Wednesday, December 19, 2012

2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants

Via NC Renegade


King Barry the Waster, has his “gun ban list.”    As evidenced in  HR 1022 which was proposed in 2007, the Liberals are bent on disarming US citizens.  What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this!  Here is a little 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.

Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788.  Lesson one comes from George Mason.  George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.”  Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!

    “Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.”
--George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

GOA request: Like them on Facebook

 Gun Owners of America - Springfield, VA

MECUM Kissimmee 2013 (Some really nice ones)



Muslim Nativity Scene

Via Knuckledraggin' My Life Away


Via The Feral Irishman

Pelosi: “Assault Magazines” Have To Be Outlawed

Damn, they must be a new development, so better buy a bunch, since they'll go up if banned......


Yes you read that correctly. Nancy Pelosi used the term “assault magazines in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell in talking about how the kind of firepower allegedly used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings should be outlawed.

Before I continue, I have been guilty myself in referring to certain types of weapons, even some I own myself are considered by the left to be “assault weapons.” I have not cared what people have called them in the past, to be honest, that does not make them anymore or less dangerous than any other gun. However, in reading a piece by Jan Morgan, I think I’m going to stop referring to them as such. Here’s what Morgan writes:
My AR is not an assault rifle.
It is not an assault weapon.
It will never be used to criminally assault anyone.
My AR will only be used for defensive and sporting purposes.
It is simply a modern musket.
Continuing with that point, let’s define our terms here. “Assault” is defined by Noah Webster as:
1. An attack or violent onset, whether by an individual, a company, or an army. An assault by private persons may be made with or without weapons. As assault by an army is a violent hostile attack; and when made upon a fort or fortified place is called a storm, as opposed to sap or siege.
2. An attack by hostile words or measures; as, an assault upon the prerogatives of a prince, or upon a constitution of government.
3. In Law, an unlawful setting upon one’s person; an attempt or offer to beat another, without touching his person; as by lifting the fist or a cane, in a threatening manner. If the blow aimed takes effect, it is a battery.
So Morgan is correct. My weapons, and I’m sure many of yours, will never be used to criminally assault anyone. In fact, if we were to use the term “assault weapon,” it could literally be applied to anything; a baseball bat, knife, pencil, barbed wire, or even a car!

However, Pelosi moves the argument up a notch. Now she is not even calling for a ban on what she wrongly calls “assault weapons,” but is calling for “assault magazines” to be outlawed!

Two Oklahoma lawmakers favor arming teachers and other school personnel and plan to introduce legislation


 "We cannot continue to be shackled by politically correct, reflexive, anti-gun sentiment in the face of the obvious: Our schools are soft targets," said state Rep. Mark McCullough, R-Sapulpa.

"It is incredibly irresponsible to leave our schools undefended - to allow mad men to kill dozens of innocents when we have a very simple solution available to us to prevent it," he said.

"I've been considering this proposal for a long time. In light of the savagery on display in Connecticut, I believe it's an idea whose time has come."

State Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, agreed.

"Taking a restrictive approach to our Second Amendment rights would be the worst possible decision," Shortey said. "Allowing teachers and administrators with concealed-carry permits the ability to have weapons at school events would provide both a measure of security for students and a deterrent against attackers." 

My Personal Pledge of Resistance Against Any Attempt to Disarm Us by Means of an "Assault Weapons Ban"


The Queen of Battle, and her modern descendants, are the birth-right of every American.

"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 inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry

My conscience, and the urgency of our current situation, compel me to speak out.  The victim disarmament freaks are now telling us that they don't want to disarm us- oh, no!  They just want to take away our "assault weapons" - our semi-automatic, magazine fed, military-style rifles - and the "high capacity" magazines that feed them.   They want us to believe that so long as we can own some kind of firearm, after our semi-auto military rifles are taken, we are not disarmed.  That is a LIE.

The truth is that our semi-automatic, military pattern rifles are the single most important kind of arm we can own, and are utterly necessary for effective defense of our lives, property, and liberty.    When you are disarmed of your military rifles, you are DISARMED.   At that time, the lion's share of your military capacity to effectively resist tyranny is removed (yes, accurate bolt action hunting rifles are useful in that role too, but the semi-auto battle rifle is truly the Queen of battle, as Col. Jeff Cooper correctly noted).   It is a significant force on the battlefield, and as Patrick Henry said, when you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns.  And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call "sniper rifles" (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!).   And then when they have those, they will go after any weapon that holds more than a few rounds,  or is capable of any degree of long range accuracy and penetrating power, telling you that you really don't need one of those to hunt or target practice (a shotgun will suffice), and then they will take everything except single shot shotguns or .22's (as was done in England) and on  down the line.  So long as you have at least a .22, they will say you are not "disarmed" while they take everything else (and then they will take the .22s, or insist that you keep them at a gun-range).

We need to call a spade a spade and teach our fellow citizens that taking away military style semi-autos is disarmament.  And we need to throw down the gauntlet and take a hard stand against it, right now.  When we, as Oath Keepers, pledged to not obey any orders to disarm the American people, this is what we meant.  Any attempt to disarm the people of any arms currently in their possession is illegitimate and must be nullified, refused, disobeyed, and resisted.
And so, in response to this obvious assault on our right to keep and bear arms (as in military arms),  I feel compelled to make the following personal pledge:

More @ Oathkeepers

"Door-to-door confiscation by men and women in blue [i.e. city cops] would be a suicide mission."

Via Don


In the wake of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, I reached out to my contacts in law enforcement, military and (retired) FBI over the last three days, asking three simple questions:

#1) Do you think Obama will use executive orders to demand nationwide gun confiscation?

#2) If such an order is given, will you or fellow members of your organization enforce it against the citizens? (And if so, how?)

#3) What is the solution to stopping future mass shootings?

I posed these questions to one ex-FBI agent, one retired Sheriff's deputy, two active duty city police detectives, one retired former police captain of a major U.S. city, two U.S. Army veterans and one USMC veteran, discharged several years ago after two tours in Afghanistan during which he sustained a severe personal injury. For obvious reasons, none of them wish to be identified by name, but their answers below speak to their credibility and authenticity.

Here are their answers.

More @ Natural News

Gun Owners of America hints at armed revolt

Via Ryan

  Good to go.:)


Things got real ugly real quick during Chris Matthews’ interview with Larry Pratt on MSNBC’s “Hardball” this evening.

The reptilian Patriotic executive director of Gun Owners of America, last seen telling gun control advocates “they have the blood of little children on their hands,” argued that we are “less free without automatic semi-automatic rifles,” and need to stay prepared.

Matthews, who loves nothing more than hurling himself through cracked-open doors like this, was all too happy to oblige with a “prepared for what?”

Pratt: “To take on our government. [And this] government has gone overboard.” He continued that it’s time to take action “when elections are stolen.”

Does this mean that the Gun Owners of America’s 300,000 members are preparing to revolt?

Obama Calls for Assault Weapons and High Cap Mag Bans, Background Checks for Private Sales

Via Don



 At a press conference this afternoon, President Obama called for an assault weapons ban (AWB), limits on ammunition magazine capacity and background checks for all private firearms sales. He urged Congress to “hold votes on these measures next year.” “I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to an individual right to bear arms,” the President assured Americans. But, he insisted, the majority of law-abiding gun owners agree that it’s a good idea to remove the public’s access to “weapons of war.” The President assured Americans that the new, VP-led task force’s “concrete proposals” won’t be long in coming or languish. Once again, the President vowed to use “all the powers of his office” to implement the findings, which will [no doubt] include an AWB, mag cap bans and federal intrusion into firearms sales between individuals.

Wall Street Journal: Boehner Deal “worse than no deal at all.”

Boehner needs to go.

The lead editorial in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal attacks the budget deal being considered by House Speaker John Boehner, stating that it would be “worse than no deal at all.”

“Tax and spending increases now, in return for the promise of spending cuts and tax and entitlement reform later . . . is a bad deal for everyone except the politicians who want more money to spend,” the Journal observes.

Boehner has moved from opposing tax rate hikes to offering higher rates for incomes above $1 million a year, but that would “still put the GOP on record as endorsing a tax increase, in particular on small businesses that file individual returns,” the editorial points out.

Republicans “shouldn’t associate themselves with a deal that increases spending and taxes with little or nothing tangible in return.”

Among the points in the editorial, headlined “A Bad Budget Deal”:'

More @ Newsmax

The Steampunk AK47

Via mzmadmike


Professor Myrol Flutensnoken's Patented self-loading, combusting vapor-aether slug projector...

Better known as the fully functional steampunk AK47.

Let’s look at the source material:

This is a previous gun I built in the garage.

This is the AK47, the preferred weapon of your enemies, and it makes a very distinctive sound when fired at you...

Sorry, wrong script.

Anyway, the AK is a weapon designed by crude, semiliterate peasants for crude, illiterate peasants. It dates from 1945-1947, but the construction methods are considerably more primitive. I was looking at one of my previous builds, and it occurred to me the riveted construction, phosphated black steel and brute force mechanics were almost steampunk. Then it hit me.

It’s halfway to being steampunk already, but it needs a little dressing up from its gutter-behind-the-servants’-entrance looks.

So, let’s start building an AK.

This is a .040 sheet of 4140 steel with some punching and drilling.

Pier Morgan debating GOA Larry Pratt

Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown

Via Kearney 


Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.

Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.
Editorial page editor Paul Gigot discusses the Newtown shooting and its political aftermath.
Alan Lankford of the University of Alabama analyzed data from a recent New York Police Department study of "active shooters"—criminals who attempted to murder people in a confined area, where there are lots of people, and who chose at least some victims randomly. Counting only the incidents with at least two casualties, there were 179 such crimes between 1966 and 2010. In the 1980s, there were 18. In the 1990s, there were 54. In the 2000s, there were 87.

If you count only such crimes in which five or more victims were killed, there were six in the 1980s and 19 in the 2000s.

Why the increase? It cannot be because gun-control laws have become more lax. Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there were almost no federal gun-control laws. The exception was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which set up an extremely severe registration and tax system for automatic weapons and has remained in force for 78 years.

Nor are magazines holding more than 10 rounds something new. They were invented decades ago and have long been standard for many handguns. Police officers carry them for the same reason that civilians do: Especially if a person is attacked by multiple assailants, there is no guarantee that a 10-round magazine will end the assault.

The 1980s were much worse than today in terms of overall violent crime, including gun homicide, but they were much better than today in terms of mass random shootings. The difference wasn't that the 1980s had tougher controls on so-called "assault weapons." No assault weapons law existed in the U.S. until California passed a ban in 1989.

More @ WSJ

Free Survival Library

Via Kevin


Only 27% believe stricter gun control laws will do the most to prevent shootings

Americans want something done following the horrific news from Sandy Hook Elementary School last week, and a plurality believes a greater emphasis on mental health issues will be the most effective way to prevent such tragedies.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Americans believe more action to treat mental health issues will do the most to prevent incidents like last Friday’s school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.

Developers selling ‘dragonfly’ robotic drone for about $100

Via midnightrider


The Air Force has spent more than $1 million to help develop a small and versatile robot dragonfly. But in a move to raise funds for the Dragonfly, the developers are offering the public the chance to own their own flying robot Dragonfly for $119.

“This means you can do amazing aerial photography, spy on people, secure your house or use it as the next-gen gaming platform,” says Emanuel Jones, co-founder of TechJect, in a promotional video for the project on the Indiegogo website.

Jones and project founder Jayant Ratti started TechJect after first developing the Dragonfly at the Georgia Institute of Technology with a grant from the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
They say the current prototype weighs less than an ounce, or the weight of one AA battery. And if you believe the project’s developers, it offers several more practical uses than your typical “one-trick pony” aerial drone, including a smaller frame and more powerful battery life.

“This could be the next generation in spy tools. Even James Bond would want one of these,” Ratti says in the video, noting it is specifically being developed for use by the military and local law enforcement agencies.

So, what would the average person want with a tiny spy drone the size of an insect? The Dragonfly comes equipped with high-definition cameras and can be operated with an iPhone.

More @ Yahoo

Alamance County Rangers FTF

NCRC Piedmont Region

FTF will be held at our primary location at 1300hrs on 20Jan13. ALL personnel urged to attend! Any questions, please contact me.

They Have Blood On their Hands

Via Don



The ban on semiautomatic rifles didn't work then and won't work now
A gunman whose name we do not need to memorialize took advantage of our gun-control laws to slaughter 20 children and six adults in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.
In addition to the gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut (and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman.

What a lethal, false security are the "gun-free zone" laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone.

Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones.
One measure of insanity is repeating the same failure time after time, hoping that the next time the failure will turn out to be a success. Gun-free zones are a lethal insanity.

Israel finally came to grips with this in the early 1970s and have decisively stopped these attacks after a busload of children was massacred by Muslim terrorists. When I was there in the late 1990s, if you saw a busload of students, you saw at least one young teacher with a machine gun protecting the groups of students.

The Israelis have decisively stopped these school-related attacks and proved they want to live. Do we?

During the decade of the Clinton ban on semiautomatic rifles (the so-called assault weapons) and high-capacity magazines, crime did not go down. Reinstating it would simply be another example of repeating the same failed policy and being surprised with the same failed result.

We must tell our elected officials that they are acting as the criminals' friends as long as they continue to support legislation that protects only criminals, not decent people.

Oh, and we must also insist that these criminal-friendly elected officials not even try to blame gun owners and our "gun culture" for what a criminal did.

Had a few of us been available with guns at the Newtown school, most of the victims might still be alive.