Sunday, June 13, 2021

Moscow Unveils A Monument To Kalashnikov, The AK-47’s Designer

0

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.

read more @ http://www.shtfplan.com

10 Dumbest Gun Control Laws That Need To Be Repealed Right Away

0

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.

Buy Silver at Discounted Prices

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

Virgin Islands Allows National Guard To Seize Guns, Ammo Ahead Of Hurricane Irma

0

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.

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

Antifa Terrorists Soil Their Pants after Proud Boys Group Is Pictured Defending Houston from Looters

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.

 A group of Proud Boys members stepped up and defended Houston communities from looting.
A group of Proud Boys members stepped up and defended Houston communities from looting.

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:

More reaction…

Anti-gun nut Shannon Watts:

Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com

Why Decentralized Militias Matter

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?

Read More @ Mises.org

WASHINGTON STATE OPENS DOOR TO TAX GUN OWNERSHIP OUT OF EXISTENCE

0

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

This New Piece Of Legislation Could Demolish State Gun Control Laws Across The Country

0

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

Want Some Free Guns? The Government Gave $1.2 Million Worth Of Military Gear To A Fake Police Department

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.

Why Smart Guns Are Incredibly Dumb: Hacker Cracks Smart Gun With $15 Magnets

0

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan:
Smart guns probably provide the last chance for gun control advocates to have their way. After trying and failing for decades to completely eviscerate gun rights in America, their last best hope is to simply let defiant gun owners have their weapons, but with conditions. They’ll try to compromise with gun owners, and tell them that they can have any firearm they want, so long as it is a smart gun, which is supposedly safer since it can’t be used by unauthorized individuals like children and criminals.

But as we all know, everything gun control advocates propose is a slippery slope. How long before these smart guns, like all smart gadgets, begin to spy on their owners? How long before smart guns can be disabled by authorities from a distance, which would effectively defang their role in society as determined by the Second Amendment?

Gun-Controlled Chicago: Women Buying Pistols, Carrying Concealed for Self-Defense

0

by Awr Hawkins, Breitbart:
Women are buying handguns and taking courses for concealed carry permits in response to the surging violence in gun-controlled Chicago.
Breitbart News reported there were nearly 4,400 shooting victims and almost 800 homicides in Chicago during 2016. Moreover, the Chicago Tribune reported that the city passed 1,000 shooting victims for 2017 before April was even over.

The violence in gun-controlled Chicago was so bad by the end of June that President Trump announced he was sending in “federal help” to try to stop the bloodshed.

We Need To Pass ‘Stand Your Ground’ In Every State, Abolish The BATFE, And Repeal The Major Federal Gun Laws

0

by Michael Snyder, End Of The American Dream:
Throughout history, dictators and tyrants have always wanted to take guns away from the people. Hitler confiscated guns once he took power in Germany, Stalin confiscated guns in Soviet Russia, and Mao confiscated guns when the communists took power in China. An armed population is one of the cornerstones of a free society, and our founders understood this very well. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t seem to understand the Second Amendment in our day and time. The following is what the Second Amendment actually says…

Want to solve the violent shootings problem in Chicago? Let law-abiding citizens defend themselves with concealed carry

by JD Heyes, BugOut News:
Liberals have always been extremely confused when it comes to firearms and the Second Amendment. They seem to think that the right to bear arms as outlined in the United States Constitution is somehow connected to gun crimes in this country, and that if it weren’t for the Second Amendment, our country as a whole would be a much safer place. (Related: Remember when Obama demanded that congress pass a law denying Second Amendment rights to anyone the government put on a list?) Based on this logic, Chicago should resemble Heaven on Earth. After all, the radical left wing politicians that run the city have all but banned individual firearm ownership, so Chicago should look like a clean, peaceful Utopian society, right?

Oregon Passes Law to Allow Judge to Order Gun Confiscation from Law Abiding Citizens

3

by Tim Brown, Freedom OutPost:
The state of Oregon is largely run by Communists and Communist sympathizers. In one of the latest bills, the state claims to give the right (unlawfully) to a judge to strip law abiding citizens of their arms and concealed handgun licenses based on the judge’s own determination without any criminal conviction.

According to SB719, which was co-sponsored by Senator Bian Boquist (R-Dallas), a judge can issue an ex parte ruling in order to confiscate a citizen’s guns.

The legislation, which has passed both the House and the Senate, now heads to the Governor Kate Brown’s desk for her signature.

Tax Collectors In Florida Openly Carry Guns, While Public Is Banned From Doing So

1

by Mac Slavo, SHTFPlan:

Tax collectors in Florida are now publicly announcing the values of being armed when demanding money from citizens. The only problem is that the state bans open carry for civilians that the tax collectors are stealing money from.

If you’re leery about government intervention in your life, and you know that taxation is theft, this article will probably strike a nerve. However, on the other hand, if you revile and worship the government which steals from you and creates edicts you must follow under threats of violence using your stolen money, you’ll love what they are doing down in the Sunshine state.