Well folks, here it is. The absolute peak of shotgun technology. However, this technology has barely changed since its inception in 1950. For those who have never had the opportunity to use one, the ultimate shotgun has been sitting right in front of our eyes for six decades, and over ten million have been sold. I firmly believe that the Remington Model 870 is the perfect shotgun. It’s the kind of weapon that you can be confident you will be passing on to your children one day, assuming you treat your gun correctly.
The Remington Model 870 is the best shotgun due to the quality, strength, and ideal shooting ability. There’s a reason that this firearm has been so incredibly popular thanks to these features, among many others.
As a whole, the Remington Model 870 is one of the highest quality shotguns on the market. This quality comes mostly from the receiver and the slide. The receiver starts as a solid billet of steel and is eventually machined into a receiver. This process of machining the receiver is tried and true and is proven to be a powerful receiver. The slide has two action bars that assure that the spent shell is engaged and the next shell is chambered every time. The pump action is exceptionally smooth, over and over again. Regarding quality and reliability, it will not get better than the Remington Model 870.
The strength of the shotgun comes mainly from the billet receiver, as was previously talked about. It’s also worth noting that the stocks of the guns are equally tough and are resistant to the elements. There are thousands of Model 870s that are still around from past decades.
The Model 870 is available in quite a few different variants. We will touch on each of them briefly, and talk about what each one might be good for.
Wingmaster. The classic. The Model 870 Wingmaster is the nicest looking of the 870s. It has a satin-finished pump and stock, and a polished receiver and barrel. It is truly a sight to behold. Available in .410 bore, 12 gauge, 20 gauge, and 28 gauge. It is the most expensive of the group, and it would look as good above your fireplace as it would bird hunting. However, if you are only looking for a hunting weapon, there are better options available.
Express. The same strength and quality of the classic Wingmaster, at a much more affordable cost. The hardwood stock and pump don’t have a shiny finish, and the metals are also matte black. It is offered in 12 gauge or 20 gauge. The Model 870 Express is broken down into even more variants. There are multiple tactical versions with a black synthetic stock and pump replacing the wood. One tactical version has a seven shell capacity, and one synthetic tactical version has a rifled barrel to shoot slugs. There are a few different ones that are treated with a camo finish. The Model 870 Express Super Magnum can handle all sizes of 12 gauge shells.
Marine Magnum. The Marine Magnum variant has nickel plating covering all metal surfaces, which makes it resistant to corrosion. It is only available in 12 gauge.
All in all, the Remington Model 870 is an extremely high-strength, durable, and reliable shotgun. This same technology has been around since its creating in 1950 and has allowed the shotgun to retain its popularity since then, as over ten million Model 870s have been sold. While there are fancier shotguns available, you would be hard-pressed to find a better mix of affordability and durability than the Model 870.
Proving the notion that deranged lunatics hell bent on taking innocent lives will carry out their demented plans with or without guns, Canada"s deadliest mass killing in decades was conducted with a van.
Carrying a backup gun isn’t exactly common practice. I don’t do it as much as I probably should, but I do takea backup weapon occasionally. My threat analysis usually drives my decision making. When I’m going to a place, I’ll think about the layout of the building, the surrounding area, crime trends in the area, and so on. From there, I’ll decide what I’m carrying.
Some people will disagree with me and say that you should always be prepared for the absolute worst-case scenario no matter what, and I can see where they’re coming from. However, for me, I decide based on my threat analysis.
More often than not, I don’t carry a backup weapon. However, I’ve realized more recentlythat I should do this more. If nothing else, it gives you some additional ammunition and a second weapon in case your primary malfunctions.
I’ve come to realize that my backup weapon is so easy to conceal, there’s no reason not just to grab it. Plus, some will argue it’s easier to draw your backup weapon than to reload your primary.
While the discussion about whether or not you should carry a backup weapon could go on for days, we will focus this article on potential choices for you to bringas your backup.
My general idea of a backup weapon is a subcompact weapon. For me, I carry my backup firearm in a pants pocket. If you want to pack two bigger guns, you’re going to have to think about some different approaches. This article’s primaryfocus centers on subcompacts.
Here’s a couple of my favorites, in no particular order.
Ruger LCP II
Starting this list off is the Ruger LCP II. This tiny .380 is available in a few different colors, and you can get it with a built-inCrimson Trace laser sight. I like the version that has included Hogue grips, but any of them will do.
It measures 5.17 inches long and 3.71 inches tall. It’s less than an inch wideand weighs barely over 10 ounces. As you can see, this is an ideal candidate for pocket carry. In fact, it comes with a pocket holster.
The pistol is decent quality overall, especially when considering how small it is. It is durableand offers a solid grip. It has an attachable finger grip extension, which can improve the ergonomics of the weapon.
The sights are easy to use, and the weapon offers some decent safety features. The trigger is decent overall, and the gunshoots reliably.
Regarding cons, there isn’t much to mention that you wouldn’t expect. All of these weapons are very small, so shooting them is less than enjoyable. However, other than that, the Ruger is a great option.
I also like the Ruger LCR, if you’re interested in revolvers.
Taurus TCP
The Taurus TCP is another pocket .380. The weapon is nearly identical in size to the Ruger LCP II. They are close enough in size that you won’t be able to notice it. The firearmis tinyand lightweight.
Many people will see a Taurus on a list and immediately question it. In most circumstances, I would entirely agree with them. However, do a little research, and you’ll see how durable and reliable this weapon is. Between the incrediblyinexpensive price and the excellent durability, this is the secondary weapon that I currently carry the most.
The price of this weapon is extremely affordable. I picked mine up for about half of the MSRP. Look around, and you can find these at a very reasonable cost. However, this one doesn’t come with a holster asthe Ruger does, so you will have to buy yourself a pocket holster.
One of the cons of this weapon is that it doesn’t have any safeties. It mainly has a hex key to act asa child safety precaution, but you won’t be able to turn this on and off comfortably. Make sure you’re storing this weapon properly if you’ve got any kids.
Unrelated to the TCP, I also recommend checking out the Taurus Curve. It’s a unique gun that you can realistically carry without a holster, due to the shape of the weapon. However, I don’t know much about the durability of this weapon, so I’m not sure how I would like it compared to the TCP.
Walther PPK
Now this one is an absolute classic. You can’t help but feel like James Bond when you pick this weapon up. However, the firearm is more than just a cool looking classic gun. It assuredly is an excellent weapon.
The gun measures 6.1 inches long and 3.8 inches tall. As you can see, it’s slightly larger than the previous two weapons, so it’s a little more enjoyable to shoot. It’s as easy to conceal and carryand may bea better choice for some people.
The weapon shoots .380, just like the last two. Concerning ergonomics, the grip is pretty decent, and the optional extended magazine can also help to improve your grip. The built-insights are easy to use, and I found that I can shoot decently with this one.
Compared to the other two weapons, the Walther is very different. The previous two guns are both striker-fired semiautomatic pistols. The Walther is hammer-fired, which is not very common in smaller weapons. I prefer hammer-fired though, because it’s more reliable and safer.
Speaking of safety, this one also has an external thumb safety. Some people will love this, especially considering that the weapon will be sitting in your pocket.
There are a few things I don’t love about the Walther. It has a lot more steel than the Ruger or the Taurus, so it’s nearly twice as heavy. It’s also quite a bit more expensive.
Glock 42
No weapon list is complete without a Glock. Glocks have become some of the most common weapons out there, and for a good reason.
The Glock 42 measures 5.94 inches long and 4.13 inches tall. Similar to the Ruger and the Taurus, it is incredibly light, because it’s made of mostly polymer.
Because it’s a Glock, this weapon is very durable and reliable. That goes without saying. The sights are easy to use, and the trigger is decent, especially compared to some of the other triggers on other pocket weapons.
The Glock 42 is also extremely easy to use, maintain, and modify. There are few internal parts, so there’s next to nothing that can go wrong with it. If you’re not a Glock fan, you should really check one out. They are excellent quality weapons.
Compared to some of the other weapons mentioned, the Glock is a little expensive. However, it is not nearly as expensive as the Walther. Other Glock cons include the fact that they aren’t exactly the nicest looking weapons. But I’m not sure that matters in a serious
Having the right backup weapon could be a lifesaver.
An Illinois County board just voted to become a sanctuary county for gun owners. That would entail not enforcing laws that prohibit the basic fundamental human right of self-defense.
The Effingham County Board approved the resolution 8-1 on Monday which declares that they will not enforce gun laws that “unconstitutionally restrict the Second Amendment.” (Of course, that’s all gun laws based on the Constitution.) Board members said they felt it was necessary to “take a stand” against the immoral and human rights violations in the form of gun control efforts in the Illinois legislature.
Humorously, Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler told Fox News that they decided to “flip the script” and “make this a sanctuary county like they [Democrats] would for undocumented immigrants.” Kibler admitted the action is largely symbolic and Sheriff Dave Mahon told the Effingham Daily News that the board’s decision would not dictate how his office enforces the law.
Mahon did say, however, that if the state passed a gun control law with dubious constitutionality, he would decide how to handle it after consulting with the state’s attorney and the legal counsel of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association.
As gun control activists ramp up efforts to disarm peaceful citizens, some are taking a stand against such tyranny. “The Second Amendment is not about hunting,” Shannon Alford, the National Rifle Association’s Maryland liaison told USA TODAY at a gun rights rally over the weekend. “It is not about competitive shooting. The Second Amendment is about self-defense. It’s about being able to stop people who would do you harm, whether that’s a criminal or the government.”
Concealed or open carry… being armed could save your life.
The number of concealed carry permits has grown from 8 million in 2008 to just over 16 million in 2018. Most states require a permitfor concealed carry and limit those permits to residents, or a select few statesthrough reciprocity. For example, a concealed carry permit in Texas is also valid in Arizona .There are currently 45 states that havepermissive open carry. As the scales of the gun control debate teeter one way or the other, the visibility of opencarriers has been embraced by many pro-gunactivists to normalize gun ownership. While often acceptable to people who have been raisedaround firearms, it is often a culture shock to those who have not.
As the political spectrum becomes even more polarized, there is less concern on both sides to consider or even care about the sensibilities of people across the political divide. While one’s political party is in power, this may not be a cause for thought. When the political scales tilt – and they always do- it then becomes a majorconcern, and then too late. How the political left tends to react to the sight of openly carried firearms is with anything but antipathy.
By “spooking the straights” it fuels their desires to take the rights to carry anything away. Some are so full of fear at the sight of a gun that they assume the carrier is a mass shooter, calling the police. Others point to a difficulty that police officers have in determining who is and is not a threat, and there have been plenty of instances when police have reacted with zealousness when presented with an open carrier. The situation becomes even more complicated when raceenters the equation. Now it is true that the examples presentedhere may have been antagonistic to the officers – there is a certainlack of empathy on behalf of some carriers not to understandthe situation officers are placed in when they must respond to calls of a person with a gun. And sometimes, the officer may not be as comfortable with you having the gun: this opens opportunities for misunderstandings and accidents. Such instances do not help the cause.
Perhaps this is a goodplace to point out that if you carry, open or concealed, that it is of vital importance to follow an officer’s instructions to the letter when the interactionoccurs. Do not argue about your rights until the officer feels that they have control of the situation: that is what they are trained to do. It is what you would want them to do if you were the one that called them. And while you may win a legal debate with them, you are as likely to end up in cuffsor bruised. You may even end up dead.
Concealed carriers certainly need to follow the same rules of conduct, but they have the benefit of discretion. Many gun control activists will point to the laws of the wild west where guns were not permitted in town while ignoring other facts. The local rules expressly prohibited the carrying of firearms but donot offer instances where people – residents or visitors -were invasively searched. It is not coincidental that pocket pistols such as the Deringer started becoming an actual product in the 1800’s when the rule of these laws began appearing. In such circumstances,the age-old adage “out of sight, out of mind” protected the carriers whether they were law abiding or not.
Even without the politics or the threat of nervous anti-gunnersand potentially under trained police officers, open carry does something else: it paints a bullseye on the back of your head for any potential criminal. Policeare paid to enforce laws; citizensare not. While society benefits from as many enforcers and followers of the law as possible, those of us who are not involvedwith law enforcement authority can complicate matters in a situation, and not necessarily to our benefit. If the badguy does not get the drop on us,we still are faced with the fact that even officers not in uniform may seem likea threat by uniformed responding officers.
Consider the following scenario: you are standing in line at the bankwhen someone decides to rob the bank. You have a concealed carry firearm, but, the robber is not firing his weapon. The money stolenis insured. If you act like the other customers, the whole scary scenario may end in a few minutes with you only having to be a witness to the responding officers. Another result of the situation is that the robber has already shot someone. Perhaps now they will decide to leave no witnesses. At that point, if your firearm is concealed, you have a chance to defend yourself. If your firearmwas not concealed, you mightvery well have been the first one killed.
The political landscape has many gun owners tempted to declare their position proudly, even defiantly. And the open carry movement has gone from a positionof crime deterrence to a political positionof antagonism. Thisis not the scenario in which any of us should introduce an open and visible firearm. Discretion is the better part of valor because discretionis one more tool at our disposal when we carry: leaving the decision to engage in our hands, not the hands of the “bad guy.” So, when you carry, be aware, be considerate, but most importantly, be sensible and choose your battles. Don’t have them chosenfor you.
Senator Bernie Sanders joined students participating in a national walkout to protest gun violence outside the Capitol in Washington, D.C surrounded by armed police as he delivered a hypocritical speech calling for the “courage to take out the NRA” and common sense gun control in response to the Parkland high school attack, Newsweekreported.
What’s wrong with this picture? Yup Bernie Sanders at an anti gun rally with students being protected w/armed police officers for security
Sanders live streamed his speech on his Facebook page, which towards the middle featured him moving through the crowd of cheering students and shaking their hands. As Sanders traveled through the protesters chanting for gun control, he was accompanied by three heavily armed Capitol police officers there to escort him through the students.
Multiple times in the live feed, the police can be heard asking the students to “step back and move away from Sanders,” as is the protocol with congressman and especially presidents to protect them from deranged psychopaths.
This isn’t the first time that Democrats have been ridiculed for the calls to ban firearms yet still have depended on them for safety.
In 2016, gun-rights groups called for Democrats to bar any armed security at the Democratic National Convention.
“Gun owners are demanding that the Democratic party practice what it preaches,” read a petition from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “If a political party believes that guns do not make us safer, they should set an example by rejecting any and all forms of armed security at their convention.”
Sanders frequently makes two points about his gun record, as The Washington Postreported during the 2016 election where his opponent Hillary Clinton often used his stances on gun control against him.
He has a D-minus rating from the NRA, and the NRA’s endorsement of his opponents during his first congressional race in 1988 may have cost him the election. Sanders’s most recent grade from the NRA was a D-minus. Since 1992, the first year the NRA issued a grade for Sanders, he has received between a C-minus and F. Since 1988, Sanders has been consistent on restricting the use of semiautomatic firearms (often called “assault weapons”).
Further, as per that report, Sanders voted on a 2005 law giving broad federal immunity to gun manufacturers; now he wants to suddenly ban semi-automatic firearms.
However, for three decades, Sanders has “believed we should not be selling assault weapons” like the accused gunman’s AR-15.
“These weapons are not for hunting,” he said. “They’re for killing human beings,” Sanders stated on NBC’s The View last month.
In that same interview Sanders previously also stated that Congress should close the “gun show loophole” ― the lack of federal rules mandating background checks on the sale of guns between privates sellers.
In his time in Congress, Sanders has voted against a bill in the 1990s to require a five-day waiting period to allow for criminal background checks before a gun could be purchased, voted to allow firearms on Amtrak, and expressed opposition against a lawsuit to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. However, on the other side of the coin, he has also voted for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban more recently.
In a 2015 speech while campaigning, Sanders expressed a similar argument for common sense gun control which he explained:
vast majority of hunters don’t use semi-assault weapons when they hunt, and they don’t have magazines that shoot 30 rounds at a time. So I hope as a nation we would ban these type of assault weapons so they don’t get into the hands of gun dealers.
Sanders further added that there is a cultural divide between urban and rural America on gun regulation, arguing what seemed to be to create two different regulations for rural and urban America so that everyone is happy.
“People in urban America can not demonize or stereotype people in rural America because they own guns and they hunt. While people in rural America who hunt have got to understand that guns in Chicago and LA mean a very different thing then guns in Vermont and New Hampshire. And if we can come to that understanding and cross this cultural divide we can finally come up with common sense gun solutions that the vast part of American people will support,” Sanders said, on the campaign trail.
Both U.S. President Donald Trump and Democrats have actively argued for disarming the public of assault rifles and even allowing police the power to decide who can and can’t keep their firearms if they are classified “dangerous” by government standards.
Although, U.S. President Donald Trump has since backtracked on his remarks stating that he wanted to confiscate guns “from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous.”
Meanwhile, in the state of Florida, where the Parkland shooting took place, confiscating firearms has already taken place under Florida’s new gun-control laws, temporarily removing guns from a 56-year-old man’s possession.
Four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition were ordered removed from the man who was determined to be a potential risk to himself or others; or as Trump would state, a man “deemed to be dangerous.”
The guns and ammunition have been temporarily removed from the man under the state’s new “risk protection” law, which is also sometimes called “red flag” legislation, Lighthouse Point City Attorney Michael Cirullo confirmed to the Orlando Sentinel.
In the beginning of March, House Democrats in agreement with Trump have introduced a bill H.R.5087 that if passed would ban the sale of semi-automatic firearms. The legislation opts to prohibit the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
In the gun debate, there is only one video that ever needs to be seen and that’s the Congressional hearing testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a survivor of the Luby’s shooting, also known as the Luby’s massacre. The attack left 23 people dead and injured another 27 when a deeply disturbed man, George Hennard, drove his pickup truck through the front window of a Texas restaurant.
On October 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby’s Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, screaming “This is what Bell County has done to me!” then opened fire on the restaurant’s patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89.
During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby’s Cafeteria that day but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws enforced at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms.
According to her testimony in favor of Missouri’s HB-1720 bill (a law to allow concealed carry), after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse but “a hundred feet away in her car,” her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed.
Hupp expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person. She further stated that she didn’t blame the killer or the gun; she blamed her legislators because she couldn’t protect herself and her family.
It is worth noting in Hupp’s statement she expressed that she was not a representative of the NRA when she gave her testimony.
The Second Amendment is a right of the people; if you ban sales from lawful citizens, you will encourage black market sales of firearms where the weapons aren’t registered. In such a case, all the criminals will be armed while forcing innocent civilians to be easy targets for a lunatic/lunatics or worse — tyranny will rise, as history has proven from dictatorship to dictatorship time and time again.
Again, we will ask the question why would anyone be excited about disarming themselves under any president who shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution and due process, while simultaneously increasing the availability of military weaponry to the nation’s police? Shouldn’t we have learned the lessons of history by now?
In the growing debate surrounding the natural right to self-defense, one of the most popular proposed methods of gun control has been restrictions on gun-ownership for those who are deemed to be mentally ill. This is a measure that is often suggested by liberals and conservatives alike, but it is important to stop and consider what something like this might entail.
When any collective group is banned from owning a gun, they are effectively turned into second-class citizens. In the case of mental illness, that classification is so vague and open to interpretation that it could possibly be applied to over half of the population, depending on which criteria you use.
Mental illness can be very hard to identify since there is no kind of official test for most conditions, most people are diagnosed according to the subjective opinions of the doctors that observe them. Even the most severe conditions, like schizophrenia, can be very difficult to identify and is often misdiagnosed.
Psychiatric drugs are another possible factor that could get someone marked by the government as mentally unstable, but a classification like this would allow for large portions of the US population to be disarmed.
According to a 2016 study by JAMA Internal Medicine, more than 1 in 6 Americans are on some type of psychiatric drug. This is not to mention the large number of people who report symptoms of depression or anxiety and don’t take medication.
A policy like this could also allow the government to disarm dissidents and political enemies. As psychiatry became more influential towards the middle of the 20th century, rulers around the world began using “mental illness” as an excuse to lock away anyone who might disagree with them. The Soviet regime became notorious for this practice by labeling all political dissidents as “mentally ill” so they could be locked away in institutions where they were no threat to the establishment.
The United States government also has a long history of slapping unruly citizens with the mark of mental illness. President Franklin Roosevelt famously called his detractors “the lunatic fringe,” and this type of attitude towards activists has carried on in the halls of government to this day.
In the dictionary of mental illnesses, known as DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, there is actually a condition listed for people who have a problem with authority. Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a name that psychiatrists made up to identify children who won’t do what they are told, and now even adults are being diagnosed with this condition as well.
Meanwhile, politicians and mainstream media are quick to label anyone who questions the official narrative as a “conspiracy theorist,” a term that has been falsely associated with mental illness in pop culture.
A study in 2017 set out to determine whether or not believing in conspiracy theories was a form of mental illness. As expected they found the exact answer that they were looking for, people who don’t trust the government and mainstream media are crazy, and suffering from something called illusory pattern perception.
There is another dilemma that arises in the discussion of disarming people who are accused of having a mental illness, and that is the fact mentally ill people are 10 times more likely to be victims of violence than the rest of society because they are often seen as easy targets.
Complicating matters further is the fact that these people can’t depend on the police to help them in these situations, as studies have shown that the mentally ill are 16 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than the average person.
According to the Virginia-based Treatment Advocacy Center, a minimum of 1 in 4 fatal police encounters ends the life of an individual with severe mental illness.
To prevent mentally ill people from owning firearms is a severe form of “ableist” discrimination, and also opens the door for nearly anyone to be classified as mentally ill.
There are sometimes extreme cases where a person’s mental instability is creating a dangerous situation for the community, like the recent Parkland shooting, for example. In this case, the shooter had a known history of violence, regularly made threats and was visited by police on numerous occasions because of his threatening behavior. In cases like this, it is reasonable to keep an eye on someone, restrict their access to firearms, or possibly quarantine them from society in the most extreme situations.
There are many laws on the books currently would have allowed the FBI or local police to intervene in their initial encounters with the shooter, but they decided that a student known for violent outbursts and talking about carrying out school shootings was not worth looking into.
As TFTP reported earlier this month, there is a law on the books known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order or ERPO, which went into effect in June of 2017. This law is used when a person is considered an “extreme” threat as reported by police and family members. An ERPO must be approved by a judge and only after this person is proven to be a danger to themselves or others can police move in to confiscate their weapons.
These types of targeted approaches specifically aimed at individuals who are a known source of violence in the community would do far more to prevent tragedies from happening, than a wide-reaching law that could threaten the rights and safety of millions of innocent gun owners.
Thanks to their government disarming them, the citizens of the UK are helpless against the massive spike in violent crime that has plagued the city of London of the last two months, surpassing that of even New York.
To prevent mentally ill people from owning firearms is a severe form of "ableist" discrimination, and also opens the door for nearly anyone to be classified as mentally ill.
(ANTIMEDIA) — Americans calling for gun control in 2018 often argue that a cursory glance at history proves there was never meant to be an unrestrained right to own firearms — that there were always meant to be restrictions on gun ownership. In at least one respect, they are correct: United States history shows there has […]
(INTELLIHUB) — Despite the fact that assault rifles are the same semiautomatic variants of any old hunting riffle, with different aesthetics (i.e. they look scarier), snowflakes and liberals on the far left still want them banned.
“I’m seeing more mass murders, I’m seeing more school shootings,” one woman who attended Saturday’s March for Our Lives explained. “I think that it’s because we have more AK rifles out among the population that shouldn’t be easy to get.”
“Assault rifles do not belong in the hands of anybody except the Army,” she said.
The woman went on to insinuate that gun stores are selling AK-47s o 16-year-old kids against U.S. law.
“Those gun shop owners are apparently not asking […] go all over YouTube,” she said.
ORCHID HILL (INTELLIHUB) — Georgia resident Kerri Foster smashed several cellphones with a hammer on a pick-nick table while displaying two of her household’s AR-15s to demonstrate that cell phones kill far more people in America then guns do.
The ultra-viral video which has over 2.8 million views and is causing liberal snowflakes to melt.
Foster said that she checked into a lot of statistics recently which led to her decision to smash her cell phones which actually pose more of a danger than AR-15’s historically speaking.
“I’ve just decided after looking at all the statistics online about deaths caused and violence and all of the rest of it that I have decided to make a change in my household and two objects in my household have the potential to cause deaths for innocent people,” she explained. “These two objects have caused families to break up, they’ve caused all kinds of turmoil all across the world, not just the United States, so, today I have decided to do my part to take these two objects off the streets so where they don’t have the potential to hurt anybody anymore ever again.”
After that, the woman proceeded to smash her two cell phones with a hammer, shattering them into pieces.
Even though ANTIFA has already been declared a terrorist organization in at least one state it hasn’t stopped the thugs from wreaking havoc in Texas
AUSTIN (INTELLIHUB) — Armed and masked ANTIFA members rallied at Woodridge Square Saturday where they were captured on camera blocking a fellow Austinite from passing by on a public sidewalk as they prepared to bullhorn a group honoring Kate Steinle who was shot in the Summer of 2015 by an illegal alien while walking her dog along a California pier.
“A bunch of ANTIFA protesters showed up with megaphones to bullhorn an event that is honoring someone that is dead,” Shroyer said as he approached the square with his camera rolling. “Let’s see whats going on here.”
The group of masked wannabe thugs, some holding rifles, spotted Infowars reporter and host of “The War Room” Owen Shroyer arriving from a distance and decided to block him from covering the event by forming a blockade on a public sidewalk.
“Here I go, literally they won’t let me in here,” the reporter said as he tried to enter the park with no luck. “This is obviously insane.”
Police stood by and watched for minutes as the thugs wouldn’t permit Shroyer to enter.
Eventually, Shroyer took the bull by the horns and outran the masked crusaders which allowed him to make his way further into the square.
This is what we’ve come to in the United States. Children are getting suspended from school for going to a gun range as a family over the weekend to practice their fundamental human right of self-defense.
According to Fox News, a New Jersey high school came under fire Friday after it allegedly suspended two students over a gun photo taken during a family visit to a shooting range. News of the unnamed students’ suspension circulated through a Lacey Township Facebook group, according toNJ.com.
The kids were both in high school, but their suspension caused an uproar with a potential lawsuit against the school coming. The photo of four rifles, magazines, and a gun duffel bag was shared by one of the students on the social media app Snapchat with the caption “fun day at the range,” according to Lacey Township resident Amanda Buron, a family friend of one of the students.
The school claims that the students violated the school’s policy on weapons possession. Apparently, the school thinks they have the authority to extend any policy to weekends and the homes of the children as well now. This is like suspending a girl for wearing a spaghetti strap tank top to a bar-b-que on a day off school because she violated the dress code. Yes, it’s that insane, but that’s what their policy literally says.
The reality of the whole situation is that the school enacted an overreaching policy, which actually stated that “students could be suspended for up to a year if they are ‘reported to be in possession of a weapon of any type for any reason or purpose on or off school grounds,’” NJ.com reported further. Which basically means, the school is attempting to control kids even when they go home. So don’t practice or exercise your natural human right to self-defense if you attend a public school.
Lacey schools Superintendent Craig Wigley said in an email to NJ Advance Media on Thursday that “information posted on social media is incorrect” and that private matters involving students cannot be discussed. He declined to say what aspect of the accounts posted on social media is inaccurate.
Since the suspension, NJ.com reported that the “Lacey school district quietly changed” the policy, scrapping the off-school-grounds prohibition and eliminating suspension-length specificity. “‘Students are forbidden to carry any type of weapon or simulated weapon to school,’ the revamped policy states. ‘Strict disciplinary action and legal actions will result if this occurs,’” the news outlet detailed.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
With all of that is going on with these anti gunner politicians (surrounded by armed security detail) working hard for their special interest groups, rather then upholding the US Constitution, the US Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold, instead, and in using the tactic of “necessity” based off of some tragedy or massacre, which, in many cases, are induced false flag events (conspired black ops Jeremiah 11:9), one must understand the methods and the language of their enemies.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
Furthermore, when you look to the anti-gunner corrupt politicians and their methods one must ask where did they derive their delegated authority to encroach upon the God-given RIGHTS of the American people? I cannot find it! Why? Because it isn’t there (Hosea 4:6).
Americans must come to terms that corrupt politicians are not the type that you can help or rehabilitate; they are the type that you must lawfully remove, or you will lose your God-given RIGHTS! (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution)
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – President Thomas Jefferson
You must fight for your God-given RIGHTS! (Deuteronomy 1:8; James 2:14-26)
It is the difference between a FREE people, and an enslaved people there are no in-between (Luke 11:2).
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
Therefore, it might be well for you to take a couple of minutes and read what our forefathers had said in their writings during the ratifications to establish gun rights to Americans as a whole, namely the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers that established our God-given rights?
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.
First, who are the militia?
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, 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, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
Second, look to our American forefathers and how what they established contradicts the corruptions in the face of the present day criminal politicians (Psalm 94:20; Luke 22:48; John 8:44).
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
We have heard over and over from criminal anti-gunner politicians that we do not need 30 round magazines when it comes to our ability to protect ourselves.
Just a reminder to all, we do not need 30 rounds to hunt with, correct, but the Second Amendment was not written in case the deer turn against us, it was given in case our government does.
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it!”
You may not have ever heard of Nick Freitas before, but I have a feeling we’ll all be hearing a lot about him soon. At first glance, this may seem very political, very Republican vs. Democrat.
But it’s not. It’s about logic versus emotion.
It’s about an eloquent defense of the Second Amendment and the reason that the gun control debate is stalled. And the response to this speech underlined everything that was said.
It’s about people who got so upset about historic facts that they had to leave the room instead of engaging in a discussion.
Last week, he gave a rousing speech on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates in defense of the Second Amendment. Some of his key points:
We need to find out if gun-free zones are effective
We need to understand the reasons behind the Second Amendment
We need to make self-defense possible
We should consider arming teachers
We need to discuss this issue with mutual respect
We have to admit that the government failed in the Florida school shooting
One point he brought up that really spoke to me personally was the fact that not all gun-related acts of self-defense involve pulling the trigger and shooting the perpetrator. I know that in my own case during an attempted home invasion, just the presence of my gun and the perception of the would-be criminals that I wouldn’t hesitate to use it, deterred what could have been a heinous crime against me and my daughter.
Freitas said in the speech that we have an inherent right to defend ourselves and that he will not accept a false narrative. He pointed out that he and his fellow Republicans don’t believe Democrats when they say that all they want to do is ban bump stocks.
Freitas is a retired Green Beret who served 2 tours in Iraq. (source) He was elected to the state delegation in 2016 and is a self-described Libertarian-Republican.
Listen to the entire speech in the video below.
The response by lawmakers
Apparently, facts are just mean.
Despite Freitas’s factual and logical arguments, a number of Democrat delegates actually walked out of the room during his recitation of horrific past policies that were instituted by their own party and his plea for mutual respect so that a real conversation could happen.
Delegate Lamont Bagley was really upset, calling the speech “hateful and divisive.”
“We realize that we live in a ugly political moment. So while we were offended, we were not surprised,” Bagby said. “It should embarrass every member of this body that we have allowed such rhetoric to enter these chambers. Bringing up a very painful past to make a political point is disgusting and poisonous.” (source)
Delegate Delores McQuinn, who walked out while Freitas was speaking, told reporters:
“Let us not bring in things that would be hurtful and painful to people who have to live in a skin that some of you will never know and have to endure a reality that being black in America is sometimes difficult.” (source)
Freitas seemed unconcerned at the outrage, responding:
“More and more, offense is used as a weapon with which to turn away debate.And I’m not going to accept that.” (source)
His speech was so popular that he was interviewed by Fox News, who played a clip of a Democrat, Delegate Joseph Lindsay, who said he was “offended as he had never been offended since being a part of this body” by Freitas’s passionate speech. He claimed that his colleagues were “emotionally shaken and bothered.”
Freitas wasn’t having any of it.
There aren’t many politicians that I’d say I would support, but Freitas just might be the exception. He’s currently running for the US Senate against Tim Kaine, who is the former governor of Virginia and was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in her failed bid for the presidency.
In his announcement for the bid, he promised to combat a worldview that “treats free people as if we were subjects instead of citizens.” He also said, “Quite frankly, establishment elements from both sides of the aisle have been responsible in thinking themselves made from finer clay than the rest of humanity.” (source)
Yep, I’m pretty sure we’ll be hearing more about Nick Freitas.
Apparently, the individual is a 56-year-old man who has not committed a crime: he just falls into a category of people that could “pose a harm to the public good.” Here’s an excerpt:
The Orlando Sentinel reports that “four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”
The seized firearms were listed as “a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.”
The paper notes that “the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under … new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.
What’s even worse is that they have incorporated wonderful elements of Communism, namely stoolpigeons and snitches within the family or by order of a judge. Yes, Communism is that system that many deny, along with Marxism, that concentrated on removing undesirables and nonconformists by sending them to psychiatric wards until they displayed “correct thinking.”
For those who are not aware: Communism is the end-state, resulting in the death of all the undesirables and the enslavement of the masses. For “primers” on Communism, read George Orwell’s “1984,” and J. Edgar Hoover’s “Masters of Deceit.” Yes, Communism is alive, well, real, and waiting…in the guise of labels such as “the Progressive Movement” and “Social Justice,” clarion calls for armies of fools and illiterates who wish to change the world to be utilized in the call.
Utilized, and then liquidated after their usefulness expires: History has shown it again and again, with the “showcase era” being the entire 20th century.
Here is an excerpt that illustrates how the Communists work…turning family members against one another, using the “gendarmes” of the police force outside of their normal role, and bypassing due process of law with the use of judges:
The confiscatory order also bars the man from making new firearm or ammunition purchases. On March 9, Breitbart News reported that Gov. Scott signed a $400 million gun bill that includes orders which allows a family member or law enforcement to petition a judge to order the seizure of an individual’s firearms. The bill also put waiting periods in place for long gun purchases, raised the minimum purchase age for long gun purchases (from 18 to 21), and banned bump stocks.
Neat term, huh? Confiscatory order. Right up there with “Eminent Domain,” and “Annexation.” Chef DeJure: “Stroke of the pen…law of the land.”
Instead of denouncing the order and upholding the Constitution, the judge, addressed as “Your Honor” but without any…is now selectively interpreting the law and bypassing the 2nd and 4th Amendments to the Constitution in one fell swoop. All of this has been initiated by a pseudo-Republican governor’s stroke of the pen…entrée de jure, courtesy of Rick Scott.
Illinois is passing a legislative ban and the mandatory turn-in of “prohibited” firearms by 18-20-year-olds. Other states are following. What is not accomplished by the federal government is being accomplished by the states. They’re using the youth and the pressure of the media and social media to mold the public into compliance. What they cannot engender in that department they’ll close with de jure legislation.
The problem with laws? Once they’re in place, they’re able to be enforced by men with badges and guns…forcing you to comply. By the time the law is scrutinized by the courts, it is too late. That court scrutiny is not a guarantee that things will be set straight: it’s most likely they will not be. They win by passing their laws, and you are a “subject.” You become the victim of the tyranny of the majority, and the “Your Honors” who are paid politicians and puppets, selectively interpreting, bypassing, and violating Constitutional law.
They are coming for the guns. Each new “venture” elicits a new response, an incremental shift of the paradigm, as they craft their socialist society. They must have the guns, and they will be coming door to door for them…as they have just done in Florida. Take your steps now while you still can. In the end, a fight is coming. To win, people need to be smart. They need to be aware of what is going on…when to hold ‘em, fold ‘em, walk away, and run…not just stand and fight. The first battle is to admit to what is happening and prepare for what is to come.
by AndrewBlakeTwo students have been disciplined after pictures of them at the gun range came out.
Lacey Township, NJ – An attorney from a New Jersey gun organization association announced that a lawsuit may be pending after a school disciplined two students for going to a gun range outside of school hours.
Patch.com reported that attorney Daniel Schmutter, with the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, sent a letter to Lacey Township School District officials after two students posted pictures on Snapchat showing them at a gun range.
There was no threatening context to the pictures or anything that would otherwise cause alarm.
In the letter, Schmutter stated that suspending the two students for posting photos off school grounds and unrelated to school activities was a “very serious violation” of the their rights.
Schmutter said the students were both “straight-A” students, according to Patch.com. He also said that the students had attempted to return to school but were not allowed to go to classes.
The claims are that there is a school district policy which prohibits firearm possession by students on or off school grounds.
“These are top-quality kids,” Schumuter said. “It’s astonishing what they have done to these kids.”
According to Patch.com, the Lacey Township school district follows the Safe Schools Initiative, the Zero Tolerance for Guns Act and also has its own zero-tolerance policy for any students who have weapons in their possession, on or off school grounds.
Students could be subject to a long-term suspension for up to one-year, according to Schmutter.
Anthony Muro posted the claim of the two students being suspended at 6:23 p.m. March 13 on the Lacey Township Chatter public Facebookgroup.
“INFO NEEDED: it is my understanding that two students at Lacey Township High School were placed on 5 days of detention for posting pictures on social media of firearms with the caption of “fun day at the range”. If anyone has any more information regarding the validity or accuracy of this story, please let me know. I am currently under the impression that these kids were punished because someone was offended,” Muro posted.
[snip]
A student responded on the page and said the rumor was true, and that his classmates had been disciplined.
“To those questioning the validity of this situation, this is 100% true, my two class mates posted photos/videos of them at a shooting range, and got in trouble because of it,” John Carr posted.
Jack Pyle, a trustee for the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, said in an email to Blue Lives Matter that his organization has received reports that students at the school district have been threatened over other gun-related issues.
Pyle said that parents have said their sons have been threatened with suspension, disciplinary action or detentions for similar photos posted on social media and for having NRA logos or similar images on their personal vehicles.
A Florida man has become the first person in the state to have his due process removed and his guns taken before he was determined to be mentally unfit and before he was accused of a crime.
(ANTIMEDIA) — Americans calling for gun control in 2018 often argue that a cursory glance at history proves there was never meant to be an unrestrained right to own firearms — that there were always meant to be restrictions on gun ownership. In at least one respect, they are correct: United States history shows there has […]
Shepard Ambellas
