We The People.
We The People seem to be a rare if not extinct breed to those we foolishly elect only to abuse their powers and privilege, bend us over and have their way with us.
From the top down, governmental and constitutional abuses are abound. We no longer seem to be a nation of law or checks and balances.
Specifically, the executive branch is the biggest culprit, overriding legislative and Constitutional laws and wills of We The People via power of the pen and phone.
When the bikers rolled into Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2013, they made their case loud and clear. When the hell are We The People going to unite and say “We’re mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?”
Have We The People become wimpering whipping posts willing to let the current regime dictate what we say, think, eat, drink, smoke or screw? The answer is obvious, and the aiders and abettors are the Kool-Aid Cabal of Zombies that voted for these Capitol Hill Clowns. Those Zombies may have been hypnotized by some Hope and Change hocus pocus, but
The notion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems to slowly becoming a thing of the past, unless We The People do some tar and feathering at the ballot box.
Hi there, PIGsters! While cleaning out my files, I ran across this. This PIGsters, is your most humble publisher playing with a cops MR-15. Even though the gun (not assault rifle) was unloaded, if my mom were alive, she would be rolling in laughter at the thought of a SWAT type cop handed me a gun.
What's even funnier is that the cop highly recommended I buy one for myself.
If he only knew...
Marine Corps Veteran Pens Open Letter to David Hogg
By Joe Newby
I understand how you must feel after losing 17 of your classmates. As a 10-year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, I know what it's like to lose comrades and friends in a senseless act of bloody violence.
We all deal with our losses in various ways. Some of us do so quietly, while others comfort themselves with prayer, confident that the day will come when we'll all be reunited. You, however, chose to become a public spectacle.
Since the Parkland shooting, the country has watched as you and some of your fellow students chose to smear millions of law-abiding gun owners and NRA members, accusing them of having blood on their hands. We watched as you accused lawmakers of being child murderers.
We watched as you engaged in profane attacks against gun owners and even your own parents.
We watched as you spread lies and misinformation about the NRA, falsely claiming the organization is out to sell guns and make money while cheering the deaths of children.
We watched as you bragged about hanging up on the Trump White House and we all watched as you falsely claimed the NRA is trying to turn the United States into a dictatorship.
Now you're upset because Laura Ingraham tweeted something about you being rejected from four colleges and are demanding her advertisers face boycott unless they drop her.
Let's get something straight — YOU chose to become a public figure and YOU chose to use your First Amendment free speech right to express yourself and call for restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right. And YOU chose to let the world know that you were rejected by those colleges. No one forced you to do that — you did it all by yourself.
Now you're mad because someone dared to respond.
Guess what, sports fans? When you choose to become a public figure, you open yourself up to criticism. That's the way it is. You don't get a pass from criticism despite what some at CNN might think.
What makes it worse is this tweet, which has been pinned to the top of your Twitter feed for some time:
Verified account @davidhogg111
Can we please not debate this as Democrats and Republicans but discuss this as Americans? In the comments if you see someone you dissagree with do not attack each other talk to one another, this applies to me too. WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE OUR FUTURE.
9:21 PM - 11 Mar 2018
This certainly doesn't line up with your own actions before and since this tweet. In fact, your actions and statements since this tweet have exposed you as a rank hypocrite.
Here's the bottom line — If you're going to be a public figure you need to put on your big boy pants and grow up. You can't trash and lie about millions of Americans and expect no backlash whatsoever. That's not the real world.
So either grow up and deal with the criticism like an adult or do us all a favor and shut up.
Note: This writers opinion and statement are his own and in no way represent those of Constitition.com.
FORCED MARCH MADNESS
Stolen From: Stilton's Place
For those who may not be up to date on the most au courant Hallmark holidays, Wednesday was "National School Walkout Day" - during which students in some school systems were actually compelled to protest, whether they wanted to or not, under the guise of "showing support" for the 17 victims of the nightmarish shooting at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Frankly, "showing support" for the victims isn't exactly an act of radical courage - everyone mourns these innocent victims, including the President and every member of the NRA. And yes, everyone would like to assure student safety. So the point of the walkout isn't really to support anyone - but rather to flat out protest against the Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular. An amendment which, we'd guess, is not being constructively explained in schools which are preoccupied with lockstep liberalism.
Happily, many school districts threatened consequences for students who went AWOL during class time - but not all of them. Take Rocklin High School in (surprise!) California, where a history teacher, Julianne Benzel, dared to ask her students if it would be equally appropriate for the school administration to support a walkout to protest abortion. Mind you, she didn't discourage her students from participating in the walkout...but she did ask them to actually think.
She was subsequently put on paid suspension because of "several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher's communications regarding the student-led civic engagement activities," which is as ripe a piece of euphemistic liberal baloney as we've heard in a long time.
We'd suggest that in the future, such schools might actually encourage the teaching of history rather than assuring that uneducated students will be doomed to repeat it.
KERMIT THE FROG SEZ...
GUN OWNER SOUNDS OFF
I Am A Gun Owner. I Will Get Rid Of My Gun Under These Simple Conditions.
By Matt Walsh
The media is making quite a big deal out of the gun owners who are getting rid of their guns in an effort to promote gun control. Well, I am a gun owner, too. I will happily join these people in disarming myself, just as soon as conditions warrant it.
To be more specific, I will get rid of my gun the moment my gun becomes self-aware and develops the ability to go off by itself and shoot people on its own initiative.
I will get rid of my gun as soon as I begin to feel the insatiable urge to become a mass shooter.
I will get rid of my gun if I ever lose half my brain cells and no longer possess the basic competency to store and handle it safely.
I will get rid of my gun if someone can pull out a Bible and show me the verse that makes it a sin merely to own a weapon, or to use it for self-defense.
I will get rid of my gun if my gun ever becomes possessed by the Devil, or if I ever become possessed by the Devil.
I will get rid of my gun the very moment that all evil is vanquished from human society, and wickedness is purged from the hearts of men, and there is no longer any danger in the world and the whole of mankind can live in utter peace and harmony. When Christ returns in His glory I will certainly lay down my arms. I do not plan on bringing my gun to Heaven.
But we aren't yet in Heaven. And that is why I have a gun. And that is why I won't get rid of it.
Indeed, we are in a place so unlike Heaven, and so heavily populated with evil people, that it would be irresponsible and reckless not to own a gun. What sort of protector can I be for my family if I have not equipped myself with the tools necessary to protect them? I agree with the anti-gun people when they point out that the world is filled with bad and dangerous people. That is exactly why I own a gun. This is what the anti-gun people don't seem to grasp: the very reason they want to ban guns is the very reason why we should not.
TIT FOR RAT-A-TAT
BLACK RIFLES MATTER IN MAINE
>>> FULL STORY >>>
DO THE MATH
In a gunfight, the most important rule is: HAVE A GUN!
Here is some shooting advice from various Concealed Carry Instructors. If you own a gun, you will appreciate these rules. If not, get one and learn how to use it. Then learn the rules:
RULES: (Take special note of M.)
A. Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.
B. Its always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
C. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
D. Never let someone or something that threatens you get within 20 feet.
E. Never say "I've got a gun". If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.
F. The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 magnum is 1400 feet per second.
G. The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win. A gunfight is a deadly struggle. There is no such thing as a fair fight, so cheat if necessary.
H. Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it, cause it will be empty.
I. If you're in a gun fight: If you're not shooting, you should be loading. If you're not loading, you should be moving. If you're not moving, you're dead.
J. In a life and death situation, do something. It may be wrong, but do something!
K. If you carry a gun, people may call you paranoid. Bull! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
L. You can say 'stop' or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much a universal language.
M. Never leave an enemy behind. If you have to shoot, shoot to kill. If you end up in court, yours will be the only testimony. ALWAYS state you shot to stop the threat because you feared for your life.
N. You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.
HE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' GUN CONTROL
Guns aren't that complicated. Learn a little bit about them before lecturing other people about gun safety.
Just in case you need some, ahem, AMMUNITION in a discussion with a gun grabber, I submit the following.
Guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands. But so are articles about guns written by people who don’t understand anything about them.
There’s sadly no excuse to be ignorant about firearms. They’ve been around for hundreds of years. They’re owned and operated safely by tens of millions of Americans each year. Our Constitution guarantees our individual right to possess guns so that we might be able to defend ourselves from those who would violently take away our freedom. Many gun controllers, however — some of whom have bylines for major media organizations — don’t actually know the first thing about firearms.
Here’s a good example of the kind of self-inflicted injury that can result from weaponizing an ill-informed opinion about guns and gun-related paraphernalia, courtesy of Ryan J. Reilly of Huffington Post:
I believe these are rubber bullets, can anyone confirm? #Fergurson pic.twitter.com/iCsFi6qoIa
Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 17, 2014
Unfortunately, Reilly is hardly alone in his complete ignorance of how guns work. Our nation is facing an epidemic of gun-related misreporting. As a public service to those who have opinions about guns but don’t really want to spend much time learning anything about them, I’ve compiled a simple list of 14 basic things everyone should understand before writing or talking about guns.
1) Don’t Lecture Anyone On Gun Safety Until You Understand The Basic Rules
These are rules literally every person should understand, because you never know when you might be in a situation that requires you to handle a firearm. To seasoned gun owners, these basic gun safety rules are gospel. If faithfully followed, they will prevent the likelihood of you ever shooting someone who did not pose an immediate and mortal threat to an innocent person.
1. Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
2. Never point the muzzle at anything you don’t intend to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you’re prepared to fire.
4. Always confirm your target, as well as what’s in front, behind, and around it.
Each rule is effectively a backup in case you ignore a previous rule. If you always assume a gun is loaded, then you’ll never have to say, “Your Honor, I didn’t know it was loaded.” If you screw up the first rule, the rule #2 will prevent you from shooting someone unintentionally, because your muzzle will always be pointed in a safe direction. If you screw up the first and second rules, rule #3 will ensure that the weapon is never actually discharged. And in the event that you believe your life is in mortal danger, rule #4 will prevent you from firing on an individual who’s a non-threat, or prevent you from firing through a threat into an innocent person.
These gun safety rules are to be practiced all the time, without exception. At the range. In your home. When you are carrying. When you’re not carrying. When a gun is loaded. When a gun is empty (remember: it’s never empty). The rules exist to protect you and everyone around you from harm. Memorize them. Practice them. And don’t lecture anyone on “gun control” or “gun safety,” the new gun-controller-approved euphemism for gun control, until you can effortlessly recite them and explain why they are so important.
It’s a simple test: if a gun controller wants to tell you what is or isn’t safe, ask them to tell you the four basic rules of gun safety. If they can’t or won’t, then you’ll know they’re more interested in demagoguery than they are in promoting safe gun handling.
2) Guns Are Inanimate Objects
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” may be widely mocked by ignorant gun controllers, but it’s true (also true is the fact that guns don’t kill people, bullets do, if we want to be really pedantic). A gun cannot load a magazine by itself. A gun cannot secure a loaded magazine by itself. An empty gun cannot chamber a round or rack the slide by itself. A gun cannot pull a trigger by itself. Each of these actions requires agency by a human being.
These are all reasons why I personally dislike the term “accidental” shooting, because it suggests a lack of accountability and responsibility. A more appropriate term is “negligent” shooting, since human action is required to load a magazine, secure the loaded magazine, chamber a round, and pull the trigger. It’s why the basic gun safety rules are so important: if followed religiously, they reduce the probability of negligent shootings to 0%.
But what about intentional shootings where innocent people are targeted? Those don’t just require human agency, they require criminal intent. That’s why we try and punish criminals, rather than their weapons. It’s why gun criminals are sent to prison, while the criminals’ guns are often sent to the auction block. Criminal will is a far more dangerous and eternal thing than a simple firearm. It explains why so many criminals use illegally obtained weapons in their crimes. Why, it’s almost as though they don’t care about laws at all!
The mind that wishes to snuff out an innocent human life is far more terrifying than whatever inanimate object he or she decides to use. Don’t blame the tool; blame the individual who wishes to use it for evil.
3) Modern Guns Do Not Accidentally “Go Off”
As noted in the previous example, in order for a gun to go “BANG!” a specific sequence of events must occur, and each event requires human intervention. Modern handguns do not accidentally go “BANG!” That’s just not how guns work. Even a loaded gun, with a chambered round, with the safety off and the hammer/striker cocked will not just “go off” by itself. The trigger must still be pressed to release the firing pin or striker.
One thing that drives me nuts when I read it in the news is how a gun “went off.” Note the passive voice.
Investigation underway after officer's gun went off inside @WesternWayneSD high school STORY: http://t.co/pPv6NgAtSupic.twitter.com/Fp2a6TbjJJ
WNEP (@WNEP) February 19, 2015
Whether intentional or not, this type of phrasing implies that the gun itself is the hazard, rather than the person handling it. Guns don’t “go off.” They’re fired by people. This is why the term “accidental shooting” is a misnomer. Unintentional, perhaps. Inadvertent, maybe. But guns don’t accidentally end up in a state that allows them to be fired, and they certainly don’t fire themselves.
A better term is “negligent shooting.” Negligence is the proper characterization because it accurately reflects the fact that an individual neglected to follow each of the basic gun safety rules. And for gun owners, the term negligence helps foster the proper mindset for gun handling: if this weapon is discharged, it is because of something you did. Therefore, don’t ever allow your weapon to be discharged unless it is to neutralize a mortal threat to you or another innocent individual.
4) “Semi-Automatic” And “Automatic” Are Not Synonyms
If you want people to understand that you have no clue what you’re talking about, by all means conflate “automatic” and “semi-automatic.”
An automatic firearm is one in which a single trigger pull can discharge multiple rounds. In the U.S., civilians are virtually banned from owning automatic weapons. If a truly automatic weapon is used in a crime, you can almost guarantee that it was obtained illegally.
In contrast to an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapon will at most discharge one round with a single trigger pull. What makes it semi-automatic rather than fully automatic is that the recoil generated from firing one round results in the weapon chambering another round, assuming the magazine is not empty, but without firing the second round (as opposed to a fully automatic, which both chambers and fires multiple rounds with one trigger pull). If we’re being really technical, a semi-automatic weapon is one in which a single trigger pull 1) discharges at most one round, 2) cocks the hammer or striker after the round is fired, and 3) chambers an additional round after the weapon discharges a round and extracts/ejects the shell casing, all without requiring any additional mechanical energy from the gun’s operator.
The second part of that definition is important because it is what differentiates a typical revolver from a semi-automatic pistol. Although a revolver is capable of chambering a round after a previous one is fired, the hammer must still be cocked by the user before another round can be fired (either via a double-action trigger or a manual cocking of the hammer).
5) “Clip” And “Magazine” Are Not Synonyms
If you watch the news or movies in which firearms are used, you’ll often hear the terms “clip” and “magazine” used interchangeably. They’re not synonyms, though. Here’s a helpful illustration of the difference:
A clip is exactly that: it clips rounds together so that they can more easily be fed into a magazine or directly into a weapon’s chamber. A clip has zero moving parts. All it does is clip ammunition together.
Magazines contain moving parts, most often springs. They are inserted directly into and remain in a firearm, unlike clips. The springs move another round into position so it can be chambered when necessary. In a traditional semi-automatic pistol, when a round is stripped from the top of a magazine and chambered by the rack sliding forward, the spring-powered magazine automatically pushes the next round into position to be chambered. When the round in the chamber is fired, the recoil propels the slide backwards and ejects the spent shell casing. Then, as the slide moves forward into battery, it strips the top round from the magazine and inserts it into the chamber.
This animation of the firing cycle of a 1911-style pistol clearly illustrates how a semi-automatic pistol generally works:
6) Gun Safeties Can And Will Fail
Although it’s become something of a cliche in firearm handling courses, it is absolutely true that “the only safety that matters is the one between your ears.” Like any inanimate object, no gun is foolproof. Mechanical devices can and will fail. If you rely on your gun’s external safety as a substitute for following the four basic gun safety rules, you’re going to get yourself into trouble. This doesn’t mean gun safeties are bad. They’re not at all. They’re incredibly valuable. But a mechanical safety in and of itself is not a guaranteed way to prevent a negligent discharge. Some manufacturers such as Glock do not even install external mechanical safeties on their firearms. The only way to prevent a negligent discharge from a firearm is to follow the four basic gun safety rules 100 percent of the time.
7) So-Called “Smart Gun” Technology Is Not Reliable
So-called “smart guns” are all the rage among gun controllers these days. What are “smart guns”? In theory, they’re guns outfitted with technology that renders the weapon inoperable if it is wielded by anyone other than its lawful owner. In theory, “smart gun” technology sounds like an interesting concept. But some gun controllers want to make it mandatory:
There has been renewed interest in smart guns since the Newtown school shooting, which reinvigorated the gun-control debate. However, there is immense pressure not to be the first to sell them. That’s because of a New Jersey law passed in 2002 known as the Childproof Handgun Law, which says that all guns sold in New Jersey must be state-approved smart guns within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. The goal was to make smart guns mandatory as soon as the technology existed. Officially, no smart gun has been sold in the US yet — meaning if Raymond had sold one, it would have triggered the clause in New Jersey.
@johntabin @seanmdav Not so. Smart gun technology advances gun safety. Yet it encounters severe opposition by the gun lobby that wishes,
David Frum (@davidfrum) November 5, 2014
In practice, the unproven and unreliable technology demanded by gun controllers is a disaster waiting to happen. As noted in a previous example, mechanical safeties fail. So do electronic devices. Now imagine putting an electronic device subject to radio interference in charge of whether a gun can be fired. Heck, simple biometric gun safes are not even 100% reliable. Batteries fail. Software fails. Circuits short out. Fingerprint readers can quickly become unreliable. And what happens if your smart-gun triggering wristband is shot or otherwise damaged by a home invader? You and your family are completely out of luck.
There’s a reason there’s absolutely zero market for “smart guns” among people who actually understand how guns work: the technology is completely unreliable. The basic gun safety rules, though, are airtight. It shouldn’t surprise us that people who don’t even understand basic gun mechanics or safety rules want to mandate completely unreliable technology.
This isn’t to say the underlying technology isn’t useful. It can be. One police force is considering using the technology to alert the department whenever an officer’s gun is unholstered or discharged.
If individuals or organizations decide on their own to implement a new, untested technology, they’re free to do so. But mandating unreliable “smart gun” technology is a very dumb thing to do.
8) Handing Someone A Badge Doesn’t Make Him A Good Shooter
Accurately shooting a gun is not like using a camera. It’s not a simple “point and click.” Like any skill — yes, shooting is a skill — shooting a gun accurately requires constant practice and discipline. Firearm presentation, sight acquisition and alignment, trigger discipline, and follow-through are each skills that must be painstakingly developed before one can consider himself an accurate and reliable shooter. Shooters who can go from the holster to breaking multiple shots on target in less than a second didn’t get there by accident. It likely took hundreds of hours and thousands of rounds of practice.
The same is true for police. The badge does not confer magical shooting abilities. And contrary to much public opinion, the level of training received by most everyday patrolmen is not close to being enough to make an individual a highly reliable and accurate shooter. Moreover, the annual or semi-annual firearms qualifications required in most departments are hardly stringent.
Over 40 percent of rounds are fired within 3 yards. Over 85 percent are within 7 yards. Officers are required to fire only 12 shots at a distance of 15 yards or greater, and only ten of those must hit a target. Quite simply, you do not need to be a proficient shooter to pass a test like that.
In 2007, the New York Times wrote about systemic problems with police shooting accuracy:
New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.
In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.
In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance.
Does this mean that all cops are terrible shots? Absolutely not. Cops who want to be good shooters, rather than cops who wear a gun only because they have to, are generally terrific shooters. The police officers that I’ve competed with in defensive pistol shooting competitions are incredible. Many enjoyed shooting to begin with and became cops because the job gave them the ability to practice and develop their skills as shooters more than any other line of work. But they didn’t become highly proficient shooters just because they chose to wear a uniform and a badge. It’s because they put in the time necessary to develop and maintain their shooting skills.
Unfortunately, police budget constraints make this type of training unfeasible for most departments.
9) The “AR” In “AR-15″ Doesn’t Stand For “Assault Rifle”
That’s right. The “AR” in the name of the popular AR-15 doesn’t stand for “assault rifle.” It stands for ArmaLite, the company that developed the rifle platform back in the 1950’s. Today, the “AR-15″ trademark is owned by Colt, which bought the rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 from ArmaLite in 1959. However, the term AR-15 has come to represent just about any type of conventional M4- or M16-variant rifle.
10) High Capacity Magazine Bans Are Completely Counterproductive
In the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting in Colorado, lawmakers in the state swiftly enacted bans on high capacity ammunition magazines. Just as that state’s rush to close the inaccurately named “gunshow loophole” following the Columbine massacre failed to prevent the Aurora shooting, so to will the magazine ban fail to prevent future mass shootings.
Member of Congress pushing for a ban on high capacity magazines does not appear to understand what a magazine IS. http://t.co/15uDAh6REs
Scott McGrew (@ScottMcGrew) April 4, 2013
Why? For the same reason that gun bans don’t prevent criminals from possessing and using guns: they don’t care about gun laws. A psychopath intent on murdering a roomful of innocent people is not going to care if it’s illegal to possess a 16-round magazine. And there’s a good chance he’s going to bring with him an armory of high capacity magazines loaded to capacity.
That’s not the case for people who obey laws, though. The woman who lawfully carries a concealed weapon to protect herself from would-be rapists is going to follow the law, because she doesn’t want to put herself in jeopardy. Furthermore, the desire to legally carry a concealed weapon already puts a law-abiding citizen at a disadvantage against a murderer who’s armed to the teeth. How? Because the requirement of concealment almost by definition limits the amount of ammunition you can carry. In most cases, that means one magazine in the gun along with one spare magazine.
As the police statistics above showed, a few rounds may not be enough to neutralize multiple attackers. In some cases, you could empty a magazine against an assailant without neutralizing the threat (this is especially true against attackers who may be hopped up on drugs or wearing body armor). Contrary to the movies, merely shooting someone in the chest may not immediately incapacitate the threat. Only a direct shot to the central nervous system can instantly incapacitate an attacker (generally a shot inside the triangle formed by the eyes and nose), and those shots are incredibly difficult, especially against a target that may be moving.
Just like gun bans serve only to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, high capacity magazine bans put lawful gun carriers at a distinct disadvantage against well-armed assailants. As a result, it’s really not all surprising that Colorado, which twice voted for Barack Obama, voted to oust the Democratic state Senate president who pushed through that state’s mag ban.
11) “Shoot To Wound” Is Absurd And Dangerous
Whenever you hear about a fatal police shooting, you’re almost guaranteed to see a commentator wonder aloud why police aren’t trained to “shoot to wound.” The simple answer is that it’s because the police aren’t idiots. “Shoot to wound” is a terrible idea that also happens to be incredibly unsafe.
Do police Ever Shoot “2 Wound?”Can Arms, Legs,Shoulders b Targets?The STRESS MUST B UNBEARABLE,but is there Enough “Judgement”Training?
Cher (@cher) November 27, 2014
To begin with, a gun is considered a deadly weapon for a reason. Merely firing a gun constitutes the discharge of deadly force, and the discharge of deadly force is only legal if the person discharging it reasonably believes that his or her life (or that of an another innocent individual) is in mortal danger.
Now, if you believe yourself to be in mortal danger, would you fire at someone’s foot, or hand, or knee? Of course not. Why? Because shots to those areas do not prevent an assailant from shooting back at you. Instead, you would shoot at center mass, and in the event that those shots failed to neutralize the threat, you would aim for the head and the individual’s central nervous system. The notion of “shooting to wound” flies in the face of only shooting to neutralize a mortal threat. If you believe a threat can be neutralized without the use of deadly force, then you just lost your legal justification for discharging deadly force — in this case, firing a gun.
Furthermore, shooting at a moving appendage like an arm or leg is incredibly difficult, thereby increasing the likelihood of a stray round that could injure an innocent bystander. Bullets that hit those body parts are also more likely to overpenetrate, rather than stopping inside the intended target’s body. This doesn’t mean that you should necessarily shoot to kill. You are not justified in killing a person who has been clearly neutralized and no longer poses a threat. Your goal in discharging a deadly weapon is not to end a life. Your goal is to neutralize a mortal threat.
Never discharge your weapon unless you believe your life or that of another innocent person is in imminent mortal danger. And then, if you choose to shoot, shoot to neutralize the threat.
12) Hollow Point Bullets Are Actually Safer Than Standard Full Metal Jacket Ammunition
Whenever a reporter, gun controller, screenwriter, or general ignoramus wants to make ammunition sound super dangerous and sketchy, they’ll talk about “hollow point bullets.” What these people don’t understand is that hollow points are actually far safer than standard full metal jacket (FMJ), or ball, ammunition. Why? Because they’re less likely to overpenetrate.
Because of their shape and the speed at which they’re traveling, standard bullets have a tendency to go through things like walls, cars, people, etc. The result is that while you might hit your intended target, that bullet could continue to travel through the target and into someone or something you didn’t intend to hit. This is why rule #4 of the basic safety gun rules exists.
Ninth Circuit blesses San Fran's trigger lock requirement and ban on the sale of hollow-point bullets http://t.co/N6wdGtrDvp
Joe Palazzolo (@joe_palazzolo) March 25, 2014
So what does this have to do with hollow points? Because of how they’re designed — the hollow point opens upon impact, similar to how a flower blooms, thereby increasing drag and greatly reducing projectile speed — they greatly reduce the chance of overpenetration (for the same reason, hollow points are also not even close to being “armor-piercing”). How does that make them safer? The reduced bullet penetration reduces the likelihood of the bullet you fired on target hitting someone or something it wasn’t supposed to hit. Now, hollow points are definitely not safer for the person who’s hit by them. The opening of the bullet upon impact increases the effective diameter of the bullet, which leads to greater damage to the target.
That also makes it safer for all innocent bystanders, though. Why? Because you likely will not need to put as many shots on target in order to neutralize the threat. Fewer shots needed on target means fewer shots that need to be fired, which means a lower likelihood of an innocent person being hit. If you keep a gun in your home or on your body for personal protection, you absolutely should be using some type of hollow point ammunition, not FMJ ammunition, because FMJ ammunition is more likely to penetrate through walls and endanger whoever happens to be on the other side of them. FMJ ammunition should be reserved almost exclusively for the gun range.
13) Most Gun Owners Understand Gun Laws A Lot Better Than Gun Controllers Do
While I don’t doubt the desire of many gun controllers to reduce gun violence in the country, I do doubt their understanding of federal, state, and local gun laws in the U.S. A person who carries a weapon every day is far more likely to know the particulars of his or her state’s gun laws, because that person is in legal jeopardy in the event that he or she gets the law wrong. People who get paid to talk on TV for a living will not pay any real penalty if they completely screw up a state’s gun laws. An individual with a gun, however, can pay a very severe price if they don’t follow every gun law to the letter. Just ask this man, who faces a decade in prison for possessing an antique 18th-century flintlock pistol.
The controversy around the so-called “gun show loophole” is a perfect example of basic ignorance about the nation’s gun laws and their effects.
@scott_stephen 90% of Americans favor ending the gun show loophole but NRA owns enough Dems and GOPs to block even having a vote.
John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) December 27, 2014
There is no gun show loophole, period. The vast majority of gun show sales are conducted by federal firearms licensees, or FFLs, and FFL sales are strictly regulated by the federal government. Every FFL sale must be accompanied by a background check. No ifs, ands, or buts. Every sale of a firearm across state lines — for example, a resident of State A buying a gun in State B — must be processed by an FFL in the purchaser’s state. And what did we just learn about FFL sales? You can’t buy a gun from an FFL without undergoing a background check.
At the federal level (this is a key distinction), the only type of purchase that doesn’t require a background check is a private transaction between two individuals who reside in the same state. Gun shows have absolutely nothing to do with it. And if you think a federal universal background check is going to keep criminals from buying guns from each other, then I’d like to know why it hasn’t prevented them from buying drugs from each other.
14) “Universal Background Checks” Are Already The Law In Many States
What gun controllers won’t tell you is that “universal background checks” are the norm in a large number of states, notwithstanding the lack of a federal law requiring universal background checks. The gun controllers know this, but they’d rather force a one-size-fits-all federal policy one time than take the time and effort required to convince each state that it’s a good policy for that state.
Take Illinois, for example. Illinois requires universal background checks on all firearms purchases. Until recently, the city of Chicago virtually banned gun possession. Did those laws do anything to curb violent crime in the state? Of course not. Other states that require universal background checks on all firearms purchases include California and New York. How’s violent crime in those states, other than really high?
Some states require universal background checks only on handguns. North Carolina is one of those states. It requires either a concealed carry permit or a government-issued purchase permit, both of which require background checks, before an individual can purchase a handgun. In this case, two background checks are completed if you purchase a handgun from an FFL in North Carolina: once by the county that issues your purchase permit, and once by the FFL that sells you your handgun. Why do I single out North Carolina? Because it was in North Carolina that a crazed leftist armed with a handgun allegedly murdered three young Muslims over what appears to be a parking dispute. He passed his background check with flying colors.
The takeaway? No amount of gun laws or do-goodery is going to keep guns out of the hands of evil people. But those laws can keep guns out of the hands of careful, safe, law-abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves and their families. And that should be a crime.
LETTER TO THE GUN-PHOBIC
[LI] Wow. Just Wow.
This January 9, 2016 Letter to the Editor in The Boston Globe is just amazing, To the man I sat next to on the train: I am the gun owner you hate:
TO THE man I sat next to on my way in to Boston:
When I boarded the commuter rail, you were already in the midst of a spirited phone conversation and didn't seem to care about how loud you were talking. You were talking with someone about the Paris train attack and the growing epidemic of gun violence in America.
You spoke about the "murderous NRA" and "bloodthirsty gun nuts" who were causing our schools to "run red with blood." You spoke profanely of the Republicans who opposed President Obama's call for "sensible gun control," and you lamented the number of "inbred redneck politicians" who have "infiltrated Capitol Hill."
I found myself amazed at the irony of the situation. While you were spewing your venom, I sat quietly next to you with my National Rifle Association membership card in my wallet and my 9mm pistol in its holster. You were only 12 inches away from my legally owned semiautomatic pistol. I suppose I didn't look like the "bloodthirsty gun nut" you thought I should be. It apparently didn't register to you that I could so cleverly disguise myself by wearing a fleece coat, Patriots hat, and khakis.
So, to the angry liberal who sat next to me on the commuter rail: I don't hate you. I don't have any ill feelings toward you. I don't wish to do you harm. And I don't regret sitting next to you. On the contrary; I feel bad for you. It must hurt carrying that much hate inside of you.
You obviously have strong opinions about this hot topic. So, let me say this as plainly as I can: If a bad guy with a gun had decided to walk onto that train and start shooting people, I would have been prepared and able to use my gun to defend my own life and the lives of everyone else on that train, including yours. Although you may hate me, a gun owner, I would risk my life for you.
Opinions and ideologies make a pretty thin shield against the bullets of a madman. Your liberal self-righteousness and ignorance may have made you feel superior and comfortable, but during that 40-minute train ride to Boston, my gun kept you safe.
Dighton, MA, by the way, is in Southeastern Massachusetts near the Rhode Island border where we used to live. It is nothing like the liberal Boston suburbs; very working class and conservative. It's basically the Massachusetts equivalent of flyover country — and I mean that as a compliment.
[Mbatt] Combine hoplophobia with logophobia and you have hoplogophobia, a bizarre disease that afflicts only moonbats. Paul M. Winistorfer, the dean of the College of Natural Resources and Environment at Virginia Tech, has it bad:
The expressions "silver bullet," "pull the trigger," "shoot from the hip" and "under the gun" are used in everyday language across our campus, and commonly even by those in leadership positions. I hear these and similar terms at least once a week, if not once a day. It always makes me cringe.
I cannot help but reflect on the pain and suffering inflicted on so many in our country and around the world by violence involving guns and bullets.
Terms that make Wimpistorfer cringe include:
• Shoot from the hip
• Silver bullet
• Pull the trigger
• Shoot down in flames
• Shoot the breeze
• Shoot yourself in the foot
• Shooting fish in a barrel
• Shot across the bow
• Shot in the dark
• Shotgun marriage
• Point and shoot
• Bite the bullet
• Dodge the bullet
• Smoking gun
• Straight shooter
• Best shot
• Parting shot
• Blown away
• Under the gun
• Hair trigger
• Sweating bullets
Wimpistorfer whimpers that "these phrases are simply inappropriate and insensitive to a world trying to cope with ever-increasing gun and bullet violence."
No doubt someday they will all be banned.
KURT RUSSELL FIRES A FEW ROUNDS
(Breitbart) - In recent interview with Jeffrey Wells, acting legend Kurt Russell responded to questions on the San Bernardino attacks by saying it's "absolutely insane" to "think gun control will change terrorists' point of view."
This was preceded by Russell explaining that he doesn't "understand concepts of conversation about gun culture" because "we've lived with guns since, what, the 7th Century or something?"
But according to Hollywood Elsewhere, Wells continued to paw at Russell, combining the emphasis on terrorism with the suggestion that guns are something "disenfranchised white guys need" so they can "feel good about themselves."
If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists' point of view, I think you're, like, out of your mind. I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it's absolutely insane. The problem, the problem that we're having right now to turn it around. you may think you've got me worried about you're gonna do?
Dude, you're about to find out what I'm gonna do, and that's gonna worry you a lot more. And that's what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I'm a hockey team and I've got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I'm not concerned about what he's gonna do - I'm gonna make him concerned about what I'm gonna do.
Wells responded with, "I get that," and Russell seized the opportunity to go back to an earlier question about the line separating fantasy and reality and said that reality is doing what has to be done to "stop" the guy coming at you-whether that guy is in the hockey scenario or in a scenario hedged in by terrorism. And once you "stop him," Russell said, "That's when things change."
Wells countered by sticking with the gun control theme, saying, "Obama's point was that the guys on the no-fly list, [they're on it] for good reason because of terrorist connections or suspicions, they can get hold of a gun pretty easily."
Russell said, "They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what? They can also get knives and stab you. Whaddaya gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. Whaddaya gonna do about that?"
Wells said, "They didn't kill the people in San Bernardino with cars."
Russell retorted, "But they've killed others that way, haven't they? Yeah, yeah. Whaddaya gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn't the answer."
Wells then said the words, "Just put some controls." to which Russell responded, "Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can't?"
Wells tried to right the ship, saying, "No, not so you can't, just so the idiots can't get hold of them [so easily], that's all."
Russell said, "You really believe they're not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that..? Oh my God. You and I just disagree."
...SAID THE BIG, BAD WOLF
GOD-FREE SAFETY SPACES
THIS GIRLIEMAN SHOT A BIG FAT BLANK
NEW RULES IS NEW RULES
THIS IS FOR THE CHILDREN!
GUN FREE MASS MURDERER
OLD GUYS RULE
OLD GUYS RULE
MUSLIM FREE GUN SHOP
>>> From Breitbart >>>
POP QUIZ TIME
Pop quiz time. Get those red, white and blue crayons ready and see how many of our Bill Of Rights have been used as a snot rag, door mat or toilet paper.
I. Congress cannot make a law that favors the establishment of one particular religion; that prohibits the free exercise of religion; or that restricts freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people to gather and engage in peaceful demonstrations and to petition the government for redress of their grievances.
II. Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to national security, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.
III. No soldier may be quartered in any house during a time of peace without the owner's consent, or in a time of war except as prescribed by law.
IV. People have the right to be free, in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrants may issue without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and specifically describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
V. No person may be tried for a capital or other "infamous crime" unless he or she has first been indicted by a grand jury, except in military cases. No person may be made to answer for the same offense twice (double jeopardy); be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in a criminal case; or be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Nor may private property be taken for public use without fair compensation (eminent domain).
VI. Whenever someone is on trial for committing a crime, he or she has the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime was committed, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be able to compel the testimony of witnesses in his or her favor, and to the assistance of defense counsel.
VIII. Whenever the amount at issue in a lawsuit is over twenty dollars, the parties have the right to a jury trial, and no jury verdict may be overturned except according to the strict rules of the justice system.
VII. There can be no excessive bail or fines, nor cruel and unusual punishment.
IX. This list of rights should not be read to limit in any way any other rights of the people.
X. The powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
We here in the Free State of PIG know some of the answers, but we have a creepy, Orwellian feeling more will be violated, so the answers are somewhat inconclusive but very evident.
Please keep in mind, we do not claim to be Constitutional scholars but as Americans, we know when we are being bent over without any consideration of a reach around.
Gay-KK [Mbatt] The Contrived Indiana RFRA Controversy and the Transition to Hard Tyranny.
Only when totalitarians have consolidated control of the government can they use it to the full extent to impose their ideology. In the meantime, they rely on independent thugs, who engage in political violence and intimidation on an unofficial basis. Three examples are Nazi Brownshirts, Islamic terrorists in countries where Muslims have not yet achieved a majority, and Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana. The latter has incurred the wrath of liberals whipped into a frenzy over the contrived RFRA controversy, thanks to false information disseminated by the "mainstream" media for political purposes:
Memories Pizza in Walkerton, In., has found itself the target of intense online criticism after an ABC News affiliate falsely accused the family-owned business of denying all service to gays and lesbians, a claim that was soon repeated widely by reporters at national outlets. Screeching pieces have been published
Based on an ABC57 article, which was published late Tuesday night, that stated in its original headline, "RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service."
Like most everything liberals have to say relating to religious freedom and homosexuality, the headline was misleading:
The story's own reporting, by ABC57's Alyssa Marino, states, "the O'Connor family said that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service."
The pizzeria owners said, "they just don't agree with gay marriages and wouldn't cater them if asked to," Marino reported.
Pizza is rarely served at weddings.
Rather than denying all service to gays and lesbians, the O'Connors say they just don't want to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious convictions.
Even that stance is unacceptable to the mob of thugs cultural Marxists have mobilized.
The O'Connors were never asked to cater a homosexual parody of a wedding ceremony. Their opinion came to light when ABC57 went out searching for a business owner who holds the same opinion on marriage that virtually everyone in human history — including even Barack Obama — did until a few years ago.
A victim having been found, the mob attacked:
The nine-year-old pizzeria's Yelp page, which had just two reviews earlier this week, has been flooded with a deluge of insults directed at the O'Connor family as well as several pornographic images of men engaged in sex acts with other men.
If only that were the extent of the malice. Jess Dooley, a girl's golf coach at Concord High School in Elkhart, Indiana, took to Twitter to urge someone to burn down the pizzeria. The business was forced to close:
Owner Kevin O'Connor said vitriol toward his restaurant was so intense it was closed until further notice. The eatery began receiving threatening phone calls and social media postings after revealing its support for the law earlier this week.
The law referred to is of course the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is essentially the same as a federal law signed by Bill Clinton and the law in 19 other states, including liberal Illinois, where State Senator Barack Obama voted in its favor (although Obama now officially regards the law as "unthinkable").
Indiana's law is utterly uncontroversial. However, we have reached the point in our deterioration into tyranny where fascists can mobilize a vicious mob on the thinnest pretext, thanks to eager media collaboration.
The O'Connors are currently in hiding, terrified for their safety. Until only recently, Americans would never have believed we could be reduced to this. But maybe this won't be a win for the fascists after all. If we still have any cultural will to live, there will come a backlash. Encouragingly, a Go Fund Me drive to raise money in support of Memories Pizza has already raised over $850,000.
You would never guess it from watching TV, but decent Americans still outnumber militant perverts and those who exploit them to attack Christianity and freedom.
MEMORIES PIZZA - FROM PIG'S HEADLINERS PAGE
[Memories Pizza co-owner Crystal O'Connor was minding her own business, when a News Bitch with an agenda transformed her from Jane Q. Public into the Korrectnic version of Public Enemy Number One.
It appears that Crystal O'Connor is getting the last laugh, an $842,000 laugh.]
[South Bend Tribune] WALKERTON — A crowdfunding campaign for Memories Pizza has topped $842,000 with no signs of slowing.
The pizza shop on Walkerton's main drag became a target of liberal criticism Tuesday evening after the owners told WBND-TV (ABC57) that, though they would never deny service to a gay customer, they would decline to cater a same-sex wedding because such unions conflict with their Christian moral beliefs.
Memories Pizza's owners Crystal and Kevin O'Connor have never actually been asked to cater any type of wedding, and they didn't seek out the spotlight. They were offering their opinion on the hypothetical situation in response to a television reporter's question about the statewide debate over Indiana's recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The comments led people from across the nation and even in other countries to post critical messages, lewd photos and negative reviews about Memories Pizza on the shop's Facebook page and restaurant-rating websites such as Yelp. A Concord High School coach was suspended Wednesday for allegedly tweeting that the pizzeria should be burned.
The O'Connors have not reopened Memories Pizza since the furor erupted, but they have gained support from conservatives who think the shop owners have been bullied for their religious views and didn't realize what they were getting themselves into when they spoke on television about the religious-freedom legislation. Ironically, some of those same supporters have heaped scorn upon WBND-TV and threatened station employees for airing the story that started the drama.
News organizations across the United States have covered the Memories Pizza uproar, and partisan pundits have weighed in as well, but Walkerton's downtown was quiet Friday afternoon. There were no picketers or protesters demonstrating outside the closed shop.
TheBlaze, a news and entertainment network founded by Glenn Beck, started a fundraising campaign on the website GoFundMe to help the O'Connors recoup revenue they're losing while Memories Pizza is closed. As of 10 a.m. Saturday, the campaign had attracted $842,592 from 29,166 people. The original goal was $25,000.
The O'Connors gave an interview to TheBlaze on Thursday. Kevin O'Connor told program host Dana Loesch that they planned to reopen Memories Pizza, but he didn't say when they will do that.
Regarding the money raised, he said, "That's so greatly appreciated, but even without the money — that's a secondary thing — just the kind words is what really built me back up. You gotta have money to live, but it's not important. We would have gotten by."
PIGish Last Word: Only in America? You better believe it.
DON'T LIKE THEIR GUNS? COME AND GET 'EM
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading."
In a gunfight, the most important rule is ... HAVE A GUN!
If you own a gun, you will appreciate these rules... If not, you should get one, learn how to use it and learn the rules.
A: Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.
B: Its always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
C: Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
D: Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arm's length.
E: Never say "I've got a gun." If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they should hear is the safety clicking off or the hammer cocking.
F: The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
G: The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always Win - there is no such thing as a fair fight. Always Win - cheat if necessary. Always Win - 2nd place doesn't count.
H: Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets ... You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it because it will be empty.
I: If you're in a gun fight: (a) If you're not shooting, you should be loading. (b) If you're not loading, you should be moving. (c) If you're not moving, you're dead.
J: In a life and death situation, do something ... it may be wrong, but do something!
K: If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
L: You can say "stop" or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much a universal language; and, you won't have to press 1 for Spanish or 2 for Chinese or 3 for Arabic.
M: Never leave an enemy behind alive. If you have to shoot, shoot to kill. In court, yours will be the only testimony.
N: You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.
What I learned in US History and Civics in High School
By: PIGster Heather
The Bill of Rights
We discussed it, learned the first ten amendments, then gave up on that unimportant little bit of information to just go ahead and discuss the tragedies caused be certain rights we have as Americans. We were informed (by our very liberally biased teacher) that the second amendment, our right to bear arms, was out-dated and unnecessary. The citizenry does not need to be armed, because of course we have the police and the armed forces and people just don't need to be able to defend themselves against attackers, burglars, muggers, rapists, terrorists, drug addicts, gang members, the insane, wild animals or any other being who might attack us. Pepper spray and self defense classes are surely enough to make you feel safe when confronted with a world of desperate criminals, angry people on angel dust, ak-47s and large brown bears. Granted, many of these situations may never present themselves, but if they do, how long will you survive waiting for the authorities to get there? We weren't even tested on the bill of rights.
FLAGRANT VIOLATION! HOW DARE HE BREAK THE RULES!
ANOTHER 'AFTER THE FACT' MOMENT
HOTTIES WITH HEATERS
"Aside from the killings, DC has one of the lowest crime rates in the country." — Former D.C. Mayor, Marion Barry
Hypocrisy, Courtesy Of An Elected Dirt Bag
[Mbatt] Drunken Anti-Gun State Senator Arrested Among Ferguson Mob With Loaded Gun
The hypocrisy of liberals is like the national debt they have run up — too vast to comprehend:
Missouri state Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a Democrat who has sponsored several "anti-gun" bills in her state, was arrested Monday night during a protest outside of the Ferguson Police Department. However, it's what police officers found on her that is raising eyebrows.
Nasheed was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun and extra rounds of ammunition, according to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson. She also refused to take a breathalyzer test after officers determined she "smelled strongly of intoxicants," sources told KMOV-TV.
t's okay, State Senator Nasheed says she needs a gun for self-defense. We who are not part of the government don't, because our lives are expendable.
>>> OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM >>>
Some words to the wise. Shooting Advice from various Concealed Carry Instructors. If you own a gun, you will appreciate this. If not, you should get one and learn how to use it:
A) Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.
B) Its always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
C) Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
D) Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.
E) Never say "I've got a gun." If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.
F) The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes, the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
G) The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.
H) Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it, because it'll be empty.
I) If you're in a gun fight: 1- If you're not shooting, you should be loading. 2- If you're not loading, you should be moving, and 3- If you're not moving, you're dead.
J) In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!
K) If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
L) You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much a universal language.
M) You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.
The U.S. Senate Voted 53-46 Vote Against U.N. Resolution
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries”.
By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. HOORAY.
Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legis..traitors”… vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.