by Jeremiah Johnson, Ready Nutrition:
ReadyNutrition Guys and Gals, prior to hunting season and/or disaster, those rifles of yours need to be ready to go…cleaned and in peak operating condition. Thinking of the rifle as an extension of yourself is a good rule to follow that will keep you on your toes regarding maintenance and maintaining skills. This piece is not intended to recommend any particular type of optic, as needs are widely varied in terms of rifles used and the tasks those rifles are intended to perform. For a “Happy Family Scope Primer,” talk to a salesman at Cabela’s or some other big-box store selling the equipment.
This piece is designed to place emphasis on one of the concepts I’ve been trying to hammer home in almost every article: Master the “primitive” before you employ the technological.
Your first emphasis should be on iron sights and Kentucky windage. You must be able to hit your target without optics. OK, you have a perfectly-zeroed scope. What if it breaks off its mount or one of the objectives shatters? Oops, can you wait for Mr. Bad-Guy, so that I can aim? How about an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse), and suddenly that $10-grand thermal image optical “dancer” on top of your weapon becomes a paperweight…what then?
Hopefully (in that regard) you listened to my advice and bought a second one and clapped it into a Faraday cage just for that event. Either way, you will need that iron sight for a time…until that Carrington Effect wears off. Same precautions need to be followed regarding your Red Dot sights and any laser sights or lights you may be employing.
Work with your rifle for at least a week or two with the iron sights. Learn how to adjust them (if they’re adjustable) and how to estimate your ranges. Find your optimal range to hit that target…the range you are comfortable with. It will vary with age, eye-strength, experience, and natural shooting ability. For example, one man may have an easy time with a man-sized target at 100 meters (300 feet), whereas a second man engages it effectively at 50 meters. This is not to make any judgments on either man, but to emphasize a point: know your abilities and your limitations. In this manner, you will be more effective.
Standard scopes with non-electrical/laser objectives (just lenses in a tube!) vary in quality and price. Stick with this motto: Cheap you buy, cheap you get. Although not perfect grammatically, it emphasizes the point clearly. Quality in terms of durability, lens clarity and craftsmanship, and simplicity of function are things to seek after. Take the time to really test out the scope. The “gun salesman” is out to make bottom line and commission by selling guns and accessories. Every scope is good… yada, yada. Want to make a good selection?
It is a life or death decision, and if it’s not in your mind? You better make it so. If it’s hunting, it’s to provide meat for your table and your family. You can’t get more life or death than that…except for defense. When the goon is coming up the driveway with a pistol after the EMP strikes…you need to drop him before he ever reaches the door.
Once you have the scope, zero it properly. You will have to set goals for yourself. You will have to invest the time and the ammo. Save your brass, reload, and determine your needs with the proper ballistics and bullet tables. That scope…once it’s mounted, it needs to not move. A boresight laser is invaluable: not so much for zeroing, but for confirming your zero and that you’re still “on” if you move the weapon or touch it. Every time you touch that scope, you’ll have to re-zero it or re-confirm the zero. Now, there are a ton of durable scopes and mounts that need minimal work in these departments. It’s up to you to find them for your weapon and apply them.
Then, to the high-tech stuff. As I said, you can invest tens of thousands in this department. For those of you who think I just visit the “Dollar Tree,” think again: that was recommended for those who simply cannot afford to purchase the best equipment. I give you my stance on scopes in a nutshell: only the best will suffice, in all departments as merits a professional soldier. Rest assured, my optics are the best, and following OPSEC, I will not reveal to you what I have.
Read More @ ReadyNutrition.com
by Mike Adams, Natural News:
Our hearts and prayers go out to all those killed or injured in the Las Vegas shooting, and in a nation where so many anti-Americans are kneeling in pampered protest, this mass shooting saw veterans and police officers standing up, helping the victims and heading straight for the shooter to take him out. Real Americans don’t kneel, they stand and get to work to save lives. Today I offer tremendous gratitude to all the first responders who helped save lives and stop the violence.
Although the news reporting on this shooting is still in its early stages, there are five strange things that just don’t add up about this massacre (so far). I run through them below.
Although law enforcement says there was only one shooter, multiple witnesses are openly reporting the presence of multiple shooters. This could reasonably be the result of confusion and chaos, but it’s also highly suspicious that the shooter had “full auto” weapon which is usually limited to law enforcement or military personnel.
This question about multiple shooters was also raised after the Aurora, Colorado “Batman movie theater” shooting, in which numerous witnesses reported the presence of multiple shooters.
If this shooting was carried out by multiple shooters, it would obviously indicate planning and coordination among a group of people who sought to carry out the shooting for a political purpose of some kind.
Via the UK Express:
One woman, who was at the Route 91 music event, claimed an unidentified woman had told other concert-goers they were “all going to die” after pushing her way to the front of the venue.
The witness, 21, told local news: “She had been messing with a lady in front of her and telling her she was going to die, that we were all going to die.
“They escorted her out to make her stop messing around with all the other people, but none of us knew it was going to be serious.”
She described the lady as Hispanic. The lady was escorted from the venue along with a man.
The unnamed witness, who was attending the event on her 21st birthday, described the pair as short, both around 5 ft 5ins to 5ft 6ins tall, and looked like “everyday people”.
It’s clear that neither of these two people were the shooter, as the shooter is a much taller Caucasian man. Thus, this is not a “lone gunman” massacre. There was coordination. At least three people were aware this shooting was about to take place.
The multitude of videos that captured the event clearly indicate that at least one shooter was running a full auto weapons system. Such weapons are almost impossible for “civilians” to acquire. Although some pre-1986 full auto weapons are available for sale, they require extensive ATF documentation, background checks and extremely long wait periods approaching one year. Plus, they tend to cost $25,000 or more, and they’re extremely rare.
Full auto weapons, however, are widely owned by police officers, federal officials and military organizations. It will be very interesting to find out where this weapon came from and how it was acquired.
Numerous reports from witnesses who were on the scene reveal that nearly all the exits were blocked. One witness described the situation as “being caught like a rate in a maze” with numerous “dead ends.”
Why were nearly all the exits blocked? In essence, the concert created a kill zone that amplified the casualties. So far, according to the Clark County Sheriff in Vegas, 515 people have been injured and 59 people have so far died. These are unthinkable numbers, approaching war-time casualty counts. It’s clear from the coverage that this shockingly high body count would not have been possible if people had been free to flee the concert venue.
In essence, the concert trapped the people, preventing them from escaping, and denying them the ability to seek cover. From there, sustained, full-auto gunfire is almost impossible to survive.
In addition, once the shooting started, the stage lights were turned to the crowd, lighting up the crowd and making them an easier target for the shooter(s). Was this deliberate?
According to news reports, the shooter — identified as Stephen Paddock — had as many as 10 firearms in his room, including several rifles. If he was the only shooter, what’s the point of having so many rifles? One man can obviously only shoot one rifle, and since he had a full auto rifle, he could obviously achieve his evil aims by focusing on his one rifle. There was no need for him to have multiple rifles.
So were the other rifles brought to the room to “stage” the crime scene with an abundance of guns? Why would one elderly man bother to carry 8 – 10 weapons to a hotel room in the first place? That’s a lot of work. Rifles aren’t lightweight devices.
I find the idea that a lone, elderly man would carry so many rifles to a hotel room for no practical reason to be highly suspicious. It makes no sense at all.
from Zero Hedge:
Update 16 (12:25pm): A new photograph of shooter Stephen Paddock has emerged, via the Telegraph, although it is unclear when or where it was taken.
Separately, as some have noted, Paddock’s father – Benjamin Paddock – was a convicted bank robber and on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list after escpaing from prison in 1968 and on the run for 10 years.
Update 15 (11:40am): According to the latest update from Las Vegas police, the number of dead has risen to 58, while at least 515 have been injured.
“The number of people who have died associated with this event has increased. Right now we’re using the number of 58,” Las Vegas Sheriff Joseph Lombardo told reporters. “The number of injured – we are using the number of 515.”
Lombardo also said that the police has completed its investigation of the shooter’s room on the 32nd floor, and that people may return to Mandalay Bay, and the hotel is back open for guests expect the 32nd floor.
Separately, an FBI spokesman at the press conference said that “we have determined no connection with an international terrorist group” eyeing the earlier claim by ISIS that the attack was by one of its “soldiers.”
Update 13 (10:55am): Condemning the shooting, in his address to the nation from Washington, President Trump said thanked the first responders for their quick reaction, saying the attack “was an act of pure evil” and that “our unity cannot be shattered by evil, our bonds cannot be broken by violence” even as “hundreds of our fellow citizens are now mourning the loss of a loved one.”
The president ordered U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff: “We pray for the entire nation to find unity and peace. To the families of the victims: We are praying for you and we are here for you, and we ask God to help see you through this very dark period.”
“Scripture teaches us the Lord is close to the broken-hearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. We seek comfort in those words for we know that God lives in the hearts of those who grieve.”
Trump also said that he would visit Las Vegas on Wednesday after his Tuesday Puerto Rico trip.
Update 12 (10:33am): With the sun out, photos and videos have emerged of the broken windows on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel. Photos reveal two broken windows on the floor from which gunman Stephen Paddock reportedly sprayed bullets at concert-goers below
by Mac Slavo, SHTFPlan:
Jennifer Wertz was fired from her position at a Circle K gas station in Albuquerque after shooting Ferron Mendez as he attempted to rob her. The community has now banded together to donate money to Wertz to help cover for her lost wages.
Mendez pointed a gun towards Wertz during an attempted robbery, making Wertz realize “it was either shoot or be shot.” When asked, Wertz said that she would rather be alive and without a job than dead. Sentiments shared by most human beings. It was later discovered to be an airsoft gun missing the orange tip, but in the heat of the moment, Wertz did what almost any other would have done to preserve their life.
Wertz’s mother responded to her firing by creating a GoFundMe page. After recalling the case, Wertz’s mother explained that her daughter was in need of financial help. The GoFundMe page says:
On 09-18-2017 my daughter was faced with something no person should have to face. That was shoot or be shot. Two armmed robbers came into her work and pointed a gun in her face. She had her gun in her pocket and protected herself and her friends. As a result of saving peoples lives and her own she has now been put out of work for 2 weeks and will most likly lose her job she has had for 5 years. My daughter has 3 kids to care for and needs help now. The kids are 8, 6, and 2 and with no income she isnt sure what to do. She wont ask for help herself so im doing this for her. She is torn apart emotionally and is in need of time to recover from this ordeal. She has always been a good person, mom, and daughter. She is in need of dire help to support her family. She was already living pay check to pay check and now has no savings or nothing to fall back on. Please help as much as you can to support her and her family until she can find a new job.
Read More @ SHTFPlan.com
by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan:
A brand new statue of Mikhail Kalashnikov holding his signature AK-47 assault rifle was unveiled in Moscow on Tuesday. The statue commemorates one of Russia’s most renowned inventions.
Kalashnikov is a staple name in Russia. The history of the rifle though began almost 100 years ago when its designer was born. The inventor of the world’s most famous rifle was born into a Siberian peasant family in 1919. He was mechanically minded and first aspired to design farm equipment. But World War II called him into the army and he was wounded in the 1941 battle of Bryansk. While he was in the hospital recovering, he heard other soldiers saying their weapons were insufficient to those of the Nazi’s. So, Kalashnikov got to work designing his own rifle.
He made a successful rifle in 1947 for the Russian army. The infamous gun’s name (AK-47) commemorates the designer and the year of accomplishment. Avtomat Kalashnikova (19)47.
The AK-47 soon became widely popular for its adaptability to rugged conditions, including jungles, deserts, and the bitter cold. It is simple to operate and easy to maintain. With little training, users of this rifle can often field-strip an AK-47 in a half a minute.
by Tom Knighton, via Lew Rockwell:
Gun grabbers will try anything to limit our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. While we appear to be taking back ground lost in previous decades–usually with data to prove that new laws have done nothing to make us any safer–there are a handful of laws in place that are particularly stupid.
Today, let’s take a look at those laws and just why they need to be killed.
What this is not is an in-depth, legalese description of these laws, just a brief overview. I am not an attorney, after all.
1. The Hughes Amendment
This was something tacked on to an otherwise pro-gun bill during the Reagan Era. Even if you’re unfamiliar with the name, if you’re a gun nut, you’re familiar with the ramifications of this bit of legislation. You see, this is the reason the machine gun market is what it is. This law banned machine guns manufactured after 1986 to go to private hands.
All this law did was assign an arbitrary cut-off date that had nothing to do with anything in and of itself. There was no indication that guns manufactured after that date would be more deadly (they aren’t), nor that legally held weapons were being used in crimes (they weren’t). Instead, it was a petulant child of a politician who tried to throw in a poison pill into a pro-gun law.
And it backfired on pretty much everyone.
2. Suppressor Regulation via The National Firearms Act of 1934
Suppressors, contrary to what the gun grabbers argue, aren’t an aid to illegal activities. Instead, they’re safety devices. They protect people’s hearing when they’re firing weapons. Period.
However, in the anti-gun hysteria surrounding gangland violence during Prohibition, suppressors were seen as the Boogeyman’s favorite took of choice. After all, a suppressor would allow him to kill in absolute silence.
Unfortunately for all of us, suppressors aren’t the silencers of Hollywood. They’re not even silencers. Instead, they’re mufflers for the end of your gun so you can shoot without needing ear plugs or muffs.
Further, in the gun-restricted Utopia of Europe, many gun grabbers seek to emulate, those who are blessed to own firearms in some countries are required to use suppressors. Apparently, the one thing Europeans get right on guns are the benefits of suppressors.
3. Magazine Limits
So-called high-capacity magazines seem to be the thing most likely to send a gun grabbing politician into apoplexy. Several states have limited magazines to an arbitrary number that’s supposed to make everyone safer. The thing is, they don’t.
Why? One word: Reloading.
A speedy reload with a magazine-fed firearm can be learned in just a few minutes, thus rendering limits pointless.
Meanwhile, proponents will look at this as evidence limits shouldn’t be lifted, but that’s not how a free society works. The onus is on supporters of any law to support the law’s existence, not on ours to show it’s a burden before it’s lifted.
4. Category Bans Based On Primarily Cosmetic Features
Yes, I’m looking at you, Assault Weapon Ban and similar state laws that have been enacted since the federal version sunsetted in 2004.
Lawmakers understand that if they simply ban the AR-15, that still leaves the M&P 15 Sport 2 or any other AR-15 rifle with a different name, so they go after obvious features that will identify the weapons as so-called “assault rifles.” However, in the process, all they manage to do is attack cosmetic features that don’t have anything to do with the function of the rifle like collapsible stocks and pistol grips.
Meanwhile, crime is unaffected because, as per usual, criminals don’t really care about following the laws. The only people being inconvenienced are the law abiding gun owners.
5. Waiting Periods For Firearms Purchases
There are places in this country where you have to wait three days to purchase a gun. For this Georgia boy, it boggles the mind that you’re required to wait to pick up something you’re legally allowed to buy for no other reason other than a politician thinks it’ll do some good.
Read More @ LewRockwell.com
by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller:
U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.
Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory’s Justice Department.
Mapp issued an emergency declaration Tuesday and mobilized National Guard units to prepare for the massive storm.
“This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane,” Mapp said. “It’s not time to get on a surfboard.”
Irma strengthened to a Category 5 storm Tuesday, with wind gusts hitting 175 miles an hour. Irma’s eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday and bring four to eight inches or rain and 60-mile-per-hour wind gusts.
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) September 5, 2017
The National Hurricane Center is calling the storm “extremely dangerous.” Weather forecasters say Irma is headed towards the Florida coastline, and should bring devastating conditions to the region in the next four or five days.
GOP Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló both declared states of emergencies in anticipation of Irma.
Scott said President Donald Trump “offered the full resources of the federal government as Floridians prepare for Hurricane Irma.”
Read More @ DailyCaller.com
by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit:
Following the horrific destruction of Hurricane Harvey in Houston thousands of Texans, Christians, patriots and fellow Americans stepped up to rescue and assist those suffering in Texas.
Proud Boy Magazine reported:
When I saw the picture of a group of Houston Proud Boys, it gave me joy. I saw men who were standing up for their communities.
I didn’t know their stories. All of their houses could have been completely gone or flooded at that point. All I knew was that these were men who were taking solid steps to protect their neighborhoods.
When antifa saw this picture, they had a different take. Someone posted an article on an antifa-supporting “news site” that claims that they are “armed Fascists” who were roaming around Houston looking for looters.
Antifa terrorists had a different reaction. The far left group known for beating heads and cold-cocking women after Trump rallies were horrified that decent Americans were protecting their communities.
Via Raw Story:
Proud Boys wading through Texas flood with AR15s and shotguns as "anti looting patrol". They don't actually look equipped to help anybody.🤔 pic.twitter.com/Wa1EeLSly9
— Atlanta Antifascists (@afainatl) August 31, 2017
— Will Sommer (@willsommer) August 31, 2017
Anti-gun nut Shannon Watts:
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) September 1, 2017
Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com
by Chris Calton, Mises:
In 1852, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Springfield, Illinois in which he talked about the attempts at required militia training. He described how much of a joke the citizens made of any attempt at mandatory militia training. “No man,” Lincoln said, citing the rules, “is to wear more than five pounds of cod-fish for epaulets, or more than thirty yards of bologna sausages for a sash; and no two men are to dress alike, and if any two should dress alike the one that dresses most alike is to be fined.” He also described the militia figure of “our friend Gordon Abrams” at a militia training, “on horse-back . . . with a pine wood sword, about nine feet long, and a paste-board cocked hat, from front to rear about the length of an ox yoke, and very much the shape of one turned bottom upwards.”
Lincoln was attempting to ridicule the dismissive attitudes of his fellow Illinoisans toward compulsory militia training. The conventional wisdom in military theory is that, for effective defense, the military must be centralized and continually maintained in the form of a compulsory standing army. Even from supposed “small government” advocates, this notion is never contested. However, the evidence from the time suggests that had it not been for the decentralized and voluntary militia system, Lincoln himself may have had significantly more trouble at the beginning of the Civil War.
RELATED: “The American Militia and the Origin of Conscription: A Reassessement” by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
During the Jacksonian era, the militia system in the states shifted largely from a compulsory to a voluntary system. Because of this, the Mexican War was first war fought by the United States that did not require a draft (the Civil War drafts are often cited as the first cases of conscription in the United States, but this ignores conscription administered by the states that took place during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812). During the Mexican War, roughly 50,000 troops were raised, all of whom enlisted without any compulsory measures.
When Lincoln started to mobilize troops against the Confederate States, he called 75,000 men. Not only was this number larger than that of the Mexican War, the Southern states had previously provided a disproportionate percentage of the Mexican War veterans. Lincoln’s request was a tall order. Not long after, he would ask for 42,00 more troops, and Congress would finally authorize up to 500,000 volunteers.
RELATED: “Decentralize the Military: Why We Need Independent Militias” by Ryan McMaken
The Confederacy had likewise established a small army only weeks before the firing on Fort Sumter, originally consisting of 100,000 men, and after Lincoln’s mobilization of the Union army, added another 400,000. All of these men, on both sides, were volunteers.
By the time Congress assembled in the North to approve the 500,000-man army, half this number had already mobilized, even despite a number of defections. In both the Union and the Confederacy, the governments had to turn volunteers away because so many people offered their services so quickly.
Even the supplies for these men were provided with little to no central administration. In some cases, uniforms, mounts, and munitions were supplied by state or local governments, but many of the supplies were provided by private donations or even the enlistees themselves.
Only two days after Lincoln’s call for troops, to give one prominent example, a regiment of 850 volunteers from Massachusetts was already marching toward Washington, fully armed. The Confederacy was similarly so successful in providing volunteer enlistees that the Secretary of War had to turn away roughly 200,000 volunteers.
The Union was less successful than the Confederacy in mobilizing troops, yet their military still grew by a factor a fifteen in only a few short months. By comparison, the conscription-driven military growth for World War I only grew by a factor of three during the first four months of the war.
On both sides of the war, it is also worth noting that the voluntary nature of the early regiments drove men to fight more bravely. Voluntary regiments, as Jeffrey Rogers Hummel notes, “were bound together by ties of community and sometimes kinship, which were only strengthened as they carried the same personnel from battle to battle. No modern bureaucracy callously transferred men in and out, ticket punching them through some idealized career path, and disrupting the unit’s hometown cohesion in the process.”2
Modern military theory recognizes this. Men simply fight more courageously when they are fighting for friends and family, rather than some abstract cause put forth by politicians. So the question is, why is this model not used today?
by Paul Gordon, The Daily Sheeple:
Washington State has long been the home for the fringiest of the left fringe to try out the fringiest of left fringe attempts to use the power of the coercive enterprise’s guns to force people to behave like the good little progressives they imagine, deep down, we all want to be.
Thanks to a convoluted ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court that performed more daring feats of wonder than the Happy Days episode in which Fonzi LITERALLY JUMPED A SHARK, the poor residents of that fiefdom of the coercive enterprise of America might soon be facing a “gun violence tax,” which is really just a ‘clever’ way of attempting to prevent people from owning and possessing guns.
The anti-gun, anti-human, anti-liberty ruling gave a mythological Rule of Law blessing to Seattle’s “gun violence tax,” a tax that places a $25 tax on each gun purchase and 5 cents for each round of ammo. Of course, no one expects the tax to start to jump up precipitously in Seattle because governments simply don’t….wait…oh…wait. Now I get it.
And others do too, but they have little power over the leftie fringie American fiefdom of Washington State, controlled as it is almost entirely by the leftiest of the fringiest lefty left city known as Seattle.
The ruling came down this past August 10th, 2017, a day that will sort of maybe live in infamy if people were even aware that it happened, or, frankly, even cared.
Read More @ TheDailySheeple.com
from Mac Slavo, SHTFPlan:
Over the past century there has been one undeniable trend working against gun rights. Put simply, as time goes on, it’s harder for a law abiding citizen to own and use a firearm, largely due to the proliferation of state and federal gun laws. A hundred years ago, one could own pretty much any firearm without restriction, and buy a firearm without even a background check (though of course one argue could that a few of these laws are a good idea). Now it’s a heavily regulated industry.
And sure, there have been some victories for the Second Amendment. A few decades ago there were only a handful of states where it was fairly easy to attain a concealed carry permit, and even many deeply conservative states didn’t issue these permits at all. Now that situation has completely reversed, and continues to improve. However, when you look at gun rights on a long enough timeline, it’s obvious that the Second Amendment has lost more than it has won, as state and federal laws have chipped away at our rights little by little.
Fortunately there is a new piece of legislation that could significantly roll back the worst of these laws on the state level, in particular the laws that were put in place under the Obama administration. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act, which was recently proposed by New York Congressman Chris Collins, could prove to be the most significant attack on gun control laws that we’ve seen in generations. According to a press release issued by Collins’ office:
“This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo,” said Collins. “I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.”
SAGA would provide an intimidating bulwark against gun control advocates in blue states. In a nutshell, it would prevent these states from passing restrictive laws that exceed the scope of federal gun laws.
In the Collins’ bill, States or local governments would not be able to regulate, prohibit, or require registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession, or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, “rifle or shotgun” includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.
Under this legislation, any current or future laws enacted by a state or political subdivision that exceeds federal law for rifles and shotguns would be void. Should a state violate this law, and a plaintiff goes to court, the court will award the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee in addition to any other damages.
For decades, gun owners living in certain states have had their rights slowly stripped away by legislative bodies that repeatedly passed laws which are in violation of the Second Amendment, and they’ve done so almost completely unopposed. It’s the perfect example of what the Founders hoped to prevent in our society. They feared that the rights of the minority could be taken away by the majority, which is exactly what gun owners in leftists states have had to contend with.
Read More @ SHTFPlan.com
by Daniel Lang, SHTFPlan:
In recent years it’s become increasingly difficult for ordinary Americans to ignore the fact that their local police departments are becoming militarized. Just a couple generations ago, the police were armed with pretty much the same weapons that civilians could own. They drove vehicles that, without decals and sirens, wouldn’t be out of place at an ordinary car dealership. They wore uniforms that were comparable to clothes worn by other civilian government employees. Now they carry assault rifles, drive armored vehicles, and on occasion they wear camouflage. They look and sometimes act, just like soldiers in a warzone.
So what made our police departments so militarized? You can partly blame the Pentagon’s 1033 program, which was implemented by the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997. The program allows the Defense Logistics Agency to loan military grade weapons, equipment, and vehicles to local police departments, thus allowing them to transform into paramilitary squads on a shoe string budget.