Vermont Only Has Two Bump Stocks Turned In

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

RE: The place for gun news

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, meme and text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

18 Aug 2018

by Awr Hawkins

Marine Gunnery Sgt. (ret.) Jessie Jane Duff mocked the dainty way Congressional primary candidate Maura Sullivan (D-NH-1) held an AR-15 while calling for a ban on the weapon and other restrictions on the Second Amendment as well.

Sullivan Campaign Ad

Sullivans push for new restrictions on the Second Amendment won her a distinction award from Michael Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action.

In a campaign ad, Sullivan holds an AR-15 as she discusses her own military service. She describes the AR-15 as a weapon similar to the one [she] trained on in the Marines. She omits the fact that an AR-15 is a semiautomatic riflemeaning it fires one round, and only one round, per each pull of the trigger. A military rifle has a select fire switch that allows military personnel to select semiautomatic, three round bursts, or full auto. In three round bursts, the rifle fires three rounds with each pull of the trigger, and in full auto it fires bullet after bullet, until the military member releases the trigger.

A military rifle, being military grade, is made to handle the heat and wear caused by full auto fire. A civilian AR-15 is not.

During an August 15 appearance on NRATV, Duff responded to Sullivans gun control push, saying:

It appears to me that she decides to support the constitution only when shes in uniform, but as soon as it comes off it all goes away. You either uphold this constitution or you do not, and now she has clearly lost what her allegiance was when she was a United States Marine. She of all people, to say what she said, of all people, is completely abhorrent.

NRATVs John Popp commented, Id like to say this, the way she handles that firearm at the beginning of that spot, it doesnt look like shes ever touched one before.

Duff responded in agreement, saying Sullivan held the gun in a dainty fashion.

Stan_147 · Veteran User

So, I got a new gun, its a bug-a-salt 2.0 in camo.

bugasalt.com

basically a pump action table salt shotgun that kills flies, spiders and we have even bagged some wasps. Ya the bastards about 48 hours (I got two) and have killed over 100 of them flying shitbags! Forget the swatter, shoot them! It is almost too much fun. Got my first flying kill this morning and a three-fer at lunch time. Lol

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Been thinking about one of them a long time! Got boring bees, wasps, white face hornets, 2" long wood hornets, flys of course. I use a swatter mostly but have used 22 birdshot!

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

For your own safety, never forget, gun-free zones are only gun-free for you. Theyre not gun-free for the bad guys......Dan Bongino

Verified account

@dbongino

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: 4 people, text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

California Bill Means More People Can Ask Court To Take Away Your Guns https://trib.al/E0Fw0LB No automatic alt text available.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Out of respect for the Tillman Family, we are featuring another American Hero who is entirely more respectable to use in place of Kaepernick...

Meet Benghazi Hero & Survivor, Mark "Oz" Geist.

He was a member of the Annex Security Team that fought the Battle of Benghazi, Libya, from September 11 to September 12, 2012. #aTrueHero

Image may contain: 1 person, outdoor and text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

All of the people with armed guards are telling you that you don't need a gun.. Probably a pretty good sign you need one.. #FactsOverFeelings

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

By Max McGuire

OCTOBER 10, 2018

Since the Supreme Courts Heller v. DC (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) rulings, gun owners have been waiting for the court to expand on its interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Heller ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. McDonald overturned a Chicago public housing ban on firearm ownership and affirmed that the Second Amendments promise of shall not be infringed applies equally to federal, state, and municipal governments.

However, since those two landmark rulings, the Supreme Court has refused to expand on what the Second Amendment actually protects. Rumor is that both the conservative and liberal wings of the court were unsure of where former justice Anthony Kennedy, whom Kavanaugh replaced, would fall on new gun rights cases. Without knowing how he would vote, neither side apparently wanted to open the door for a case with nationwide implications.

Activist appeals court judges took advantage of the Supreme Courts inaction and have spent the past decade dismantling Hellers protections. Heller may have protected a right to own a handgun, but the Ninth Circuit upheld Californias de facto ban on newly manufactured handguns. The Heller decision may have protected firearms in common use, but that didnt stop the Fourth Circuit from upholding Marylands ban on assault weapons. While the Second Amendment might promise protection for the right to bear arms, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Californias bans on both concealed and open carry did not violate that right.

But with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, American gun owners know that a majority of Supreme Court justices now support the Heller interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms. Kavanaugh is the Supreme Court justice gun owners have been waiting for.

Fundamentally, that means Americans have a right to keep and bear bearable arms, meaning arms that can be carried on someones person. That includes handguns, rifles, and shotguns. While it is often forgotten, gun control advocates came one vote away from a Supreme Court ruling dictating that Americans have no right to own guns at all.

Beyond that, Kavanaughs addition to the court opens new possibilities for nationwide rulings on issues like gun registration requirements, assault weapon bans, and concealed carry bans. When Dick Heller brought a second suit in 2010 against the District of Columbias assault weapon ban and registration requirements, as a judge on that court Kavanaugh dissented with the panel and wrote a logical dissent challenging the constitutionality of the Districts statutes.

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Hellers protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.s ban on them is unconstitutional.

This is important because every circuit court that has heard challenges to state-level assault weapon bans, and their registration requirements, has upheld their legality and constitutionality. Kavanaugh will be the first Supreme Court justice ever to opine that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of so-called assault weapons.

Kavanaugh reached this decision by finding that semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are in common use and have not historically been banned. His dissent specifically cites the history of semi-automatic rifle ownership dating all the way back to the early 1900s. But one sentence goes farther than any other appeals court judge has been willing to go: Semi-automatic rifles are commonly used for self-defense in the home, hunting, target shooting, and competitions, Kavanaugh wrote.

Here, Kavanaugh not only cited the common ownership, but also the utility of these weapons as self-defense firearms. Instead of attacking the statutes themselves and their focus on accessories and attachments, such as flash hiders or pistol grips, Kavanaugh unapologetically affirms the constitutionality of the semi-automatic action itself.

When Washington D.C.s concealed carry ban was challenged, a panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the complete refusal to issue concealed carry permits to the public was unconstitutional. At the time, D.C.s statute said applicants must prove they had a good fear of injury. In reality, this standard was impossible to meet. No matter what someone said, the local police refused to approve the applications.

A three-judge panel overturned the statute and the D.C. attorney general appealed for an en banc ruling (where all the circuits judges weigh in). Kavanaugh voted to reject the en banc appeal, signaling he supports that concealed carry is a constitutional right.

Justice Clarence Thomas has been begging the Supreme Court to take up the issue of concealed carry, even going so far as to accuse his colleagues of relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right. When the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Californias concealed carry ban this past year, Thomas wrote in his dissent that as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.

With Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the bench, that is going to change.

Max McGuire is a fellow in Firearms Policy at the Millennial Policy Center. He received his Masters Degree in Political Science from Villanova University.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Recently went to the range with an old friend so he could fire his new S&W shield for the first time.

We both got 100 rounds out in less than a half hour. His 100 rounds of 9mm with range time and everything was around $46 while mine was $56 because I got 100 rounds of .40 caliber. They were both reloads.

I have about 600 rounds thru my S&W SD40VE now and I clean and oil it before and after every use and it has literally worn like a nice baseball glove! It is very smooth in actuation now, although I think all the issues I was having were directly related to my not cleaning and oiling it when it was brand new. For whatever reason I just assumed that it came pre-oiled and I was having jamming issues... I am here to say there has not been a single issue since I started my oiling routine before and after. It shoots so nice now that I was rapid firing an entire clip of 14 rounds within a 2-3 inch grouping with 13 holes in a tight pattern just two inches below where I was aiming - all of them what you would call the center mass, aka kill shots. I would like to believe that last one (#14) just went thru an existing hole LOL

It felt good to blow off some steam and I like the kick of the .40 cal.. we did trade weapons and his 9mm is not bad, plus it is much smaller and way better to conceal - but his 8 round magazine on his 9mm S&W Shield would have been a dealbreaker for me. Mine can hold 14+1 and I feel that is the least amount of ammo I would want to have per clip if the $hit ever did hit the fan.

I know there is a long and heated discussion about a 9mm vs the .40 caliber but what are your opinions?

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

I feel people should shoot and practice with what they are comfortable with. If it's a 9mm, fine. I prefer 45acp myself but have 9mm's, had nice 40 Beretta too.

Yup. takes a mess of rounds to get well broken in!

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Vermont Only Has Two Bump Stocks Turned In

Posted at 6:00 pm on October 4, 2018 by Tom Knighton

Vermont banned bump stocks. Its a fact.

Its also a fact that the state offered a no-questions-asked amnesty period last month for owners of the devices. They wanted to get the bump stocks off the streets because apparently, theyre a menace despite the complete lack of crimes being committed in Vermont with them.

Vermont was probably a tad disappointed.

Vermont authorities in September said they were are not offering to pay for the now-banned devices but did warn those caught with them after Oct. 1 that they could risk up to one year in prison and $1,000 in fines. Now that the new law outlawing the devices has gone into effect, it turns out that VSPs haul of relinquished bump fire stocks could fit on a table top.
State Police spokesman Adam Silverman said that as of Tuesday just two of the devices had been turned in statewide. Both stocks, as reported by My Champlain Valley.com, will be taken to state police headquarters in Waterbury to be destroyed. Officials have previously clarified that only the stocks were to be accepted during the grace period, detached from any firearm.
Gun rights groups warn that those turning in such items moving forward could open themselves up to jail time and fines. It is not just Vermont that has seen poor compliance with statewide bans on the devices. With as many as 520,000 bump stocks in circulation nationwide and few jurisdictions willing to pay for them, only a trickle are finding their way to authorities.

Yeah, not really surprising.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of people are just done. Theyre done with giving ground, even if the law says they should. Theyre willing to risk the consequences of noncompliance because theyre sick and tired of gun grabbers trying to take their property.

Add in the fact that theres no compensation for a device they paid good money for, and guess what you get?

Thats right. A replay of the noncompliance for the NY SAFE Act.

Frankly, despite my previous statements that one should comply with the law, I can understand this. The full extent of my beliefs is that you should follow the law if youre unwilling to face the consequences. If you get sentenced to a year in prison for having a bump stock, and youre OK with that because youd be damned if you gave anything up willingly, well, I can respect that.

Now, it is theoretically possible that there were only two bump stocks in the state. Its not likely, but its possible. If thats the case, then Vermont has the highest compliance rate humanly possible.

But again, thats not likely.

Instead, Vermont gun owners who happened to have bump stocks have either sold them to people in free states or are just not going to worry about it. Maybe they put the bump stock away and put something else on their guns. Maybe they dont care. Who knows?

What I do know is that were seeing less and less compliance of these gun laws, and sooner or later, someone is going to push too far and find out just how fed up gun owners really are.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

The Second Amendment PROTECTS The First!#GunsSaveLives

Image may contain: one or more people, text and closeup

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

No automatic alt text available.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

WATCH: Gun Shop Owner Offers Rabbis Free Firearms to Protect their Synagogues

By Sara Carter
November 02, 2018 | 12:39 PM EDT

The Colorado gun shop owner is offering free AR-15 rifles, ammunition and training to rabbis to protect their places of worship.

Colorado gun store owner is offering rabbis free firearms in light of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting which saw 11 congregants killed by a deranged, anti-Semetic gunman.

Mel Bernstein, owner of Dragonman gun store in Colorado Springs, CO is offering free AR-15 rifles, ammunition and training to rabbis to protect their places of worship.

KOAA reports, When speaking to News5, Bernstein made the comparison of an active shooting to a fire. He said if a fire broke out, youd reach for a fire extinguisher to keep people safe, and by his reasoning, you should be able to reach for a weapon during an active shooting.

The reaction from local rabbis has been mixed, with some wanting to think about Bernsteins offer, and others turning politely him down.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Wild West Women

By Sam Jacobs, on October 29th, 2018

Wild West Women

Women of the Wild West have their own special place in history, whether they were performers or outlaws. Tales of the Wild West are typically centered around legendary men: Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, Jesse James, Billy the Kidd, Butch Cassidy, and the Sundance Kid. However, there were certainly women involved in settling the west as pioneers, and owning and using a gun wasnt a rarity in those days. It was a means of survival. Today people view gun ownership in a different light, spending more time arguing about gun controlthan worrying about varmints or thieves making off with their hard-won food supply. What people consider today as living off the grid was nothing more than a way of life back then. Entire families had to know how to protect themselves and their property if they were meant to survive and thrive.

Four Women

Four of the most famous women of the 1800s were Calamity Jane, Annie Oakley, Pearl Hart, and Belle Starr. These women, whatever their reasons, made names for themselves by toting guns and secured places in American history. In fact, some of these women were known to outshoot their counterparts, further cementing their reputations.

Calamity Jane

Martha Jane Canary (May 1, 1852 August 1, 1903) became known in her later years as Calamity Jane, an American frontierswoman, and professional scout. Jane traveled to the West with her parents at age 13 and quickly adapted to the rough and tumble lifestyle. She was more likely to be fighting than be at home baking. Jane scoffed at ladies styles of the time and preferred to be dressed in mens attire, including uniforms. She was a hard drinker, fearless rider, and expert shot. Little can be documented about Calamity Janes exploits, but it is known that she was an acquaintance of Wild Bill Hickok.

Annie Oakley

Phoebe Ann Mosey (August 13, 1860 November 3, 1926) was a renowned American sharpshooter who went by the name Annie Oakley. Annies talent became apparent at a young age when she began to participate in competition. Frank Butler, a marksman who exhibited in traveling show once claimed he could beat any fancy shooter in the town. Annie Oakley proved him wrong. The two eventually married and, in 1885, joined in Buffalo Bills Wild West Show, performing alongside Buffalo Bill Cody and Sitting Bull. It was Sitting Bull that gave her the nickname of Watanya Cicilla, translated to Little Sure Shot in show advertisements. The 1899 Paris Exposition saw the height of Annies career. The sharpshooter was world famous, earning more money than the other performers save for Buffalo Bill.

Pearl Hart

Pearl Taylor Hart (c. 1871 after 1928) was a Canadian born shooter who migrated to the U.S. and became a notorious outlaw. Pearl idolized Annie Oakley and aspired to live in the Wild West. She moved to Arizona, leaving her children behind. Hart began to live a wild, hedonistic life while struggling to make ends meet as a cook in a boardinghouse. Desperate to make enough money to return to Canada to support her ailing mother, Pearl teamed up with Joe Boot to commit a series of robberies, culminating in the robbery of a stagecoach. The robbery was minor by most standards. The fact that Pearl was a woman masquerading as a man and wielded a .38, rocketed her to outlaw stardom. Hart was arrested, but later escaped. She was caught two weeks later, but was eventually pardoned.

Belle Starr

Myra Maybelle Shirley Reed Starr (February 5, 1848 February 3, 1889), AKA Belle Starr, was a notable American outlaw. Starrs affiliation with the JamesYounger Gang and other criminals landed her a place in American history. Like Pearl Hart, Belle had no use for ladies finery and preferred buckskins and a Stetson adorned with an ostrich plume. She wore her six-shooters with pride, but was not known to participate in gun fights. Rather, Starr used her cunning and feminine wiles to run bands of rustlers to do her bidding.

After Starrs husband, Jim Reed, was shot and killed by a deputy sheriff, Starr increased her wild behavior. She gambled, drank, and shot up the town on a regular basis. Although The Bandit Queen was known to organize robberies, she was only ever convicted for horse theft in 1883.

In February 1889, Belle Starr was ambushed while riding home from a neighbors house. Official details are unclear, but Starr died from multiple shotgun wounds, possibly fired from her own double-barreled shotgun.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Maryland Shooting Illustrates What Will Happen If Guns Are Confiscated

Posted at 4:00 pm on November 6, 2018 by Tom Knighton

There are people out there who we describe as anti-gun who may not want to take away your guns. They might want to make it virtually impossible for you to buy any more, sell yours, or leave them to your kids, but they dont actually want to take them away from you. No, really, those people do exist.

Others, however, want them all. They want the police to go door to door and toss your house until theyve found every firearm you have, then taking them away so you can never shoot one again.

We know those people exist. Theres plenty of people telling us that is exactly what they want to happen for us to believe otherwise, despite us warning them of what that would look like.

Well, police in Maryland were trying to confiscate a mans guns in accordance with a red flag protective order. In the process, it was a demonstration of what confiscation would look like throughout the nation.

Two Anne Arundel County police officers serving one of Marylands new red flag protective orders to remove guns from a house killed a Ferndale man after he refused to give up his gun and a struggle ensued early Monday morning, police said.
The subject of the protective order, Gary J. Willis, 60, answered his door in the 100 block of Linwood Ave. at 5:17 a.m. with a gun in his hand, Anne Arundel County police said. He initially put the gun down next to the door, but became irate when officers began to serve him with the order, opened the door and picked up the gun again, police said.
A fight ensued over the gun, said Sgt. Jacklyn Davis, a police spokeswoman.
One of the officers struggled to take the gun from Willis, and during the struggle the gun fired but did not strike anyone, police said. At that point, the other officer fatally shot Willis, police said.
Neither officer was injured, police said, and neither of their names was released.

Oh, and the kicker?

Davis said she did not know whether anyone else was in the home at the time, and she did not know who had sought the protective order against Willis.

In other words, they were coming to take his guns and no one has a damn clue why.

Are you surprised someone got shot? Im not. Im saddened by it, but Im not surprised in the least. It was bound to happen, and itll happen again.

Worse, itll happen in ways that will make this one look downright peaceful.

There are a lot of people who say a lot of things, things that you or I might think are stupid to say, but theyre still ultimately harmless. Yet red flag laws allow someone to take it personally, go to the courts, and get their guns taken away. I wont be surprised if this becomes the more low-key version of SWATting someone.

Regardless, though, gun owners get prickly about their guns. We know that without them, were powerless against all the evil in the world, and were not interested in giving them up.

If the police show up to take away someones guns, even temporarily, this is a potential outcome. So are dead police officers, Im afraid to say.

So imagine how ugly itll be if they try to take everyones guns on a permanent basis. Well see more of this and see it on every street in America.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Feinstein Calls For New Gun Regs After Shooting. Just One Problem.

Posted at 2:57 pm on November 8, 2018 by Tom Knighton

Senator Dianne Feinstein is never and will never be a friend to gun owners. She despises the things, though shes been known to carry herself. Of course, like so many other anti-gunners, gun regulations are for the little people, not the special class such as herself.

Earlier today, she released a statement calling for increased regulations in the wake of the tragic shooting in Thousand Oaks, California.

WashingtonSenator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the shooting in Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Today we add Thousand Oaks to the ever-growing list of communities that have suffered mass shootings.
These mass murders are depressingly pervasive. Schools. Theaters. Malls. Offices. Synagogues. Grocery stores. Bars. Concerts. Churches. Theyre inspired by racism, revenge, terrorism or just pure hatred. The one common attribute: easy access to guns.
Some will say Californias strong gun laws didnt prevent this shooting, but without stronger federal gun regulations, theres little California can do to keep guns coming in from other states. Without stronger laws to prevent straw purchasing and close the gaping holes in our background check system, a presumptive murderer barely has to lift a finger to buy a gun.
Some will say we need more guns, not fewer, an absurd claim in a bar full of students with security guards where an armed police sergeant was killed.
Republicans argue we shouldnt talk about gun policies after a mass shooting. Theyre wrong. This is exactly the time we should be talking about enacting gun safety measures. We dont know all the details of this latest shooting, but we do know how to start to reduce the frequency of these murders. What were missing is Republican willpower to get it done.
A renewed ban on military style assault weaponswhich have no place in civilian societyis ready for a vote. A bill to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines is ready for a vote. A bill to ban bump stocks, which Republicans agree should be illegal, is ready for a vote. A bill to close the gun show and online loopholes is ready for a vote. Bills to prevent terrorists from buying guns, keep guns away from domestic abusers and allow loved ones to get a gun violence restraining order, each is ready for a vote.
We could hold these votes next week and have bills on the presidents desk by Thanksgiving. Instead, Republicans refuse to take any action at all.
This failure to act is cowardice of epic proportions. We may not be able to stop all gun violence, but that doesnt mean Republicans should be allowed to bury their heads in the sand and not try to stop any of it.
What were lacking is intestinal fortitude from congressional Republicans and President Trump to say enough is enough. As long as they stand in fear of the NRA and worry more about the power of the gun lobby than the lives of their fellow citizens, well see more Thousand Oaks, more bodies lying at the foot of failed Republican leadership.
###

Wow. I mean, thats absolutely amazing. A ban on military style assault weapons, bump stocks, and high-capacity magazines, as well as closing the so-called gun show and online loopholes.

I mean, justwow.

Its like she completely ignored what happened in Thousand Oaks while composing a listing of her hopes and dreams for gun control.

Here are a few facts.

The killer did not use a military style assault weapon.

Instead, he used a .45 caliber Glock. Thats a semi-automatic handgun which no one has mentioned trying to ban (yet). Its a weapon that not only would survive a reinstatement of the old assault weapon ban, but it would also survive pretty much every version of the new ones being proposed.

The killer did not use a bump stock.

Again, it was a semi-automatic handgun, of at least a similar kind that is perfectly legal in all 50 states. Its a handgun that doesnt have a stock, thus isnt impacted by whether or not a bump stock is even a thing you can buy.

California already has a ban on high-capacity magazines.

The truth of the matter is that California already has a ban on high-capacity magazinesas well as everything else on Feinsteins wish list. Guess what kind of an impact it made. Thats right. None. Not at all.

There is no gun show or internet loophole.

As I noted earlier today, weapons purchased on the internet and shipped from out of state still have to go through an FFL. The same is true of buying a gun from a licensed vendor at a gun show. All of those purchases require a background check and the appropriate ATF paperwork.

The exception, however, is when youre just meeting up with a non-dealer and simply buying from another citizen.

What Feinstein is demanding are universal background checks, but she lacks the fortitude to actually say so. Instead, she couches it in misleading language.

Its not that different, really, from building a soapbox from the bodies of the dead in an effort to advance her gun control agenda. Its just colossally stupid to do it to advance measures that would have had exactly zero impact on this shooting, even if gun control worked exactly as designed. This killer complied with Californias draconian gun regulations and 12 people are still dead.

Frankly, its disgusting.

I dont like Feinstein, but I have always understood, at least partially, where her gun control desires came from. Having found two dead bodies after a political assassination is likely to mess with someone a bit. I get that and Ive given her just a bit more slack than I would most.

But no history excuses this ghoulish desire to cash in on corpses by touting measures that wouldnt have accomplished jack squat. To make matters worse, though, anyone with half a brain can look at this attack, look at Feinsteins proposals, then realize that shes screaming for the same stuff that FAILED TO STOP THIS ATTACK FROM HAPPENING IN CALIFORNIA!

If anyone with half a brain can see it, what does that tell you about Sen. Feinstein?

Editors note: An earlier version of this story misreported the size of the magazine used by the shooter.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

The husbands of pop singer Pink, Carey Hart, is warning that looters who try to take advantage of California wildfire victims "will be shot on sight."

safe_image.php?d=AQBXjHqg-ky4JPPY&w=476&

Pinks husband Carey Hart is warning that looters who try to take advantage of California wildfire victims will be shot on sight.

Moreover, Hart is urging other Californians to avail themselves of their Second Amendment rights and stand strong with him.

On Tuesday, Hart wrote on Instagram: Its unfortunate that some people take advantage of others in a crisis. While the Malibu fires have been burning, some locals have been fighting off and defending their property against the fires. There have been sightings of looters breaking in to homes. Well, if you are a looter, think twice if you are heading back into Malibu.

Note the sign in the foreground noting that looters will be shot.

The Daily Mail reports that Pink and Carey Hart were also among those forced to flee their $110 million home in Malibu, which is believed to have survived the wildfires, which torched nearly 100,000 acres.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: text that says 'If banning even one reporter is a violation of the 1st, then banning even one firearm is a violation of the 2nd. Change my mind.'

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Late last week, California Rep. Eric Swalwell decided to double-down on previous anti-gun comments. In the process, he sparked a debate that led to one of the worst possible comments an elected official could make.

Warning Strong Language

Joe Biggs

@Rambobiggs
· Nov 16, 2018

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because thats what you would get. Youre outta your fucking mind if you think Ill give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Rep. Eric Swalwell

@RepSwalwell

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But theyre legit. Im sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

1,861
2:22 PM - Nov 16, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

23.9K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Thats right. Rep. Swalwell implied that the United States government would use nukes to deal with Second Amendment activists who resist gun confiscation.

With that in mind, I wanted to pen a bit of an open letter to Rep. Swalwell.

Dear Rep. Swalwell.

On Friday, I fired up Twitter to see what was going on and I saw something baffling. That was the above tweet, where you respond to someone warning of a civil war in the event that your assault weapon confiscation scheme ever came to fruition. You actually brought up nuclear weapons.

Seriously?

You then began to mischaracterize the entire thing, first calling it sarcasm while still ignoring the reality that you brought up the argument of nuking Americans who disagree with you. Then you tweet this:

Rep. Eric Swalwell

@RepSwalwell

Americas gun debate in one thread.

1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons

2) Gun owner says hell go to war with USA if that happens

3) I sarcastically point out USA isnt losing to his assault weapon (its not the 18th Century)

4) Im called a tyrant

5) 0 progress

29K
3:25 PM - Nov 16, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

19.2K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Wow. Look at the lies.

First, you propose a buy-back, but notice how you said you wanted the police to go after anyone who didnt want to sell their AR-15s for a fraction of their purchase price?

Youre not proposing a method to reduce the number of AR-15s on the streets. You were talking about confiscating the single most effective rifle for self-defense and going after anyone who didnt want to go along with the program.

You were then warned that if you do that, itll spark a civil war. To be clear, this point was made long before. This Twitter user cant be the first one to have ever mentioned the possibility to you. American gun owners will not become subjects. We dont trust the government, regardless of who is in power, to just accept it as the only one with these weapons.

Its also interesting that you sarcastically point out the USA isnt losing to his assault weapons and claim that that comment is leading to you being called a tyrant.

No.

Youre being called a tyrant because you are seeking to ignore the Second Amendment, deprive people of their property without due process, and seek to create the perfect environment for tyranny to take hold in this great nation. Youre called a tyrant because you then respond to warnings of what that might lead to with comments about nuclear weapons.

However, Im going to clue you in on a little something, Mr. Swalwell.

In the 1960s, my father went on an all-expenses-paid trip to the far east. His destination was a tiny country few people had even heard of a decade before. It was called Vietnam. There, the mighty American military came face to face with an enemy that was little more than guys with assault rifles and how did that work out?

We didnt nuke them.

Then fast forward to 2001. A group of terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings. We knew who was responsible and roughly where he was. We told the Taliban to give him over, and they refused. We rolled right over them.

Now, little more than guys with assault rifles, theyve been a major headache for the military since then.

The same thing played out in Iraq. Saddams army fell in no time, but we were stymied by the guerrilla warfare that followed.

Should, God forbid, a civil war come to our American shores, it wont be pretty. However, I can also tell you that the combined might of the United States will have a damn hard time neutralizing that rebellion.

And thats if the military is even interested in fighting. Dont be surprised, Mr. Swalwell, to find out that most of the guys on the sharp end actually disagree with you over this crap. And theyre the ones who will have to kick in doors and be the ones who get shot.

The same is true of law enforcement. Dont mistake police chiefs pontificating on gun control to mean that the regular beat cop is your ally in this. They often know damn good and well they cant be everywhere, but an armed citizen can at least protect themselves.

In other words, the people who you want to stand against these Americans arent likely to side with you on any particular level.

But then again, maybe you did know that. Maybe that is why you brought up nukes in the first place.

Look, Rep. Swalwell, I get youre from California and people there seem to love them some gun control. California isnt the rest of the United States, and Im thankful for that. However, you should also realize that many of us have seen what is transpiring in other countries and are bound and determined not to allow that to happen here. Weve watched the UK ban guns, then start going after free speech at a time when crime is becoming more and more of an epidemic, for example. We watch Europe do the same thing as refugees act however they want and the governments of Europe seem unwilling to do anything about it, but the idea of average Europeans having the means to defend themselves is unconscionable.

Weve seen that and were not interested in it ourselves.

If that means you want to nuke us, then so be it. However, look at the writings of our Founding Fathers when it comes to guns. They explicitly wanted us to be able to overthrow the government if it fails to act in our interests.

By making your crack about nukes, you didnt take down the pro-gun argument. You may have created a pro-civilian ownership of nukes argument, though, so good job for that.

Maybe the next time you decide to be so flippant over a gun owners concerns about his constitutionally protected rights, you wont act like an elitist schmuck. Maybe youll recognize there are real concerns at work on this side of the aisle. Your attitude isnt making anyone more willing to sit down with you and talk about finding common ground to protect our families and our communities.

Especially since the only common ground you want us to find better boils down to your way or the highway.

So no. Were not giving up our weapons.

And yes, if you insist on coming after us, it will spark a civil war.

You need to come to terms with this reality if youre going to keep pushing this ban of yours. Man up and admit that you want us dead and I might at least be able to respect your guts. But stop pretending that you want anything else.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, meme and text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: 4 people, people smiling, text

welllll....imo they probly would not be going out of business today!!!

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

I mowed lawns and shoveled snow for BB gun money to spend at Sears.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: one or more people, meme and text

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Democrats Already Coming For Your Guns, America

WARNER TODD HUSTON NOVEMBER 27, 2018 2K VIEWS

Democrats in Florida have already started their effort to confiscate your guns, America, in the first taste of what Democrats are going to try when they take full control of the House of Representatives in Washington.

A leftist group in Florida is already moving to push an amendment to the state constitution that would ban whatever class of guns liberals find scary.

As Fox 35 reported:

take our poll - story continues below
Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?
Trending: The Hamas Caucus: The Five Anti-Israel Women That Democrats elected to Congress
The proposal, backed by the committee Ban Assault Weapons Now, was posted on the state Division of Elections website this month. The committee had raised nearly $410,000 since March, while spending almost $284,000, according to finance information. The expenditures included $75,000 last month to a California-based company for what was described in the finance information as petitions.
Ban Assault Weapons Now would have to submit hundreds of thousands of valid petition signatures to the state to get the measure on the 2020 ballot. Political committee had to submit at least 766,200 signatures to get measures on the 2018 ballot, and the petition threshold likely will increase for the 2020 election.

This measure would absurdly describe assault weapons as any firearm that would hold 10 rounds or more of ammunition at a time.

The measure would also ban these firearms for everyone but members of the military and police.

There would be an exemption for those who had the banned weapons before the passage of the measure. However, there would be a strict registration process for keeping them.

Naturally, Florida Democrats are excited for the measure.

According to Politico:

I would love to get the chance to get this done as soon as possible, said Rep. Ted Deutch, a South Florida Democrat who stepped into the gun debates national spotlight after the deadly Feb. 14 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in his district in Parkland. Hes leading the effort with Coral Springs Mayor Walter Skip Campbell.

Do not doubt that this is exactly where House Democrats intend to go in Washington. There was little appetite for such measures the last time Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, but since then the Democrat Party has turned more radical than ever.

Democrats are coming for your guns, America.

Count on it. And prepare to oppose them.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: one or more people, hat and text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: 2 people, text

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Both right too.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

ICYMI: Here is what should disturb you all: the left is now attempting to use censorship as a means to deny your Second Amendment right

safe_image.php?d=AQC7mDKVknh-Ja2t&w=476&

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: one or more people and outdoor, text that says 'Shoes left by supporters of gun control, 2018 Shoes left by victims of gun control, Germany, 1945 "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."'

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

No automatic alt text available.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

safe_image.php?d=AQCnwDG-uniJJLiK&w=540&

Kris Paronto

ALERT: NJ criminalizes 10+ round high capacity magazines today

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

U.S. Armys Next Rifle Fires At Pressure Equivalent To A Tank

Share this Tweet this Google +

Email this

DECEMBER 12, 2018 11:05 AM

POLITICS

(Breitbart) The U.S. Army is working on a rifle that will fire bullets at the pressure equivalent to what a tank would fire.

Task and Purpose quotes Col. Geoffrey A. Norman saying, The chamber pressure for the standard assault rifle is around 45 KSI [kilopound per square inch], but were looking for between 60 and 80 KSI the chamber pressure when an M1 Abrams tank fires is on that order.

Norman added, Were looking to reach out around 600 meters and have lethal effects even if the target is protected by body armor.

The weapon, dubbed the Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR), is part of the Next Generation Weapons System and the goal is to have it ready for battle by 2022.

Current combat riflesM4s and M16sare chambered in 5.56. The NGSAR is designed to fire a larger round6.8mmyet weigh less than the current rifles.

The Military Times reports that the development of the rifle is part of an Army program, yet Marines and members of Special Forces have also played a role. Marines and Special Forces will also get the new weapon once it is ready for the battlefield.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said:

This is a weapon that could defeat any body armor, any planned body armor that we know of in the future. This is a weapon that can go out at ranges that are unknown today and that you can see accurately. There is a target acquisition system built into this thing that is unlike anything that exists today. This is a very sophisticated weapon, and we think its very resilient. It will stand all the rigors of weather, terrain, and soldier use, and all of that kind of stuff. This is a pretty impressive gun.

Milley added, It will be better than any weapon on earth today, by far.

breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/12/u-s-armys-next-rifle-fires-at-pressure-equivalent-to-a-tank/

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

@charliekirk11........

Did you know: 60% of burglaries in Britain occur when residents are in their home because it is so unlikely they are armed Compare that to 13% in the United States where a homeowner is likely to use a firearm to protect their home and family Gun control makes people LESS safe

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

Image may contain: one or more people, meme and text

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

No automatic alt text available.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Cool. ^^^

Stan_147 · Veteran User

Shawnee_B wrote:
Cool. ^^^

by Awr Hawkins

Marine Gunnery Sgt. (ret.) Jessie Jane Duff mocked the dainty way Congressional primary candidate Maura Sullivan (D-NH-1) held an AR-15 while calling for a ban on the weapon and other restrictions on the Second Amendment as well.

Why Brett Kavanaugh Is The Justice Gun Owners Have Been Waiting For

Vermont Only Has Two Bump Stocks Turned In

WATCH: Gun Shop Owner Offers Rabbis Free Firearms to Protect their Synagogues

Wild West Women

Four Women

Calamity Jane

Annie Oakley

Pearl Hart

Belle Starr

Maryland Shooting Illustrates What Will Happen If Guns Are Confiscated

Feinstein Calls For New Gun Regs After Shooting. Just One Problem.

The killer did not use a military style assault weapon.

The killer did not use a bump stock.

California already has a ban on high-capacity magazines.

There is no gun show or internet loophole.

Pinks husband Carey Hart is warning that looters who try to take advantage of California wildfire victims will be shot on sight.

Democrats Already Coming For Your Guns, America

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

U.S. Armys Next Rifle Fires At Pressure Equivalent To A Tank

Merry Christmas!!