottom line: They took the choice away from responsible adults,” one man told Fox News.

Apparently, strict gun control measures are very good for business.

What is your reaction? Share it in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns For Home Defense. Read More Here.

How To Identify A Presumptive Shooter

Click here to view the original post.


Actual shooting scenarios are nothing like what you see on TV or in the movies.

In most cases, the shooter will be known to you, or perhaps know you better than you realize. Burglars, stalkers, and even serial killers may be in the background for months on end before they strike.

Many times, there will be warning signs weeks, or even months before the shooting. If someone would read them signs, innocent lives would be saved. Think about the mass shootings where one or more people dedicate themselves to killing and destruction!

Every second counts, and if you want to survive, you need to identify the killer before the shooting happens. Read this article to know how to do it!

How Do I Know It’s a Shooter?

Contrary to popular belief and erroneous stereotypes, clothing style, gun ownership, ethnic background, age, or religious affiliation are not necessarily good indicators that someone will become an active shooter.

If you can always bear in mind that almost every criminal or terror based shooting is pre-planned, then it becomes much easier to spot the following signs (PAINS – Pre-Attack IndicatorS) in people around you, in different stages of their acting.

Fantasy Stage

Many shooters start off with a violent fantasy based in revenge or something else that evokes strong feelings. These individuals may use violent computer games, novels (example school shooters that got their start reading gun grabber Stephen King’s novel “Rage”), or even apps with subliminal messages that encourage more robust or increasingly graphic fantasies.

There is a subtle, but discernible difference between someone that keeps these thoughts in the realm of pure fantasy and someone that develops a sincere wish to be at the center of such horrific acts.

In general, if you talk to people in this stage of progression, you may feel very uncomfortable when they talk about violent movies, or you may even find that they have made drawings or created lists of actions to enable them to become an active shooter.

Even though you may still believe the person is harmless, they are beginning on a slippery slope and may need psychiatric care.

The Decision and Active Planning

At some point, the prospective active shooter will make a decision to move from fantasy to tangible reality.

This stage may involve more serious planning such as figuring out which weapons to use, obtaining plans for building bombs, or finding ways to train for their “big day”.

Individuals in the planning stage may also begin talking more actively about their beliefs, and perhaps even seek to draw others into their increasingly sick and chaotic world.

They will also seek out “heroic” figures that match some aspect of their ideology.

Acquiring Weapons

The next stage is an escalation and outgrowth of the previous stage. During this phase, the potential shooter will actively begin to acquire weapons, build bombs, and increase training intensity.

They may no longer be interested in activities that would pull their attention away from preparing to become an active shooter.

It is thought that this stage is the easiest to spot because the person is actively amassing weapons and building things needed for the main event.

That being said, any one of these prospective shooters is just a movie or subliminal app away from adding ways to hide weapons caches or even indoctrinate others so that the element of surprise is preserved.

It should also be noted that gun control is like the emperor with no clothes because those who intend to do harm will simply look for other weapons or seek other means.


At some point, the individual will decide that they are done preparing, and that there is nothing left but to carry out their plans.

This stage may also include leaving behind a will, putting up public warnings about their intentions, giving away valued possessions, and otherwise preparing for death.

No matter whether they drive to the location, walk, or ride a bike, it will be up to random observers to notice unusual activity and report it to the police.

From there, it is truly anybody’s guess as to whether or not the event will be halted or go through as planned.

Active Shooting

Once the individual reaches his/her chosen location, the shooting sequence will go forward pretty much as planned until someone with a gun stops them.

Despite what gun grabbers try to say, it is only armed citizens at the scene that can stop an active shooter before one or more lives is taken.

Without armed citizens at the scene, the active shooter will simply kill as many people as possible until the police get there.

A well-organized shooter working with others may even move to blockade roads, use drones, or take other steps to prevent police, or even the military from responding.

Active shooting

Other Symptoms to Look For

  • Threat of harm to self or others. This may also include a history of violence or insensitivity to humans or animals. There may also be an increased interest in watching violence, an interest in violent actions, and looking to violent role models. In later stages, the person may indicate that they feel they will not survive their agenda.
  • A sudden interest in firearms, bombs, or other items that may be used as part of killing others. Gun grabbers focus almost exclusively on gun ownership as a “warning sign” even though millions of gun owners have never gone on a shooting spree let alone attempted a suicide bombing.

The key here is that the vast majority of people that make up the US gun culture are honest, law abiding people that come from all walks of life.

These people take great pride in their weapons and seek to defend themselves and others against a range of risks. By all accounts, if an “interest in guns” was a true litmus test for increased risk, the number of active shooting scenarios would be much higher than it is.

As the records stands, the vast majority of shootings in the United States are either self-inflicted suicide or shooting at a criminal.

That being said, if someone shows a sudden interest in learning how to make bombs or other explosive devices, it might be a reliable indicator of risk because this behavior is not normal and is not part of any legitimate culture.

  • Decline in work or academic performance, and also decreased social interactions with friends and family. In place of usual contacts, the individual may focus more on radical ideas that encourage violence.
  • Beginning or increasing use of drugs.
  • Personality, mood, hygiene, and social changes.

What Should We Do?

Most resources will say that you should report these signs immediately to the police, work supervisors, or others that may be able to redirect the person or help them choose a different path.

While this is good advice, do not forget we are living in a society where supervisors may not agree with your assessment and the police may not be able to get involved for one reason or another, or might arrive too late to stop the shooting.

At the same time, you may be living in a community or forced to work in a location where you cannot carry a gun. But you still need to defend yourself, so you could find an alternate mean of protection. There are a lot of article on our website about self-defense, but the answer depends pretty much on your ability to act and the skills you have trained for survival.

Click the banner below and get your own self-defense tactical flashlight you can carry no matter where you go!


This article has been written by Fred Tyrell for Survivopedia. 


0 total views, 0 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Despite Trump’s Win, Gun Control Quietly Expanded This Month

Click here to view the original post.
Yes, Trump Won, But Gun Control Still Quietly Expanded This Month

Image source:

WASHINGTON — Gun control expanded dramatically in three states this month while the nation’s attention was diverted by the presidential election.

California now requires background checks for ammunition purchases and bans magazines larger than 10 rounds. In Washington state, judges can now strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights with a court order. And Nevada now requires background checks on all gun sales, including those made by private citizens, though online transactions, and at gun shows.

“It was a repudiation of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the gun lobby,” Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, the sponsor of California’s Proposition 63, told The Los Angeles Times.

Proposition 63 also requires ammunition sales be made through licensed vendors and makes it a crime if a lost or stolen gun is not reported to police. The California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) opposed Prop 63, partially because of the reporting requirement.

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

“Penalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms actually can deter individuals to report for fear of penalty, which has already been proven to be the case in many areas where local governments have enacted similar ordinances,” Ken Corney, the president of CPCA, wrote in a letter to the citizens of California.

Said Craig DeLuz of the Stop Prop 63 Committee, “Prop. 63 is another attempt by Newsom and his one percent, elitist friends to attack law-abiding Californians. They want to replace the ‘War on Drugs’ with ‘The War on law-abiding gun owners’ so they can continue locking up young black and Latino men.”

Newsom and his allies raised more than $4.5 million to support Proposition 63, while opponents only collected $868,000.

Around 71 percent of Washington state’s population voted for Initiative 1591, The Seattle Times reported.

The measure allows law enforcement officers, family members and others to ask a judge to issue an “extreme risk protection order” if they believe someone is a danger to themselves or others. The gun/guns would be confiscated without warning and without the person having a chance to make his or her case.

Around 50.45 percent of Nevada voters supported Question 1, which expands background checks to gun shows, online purchases and private sales.

There was one major defeat for gun controllers: 52 percent of Maine’s residents voted no on an expansion of background checks.

What is your reaction? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns For Home Defense. Read More Here.

Student’s Pro-Gun Rights Project Sparks Suspension, Psychological Evaluation Order

Click here to view the original post.
Student’s Pro-Gun Rights Project Sparks Suspension, Psychological Evaluation Order

Image source: Wikimedia

A high school student was suspended and ordered to undergo a psychological exam because he made a video with the message “guns save lives” for a class project, his family says.

The student, Frank Harvey, received an “A” despite the controversy.

“What the response of the school tells me is that I’m allowed to do my schoolwork as long as it agrees with their point of view on an issue,” Harvey told, referencing administrators at Manville High School in New Jersey.

Harvey had created a short video that spotlighted examples of people who used guns to defend their homes. The video also showed anti-gun control political cartoons.

“I don’t understand why I’m being disciplined for following the instructions of my teacher and no one else is,” Harvey told

He said he was assigned the video by college and career readiness teacher Rachel Gottfried, although the teacher said she can’t recall doing so.

Christian Heroes For Christian Kids: These Amazing Stories Are Putting God Back Into History!

“She said my project would be perfectly fine,” Harvey said. “I presented the video to the class and took a few questions from my classmates. My presentation went over well. The whole idea of the assignment was to expose students to an idea they hadn’t considered before.”

That opinion was not shared by school administrators, who discovered the video on a thumb drive Harvey left in the school library. The administrators suspended Harvey, a senior, from school and told him he had to undergo a five-hour psychological exam to return to class.

After the suspension, an official from Somerset County Child Services visited Harvey’s home. Harvey’s mother, Mary Vervan, believes school officials reported her as retaliation for telling the media about the suspension. The boy refused to undergo the psychological exam, so he’s now studying for his GED at home.

The school called the claims “false.”

“We are confident that the evidence will support the district’s position,” a press release from the school district states. “The district is especially disheartened at the unfair personal attacks leveled by the family at our dedicated staff, who reacted to the actual events with professionalism and concern for the welfare of this student and others in the school community. We have nothing more to say on the matter at this time, but could not let the family’s vicious personal attacks go unanswered.”

Said Vervan, “The Manville police cleared my son. They looked at his presentation and found nothing wrong.”

What is your reaction? Share it in the section below:

Looking For Another Country? Read More Here.

‘House-To-House Confiscation’ Of Guns Will Be On California Ballot

Click here to view the original post.
‘House-To-House Confiscation’ Of Guns Will Be On California Ballot

Image source: Flickr


California is poised to vote in some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation when voters go to the polls in November.

The ballot initiative, Proposition 63, would ban magazines larger than 10 rounds, which critics say would lead to house-to-house confiscation by police statewide.

It also would:

  • Require ammunition sales be made through licensed vendors.
  • Require lost or stolen guns or ammo be reported to police.
  • Require buyers pass a background check prior to purchasing ammunition.

The magazine ban is drawing the most opposition.

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

“Millions of legal magazines will need to be sold out-of-state, taken out-of-state, or seized by law enforcement,” according to the Coalition for Civil Liberties, which opposes Proposition 63.

‘House-To-House Confiscation’ Of Guns Will Be On California Ballot

Image source:

Many legal firearms will only operate with “magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, making them effectively illegal,” the coalition noted.

“This backdoor gun ban is not just on future sales, but forces you to surrender your existing private property to law enforcement,” it added.

The coalition asserted that Proposition 63, if passed, will lead to “house-to-house confiscation” of guns and magazines.

According to the text of the proposed law, anyone who is caught possessing an illegal magazine can be jailed for up to one year. Current owners of such magazines have three choices, according to the text: 1) remove it from the state, 2) sell it to a licensed dealer, or 3) surrender it to police “for destruction.”

Sheriffs from Butte, Shasta and Modoc counties told KHSL-TV that the proposal would turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.

“Proposition 63 is bad for gun owners and bad for California,” Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko told the outlet.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association opposes Proposition 63.

“This measure would do little to prevent the criminal element from acquiring guns and ammunition via the black market or through theft,” a letter from the association reads. “Instead, it would place additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens who wish to purchase ammunition for sporting or hunting use, retain guns and magazines that are currently legal for them to possess, and pass historical or family heirloom guns down to their next generation.

The measure, the letter reads, “will create a new class of criminals out of those that already comply with common sense practices that now exist.”

What is your reaction to the proposed law? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns. Read More Here.

Election Prep- Just In Case

Click here to view the original post.
I talked about this awhile back. The election is closer and Hillary Clinton is in it. We all know her ability to blatantly cheat and get away with it so she could very well win the presidency. Also she is running against a giant offensive ass hat. So I wanted to prepare. For the next 2 or so months I am going to put my investment money into precious metals, specifically steel and lead.

I built the rifle and bought some AR/ G19 mags. Also ordered 2 cases of 5.56. Next month I will buy some other ammo probably 7.62×39 and the FAL mags. The month after that if its available I will buy 7.62×51. Ammo availability at current prices may not happen again so it could be a major savior for me and mine. Absolute worst case (best case overall but worst for this choice) nothing happens and I’ll still have the ammo.

It isn’t too late but the time is getting short. You may want to look at your own stuff as well as your finances and fill in some holes.

Gun Control Myths.

Click here to view the original post.
This primitive pistol can only be legally used on a pistol club range!!!


Table of Contents

MYTH 1 — Public opinion polls

MYTH 2 — The purpose of a handgun

MYTH 3 — Armed citizens don’t deter crime

MYTH 4 — Licensing and registration

MYTH 5 — Foreign gun control works

MYTH 6 — Crimes of passion and guns

MYTH 7 — Semi-autos should be banned

MYTH 8 — No `right’ to own a gun

MYTH 9 — Concealed carry laws are dangerous

MYTH 10 — Gun control reduces crime

Ten Myths About Gun Control

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons.” –USA Today, December 29, 1993

“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership?. .. (W)ho can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for Americans to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us, we cannot handle them.” –Los Angeles Times, December 28, 1993

These editorial opinions expressed by two of the nations most widely read newspapers represent the absolute extreme in the firearms controversy: that no citizen can be trusted to own a firearm. It is the product of a series of myths which–through incessant repetition–have been mistaken for truth. These myths are being exploited to generate fear and mistrust of the 60-65 million decent and responsible Americans who own firearms. Yet, as this document proves, none of these myths will stand up under the cold light of fact.

MYTH 1:”The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls.”

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor “stricter” laws when they do not know how “strict” the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law “stricter,” however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:

Oppose costly registration of firearms.

Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.

Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.

In 1993, Luntz Weber Research and Strategic Services found that only 9% of the American people believe “gun control” to be the most important thing that could be done to reduce crime. By a margin of almost 3-1, respondents said mandatory prison would reduce crime more than “gun control.” This poll, unlike many others, allowed respondents to answer more honestly by using open ended questions without leading introductions. The result was an honest appraisal of the attitude of the American people: “gun control” is not crime control.

One clear example of a poll done which used biased questions and flawed procedures was conducted by Louis Harris Research Inc. (LHRI) in the summer of 1993. The poll reported unprecedented levels of gun abuse by high school students. However, after examining the poll, Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, the nation’s leading scholar on crime and firearms, called the findings “…implausible, being inconsistent with more sophisticated prior research.” Prof. Kleck found the Harris findings of students who had been shot at or who had actually shot at someone to be insupportable by crime and victimization statistics as reported by the Department of Justice: “Even if the percent of handgun crime victimization had doubled from the average for the 1979-1987 period, the LHRI results would still be overstated by a factor of 100.” In the end, he labeled the LHRI poll “advocacy polling.”1

A more direct measure of the public’s attitude on “gun control” comes when the electorate has a chance to speak on the issue. Public opinion polls do not form public policy, but individual actions by hundreds of thousands of citizens do. For example, in 1993, the voters of Madison, Wisconsin, were presented with a referendum calling for a ban on handgun ownership in that city. Pollsters predicted an overwhelming win for the gun banners. When Second Amendment rights activists rallied opposition and educated the electorate on the facts about gun ownership, the referendum was defeated. In the 1993 gubernatorial elections, the incumbent governor in New Jersey and the front-runner in Virginia made “gun control” a central theme of their campaigns. Both candidates lost to opponents who stressed real criminal justice reforms, not “gun control.” In November 1982, Californians rejected, by a 63-37% margin, a statewide handgun initiative that called for the registration of all handguns and a “freeze” on the number of handguns allowed in the state. Again, pre-elect ion pollsters reported support for the measure. That initiative was also opposed by the majority of California’s law enforcement community. Fifty-one of the state’s 58 working sheriffs opposed Proposition 15, as did 101 chiefs of police. Nine law enforcement organizations, speaking for rank-and-file police, went on record against the initiative.

Increasingly, the American people are voicing support for reform of the criminal justice system. The NRA also actively supports initiatives calling for mandatory jail time for violent criminals. In 1982, the residents of Washington, D.C., enacted an NRA-endorsed mandatory penalty bill, actively opposed by the anti-gun D.C. City Council, that severely punishes those who use firearms to commit a violent crime . In 1988, the residents of Oregon approved, by a 78-22% margin, an NRA-supported initiative mandating prison sentences for repeat offenders after the state legislature and governor failed to act on the issue. In 1993, the residents of Washington state overwhelmingly approved the “three strikes you’re out” initiative calling for life sentences without parole for anyone convicted of a third serious crime. NRA’s Crime Strike program was instrumental in collecting the needed signatures to put that question on the ballot.

In 1993, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association conducted a scientific poll of its members. Sixty-five percent of the respondents identified “gun control” as the least effective method of combating violent crime. Only 1% identified guns as a cause of violent crime, while 48% selected drug abuse, and 21% said the failure of the criminal justice system was the most pressing cause. The officers also revealed that 97% support the right of the people to own firearms, and 90% said they believed the Constitution guarantees that right.

The SSPBA findings affirmed a series of polls conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of every chief and sheriff in the country, representing over 15,000 departments. In 1991 the poll discovered for the third year in a row that law enforcement officers overwhelmingly agree that “gun control” measures have no effect on crime. A clear majority of 93% of the respondents said that banning firearms would not reduce a criminal’s ability to get firearms, while 89% said that the banning of semi-automatic firearms would not reduce criminal access to such firearms. Ninety-two percent felt that criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources; 90% agreed that the banning of private ownership of firearms would not result in fewer crimes. Seventy-three percent felt that a national waiting period would have no effect on criminals getting firearms. An overwhelming 90% felt that such a scheme would instead make agencies less effective against crime by reducing their manpower and only serve to open them up to liability lawsuits.

These are the only national polls of law enforcement officers in the country, with the leadership of most other major groups adamantly refusing to poll their membership on firearms issues.

1 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 2: “The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people.”

This often repeated statement is patently untrue, but to those Americans whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the nightly violence on television, it might seem believable. When anti-gun researcher James Wright, then of the University of Massachusetts, studied all the available literature on firearms, he concluded: “Even the most casual and passing familiarity with this literature is therefore sufficient to believe the contention that handguns have `no legitimate sport or recreational use.’ “

There are an estimated 65-70 million privately owned handguns in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting, protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 –less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the “only purpose” of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.

By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun owners in America own handguns for protection and security. A handgun’s function is one of insurance as well as defense. A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.

MYTH 3:”Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime.”

This myth, stemming from a superficial “study” of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar “studies”–with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good–include: the assumption that a gun hasn’t been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the “family” or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland’s experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The “guns in the home” myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place–ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done–and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: “It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.” Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, “Indeed the point is stronger than that: ‘reverse causation’ may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann’s data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion.”5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.

74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.

40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.

57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in “excusable self-defense” or “justifiable” shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., “Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, ” 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).

3 Rushforth, et al., “Violent Death in a Metropolitan County,” 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).

4 Kellermann, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).

5 Polsby, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.

6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).

7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

MYTH 4:”Honest citizens have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing which will curb crime by disarming criminals.”

“Gun control” proponents tout automobile registration and licensing as model schemes for firearm ownership. Yet driving an automobile on city or state roads is a privilege and, as s uch, can be regulated, while the individual right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected from infringement. Registration and licensing do not prevent criminal misuse nor accidental fatalities involving motor vehicles in America, where more than 40,000 people die on the nation’s highways each year. By contrast, about 1,400 persons are involved in fatal firearm accidents each year.

Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that “gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns.”

Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. 8 Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration–citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.

Registration and licensing of America’s 60-65 million gun owners and their 200 million firearms would require the creation of a huge bureaucracy at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, with absolutely no tangible anti-crime return. Indeed, New Zealand authorities repealed registration in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness, and a similar recommendation was made by Australian law enforcement. Law enforcement would be diverted from its primary responsibility, apprehending and arresting criminals, to investigating and processing paperwork on law-abiding citizens.

In the U.S., after President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and others announced support for registration and licensing, police response was immediate and non-supportive. Dewey Stokes, President of the Fraternal Order of Police said … I don’t want to get into a situation where we have gun registration.” Other law enforcement officers responded even more strongly. Charles Canterbury, President of the South Carolina FOP said, “On behalf of the South Carolina law enforcement, I can say we are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.” Dennis Martin, President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police reported, “I have had a lot of calls from police chiefs and sheriffs who are worried about this. They are afraid that we’re going to create a lot of criminals out of law-abiding people who don’t want to get a license for their gun.

Finally, a national registration/licensing scheme would violate an individual’s right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and establish a basis upon which gun confiscation could be implemented. More than 60,000 rifles and shotguns were confiscated in April, 1989 from honest citizens who had dutifully registered their guns with the authorities in Soviet Georgia (Chicago Sun-Times, April 12, 1989, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, May 21, 1989). Could that happen in America? Gun prohibitionists in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., have already proposed using registration lists for such purposes. And, since 1991, New York City authorities have used registration lists to enforce a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Avowed handgun prohibitionist Charles Morgan, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime stated: “I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.”

Reasonable fears of such confis cation lead otherwise law-abiding citizens to ignore such laws, creating a disrespect for law and a lessened support for government. In states and cities which recently required registration of semi-automatic firearms, estimates of compliance range from 5 to 10%.

8 Haynes v. U.S., 309 U.S. 85 (1968).

“Stiff `gun control’ laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar.”

All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation’s collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by “gun control” proponents.9

Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the impact of “gun control” on crime in several foreign countries. In his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with varying gun laws, and concluded: “Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.” He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: “Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control…postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos.”10

America’s high crime rates can be attributed to re volving-door justice. In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to prison, with 36,00 0 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430, 000.

Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% duri ng the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.

Part of Japan’s low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay “home visits” to citizens’ residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely “…engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions.” Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries.

9 Wright, et al ., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).

10 Kopel, “The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?’ (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.

MYTH 6: “Most murders are argument-related `crimes of passion’ against a relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance. “

The vast majority of murders are committed by persons with long established patterns of violent criminal behavior. Acc ording to analyses by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, the FBI, and the Chicago, New York City, and other police departments, about 70% of suspected murderers have criminal careers of long standing–as do nearly half their victims. FBI data show that roughly 47% of murderers are known to their victims.

The waiting period, or “cooling-off” period, as some in the “gun control” community call it, is the most often cited solution to “crimes of passion.” However, state crime records show that in 1992, states with waiting periods and other laws delaying or denying gun purchases had an overall violent crime rate more than 47% higher and a homicide rate 19% higher than other states. In the five states that have some jurisdictions with waiting periods (Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia), the non-waiting period portions of all five states have far lower violent crime and homicide rates.

Recent studies by the Justice Department suggest that persons who live violent lives e xhibit those violent tendencies “both within their home and among their family and friends and outside their home among strangers in society.” A National Institute of Justice study reveals that the victims of family violence often suffer repeated problems from the same person for months or even years, and if not successfully resolved, such incidents can eventually result in serious injury or death. A study conducted by the Police Foundation showed that 90% of all homicides, by whatever means committed, in volving family members, had been preceded by some other violent incident serious enough that the police were summoned, with five or more such calls in half the cases.

Circumstances which might suggest “crimes of passion” or “spontaneous” arguments, such as a lover’s triangle, arguments over money or property, and alcohol-related brawls, comprise 29% of criminal homicides, according to FBI data.

Professor James Wright of the University of Massachusetts describes the typical incident of family violence as “that mythical crime of passion” and rejects the notion that it is an isolated incident by otherwise normally placid and loving individuals. His research shows that it is in fact “the culminating event in a long history of interpersonal viole nce between the parties.”

Wright also speaks to the protective use of handguns. “Firearms equalize the means of physical terror between men and women. In denying the wife of an abusive man the right to have a firearm, we may only be guaranteeing he r husband the right to beat her at his pleasure,” says Wright. 11

11 Wright, “Second Thoughts About Gun Control,” 91 [The] Public Interest, 23 (Spring 1988).

MYTH 7:”Semi-automatic firearms have no legitimate sporting purpose, are the preferred weapon of choice of criminals, and should be banned.”

Use of this myth by gun prohibitionists is predicated purely on pragmatism: whichever “buzzword” can produce the most anti-gun emotionalism–“Saturday Night Special,” “assault weapons,” and “plastic guns”–will be utilized in efforts to generate support for a ban on entire classes of firearms.

Examples of this anti-gun legislative history abound. A Saturday Night Special” ban bill enacted in Maryland establishes a politically appointed “Handgun Roster Board” with complete authority to decide which handguns will be permitted in the so-called “Free State”– any handgun could therefore be banned. Federal legislation aimed at the nonexistent “plastic gun” would have banned mil lions of metal handguns suitable for personal protection. In the 1994 crime bill, Congress did ban semi-automatic “assault weapons,” based on their cosmetic appearance. After passage, however, not even the virulently anti-gun Washington Post pretended the ban would have a crime fighting effect, labeling it “mainly symbolic.”

Criminals and law-abiding citizens both follow the lead of police and military in choosing a gun. Criminals generally pick as handguns .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. revolvers, with ba rrels about 4″ long and retailing (an unimportant matter for criminals) at over $200. Only about one-sixth fit the classic description of the so-called “Saturday Night Special”–small caliber, short barrel and inexpensive. While criminals are unconcerned with the cost of a firearm, the law-abiding certainly are. A ban on inexpensive handguns will have a disproportionate impact on low income Americans, effectively disarming them. This is particularly unfair, since it is the poor who more often must live an d work in high crime areas.

As more and more police departments, following the lead of the military, switch from revolvers to 9 mm semi-auto pistols, criminals and honest citizens will both follow suit. Indeed, semi-auto pistols have risen from one -fourth of American handgun manufacturing in the 1970s to three-fourths today. Criminals rarely use long guns and, when they do, are more apt to use a sawed-off shot- gun than a semi-automatic rifle, whether military style or not. In America’s larg est and most crime ravaged cities, only about 1/2-3% of “crime guns” are military-style semi-autos. As military establishments adopted medium-velocity rifles with straight-stock configuration, target shooters, hunters, and collectors have acquired the sem i-automatic models of these firearms.

While not all guns incorrectly attacked as “preferred by criminals” are popular for hunting, many are, but hunting is not the only valid purpose for owning a firearm. Small handguns, which may be ill-suited for hunting or long-range target shooting, are useful for personal protection, where the accuracy range rarely needs to exceed ten feet. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are suitable for hunting a variety of game. Semi-automatic, military and military-sty le rifles, including the M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, and the Colt Sporter, are used in thousands of sanctioned Highpower Tournaments each year and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of individuals use these rifles for recreati onal target shooting and plinking.

The Second Amendment clearly protects ownership of firearms which are useful “for the security of a free state” and semi-automatic versions of military arms are clearly appropriate for that purpose. It was the cle ar intention of the Framers of our Constitution that the citizenry possess arms equal or superior to those held by the government. That was viewed as the best deterrent to tyranny, and it has worked for over 200 years. It was also the intention of the Fou nding Fathers that citizens be able to protect themselves from criminals, and that doesn’t necessarily require a gun suitable for hunting, target shooting, or plinking. All modern firearms may be used for such protective purposes.

MYTH 8: “The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia’ that can be compared today to the National Guard.”

The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the se curity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no “buts” or “excepts.” It is a straightforward statement affirming t he people’s right to possess firearms.

The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a “collective right” or a “right of states to form militias” rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term “militia” refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:

“The militia of the Unit ed States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age….” Moreover, historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers, clearly indicate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guard against t he tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution feared could be perpetrated by any professional armed body of government. The arms, records and ultimate control of the National Guard today lie with the Federal Government, so that it clearly is not the “mi litia” protected from the federal government.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed this virtually unlimited control of the Guard by the federal government in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990). The Court held that the power of Congr ess over the National Guard is plenary (entire, absolute, unlimited) and such power is not restricted by the Constitution’s Militia Clause. The Second Amendment was not even mentioned by the Court, undoubtedly because it does not serve as a source of powe r for a state to have a National Guard.

In The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a “select corps of moderate size” and that the “people at large (were) properly armed” to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess “the advantage of being armed,” and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a “barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition.”

A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by “the people”–a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all “persons who are part of a national community” (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).

The case of U.S. v. Miller (1939) is frequently, though erroneously, cited as the definitive ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a “collective” right, protecting the right of states to keep a militia rather than the i ndividual right to possess arms. But that was not the issue in Miller, and no such ruling was made; the word “collective” is not used any place in the court’s decision.

While such a decision was sought by the Justice Department, the Court decided o nly that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The case hinged on the narrow question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use, and its ownership by individuals thus protected b y the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that: “In the absence of (the presentation of) any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relati onship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice–common knowledge, that need not be proven i n court–that this weapon is any part of the military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Because no evidence or argument was presented except by the federal government, the Court was not made aware that some 30,000 short-barreled shotguns were used as “trench guns” during World War I.

The Supreme Court has ruled on only three other cases relating to the Second Amendment–all during the last half of the nineteenth century. In each of these cases, the Court held that the Second Amendment only restricted actions of the federal government, not of private individuals (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876) or state governments (Presser v. Illinois, 1886, and Miller v. Texas, 1894). The Court also held, in Presser, that the Firs t Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly did not apply to the states; and in Miller v. Texas, it held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the states, since the Court believed that all the amendm ents comprising the Bill of Rights were limitations solely on the powers of Congress, not upon the powers of the states.

It was not until two generations later that the Court began to rule, through the Fourteenth Amendment, that the First, Fourth, and other provisions of the Bill of Rights limited both Congress and state legislatures. No similar decision concerning the Second Amendment has ever been made in spite of contemporary scholarship proving that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was t o apply all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states.12 That research proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was made a part of the Constitution to prevent states from depriving the newly freed slaves of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , including what the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision referred to as one of the rights of citizens, the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

The only significance of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a challenge to the hand- gun ban imposed by Morton Grove, Illinois, is that the Court will still not rush to apply the Second Amendment to the states. The refusal to hear the case has no legal significance and, indeed, it would have been very unusual for the Court to make a decision involving the U.S. Constitution when the Illinois courts had not yet decided if Morton Grove’s ban conflicted with the state’s constitution.

12 Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984).

MYTH 9: “A person in a public place with a gun is looking for trouble.”

Gun prohibitionists use this myth to oppose legislative proposals to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed firear ms. In spite of this opposition, numerous states have adopted favorable concealed carry laws over the past few years. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more deaths and injuries as people would resort to gunfire to settle minor disputes. Shoot-outs over fender-benders and Wild-West lawlessness were predicted in an effort to stir up public fear of reasonable laws.

This tactic–seeking to frighten people into s upporting desired positions–is employed more and more frequently by gun prohibitionists. Prof. Gary Kleck explains the reasoning thus: “Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one’s targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence.”13

When the concealed carry laws were passed and put into pract ice, the result was completely different from the hysterical claims of the gun prohibitionists. In Florida, since the concealed carry law was changed in 1987, the homicide rate has dropped 21%, while the national rate has risen 12%. Across the nation, states with favorable concealed carry laws have a 33% lower homicide rate overall and 37% lower robbery rate than states that allow little or no concealed carry.

Gun prohibitionists have also acted to penalize and discourage gun ownership by imposing mandatory prison terms on persons carrying or possessing firearms without a license or permit, a license or permit they have also made impossible or very difficult to obtain. Massachusetts’ Bartley-Fox Law and New York’s Koch-Carey Law are premier exampl es of this “gun control” strategy. Such legislation is detrimental only to peaceful citizens, not to criminals.

By the terms of such a mandatory or increased sentence proposal, the unlicensed carrying of a firearm–no matter how innocent the circum stances–is penalized by a six-to-twelve month jail sentence. It is imposed on otherwise law-abiding citizens although in many areas it is virtually impossible for persons to obtain a carry permit. It is easy to see circumstances in which an otherwise law -abiding person would run afoul of this law: fear of crime, arbitrary denial of authorization, red-tape delay in obtaining official permission to carry a firearm, or misunderstanding of the numerous and vague laws governing the transportation of firearms.

The potential for unknowingly or unwittingly committing a technical violation of a licensing law is enormous. Myriad legal definitions of “carrying” vary from state to state and city to city, including most transportation of firearms–accessible o r not, loaded or not, in a trunk or case. And out-of-state travelers are exceedingly vulnerable because of these various definitions.

One need only examine the first persons arrested under the Massachusetts and New York City “mandatory penalty” law s for proof that such laws are misdirected: an elderly woman passing out religious pamphlets in a dangerous section of Boston and an Ohio truck driver coming to the aid of a woman apparently being kidnapped in New York City.

In New York City–prior to the enactment of the Koch-Carey mandatory sentence for possession law–the bureaucratic logjam in the licensing division, combined with a soaring crime rate, forced law-abiding citizens to obtain guns illegally for self-protection. In effect, citizens admitted that they would rather risk a mandatory penalty for illegally owning a firearm than risk their lives and property at the hands of New York’s violent, uncontrolled criminals. Honest citizens feared the streets more than the courtrooms.

By contrast, the city’s criminal element faces no similar threat of punishment. A report carried in the March 1, 1984, issue of the New York Times says it all: “Conviction on felony charges is rare. Because of plea-bargaining, the vast majority of those arrested on felony charges are tried on lesser, misdemeanor charges.” In one year, according to the Times, there were 106,171 felony arrests in New York City, but only 25,987 cases received felony indictments and only 20,641 resulted in convictions, with impr isonment a rarity. This condition persists, the New York Times reported again on June 23, 1991: in 1990 felony indictments were resolved by plea bargains in over 83% of cases. Only 5.7% of cases ended with a trial verdict, with only 3.8% ending in convict ion. Not surprisingly, with just 3% of the nation’s population, in 1992 New York City accounted for 12% of the nation’s homicides.

In championing New York’s tough Koch-Carey Law, then Mayor Ed Koch said contemptuously of gun owners, “Nice guys who own guns aren’t nice guys.” No such rancor was expressed about the city’s revolving-door criminal justice system where the chances of hardened criminals being arrested on felony charges are one in one hundred. Later, the Police Foundation study of New Yor k’s Koch- Carey Law found that it failed to reduce the number of guns on the street and did not reduce gun use in rape, robbery or assault.

Such legislation invites police to routinely stop and frisk people randomly on the street on suspicion of fi rearms possession. In fact, the Police Foundation has called for the random use of metal detectors on the streets to apprehend people carrying firearms without authorization. In disregarding the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures, police would be empowered under the Police Foundation’s blueprint for disarmament to “systematically stop a certain percentage of people on the streets… in business neighborhoods and run the detectors by them, just as yo u do at the airport. If the detectors produce some noise then that might establish probable cause for a search.”

While admitting that such “police state” tactics would require “methods… that liberals instinctively dislike,” government researchers James Q. Wilson and Mark H. Moore called for more aggressive police patrolling in public places, saying: “To inhibit the carrying of handguns, the police should become more aggressive in stopping suspicious people and, where they have reasonable grounds for their suspicions, frisking (i.e. patting down) those stopped to obtain guns. Hand-held magnetometers, of the sort used by airport security guards, might make the street frisks easier and less obtrusive. All this can be done without changing the law.” (The Washington Post, April 1, 1981) Note, they said “people,” not criminals.

13 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 10: “Gun control reduces crime.”

This is perhaps, the greatest myth that is perpetrated today by national gun ban groups. No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the prohibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.

If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they 
advocated. Or they cite denials of applications for permission to buy a firearm as evidence the law is doing something beyond preventing honest citizens from being able legally to acquire firearms. They cite Washington, D.C., as a jurisdiction where gun laws are “working.” Yet crime in Washington has risen dramatically since 1976, the year before its handgun ban took effect. Washington, D.C., now has outrageously higher crime rates than any of the states (D.C. 1992 violent crime rate: 2832.8 per 100,000 resi dents; U.S. rate: 757.5), with a homicide rate 8 times the national rate (1992 rate 75.4 per 100,000 for D.C., 9.3 nationally.) No wonder former D.C. Police Chief Maurice Turner said, “What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from gettin g guns? Absolutely nothing… [City residents] ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun.”

Criminals in Washington have no trouble getting either prohibited drugs or prohibited handguns, resulting in a skyrocketing of the city’s murder rate. D.C.’s 1991 homicide rate of 80.6 per 100,000 population was the highest ever recorded by an American big city, and marked a 200% rise in homicide since banning handguns, while the nation’s homicide rate rose just 11%. Since 1991, the homicide rate has remained near 75 per 100,000, while the national rate hovers around 9-10.

Clearly, criminals do not bother with the niceties of obeying laws–for a criminal is, by definition, someone who disobeys laws. Those who enforce the law agree.

In addition, restrictive gun laws create a “Catch-22” for victims of violent crime. Under court decisions, the police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual. This concept has been tested numerous times including cases as recent as 1993. In each case the courts have ruled that the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, not any individual. This means that under restrictive gun laws, people may be unable to protect themselves or their family from violent criminals.

T he evidence that restrictive gun laws create scofflaws is evident to anyone willing to look. In New York City, there are only about 70,000 legally-owned handguns, yet survey research suggests that there are at least 750,000 handguns in the city, mostly in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In Chicago, a recent mandatory registration law has resulted in compliance by only a fraction of those who had previously registered their guns. The rate of compliance with the registration requirement of Cali fornia’s and New Jersey’s semi- automatic bans have been very low. The same massive noncompliance–not by criminals, whom no one expects will comply, but by people fearful of repression–is evident wherever stringent gun laws are enacted.


Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia’s murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment.

Our challenge: To reform and strengthen our federal and state criminal justice systems. We must bring about a sharp reversal in the trend toward undue leniency and “revolving door justice.” We must insist upon speedier trials and upon punishments which are commensurate with crimes. Rehabilitation should be tempered with a realization that not all can be rehabilitated, and that prisons cost society less than the crime of active predatory criminals. NRA is meeting that challenge with its CrimeStrike division, establish ed to advance real solutions to the crime problem while protecting the rights of all honest citizens. Working in states across the nation, Crime Strike has worked for passage of “truth in sentencing laws” which require that criminals actually serve at leas t 85% of time sentenced, “Victim’s Bill of Rights” constitutional amendments, and “Three Strikes You’re Out” laws. The job ahead will not be an easy one . The longer “gun control” advocates distract the nation from this task by embracing that single siren song, the longer it will take and the more difficult our job will be. Beginning is the hardest step, and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has taken it.

Join the NRA. Support ILA. Work with us. We need your help.


“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…. ” –George Mason

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ” –Thomas Jefferson

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. ” –John Adams

“The Constitution s hall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ” –Samuel Adams

” . . arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. … Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them. ” –Thomas Paine

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike…how to use them.” –Richard Henry Lee

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” –Amendment II, Constitution of the United States

Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the “10 Myths of Gun Control” brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683.

5 Reasons Why Your Neighborhood Terrorist Loves Gun Control

Click here to view the original post.

survivopedia 5 reasons terrorism

I must start off by saying that walking through the mind of a terrorist with my dainty little feet is no easy task. These individuals are some of the most perverted, disgusting, sad excuses for living beings that we will ever know in this world.

But, clearly, they are not stupid.

Nevertheless, if we are to put an end to their attempts to ruin our culture, we must understand what they see as our greatest weaknesses and extrapolate how they will move to exploit them. It is my sincere contention that gun control is something terrorists love because it creates a weakness they can exploit at every level of our personal and social existence.

I feel, if there is one pet rabid viper of terrorists that we have nursed to our bosom in this society, gun control with its gun grabbing fangs is it.

Gun Control Divides People

Even though there is no such thing as an issue that everyone agrees on, matters surrounding autonomy and self defense are of major interest to terrorists.

Since their goals usually include harming people and spreading fear, they absolutely laugh with glee when one group seeks to disarm another within the same society; especially when the people being disarmed (example veterans) are the ones terrorists want to murder.

“Divide and conquer” is one of the simplest and most effective strategies when it comes to spreading terror and winning wars. The insanity of gun control itself within the context of a homeland proven unsafe from terrorists is like a free lunch to them. Any terrorist worth his or her title can do any number of things to divide us even further:

  • they can sit back and wait for other carefully scripted media spins such as the ones surrounding Sandy Hook to take hold and drive a panic based wedge between gun owners and gun grabbers.
  • they can launch one or two terror attacks such as in San Bernadino just to remind everyone they are here and can successfully strike at any moment.
  • Terrorist will act to feed and encourage anti-gun movements. This may include eliciting sympathy from them – much as murderers and rapists gain sympathy from the same group of people that see them as “victims”. No doubt, if the anti-gunners have their way, they will welcome terrorists to our homeland in hopes that they can work out their psychotic aggression and then move on to become good wholesome members of society.
  • Terrorists may also observe that the anti-gun movement is also paired with anti-war and anti-law enforcement ideals and values. The wise terrorist would make donations to the bank accounts and campaign accounts of anti-gunners in order to speed up the disarmament of our nation’s citizens.
  • Above all, the terrorist will lie and deceive so as to spread as much chaos as possible before attacking physically.

Gun Control Puts Government in a Failing Position

Prohibition and the war on drugs offer ample evidence that there are some places where law, and the attempt to enforce them does more harm than good.

Quite frankly, if people want to own something, buy something, or do something, they are going to try and achieve their goal no matter who or what stands in the way. When a government such as ours seeks to regulate guns among a population accustomed to having them, it is a recipe for disaster.

Here is what terrorists see each time a gun control measure is put in place:

  • They see something that the government cannot enforce without shedding blood of American citizens, or taking other risks that hurt the very people terrorists want to kill. Just take a look at the number of lives lost in drug related killings over the years and how many lives are still lost because the government seeks to impose rules on a culture that is not ready or willing to accept them.
  • When governments seek to control something at the price of violence, terrorists know they are succeeding. Each dollar spent on gun control, each speech made against the gun culture, and each new law is one that tells terrorists that resources have been taken away from fighting radical Islamic terrorism. This, in turn tells them that our government would rather show its weakness and “kick the dog” represented by American gun owners instead of take bold and definite action against sleeper radical Islamic terror cells in this nation.
  • No matter how much money the government prints, there is a limit to what that money will buy. We simply cannot afford to squander money, energy, and talent on gun control when radical Islamic terrorist are here in the US; and may even be seeding their ideologies in Venezuela, Bolivia, and other South American countries that gave former Guantanamo Bay detainees refuge.

Gun Control Puts Money in Terrorist Bank Accounts

Nowhere on Earth do the laws of supply and demand work so well as in the black market. The more laws you make against guns, the more people are going to want them. Since terrorists are fully capable of making guns and smuggling them into the country, rest assured that they can, will, and do make a fortune on black market trade.

Just as an example, do we really know how many black market machine guns (I mean the real kind, not some glorified hunting rifle like the AR-15) are out there and in the hands of terrorist sleeper cells? We can never know that answer anymore than we can know how many tons of illegal drugs are on the streets at any given moment.

The fact of the matter is anti-gun laws are about as realistic as a spouse thinking his/her partner isn’t cheating just because of a marriage certificate. Just because statistics show one thing or another, that does not mean specific married people aren’t tom catting under cover! “Out of sight, out of mind” does not mean these weapons are truly gone.

They may well be in the hands of radical Islamic terrorists who are just waiting for the right moment to use them. Sadly, this problem does not exist just here in the United States, it exists in every single nation that has gun control.

Not only are criminals and terrorists manufacturing and selling weapons at a profit, they are doing so at an incredible profit that goes right back into advancing their disgusting plans.

As strange as it may sound, I feel there is also a second way that gun control puts money in terrorist bank accounts. Consider a situation where you are fed up with the level of incompetence that seems to be coming from the US government. Now let’s say you are a citizen of a foreign country where ISIS, Boko Haram, or some other terrorist group is taking over at an accelerated rate. If you are looking for safety and security, how can you trust in a foreign government that is moving to disarm its own people in the face of the same terrorist threat?

The fact of the matter is right now there are millions of innocent Muslims and Africans that were either kidnapped by terrorist groups or their towns and cities are occupied by radical Islamic terrorists.

Each and every one of those people knows they wound up in this situation because their own governments were successful in imposing gun control and confiscation. If you, as an individual are thinking about your own future, wouldn’t you see more advantages to turning against a government that seems to be turning against its own people and their right to self defense?

I feel this is precisely how gun control puts money in the bank accounts of terrorists. I also feel it explains why people in the Middle East seem both apathetic and hesitant to do what the United States asks them to do.

Gun Control Puts a Lower Price Tag on Human Life

If terrorists are to achieve their goals, they must do so in a way that maximizes profit and reduces risk. When the person or people you want to kill or injure are well armed, then you it will cost you more to achieve your goal. Should that person, such as a veteran or active member of the military also be trained well enough to use that gun to maximum advantage, the price associated with murder goes even higher. Now let’s have a look at how gun control is selectively lowering the price paid by terrorists that choose to attack veterans right here in the homeland:

  • Over 10% of all homeless people are veterans, fact commonly shared on social media in an effort to obtain donations for homeless veterans or raise awareness. Not only does this mean they are vulnerable because of poverty, it also means they are not likely to have guns because they cannot complete the background check required to own a gun. From that perspective, all a terrorist in this country has to do is visit any place where homeless people are known to gather. Not only is it likely they can murder 10 people with ease, there is every chance they will bag at least one veteran.
  • Gun control only serves to lower the monetary value of every other person that is unable to obtain a gun because the cost of killing, kidnapping, and injuring them is much lower. For example, many people today cannot understand why terrorists chose to attack those who worked in a school for the developmentally disabled in San Bernadino CA. Aside from being a gun free zone, the former employee that committed the massacre clearly knew that his co-workers would not be armed, and therefore it would cost substantially less to murder them.
  • Anti-gunners constantly talk about how they value the lives of children and (rightfully) say there is no amount of money that can replace a child. Nevertheless, each time a school goes without armed guards, or youths over the age of 7 are not allowed to carry and defend themselves, it sends a message to terrorists that it is costs much less to go after our children. Don’t forget these terrorists are not worried about facing “justice” or human law because they do not have any exit plan other than to die at the end of their rampage.

Gun Control Does not Solve the Real Cause of American Discontent

It would be tremendously ignorant and naive to say that US citizens are happier today than they were 8 years ago. Not only do we grapple with rising prices, rising taxes, and shrinking wages, but there is a definite sense of misery across the land.

Just take a look at pictures of yourself from 2007 and compare them to recent ones. Do you smile or laugh less when at parties or with friends? Did you wind up starting on anti-anxiety and anti-panic medications in the last 8 years?

Do you feel like you are trapped in an endless mire of debt, taxes, and obligation to others? If you answered yes to these questions, then you know exactly what I am talking about when I say the general feeling across our nation is “misery”. You also know that job losses, relationship failures, passing on of family members, and other sad events cannot wholly account for what you may be feeling inside and seeing in the faces and actions of others.

Now let me be clear here and say that for most people, there can be no joy in hearing about children, veterans, and others murdered with guns.

To say that NRA members (many of whom are doctors, nurses, veterans, and members of law enforcement) or other gun advocates do not feel these losses is beyond ignorant; especially when those truly enjoying the spectacle are radical Islamic terrorists and others determined to destroy our nation once the citizens are disarmed.

No matter how gut wrenching these deaths may be, it is time to stop preventing one group or another from having guns just because they “might” commit a massacre. It is time to do the opposite – it is time to arm more people so that terrorists and criminals alike have more enemies to contend with, and must pay a higher price for every life they take or try to take.

If there is one explanation for the rise of “radical” candidates such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, it is the general state of unhappiness in our daily lives. Instead of having real, meaningful conversations about how to bring joy back to our nation, we spend endless hours fighting over a few hunks of metal that just happen to be some of the best tools for self defense.

Historically speaking, terrorists have already seen how unhappy people seek to impose gun control, and then become easy targets for terror attacks. I feel this is very much what happened in Nigeria, and is ongoing as we speak in France, Germany, and right here in the United States.

In this election, the issue of gun rights is one that I feel every prepper should use as an absolute litmus test. We, as nation under attack by terrorists right on our own soil, should not be limited in gun ownership just because guns are used to commit mass murders or other crimes.

The fact remains that terrorists, like criminals will attack where it is cheapest and easiest to do so. In my opinion, the best way to drive radical Islamic terrorism (and other kinds) out of business is for every person to be well armed with guns, thus driving up the price every terrorist must pay to kill and spread mayhem.


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.

5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Police Disclosure. More On The Lindt Cafe Shooting.

Click here to view the original post.

This sounds to me like this shooting was all cut & dried before it even started. The question is, who orchestrated this shooting? Was this another attempt to cause havoc so that further gun control measures could be taken against law abiding gun owner citizens?!
More Here:

5 Real Solutions To Gun Violence

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia 5 solutions

It is more than fair to say that the loudest anti-gunners don’t really want to solve any problems. All they want to do is pass a bunch of laws so that people think they can get things done.

As we have seen in other countries that were swayed by similar people, destruction and terrorism are sure to follow.

That all being said, each and every person reading this has a chance to actually help stop gun violence by reaching out and doing something useful. It does not matter if you are for or against gun rights, all that matters is that you have a sincere wish to stop a killing in a neighborhood or family near you.

Teach Children Gun Safety

Not so long ago, gun owners in this country passed hunting and other traditions down from one generation to another. While this is still true for many parts of the country, there are also many people that do not have the advantage of a robust upbringing on gun safety and use.

This factor combined with the fact that respect and gun safety are not taught in schools means that children have insufficient guidance on how to behave around guns.

When it comes to teaching children about guns, let’s start off by drawing an analogy to other important things that are learned around the same age when gun safety training should begin. As a parent, you probably used a very different approach when teaching your child to avoid a hot stove and how to handle matches.

In the former instance, you may have warned the child that certain things were not safe to touch. If they did not listen and touched a hot pot or pan, they learned quickly enough to pay attention to what you said and what to be wary of.

On the other hand, your parents probably took a different approach to teaching you how to handle matches. You may have been told to stay away from them until you were taught how to use them, and may have been punished if caught playing with them.

It is sad to say that many children today learn “gun safety” through violent cartoons, movies, video games, and even songs. If we truly want to stop gun violence and instill a sense that life is sacred, gun safety needs to be taught in a responsible way. Children that are not old enough to handle a gun or stay away from them as directed should not be allowed near them.

Any child that is not old enough or responsible enough to handle a gun should also not be allowed to read, view, or listen to media or entertainment venues that promote the wrong or careless use of guns.

Equalize Gun Ownership Across All Social Classes

As we have already seen, gun owners are some of the wealthiest in our nation, while those who need protection from guns are some of the poorest. If we are to have a safe and equal society, then everyone must be able to own guns regardless of income status.

From homeless people right on up to billionaires, each person should have a gun and sufficient ammo to use for personal needs. Training and practice areas should also be offered at taxpayer expense for anyone that cannot afford these services.

Consider that if we can spend millions to billions of dollars each year on crime and crime prevention, it is truly much better and cost effective to put the power of self-defense directly back into the hands of the people.

Putting guns in the hands of every citizen also has two other important functions:

  • Right now our society is heavily divided along many different lines. Our language is changing in ways that make us think we know what others are saying, when in fact we have no clue. Gun ownership and maintenance comes with a set of very precise terms and procedures that can act as point of agreement among diverse people. Since guns also symbolize respect, there is also a chance that people will be less inclined to lie, cheat, and behave in other ways that serve to undermine the fabric of our nation.
  • Right now we have an unknown number of people in this country that did not come in legally. While we may think many of them are from Mexico and South America, it is no secret that many people from the Middle East may be making their way through the same porous border to our south. Because of the nature of terrorism and the conditions in these countries, it is entirely possible that millions of sleeper cell terrorists and “lone wolves” may already be here. Our homeless citizens and poorest citizens are likely to be the first attacked. Those attacks will be successful and overwhelming if we do not make gun ownership equal and unfettered across all income brackets.

Reach Out to People at Risk

One of the saddest consequences of all these discussions aimed at pushing gun control is that over half of all gun deaths are actually suicides.

When people are lost in pain, illness, or other types of distress, it does no good to tell them that you want to take their guns away. This only makes people in need more inclined to hide the fact that they need help and also makes them feel less confident of their ability to manage their daily lives.

Instead of punishing people for being sick and threatening them with gun confiscation, it is time to reach out to these people and actively work to gain their trust. Anyone can hold a gun and lock it up for someone that feels like they are on the edge.

Anyone can be a friend, listen, and help another person in need get back on their feet mentally and emotionally. Unfortunately, the way gun control laws are written these days, the very people that may be trusted to hold a gun are the very ones prohibited from doing so.

This only leads to more deaths, more massacres and more fodder for anti-gunners hell bent on getting their way.

In some traditional gun owner families, including mine and my husband’s, it was not uncommon to hold a gun for a family member or close friend until they demonstrated that it was safe for them to have the guns back. This is distinctly different from making a law in which the guns are held by a stranger, or a whole host of red tape must be gone through to regain access to a gun.

People that know you best and trust are the ones you will go to instinctively; and they are also the ones that are best able to determine if it is the right time to give your guns back.

Situation Awareness and Common Sense

Anti-gunners are very fond of saying that gun rights advocates are paranoid for thinking there is a criminal or terrorist hiding under every rock. Nevertheless, the numbers prove them wrong. Have a look at your risk of being the victim of a violent crime, even without concerns of terrorism:

  • 1 out of every 10 women will be the victim of a rape. If you are a woman, remember that the next time you go shopping and stand on line with 9 other women. One of you may have, or will be the victim of rape. When you go to vote this year, remember that the Democrat rape crisis platform consists mainly of telling women to urinate on rapists in order to deter them, and then toddle on off to the hospital for a rape kit and an abortion.
  • 7 out of every 10 people will be the victim of home burglary. Anti-gunners run around saying that you should not need more than 10 bullets to protect your home and family. Nevertheless, in a panic situation, you may in fact need a magazine that holds 30 rounds, or more. Quite frankly, unless anti-gunners have actively been involved in home robberies and can prove they can do better than the police or the average home owner, they have no place judging what is, and what is not a “personal use” sized magazine. Bullet size, gun type, and many other factors make it unreasonable and dangerous to limit magazine size.
  • 4 out of every 10 people will be robbed. Elderly people, the disabled, and the homeless all run a greater risk of being robbed. Isn’t it better to empower these people with guns instead of leave them at the mercy of criminals that are probably using the black market to get what they want?

Aside from carrying a gun, it is also very important to be aware of everything going on around you. Without accurate assessment of the people around you, it becomes difficult to avoid crimes, and also increases the likelihood that you will need to use a gun to defend yourself or someone else.

Together with that, situation awareness is also very important in a nation where terrorists are actively planning and carrying out their disgusting acts.

When you start paying attention to what people are doing, and learn how to spot suspicious behavior, then you become empowered and able to help the society around you.

From active shooters to suicide bombers, having a gun will give you the chance to take action to resolve immediate threats, and quite possibly reduce the number of lives lost. As it stands, anti-gunners refuse to admit that armed people are harder to commit acts of terror and crime upon.

Terrorists and criminals, however, live in the real world and aren’t about to take the risk of trying to overcome armed citizens. They know they will lose, and for every victory they gain, the price will be far higher than they are willing to pay.

Repeal All Gun Control Laws

Gun free zones, background checks, and other gun control laws all look good on paper. All they have done here, and around the world is increase victimization against poor people and ensure that children are easier to kill in large numbers.

As getting rid of Prohibition normalized the use of alcohol in our society, getting rid of gun control will also restore guns to the level of normalcy they had at the time the Constitution was written.

Repealing gun laws in this country is only the beginning of what must be a global revolution. This revolution includes:

  • study the arguments used in favor of gun control. Understand how people are being brainwashed into going along with it. Educate about gun rights in a civil and polite way that does not cause brainwashed responses to take control of your audience.
  • refusing to vote for any leader that supports gun control
  • investigate all proponents of gun control to see who they get their money from. You may just uncover a massive scandal or some hidden criminal action that will get them removed from office.
  • recalling all leaders that attempt to impose gun control
  • immediately petition and seek to overturn gun control laws through legal challenges
  • form networks with pro-gun advocates throughout the world to ensure gun control is appealed in all nations
  • Learn about gun control in world governing organizations. Investigate and expose proponents of gun control and find out how to get them voted out.
  • Continue to educate people in the United States and in foreign countries about the benefits of unfettered gun ownership. Never forget that there are some people in this world that have been heavily brainwashed, have never been around guns, and do not know better than what they were taught. Be a patient teacher and a role model for all the best that is in our American gun culture.

There is no question that there is too much crime and terrorism in this world. Focusing on gun control as a “cure all” or “beginning point” is not a viable answer.

As we learned with alcohol, and continue to learn with drugs, actually resolving issues around material objects cannot be done by limiting those objects. Rather, we must sit down and look for ways to work among people in such a way that a major crisis can be averted.

For those at risk of committing suicide or killing others because of personal problems, we must build very personal and very tangible bonds of trust that can be used in time of need. For terrorists and criminals who may be beyond our mental and emotional reach, situational awareness combined with arms for every citizen remains the best and safest answer.

We, as a nation and world do not need ham handed, lame brained gun control laws to get in our way. We can do a better job without having to put aside a single gun.


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.


51 total views, 51 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

5 Things Anti-Gunners Get Wrong About Gun Rights

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia 5 things about gun control

Of all the memes floating around on the internet, few match those presented by anti-gunners when talking about gun rights advocates.

No matter where you look, fake statistics are used to advocate for gun control even as millions of innocent women and children are being wiped off the face of the Earth by criminals and terrorists.

It should come as no surprise that a movement funded by millionaires and promoted by former anti-war activists fails miserably when it comes to the most fundamental truths about gun ownership, the American gun culture, and why it is so very important for as many people as possible in our nation and world to have unfettered and unrestricted access to all kinds of guns.

Guns Protect Liberty and Move the World Forward

If you look at the relationship between the United States and England today, you would never guess that our founding fathers would have been called terrorists and worse by citizens and supporters of Britain in the colonies.

When people strive for liberty and disagree, sometimes the only answer is to thrash it out until both sides come to terms with each other. Despite the memes of anti-gunners educated with Common Core history, we have seen tragedies worldwide when liberty is not protected and defended with guns owned and used by the common people:

  • Strict gun control in Syria created a situation where only the military, the police, and ISIS had guns. This left the people of Syria helpless as terrorists took over city by city, and forces them to leave their homeland instead of stay and defend it. In a situation like this, ISIS and other terror groups have insufficient resistance from the people they seek to dominate. As such, there is no reason for them to stop their violent actions. If you can understand that a dog digs in the garbage because it can, then you also understand that terrorists take over unarmed people because they can.
  • Hitler and his infamous Nazis were very particular about disarming Jews and others that they intended to wipe off the face of the Earth. Perhaps if the Jews in Germany had guns, Hitler would never have been able to carry out the holocaust let alone invade other nations. From this, I feel we learn that there is no such thing as disarming a population for a “higher social good” without secretly considering taking other actions that will lead that populations oblivion.
  • China is another country notorious for gun control. Even though very little media gets out from this communist nation, we did see what happened in Tienanmen Square. That kind of suppression along with such a brutal massacre should be enough to convince anyone that liberty for the people cannot exist when citizens are disarmed or denied access to any kind of gun they wish to have.

It’s About Guns as Much as the Person Behind the Gun

As a general rule, anti-gunners look only at the harm caused when guns are used by people in ways that we find to be wrong.

Nevertheless, if they bothered to cull reports from local news stations around the nation, they would see that for every child murdered in Sandy Hook, hundreds may have been saved that day by armed parents. Dozens to hundreds of innocent men, women, and children are saved by guns every single day because “good people with guns stop bad people with guns”.

Now, some anti-gunners run around saying that approximately half of ex-cons admit that they don’t get guns because there is a law stopping them. Only a person seriously ignorant about the state of crime and the legal system these days would consider this statistic as a valid argument for gun control.

To the point, almost 50% of all homicides alone go unsolved. To add insult to injury, almost 5% of people on death row were exonerated based on new evidence. These numbers do not take into account the number of people that chose to go to prison in order to cover for someone else. Now, let’s do the math to show what’s really happening with this statement about ex-cons.

  • Let’s start off by saying that out of 100 murders, 50 people went to prison, and 50 escaped.
  • Through additional testing ,we found out that 5 people put in prison were, in fact, innocent.
  • Of the 50 people that went to prison, 25 of them say they would not buy a gun because it is illegal. That means only 25% of all murderers avoid gun ownership because of a law, while a whopping 75% will go on with business as usual.
  • Of the 25 people that said they would not own a gun because it is illegal to do so, it is likely that 5 of them were innocent to begin with. That leaves just a 20% compliance rate with gun control laws.

With that kind of abysmal failure, it is no wonder that mass murders happen most in gun free zones, section 8 housing, and other areas where people cannot get access to guns. These statistics alone prove that criminals simply don’t care about the laws, they will get guns, and they will use them.

gun free zones

Gun Rights are About Self Defense in a World of Changing Threats

Some anti-gunners claim that the US Constitution should be narrowly interpreted when it comes to gun types. According to them, the only guns citizens should have are black powder muskets and other weapons that were commonly available around the time the Constitution was written.

If we are to go by those standards, perhaps these very same people should consider giving up on a number of wider interpretations of the Constitution including:

  • the creation of the social security system (retirement plans didn’t exist in the 1700’s)
  • Obamacare (health insurance didn’t exist back then)
  • federal oversight of medical doctors (back then just about anyone could be considered a medical practitioner, including faith healers)
  • the entire automobile regulation system (perhaps we should all go back to horse and buggy as the ultimate means to stop all those nasty accidents).

When it comes right down to it, the Constitution wasn’t directly meant to cover a lot of things that we now consider part of our modern society. The fact of the matter is our founding fathers were some of the wisest, most forward looking people that ever walked this Earth. They knew all kinds of technologies were coming to fruit in terms of weapons. If they only meant citizens to have certain kinds, it is for certain they would have said so.

The decision to allow unfettered access to guns was one of the best things our founding fathers could have done. Today, we live in a different world with threats that may have a different appearance, but still come down to predator vs. prey.

From trucks crashing into crowds of people to suicide bombers, all modern forms of attack on citizens can still be stopped with a gun. No matter how anti-gunners try to wheedle out of this fact, they must eventually admit that law enforcement and military alike use guns to bring an end to active terror situations.

But hey will always resist admitting this, because then they must also admit that when citizens on the scene are armed, it takes less time for them to respond than it does for the police to get there and then get to the attacker.

murder rate

Gun Ownership Can be a Matter of Duty

In several articles I have written about the fact that criminals and terrorists are the ultimate opportunists. If they see a chance to steal, rape, or murder, they will do so as long as they gain more than they risk.

An unarmed person is always going to be a tempting target because these criminals have the advantage of surprise at the moment of attack, and they may also have guns of their own. If they know that their intended victim is armed, they know there is a chance they will lose.

So what happens when people do not carry guns or take other measures that leave them too vulnerable to criminals and terrorists?

  • One possibility is that as criminals and terrorists walk among us, they will seek out these targets and confine their activities to vulnerable populations. These populations, in turn, will demand protection in the form of police and militaries. For each person that cannot or will not defend themselves, someone else may have to die for them. Each person without a gun becomes both a target and inspiration for those intent on committing harm.
  • Criminals and terrorists accustomed to preying on those who are unarmed will amass money and more weapons. At some point, they will see large groups of people as suitable targets for their disgusting plans. As they go from success to success, their attacks will increase and become more devastating. Armed citizens can stop this process, however gun free zones prevent us from seeing this in action. In a world where citizens are armed with guns, breakthrough of crime against groups would be minimal, and put down very quickly.
  • Next, criminals and terrorists will move on to the most obviously armed people in our society – law enforcement officers. They will study their actions, look for weak points, and devise plans that ensure maximum damage to their targets. We are seeing this right now in our own nation, yet fail to understand that they themselves are the exact kind of weak link that embolden criminals and terrorists.
  • Eventually, as we saw in Nigeria, terrorists and more organized bands of thugs will overthrow military bases and wipe entire towns off the map. Even this situation can and could be stopped when every citizen is armed with guns.

Statistics do not Predict or Work at the Individual Level

Have you ever been diagnosed with a serious illness? If so, then you may also have been told what chance you have of overcoming the illness and living beyond a predicted period of time.

Chances are, one of the first challenges you had to overcome was throwing out all the preconceived notions from friends, family, and medical providers. Probably, one of the first things you did was say “I am not a number”.

All too often in these debates on guns, we hear about statistics as if they absolutely predict the future or as if they must be the control of our lives. Nevertheless, we are not consigned to predestiny because one of God’s greatest gift to us is free will.

That all being said, here are the main reasons why statistics related to gun violence are used to create circular and patently false arguments by gun control and gun grabber advocates:

  • Statistics gathered in the past do not account for changes in factors underlying those statistics. Let’s say that 50 to 20 years ago, a glass of milk contained 30% of the USRDA of Vitamin D. Now let’s say that from 19 years ago to present, Vitamin D is down to just 15% per glass. If we are act on statistics generated on data from 20+ years ago, we might still believe that milk is the best source of Vitamin D. Even though the statistics say “drink one glass a day”, the reality is we must drink 2 glasses. In a similar fashion, arguments against gun rights do not account for the rise of terrorism as a global problem. No matter how many times they point to gun control in England and Australia, the fact remains Nigeria, France, and Germany are awash in terrorist events that require arming the general population.
  • Statistics that are based on too small a population or are not gathered for long enough also present a serious problem. Gun control has not been tested long enough in countries that have it, especially considering the way global threats are changing. When 1 out of every 5 nations on this planet is under attack by terrorists, it is a clear signal that we cannot and should not disarm.
  • As in the cases of illness, winning the lottery, or even getting safely from one place to another, statistics cannot reveal the outcome of any given event before it happens. The only thing we know for sure, 100% of the time is that it takes a good person with a gun to stop criminals and terrorists, regardless of the weapon they choose.

In our society, doctors, lawyers, nurses, police officers, members of the military, computer programmers, politicians (including anti-gunners and gun grabbers) and scientists are the kinds of highly educated people that likely make up over 50% of all gun owners.

When anti-gunners cannot grasp the five most fundamental things about gun rights, they do no service to the real problems facing our nation and world. We cannot allow these fundamental errors in judgment to go on shaping policy and laws in our nation and abroad.

Remember, this election to make gun rights your litmus test. Vote, recall, and petition!


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.



4 total views, 4 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Children Murdering Children: The Enduring Legacy of Gun Control

Click here to view the original post.

20003767 - road sign stating gun free zone

20003767 – road sign stating gun free zone

Of all the groups of people harmed most by gun control, none are as obvious as children. Not only are children senselessly murdered in gun free zones, kidnapped and tortured, the anti-gun movement hides behind the innocence of children and uses them as emotional triggers.

If we are ever to liberate our nation and the world from the waste and horror caused by gun control, we must have clear understandings about how these laws hurt children, and how we must change not just our government, but global governing bodies as well.

Gun Free Zones are Deadly to Children

Did you know that the very first modern day massacre of children happened in a gun free zone and was carried out by a child?

In less than a year from the passage of the amended Gun Free School Zone Act, Barry Loukaitis murdered two classmates and one teacher. Barry was just 14 years old, but he ushered in the era of children murdering children with the blessing of the federal laws and other gun control laws across the nation.

This and other cases of children (under age 21) murdering children in gun free zones right here in the US include:

  • Evan Ramsey (age 16) murdered one student and a principal on 2/19/1997 in Bethel Alaska
  • Luke Woodham (age 16) murdered 2 fellow students on 10/1/1997 in Pearl Mississippi.
  • Michael Carneal (age 14) murdered 3 fellow students attending a prayer circle at Heath High School, a gun free zone, on 12/1/1997 in West Paducah, Kentucky.
  • Mitchell Johnson (13), and Andrew Golden (11), murdered 4 students and 1 teacher on 3/24/1998 at Westside Middle Highschool, a gun free zone, in Jonesboro, Arkansas
  • Kip Kinkel (15) murdered 2 students on 5/21/1998 at Thurston High School, a gun free zone in Springfield Oregon.
  • Eric Harris (18) and Dylan Klebold (17) murdered 12 students and one teacher on 4/20/1999 at Columbine High School, a gun free zone located in Littleton, CO
  • Victor Cordova (12) murdered one student on 11/19/1999 at Denning Middle School, a gun free zone in Deming, New Mexico
  • Charles Andrew Williams (15) murdered two students on March 5, 2001 at Santana High School, a gun free zone in Santee, California.
  • Donald R. Burt Jr, (17), murdered one student on 3/30/2001 at Lew Wallace High School, a gun free zone in Gary, Indiana
  • John Jason McLaughlin (15) murdered 2 students on 9/24/2003 at Rocori High School, a gun free zone located in Cold Springs, Minnesota.
  • Adam Lanza (20), murdered 20 children on December 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a gun free zone in Newtown, Connecticut.
  • Jaylen Ray Fryberg (15) murdered 2 students on 10/24/14 at Marysville-Pilchuck High School, a gun free zone in Marysville, Washington.

Aside from every one of these murders happening in a federally mandated gun free zone, let us not forget that, according to federal law, in almost all cases, it was also illegal for these children to have guns. No matter whether children murder children, or adults murder children, the fact remains that one law, two laws, hundreds of laws will not stop that tragedy from happening.

The fact that there was no one on the premises of these schools with a gun created more bloodshed, more ruin, and more horror.  In every case, it required police, who had to get to the school, and then to the suspect before the rampage could be stopped WITH A GUN.

It is a universally known fact that the person on the scene first is going to be the one most likely to accomplish their agenda. When murderers want to be the first on the scene so that they can carry out their sick acts, it is patently obvious that they have picked, and will continue to pick gun free zones.

We Don’t Need Studies to Tell Us About the Children Murdered Because of Gun Control

If you think the loss of innocent lives in schools and other gun free zones is a horrific nightmare, then you may not realize much worse may be going on right in your back yard or up the street.

You see, while your children sleep, eat, and play in a home secured by loving, armed, and vigilant parents, other children are not so fortunate. These children are at the mercy of a system that doesn’t allow the parents to have guns because they are living in Section 8 housing, or some other law was passed to disarm people group by group.

And, as you may well know, many of these parents are poor to begin with because the very same people that promote gun control are also the ones  driving our jobs overseas and taxing our nation to death.

If that’s not a disgusting way of using money to disarm the nation and violate our Second Amendment rights, I don’t know what is!

Video first seen on Indiana State Police Information Channel.

Gun Control Doesn’t Limit Itself to Killing America’s Children

Since 2007, a whopping 22% of recognized countries in this world have experienced one or more terrorist attacks at the hand of radical Islamic terrorists, and most of those countries had more than one attack in any given year. To make a list of all the children murdered  in these attacks and point out all of the places with strict gun control is a heartbreaking exercise.

For the moment, let’s focus on 3 of the worst terrorist tragedies overseas involving children slaughtered in gun free zones or nations with strict gun control.


Two of the worst massacres of children at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists occurred in Nigeria.  The first occurred on December 13, 2014, and was carried out by Boko Haram.  At least 35 people were murdered, and almost 200 women and children are missing to this day.  According to the country page for Nigeria at, this country is listed as “permissive” insofar as gun rights.

Unfortunately for the anti-gunners, anyone with half a brain that clicks on the citation for that will see that the article quoted was published in 1969.  If you scroll down and look a the  more modern information, you will see that Nigeria is a textbook example of what gun grabbers want to do to this country.

When gun control was imposed on Nigeria in 1990, it became illegal for citizens to own machine guns, hand guns, and “military rifles”. This situation shows so clearly how gun laws only serve to limit non-criminals such as the innocent men, women, and children that were left at the mercy of well armed terrorists.  

To add insult to injury, not one father, not one mother of these missing children has a gun with which to defend themselves from future attacks. It is no wonder that Boko Haram and other terrorist organizations are sitting back laughing as they rape these girls and torture them. Not only did they get away with it, but they know they can get away with it over and over again in every country and area where gun control makes it impossible for people to defend themselves.

Nigeria. Again

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Boko Haram, did, in fact, strike twice at the children of Nigeria. This time, they didn’t just “hit and run”.  Beginning on January 3, 2015, and ending on January 7th, Boko Haram once again thumbed their noses at gun control after overrunning a military base. Once the only viable guns in the area were neutralized, Boko Haram slaughtered thousands, including innocent women and children.

No matter how much the governments try to reduce the numbers with conflicting fatality reports, the fact remains that 17 towns are gone, and thousands of people remain missing. Clearly, if the people of these villages had guns, we would have far more terrorists laying around dead. When it comes to the harmful impact of gun control on children, Nigeria is one of the best cases because it clearly shows the opportunistic nature of terrorists and how they will strike again and again at any area they see as weak.


An elementary school was attacked on December 16, 2014, resulting in the murder of 132 children.  In order to stop the bloodshed, the Pakistani military had to intervene in order to save almost 1000 more lives.

According to the country page for Pakistan at, once, Pakistan is also  listed as “permissive” insofar as gun rights. On the surface, civilians are allowed to own just about any kind of gun, however, all guns must be registered with the government. Unfortunately, this link fails to show the truth about how gun control helped murder those 132 children.

You see, in Pakistan, schools are gun free zones, just as they are here in the United States. As with every other nation on Earth, terrorists will attack and kill in any building or location where they know law abiding people won’t be carrying guns, because they know they can get away with it. Even though Pakistani forces eventually caught the terrorists that attacked the school, there is no bringing those children back, and every terrorist planning an attack knows gun free zones are the best places of all to spread terror and fear.

So What Do We Do About “Gun Violence”?

If there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that the murder of innocent children must stop. I would certainly love to believe that a law restricting guns could fix all of this, however the test of time and case after case proves that laws will not solve this problem.

If children aren’t slaughtered with guns, they will be slaughtered with trucks full of fertilizer, poison gas, and anything else that terrorists can get their hands on. From that perspective, I feel the answer cannot be found in limiting the rights of citizens. Rather, the answer is found in expanding them.  Here’s what I feel would reduce “gun violence” and the slaughter of children here and around the world:

  • Get rid of all public gun free zones.
  • Citizens and businesses that do not own guns should have themselves, their home, and place of business taken off the list of people and  addresses for law enforcement to respond to in the event of a crime or act of terrorism; unless they can prove that they have alternative adequate means to defend property and body. Since anti-gunners are notorious for pointing out the evils of law enforcement right along with guns, there is no reason why our tax dollar should be paying for the very safety they seek to take from the rest of us.
  • Set up a federal program whereby all people can get at least one free gun plus training on how to use it. People that cannot afford guns should also have all fees waived for permits,etc.
  • Speaking of permits, it is also time to do away with all government hindrances on gun ownership and how people choose to carry them.
  • Children should be taught gun safety and marksmanship as soon as they enter the pre-school and elementary school system.
  • At least one  gun range and ammo source, paid for by the federal government, should be available for the poor and needy so that they can practice their skills.

Far to many people today have been brainwashed into believing that guns are only of use in a gunfight. Nevertheless, even in the recent terror attack in Nice, France, the police had to use guns to stop the slaughter of innocent people.

Guns can, and are used to stop terror attacks and crime sprees of every kind, regardless of the weapons used by the attacker. When guns are only in the hands of the police and military, it is the children that suffer.

As we have seen in the US, France, Germany, Pakistan, Nigeria, and every other nation on Earth, guns aren’t going to magically disappear because laws are made against them. The only thing that disappears is personal safety and the safety of our children.

In this election season, Donald Trump is the only presidential candidate willing to give even a slight inkling of how dangerous the “gun controlled” world is. He is also the only candidate willing to get rid of “gun free zones” and admit that they are worse than a failure. Even if you disagree with Trump on everything else, this one issue is the most important litmus test of all.

No nation can be free of crime and terror when citizens are disarmed. No child can be safe in a school not guarded by guns. Shameful as it may be, this is the condition of the nation and world we live in today. To deny that for the sake of gun control, I feel, is the kind of ignorance and selfishness that lead to the destruction of us all.

Each time you hear different, just look at the growing list of terror attacks throughout the world and their magnitude and let your own eyes be the judge of just how serious these problems are.



1 total views, 1 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

4 Ways The Anti-Gun Movement Supply Crime And Terrorism

Click here to view the original post.


As I write this, three more police officers in Baton Rouge, LA are dead, and three more have been wounded. Even as these officers lay in a pool of blood, the left wing stubbornly refers to this as a “racial matter” and offers “gun control” as the miracle cure for the whole mess.

But even as these people demand disarmament, their very own rhetoric creates more innocent victims in our schools, in our movie theaters, among people of color, and among our civil servants.

Unfortunately, when anti-gunners write and speak, I feel, they have a tendency to use their words in ways that justify things that no humane being would ever agree to. In this election season, let’s have a look at the dark side of the anti-gun movement so that it becomes easier to see how it contributes to crime and terrorism.

Anti-Gunners Deny Human Equality as it Applies to Self Defense

I know some people are going to say that the 2nd Amendment is “subject to interpretation”. Let us not forget that the Constitution was written by military commanders and soldiers. As with any other soldier or veteran across time, they were every bit as aware of the difference between civilians and military personnel. Surely, if they had not meant for the common people to have guns, they would have made that absolutely clear.

Not only did the founders of our nation mean for us to have guns, it is my contention they meant for us to have unfettered access to anything we want regardless of how technology changes over time.  It is clear to me, that “equal under the law” applies to guns for every citizen in this nation.

Weird as it may be, when liberals talk about “equal rights” for the elderly, veterans,  minorities, LGBT, the disabled, the mentally disturbed, ex cons, and women, they never admit to the Constitutionally guaranteed equal right to self defense with a gun.   Instead, they appear far more interested in  deep throating our children with Common Core sex ed, and then say equal under the law only goes so far as men and women using the same bathroom!

Nevertheless, for every group whose rights they pretend to defend, they consistently seek to use the “reward” of recognition of other “rights” in order to prevent these people from speaking out about the right to keep and bear arms. Have a look at some of the disgusting things anti-gunners say to people that should be armed, but instead become victims of criminals and terrorists for want of a gun:

  • The elderly, disabled, and mentally disturbed, via the Social Security Administration, are being disarmed if they cannot manage their own money. Since when does asking someone to write you checks for you suddenly mean you don’t have a right to a gun in order to protect yourself from robbers and others that target the elderly? To add insult to injury, statistics show that these are the very people most likely to be the victims of crimes, not the ones carrying them out.
  • Veterans with PTSD and other disorders are being told they can’t carry guns in the homeland even though foreign terrorists have ordered them to be murdered. As I said in another article, don’t our veterans deserve a right to protect and defend themselves regardless of the condition they come home to us in?
  • The poor and minorities of all races living in Section 8 housing are told that they cannot have a gun for self defense, yet they are the ones most likely to be robbed, mugged, raped, and murdered, in part, because there are not enough police to patrol these areas. Why should where you live determine whether or not you  have a right to defend yourself by any and all means?
  • As for the LGBT –  just look at that “gun free zone” night club in Orlando where dozens were killed and injured by one gunman while waiting for police to arrive and take him out USING GUNS. Nuff said?  If you can’t protect yourself with a gun while you are out on a date, what makes you think you can protect yourself at any other time just because a “law” says you are protected?
  • Ex cons are another group that liberal anti-gunners seek to garner support from, yet they don’t want to admit that they, too, can easily become the victims of terrorists. Quite frankly – I feel –  people that have paid their dues to society just don’t deserve that, no matter what they did in the past. The right to self defense does not go away, and neither should the right to keep and bear arms.
  • And then, the anti-gunners brainwash women into believing they aren’t strong enough or smart enough to carry guns. So how is it a woman can “safely” spread her legs for everyone in the town courtesy of Planned Parenthood, get drafted, and “do everything a man can do”, but she can’t own and use a gun? Since I wrote about this in another article, I’ll just leave it to you, dear reader, to go on over and read about the egregious harm caused to women by the anti-gun movement.

As you can see, in case after case, anti-gunners deny every group of special interests the right to keep and bear arms even though this is the one right that serves as the lynch pin for every other right.

As we have seen in Syria, Nazi Germany, the former USSR, and many other places in the world, when the people do not have guns or the absolute equal right to self defense, they wind up having no rights at all. No matter whether a terrorist attacks you in a night club, a serial killer attacks you in a parking lot, or someone else attempts to harm you, the fact remains, in that moment, guns are the only remedy that create even some degree of equality between predator and prey.

Without Guns There are Insufficient Consequences for Committing Crime

In the arena of nuclear weapons, there is something called “M.A.D.” or Mutually Assured Destruction that is said to keep nuclear nations from blowing each other out of existence. As among politicians, perhaps it is also so among average citizens. Our human race must still contend with everything from the wiles of nature to disaster of our own making.

Guns are precisely the kind of weapon that make people think twice about attacking each other. This is especially true of criminals that see risk differently than law abiding members of society. Never forget that criminals are classic opportunists that only look at the tangible capacity to take in the “here and now”.

Laws don’t matter when the opportunity to take what they want is open and available. When criminals know that people are armed and ready to defend themselves, they move on to easier targets.  From that perspective, anti-gunners reduce the immediate consequences of criminal acts, and therefore invite those acts against to be carried out against children and other innocents.

Without Guns, There are Also Insufficient Consequences for Terrorism

For the sake of this article, I make a distinction between terrorists and other criminals because, in acts of terror, there is a stated desire to disrupt and change society in a harmful fashion. By contrast, your garden variety criminal – even a serial killer – is more focused on how the event relates to him/her, and not the impact on society.

As such, I believe the risk assessment for a terrorists is a bit different than for other crimes. A murderer might be deterred by someone carrying any kind of gun, but a terrorist will pay more attention to the type of gun and the (for lack of a better term) machismo of the carrier. Terrorists want to know if they can generate fear in their victims and the larger society, not whether they can escape with their lives.   This is why all civilians need unfettered access to any and all forms of weapons, including military grade equipment (aka big stick = big… well you get the picture).  If a terrorist knows they will be outnumbered and unable to create fear in the crowd, they get no satisfaction, so they will not waste their time.

Sadly, we are seeing just how much fun ISIS is having slaughtering millions of unarmed people all over the Middle East and Europe because these people don’t have the power of a gun with which to do the necessary. To my thinking, the problem is as much unarmed citizens as it is the very nature of ISIS and other “terror groups”.

Anti-Gunners Promote Race Riots and Cop Killings

Criminals and terrorists are not stupid – they will always pick on gun free zones. People that go to these places are telling the world they are disarmed, and, therefore, vulnerable. These are the places where anti-gunners endanger people most by calling gun carriers paranoid and attempting to intimidate others into not carrying a gun.

Far too many naive, unsuspecting people these days practically advertise the fact that they want to be raped, robbed, kidnapped or worse by virtue of  being unarmed. To a criminal looking for easy pickings, anyone brainwashed by anti-gun rhetoric is good enough target for all their sick agendas.

Today, this disgusting outcome has evolved into a situation that is also increasing the risk to our police officers. Every time a citizen cannot defend themselves from a criminal, that means a police officer must do the job for them. Now here’s how that leads to the murder of both innocent people of color and the police:

  • Let’s start off with a situation where a “gun free” store that has video surveillance cameras is robbed by someone with a gun. Since the store worker has no gun, the criminal gets away.
  • Next, the police arrive, but the only trace of the perpetrator is on the surveillance camera. And there, in the grainy image, they see a man of color.
  • And so the pictures go out, and the police roam around trying to look for this one criminal on top of stop other crimes in progress.
  • Then one fine day, a cop thinks he has found the “suspect”. Maybe the officer has been told someone suspicious is around, maybe something else has got his/her attention.
  • The suspect may reach for a gun, or maybe he’s been conditioned by a behavioral scientist via the media to freak out at the sight of a gun. Either way, it ends with a dead suspect and a police officer left holding the smoking gun.
  • And then… as is the way of human nature, efforts are made to retaliate. This costs more lives, and drives us closer to the kind of civil war that no gun law, and no martial law will ever be able to control or stop.

It should be obvious that when elected officials do not support the equal right of self defense of the nation’s police, soldiers, and citizens, it sends a message of encouragement to our enemies.  I feel right now anti-gunners are saying loud and clear that our citizens are “too crazy” or “too weak” to have guns, and  that our police are too incompetent to send out without cameras on their shoulders.

In my opinion, when anti-gun politicians bemoan how horrible it is that our citizens have guns, that also sends a dangerous message to terrorists.

Stop and think about it. If you were ISIS, would you want to hear that the nation you plan to attack is filled with people that can handle guns and are have the full support of the government behind them? Would you be encouraged to attack  if you heard that soldiers and guns are a normal part of society?

Of course you wouldn’t!  Common sense alone dictates you would move on to weaker cultures that don’t have guns, and therefore are easily driven to the kind of fear where retaliation is impossible and domination is guaranteed.

While the anti-gunners run around saying they only want to “keep the public” safe, their actions and the way those actions are read by our enemies send the opposite message. If it is an embarrassment and a disgrace to discriminate against people based on gender, sexual orientation, color, mental condition, age, or religion, then it is also just as disgraceful to say that a person’s right to self defense with a gun can be limited by others.

This election season, we have a choice to make, not just about how our country runs, but on how our friends and enemies see us. Are we going to stand with the police, the people of color, the poor, the veterans, and the disabled and uphold our collective right to keep and bear arms?

Or, are we going to throw them to the mercy of terrorists and criminals just as we threw the children of Sandy Hook and every other massacre to misguided freaks that made such horrific use of gun free zones and other gun control laws?


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.

1 total views, 1 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 1    Average: 5/5]

Gun Control: A Holocaust Against Our Soldiers And Veterans

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia gun control

Even as our nation celebrates unparalleled freedom purchased with the blood and guns of our soldiers and veterans, a massive attack on our troops is underway.

While liberal, left wing media paints gun control as a matter of public safety, the fact is the entire agenda amounts to a holocaust on our soldiers and veterans. When people who have been trained to defend our nation with guns are called incompetent to own and use guns on our own soil, this amounts to mental and emotional abuse by those who sent them off to war. 

We as a nation must stand up and say no to gun control and demand a full repeal of all restrictions on access to guns and ammunition.  Read on to find out just how dirty and ugly the gun control agenda is in light of issues related to our veterans and soldiers.

Isn’t Anti-War a Good Thing?

Anyone that lived through the ’60’s knows that the anti-war movement was anything but a “peaceful” movement. Soldiers returning home were beaten, harassed and murdered by “activists” that wanted to make a statement. Even though the outwardly violent side of this movement seems to have died down over the years, the fact remains that many of these anti-war protesters may still harbor a hatred for our soldiers and veterans.

It should come as no surprise that leaders in that age group are more than eager to take away gun rights and refer to gun owners as ignorant, crazy, or socially unfit because, in my opinion, it represents a secret way to demonize, humiliate, and make veterans feel like they do not belong in our society. Let us not forget that every veteran carried a gun at one time,  and many still do.

Ironically, the proof of anti-war hatred hiding behind the gun control agenda can be found in the very language and  weapons that anti-gunners seek to ban and confiscate. Have you noticed that they wrongly call  AK and AR weapons “assault rifles” when they are, in fact, little more than glorified hunting/sporting  rifles that are nothing like a true machine gun?

The very term “assault rifle” calls to mind warfare and the anti-war hatred aimed at the soldiers that used weapons significantly different from the AR and AK platforms. Thus, in a very sneaky and unethical fashion, the anti-gun leaders are, in effect, inciting hate against US veterans because their insistence on using incorrect, war related terms triggers emotional responses in truly ignorant people that haven’t quite let go of their radical past.

For the sake of simplicity, truth, and clarity:

  • AK and AR rifles are no different from other hunting and sporting rifles in the sense that they can have adjustable or fixed stocks.  An adjustable stock will not make a the gun fire faster or fire without pulling the trigger.
  • AK and AR platforms require you to pull the trigger each time a bullet is to be fired.  This is no different from any other gun on the civilian market.
  • The AR uses a measly .22 caliber round and some ” wildcat cartridges” that have a similar effect to a .30 caliber round.   By law,  a minimum of .24 to .30 caliber is required for animal hunting.   The bottom line is the AR is no more deadly than any other rifle used for hunting and sports.
  • The rounds commonly used in the AK-47 also barely meet the requirements for hunting animals, let alone humans.  The AK-74 fires a .22 caliber bullet designed to hunt woodchucks and other 4 legged, non-human varmint hunting.
  • Although AK and AR rifles “look like” battlefield rifles, they simply aren’t.
  • Are these “assault rifles” in the same way as an M-16’s commonly carried by our soldiers? I think not, yet anti-gunners constantly and (I feel) maliciously use battlefield terms to create a war that simply did not exist before they took their anti-war, anti-soldier rhetoric and transferred it to guns.

This is not to say that anti-war is a bad thing. The vast majority of people in this world (including me) would love to be free of warfare and violence. The desire to live a happy, full life in harmony is precisely why our veterans went to war, and it remains their goal to  go on with their lives and raise their families.

Without fail, anti-gun agenda with is radical anti-war roots veers too often into irrational emotionalism that only serves to harm our veterans and undermine the security of our nation. If the anti-war protesters that spawned the anti-gun movement believe so strongly in their cause, they would be much better off telling enemies of our nation to disarm instead of picking on our veterans from behind the shield of “gun control”.

But then again, such a move would represent real, hard, tangible work, and it is much easier to “kick the dog” and push those who are struggling to put their lives back together further into oblivion.

This, I feel is the cowardice and true ugly face of anti-gunner and gun grabber movements. Now let’s have a look at the psychology put into play here, and how it now affects not just our veterans, but now also our police officers.

Obama’s Executive Order 13707 and Why it Matters

According to selected excerpts  Executive Order 13707,  (note – admittedly the text of this executive order does not once mention guns or gun control, however the pattern of Obama’s speeches suggest it can be used for, and abused for the sake of  the purposes outlined in this article.  Furthermore,  incompetent vetting will make it even easier to push the public into unnatural and dangerous stances against veterans, guns, and the police.)

“…behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities…”

Behavioral science is defined as: “A scientific discipline, such as sociology, anthropology, or psychology, in which the actions and reactions of humans and animals are studied through observational and experimental methods.”. Note the study of Psychology, whose four purposes are defined as: “The purpose of psychology is to accurately describe, explain, predict, and change human behavior and mental processes. It strives to achieve these goals within all spheres of human activity.”

With these universally recognized definitions in mind, its is very clear that this executive order essentially aims to change the behavior of people in order to fit “national priorities”.  But what are those priorities, and are they always for the good of the people?  For example, according to Fox News, in 2013, Obama clearly labeled passing gun control laws as one of his top priorities.

Now let’s have a look at some other “top priorities” by other leaders that have done enormous harm. Within the last 100 years alone, we have seen Assad in Syria, Nazi Germany, life behind the former Iron Curtain, North Korea, and, lest our own government be left behind, the evils of “scientific research” paid for and carried out by our own government.

From this perspective alone, we cannot say that “national priorities” are always in line with what is best for groups (including veterans and soldiers) and citizens under the government’s control.  In this case, anti-gun agendas have already caused an endless number of deaths, and, this very moment are fueling the murder of police officers, the instigation of racial violence, and, ultimately, act as a destructive force against our veterans and soldiers.

The human mind, spirit, and emotions are every bit as important as the body. When you rob someone of their mental wellness, or seek to manipulate them emotionally and mentally – that’s abuse no matter who does it or what justification they claim. In my opinion, using “behavioral science” to further some vague set of not precisely defined “national priorities”  is every bit as predatory as the other “scientific experiments” that wreaked havoc on innocent human bodies. The ends do not justify the means associated with the long term psychological damage that can be wreaked upon our nation, and in particular, to our veterans.

“(iii) recruit behavioral science experts to join the Federal Government as necessary…”

Remember Little Albert? If not, let me tell you about his interactions with one of those “behavioral science experts” named John B. Watson. While in the  midst of a kinky extramarital love affair with his assistant, Rosalie Rayner, Watson decided to test out his theories about classical conditioning on an innocent 9 month old baby.  Here is the basic design of the experiment:

  • Little Albert was allowed to play with a mouse, dog, monkey, a rabbit, and other furry objects in order to make sure he had no fear of anything with fur on it.
  • Next, Little Albert was allowed to play with the mouse. Each time he touched the mouse, a loud sound was made that caused him to startle and cry.
  • The next time Little Albert was presented with the mouse, he cried and tried to escape as if the sound had also been made.
  • Upon showing little Albert other furry objects and animals, he reacted with the same fear.

Even though this experiment is considered an unethical little naughty frowned upon by modern psychology, it is very clear that Obama’s executive order allows psychological experimentation on unsuspecting citizens for the purpose of achieving “national priorities” such as gun control.

In that atmosphere, the only ones who will get to perform these experiments on the public are ones that seek to push the gun control and gun confiscation agendas.  These people may already think nothing of performing live autopsies on animals, and think nothing of electrocuting people for the purpose of “treatment” just to get a paycheck.  What is to stop these people from using staged traumatic events to manipulate the public into accepting gun control, and give up God knows how many other rights?

Not only that, but it seems these “experts” are just as cloaked in secrecy as those who make decisions about how medical care is delivered under Obamacare (if I’m not mistaken, Sarah Palin referred to this part of the act as allowing for the formation of  “death panels”.)

In short, our nation, and our 2nd Amendment rights are no longer properly guarded and protected by our elected officials. They, and our veterans may well be at the mercy of a bunch of nameless and faceless “behavior  science experts”  that may have hidden anti-soldier turned to anti-gun agendas. Let’s just say this would not be the first time that government vetting for various purposes (like several debacles in relation to security clearances) resulted in utter chaos and destruction!

So, now, here’s  how I feel Little Albert applies to gun control, and why the anti-gun agenda is anti-soldier. And as we have learned recently, the anti-gun movement  is spiraling like a hurricane into a nationwide movement that will ultimately lead to murdering and maiming police officers regardless of their color.

  • Before Obama made gun control a top priority, people paid little, if any attention to guns, even though we have all been exposed to them one way or another.
  • Each time a shooting occurs, we see people crying on TV (who can’t empathize with someone that is crying or upset?), and all sorts of frightening images and sounds paired with the sight of a gun.  It would not surprise me if the way these stories are presented  is dictated by “behavior science experts” in their efforts to carry out Executive Order 13707.
  • A growing movement amongst anti-gunners is to actually panic and become completely irrational at the sight of a gun. Well… when people are driven out of their minds with psychobabble, they do crazy, but predictable things – just like Little Albert. In this case, the anti-gunners have transferred the conditioned hysteria over guns to anyone that carries them – including the police. And, from the place of fear, these people are reacting by murdering.
  • From that perspective, the pairing of race baiting morphing into the murder of police officers is entirely expected. The fear of guns becomes generalized or transferred to a fear of the police who wear guns openly. Fear begets violence.  And, as you know, once the police are no longer able to provide security to the citizens, martial law is around the corner. But before that happens, the anti-gun agenda will continue to look for ways to destroy our soldiers emotionally and mentally, because these are the people that took a lifelong oath, trained, and sacrificed in order to protect and defend our society and our nation.

“(ii) improve how information is presented to [individuals], whether as directly conveyed by the agency, or in setting standards for the presentation of information…”

“(iv) …  [A]gencies shall consider how the timing, frequency, presentation, and labeling of … incentives can more effectively and efficiently promote those actions…  Particular attention should be paid to opportunities to use nonfinancial incentives.”

With all the groundwork established above, it should be easy enough to see how this amounts to unethical … and more than likely illegal experimentation on the citizens of our nation.    In my opinion, when an executive order such as this exists within the context of a society that is against gun control (this has been proven time and again via numerous statistics), it amounts to psychological warfare from within our own nation.  It is also my contention, based on the background and ideologies of the majority of anti-gunners, they are not only against guns, but I feel they seek to harm race relations, our soldiers, and our police.

Our Veterans Are Not Safe in the Homeland

ISIS and other terrorist groups have called for the murder of US soldiers right in our own homeland.  They have even gone so far as to publish the names and address of soldiers that they want murdered by anyone that has a chance to do so.

Given that these terrorists have already shot up a few schools and other “gun free zones” it is obvious that disarming our veterans and soldiers turns them into walking “gun free zones”. To add insult to injury, terrorist groups are likely to be emboldened as  the police that are supposed to defend civilian society are being hunted down and murdered by anti-gun, anti-cop extremists possibly fueled by “behavioral science experts” with hidden agendas.

Right now, anyone disarmed for any reason is a “soft” target for extremists that slip through our borders just as easily as Hillary  Clinton’s aides  and Edward Snowden got  Top Secret  security clearances.

  • No soldier or veteran should have to endure threats from foreign sources while being told they are mentally incompetent or too “defective” to carry a gun, especially when those laws and demands are being made by people that used to scream “baby killer”  at our returning soldiers.
  •  No soldier of our nation, no  veteran, no citizen, should be deprived of the right to unfettered access to any and all types of guns, especially by people willing to use mental and emotional abuse for the sake of advancing vague or hidden “national priorities”.

Right now, there are anti-gun governors, members of the Congress, and members of the Senate that are not up for election this time around. Each and every one of them is still fully subject to recall or impeachment.

There are also plenty of leaders currently running for office that are willing to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. Make voting for them a priority and perhaps our nation will change for the better instead of being destroyed  by “scientific” arrogance and ignorance.

If you can’t vote pro 2A for yourself, then do it for a soldier, do it for a veteran, and do it for law enforcement officers that have their lives on the line.


This article has been written by Carmela Tyrell for Survivopedia.


2 total views, 2 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

10 Best Places to Hide Your Guns in Plain Sight

Click here to view the original post.

If you’re a gun owner with young children, then at some point you’ve faced a dilemma: You want easy access to your gun in case of a home invasion, but you don’t want to just leave it lying out where your kids can find it. Even if you’ve taught them gun safety, there’s still the […]

The post 10 Best Places to Hide Your Guns in Plain Sight appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

Global Updates July 12, 2016: World Chaos is Accelerating

Click here to view the original post.

It has been some time since I posted.  I apologize as a lot has transpired over the last two weeks.  To make up for lost time, I am going to

Your Freedom… Is It To Die For?

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia freedom and guns

It would almost be amusing, if it were not so sadly tragic, how easy it is for the POTUS to manipulate and re-direct the minds of so many Americans who should know better.

With a nascent grass roots effort emerging to scrutinize the legality of Bureaucratic Fiat lists like the No-Fly list now seeded and sprouting in the forest of dissident citizenry, Obama simply brought out his two-stroke despotic weed whacker to trim us down, and made us all feel bad and guilty that we don’t have another killing of due process add-on gun ban to the illegal ‘no-fly’ list.

Laundering the Brains of ‘We, the Sheeple’

The main nonsense logic being that if they are ‘bad enough’ to not be allowed to fly, they are bad enough not to be allowed to have a gun. But if they are THAT bad in the first place, then why aren’t they arrested and charged accordingly?

Also our ‘honorable’ Congressional legislators just wrapped up a Broadway Stage performance in their last session before breaking for the holiday entitled ‘Feckless Government Dysfunction’, starring the House Democrats as comedy REPs ‘acting’ in the best interest of our Constitutional rights.

Instead of someone introducing a Declaration of War resolution against the Middle East enemy Islamic State, which just initiated a direct guerilla attack on our American soil in Orlando, murdering innocent civilians, in their own declaration of war on America…

The Leftist totalitarian branch of our government got into a hissy-fit to disrupt proceedings until they got their impudent temper tantrum way to illegally eviscerate more of our 2nd/A rights from our Constitution, along with our 4th/A rights to due process. Doubtless, we have all gone mad.

But this could fall into the ‘nothing is as it seems’ category. It might have really been a distraction re-direction to get an ‘insider’ deal going with the Omnibus bill.

They knew they’d be hard pressed for gaining any new gun control legislation. But they wanted to try to derail some Republican initiatives, by ‘scaring’ the Republicans into thinking they might not be able to prevent a universal background check winning vote, or a couple of other incremental gun control. All of these measures in their slowly but surely ultimate goal of total Australian/Canadian/UK confiscation and disarmament agenda. They at least might get some concessions on something else Obama can use to bolster his voting bloc…like maybe an ease up on immigration reform?

The amazing part is that some of the Republicans apparently want to do a treasonous compromise for their personal share of the spoils.

In the recent Senate voting session John McCain, and a couple other-I-don’t-know-what-you-call-‘em, turncoat politicians pretending to be Republicans actually voted ‘YES’ in the Senate FOR a proposal essentially allowing the FBI to arbitrarily and capriciously snoop through anybody’s emails any time they want for any reason WITHOUT A WARRANT!

I know Johnny Boy McCain, didn’t have a very nice stay at the Hanoi Hilton back in the day, and I deeply respect his service, but DUDE, did the NVA guards hit you in the head too hard too many times? Get help, John, please?

Fortunately, all the Fascist gun control bills failed in the Senate last time, but only by a thin margin of maybe a couple votes on some proposals! And just now the ‘enemies at the gates’ introduced yet another new bi-partisan compromise ‘no fly-no buy’ bill in the Senate! Also supported by a RINO Senator named Flake.

Video first seen on Sen. Jeff Flake.

But we didn’t elect a republican Senate and Congress majority to do what the liberal leftist Democrats want! We hired them to STOP their totalitarian party from gaining any more ground on their path to enslave us!

There can’t be any compromise on our freedoms? All that does is make it easier for them the next time they slide down the slippery slope to totalitarianism? They must be stopped now!

Make sure you contact your Congressional Reps TODAY and let them know in no uncertain terms that they had better NOT vote in ANY new anti-Second or 4th Amendment laws! Let them know you’re concerned and will be checking how they voted!

And in Addition to Obama’s Manipulative Disinformation…

You have master liars like Rep Jim Himes, who was one of those loud mouth anti-2nd/A birdbrain who walked-out during Speaker Ryan’s moment of silence for not pushing for more Gun Control legislation in Congress last week. Which they insultingly maintain is the cause of, and cure for, all the world’s problems.

In a subsequent media interview, Himes later asked the ultimate absurdity question of “why can’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun as it is to get a driver’s license?”

Well, obviously you never owned a car, or you are just terminally cognitively afflicted, Mr. Himes, otherwise you should know that you don’t need a NICS background check to buy a freaking car and be subjected to ownership bans. Even if you’ve committed a serious crime WITH your car, that doesn’t preclude you from owning cars or driving them on your own land like it does with guns, even if you didn’t even use a gun to commit a crime.

If you are too fool to see the insidious totalitarian disarmament agenda here, Mr. Hines, then you are too irresponsible to be trusted with legislating our future? You should resign before you irreparably harm our country, and its liberties.

Besides being in a very different ‘Public Safety’ category, mostly concerned with personal self-defense, guns have a completely different purpose. They are more of a private, individual concern, and the comparison is like alligators to artichokes.

Cars are statistically far more deadly when humans are in control of them than any firearms, due, among other things, to their ubiquitous and pervasive public social integration, and their high capacity speed and power. Far more foot pounds of potentially deadly energy than any bullets.

Indeed, almost every crime from murder to theft of the vehicle itself somehow likely involves a vehicle. So that’s why vehicles should perhaps require additional training and supervision in their function. They simply ARE MORE commonly dangerous than firearms, in complete contrast to the specious analogy you, Mr. Himes, presented.

And, the most important thing is to note in your flawed comparison that long before there were cars, people had the inherent uninfringed right to own firearms because cars simply won’t protect us much against a vicious predator, human or otherwise trying to hurt us, or a tyrannical government as well as an AR-15’s will.

Then Representative Himes persisted in mewling in affectatious public safety anguish by adding another statement that he couldn’t understand, the profound mystery of why a fairly reasonable set of {gun control} measures unleashed a torrent of hate, threats, and anger worthy of Dante’s ‘Ninth Circle of Hell’ toward elected officials who speak out for reform?

Could it be that the people are really not as stupid as you think, Mr. Hines? And they get riled when you say ‘reform’ but really mean ‘registration’ for future confiscation? Because the reality is that there is no such thing as a ‘reasonable set of gun control measures’. They are ALL anti-liberty measures.

And that the people-even many democrats and liberals- really do understand that it’s nonsense and patently dishonest to argue that there’s no such thing as an absolute right? If that were true, then why even have a Constitution? We can just make millions of Old Testament ‘Torah/Tanakh’ laws and change them anytime our leaders feel like it and be beheaded if we don’t like it?

But then it would be much worse because you can’t trust your elected officials like Himes as it is when their buddies are so agenda corrupt that they Edit Out the fact that the Orlando terrorist murderer announced he was a Jihadist soldier from the 911 call tapes, and who knows what else they covered up?!

‘Please, Stop Me…Before I Kill Your Freedom Again!’

Finally, Representative Himes said that people can’t expect to own a gun anymore without gun control reform because owning a weapon without hindrance, delay, or training… cannot trump a shooting victim’s right to see their next birthday?

Oh, please. The nauseating stench of your phony self-righteousness wafting through the halls of Congress is like what the first American soldiers entering the Auschwitz camp experienced.

And then-to add a sardonic barb to the insult, Himes says that most people agree with gun control and ‘…Congress exists to reflect the will of the people.’

I hope you don’t forget that, Mr. Himes. Because I think you are wrong. I don’t believe that the majority of true Americans want more gun control or more privacy loss.

And you can’t be ‘stopped’, Representaive Himes, because you don’t subscribe to the reality that we are all equal in the spectrum of our creation, like Thomas and Ben put forth in the Declaration of Independence. You and your wretched ilk believe you were created MORE equal and therefore eminently qualified to dominate and regulate the rest of us.

So all we can do is remove you from office to prevent future violations of our civil rights in your obsessive compulsive quest for totalitarian control over us.

Because most free thinking liberty loving Americans don’t believe your agenda based lies, right?


Then why did a Quinnipiac poll released the other day claim that 86% percent of the people they polled are in favor of a ‘no fly, no buy’ ban, and over 90% are in favor of universal background checks? Why? Because I think that Quinnipiac University is a Leftist brainwashing information manipulating POS organization and really only surveyed around 1600 people nationwide!

And if you try some demographics polling magic and happen to target Watter’s World types, and other ignorant, delusional, mind numbed and misinformed, easily bribed and manipulated sheeple, and you puppet string them with certain questions designed to elicit the desired response, guess what?

You get exactly what the mainstream media likes to use to blow out of proportion chunks all over with the help of people like Bill O’Reilly proving that he’s just as bad as Obama in many power elite ways.

He insisted that ‘universal background checks—even if they really don’t prevent crime—are not that bad because they are not actually gun ‘registration’’ either.’ When, indeed, that’s exactly what Universal Background checks are. They are, in fact, universal pre-confiscation registration.

Don’t believe me? I can even demonstrate it for you if you want to give me your name on your National I.D. card, I mean your 2005 ‘Real I.D. Act’ driver’s license/State I.D. “…your papers, please?” card.

I’ll then tell you exactly how many background checks you had and what guns you own. Or give me the serial number of any gun you have that may have been bought through a dealer, and I’ll find out who bought it, along with how many others were bought on 4473 form by the same person.

Brady Bill NICS background checks for gun purchases are nothing less than below radar gun registration data bases. Which are supposed to be illegal according to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. So how did Hawaii just get away with making an illegal law mandating actual total Registration -and having the gall to call it exactly that, ‘Gun Registration’, of ALL firearms in their State, AND reference that ‘data base’ with the new FBI universal data base on law abiding citizens?

Because the wannabe Island Slaves ‘submitted’ to letting their state dictatorship get away with it, that’s how! And the urban myth that the NICS data base must be deleted after 72 hours only applies to the general public according to the FOP act of ’86. NOT to LEO investigations, LOL!

So they really have a permanent registration data base of guns already. But now, with the Congressional vote, they are going for broke on any and all private transactions to be NICS background checked, as well? And we all know what history teaches us will happen once ALL gun ownership is registered?

Cold Hard Truth Be Told

In an open free society like America, the last one on Earth, by the way, there is simply can’t be total crime prevention or complete public safety. It’s a proven impossibility even in already disarmed populates like France!

The reality is that if you want to live in an environment of maximum liberty, free thought, and unbridled movement and privacy. Then the only thing that you must accept, Representative Hines, is that there will always be a percentage of violence in a social population that you can do nothing about it, until the essence of flawed human emotional content can evolve out of its natural violence and avarice mode through education and self-improved behaviorism.

In other words, NO amount of ANY so called humanitarian public safety crime prevention laws, administrative mandates, or restrictions will ever work to any imagined or hoped for value producing levels. And worse, in reality, these specious intentions only represent a more insidious deleterious opportunity for expanded government power and control motivation.

Just ask Hitler’s propaganda minister. When I listen to BO giving his obligatory ‘guns are always and forever the problem’ sound bites, I experience a gut-wrench deep in my bowels I never felt even when being shot at in combat.

Can ‘They’ really actually think we are all that degeneratively gullible? The answer is YES! And they’ll use that against us to submit us to totalitarian dictatorship.

What About Giving Me Liberty or Giving Me Death?

Well, your freedom, in case you forgot, is fundamentally more important than life. For without it, there IS NO life. Just verify that with anyone who lived under tyranny. That in itself nullifies their silly argument that “oh, but if gun control even just saves one life it’s all worth it?”

No, it is not worth it! Because that’s a terrible lie. The facts are that gun control costs more lives because it endangers people by limiting their ability to optimally protect themselves from bad humans and, as we’re seeing lately, and even more importantly… bad government. It’s a statistical, proven fact. More gun control puts more people in danger. Period.

And the other conveniently interpolated re-directed mind control technique the Totalitarian Leftists like to deploy, is to simply ignore the Constitution any time they feel like It. Or attack it as irrelevant or archaic.

Even though the fact remains that the 2nd/can’t be ‘infringed’ because it is the law of the land. It is clear and indisputable that all so-called added gun control laws are illegal because they are unconstitutional!

There’s not even a need for gun control if the criminal justice system wasn’t so dysfunctional. A more efficient system would be a far better deterrent than banning any inanimate objects. If a person does a crime, with or without a weapon, arrest and punish accordingly, depending upon the nature and level of egregious harm done.

Permanent disarmament bans not only don’t prevent recidivism but they do lay the groundwork for tyranny. It eventually makes all of us criminals by target focused laws, then subjects us to gun prohibition, and adds to their creation of the sub-cultural anti-social class of ‘ex-criminals’ we now have despite no further criminal behavior. And we remain law-abiding and nevertheless still permanently punished.

This is not the stuff of a rational society of enlightened higher consciousness. But it is certainly the ‘meat’ in the future feasts of Fascism…

Do You Suck at Being a True American Patriot?

You might… If all you thought about or discussed with anybody this 4th of July weekend holiday revolved around shooting off some firecrackers, and how much beef and beer you’re going to need for the face-stuffing contest at the barbecue later. Instead of discussing with your family and friends and contacting your Representative on each and every bill they vote on this week.

The ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ vote in the House this time could change your little ‘Molon-Labe’ world like you can’t imagine. All these incessant Totalitarian legislative proposals and bureaucratic mandates are scaffolding for when Hillary gets in, and starts building her gallows for our liberties faster than her lying denial of the Benghazi debacle?


Unfortunately, we have a lot going against us. In a ‘Watters World’ caricature where so many of us let our freedom drift away into the sunset like a beautiful balloon, never to be seen again, and we now face a not-so- brave new Hunger Games Orwellian world, that could eventually make places like Somalia seem like an alternative choice.

You see, too many people who work harder at avoiding the social issues that affect them directly in their wallets, security, and freedom in life, then they do to preserve their liberties. Their battle cry is ‘…give me Apps and AMP Energy drinks or…I’ll just moan and groan.’

So most people just don’t really give a damn about gun control or dystopian privacy invasion. They’d rather keep their noses buried in their smartphones playing ‘Angry Birds’ during the commercials interrupting their TV cartoon shows, when they’re not texting mono-syllabic code, or sending porn selfies to their similarly civically buds somewhere else in the dehumanized vacuum of cyberspace.

So it is up to the rest of us true patriots. Just like it was back in the 1770’s. A minority that saved the majority. Because right now, it seems like the American Revolution was for nothing.

But If we re-group and stay in the political fight, we CAN still win!

And guess what, my fellow American patriots. Thanks to the way the Framers set it up, you don’t even have ‘to die for’ your freedoms anymore. All you have to do is get out there… do your duty to get seriously politically active. And VOTE!

Then maybe the next Independence Day celebration will really mean something again?


This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for



5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 2    Average: 5/5]

American Survival Radio, June 25

Click here to view the original post.



American Survival Radio is Joe and Amy Alton’s second and latest podcast, focused on current events, health, and politics. It is separate and distinct from The Survival Medicine Hour, which continues as before focused mostly on health issues as they pertain to preparedness and survival.  If you’re interested in Survival, your own and that of your country, we bet you’ll like both!

In this episode of American Survival Radio, Joe Alton, MD and Amy Alton, ARNP discuss the issues of the day, which seems to include terror events and active shooters more and more as time goes on. Of course, with that, the political battle over gun control rages while, perhaps, the discussion over how to make Americans more difficult targets gets ignored. Plus, the state of California”s lawmakers pass a bill to allow Obamacare to be offered to undocumented immigrants, something President Obama himself had guaranteed repeatedly would NOT happen. Listen to how California State Senator Ricardo Lara (D) found a loophole in the law, and how, unless, they find funds to pay the premiums for these immigrants , Obamacare is still going to be unaffordable to most even if offered.

On the natural disaster front, a deadly heat wave in the West is causing problems for the 3500 firefighters trying to control multiple wildfires in the area. Yes, a heat wave is a natural disaster: A major one in 2003 on the European continent killed tens of thousands of people. Joe and Amy Alton tell you how to stay safe in the hottest weather. All this and more in American Survival Radio #14!

American Survival Radio

The Altons

Killing Your Liberties With Laws

Click here to view the original post.

Survivopedia about killing liberties

Here it is my fellow American Patriots. This is IT! The Big One. This is the unholy fulfillment of what I had prophesied for years.

It is the detonator on the improvised explosive anti-constitutional legislative multiple warhead device that Obama regime had been constructing for years, to eventually achieve ambush style lightning effectiveness with a devastating roadside bombing of the 2nd/Amendment and its free armed citizenry.

Its purpose is to usurp the U.S. Constitutionally guaranteed actionable right of a country founded by the People, for the People, and of the People, and their absolute right to remove an out of control regime by threat of superior citizen’s physical force if necessary.

This is so it will be much easier later on to marginalize the people’s individual and collective power under threat of incarceration until it is severely diminished, in order to then swiftly and permanently abrogate our 2nd Amendment, and then finally, the Constitution itself.

It was introduced in relative stealth and surreptitious format without any news or fanfare into the bloated bowels of our Legislation less than a week ago on May 16 by Chucky ‘Cheese’ Schumer and his co-conspirator anti-constitutionalists Bloomberg, Gillibrand, Murphy, et al.

It is called Senate Bill 2934 or the “Fix Gun Checks Act of 2016”. Notice the clever deceptive wording. Nothing mentioning ‘background’ check words, that would start sparks flying. They knew they’d get immediate blockage if they called it a “Universal Background Check Act” so there is nothing implying more dreaded gun control.

Just the brain programming that it’s nothing more than a badly needed “fix” to make what we already had better. Just a little something to keep people from slipping through the NICS’s cracks during the waiting period and all? Title I of the S.2934 says: “ensuring that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a gun are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System”. Sounds innocuous enough…

Until you read S.2934 closely. Further down and likely missed by quick scan readers, Title II of the bill says “requiring a background check FOR EVERY firearm sale”. That means ALL firearms sales. Commercial AND PRIVATE transactions!

This means Chucky Cheese didn’t really want to pursue this until after the election or right before it if it looked like the totalitarian leftist Party was a shoe-in against Trump. Otherwise he might have risked his seat by showing his dirty anti-2/A colors too obviously in the home stretch. But the way this bill was slipped in, with nary an MSM yip or a yap, is not co-incidental by any stretch.

Most followers of either party will usually simply vote a straight ticket. So there’s a good chance if the candidate wins, the Republicans may lose the House and almost certainly the Senate. So they pushed Schumer to make the move to get the bill moving ahead of time, shorting their bet. They want to be poised to strike to the jugular fast as soon as their POTUS candidate is sworn in to mitigate any opposition from gaining momentum when they drop the Statutory Sledge Hammer down.

Paying the Liberty Hit Man

guns and rustSome of you who at least pay attention somewhat to the world outside of your own special comfort zone, may have recently been shocked at the quickly censored news revelation the other day.

The current government spent over two TRILLION—and that’s not a typo– on bureaucratic administrative mandates, initiatives, orders, rules and procedures last year alone for their staffing and implementation only to establish more control over the population without having to go through Congress for real laws!

Literally thousands of new laws of dubious merit and little pragmatic value were created and put in operation by agency bureaucrats with fully punishable by fines and even jail time if violated, just in the 2nd term of this regime!

According to Law Professor John Baker who says: “…thanks to an overabundance of 4,500 plus federal crimes and 400,000 rules and regulations, it is estimated that the average American actually commits up to three felonies a day, without knowing it!”

And, of course, the Gun Confiscators are falling in full lock step with this anti-Constitutional asset of irresponsible illegal Fiat lawmaking to complete their agenda.

So how many times do I have to say it? As many times as it takes for enough people to get it to make a proactive difference.

Because controlling and disarming the citizenry for eventual Hunger Games style government by keeping permanent punishments restricting gun ownership for crimes even after time, is served and law abiding rehabilitation into society again is accomplished, and it was the greatest oppressive hoax ever perpetrated on the American Free People.

Permanent life-long punishment for even a single isolated criminal mistake in your life is a contraindication of all advanced social evolution. And to this day I still hear intelligent, educated, and concerned persons say frighteningly stupid moronic statements like ”but some people just shouldn’t have guns, right?” WRONG!

That might sound sophomorically acceptable but the reality is something else that almost nobody notices until it’s too late. The statement should be corrected that some people shouldn’t be entertaining the emotional content of doing something very bad in society, and if not contained continue on to commit a crime. And that’s a behavioral issue, not a logistics or supply issue, and has nothing to do with the crime tool implementation.

Unless you are a pathetic moron you by now know that gun control does not work at all. Period. Never did, never will. It NEVER once in all the history of crime prevented a determined criminal from getting one. Because criminals don’t subscribe to any form of government control unless they are physically forced to.

So any gun restriction laws are not only a waste of our valuable time and money, but are of highly suspicious nature in relationship to out of control government untrustworthiness.

Agenda based gun control pseudo-logic additionally opens a Pandora’s Box of potential abuse by authoritarian control in all future existentialism. Which was already in preview with Mayor Bloomberg’s outrageous totalitarian control freak tyranny not too long ago in the Big Apple by attempting a ban on how much soda pop we can drink!

What’s next, banning how many Big Macs we can munch? How much caffeine drugs we can purchase? How about a Copulation Tax if you produce children? Everybody should know by now that they are relentless in their control freakishness? Thinking I’m over the top, are ya?

The Take Down, Choke, and Tap Out of Your Guns

Because if you’re oblivious to this and don’t mind sliding a little down the now well “KY JELLIED” slope, the insidious tertiary mandate in this S.2934 “Fix Things” Bill has an additional little surprise for all you “comfort zoners”.

Buried further down in this testament from hell is in section 103 (a)(36)-(b) in a subordinate clause on “adjudication” of mentally unfit persons who can no longer have firearms, is the definition of who else, besides a judge, can summarily deny your due process rights and determine you unqualified to have a gun under penalty of law, and what they can actually base their criteria on for determining that someone is too “mentally defective” to have a firearm.

Read it, and be very afraid:

{The term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ shall–} “include an order by a court, board, commission(?), or ‘other lawful’(??) authority that a person in response to mental incompetency, or marked subnormal intelligence (???), be compelled to receive services—including counseling, medication, or testing, to determine compliance with prescribed medications…”

Wow, I guess that says it all, doesn’t it? Of course the ATF with the form 4473 has been “setting us up” for this a long time now. The fact that one out of every three persons in America are diagnosable with some sort of issue of subnormal emotional content or abnormal psychology doesn’t help. Other countries already require psychological testing to determine if you are qualified to have a gun. This oppressive agenda is salivating at the thought?

Go ahead, pretend it won’t, then be true that when you go to renew your National I.D. Card (2005 Real I.D. Act), face recognition driver’s license, and that a station won’t be set up to test you for your “ability” to legally have a firearm.

Since self-protection is an inalienable right no matter what device or tool or weapon we use, it cannot be violated with a life sentence for isolated incidents of bad social behavior, unless the act or crime itself was so egregious that the perpetrator himself must be permanently removed from society. Which then is automatically exclusive of any other tools/weapons facilitating their violence.

If you exhibit anti-social behavioral problems to the point of actually physically harming others, then YOU should be banned from society for a time deemed appropriate to the public safety solution.

NOT the type of offense laws that Governor Christie just vetoed, which allowed Police to summarily confiscate your firearms if they merely believe that you might be about to commit domestic violence! Even though you didn’t actually commit a crime yet! Shades of “Minority Report” thought control! But why NOT err on the side of caution when it comes to saving human lives?

Well, Virginia…because the danger of a government taking advantage of our misperceptions has been proven time and again throughout history. They are always corrupt and will only get worse, not better. Any perceived notion of gun control efficacy is simply a pipe dream. The danger of the G using this to enslave us far outweighs any specious perception of good.

If you want to really keep guns out of incorrigible lifelong criminals, keep their currently violent out-of- control hands from touching any weapons by keeping sociopaths locked up until there can be little doubt they will not be revolving doored soon into society, way before they are satisfactorily rehabilitated. Not anything else.

And certainly not violating the current law abiding citizens right to protection and privacy, instead.

Get Your Mind Straight Before They Do It for You

There must be a clear understanding concerning this by everybody before things like social criminology reform can ever be achieved.

guns quote

While it’s true that our broken criminal justice system is almost to a point of being completely dysfunctional, we can’t repair a “criminal prison planet” while at the same time having laws that keep creating permanent outcasts from society, resulting in a bizarre caste system of subjugated subcultures.

And before you “over the top trolls” launch your missiles at me, just do some reality research to check out the real reason for the ’68 Gun Control Act, and the sinister motives for Johnson-and even Nixon to set this permanent felony gun possession fraud in motion along with a war on drugs.

Never were any of these so-called gun control laws intended to provide any form of public safety, because technically that’s impossible. And they know it. They laugh at all of us who swallowed that bullshit hook, line, and sinker. But it’s time get a social law revolution going if the execution of our liberty can be postponed, at least, for four years, in November?

Because we must eventually repeal ALL gun control laws with no exceptions and make it illegal to attempt to make them again. This is the only way to stem the rising red tide of oppression without having a civil war bloodbath that nobody will win, assuming it would not be extremely crushed in its nascent production. Starting with the 1934 NFA, The ’68 GCA, and The Brady Bill. Then repeal all these other super expensive enslavement laws.

Think about it. With TWO freaking trillion dollars a year extra no longer wasted on absolutely useless freedom killing laws, we could build an institutional system that can group all severely mentally ill persons from society and actually give them humane rehabilitating care, without making the rest of us subject to becoming political gun ownership prohibited sub-citizens whenever their agenda requires it.

And we’d really have a much safer public society. So how do we counter attack?

Let’s Have a “Jeffersonian Revolution”?

I know that all the Molon-Labe types are already “up in arms” on any intrusion of our private freedoms, and loudly call for defense of our Constitutional values against determined destruction of our Bill of Rights—at least from the comfort and security of their armchairs.

So why, then, are these totalitarians still out flanking free Americans and taking higher ground? Are they not even experiencing a modicum of trepidation at the idea of waking up the sleeping giant bad dog of a million AR-15 toting, locked and loaded, American minute men and women storming the Capital to tar and feathering the traitors out of town?

But this new stealth universal gun registration bill will be the point of no return if it gets passed. Then all they have to do is tweak the administrative other authority laws to bypass Senate and House legislators as planned, to make all kinds of potential revolutionary dissidents a criminal or other such adjudicated unsuitable person to have firearms who then becomes unauthorized for life to have a gun. And voila, target focused mass disarmament and immediate confiscations!

And all your bravado and trash talking shit won’t mean a thing. There’s even a slick remedy in this bill to take care of all you “hold outs” who say to the Confiscation Officers that their guns were lost or stolen. Because if you don’t have a police report to that effect, guess what? You violated the 48-hour reporting rule! Punishable by arrest.

Thomas Jefferson ran for POTUS against the Federalists. Which if you study the history, was a similar problem to what we have between political parties today. He rallied the common folk and won, and they called it The Jeffersonian Revolution.

We need another one now. Just this morning I heard Donald Trump giving speech in North Dakota and astoundingly…he actually said the word “totalitarian” in describing the excessive overreach of government bureaucracy and their out-of-control laws!

I almost became misty eyed with gratitude, hope, and appreciation. But for someone like me that’s not a viable option in response.

Do…or Die?

Instead I’ve already dedicated time out of every day of my life from now until November to help American revolutionary election forces defeat the nowadays Federalists. It really IS that important.

I hope others immediately join our Jeffersonian Revolution in the war on oppression by coming out to vote and getting others to join us. Everything in our lives as we once knew it…is critically at stake. Our beloved visionary framers would be proud. And your progeny will forever be grateful.

But ONLY five months left to save and preserve American freedoms—or suffer total enslavement. Some say this is the most important election in our lives.

While relaxing and enjoying your holiday these days, please try to at least take a solemn minute to consider how much the high cost of American Freedom is worth to you?

And how so many of our best gave some, and how some…gave all… for our Liberty. Then make your decision. Are you really an American Patriot? Or Not?

gun control_620x110

This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.


13,442 total views, 264 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 82    Average: 4.2/5]

And the AR ‘Build’ Winner Is….

Click here to view the original post.
BCM Standard 16″ M4 SOCOM with BCM Bolt Carrier Group and BCM Gunfighter (medium) charging handle.

The cost was a shade over $250 more than the perpetual $299 PSA sale. I had the cash and in the long run think it will be worth it. I’ll probably do a PSA one at some point but who knows.

I also ordered mags for it to maintain the right ratio. This plus some of those new magpul Glock mags is pretty much my prep for the election

Obviously it will need some accessories. Obviously a sling though I think I have one lying around. Also a rear sight. I will buy the same folding one we use at work. That way eventually if/ when I put an optic on it the transition will be easy.

Constitutional Win for Gun Rights in the District of Columbia

Click here to view the original post.

In a rare win, residents of the District of Columbia won a court ruling against the District’s draconian gun laws.  In short, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that

“Et tu, Brutus?” Is Your Church An NSA Spy?

Click here to view the original post.

SVP church NSA

I reached a sad point in life a few years ago where not much really shocks me anymore. And being a religious historian provided more knowledge and insight into understanding of the darker side of organized religion than most of the average flock or even their ministry has. So even the resurgence of abominable historic atrocities in the name of God was not that surprising to me either.

But here is something really bothers me to a point where I’m losing sleep over it. This is something way, way off the charts, even when it comes to the questionable idiosyncrasies of religionism, and it’s counterpart, government authoritarianism.

It’s something so woefully evil that everybody, regardless of your particular faith, philosophy, or absence thereof, should take this situation into serious perspective for the future of our survival as a free nation.

Our Police State USA has now reached new devastating heights of radical intrusion into our personal privacy. They are now violating your right to practice your own religion without interference and using our faith based belief systems against us as a tool to eliminate Constitutional Law!

The Church of “Latter Day Totalitarianism”

In some ways I expected this. It’s no conspiracy theory that we already know that the FBI and the DHS has paid informants or actual undercover agents in virtually every significant mosque in the country spying on the membership. Not just the known outspoken radicalized groups, which should be investigated if there is serious evidence for probably cause, but ALL mosques are now infiltrated by arbitrary government surveillance. This is blatantly unconstitutional because not all Muslims are terrorist psychos.

Unfortunately it’s not against the law for police to dress and pose as a priest or minister, doctor, or anyone else to gain the confidence of someone you are trying to gain information from. Apparently even the entrapment laws have been compromised. And FBI and police agencies are now giving specific community watch “classes” on how to carefully spy on your neighbors, friends, and family members!

We know that recently the slope got slicker and all government employees got memos to report any discussions or attitudes of animosity toward the government and even other strange emotional behavior to their supervisors immediately. Now this isn’t specifically limited to radical Islamist behavior or speech, but it includes and emphasizes all anti-government speech!

There’s even a G sponsored public media push to change everybody into a flock of stool pigeons called “if you see something, say something”. Really? Merely seeing something or saying something stupid doesn’t constitute probable cause to have swat teams flash banging your kids into blindness and deafness for the rest of their lives?

You can’t even have a criminal conspiracy charge unless there is a “furtherance of physical contribution” to any plans. But apparently the authorities somehow now think it is?

Emboldened by their apparent success in abridging free thought and speech by the lack of public or organizational outcry, the regime put their balls to the wall and then actually attempted to make climate change deniers susceptible to some kind of criminal punishment!

While it’s bad enough Hillary now exhibits no circumspection in her campaign battle cry to crush the NRA’s attempt to exercise their right to promote firearms, and sinister stump promises to eliminate certain forms of “bad speech” against others–it’s an easy bet as to which bad speech will be number one on her speech shit list—we now have…

The Scourging of Church Privacy

How about the government now violating your right to practice your faith in the sanctity and security of your own church?!

In a news article (check the reference list below), a joint FBI/DHS task force is currently actively enlisting teams of clergy, educators, and health care providers to proactively spy on their constituents.

Not just as an atter of normal citizen responsibility as, for instance, to report to police any obvious acts or threats of potential terrorist criminal activity, but to particularly target those persons not committing any criminal acts or threats or intent, but merely exercising their rights to free speech exhibiting associated anti-government/establishment emotional or mental stress. Which includes a whole lot of us, by the way (which also happens to be setting up the foundation for an entirely different future gun confiscation agenda, as well).

These spy operations will be called SRC (Shared Responsibility Community) Teams. Some aggressive police state communities are also now using something called CER (Community Engagement Round Tables) with confidential training on how to spy on folks and some churches are now using facial recognition surveillance equipment, ostensibly for security but nevertheless linking in to the NSA’s massive data collection base.

There’s even an organization registered as Churchix which provides consulting for churches who wish to get involved.


This amounts to nothing less than establishing local organization based snitch teams consisting of your most trusted associates and mentors disguised as “preventive maintenance teams” to report directly to the FBI/DHS.

Essentially bypassing the 5th and 4th amendment due process requirements and making private protected conversation available to the government without your consent to be used against you for their insidious agendas. And as always, speciously justified under the fraudulent notion of ‘public’ safety and ‘extreme crime prevention’.

Between all that and the already well established automatic voluntary information interrogation of your private info to the NSA by Facebook and other social media venues, this is really the absolute end of your privacy rights, folks!

The politically correct equivocation is that this is not just for Islamists, but also for U.S. based “domestic extremist groups”. Translation: Patriot militia groups, sovereign libertarians, “molon labe” types, and eventually, any anti-government verbal dissent or opposition.

Unholy Bedfellows

It is not widely known or universally published that historically the church (and quite a few other sectarian religious organizations) never had qualms about resorting to bribery, intimidation, and even torture and murder to enforce “the laws and will of God”.

Spying to control the flock was a deeply rooted part of the church’s operation. The Jesuits were always the Church’s equivalent to the CIA. And as bad as all this government spying on the flock is, the government couldn’t hold a novena candle to the church’s proprietary tradition of Confession. The church’s “intelligence” system doesn’t need to spend all that tax money on cloud storage of everything you say, buy, read, and do.

The local parish pastor or local church minister knows much more about everybody than the government. Because the sinful information is willingly confessed to the priests by the flock members in little rooms in the back of the church called confessionals after which the now forgiven sinners gratefully even sometimes donate money to the unholy practice.

Local non Catholic Christian churches garnish the flock’s trust withwitnessing at gatherings after sermons, and then private office counsel services by their ministers for the faithful, often with intimate revealing conversations often taking place that should be protected under client privilege law, but really isn’t under these new Police State rules.

Is this latest privacy intrusion by authorities’ the precursor of a nascent Government-Vatican power elite merger? After all, They both share the same gun control agenda?

They’re both going broke, and if economic doom soothsayers are correct the G will have to begin selling off some of the land out west they stole over the years from the ranchers to China for some cash flow, and the church might have to sell some of that gold and art they traded from the Nazis for helping them get new id’s and set up in South American and elsewhere.

So in true totalitarian ingenuity, it’s only logical and deviously clever for the G to take advantage not only of the liberty and privacy weakness along with the gullibility of organized religion, but also of their highly developed proven control methodology over their flocks.

Why NOT initiate a community Police State program where your own church clergy are working with and for the Government to spy on your personal life? Totalitarianism would work even better as a “religionist police state”. The best of both totalitarian worlds. And this shameless immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional treason on both sides… is what Jesus died for?

The Kiss of “Jude-Ass”

My immediate reaction was “wait just one Holy Cow gall dang minute! Isn’t this direct recruitment of the church as a government intelligence subcontractor a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment Separation Clause? Isn’t setting up any kind of government relationship to further government control over the people determined in some Constitutional case law as a direct assault on the 1st Amendment separation law?”

So many times I’ve said it before but…Where’s ACLU on THIS?! Maybe they’re too busy with the ‘Big Stinky Potty’ debate, Gay marriage, or some such other bullshit nonsense?

And, why is there such a noticeable suspicious absence of concern from the church and Christian leadership on this? Or more importantly, where’s the outrage and marching, and condemnation by the rank and file Christian community on this? What is this strange “church mouse” silence in the holy vestibules of our houses of prayer?

Maybe they are too afraid of losing the Big Daddy G knee bounce of not having to pay church property taxes freebie? Or losing that non-profit corp but big business money making tax break status they get for being a church?

Do they have more fear of the regime, than they have fear of God? Could it be the Lord’s way of teaching us a lesson or a warning to let us know that we should never drink the poisonous potion of Government and Faith based religions working together against the people? Mixing politics and spiritualism can ultimately destroy us all, like it did all throughout history? Which is why the Founder’s created the 1st Amendment.

Is this a sign from God? A manifestation of a foretold prophesy of hell fire and brimstone punishment for trying to making deals with the devil and having sinful dreams of theocratic power lust?

guns and god

Let the Good Old End Times Begin!

Lately I’m finding myself glancing more up at the heavens.

I’m watching for Jesus to gloriously come gliding down from the sky through the chem-trails, with His Malificent, I mean Magnificent winged angels behind him slinging their AR-15’s…Locked and loaded.

But as a refugee from a Seminary and person of the cloth myself, I had a spiritual dream that I better get up off my potato chip ass, and start prepping for his second coming– because now I’m certain that the end is near — by calling my representative and asking him about this.

No, wait, by demanding that he finds out some answers to the Constitutional validity of all this, and then email the ACLU and some others. And then go out and pick up a couple thousand more rounds.

Because like everyone else, maybe Christians are simply too busy caught up with wasting valuable time on their obsessive compulsive anti-LGBT crusade side of the toilet seat holy wars? And, of course, THAT’s exactly what the G likes to see instead of concentrating on more important things in life like the destruction of their faith from within.

And they wonder why overall church interest is in decline these days, especially with young people?

Maybe the Pope should skip the social media twitter twatting for sheep recruiting and get right to the bare essentials and do a Holy Smokin’ twerkin’ rock video with Miley? Call it “The Last Crucifixion”… of our liberties!


This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.


2 total views, 2 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Complete AR Lowers and Kenny Escapes the PRK!

Click here to view the original post.
It looks like the Democratic Party machine is jamming Hilary Clinton down their parties collective throat. Her thoughts on guns are pretty well documented. Needless to say a second Clinton presidency would be very bad for Team 2A. Our window before the almost inevitable election related hysteria gets going is short. As such I picked up two of those PSA blemished lowers on the $189 sale. Thanks to Commander Zero for the heads up. I will be able to build Project AR’s slightly cheaper brother off one of them. Of course you have to compare the cost of building vs just buying a rifle but I think it will work out well.

I may do some other things in the next month or so. Without going into a bad spot (digging too deep into savings let alone using credit) I will do the best I can to get my gunny house in order. You should consider doing the same.

On another note entirely Kenny is officially in Tennessee!

Reader Questions: Gun Stuff in the Election Cycle

Click here to view the original post.
          Hope things are going well in your new digs and that you are getting settled in to new life there.  I was out of town and missed open line Friday, so I thought I would drop you a line about a possible post topic.  If you can do so without giving away opsec too much I’d love to hear your thoughts and plans now that we’re less than a year away from what is shaping up to be a very scary election cycle that could have major consequences on like minded individuals such as us.  Even if nothing happens to 2A as a result of the elections I’m still expecting panic buying as summer turns to fall.  I’d love to get your take on it and I’m sure it would spur discussions a,on some of your respected readers.   Anyway, have a good’un and thanks for doing what you do.  I don’t always comment, but just know you’re one of my 3 go to sites daily (and you introduced me to the other two).


Ryan here:  Honestly the quadrenial presidential election panic buying is a pretty normal event. You can’t predict event based stuff like Sandy Hook but there are elections every 2 and 4 years. Honestly I am at a point where I do not really feel a need to rush based on it. Consistent purchases over time really add up, even on a fairly modest budget. Put it this way, if you bought a standard capacity PMAG (199 at 0.Lucky Gunner) and Glock 17 or Glock 22 mag every month since the last presidential election cycle you would have 48 of each. Sorry if that is harsh.

What am I personally going to do? Basically I have been trying to front load the years gun stuff.
Good: A budget back up/ truck gun AR-15 with 20 mags.  Also a pair of stripped lowers.

Better: That plus 10 more Glock mags, a case each of 5.56 and 9mm.

Best: All of that plus a case of 7.62×51 and 10 more FAL mags.

For general advice I would say to focus on full capacity (10+ rd) magazines then the military pattern rifles that hold them. If you have your eye on a spare military pattern rifle/ pistol then get that. Once you are square on that I would look to training ammo. Having enough to train for at least 6 months is a good idea.

If the goal is to make money I would be stashing PMAGs and stripped lowers, plus maybe some brand name (S&W, DPMS, etc) basic AR-15’s.

As always the comments section is open.

This is WHY flintlock pistols need to be controlled.

Click here to view the original post.

This is why flintlock pistols need to be controlled, to stop criminals & people like Man Monis from purchasing illegal pump action shotguns & cutting them down like this:

Makes sense doesn’t it???!!!

Merrick Garland For Scalia’s Place In Supreme Court?

Click here to view the original post.

big scalia garland

Ever since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court, there’s been a political hot potato being thrown around Washington.

Democrats have seen this as an excellent opportunity to get rid of one of the great defenders of conservatism and replace him with a liberal pick, changing the makeup of the highest court in the land from tilting slightly to the left, to tilting heavily to the right.

Together with the left-leaning media, Obama and liberal lawmakers have been exerting all the pressure they can on the Senate to take quick action on this and fill the vacancy. According to the law, the president nominates new justices, but he cannot appoint them. They must be approved by the senate before they can take office.

This is probably the clearest example of the huge loss that the Democrat party suffered in the 2014 midterm elections.

Before that time, the Democrat-controlled Senate, under Harry Reid’s leadership, was able to do pretty much as they pleased. They even instituted the “nuclear option” reducing the requirement for a supermajority (2/3 of the voting members) for judicial appointments to a simple majority (51%).

But now, Democrats have lost that control, even though they try to pretend that they still have it. Reid and the White House have continually tried to dictate to the Republican-controlled Senate, as well as the lower house of Congress. But this time, they’ve encountered resistance.

Senator Mitch McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader and as such he essentially runs the Senate. He has publicly stated on several occasions that the Senate will not confirm any of Obama’s lame duck Supreme Court nominations, or even have committee hearings, the first part of the process. So far, he’s held his ground and even as late as today has said that he will continue to hold his ground on this issue.

This is not an unprecedented position that McConnell is taking. It’s not uncommon for the Senate to deny confirmation hearings for appointments nominated in the last year of a president’s term in office. But it’s not unheard of to confirm those who have been appointed in the last year either.

The funny thing here (if we can find anything to laugh about in this situation), is that some of the very same Democrat Senators who were standing strong against any appointments during Bush’s last year in office, are the same ones who are coming out the strongest to say that the Republican-controlled Senate has a responsibility to not only have the confirmation hearings promptly, but to out-and-out approve whoever the President nominates.

It’s amazing how the shoe feels differently when it is on the other foot, as well as how short the memory of politicians can be. Clearly, those who are changing their tune are doing so for personal gain, or at least for the benefit of their own political party. They don’t care about what’s right or wrong, or even what’s best for the country. They are married to an ideal and they are pushing for that ideal to go forward, at whatever cost.

Video first seen on CNN.

As far as I’m concerned, Mitch McConnell is correct in waiting until after the elections to hold any confirmation hearings.

But that isn’t without some risk either. Democrats, and their media lapdogs are going to make as much hay out of the delays as they can. Past precedent will be ignored and the Republicans will be made out to be the bad guys… like always.

Of course, there is an easy solution to this; all McConnell has to do is go ahead with the confirmation hearings, putting a safeguard in place. That safeguard is an agreement between the Republicans in the Senate that no nominee from Obama will be acceptable to them.

Were the parties reversed in this situation, that solution would work. The Democrats are well-versed in marching in lockstep, with everyone following the party line. But Republicans don’t do that so well. There are actually many factions within the Republican party, unlike the Democrats. On one hand, that means that Republican lawmakers think for themselves; but on the other hand, it means that it is hard to get agreement, when needed.

A Tough Choice to Make

The candidate that Obama has selected to replace judge Scalia doesn’t make that easy either. Merrick Garland is probably the most conservative liberal that we could ever expect to see Obama nominate. For that matter, we can extend that to Hillary too. As a more centrist liberal, he has received votes from Republicans before, helping to secure the bench he currently holds.

For a liberal, Garland is an almost acceptable choice, from a Republican point of view, and in other years, he would probably receive the nod from the Republican-controlled Senate. But this is the last year of Obama’s presidency, so the Republicans have a legitimate opportunity to wait.

The biggest point against Garland is that he is in favor of gun control. Should he receive approval and join the Supreme Court, we can be sure that liberals will take the opportunity to shower the Supreme Court with gun control cases, trying to pass through the judicial branch, what they couldn’t pass through legislation. While this probably wouldn’t include a full repeal of our Second Amendment rights, it would most likely result in some new limitations.

Considering how hard Obama has tried to limit our rights to own firearms and how he has used every trick his extensive legal team can muster to take that right away from specific groups of people, it seems likely that he would not have nominated Garland, if he had any doubt about the judge’s stance on gun control.

The other big issue that would probably make or break Garland in Obama’s eyes, is his stance on abortion. Surprisingly, nobody seems to know the judge’s opinion on the matter, even after serving as a judge for 19 years. It seems that he never tried a case involving abortion and doesn’t talk about cases that he is not presiding over. Not even his staff knows his stance on abortion.

As for other issues, Garland comes across as a moderate. However, even that may not be all that great, especially when you compare his record to that of Scalia, who was a staunch conservative. So, it’s hard to say which side he would come down on, for any particular issue.

However, there is one other major area where the judge has presided over enough cases to provide clear guidance on his stance; that’s on cases involving environmental regulations. Obama has been using the EPA extensively to push his agenda, in many cases, ignoring existing law or stretching it to the extreme. It appears that Garland would back Obama’s position in this area, rather than giving the subject a fair trial.

All-in-all, this nomination is a definite hot potato. If the Senate doesn’t confirm Garland, Obama will just nominate someone else; probably someone who wouldn’t even be as acceptable as this choice is. However, if they do confirm the nomination, then we end up with a liberal supermajority in the Supreme Court; something that could last for years.

Then there’s the possibility of the Democrats winning in November. It’s quite possible that Obama made the selection he did, knowing that Garland was more palatable to Republicans than just about anyone else he could choose. If they turn him down, they can be sure that anyone Hillary or Bernie will choose, won’t be as moderate, but will in all likely be extremely liberal. Unless they can maintain control of the Senate and win the presidency, Republicans stand a chance of losing, no matter what happens.

Video first seen on David Packman Show.

As I and many others have said before, the country is at a tipping point. We have become more polarized over the years, with the rift between conservatism and liberalism growing wider by the year. A major loss in this election could drive a stake through the heart of conservative politics, effectively putting an end to it.

Oh, it won’t totally go away. There are still too many conservatives in the country to make it go away altogether. But neither party is currently supporting conservative ideals. Should the Democrats win the presidency and take control of the Senate, the conservative voice would become nothing more than just that… a voice.

More than anything, the conservative loss would happen in the Supreme Court. As I’ve previously mentioned, there are several justices on the court, who are old enough that they might die at any time. There’s no way that a Democrat president will nominate a conservative to the court, so unless the Senate is willing to keep rejecting nominee after nominee, leaving seats on the court vacant, they will eventually have to approve someone. Who that someone will be, is the question.

Of course, if the Democrats manage to take control of the Senate back, then they will win. It won’t matter if we have a Republican president or a Democrat one; the Democrats will call the shots. The only true chance that conservatives have is for the Republicans to retain control of both houses of Congress, while voting in a Republican president.

But I’ve got to say, even that isn’t much of a chance for conservatism in our country.

Survivopedia Darkest Days

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.


3 total views, 3 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

This Is Why gun control aimed at Licensed gun owners does not work.

Click here to view the original post.

Gun control is aimed at law abiding licensed gun owners, not criminals. Criminals are NOT licensed. They get there guns illegally from the black market. They import them from overseas, & the labor government refuses to help stop this, WHY?

The government in total wants to disarm Australian citizens, probably because this government is so corrupt that they are worried that the Australian people will turn against them. WE CAN’T vote them out of office, it will never happen.

This video shows you why gun control does not work & never will work. Disarm law abiding citizens & the only ones with guns will be the military, the police, & the criminals!!!

Pipe Shotgun
Bad guys are gonna get guns no matter how many laws are passed.
Posted by Bigfoot Gun Belts on Saturday, 12 March 2016

2016 Political Thoughts

Click here to view the original post.
1- I am seriously ashamed for our country that this is the best set of candidates we can field.


3- It is interesting that on both ends of the spectrum the candidates getting the most energy Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are very much anti status quo. They have vastly different goals and followings but they are both mad.

On the Democratic side it seems clear the party will (s)elect Hillary Clinton no matter what voters think. The PR machine and super delegates the lock seems to be in. I think this is good in a way as it shows the farce that is the primary process and we could argue elections in general. Hillary has so many negatives that I think she is a pretty weak candidate. All the scum of Bill Clinton but none of his personality. That is before Bengazi and Server Gate.

On the Republican side the establishment is eager for anyone but Trump. However his cult of personality and the establishment lacking super deligates in sufficient numbers to decide all but the widest elections it is not working. Short of Donald Trump being caught burning a bible wrapped in an American flag then going to Planned Parenthood for his teenage daughter’s late term abortion and molesting a little boy in the lobby it is his race to lose.

4- So it looks like a Trump/ Clinton race. This makes me want to throw up.

5- What am I going to do specifically to prepare for the upcoming run on gun stuff? Probably not a whole lot. Another 20 PMAGs, 10 Glock mags, 6x 10/22 mags, 3 cases of 5.56, one of 9mm and a new AR would be nice. How much of that I will do is unclear.

6-  Continuing from 5 I am not really worried about anything getting banned. The house and senate are both held by Republicans. While I am not in love with their “we are pro gun because we hold the status quo” train of though I can’t see them letting anything through. So we are safe for awhile until the house/ senate balance changes. My goals are more about front loading a year or so worth of gun related purchases before things get silly.

7- After they get silly, which I think they almost predictably will, I will focus on other areas. Also round out some non ban type items like a new scope for a rifle, some night sights, etc.

8- Thoughts?

Never take for granted the freedoms we enjoy today!

Click here to view the original post.

Rather a strange title for us in Australia, as we have already lost so many of our freedoms. Let’s make sure we do not lose any more human rights! 

Never take for granted the freedoms we enjoy today! https://ww…
Posted by Gabby Franco on Wednesday, 2 March 2016

Corrupt Government Bullshit BUSTED!!! Adler versus Coach Gun.

Click here to view the original post.

Adler A110 vs Coach Gun

With all the controversy surrounding the new “Rapid Fire” Adler A110, we decided to test out just how fast it really is by racing it against a double barrel coach gun.The results will surprise you…

Posted by Shooting Stuff Australia on Friday, 12 February 2016

Guess Which Gun Grabbers Actually OWN STOCK In Gun Companies?

Click here to view the original post.

Guess Which Gun Grabbers Own Stock In Gun Companies? President Obama and gun control advocates may want to limit your right to purchase firearms, but they are not opposed to owning stock in gun and ammo manufacturers.

An investigation by Reuters revealed that Obama and other anti-gun Democrats have money invested in funds that involve gun stocks.

President Obama has $100,000 invested in a $16 billion Illinois state pension plan from his days in the state senate. That $16 billion plan has $5 million invested directly in several gun and ammo makers, and it also includes a small-cap mutual fund with a $9.5 million stake in Smith & Wesson, the news service reported.

But it’s not simply gun control advocates from the Illinois state legislature who have money invested in gun and ammo stocks. US Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), a leading advocate of gun control, has $115,000 invested in an S Fund through the federal Thrift Savings Plan that involves stock in gun companies. The S Fund lets members of Congress invest in mutual funds such as the First Eagle Global Fund, which has $196.9 million worth of stock in ammo and gun maker Vista Outdoor.

Guess Who Owns Stock In Gun Companies?

Image source: flickr

Former US Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-New York), a relentless gun control crusader when she was in office, owned between $3,003 and $45,000 in exchange traded funds with stakes in gun and ammo makers, Reuters reported. McCarthy also invested between $2,002 and $30,000 in college savings plans for her grandchildren that involved firearms stocks.

Business is Booming

Gun ownership has soared under Obama’s presidency and has been further propelled in recent months in response to a series of mass shootings.

Do You Know The Best Way To Hide Your Guns?

Smith & Wesson’s stock value increased by 80 percent between September 2014 and September 2015, Market Madhouse reported. During the same period, applications for background checks increased by 20 percent, and observers credited the increase to louder demands for gun control.

“The politics of gun control could stay in the headlines, which we believe could lead to a record year (for gun stocks),” Chris Krueger, a senior research analyst at Lake Street Capital, wrote to investors in January.

Gun sales increased again after President Obama announced plans to expand background checks and increase licensing requirements for firearms dealers in the wake of last year’s San Bernardino (California) massacre.

The week of December 20 saw the second highest level of firearms background checks since 1998, the FBI reported.

Gun control demands have prompted firearms and ammo makers to ramp up production, Reuters reported. Vista Outdoor’s ammunition factories have been operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the past two years, the company’s chief financial officer, Stephen Nolan, revealed in November.

Ruger is boosting its inventory in expectation of even heavier demands this year. The company’s CEO, Mike Fifer, is afraid that demand for his products will exceed supply as it did after Obama was first elected.

“Orders at every level of the distribution channel exploded” in the weeks after Obama’s first presidential election in 2008, Fifer said, “and continued to do so for months afterward.”

What is your reaction to Obama and other gun control advocates owning stock in firearm companies? Share your thoughts in the section below:

There’s A Trick To Navigating Federal And State Gun Regulations. Read More Here.

Resistance S4: The Logistics of Successful Re-Supply Cache Planning by John Mosby

Click here to view the original post.

John Mosby who writes the excellent blog Mountain Guerilla was nice enough to let me cross post this article. John reminded me that guns which are in a cache cannot be used to shoot somebody in the face. this is of course a worthwhile point. If you have a basic 4 (rifle, pistol, shotgun, .22) I would not be inclined to cache anything. A gun that you need to defend your home or put food on the table needs to be at home, not buried off in the woods. However if like may folks reading this you happen to have a spare rifle and pistol or 4 that have lived in the safe forever it might be prudent to consider caching these weapons to resupply you later on.

Anyway for those who did not see it at his excellent site Mountain Guerilla here is an article by John Mosby on caches.

Resistance S4: The Logistics of Successful Re-Supply Cache Planning

(Originally published on the old site, APR 2012–J.M.)
Of the four major aspects of support in military and paramilitary operations–personnel, intelligence, operations, and logistics–the fourth is often the most misunderstood by aspiring students of resistance theory and history. As the oft-cited cliche so accurately states, “Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.” When Napolean famously stated that “An army travels on its stomach,” he wasn’t talking specifically about the quality of the food in the French military, but about the importance of ensuring that the logistics train managed to keep pace with the fighting force, in order to keep the men re-supplied and fed.
For the inexperienced, the amount of material logistics support necessary to support even a single twelve-man SF ODA over the course of a six-month long deployment can be mind-numbingly massive (plane loads, not duffel bags full). The idea that a resistance cell will grab their individual rucksacks, LBEs, and weapons, and run off to the woods to fight it out in some Red Dawn, live-off-the-land scenario is a fantasy of hubris at its best. At its worst, it’s just fucking stupid.
Similarly naive however, is the typical survivalist/prepper idea that, in a totalitarian regime, ruled by the force of ninja-clad stormtroopers who kick in doors at 0300, stomp puppies to death, and jerk citizens from their beds by the hair, a stockpile of food and supplies in the pantry and basement will be adequate or secure.
The key to successful logistics support if a resistance movement is the establishment, by both individual tactical cells as well as dedicated auxiliary logistics networks, of widespread, secure, and well-equipped caches of critical supplies (for the record, it’s pronounced “cash,” “cashes,” and “cashed,” not “cashay,” “cashayes,” and “cashayed!”). Caching is the process of hiding equipment or other necessary logistics materials in secure storage locations with the express intent to later recover those materials for future use (hiding them without the intent of later recovery is referred to as “losing shit.”) In a resistance movement, cached materials may provide numerous benefits to resistance forces. They may meet the emergency needs of personnel for items that can no longer be procured on the open or black markets, due to regime interference or lack of supply, or they may provide necessary travel documents and funds for the initiation of escape-and-evasion corridors by compromised personnel. Most critically perhaps, caching provides a realistic supply solution for long-term operations conducted over wide areas, far from secure bases of operations. In the specific words of the doctrinal literature on caching for UW, “caching can also provide for anticipated needs of war time operations in areas likely to be overrun by the enemy.”
Cache Planning Considerations
Selection of the specific contents of any particular cache requires a thorough analysis, careful estimation, and more than a little scientific, wild-ass guessing (technically termed “SWAG”), regarding the needs of particular resistance elements for particular operations. Fortunately, we still have the benefit that procurement of most of the likely candidate items for future re-supply caches currently pose no significant difficulties. In fact, as has been repeatedly belabored in this blog previously, the relative ease of procurement before hostilities become any more heated is the major benefit in favor of caching logistics materials now (fundamentally, it goes back to a previously asked question. How serious are you? Is it real, or are you playing “Gus the Guerrilla” so you can dress up in multi-cam and shoot guns?)
Planners, whether members of an individual tactical cell, or a dedicated auxiliary logistics cell, must determine the purpose and contents of specific caches, since these basic factors influence the location of the cache and the necessary methods of concealment. A cache containing liquid assets, such as silver or similarly small, readily concealable items may be established in relatively accessible places, since the recovery agent of the cache can simply conceal the contents on his person with ease. A cache of rifles and ammunition for a raiding party however, will require establishment in a less accessible, more remote location, since hiding the weapons from casual observation will require more effort than simply shoving them in a pocket (honestly, one of the few benefits I can see of owning AKMs, other than the fact that there are hundreds of millions, of not billions of 7.62x39mm ammunition floating around this country, is the convenience of a being able to conceal a folding stock AKM under a jacket like a Carhartt barn jacket).
Further, certain items, such as medical items like antibiotics, painkillers, IV saline bags, and other consumables do possess limited shelf-life and may require periodic rotation or other specific storage considerations. This may require easy access for the planners to service these caches, as needed. Ultimately, resistance planners must balance the logistical objectives of the cache with the actual possibilities when selecting items and locations for a cache. Realistic options for items included in re-supply caches may include, but certainly not be limited to: money, weapons and ammunition, explosives components, medical supplies, tools, food and water (water purification methods may be more appropriate in many environmental areas), batteries (overlooked far too often by amateur guerrillas. Realistically in modern conflict, even guerrilla warfare, combatant elements will go through batteries like shit through a goose), clothing, and spare/replacement load-bearing equipment (I utilize ALICE load-outs for cached load-bearing equipment, since it’s cheap and will suffice, even if it’s not as ideal as my current or future load-outs. If I’m to the point of relying on LBE cached months or years before, I’m probably not going to be too particular about how Gucci it is. If it’s gear to outfit new resistance recruits, they don’t get to be picky).
When planning a resistance supply cache, planners absolutely must remember that “the enemy gets a vote.” The successful recovery of a combat re-supply cache will ultimately depend on how well the planners anticipated the various obstacles to successful recovery, which will be created, intentionally or not, by the enemy if he occupies the area of the cache. Hiding a weapons cache in a small meadow surrounded by brushy woods because it is near the junction of several major roads may seem ideal, since it’s hidden and yet readily accessible. Unfortunately, those same considerations may lead the regime to decide to plant an encampment of security forces troops there. It might be difficult to recover a buried barrel of M4s when there are a bunch of guys in blue helmets with funny accents eating supper over the top of it. Further, future non-conflict related obstacles may arise (Anyone remember the incident last year when an arms cache was found buried under the right-of-way for a highway being constructed? I personally know of a guy in the northern Rockies who has several cases of dynamite cached. Unfortunately, it is now buried about eighteen feet below a road-side DOT weigh station).
In addition to regime security forces activities, actions of the local civilian populace may interfere with the security and/or recovery of caches. Planners must project how the local populace will react to the pressures of occupation/war-time living. One likely reaction is that many people, even those unaligned with the resistance, will resort to caching their personal and family valuables to prevent theft or confiscation by either criminals or the regime (but then, I repeat myself, right?). In such an event, ideal cache locations may become too well-traveled for the security of recovery teams, as well as gaining greater scrutiny by security force intelligence units looking for such cached materials.
Often overlooked in theoretical discussions of supply caches is the actual task of transporting the materials to be cached to the location. The most secure packaging of cached items is performed in secure areas, rather than in the field or at the cache location. While it may be simpler to transport a pre-packaged supply of cache items to the cache site from a safe house, than to transport the goods and the packaging material, it will still not be a simple task (consider the weight and space needs for a cache of six M4s, plus a basic load of 210-330 rounds each, or for food supplies, even in dry staple items like rice and wheat, for a two-week supply for a four- or six-man element).
Finally, anyone who is involved directly in the placement of the cache, from planning the location, to actually placing the cache in its determined location will know where the cache is located and is thus subject to compromising that cache location if captured and interrogated (as we will discuss in a forthcoming article, if you are captured and interrogated, you WILL talk. Everyone talks. It doesn’t matter how tough you think you are, a skilled interrogator can break your will to resist. Unfortunately, it’s even easier if the interrogator is from the same cultural background and speaks your language than it is if he’s a foreign invader). The same considerations apply to recovery personnel. While a cache site that only one person knows the location and contents of is of little use to the resistance, and the members of a logistics cell will need to share the information data on various caches, there must be serious consideration given to the operational security requirements of doing so. Among these is limiting the access to information to the actual emplacement personnel and planning cell until the need for the contents of any particular cell is required, and spreading the planning and emplacement duties for various caches to various independent cells within a network.
Caching Methods

The specific methods used to cache materials for future use are as varied as the people who cache those items. The most obvious (and probably the most common) method, of burying goods, may be of limited value in some operational environments (it would be harder to bury a cache of arms for a platoon-sized element of resistance fighters, with adequate ammunition, in a large urban enclave, than to hide them in attics or basements. Burying items in a swamp is far less efficient than underwater cache methods). This wide variety of possibilities open to cache planners means there is little value in laying out general rules, or even too many specific concepts for caching. Nevertheless, one rule remains inviolate when developing a network of caches for resistance supply: Planners must always think in terms of suitability. The method most suitable for each cache, considering its specific purpose, the actual and projected situations in the particular location, and the impact of possible regime courses of action.

  1. Concealment of the cache means utilizing permanent man-made or natural features to hide or disguise the cache. Focusing on superb concealment of caches offers several benefits for planners and installers. Employment and recovery of the cache can both be accomplished with minimum labor, in a minimal amount of time. Items concealed in buildings or caves are protected from the elements and extreme weather, thus requiring less elaborate packaging (a cache of medical supplies concealed in the walls of an otherwise abandoned barn or out-building may need little more than to be placed in a plastic garbage sack before being concealed). A concealed cache may be more readily accessed from time to time, in order to replace perishable items that may be nearing or past their expiration dates. The potential risk of accidental discovery of concealed caches however, means that this method is most suitable for extremely secure sites safe from search by regime security forces (concealing a stockpile of old Mosin-Nagants in the basement of the president of the local gun club would be pretty fucking pointless, no?), or situations where rapid access to the cached items is of high enough priority that it outweighs the chances that the cache will inadvertently be discovered. Concealment may range from securing a small pouch of “junk” silver coins behind a heating vent in the wall, to building a false wall in a basement to hide a cache of workshop-manufactured mortars and ammunition.
  2. While burial is not always the best option for cache establishment, there is a reason that, when people think of caches, they almost invariably consider it first. Suitable burial sites can be located damned near anywhere, and if the cache is properly established, it will be next to impossible to find, without the utilization of very expensive, highly-technological equipment, and ample amounts of time. While the security of a well-placed buried cache is without compare, unlike simple concealment, burying a cache is an extremely labor-intensive process, requires severe and thorough packaging of the cache to protect it from the burial process and the exposure it faces from dirt, moisture, burrowing fauna, etc.
    Burial of caches almost invariably requires the use of specialized containers and/or special wrapping to protect the contents from the environment. Emplacement and recovery of a buried cache often takes so long that it can only be accomplished during the night, to preclude discovery, unless the cache site is placed in such a ridiculously remote location as to completely preclude any effective usefulness whatsoever. It can be extremely difficult, even for the initial emplacement element, to successfully locate and recover a buried cache after any length of time.
  3. One method of cache emplacement that is often overlooked (for good reason) is the submersion method. If the cache is properly prepared; and the cache site is genuinely secure; and the recovery team can actually locate it; and the tides or currents don’t move the cache in the intervening time between emplacement and recovery, the submersion method may work. However, submersion sites that are suitable for secure concealment of a cache of any size are exceedingly rare, even in swamp/jungle environments. Further, the container for a submerged cache must be of such high quality that it almost requires the use of specially-manufactured containers to ensure adequate water-proofing and protection from other external pressures. Field expedients are seldom successful.
Selection of Cache Sites

The most thorough, careful study and hypotheses regarding future operational conditions cannot guarantee that a cache will be readily accessible when it is needed. It is crucial to remember the now-overused maxim, “Two is one; one is none.” Establish as many re-supply caches, in as many widely spaced locations as you can afford to establish, including duplicate caches of critical items such as weapons, ammunition, and foodstuffs.
Site selection criteria should center on three basic questions of absolute importance to the resistance element: a) Can the site be located by someone who has never been there, through simple, easily-understood instructions? A site may be absolutely ideal, but if your hillbilly Cousin Billy-Bob from East Toadfuck, Texas cannot find it using simple verbal instructions, it’s going to be useless. It must have multiple (at least two, preferably three or more, for compass triangulation) distant landmarks, and at least one suitably near landmark that is not likely to be moved between emplacement and recovery (don’t use a fucking tree as a landmark. I always assumed it went without saying, but I’ve seen cache recovery instructions that included “use the old dead tree as the near landmark. Take a magnetic bearing of ___ and walk fifteen meters.” Seriously? Because, you know, old dead trees don’t get blown the fuck over and rot away?) b)Are there a minimum of at least two access routes to get to and away from the cache site? Do both the primary and secondary approach routes offer concealed movement corridors so that both the emplacement and recovery parties can access the site without being seen by anyone who normally transits the area (I’m a big believer in at least tertiary access routes as well)? c) Can the cache in question be emplaced and recovered at this site, anytime of the year (A cache located in the Teton Mountains on the Idaho/Wyoming line might be pretty tough to recover if it were needed in February or March, since it would be under five or six feet of snow…assuming you could even find it, since many landmarks would be buried under snow as well)? Snow or frozen ground can make recovery impossible, since it is difficult or impossible to dig in, and snow means it is impossible to hide the presence of tracks leading to the cache site.
The first step in developing a cache site is the utilization of a map survey. By carefully scrutinizing the map, planners can decipher whether a specific area must be ruled out for cache emplacement, due to the nearness of human activity and facilities. A good topographical map can be used to determine all the positive features of a given area for a potential site, including the topography, proximity of roads, trails, and buildings, natural concealment such as vegetated terrain and/or rocky outcroppings, and adequate drainage. A map can also provide the indispensable reference points that will be necessary for development of a recovery plan for the cache, such as the geographical coordinates of nearby peaks and ridges, stream confluences, and deserted man-made structures and features.
Once several promising possible cache sites have been discerned through the map survey, someone in the caching element must conduct a personal surveillance of the potential sites, in order to determine that the on-the-ground reality matches the theory of the map. The survey member will need to carry adequate maps, a method of measuring distance, a compass, and a notebook to record specific coordinates and directions for potential emplacement sites (I hope it goes without saying that you should not record GPS way-points for cache locations). Since this individual will seldom be able to complete a field survey without being observed by members of the local civilian populace, even his neighbors, a solid cover story for his actions of critical. The observer’s story must offer a quick, concise, but logical reason for his being where he is (the local couch-potato who everyone knows sits in his mommy’s basement playing XBox all day claiming he’s always secretly been an avid outdoorsman and is simply out for a jaunt in the woods, isn’t going to fool anyone. It’s likely to get the local constabulary called on you for suspicious behavior).
Reference Points

When a planner or member of a dedicated logistics auxiliary network has located and determined to emplace a re-supply cache in a given location, he will need to include easily discernible key reference points in the cache report to help the follow-on elements to locate it.
The final reference point; the key to unlock the ultimate lock on locating the useful cache; is referred to as the FRP, and within the instructions, the FRP must meet four basic requirements. It must 1) be readily identifiable and at least one element of the FRP must be useful as a precise reference point (i.e. the northeastern-most corner of the abandoned church, or the last headstone on the southern corner of the cemetery, etc). 2) it must be something that will not be moved or disappear as long as the cache may be in place. 3) It must be near enough to the cache location to pinpoint the exact location of the cache by using precise linear directions and measurements from the FRP to the cache location (a 186-degree magnetic azimuth from the corner of the church is far more precise than a 186-degree magnetic azimuth from the front door of the church…). 4) The FRP must be related to any en route reference points by a simple route description proceeding from the intermediate reference points to the FRP (follow the old logging road from the intersection with County Road 99 south for two kilometers until you see the abandoned cemetery on the left side of the road). The route descriptions and reference points should be minimized to the absolutely essential details while being readily identifiable but still secluded enough to be functional for the role. Some commonly used reference points operators have used in the past for reference points include, but are certainly not limited to: small, infrequently used bridges or dams, geological boundary markers, mileage markers and culverts along infrequently used roads, monuments, churches, and other cultural reference markers with respected, but not commonly voiced local significance to ensure that they will not be “paved over” in the interest of development in the immediate area. When all else fails, it IS possible to use specific geographic coordinates for references, assuming that both parties involved, emplacement team and recovery element, will have GPS and the ability to utilize it for the task without compromise (far from certain in the coming struggles).
Using the Final Reference Point
Recovery instructions MUST include precise details to explain the EXACT location of a cache. These instructions should describe the location of the cache in relation to the FRP. For concealed caches, it is generally sufficient to precisely describe and locate the FRP, with the cache concealed inside the FRP. For the far more common buried cache however, there are four basic methods.
The simplest method is for the emplacement team to simply bury the cache directly next to the FRP. Pinpointing the cache location is then simply a matter of describing the precise reference point on the FRP. A second method is sighting the cache by projection. This is useful if the FRP has a flat side long enough to allow for precise aiming along the flat side of the FRP to the cache. The cache is simply buried a precise distance away from the FRP along the sighted line. The critical key here is to remember that the slightest deviation error in sighting the line will be magnified as the distance increases, so the cache should still be placed as close to the FRP as practical.
The third method of using the FRP is the use of two or more FRPs within a close proximity (ideally within a couple of meters at most). This is the most difficult method of precisely referencing the cache location and should thus be a last-ditch method (I’ve used this method on numerous occasions. It HAS always worked, but never well. I once solo backpacked across the southern half of Utah, from Cedar City to Moab, without following roads. At one point, crossing a small two-lane blacktop, I decided my pack was overloaded with extraneous shit, so I decided to cache a large portion of it. Since I was in the middle of fucking nowhere, I didn’t even bother to bury the cache. Instead, I wrapped all the material in a large trash bag, then placed it in a USGI waterproof bag, and tied the cache in the forks of a juniper tree. I used a mileage marker on the roadside as my intermediate reference point, and two nearby mountain peaks as my FRP to shoot magnetic azimuths from to intersect the exact location of the cache tree. I dutifully recorded all of it in my ever-present notebook/journal, and proceeded with the rest of my trip. Three weeks later, at the end of the overall four week trip, I got my shit back in order, and the following weekend, jumped in the truck and drove to the mileage marker. I easily identified the two peaks, shot azimuths, and walked to the cache tree….which wasn’t fucking there! I shot another azimuth, realized I was a degree or two off on one of my bearings, so I fixed it and adjusted. Still no cache tree…I started a search pattern, walking in increasing spirals, looking for the tree. Twenty minutes later, I found the tree, recovered the cache, and got back in the truck, and left. While I’m a HUGE fan of using azimuth bearings to locate the cache, this is ample evidence of the difficulties of using intersection/resection of multiple FRPs to locate a cache. If I had needed to locate the cache in a hurry, under cover of darkness, with my life and that of my comrades on the line, we’d have all been fucked.)

The final method of locating a buried cache reliably from the FRP is sighting with a magnetic azimuth from your compass (if you don’t know what the fuck a magnetic azimuth is, quit reading, right now, and Google your local orienteering club. Go join them and learn how to use a fucking map and compass!). It is utilized by simply taking a bearing with your compass from the precise reference point of the FRP to the cache location (this is generally my favorite method of locating caches. Every time I’ve ever used it–a lot–over the years, I’ve had no trouble whatsoever with locating the cache later). The only potential drawback is the level of ability and precision of the emplacement team and the recovery team to accurately read a compass and shoot an azimuth. Like sighting by projecting, any error will be magnified by distance. In general, either method should locate the cache within fifty meters of the precise reference point on the FRP.
Measuring Distances
While the mythical standard of measuring distances for caches in paces (walk ten paces from the big rock in the meadow) sounds simple and effective, if a moment of thought is put into it, the resistance element will realize what an incredibly fucking stupid idea it actually is. What are the chances that the emplacement operative will have the same length of pace as the recovery operative? Slim to none. Even if they turn out to be the same person, any number of issues could change the individual’s stride length from the time of emplacement to the time of recovery. Instead, use the normal, standard of measurement for linear distance in your area (for most of us, that’s yards. I use meters a lot, because of the military, but I still use yards when describing distances for most Americans.)
Concealment Sites

The “ideal” cache concealment site seldom is, simply because it IS “ideal.” Do not for one moment think that Sam the Stormtrooper will not check likely concealment locations for cached contraband when the door-kicking starts. Even in the event of a warrantless “sneak-and-peak” entry, Ned the Ninja is going to look for cached goodies. Do not, do not, DO NOT cache critical items in your home! Instead, seek out good concealment cache sites in the area, and consider the habits and customs of your neighbors and other local civilian populace when developing your cache resupply program.
Seek out abandoned buildings that are unlikely to be destroyed (or moved into by refugees!) public buildings (assuming you can figure out a way to smuggle your cache contents in), infrequently used facilities like stadiums, or other public venues, culverts, abandoned mines and quarries, and sewers/septic tanks.
The concealment location must be equally accessible to both parties. While it might seem feasible for the logistics cell to emplace a concealed cache in the attic at Aunt Myrtle’s, since she’s a nice old lady (if a touch daffy), and a vocal supporter of the regime, if she’s not related to the recovery team as well, it might be difficult for them to come up with a legitimate reason to show up and demand to grab some shit out of her attic!

Further, in case the cache IS discovered by regime security forces, it must be in a location that will not compromise individual network members. If Aunt Myrtle finds the cache of 10,000 rounds of 5.56 M855 in her attic, you better bet your ass she’s going to call the local constabulary. They’re going to start looking for Nephew Neil the gun-nut in a hurry. Besides, if Aunt Myrtle passes on or ends up in a nursing home while Cousin Connie sells the house, getting in to recover the ammunition is going to be a bitch.
Burial Sites

There are six critical considerations when planning a buried cache, along with the standard concerns about suitability and accessibility. Drainage considerations include both the elevation of the cache site and the surrounding ground, and the type of soil in the area. Clay or swamp muck is going to be far more difficult to work with than loam soil or an old garden spot. If the cache is located near a river or stream, the emplacement team must ensure that it is above the flood-plain to ensure that the cache doesn’t end up washing away.
Local vegetation is a far more critical concern than it would first appear. Deciduous forests, while a perfect choice at first glance, can be a bitch, since the roots of the trees make digging extremely time-consuming. Coniferous trees on the other hand have far less extensive root systems, typically indicate well-drained soil, and have the added benefit of doing a pretty good job of masking thermal signatures of human beings (oops…did I just type that?). This of course, ties into the third consideration of natural concealment on the location. Not only do you need to hide the personnel who are placing or recovering the cache, but you have to do something to conceal the burial site as well. For those who operate in deciduous forest country (God bless the spruce, pine, and juniper trees of the Inter-Mountain West!), consider the impact of seasonal variations in foliage and the resultant changes in natural concealment.
For those of us who do reside in high elevations and cold-weather country, it is critical to consider the impact of normal snowfall, depth of ground freeze, and the usual freeze and thaw dates. Since it will be almost impossible to mask the disturbance to snow cover in winter conditions, cache locations should take this into account by emplacement in areas that mask the snow fall and drift to some degree, or where the disturbance to the snow cover will not seem out-of-place.
Finally, consideration must take into account the possibility of underground obstacles such as large rocks or sewer, subway (in urban environments), or water main lines that can interfere with the ability to dig a burial site for the cache.
Nous Defions!
John Mosby
Somewhere in the mountains
(In the previous installment of this article, we discussed–well, I discussed, you read–a great deal of the art and science of locating and hiding caches, in an overview sort of way. In this installment, I will endeavor to get you thinking of methods of packaging the materials to be cached, the contents of the different types of caches, and how to develop a written cache report format. –J.M.)
In reference to caches, the term packaging refers not only to whatever container you decide to hide your goodies in, but also the additional processing needed to protect those items from adverse storage conditions. Proper packaging is absolutely crucial, because inadequate packaging, in the face of those adverse storage conditions (and let’s face it, being buried in the dirt, or exposed to the elements, is generally adverse for most manufactured goods), WILL render the cached items useless in short order (how bad would it suck to be ten days into a planned four-day foot-mobile patrolling movement, dig up your food re-supply cache…and find out the cans of Spaghetti-Os had rusted through, leaking them all over the beef jerky, which had been gnawed on and shit on by mice?).
Determining Factors
All packaging needs to be tailored to the specific cache. The method of packaging, size, shape, and weight of the container need to be predicated on what items are to be included in the cache, as well as how you anticipate it being recovered (in MY dream world, all my caches would be in 24′ CONEX boxes, would include a generator, refrigerator full of Coca-Cola, a month’s supply of Copenhagen, a queen sized bed, and recovery would be accomplished with a Case backhoe…). For individual-specific caches, intended to be recovered by one person, the container should generally be no larger than a small suitcase or backpack, with an upper weight limit of around 30-40 pounds, to facilitate ease of recovery and the necessity of moving the cached goods. Obviously some equipment will automatically negate this as a possibility, but those should be the exception that prove the rule. If more than one person will be expected to recover the cache (i.e. a cache of ammunition re-supply for a 4-6 man paramilitary team), then the packaging should still be divided into separate packages that are readily portable by the individuals.
 When it confronting the specter of those adverse environmental conditions, the logistics cell must recognize that any or all of the common threats to caches may be present: moisture, external pressure, freezing temperatures (in the northern Rockies? No way….), bacteria and chemical corrosive agents found in much soil, and even the threat of animals digging into the cache (insects or rodents…in larger caches, concealed in exterior sites, larger animals may pose a threat of damage. There’s a reason Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks require bear-proof containers for food storage in the backcountry). The suitability of packaging typically depends on the care taken in analyzing the site-specific considerations during the planning process (Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance, remember?). The method of cache to be used (concealment, burial, submersion), must be determined in the earliest planning stages, long before any packaging is undertaken.
Even in typical, active UW scenarios, it is often difficult to know when a specific cache will be needed. In the case of the modern American resistance, most do not even know when the active phase of operations will begin, let alone how soon after that a specific cache will be called on. For these reasons, a doctrinally sound rule to follow is to design the packaging to withstand adverse storage conditions for at least the duration of the normal shelf life of the contents of the cache.
The Packaging Process
The exact process for packaging a specific cache will depend upon the unique requirements of the cache and on what packaging material is available. Typically however, there are certain steps that are almost always necessary:
  1. Inspection: Inspect any items to be included in the cache for serviceability. It would suck doubly bad to be running an E&E corridor, recover an arms cache to re-arm yourself, and discover that the dumb motherfucker who established the cache didn’t know that the AKM he cached was missing the firing pin.
  2. Cleaning: All corrodible parts, such as unfinished metal, must be thoroughly cleaned immediately prior to packaging, before any final preservative coatings are applied. Any foreign matter, but especially any known or suspected corrosive agents, should be removed completely. It is a good idea, and generally accepted best practice, to handle any items to be cached, with rubber gloves between the cleaning stage and final packaging, to prevent corrosion from the salts and acids in human sweat from your hands (never mind the whole reality that any fingerprints inadvertently left on the materials would paint a giant target on your back if the cache was discovered by regime security forces!).
  3. Drying: Following the cleaning process, items should be thoroughly dried. While any one method might suffice, I suggest a three-fold process. Wipe the contents down with a dry, highly absorbent towel, then oven-dry or air-dry on a sunny day, and finally, add a desiccant packet inside the packaging. To oven-dry items, place them in an oven for at least 3 hours at a temperature of about 110 degrees F.
  4. Coat with Preservative: A light coat of preservative oil may be applied to weapons, tools, or other unpainted metal surfaces.
  5. Wrapping: Items should be wrapped in a suitable material for the added protection offered. The wrapping material should be as nearly waterproof as possible. Each item should be waterproofed individually, in order to prevent one un-noticed perforation exposing all the items in the cache. The wrapping needs to fit as tightly as possible, with little or no air remaining, and any seams or openings should be sealed with a waterproof substance.
  6. Packing: When final packing of the cache is conducted, all moisture should be removed from the interior of the container by heating or applying desiccant (again, there’s no harm in overkill–do both). Air pockets should be eliminated, as much as humanly possible, by tight packing within the container. If nothing else is necessary, or desired in the cache, use clean, dried clothing, or other soft, dry padding material that might be useful to the recovery party, whenever possible, to fill in the extra space, and to provide extra protection against shock.
  7. Enclose Instructions: If necessary, or possibly necessary, enclose instructions in how to use the specific items in the cache to facilitate use or assembly by recovery party personnel. If a weapons cache, it might even be a good idea to enclose the technical manual for the particular weapon, including armorer’s instructions for field-level repairs of the common shortcomings of the weapon(s) systems in the cache.
  8. Seal and Test: When packing is complete, the lid of the container must be sealed to make it watertight. Testing should be conducted to ensure that it is, in fact, waterproof. Testing should be conducted, if possible, by completely submerging the container in a hot water bath and watching for escaping water bubbles (hot water will reveal leaks that might not be revealed by cold-water. I don’t understand the science behind it, but that’s why I’m not a fucking scientist).
Wrapping Materials

The single most critical characteristic of wrapping material is that it is moisture-proof. Additionally, it should be either self-adhesive, or allow the use of an adhesive sealing agent. The material should be pliable enough to to wrap tightly, with close folds and it should be tough enough to resist tears or punctures during handling. The simplest way to ensure both pliability and durability, is to combine two layers: an inner, pliable layer, and an outer, more resilient barrier. The tough outer wrap is absolutely essential, unless the container and padding is adequate to prevent items from scraping together inside the cache. There are several generally recommended wrapping materials that are easy to use and readily available, and I’ve used everything from aluminum foil and trashbags wrapped with 100-mph tape, to Zip-Lock baggies, to Tyvek house-wrap that I taped tightly and then glued the seams shut on. For my use now, I stick to two methods, both of which I heartily recommend:

  1. For items small enough, the best wrapping available is a FoodSeal-type vacuum sealer. Simply place the item in the plastic, cut it to size, use the vacuum-sealer, and you have a waterproof wrapping, with little or no airspace left inside. It’s idiot-simple.
  2. For larger, bulkier items, I wrap the item tightly in heavy-duty kitchen-grade aluminum foil (one of the most highly recommended wrapping materials, doctrinally. It’s waterproof, unless it gets perforated or torn, self-sealing, and conforms tightly to the shape of whatever is being wrapped), then I wrap it in asphalt-type roofing felt, sealing the edges together with roofing tar. It seems to work like a charm, even for several years.
Container Criteria

While many items could theoretically be concealed in just the inner wrapping materials (especially when using the roofing felt method), the outer container helps to protect the contents from shock, pressure, moisture, animal depredations, and other hazards that the cache may be exposed to, especially when buried. The ideal container should be completely waterproof and air-tight after sealing, resistant to shock and abrasions, able to withstand crushing pressures, lightweight, and equipped with a sealing device that can be closed and reopened easily and repeatedly, and capable of withstanding highly alkaline or acidic soil conditions.

  1. instrument containers: high-end containers such as Pelican cases are resilient and waterproof enough to be used for caches, and they come in various sizes. The biggest drawback to the Pelican cases is, of course, the expense. A less expensive alternative would be to scour military surplus stores and government liquidation auctions to find the steel containers that aircraft and other precision instruments are shipped in. These have waterproof seals, for obvious reasons, and range from 1/2 gallon to 10 gallons in size.
  2. Ammunition cans: the standard favorite of “survivalists” and “militia” types everywhere, steel ammo cans with the rubber gaskets intact do work remarkably well, and are relatively inexpensive. The only potential drawback is the size limitations, which are negligible, since you can find anything from a small .30-caliber can, all the way up to the larger cans used for 40-mm grenades, or even rockets.
  3. Steel Drums: the other classic favorite, the steel 55-gallon drum, actually suffers from a couple of drawbacks. The obvious one is the sheer size. No recovery team is going to get that barrel out on a hurry, and depending on what the cache contents are, they might not even be able to carry all the shit that will fit inside. Secondly, the most common types available lack suitable sealing lids. If used, waterproofing sealant must be used around all openings (seriously, unless you’re planning an arms cache to resupply a fucking platoon, I recommend staying away from 55-gallon drums. If you must use them, use the heavy-duty plastic type, since they will withstand corrosion better.
  4. Paint cans: Often overlooked by most, these are actually a recommended container in SOF literature on the subject. They do require a waterproofing seal around the re-closeable lids, and they are thin metal so they don’t hold up to corrosion for very long, but they are almost a perfect size for a one-man pistol and ammunition re-supply, if placed for an evader who will be using it within a short period of time. It is highly recommended that you either paint the exterior of the can, or, better, treat it thoroughly with several coats of roofing tar compound.
  5. Five-Gallon buckets: What survivalist/prepper doesn’t have a metric shit-ton of plastic, five-gallon buckets with resealable lids laying around for food-storage. As long as they are not buried too deep, where crushing from pressure becomes an issue, these are almost perfect cache containers. One bucket can hold almost an entire outfit of gear for one man (LC-2 type LBE, a can of ammunition in magazines, a change of clothes, some boots, and some food. Even a small carbine or rifle, broken down, can fit. A shop-built SMG would be a good fit here, after it had been thoroughly tested for function. I may have a couple of these with AR lowers, complete, and SBR uppers stashed away somewhere. Or I would, if it wouldn’t be a violation of BATE fiat regulations…)
Types of Caches
(The following section is completely non-doctrinal. While it may have existed in SF doctrinal literature at one time, I am not aware of it. These are strictly my personnel concepts. –J.M.)

For an underground resistance, I envision three basic types of cache functions.

  1. The first is the guerrilla re-supply cache we’ve been discussing. These would be widely dispersed over an organization’s entire projected area of operations, to facilitate re-supply on the move in the future. These may also, in the future, be short-term emplacements made by members of the subversive underground or the auxiliary, to facilitate operations by the subversive underground or the paramilitary guerrilla force, based on specific operational requirements.
  1. The second is the “storage” cache. This is a method of dispersing your normal preparedness supplies stockpiles. Instead of having everything in your basement or “doomsday bunker-retreat” where it is easy and convenient for regime security forces, foreign peacekeepers, or roving bands of criminal looters to locate and steal it, this would allow you to maintain control or possession of various critical elements of your preparedness items, even if you had to “bug out” into evasion mode.
  1. The third, and final cache function, as I see it, is the individual evasion cache. These would be small, one-man re-supplies, along planned evasion corridors (primary, secondary, and tertiary, at a minimum). Caches should be placed within one or two days’ walking distance of each other, to act as en route waypoints for re-supply as the evader moves. This would allow him to minimize the load he carried in his “go-bag” evasion kit, facilitating faster travel during the evasion.
Potential Cache Contents Concepts

Caches typically contain certain combinations of items, based on the mission requirements of the recovery element unit, and the projected operational needs within the area. An alternative way of looking at possible cache contents is to consider the “go-bag” paradigm. What categories of items would you include in a “go-bag?” Include those categories in your caches, unless it is a specialized cache (such as an arms cache, or a water or food-resupply cache). These might include:

  1. Water: again, canteens, bladders, filters or other purification methods.
  2. shelter and clothing: sleep systems, clothing, tarps, tents, etc.
  3. Fire starting methods: matches, lighters, tinder, magnesium strikers.
  4. Food: MREs (the only application I still have for MREs, because I’d have to be dying to eat the fucking things!)
  5. Medical supplies: A feasability study should be conducted to determine the need for caching medical supplies. While some items, such as CAT-Tourniquets, bandages, and other non-perishables is self-evident, the expiration dates and the actual expiration of other medical supplies, from blood-expanding fluids in IV bags, to anti-biotics (tetracyclines, for example go toxic after expiration, instead of just losing potency), must be weighed against the projected time-table of recovery.
  6. Communications: GMRS/FRS two-way radios, HAM receiver, or complete radios.
  7. Light Sources: flashlights, candles, lanterns, batteries, fuels.
  8. Tools: knives, hatchets or axes, saws, wire, repair kits, pioneer tools.
  9. Money: silver, gold, or cash, depending on the projected scenario, and who exactly you expect to be spending it with. For use in the black-market, any of the above might be an option. For use with the civilian populace, cash will generally be the most readily exchangeable, since they will be able to turn around and spend it as well.
  10. Weapons: Whether complete weapons, critical parts, support supplies (cleaning kits, magazines, load-bearing equipment, etc), these are an obvious cache item (all three cache functions).


HIPAA and How it Impacts Gun Control

Click here to view the original post.

HAt the time HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, was enacted, it was claimed that it would protect the privacy of people’s identifiable health information.  Since then it has been left alone with only minor changes.  However on Jan 4, 2016, the Federal Government at the direction of President Obama modified HIPAA to allow health care works to report suspected individuals with mental problems to NICS (The National Instant Criminal Background Check System).

Since then I have been trying to find out what exactly this means.  Recently I received the following information from a friend.  This is a summary of an article published in Clinical Psychiatry News. The article has since been taken down from the internet along with several other articles that addressed this subject.

“Subject: Gun safety: HIPAA change allows providers to report on some mentally ill patients : Clinical Psychiatry News

This was already in the works several years ago, and we all assumed that any community clinic or hospital which was a recipient of federal funds would eventually be required to report this type of information. What I didn’t see explained in my admittedly quick scan was a clear explanation of who will be allowed (required) to report.  Based on the language in the article, it will be down to the level of Clinical Social Workers and Psychologists (masters degree level). A big focus will be white males over age 60 due to their suicide rate; another will be males with history of depression, especially with substance abuse issues (which for alcohol is now defined as more than two drinks per night irrespective of the amount of time between the drinks – we metabolize about an ounce of alcohol per hour) or domestic issues, and not necessarily domestic violence.

The NICS doesn’t capture potential violent offenders in its data base because that was never its purpose and it wasn’t designed to do so. Most of the non-terrorist mass shooters are young paranoid schizophrenics; unless they’ve been adjudicated as mentally ill (involuntary commitment, usually) they’re not prohibited from owning guns.  This effort is pure politics with too many loop holes to be of any use, except as a future excuse to say “we didn’t go far enough”.  But it will end up breaching the trust within the healthcare relationship of many patients”.

Besides the information that was sent to me, I found two other articles published by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ,  and Modern Healthcare  that are of some interest.  There are other articles written in different health care publication, but they are as clear as mud.

As of yet there seems to be a lot of confusion on exactly what needs to be reported and how it will affect your right to own a firearm.  For now just be careful what you say until the new HIPAA rules becomes clear.



The post HIPAA and How it Impacts Gun Control appeared first on Preparedness Advice Blog.

The Dictator Versus Our Civil Rights

Click here to view the original post.

Obama gun controlA couple of weeks ago, I wrote that Obama was going after our rights to bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Well, the New Year was here, and as almost his very first act of business on arriving back in Washington, Obama issued a new set of executive orders, doing just that.

Obama has stated that his goal for his last official year in office, is to do something about gun control. If that’s the case, then the actions he took on January 5th are only the opening salvo against our 2nd A rights. We must realize and constantly remember, that the left’s way of doing things is the same as eating an elephant… one bite at a time.

That explains why Obama’s new executive orders seem so benign. In fact, they look like a paper tiger. In some cases, what he’s ordering merely seems to be a repeat of what’s already in the law, while in others it seems like he’s actually doing something positive. After all, spending money on improving mental health services, in order to find and help potential mass murders, actually seems to agree with what many conservatives have been calling for.

Likewise, putting pressure on states to provide more complete information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was originally a NRA initiative, makes sense too.

Obama’s announcement of his illegal measures was nothing more than one more opportunity for the liar in chief to lecture the American public on his exaggerated liberal talking points. Rather than make any useful statement, he spread a series of lies and half-truths, some of which were immediately caught and refuted by the liberal media.

Considering the liberal media is as anti-gun as Obama himself is, their catching his lies about gun violence is really something. Yet that is exactly what they did. Some even challenged him, which is extremely rare for the liberal media to do.

Even so, suspicions run high about anything Obama does, and this is no exception. There is very good reason why we are all suspicious of Obama, and that is that what he says and what he does are not the same thing. If there is a way to use the executive orders he just released to hurt the rights of American citizens, then we can be sure that he will do so.

While Obama’s stated goal is to make our communities safe, we have to realize that his saying so is merely like the magician’s gloved hand, intended to distract people, while he does something else. So too with these measures. If he was truly concerned about the safety of our communities, he would stop going out of his way to make them more dangerous. Just in the last year, he’s personally made things more dangerous by:

  • Releasing 6,000 convicted criminals from prison
  • Releasing known terrorists from Guatanamo Bay, so that they could return to terrorism
  • Allowed tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants into the United States, without vetting them
  • Appointed Muslims with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood to sensitive positions in the DHS
  • Supported #Black Lives Matter, including their calls to kill police
  • Refused to use the term “Islamic terrorist,” but insists on calling their attacks “workplace violence”
  • Removed known terrorist groups from the terrorist watch list
  • Allowed known terrorists to cross the Mexican border into the United States
  • Allowed thousands of juvenile gang members, ranging from 16 to 18 years of age into the country

There are more, but just this sampling shows how little Obama cares about our nation being a safe place for us to live. Were he truly concerned about public safety, he would take action to protect the American people, not to make our lives more dangerous.

Does a Great Nation Need to Follow Others’ Example?

In the midst of all these things, making our lives more dangerous, Obama talks about the need to make our country more like Australia and take honest law-abiding citizens’ guns away from them. It’s clear that public safety is not his concern, but rather his progressive liberal agenda and his stated desire to destroy the country and therefore fulfill the dreams of his father.

So, while the executive orders that Obama signed may seem benign, we have to put ourselves into the convoluted thinking of a progressive liberal mind, in order to truly understand them. I don’t claim to have that ability, but as I look at them, a few things stand out to me.

As usual, the measures that Obama is taking will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, regardless of what he says. Nor will it do anything to prevent mass shootings. The perpetrators of those shootings acquire their guns legally and criminals do not buy guns at gun shows, they buy them on the streets. So, on one hand we can call everything that Obama did with this latest act of anti-gun rhetoric nothing more than a circus show, except for one thing… he truly hates guns. There has to be a more nefarious purpose.

First of all, Obama has talked about closing the “gun show loophole.” I’ve been to a number of gun shows and even purchased guns at them. This loophole that he refers to is purely a thing of liberal fantasy. Anyone who has ever tried to buy a gun at a gun show knows that you have to jump through the same hoops at gun shows, that you do when buying a gun in a gun store. Perhaps that’s because the majority of the sellers at gun shows are gun store owners.

The only way you can buy a gun at a gun show, without a background check, is to buy it privately. While most gun shows are frowning on it now, you can rent a table at a gun show as a private citizen and sell some of your personal gun collection. The law allows it, just as it allows you to sell a gun to a friend or family member.

According to Obama’s new executive orders, anyone who sells guns “regularly” is going to be required to have a federal firearms license (FFL) and perform background checks. But that’s already the law. So what’s new? When asked by a reporter what the threshold was for requiring the FFL, Obama said there is no minimum. Is he planning on making people get a FFL to sell one gun from their private collection in a private sale?

That possibility has been a concern of gun-rights activists for some time. The reason is that the only way such a law could be upheld is to institute a nationwide gun registry database. Historically, that’s the necessary step before confiscation, so there’s a real danger in allowing the creation of that database.

Obama also railed against the ability to buy guns online, without a background check. This part was probably nothing more than grandstanding, as that’s illegal. Currently, firearms purchased online require the same level of scrutiny as firearms bought in a brick and mortar store. The buyer has to fill out the applicable paperwork and the seller has to call the NICS for a background check. If the firearm is to be shipped across state lines, it must be delivered to a FFL holder (gun store) for the completion of the paperwork and NICS background check.

There were two places where Obama added money to government department budgets, in order to improve gun-related services. While that is illegal for him to do, without congressional approval, everything else he did was illegal too, so we’ll set that aside for the moment. The two areas are to increase the NICS and to hire 50,000 more mental health workers.

Improving the NICS is a worthwhile endeavor. The current system has holes in it, specifically holes that allow people with mental illness to slip through. Not all states properly inform the NICS about those who have been adjured to be able to handle firearms safely. That might help catch people like Adam Lanza, before they go on a killing spree. But, once again, I have to wonder if that’s all it’s about.

I especially wonder when I couple that with the hiring of 50,000 additional mental health workers. What is the true reason for that? The obvious answer is to help find people who are not mentally capable of handling the responsibility of owning firearms. But how are they defining that?

As it stands right now, the Veteran’s Administration has been paying doctors to certify that individual veterans aren’t emotionally stable enough to own firearms. There is no hearing about this and the vet isn’t given the opportunity to defend themselves. All it takes is a doctor’s signature on a form. This atrocity is about to be extended, doing the same to the elderly who are receiving Social Security. Except in their case, the criteria isn’t PTSD, but rather the inability to handle their own finances.

The way the executive order is written, these people are unable to own firearms because they have been deemed to be mentally incompetent or unstable. Since when does the inability to write a check make someone mentally incompetent or emotionally unstable? If there’s anyone in the country who needs a firearm, it’s the elderly. All too often, criminals prey upon them, because of their inability to defend themselves. Firearms at least give them a fighting chance.

This is some of that “one bite at a time” creep that I was talking about before. First they went after the veterans and now they’re going after the elderly; who is next? What fringe group is Obama going to pick out next, in order to marginalize them and take away their Second Amendment rights?

If we add together the actions against senior citizens, the increase in mental health workers and the increase in NICS workers, we can arrive at a troubling conclusion. Perhaps Obama’s next step is to require mental health screening of gun owners. They do that in Australia and he’s been holding their gun laws up as an example. Perhaps these 50,000 health care workers aren’t going to look for the Adam Lanzas in our midst, but iThe Distead look for a means to certify gun owners as unfit to own firearms.

The fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (say that five times fast) is so extensive, that it’s all but guaranteed that every person in the world has some sort of mental disorder. Psychiatrists and psychologists have been working overtime to define conditions that can be called mental disorder. Part of this is for their moment of fame and part is that they truly believe that we all have something wrong with us (except them, of course).

One of the many mental disorders listed there is “Oppositional Defiant Disorder.” In other words, if you disagree with massive government taking control of your life, you have a mental disorder. Another is “climate change denial disorder.” Between those two alone, pretty much any true conservative could easily be adjudged to have a mental disorder. If they do that, bye-bye guns.

Is that going to happen? Once again, I don’t know. But the precedence is being built, even as we speak. We must always remember that Obama’s goal, as well as the entire progressive liberal left, is to take our guns away, so that they can have total control. They will use every means they can, and create those means if they don’t exist.

One final point; this is just January. At the end of last year, Obama clearly stated that his goal for 2015 was gun control. It is quite possible that he started early, so that he could do several rounds of executive orders, each one encroaching more and more on our rights.

If that’s the case, we have much more coming our way. Keep your eyes open.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.


3 total views, 3 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Here’s What Obama’s Newest Gun Control Actions Would Do

Click here to view the original post.
Here's What Obama's Newest Gun Control Actions Would Do

Image source: Reuters

President Obama is planning to begin his last year in office by expanding gun control via executive order, the White House announced Monday night.

The White House says some of the new actions don’t require Congressional approval.

Among them: Expand background checks so that they include guns sold at gun shows and on the Internet. Another action would put $500 million toward mental health and would prevent some Social Security recipients from accessing guns. The White House would need Congressional approval for the new funds but apparently wouldn’t need approval for background checks.

“Sympathy is not enough to stop gun violence,” a White House website blog said. “Congress has repeatedly failed to take action, blocking commonsense reforms supported by the vast majority of the American people – including gun owners themselves. The President has a responsibility to do everything in his power to reduce gun violence. This week, he will.”

How To Hide Your Guns, And Other Off-Grid Caches…

Additionally, the White House said Obama has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to “conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.”

“The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety,” the White House blog said.

Obama spotlighted gun control during his New Year’s radio address.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” Obama said. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.”

Republican leaders remained skeptical that Obama’s actions would have any impact.

“The administration has not communicated with us, and we have not been briefed,” AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), told CNN. “We will consider options once we have information, but what seems apparent is none of these ideas would have prevented the recent atrocities.”

There’s A Trick To Navigating Federal And State Gun Regulations. Read More Here.

Gun Laws Are Common Sense According to Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Obama

Click here to view the original post.

Per my previous volumes on the subject of gun control, Obama and his Leftist ideologues are following the script. They continue to push an agenda for a total gun ban

Armed Civilians Save Lives And Reduce The Number Killed In Mass Shootings … Citizens Can Respond In 10 Seconds (Cops Take 10 Minutes)

Click here to view the original post.

Gun control laws

By J. D. Heyes – Natural News

(NaturalNews) To hear the anti-Second Amendment Left tell it, carrying a firearm for protection – of one’s self and of the lives of those around him or her – is a myth perpetuated by the NRA and other gun rights groups and firearm manufacturers.

Writing in the Huffington Post, “cartoonist and blogger” Walker Bragman’s attempt to sully the truth and misrepresent the data was typical of a liberal hit job on the effect that guns really have in American society:

“John Lott Jr. and professor Gary Kleck, a criminologist, argue that guns are frequently used for self defense. These claims have also been debunked by peer review. A study by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig titled ‘Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,’ found that Kleck’s defensive gun use numbers are ‘far too high’ to the point of suggesting bias, as are numbers by similar studies. The National Institute of Justice found that there is even an overestimation in Cook and Ludwig’s study. Another study by the Berkley Media Studies Group found similar discrepancies with Kleck’s and Lott’s defensive gun use claims. According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center a gun in the home is more likely to be used to commit suicide or to threaten or kill an intimate than used to deter an attacker.”

Continue reading at Natural News: Armed Civilians Save Lives And Reduce The Number Killed In Mass Shootings … Citizens Can Respond In 10 Seconds (Cops Take 10 Minutes)

Filed under: Civil Unrest / War, News/ Current Events, Prepping

New Ban Bill Hits Congress: Targets Semi-Automatic Rifles & Handguns: “To Ensure That The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Is NOT Unlimited”

Click here to view the original post.


By Mac Slavo –

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings we warned that sweeping changes were in the works for Americans’ right to bear arms. It started with ammunition tax proposals, restrictions on firearm accessories imports and most recently Governors began bypassing Congress altogether by banning gun ownership for those on any of the government’s many watchlists. The Obama administration has also targeted licensed firearms sellers across the United States by forcing banks to treat them like pornography businesses and impeding their access to transaction processing systems and business banking accounts.

States like California already ban “assault weapons” and outlaw “high capacity” magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But the kinds of restrictive laws that strike at the very heart of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have thus far been limited to just a dozen or so heavily liberal states.

Until now.

While Americans anxiously prepared for their Christmas festivities, anti gun proponents in Congress were hard at work drafting a new bill. If passed H.R. 4269 would literally redefine the Second Amendment as evidenced by the bill’s description, which in no uncertain terms clarifies its ultimate goal:

“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

The bill directly targets every semi-automatic firearm in the United States including handguns, shotguns and rifles. It specifically mentions certain firearms and manufacturers, including the popular AR-15 and AK-47 rifles.

Because the law is Federal it would blanket the country with new restrictions, including making it illegal to own any magazine that exceeds a capacity of ten (10) rounds. 

And here’s the kicker, even if your weapon has a legally-defined low capacity detachable magazine but is modified with any of the following accessories, it is considered an “assault rifle” and would be outright banned in the United States.

Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

Click for full text of bill

To be clear, the new bill puts all half measures aside and goes for the jugular.

This is the worst case scenario that many Americans have feared.

If you own a weapon on the ban list or have accessories as described by the bill, your firearm will be outlawed in the United States of America.


(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

“(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’

“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

The bill was introduced in Congress on Decemeber 16, 2015 and currently has 123 co-sponsors – all democrats.

We know that gun bans don’t work but one can’t help but think the agenda goes much further than the notion that they want to make us safer. If that were the case then our lawmakers wouldn’t allow drug cartels, gang members and Islamic terrorists to cross into the U.S. through our porous southern border.

The reality is that a cloud of tyranny has descended upon America. For it to be successful the American people must first be disarmed.

As history has proven time and again, a disarmed populace can easily be led to slaughter. But unlike the tens of millions executed in ethnic, religious and political cleansings of the 20th century, Americans have a rich tradition of personal liberty and the right to bear arms. It is embedded in our culture and our founding document. And as Texas police chief Randy Kennedy recently warned, if the government pushes too far they may well incite a revolution.

This article first appeared at New Ban Bill Hits Congress: Targets Semi-Automatic Rifles & Handguns: “To Ensure That The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Is NOT Unlimited”

Also Read:

Cold Hard Facts On Gun Bans: “The Cost Of Liberty Can Be Measured In the Loss of Life”

Texas Police Chief Warns Obama That Gun Control Will “Cause A Revolution… You’re Not Our Potentate, Sir”

Shock Report About Secret Obama Treaty: “Unlimited Migration From Mexico… Gun Import Bans… Ammunition Bans”

With Knife Murders Spiking After Gun Ban, UK Urges “Save a Life–Surrender Your Knife”

The Prepper’s Blueprint: PREPARE NOW.

Filed under: Civil Unrest / War, News/ Current Events

It’s Time To Revisit This Subject …

Click here to view the original post.

     It has been awhile since I have entered into the conversation on the Second Amendment, or as those who wish to distract from our Constitutional rights like to call to call it… gun control.  No matter what you hear from the talking heads, the American public is not ready to relinquish their rights or privilege to defend themselves with firearms.
     In fact The Daily Beast posted an article citing a New York Times/CBS poll in which it was found that the number of Americans supporting stricter gun control in general has slipped 7 points in just two months.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure that the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino have people scared.  They clearly see that those who wish to kill us are armed and trained to take as many innocent lives as possible.
     Waiting helplessly and defenseless for first responders to show up leads to certain loss of life.  The question becomes, What are your odds? Will you be one of the lucky ones who survives?  There is no way to answer that, because without the means to defend yourself, your chances are going to be random.  The only way to raise those odds is to be as prepared and trained as the enemy.  And it is becoming clearer to more Americans that limiting firearms from potential victims will not save more lives.

     But what you may not know, is that the number of women who identify as “first time gun owners” has steadily risen over the last few years.  I was one, myself, just a few short years ago, and my personal experience is that many of my female friends (and friends of friends) are overcoming their reticence and yes … fear of firearms … to take responsibility for their own protection and that of their families.
     Once they are introduced to professional training, they realize that we are not all “gun nuts”; that we take our training seriously, and our goal is to be both proficient and safe with a firearm; and it is for one primary reason – to defend ourselves when we fear for our lives.  They are often surprised to hear us say that we hope we never have to use our firearm.  But if we feel that our life is in danger, we want to be able to stop the threat before it is carried out.
     And they are equally surprised to find out that we spend as much time training how to be safe with our firearm as we do being accurate with it.  Training in both these areas keeps unnecessary injuries and deaths at a minimum.  In other words, responsible gun owners are not a threat to the general populace; do not present an increased danger to society; and just might be able to prevent the tragic loss of lives we have recently witnessed.  If just one person at the office Christmas party had been carrying for self-defense, and been adequately trained for an active shooter scenario, the terrorists might have been stopped from killing 14 people.  If just one of those lives had been saved, wouldn’t it have been worth it?
     And I’m sure you have noticed my repetitive use of the word “trained” in this post.  I, personally, would like to see legislation requiring mandatory training before the issuance of Concealed Carry permits.  In my mind, that would not only influence the attitude of those who are skittish about the general population carrying firearms, but would go a long way towards forming the proper mindset of a responsible gun-owner.
     The bottom line for me is this… it is apparent that the terrorist threat to this nation, and the world, is only going to increase.  As trite as it sounds … the Bible tells me so.  And that’s good enough for me.  God wants me to trust in Him, and I do for my salvation and my eternal life.  But I know there is a god of this world who is intent on killing and destroying as much of mankind as he can; and especially Christians.  So I will use the brain He gave me, and the rights upon which this country was founded, to defend myself and do it as an informed, trained, and reliable firearms owner.  I will take my stand against Evil because I know that self-preservation and the need to persevere are both a gift, and a duty, from my God.  None of us can deny that evil exists; and while God wishes us to love our fellow man and hold fast to that which is good, He has also made us responsible for those in our care.  That means husbands and fathers are to protect their wives and families; mothers, their children; and all of us, the innocent and defenseless.
     Unfortunately, the ungodly and the wicked are running rampant under the influence of the enemy of God.  While I pray for protection, I also know that I must be prepared to defend myself.  Sadly, that’s just the reality of the world in which we live.

Psalm 94:16     “Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?”

Gun Control.

Click here to view the original post.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are “citizens”. Without them, we are “subjects”.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.




Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It’s time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.

Episode 82 Second Amendment Super Show

Click here to view the original post.
Second Amendment

                                   Minute Man


Second Amendment

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


Today the show is all about the second amendment. With the exceptions due to the power outage that occurred while recording. We talk about why so many people are trying to ban weapons. How is all boils down to fear and ignorance. Mankind has always feared what he does not understand. If you listen to anti gun liberals long enough you will realize they are completely ignorant of firearms and the second amendment. They have some pretty crazy notions on firearms. Ghost guns anyone?

We talk about how the second amendment and exercising your right to keep and bear arms empowers you. It forces you to take responsibility for your own safety. It forces to to become more responsible while carrying a weapon. You have to both avoid trouble but also be the one there when it is needed.

The police can not protect you all the time. In the best of cases getting to you in time is hard. If there is a disaster, like a riot, then help may not come. During the L.A riots the Korean shop owners with AK47’s were the ones not looted. They used their second amendment right to protect their livelihoods.


This week we debut the new Punk Song of the week closing music. This week is Defiance, Ohio with Expect the Worst. Check them out Here!






Subscribe to the show

Like this post Consider signing up for my email list here > Subscribe

Think this post was worth 20 cents? Consider joining The Survivalpunk Army and get access to exclusive

 content and discounts!



The post Episode 82 Second Amendment Super Show appeared first on Survival Punk.

Obama’s Attacks On Our Second Amendment Rights

Click here to view the original post.

Obama gun controlIn the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Obama is once again on the warpath against our right to bear arms. Since he can’t get Congress or the people to do what he wants, he has decided to go it alone, resorting to executive action to get what he wants.

Along with his right-hand woman (who happens to be Iranian by birth), he’s drafting new orders to tighten the noose a little bit more on gun owners.

Rumor has it that this semi-secret action is focused on closing the supposed gun show loophole in the laws which require background checks for gun purchases.

This fictitious hole has been talked about by gun control advocates for quite a while. But anyone who has ever tried to buy a firearm at a gun show knows better. The sellers at gun shows are professional firearm dealers. As such, they are required by law to call the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) for a background check and they do.

So, what is this upcoming executive order actually going to do? It’s going to make it impossible for individuals to sell firearms privately, without a background check. That’s right, private gun transfers are going to require calling the NCIC, before any firearms can be sold or even given as a gift. That probably means that this background check will even be required for guns which are passed on as part of one’s inheritance.

So, what real difference is this going to make? None. The only way that the government can police background checks is to create a national database of gun ownership; in other words, establish gun registration. Of course, this action could be nothing more than a step towards making that happen.

Federal Firearm Registration

Currently, it’s illegal for the federal government to keep any records on firearm ownership, with the exception of Class III firearms, suppressors, short-barreled rifles and a few other rare categories of collectors firearms. But that doesn’t mean that the government is faithfully obeying that law, does it? They could be obeying the law just as well as felons obey the law about not buying firearms.

I have seen some evidence that makes me think that the government is actually tracking firearm purchases. It is not conclusive, but it is enough to make me suspicious. Allow me to explain.

All firearm transactions, other than private sales, must be carried out by a licensed firearm dealer. This includes shipping firearms across state lines, even if you are shipping it to yourself in another state. These dealers are all licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

The dealer uses a federal form to verify the buyer’s right to buy a firearm and to record their call to NCIC, verifying that the individual doesn’t have any history of crime or isn’t under an indictment. That form is kept in the dealer’s files, logged in a register and assigned a local tracking number, merely for reference. If the police want to find out who a firearm was sold to, they contact the dealer, asking for a copy of the applicable record.

So far, so good; no federal register. In order to ensure that the dealers are doing their paperwork and keeping their records, they are audited yearly by agents of ATF. That seems like a reasonable precaution. But nobody, including the dealer, is allowed to witness one of these audits. They are done behind closed doors, meaning that the ATF agents could do anything.

A friend of mine, who happens to be a firearm dealer, was sent a memo and spreadsheet from ATF some time back, asking for information about all their AR-15 sales over a specific period of time. The spreadsheet included the name and address of the various customers and the dealer was to put in their local tracking number for that record. There’s just one thing… the spreadsheet already had that number, in another column.

This raises some serious questions; specifically, how did ATF know who had bought AR-15 rifles from this dealer and how did they know the tracking numbers for those records? The only way they could have known was to have copied the store’s records during an audit. Nobody else had access to that information.

So, is there a federal gun register? Legally, I’d have to say no. But it appears that there is one that is being kept by ATF, it’s just being kept secret. That means that if the government wanted to confiscate guns, they’d at least have a starting place to look.

Obama gun control

Then There’s Australia

Lately, liberal politicians have been holding up Australia as an example for the United States to emulate. In 1996, Australia passed sweeping firearms legislation, outlawing all semi-automatic and automatic firearms. People who owned these firearms were to turn them in through a massive nationwide firearms buyback program. About 60,000 weapons were confiscated and their owners paid the fair market value.

All this was in reaction to a mass shooting; you know, the type that Obama says doesn’t happen in other countries. This particular incident claimed the lives of 35 innocent people shocking the nation and setting up the opportunity to pass that law.

One would expect that such a law, being held up for emulation, would have had sweeping effects on murders and violent crime in Australia. After all, why hold it up as an example, if one can’t point to results? The problem is, to get the results, liberals have to be very careful about what figures they point to. Otherwise, it’s not so good.

Liberals state that Australia’s gun-related homicide rate and suicide rate have plummeted 30% since the enactment of that law. You know something, they’re right.

But what they don’t tell us is that the total homicide rate in the United States dropped by a similar amount, in the same period of time. Not only that, but the U.S. rate is total homicides and the Australian is just gun-related. If you add in homicide by other means, the Australian rate has dropped less than the U.S. one… oops.

The other thing one would expect is that the number of mass killings would have dropped. While it is true, the number of mass shootings has dropped to a total of five in the 19 years since the enactment of that law, the total number of mass killings has been 12.

It seems that the criminals just found other ways of killing, most specifically, arson. Oh, and, the total number of mass killings in Australia in the 19 years before enacting that law were… you guessed it, 12. Doesn’t look like it changed a thing.

Murder is murder and it will happen with or without guns. Liberals act as if outlawing guns will eliminate the guns themselves. If that’s the case, then why has France managed to confiscate 3,000 fully-automatic AR-15 rifles from three mosques in one week? Those are totally illegal in France, yet the Muslim community in France had enough to outfit a couple of battalions of infantry.

On the same day that the Sandy Hook massacre happened, a Chinese man entered into China’s equivalent of an elementary school and killed 32 children with a knife. He outdid Adam Lanza by a long shot, and did so with an inferior weapon.

The fact of the matter is that violence is part of the human condition. As much as any of us would like it to go away, it’s not going to. Eliminating violence would require changing human nature, eliminating our free will, curtailing emotions (especially anger) and controlling the thoughts of people. Perhaps that’s what Obama and his liberal cronies are really after.

The fact that 130 people were killed recently in France shows how fruitless gun control laws really are. The only way anyone can own a firearm in France is to apply for a permit to own each and every hunting rifle they want, individually. Along with the application, the individual must pass a psychological evaluation, which then must be repeated every year. Failure of the evaluation eliminates your right to own any firearms you own.

Yet, the criminals managed to get their hands on firearms, as criminals always do. Unless every firearm on the face of the earth were destroyed or the laws of physics changed, criminals will always get guns. It’s up to us, the honest law-abiding people of our country, to protect ourselves from them.

The New York Times recently published an article  about how killers obtained weapons illegally in countries that have strict gun laws. This appeared in a Page 1 editorial, something that the New York Times hasn’t done in 100 years. Little did they realize it, but they essentially said, “the gun control debate is over, and the gun owners won.”

The things they talk about as challenges are the reasons that the liberals will never get their way. Gun control doesn’t stop crime. There are constitutional challenges to regulating guns and determined killers still find weapons. Those reasons make it impossible to enact the kinds of gun control laws that liberals want.

Perhaps they will eventually realize this; but I doubt it. Liberals live in an ideal world, like college professors sitting around a table, debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. While they don’t believe in angels, they do believe in the debate. So, they’ll continue to argue, sure that they are right, simply because of who they are.


This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.


7 total views, 7 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

Valerie Jarrett: Obama Finalizing More Gun Control Executive Actions

Click here to view the original post.


Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Here comes more gun control without congressional approval. It is currently being reported that Obama’s advisers are putting the finishing touches on numerous gun control executive orders.

The Obama administration has been busy working on finding ways to tighten gun laws ever since the college shooting in Oregon back in October, according to Valerie Jarrett, who spoke last night at a vigil for Sandy Hook victims.

As many people have pointed out, none of Obama’s latest proposals — which include banning people on the terrorism watchlist from being able to buy a gun — would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, especially not incidents occurring in California which already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

All the guns used in the San Bernardino incident were purchased legally and the shooting took place in a “gun-free zone” — a place where criminals bring guns to kill people because they are criminals and innocent people are not allowed to bring guns to protect themselves from the criminals.

Yesterday Jarrett posted this cryptic Tweet:

To families who have lost loved ones & are dedicated to ending gun violence: you are inspiring our country to be a more perfect union

“A more perfect union” … of disarmed slaves?

Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of Valerie Jarrett: Obama Finalizing More Gun Control Executive Actions


Filed under: News/ Current Events, Whatever Your Opinion

San Bernardino: Why Gun Control Laws Don’t Work

Click here to view the original post.

Gun lawsI hate to say it, but mass shootings are becoming much more common than any of us would like. It doesn’t seem like there’s going to be any reduction in them either; especially with radical jihadists being allowed into the country by every means possible. The war is becoming real and it’s happening in our streets, in our office buildings and in our schools.

While each event is individual in its execution, the events surrounding them are becoming as predictable as a grade B movie. While not all are, Muslims predictably carry many of them out, although the administration and the media won’t admit it.

Many of them predictably happen in gun-free zones. The left predictably blames conservatives, especially the NRA, and Obama predictably calls for more gun control. The same story plays over and over again; while Obama and the PC police prevent the truth from coming out and the real issues from being dealt with.

The San Bernardino Shooting Follows the Script

The latest shooting on December 2nd, in San Bernardino follows the script, with its own special twists thrown in. I remember that I first heard about it through a Facebook posting on “breaking news” from one of the news outlets I follow.

At the time, which was less than an hour after the event happened, little was known. But that didn’t prevent liberal reporters from already jumping to conclusions. I must admit, I jumped to my own as well, thinking that the perpetrators were probably Muslims.

Any time an event like this happens, details are sketchy at the beginning. It takes time for the police to figure out what happened and for the true story to be told. That’s why liberals have to act so quickly. They have to get their version of the story embedded in the minds of the sheeple before the truth comes out. Otherwise, they won’t get to spin it the way they want.

So, along with that very first report I heard about how the mainstream media was saying that the event was carried out by right-wing extremists and blaming the NRA for blocking gun control measures. There were even a series of tweets following that same vein and castigating law-abiding citizens who supported the 2nd Amendment, just for opposing gun control.

San Bernardino Tweet

Well, now that more time has passed, we have a better idea of what happened. The first bit of truth that came out was the name of one of the perpetrators. It turns out that he was Syed Farook, an American citizen, who traveled to Saudi Arabia to marry his wife, who he met online. He was apparently accompanied by his wife, as well as his brother. The husband and wife were killed, when they tried to fight it out with the police.

According to Sayd’s father, he was a devout Muslim, attested to by the fact that he traveled to Saudi Arabia to marry and has recently grown out his beard, as all devout Muslim men are supposed to. Co-workers knew he was a Muslim, but were surprised that he would take such action, believing him to be a “moderate” Muslim.

The attack was a Christmas party, being held in the offices of San Bernardino’s Public Health Department, where Sayd worked as a health inspector. Co-workers said he was quiet at the party and left early. But he didn’t stay away, returning with his accomplices to rain death and destruction on the party.

Sayd and his co-conspirators showed up well prepared for their grim task, wearing tactical clothing and sporting AR-15 rifles. The way they were equipped shows that this was not a spur-of-the-moment attack.

About the only thing that might have been spontaneous was the time and place. It would have taken time to gather the necessary equipment, especially the AR-15s, which are illegal for sale in California. Sayd and his accomplices had obviously been planning such an event.

The Gun Laws Didn’t Work

This one shooting shows the futility of the progressive liberal stance on gun control. California has already enacted everything on their “common sense” wish list, yet these killers were still able to get the weapons they wanted and carry out their murderous deed. Specifically, California has laws on the books for everything on the left’s gun-control “wish list.”

  • Universal background checks
  • Magazine limits
  • Bans on standard “assault rifles”

Fourteen of Sayd’s co-workers died and another 17 are wounded, proving that those gun control measures don’t work. Yet the left doesn’t see it that way. They are still screaming out for those laws to be adopted nation-wide, regardless of their effectiveness.

You see, to the left, the law has little to do with reality. It’s all about doing something to make them feel good. If people are poor, pass laws giving them more freebees from the government. If pollution exists, create new regulations that reduce emissions. If people are getting killed enact more gun laws. It doesn’t matter if any of those laws actually do any good, they’ll feel better, because they’ve “done something” about the problem.

That’s why they villianize gun owners and the NRA. We stand in the way of them going through the motions of making themselves feel good. They don’t care about the dead; they just care about salving what little conscience they have. If that hurts others, they’ll just blame the conservatives.

As we all know, guns aren’t the problem. The very same day that the Sandy Hook shooting happened (if it really happened), a man in China entered a school and killed more children with a knife than were supposedly killed at Sandy Hook. People killed one another before guns existed and they will continue to kill one another long after guns have been replaced by something else.

A few days before this shooting, there was another, in which a mentally unstable, middle-aged white man killed a number of people. Since he hid out in a Planned Parenthood office and shot from there, the left has been talking about how he was a conservative terrorist, who was attacking Planned Parenthood. But he didn’t turn his gun on one single person in that Planned Parenthood office, he merely shot from there.

Even though that man had a history of mental illness, nobody is paying attention to that. Mental illness doesn’t match the narrative they want, so they won’t talk about it.

A few days before that, there was a mass shooting where a young black man wounded and injured several people. But that one doesn’t match the narrative either. So, while it was a serious shooting, the media isn’t bothering to cover it. Then there are the dozens of shootings that happen in Chicago every weekend, but those are mainly black-on-black crime, so they aren’t reported.

It is clear that the media is cherry-picking which shootings they will cover. They only talk about the ones that they can spin to fit their narrative. Each time, they salivate at the possibility that it really was a right-wing supremist nut job that did the shooting, so that they can justify themselves in blaming all gun violence on those of us on the right. But it just doesn’t happen.

As Texas Senator and Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz recently stated, violent crimes are mostly propagated by liberals, more specifically, by Democrats. They keep feeding the killing machine, creating gun-free zones, trying to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and pampering the criminals.

Video first seen on Fox News

As crazy as it seems, these people actually think that taking guns out of the hands of the innocent is going to reduce crime. Oh, it might eliminate the occasional accidental shooting, I’ll give them that. It might even eliminate the tragic results of a drunken fight, when some fool goes into a bar with a gun (usually illegal, even if you have a concealed carry permit). But that’s not what I’m talking about. They actually think that taking guns out of the hands of the honest people will convince the criminals to give up theirs.

Senator Feinstein actually said that on the floor of the Senate. She said that once honest people give up their guns, criminals will do so as well, calling that “human nature.” Obviously, the Senator has no idea of what human nature really is. A lion won’t give up its teeth if the antelope give up their horns and a criminal won’t give up their guns if the rest of us give up ours.

Actually, I think what these liberals want is to repeal the physical laws that allow firearms to work. That’s about the only way that you’re going to get guns out of the hands of the criminals. But as Cain proved, about six thousand years ago, you don’t need a gun to kill your brother.

Murder is bound up in the heart of man, just like adultery, stealing, lying and anything else you can call evil. Unless and until we can get rid of that, we will need our guns. As long as there is a way for criminals to get their hands on guns, criminals will use them. No law will stop them, just like no law ever written has stopped them from committing any other crime.

Of course, if their true goal is to make us subservient, gun control makes sense. Likewise, if they are trying to help the jihadists, by taking away our ability to defend ourselves. In that regard, gun control can be seen as treason, as it truly aids and abets our enemies, allowing them to conquer the American culture and force us to convert to Islam.

I think I’ll keep mine, no matter what they say.



This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.


5 total views, 5 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]

The problem isn’t Islamic Terrorism it is guns according to Emperor Obama

Click here to view the original post.

I wrote the following paragraph on October 19th this year as the first of a three part series explaining exactly how gun control and then confiscation would be enacted across

Really!? “Prayer-Shaming” Is Where We Want To Go After This Tragedy?

Click here to view the original post.

     I find it incredibly sad that one of the hallmarks of the terrorist tragedy in San Bernardino will be the coining of a new media term, known as prayer-shaming.  It seemed that in less than 24 hours after the massacre, the anti-God crowd couldn’t wait to spread their venom against those who turned to the only One who could offer solace in such a time of senseless evil.

     The attempts by the media and the empty souls who tweeted their disrespect for the faithful was truly disgusting.  Yes, they will try to say it is a reaction to what they saw as “posturing” by politicians and presidential candidates; an attempt to garner votes by taking advantage of a tragic situation in order to promote themselves.  And, yet, it is most likely true that if those same politicians had come out screaming for more gun control as their response to San Bernardino (and thus endearing themselves to the anti-gun audience), then they would have been hailed as compassionate and caring.
     But anytime FAITH comes to the forefront, then it must be dismissed as hollow or foolish behavior; and those of us who cling to it should be made to feel ashamed for its inadequacy.  In other words, they look to man to solve the evil intentions of the wicked, and the fact that we Christians turn to the Sovereign God of the Universe for comfort and strength is nothing more than empty expressions.

     But don’t take my word for it.  Let the cover of the New York Daily News tell you itself:  GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS! it screams, followed by the subtitle, which says, “As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes.”

      The backlash came after Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and others tweeted that their “thoughts and prayers” were with the victims of the terrorist attack.  Immediately, they were castigated for accepting campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, while tweeting their intentions to pray in the aftermath of the tragedy.  (Funny, but I don’t see any hypocrisy in that at all.  The former is a decision made as a citizen of this world; the latter, is a spiritual response as a member of the Family of God).  
     And ironically, it doesn’t seem to bother them that the White House tweeted its thoughts and prayers to the victims of the Paris attacks.  So, I have to ask… is it really the idea of prayer that offends them, or just that prayer was the first response of people, rather than demanding stricter gun control?  
     I also noticed that the White House did not tweet any such offering of “thoughts and prayers” to the victims of San Bernardino, but rather tweeted an interview with CBS News, in which the President said “our hearts” go out to the victims and families….”.  That’s a pretty big difference, to me.  Offering my heart does not extend the same power [to the victims] as appealing to God to heal broken hearts and the consequences of evil men.
     For me, the real tragedy is what was described by Charisma News:  “Led by a rabid media, the headlines were no longer about the victims and their grieving families—but about leaders who dared to do what the frightened people inside the killing ground asked: pray.”  Who can forget the text that one of the victims sent to her father during the slaughter:  “Shooting at my work … People shot. In the office waiting for cops. Pray for us.”  Those in the midst of those terrifying moments knew what would help them the most … prayer.  They knew that the Lord God Almighty hears the prayers of His children, and they knew nothing was impossible with Him.  They knew they could expect almighty and supernatural results from prayers sent heavenward.
     You’ve heard it over and over…. Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.  And it is a spiritual sickness that pervades the minds and hearts of men that drives them to such murderous acts.  But those without a spiritual connection to God will never understand that, and so, they continue to blame “tools of violence”, rather than the “spirit of violence” that pervade men’s souls.
     Once again, Charisma News did an outstanding job of compiling clear, logical and convincing thoughts on this subject: “…hate is what drives men to slaughter innocent people—not guns. And the government can’t make us safer until it recognizes that the problem isn’t the instruments of violence, but the environment of it.”  They further quote The Federalist’s Mollie Hemmingway, who wrote:   “[They] are only diminishing the Christian faith so that they can exercise their own religion: big government. [Progressives] explain that the god of good government would have been able to take care of us if only we’d given it sufficient power to do so. In this case, that power is gun control… Government — if made to have sufficient size, scope, and proper management over the affairs of man—will fix, or at least seriously mitigate, the problem of evil in the world. They tend to believe that man can be perfected, and perfected through government action. These almost cartoonish denunciations of prayer we saw yesterday, combined with the implicit praises of government action, are best understood as a sort of primitive religious reaction to the problem that growth of the state still hasn’t fixed the problem of evil in the world.”    

     And we, the Faithful, know it never will.  That is why it is more important than ever that we continue to pray!  That’s why thousands gathered at a stadium in San Bernardino, and in churches around the nation — to pray for those who were senselessly killed and for those who grieve; to declare to the wicked rulers and principalities in the spiritual realm that the city of San Bernardino does not belong to them; to proclaim that we are active in the spiritual war against our nation; and to state our profound belief that God will give Justice to His elect, who cry to Him day and night.  Finally, we claim victory in the Name of Jesus!  And no amount of “shaming” will keep us from praying at all times in the Spirit, and with all prayer and supplication!

James 5:16    “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.”

What Really Caused The California Terrorist Massacre?

Click here to view the original post.

big SBIt is painfully evident that the Leftist malevolent MSM is already equivocating this obvious prima-facie Islamic terrorist attack by disclaiming it as terrorism, absent any corresponding motives but not entirely ruling it out yet.

Yeah, sure; until the authorities can whitewash it like they did the recent Colorado Planned Parenthood terrorist shooting by claiming they don’t know the exact motive even though the shooter specifically mentioned abortion baby parts, and was associated with an organized group of Christian extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings.

Rev Robert Jeffress, an ardent proprietary theocratic religionist seeming to be more preoccupied with moralist equivalency comparative ratios among religionist evildoing, was just on Fox News and, as always, sidetracked the most important issue in his brainwashed defensive mode. He was more worried about defending the sidebar issue of prayer when the New York Daily News headline saying “God Won’t fix this”–referring to their leftist anti-2nd/A need for more gun control–appeared.

The truth is that the Obama administration does not want to offend the Muslim religionists and too many of the rest of the religionists in this country are more concerned with God, than they are with security of their country.

This San Bernardino terrorist duo were Muslims who recently visited Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and had the characteristic Islamic State beheading garb, tactical uniforms, vests, and the Islamic State caliphate has already applauded the massacre on line. Not to mention when the police hit their apartment, it resembled an Iraqi IED bomb factory and had enough munitions to supply several other future terror attack missions such as this one.

Ironically, the typically tepid denouncement of this California terror attack by the Muslim CAIR organization and the hard to believe relative of the shooter, who claims sincere mystification as to his brother committing this atrocity and the lack o a motive either, was apparently disputed by a Muslim woman who stated on Fox that she supports proactive efforts to weed out and condemn radical Islam as it offends non violent Muslims in America as much as anyone else. Of course, she is in the minority of American Muslims who are reluctant to admit any Muslim support of radical jihadism, even though most are secretly in support of it.

Yet, amazingly, at this writing, with all the self incriminating condemning collective preponderance of evidence, the government and its agents had still not concluded that these murderous terrorists were Islamist sleeper cell members.

Yes, I know how that sounds. It’s like saying, hey, look, you people are so stupid that we can make any laws we want to control you even if means subverting Constitution of the United States! You don’t really think we give a shit about your safety, do you? Hahahah? Nah, no way these were Islamist terrorists. This was just another example of “workplace violence” the POTUS is so convinced about and wants us all to believe as well.

Insult to Injury

The rock salt thrown on our emotional wounds was that the AG’s statement concerning this act of war on ’We, The People’, did not say anything of American recognition of being in danger of radical Islamist attacks! And, the POTUS himself could not restrain himself in his San Bernardino comment today when he said they can’t say it was terrorism (and he’ll never say “Islamist terrorism” even when it is) because they just “don’t know that” yet and it still “could be workplace violence”.

Our own government officials are lying to us and trying to re-direct, obfuscate, and marginalize the true reality for their own political agenda. And we just sit there and suck it all up, like infants on a pacifier.

Not being able to say the term “radical Islam” to keep in the good non-offensive graces of Muslims to garnish the large Islamic voting block that supports his socialist party regime is one thing. But to also spit on our graves by being more concerned with his gun control agenda, and trying to disarm us so we can’t defend ourselves adequately, amounts to an insidious attitude that simply can’t be tolerated by true American Patriots. The POTUS, of all people, should be more concerned that our 2nd/A “Shall Not Be Infringed” so that We, The People, can have the advantage to protect ourselves when police are not around.

I often go hot when some nitwit leftist sheeps say something so insanely stupid like “more gun control would have stopped these terrorist attacks”. Would more gun registration in the form of universal background checks have stopped this California massacre? California has limited capacity magazine laws. Did that stop these shooters from having large capacity ones?

These murderers could pass any background check! They bought their guns legally on government 4473 registration forms. “Legal” just means that your purchases are registered for future confiscation, NOT for crime prevention! And registration is never for your personal safety. When that finally dawns on people, they usually have a couple too many afterwards at happy hour to assuage how stupid they feel.

Then I go super after burner when some morally debased LL who is suffering from an EMP brain circuitry blow out says something like, “Well, if any gun control law saves just one life, then it’s well worth it.” I then ask them, “Really…What about all the lives gun control doesn’t save? If just one Paris concert fan had a concealed hi-cap pistol, how many of the 130 murdered victims might have lived? If just one person at the San Bernardino Christmas party had a Glock 17 with 19 rounds of high power ammo under his jacket, and opened up on the shooters?”

Just the act of interrupting the methodical slaughter with directional suppressive firepower could have made all the difference in the world, even if the terrorists weren’t immediately killed. If I’d been there, and I wasn’t killed in the first couple seconds because of the element of surprise, I guarantee I would have jumped up and speed flanked them while blasting a dozen or more rounds on them without hitting bystanders and also drawing their fire off their targets. And because I never miss, I guarantee they’d at least be “temporarily” disrupted from firing. But just in case I only wounded them, I’d quickly put a couple more rounds each in the openings of their face masks.


Rand Paul had a refreshingly pragmatic solution which I had already pointed out right after the Paris attacks last month. Rand Paul, unfortunately, is unlikely to be the GOP nominee, but it’s my opinion that nevertheless has the best solutions and ideas for immediate implementation. And he is at least more proactive of any other politician by putting forth a new bill to restrict and or seriously qualify access to our country from other known terrorist countries, which we all should force our Reps to support.

Unless you are a complete air head and remain under ball and chain, or you are a leftist agenda based power elite social parasite, you have nothing to prevent you from understanding and knowing for a fact that gun restrictions and control and even all out confiscation does not work anywhere, let alone in a libertarian free society. And any violation of our precious 2nd Amendment is anti-constitutional, anti-American, and it is intentionally placing the American people in serious danger!

So you don’t waste valuable time we don’t have left and resources we can’t afford to eliminate an inanimate tool, you instead eliminate the potential deleterious behavior of the human losers that is intent upon performing the unsocial act itself.

And of course I’ve never seen Hillary so popeyed jubilant and evil grinning frenzied in her sound bite press response to the San Bernardino terrorist cell atrocity about her renewed determination to disarm the American free citizens with more illegal law restrictions, and by launching a counterattack on the gun lobby and 2/A protectors!

It is a difficult concept for someone like me to deal with. The convoluted absurdity of justice and security forced upon us by the leftist regime and its MSM propaganda mind control Hillary Pac group to actually want to disarm the free American people while we are all under direct assault by murderous sleeper cells, who care less about any gun control laws because they simply don’t subscribe to them, is something I lose a lot of sleep over. And so should you.

It can’t be sane to agree with a POTUS and this tyrant regimes solution that protecting us from murderous religionist Jihadists is to prevent us from protecting ourselves by violating our 2/A liberties and disarming us. When he should be making it less restrictive for Citizens to have firearms! Starting with lifting restrictions on locations like “Easier to Kill Us Here” zones aka “gun free” zones.

So You Really Want to Know Who Is to Blame?

Of course a major part of the fault goes to the POTUS and his cohorts and totalitarian policies which are definitely a large part of the problem, and not a real time solution. And sadly, this amounts to clear prosecutable violations of national and private security.

They’ve done everything from outright denial of clearly identifiable Jihadist attacks, to bullshitting us with the non effective illusion of dismantlement at the source of the IS and other anti-Western middle East Islamist terrorist groups who have declared war on us, to the complete lack of enforcement of sufficient border protection and immigration checks, to preclude the ridiculously easy access to our country by hard core enemies of our nation.

And then lying to our faces about it because they think we are all too stupid to know the difference. It always bothers me that the government refers to a “war on terrorism” without being able to say who the terrorists are. Rudi Juliano just said on national TV that “anybody who thinks this is NOT terrorism has no business being in law enforcement, and…is simply a moron”.

I have to go one better. Anyone who thinks we must destroy the 2nd Amendment by universal registration background checks for future confiscation efforts for absolutely no pragmatic or viable public safety rational, except this regime’s purposeful agenda to disarm the free American populate for future totalitarian milking of the sheeple, deserves to be arrested and charged with treason. For the betrayal of our citizens right to safety and violating the Constitution of the United States which they swore to uphold.


At the very least, the entire voting population regardless of their political party affiliation, ethnicity, race or religious preference, should recognize the greatest threat to our private freedoms and security that this current regime represents and use our voting voice and power to put a stop to this egregious tyranny and disregard for our national security this coming election.

Because ultimately, the American People are the cause of our own government failure and our own national endangerment. We, the People, are still in charge of and accountable for our own political destiny.

Because our trust had been taken advantage of by our past governments and corrupt representatives and worthless politicians and crony administrations, we must all come together to prevent this totalitarian juggernaut from further trespassing on our Bill of Rights for their own agenda based power greed, once and for all, as our framers provided for us to do.

We must unite and remove this astoundingly dangerous current government beast and at least get in office non-professional agenda based politicians like one of the so-called outsiders to start a much needed organizational reform type of revolution for 2016.

Otherwise we have no one to blame in the end…but ourselves.


This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.


22 total views, 22 views today

Rate this article!

[Total: 1    Average: 5/5]

Do Not Let Him ‘Steal, Kill and Destroy’

Click here to view the original post.

    The purpose of my blog post today is two-fold … First, from the perspective of the world’s view, to simply comment on my initial thoughts about what happened in California on Wednesday.  Secondly, as always, I can’t help but view events such as this from my Biblical worldview, and I am seeing how it is effecting our American men.

     Like you, I am reeling from the terrorist shooting in San Bernardino.  While politicians, Federal law enforcement, and the media tiptoe around the motive behind the killing spree, I believe the American people are less hesitant to see the connections between what happened on that day and radical Islam.
     Perhaps our Western mindset and our over-reliance on political correctness wishes to see workplace violence instead of admitting that a radical, fundamentalist ideology is alive and growing in the midst of our heartland.  But are we really expected to deny the aspect of premeditation in the presence of body armor, pipe bombs, and a home that was an alleged IED factory set to be detonated by remote-control cars?  And what about the trips to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the recent past?  It will be interesting to see if the authorities release the internet history of the suspects and be willing to be transparent in connecting the dots.  (Even now, the media is leaking that they searched ISIS propaganda websites).
     Then there is the quote from the father of the prime suspect (Syed Farook) who said he hadn’t seen his son in some time:  “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”  I found it interesting to read an article by Walid Shoebat, a former jihadist who converted to Christianity.  He said it is difficult for the Western mind to read “the signs” of a terrorist; something that he is all too familiar with.  Therefore, he is not surprised that American officials and law enforcement are hesitant to label San Bernardino as the site of a terrorist attack.
     But he also states that it will be difficult for our security services and law enforcement to thwart Lone Wolf attacks like what was executed on Wednesday.  “[This] will soon be realized in the West… ISIS now is heavily promoting this [Lone Wolf] agenda on social media.  A lone wolf is not only a very ordinary person living in the community as a member, they also behave like them in that they do not have any unusual activity or act suspicious. They are encouraged to cover up any sign of religious affiliation and are encouraged not to pray or become a member in a mosque, or keep a low-profile in the mosque. They do not belong to any form of criminal or neurotic gang. They are away from the eyes of observers as being a member of a terrorist organization. These [people]are perfect for ISIS.”  Shoebat goes on to say that U.S. terrorism task forces have moved from drug busting into terror busting, and now must think like a Muslim terrorist and know Islam inside and out…. something that is very difficult for our Western minds to fathom.
     So, there you have the physical world’s perspective.  But what about the spiritual component?  As I consider the men of faith in my life, I see the struggle they wage with how they are to react to this tragedy on our home turf.  I can only imagine how this affects young men like my nephew, who until now, have been able to immerse themselves in their college careers, with little or no need to make them concerned about a public and active shooter.  This event is different than the various school shootings he would be aware of, in that these perpetrators are other than a mentally ill person who reacts to some psychological trigger.  These shooters will most likely make the younger generation conscious that there are people who have deliberate evil intentions to steal their peace, kill innocent victims, and destroy how we Americans live our lives. That “age of innocence” has been marred, and the trusting faith that America is immune to such terrorist acts will now be tested.
     I have also seen good friends struggle with how our God expects them to respond if and when they are faced with such an attack.  I can see them agonizing over a scenario in which their wife or child is a potential victim and if it’s OK with God if they kill in defense of their family.  That is a long-going and controversial debate among Christians.  I asked my husband, whose first and middle name literally means “Peace-Loving Warrior” (PLW) how he views that debate and exactly what his name means to him; how does he see his obedience to God in light of that contradictory name?
     Here is what he told me … an oft-quoted line from the Bible is John 10:10:   The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have and enjoy life, and have it in abundance [to the full, till it overflows].   He says we need to read that in the context of the entire Tenth Chapter of the Book of John, which is known as The Parable of the Good Shepherd.  Jesus is telling us that He is the Good Shepherd; the provider and the protector of the sheep who know His voice and recognize His call.  Jesus reveals that He is the Door that leads to eternal life and anyone who enters through Him will be saved [and will live forever], and will go in and out [freely], and find pasture (spiritual security).
     But interestingly enough, Jesus also references “the thief who comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy.”  In the parable of the Good Shepherd, that thief is represented by a wolf.  So, as PLW explained how he views his name, and how he thinks God expects men to obey, he said, “All of society are sheep; and as men, we are either the sheepdog, or we’re the wolf.  As the sheepdog, we are expected to protect those sheep who are helpless.  But God expects us to not become so reactionary that we cross the line and become the wolf.”
     PLW’s sentiment is very similar to that expressed by Dave Grossman, a former psychology professor at West Point, and a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army, who wrote a fascinating book titled On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.  Grossman has this to say about the sheep/sheepdog/wolf dynamic:  “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident. Then there are the wolves, who feed on the sheep without mercy.  The moment you forget or pretend this is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial. Then there are sheepdogs. Sheepdogs live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep.”
     So, PLW is simply saying, that as a Christian man, he has to walk that fine line between fulfilling his duty as a sheepdog, without disobeying God’s command to never become the wolf.  As for his name … Peace-Loving Warrior … he feels he has two options:  God’s first option is for him to be peaceful, but if that doesn’t work, and the wolf is hell-bent on stealing, killing and destroying, then he will go into Warrior mode.  He admits that the peace part of him is harder, and he can only accomplish that through his relationship with Jesus.  But PLW is quick to assert that he does not believe Jesus was a pacifist, and he won’t be, either.  He also points out that the Warrior side of himself does not prohibit him from praying for those lone wolves and their salvation; but if they come to kill him or his family, they can expect to be resisted.  He says that it is hard to find that line;  where to be passive — until it’s time not to be.  He just has to rely on the Holy Spirit to tell him where that line is.
     But as it pertains to the shooting in San Bernardino on Wednesday, my husband says his biggest fear is that, as a nation, we are being conditioned and desensitized; that we are becoming accustomed to a shooting every few days or weeks, so that (as the Bible says), “because of the increase of wickedness, the hearts of men grow cold” (Matthew 24:12).  Remember that Jesus makes this statement in response to a question from the Disciples about when He would return and what would be the signs of the end of the Age.
     So, are we seeing a fulfillment of End-Times prophecy that men’s hearts will grow cold because of the proliferation of evil on the earth?  Are the Lone Wolves of the Jihadist movement demonstrating
the Enemy’s desire to steal, kill, and destroy?  And how will the men of Christ respond?  There is no doubt that those who killed on Wednesday were hell-bent on harvesting death and destruction, no matter what the “official” cause turns out to be.  But I would also like to point out that no amount of gun control laws would have stopped that carnage.  California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.  But more importantly, those murderers are hell-bound because they were spiritually destitute, and did not know my God.
     Today my thoughts are with those families who lost loved ones, and my prayers are for the strength and endurance and courage of the American people to repent of our sins and turn to the One who can protect us and help us to repel this evil.  Do not let our hearts be troubled; neither let them grow cold.

Psalm 97:10    “You who love the LORD, hate evil; He protects the souls of His godly ones (believers), He rescues them from the hand of the wicked.”


The Liberal Media Won’t Tell You This About the Mass Shootings

Click here to view the original post.

mass shootingsOnce again, sad to say, a mass shooting happens.

The liberal politicians scream for more gun control while the victims lie bleeding at the site.

The liberal media spins the incident to support the gun control agenda.

But what aren’t they telling you?If you listen to the liberal media, the solution to stop these shootings is simple.

Gun Control.

What’s missing from the Main Stream Media accounts of these shootings is perspective,

Out of all the gun owners in the United States, only an extemely small slice are mass shooters: 

There are about 319 million people in the United States, so that means there are about 118 million gun owners in this nation.

The “Mass Shooting Tracker” counts any incident where four or more people are shot, whether fatally or not, as a mass shooting. For 2015 so far, this tracker counts 294 incidents — of those, there are names for only 45 of the shooters, which leads me to believe the others are gang or crime related. But let’s assume for a moment all 294 shooters were actually law-abiding, legal gun owners.

That means, out of 118 million gun owners, 249 or .00025 percent of the gun-owning population are potential mass shooters.

If you listen to the liberal media, they lead you to believe that any gun owners is a potential mass shooter.

So the solution is simple.

Submit all gun owners to a background check and limit assault weapons.

Yet, would these laws prevented any of these mass shootings?

It’s insane thinking.

The cause of these mass shootings is complex.

Is easy access to guns a cause , or even a major contributing factor?


Or perhaps the easy access to guns has little impact.

Well, at least now you’re armed.

With the facts about how few gun owners use guns in mass shootings.

Isn’t trying to craft any law that predicts and prevents the .00025 percent of gun owners who might be a mass shooter just a dumb idea?

Obama Says Legal Guns Are the Problem – But This 1 Simple Picture Exposes the Truth

Click here to view the original post.


In case you can’t read what the image above says, it says this:

“Seriously. Conservatives own 200+ million guns, 12 trillion rounds of ammo. If we were violent, you’d know it.”

That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?

So long as there are evil people in the world, we will continue to witness mass murders.

Are guns the problem? Hardly.

Just last year (March 2014), China experienced a mass killing of its own — and not a single gun was involved. Ten armed men stormed a train station with knives, killing 29 and injuring 130.

In other words, it’s not the weapon that matters. It’s the evil in the hearts of the people who carry out these wicked attacks.

Now, if we could just get liberals to understand this…

Liberals Hate This Anti-Gun Crime Proposal

Click here to view the original post.

4573522770_3079eae4f8Liberals LOVE gun control.

But they HATE common sense solutions to ending gun violence.

There is a common sense solution to ending gun violence.

Of course liberals hate it:

How to solve the problem of gun violence, that’s the question harped about whenever a school-shooting occurs. Leftists crow “Eliminate guns!” leaving only police and military personnel with firearms. Until of course, they have to get on the hating-cops bandwagon. Then their position proves problematic. On the other end of the spectrum are diehard gun activists who dare anyone to pry their guns from their cold dead hands. Hey, speaking of which, we’re giving away an AR15. Go get it, yo.
As entertaining as the bickering is, both sides might want to lay down their arms and look to initiatives like Project Exile. Hailed as one of the most effective strategies for reducing gun violence ever, Project Exile works because it’s simple: If you have a gun when you’re not allowed to have a gun (because you’re a felon and/or douchebag), you automatically get five years in prison. Second offense? Ten years. Simple right. But brace yourself, because here comes the shocker… it worked. Like, really well.

Or in other words, enforce the gun laws already on the books.

If you’re a felon and are caught with a gun, you get locked up.

If you’re a felon or mentally unstable and commit a crime with a gun, you face serious prison time.

Let’s stop the bickering on both sides of the gun debate and focus on the problem.


Part III: Gun Confiscation Goes Mainstream: Tyranny in the Land of the “Free”

Click here to view the original post.

Post Confiscation and the Resistance When the government decrees you must turn in your weapons, the question is whether you will comply or resist. Consider this question carefully because the

Part II of The Gun Confiscation Goes Mainstream: Tyranny in the Land of the “Free”

Click here to view the original post.

Part II: The Gun Ban is Announced Last night I spoke of how to resist encroaching gun control laws and regulation. However, I admitted that we are fighting a rigged

Obama Outraged- Brace Yourself: It’s Only Going to Get Worse

Click here to view the original post.

No_gunHe’s outraged.

Frustrated beyond belief.

He knows he must do SOMETHING…

But what will he do?

In the aftermath of the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, President Obama is threatening executive action on gun control:

The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match his recent passion on the issue after the latest mass shooting in Oregon.

“It’s a high priority and will continue to be until we start to see more progress on this issue in this town,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today at the press briefing.

Earnest said he would “quibble” with anyone who criticized the president for not voicing any specific gun control proposals during his press conference, asserting that the White House was working behind the scenes for more executive actions on guns.

Isn’t it silly to hear a President asking us to vote for candidate based on one issue when he offers no specific solution to the issue?

All Obama has to offer in response to these mass shootings is threats.

Threats to bypass Congress.

Executive action threats.

Veiled threats to grab your guns.

The reality is he has no real or sensible solutions to curb gun violence.

Brace Yourself…

Another mass shooting will likely happen before Obama leaves office.

Once again Obama will immediately get on his high horse, express his outrage, threaten to do something…

Except nothing will happen.

With a solid Republican majority in the House and Senate, any gun control legislation is dead.

However, rest assured, Obama will do everything behind the scenes through executive action and twisting gun laws.

The outrage is Obama has no respect or regard for the Constitution.

Enforcing Rule of Law and protecting gun rights of law-abiding citizens is how you make progress on this issue.

Start jailing thugs who commit gun crimes with stiff sentences and no plea bargains.

Allow citizens to arm and protect themselves and their kids.

Get rid of gun-free killing zones.




The ONE Fact That Makes Liberal Gun Control Just Plain Stupid

Click here to view the original post.

gun-free-zoneSadly, we once again experienced a mass shooting at a school.

And once again, President Obama and liberals wasted no time in politicizing the tragedy to advance their gun control agenda.

Only there is ONE problem…

Obama and his liberal gun-grabbing friends ignore ONE fact:

On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones.

The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. Everytown actually claimed 86% of such incidents occurred in places where guns were allowed.

CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.” For example, Everytown “[ignores] rules that prevent general citizens from carrying guns [for self-defense]” in certain cities, and they fail to recognize that “allowing police to carry guns is not the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves.”

Whenever Obama or his family or Obama’s liberal politician friends step out into public they are ALWAYS surrounded with well-armed protection.


ONE fact.

History has shown that a nut jobs armed with a gun seeking some sort of twisted infamy are real threats.

Isn’t is past time we protect our kids too?

Gun Confiscation Goes Mainstream: Tyranny in the Land of the “Free”

Click here to view the original post.

Part I:  Before the Ban When a leading presidential contender can come out and openly suggest we should begin gun confiscation in the United States and her statements are treated

5 Guns The Government Doesn’t Want You To Have

Click here to view the original post.

I don’t post much about guns on this site, but this video was too good not to share. Iraqveteran8888 made a video about 5 guns that most people in government would like to ban. Oftentimes, these people want to ban guns based solely on the fact that they “look scary.” […]

The post 5 Guns The Government Doesn’t Want You To Have appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

20th Century Genocide and Gun Control

Click here to view the original post.

     Once again, Americans who support our Second Amendment rights are getting a little nervous over recent comments by the President after the Oregon college murders.  Just what did he mean when he said that “other countries [like Great Britain and Australia] being able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.”  I guess the “almost” was quite appropriate since one day after the Oregon shooting, an alleged 15-year-old gunman in Australia, described as “a radicalized youth of Middle Eastern decent,” shot and killed a New South Wales police civilian.  Once again, we see that strict gun control laws will never eliminate all gun deaths.
     But that wasn’t the only warning we’re receiving.  At a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed that President Obama is preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match the stronger tone and passion of his post-Oregon news conference.  Earnest emphasized that gun control measures are a “high priority” for the White House, and “I can tell you that they’re not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities, but also others, who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”
     But we all know what that means … stricter measures and steps to keep guns out of the hands of all citizens.  Yet I cannot understand why it is so difficult for those citizens who applaud more gun control to see where it inevitably leads.  Without the ability to defend ourselves against terrorists, criminals, or an out-of-control government, we are all potential victims of not only chaos and death, but full-blown genocide.  In case you think that I’m blowing things way out of proportion, I’d like you to consider the facts as presented by an organization called Jews For the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO).  As perhaps the most well-known victims of gun control measures that resulted in genocide, I think they have a salient argument.
     Their message is simple: “Disarmed people are neither free nor safe – they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings.” When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocent people die.  In other words, when political power becomes too focused on control, the individual rights of a nation’s citizens are endangered.  For that power to ultimately control the citizenry, the people must be disarmed.  To prove that point, here is a quick history lesson…

      •  From 1915-1917, the Ottoman Empire killed approximately 1 to 1.5 million Armenians (mostly Christians).  To accomplish this genocide Turkey enacted laws that required permits for gun ownership, which resulted in a Government list of owners, and an eventual ban on possessing firearms.
     •  From 1929-1945, the Soviet Union killed 20 million people; among them political opponents and whole farming communities.  Their gun laws included licensing of owners, a ban on possession, and severe penalties for disobeying gun laws.
     •  From 1933-1945, Nazi Germany killed political opponents, Jews, Gypsies, critics and those deemed “unsuitable” — totaling nearly 20 million people.  Again, gun laws required registration and licensing; stricter handgun regulations; and finally, a ban on gun possession altogether.
     •  From 1927-1949, Nationalist China killed 10 million people, including political opponents and Army conscripts that defied them.  Their methods of gun control included a Government permit system and a ban on private ownership.
     •  From 1949-1976, Communist China was responsible for the deaths of 20-35 million people (the figure is hard to define due to the level of atrocities and inability to document missing persons — they just simply disappeared).  Political opponents, enemies of the State, and complete rural populations were destroyed.  Red China instituted laws that resulted in prison or death to “counter-revolutionary criminals” and anyone resisting any government program.  There was also a death penalty for supplying guns to such “criminals”.
     •  There was a purge in Guatemala from 1960-1981 of Mayan Indians and political enemies of the State.  Between 100-200,000 people were killed.  The government implemented a registration of guns and owners; high licensing fees for owning guns; a prohibition on carrying guns; a ban on guns and sharp tools; and ultimately, a confiscation of all guns.
     •  From 1971-1979 there were 300,000 people killed in Uganda — mostly Christians and political enemies.  Through Firearms Ordinances and Acts, the government began a program to register all guns and owners; require licenses for transactions; issued warrantless searches; and you guessed it … confiscated guns.
     •  From 1975-1979 the diabolical Khmer Rouge in Cambodia decimated 2,000,000 lives!  They wiped out educated people and their political enemies.  They accomplished this through requiring licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions; requiring a photo ID with fingerprints on all citizens who owned guns; and requiring that licenses be inspected quarterly.
     •  And in 1994, 800,000 Tutsis were murdered in Rwanda.  Owners of guns had to register their weapons and ammunition.  They needed to provide a justifiable reason for owning a gun.  Concealable guns were outlawed; and of course, eventually all guns were confiscated.
     This is not, by any means, the complete list of genocide during the 20th Century.  There have been 7-10 million Ukrainians killed, and let’s not forget the million or more in Bosnia and Serbia throughout the 20th Century.  But I believe that this approximate number of 90 million people gives ample reason to be concerned when governments begin talking about limiting gun ownership or “executing” stricter laws regarding the purchase and manufacture of guns.
     It is irrefutable in the above statistics — these totalitarian governments murdered their own citizens; far more people were killed than by wars or common criminals.  And how could this happen?  Because the people were disarmed and unable to protect themselves.  The history is there, and is hard to ignore.
     I want to be clear … I am not prepared to say that this is what our own government has in mind.  But when coupled with the above historical facts; the rush to global “gun control policies” by the United Nations; the soaring crime rates in other countries, such as Britain, after gun prohibition (sorry, Piers Morgan, but it is true!); and the increase in racist and religious attacks on citizens around the world…. well, it just seems downright foolish to think that more gun laws are going to inhibit violence.
     Personal self-defense is every single person’s right.  I believe it is a God-given right.  Yes, we are told, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”  But, the Word also says there is a time to battle and defend yourself, a time to “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, “I am a warrior.” (Joel 3:10)  Unfortunately, there is evil in this world, and we must be allowed to defend ourselves against it.  History has shown us that an unarmed citizenry is overrun by the evil, and restrictive gun laws were the overriding factor in Evil’s victory.  I pray we do not become history’s next victims.

Psalm 94:16    “Who rises up for me against the wicked? Who stands up for me against evildoers?”