Russia’s iconic AK-47 to be made in USA

1 Comment

This is from Fox News.

This news has Obama and the DemocRats going nuts.

It’s as Russian as borscht, but the AK-47 will soon be made in Florida.

The weapon of choice for guerrillas, terrorists and the soldiers of armies around the world, some 100 million AK-47s have been made in Russia since it rolled off the line in 1947. But now, the company’s U.S. arm is planning to manufacture the gun at a plant in Pompano Beach, Fla.

“An iconic firearms platform, revered the world over, with a history of intrigue and controversy, now reborn as the new American Kalashnikov,” the company said in a statement.

The rifle dreamed up by Russian Army tank commander Mikhail Kalashnikov as he lay on a hospital bed after being wounded fighting the Germans in the 1941 Battle of Bryansk, became the world’s most popular firearm. The signature AK-47 — which stands for “Avtomat Kalashnikov,” or “Kalashnikov’s machine,” and the initial year of production, was long available for import from Moscow until the U.S. imposed sanctions in 2014 in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Crimea.

Last year, RWC, which was the official importer and distributor of Kalashnikov firearms, was forced to cut ties with the Russian company. But it retained the U.S. rights to the name and initially opened a small assembly facility in Tullytown, Pa. Now, the company is planning a full-fledged manufacturing plant in the Atlantic Coast community just north of Fort Lauderdale.

“Whether you are a sport shooter, hunter, protecting family, home and country, the new Kalashnikov USA firearms will exceed your expectations of how a firearm should perform,” the company statement read.

Pompano Beach spokeswoman Sandra King said the company plan had been approved by the city, but did not have details on how many jobs the factory would generate or what its annual output would be. Kalshnikov USA spokeswoman Laura Burgess could not be reached for comment.

The company launched new rifle and shotgun models last week at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, the annual conference of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The new firearms include the “Alpha” line of rifles, with 30-round magazines.

While the company will offer various guns, the AK-47 will likely be a top seller. In the U.S. market, its main competition is the AR-15, but both are reliable weapons, said firearms instructor Steve Norrris, who teaches at the Markham Park Target Range in nearby Sunrise.

“The AK-47 is just as good, if not better,” he said. “One problem has long been getting parts, which maybe now would not be an issue. A lot of people have always bought AK-47s just for the history.”

Mikhail Kalashnikov, who died in December 2013 at the age of 94, once said he felt personally untroubled by his contribution to bloodshed.

“I sleep well. It’s the politicians who are to blame for failing to come to an agreement and resorting to violence,” he said in 2007.



Best of the Cold War Military Technology

Leave a comment

This is from War History OnLine.

During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the US were in a military race to out-do each other, and military technology developments during that period have outweighed any other in history.

 It was the constant threat of all-out nuclear devastation that kept both sides driven to develop a weapon or defence system that could attack or protect with equal or heightened measure.

Here are some of the most dangerous weapons and equipment developed during that time.

USS George Washington

USS George Washington (SSBN-598) – Wikipedia

The first ballistic nuclear missile submarine was built by the US only 12 years after the country had dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War Two.

The Washington was created as a submarine for attack purposes and was made extra-long so that it could hold 16 nuclear missiles with a range of around 1500 miles. Prior to the Washington the only way to deliver nuclear missiles was by using the airpower of the B-29.


military technology


The Soviet-made Kalashnikova model 1947 remains one of the most famous and used rifles of all time. It has a 30 round magazine and it can be recognised the world over. It is lightweight, easy to use and hard-wearing. Because of its ease of use, unfortunately it is often used by child soldiers in areas of conflict.

Mikhail Kalashnikov is said to have designed the rifle, who was a mechanic and tank driver during the war.

F-4 Phantom

A McDonnell F-4B Phantom II (BuNo. 152243) of Marine fighter-bomber squadron VMFA-314 Black Knights returns to Chu Lai airbase, South Vietnam, in September 1968 – Wikipedia

A US fighter bomber built around 13 years after World War Two, it could reach the highest speeds within aviation development at the time. It could carry around 18,000lbs of munitions, but was also a fighter aircraft at the same time.

It was widely flown by the US, Germany, Japan, and Israel. With twin-engines, it was superior to any other fighter aircraft in the skies.



The Fusil Automatique Léger (“Light Automatic Rifle”) or FAL is a semi-automatic/selective fire battle rifle produced by the Belgian armaments manufacturer Fabrique Nationale de Herstal (FN). During the Cold War it was adopted by many North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with the notable exception of the United States. It is one of the most widely used rifles in history, having been used by more than 90 countries.

The FAL was predominantly chambered for the 7.62×51mm NATO round, and because of its prevalence and widespread use among the armed forces of many NATO countries during the Cold War it was nicknamed “The right arm of the Free World”.

A British Commonwealth derivative of the FN FAL has been produced under licence as the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle.

Chieftain Main Battle Tank

Chieftain tank in action at the Bovington Tank Museum – Wikipedia

Made by the British Army in 1966, it was one of the most powerful tanks of its time. It was large and heavy and had been based on the Centurion tank developed at the end of World War Two, with better armor and engine.

It had a 120mm main gun, while the rifled gun was bigger and more powerful than other Allied or Soviet tanks.


MiG-15 delivered by the defecting North Korean pilot No Kum-Sok to the US Air Force

The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 iss a jet fighter aircraft developed by the Soviet Union. The MiG-15 was one of the first successful jet fighters to incorporate swept wings to achieve high transonic speeds. Introduced in combat over the skies of Korea, it outclassed straight-winged jet day fighters which were largely relegated to ground attack roles, and was quickly countered by the similar American swept-wing F-86 Sabre.

The MiG-15 is often mentioned, along with the North American F-86 Sabre, as the best fighter aircraft of the Korean War, and among the best fighter aircraft of all time.

Los Angeles class Submarines
030729-N-5465P-004 Pacific Ocean (Jul. 29, 2003) -- Crewmen aboard the Los Angeles-class nuclear powered attack submarine USS Asheville (SSN 758), man the topside navigation watch as the submarine operates at high speed near San Diego.  U.S. Navy photo by Journalist 2nd Class Thomas C. Peterson.  (RELEASED)

USS Asheville (SSN-758) – Source

The Los Angeles class (also known as the 688-class) is a class of nuclear-powered fast attack submarines in service with the United States Navy. They represent two generations and close to half a century of the U.S. Navy’s attack submarine fleet.

In 1982 after building 31 boats, the class underwent a minor redesign, the following 8 that made up the second “flight” of subs had 12 new vertical launch tubes that could fire Tomahawk missiles. The last 23 saw a significant upgrade with the 688i improvement program. These boats are quieter, with more advanced electronics, sensors, and noise reduction technology. Externally they can be recognized quickly as their retractable diving planes were placed at their bows rather than on their sails.

The Rocket Propelled Granade RPG-7

RPG-7 with warhead detached – Wikipedia

The RPG-7 is a portable, reusable, unguided, shoulder-launched, anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Originally the RPG-7 and its predecessor, the RPG-2, was designed by the Soviet Union.

The ruggedness, simplicity, low cost, and effectiveness of the RPG-7 has made it the most widely used anti-armor weapon in the world. Currently around 40 countries use the weapon, and it is manufactured in several variants by nine countries. It is popular with irregular and guerrilla forces. The RPG has been used in almost all conflicts across all continents since the mid-1960s from the Vietnam War to the early 2010s War in Afghanistan.

The Mi-24 Hind


The Mi-24, a large helicopter gunship, attack helicopter and low-capacity troop transport with room for eight passengers. It has been operated since 1972 by the Soviet Air Force and its successors, along with more than 30 other nations. In total around 2300 MI-24’s have been built and most are still in service.

The Mi-24 fuselage is heavily armored and can resist impacts from 0.50 cal rounds from all angles, the cockpit is protected by ballistic-resistant windscreens and a titanium-armored tub.

The first combat use of the Mi-24 was with the Ethiopian forces during the Ogaden War against Somalia. The helicopters formed part of a massive airlift of military equipment from the Soviet Union, after the Soviets switched sides towards the end of 1977.

F-16 Falcon


The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a single-engine multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics for the United States Air Force (USAF). Designed as an air superiority day fighter, it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. Over 4,500 aircraft have been built since production was approved in 1976.

The Fighting Falcon has key features including a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control while maneuvering, a seat reclined 30 degrees to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot, and the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control system which helps to make it a nimble aircraft. The F-16 has an internal M61 Vulcan cannon and 11 locations for mounting weapons and other mission equipment.

Officer Armed With Pistol Killed Two Jihadis With Body Armor, Rifles

1 Comment

This is from Bearing Arms.

Round One of Cowboys and Muslims, Cowboys 2- Muslims 0.


One comment I’ve heard from those who would strip you of your Second Amendment rights is that carrying a handgun for personal defense against heavily-armed and armored terrorists would be an entirely futile effort, certain to lead to your pointless death.

An officer with the Garland Police Department vehemently disagreed with that sentiment last night, drawing his sidearm and killing two would-be jihadis after they attempted to storm a free speech demonstration.

A traffic officer working after hours as security for the event and armed only with a service pistol killed both men, who were wearing body armor and carrying assault rifles, Garland Police Department spokesman Joe Harn told reporters Monday.

“He did what he was trained to do, and under the fire that he was put under, he did a very good job. And probably saved lives,” Harn said of the unidentified officer. “We think their strategy was to get into the event center, and they were not able to get past our perimeter that we had set up.”

An unarmed security officer working with the patrol officer was shot in the ankle, police said. None of the approximately 200 people attending the event were hurt.

The would-be terrorists were allegedly armed with AK-47 “assault rifles” and were wearing “body armor” according to a number of sources. While it is possible that terrorists could obtain real selective-fire AKMs from their allies in Mexican drug cartels, it is more probable that the weapons in use are merely run-of-the-mill AKMs. Likewise, while it is possible that the terrorists where wearing body armor, it is more likely that they were wearing simple load-bearing equipment (LBE).

The two Islamic terrorists who attempted to attack the building opened fired from either in or beside their vehicle (the details are still unclear at this point) and struck an unarmed security guard in the ankle with a single bullet. A uniformed Garland traffic officer armed only with his duty sidearm then drew his pistol and engaged the terrorists, killing both men before they could step more than a few feet from their vehicle.

Picture taken just before #garlandshooting . Thank God the heroes of SWAT-team prevented the worst.


The heavily armed Garland SWAT police that we’ve seen in most of the media coverage never fired a shot, as the terrorists didn’t get that close.

This incident clearly shows that a decently-trained and level-headed handgun shooter can engage with and destroy rifle-armed adversaries, and that a perceived  firepower advantage is irrelevant if those with the firepower lack skill to aim their weapons effectively.

Practice, practice, practice, folks.

Host of “America’s Most Wanted” Wants to Put GPS Chips in All Guns

Leave a comment

This is from The Right To Bear.

John Walsh can take his GPS chips and shove them up his dumb ass.

GPS in cell phones is one thing while GPS chips in our firearms are Big Brother.

I do not want and will not allow the chips placed in my firearms.


John Walsh was recently given a position as a new CNN anchor for a new show called “The Hunt,” which is built on the same premise as his fugitive-finding show “America’s Most Wanted.”

While stopping in New York for a luncheon, he had some interesting things to say about gun registration and tougher gun laws:

“I’m a gun owner. I’ve hunted all my life. I hunt quail on my own ranch,” he told reporters. “And I am the biggest advocate for background checks of any gun owner in America.”

Walsh later posed a question for lawmakers: “If we really love our women and children, why do we allow this amount of crime and exploitation of them to go on? Why don’t we do something different?”

Among his suggestions for reducing gun violence: Increased mental health checks — “I could name 15 first-world countries that check your mental state before you get a gun,” he said — and a requirement that gun manufacturers include a GPS tracking device in every weapon.

“Everyone of us have a GPS chip in our cellphones,” he said. It’s not Big Brother to put those GPS chips in that AK-47.”

While Walsh thinks it’s not a big deal to have GPS tracking devices on guns, many Americans aren’t so quick to agree, hence the massive push for pro-gun politicians in local, state, and even national roles.

And it looks like the advocacy is paying off.

As Walsh points out, one of the biggest reasons tougher gun laws haven’t been pushed through is because many in Congress are terrified of Tea Party opponents who are offering firm resistance to new gun laws.

He notes that it’s fear on the part of many liberals that prevents the tougher, more draconian gun laws from being passed.

That clearly shows that conservatives can’t let up and must continue to elect as many pro-gun lawmakers as possible to preserve the ability of Americans to carry and own any weapon of their choosing, without the government knowing everything about their weapons.


Leave a comment

This is from World Net Daily.

I recall when I lived in South Florida the Sheriffs Department

used No Knock Warrants to harass people.

Their claims was they thought the people were dealing drugs.

 People started shooting  Deputies and the practice stopped.

I am not advocating harming any LEO.

People need to ban together to stop this bullshit.


But appeal challenges constitutionality of cops’ fear of AK-47

A Texas citizen is asking a state appeals court to decide whether police are justified in launching a no-knock raid on a home they want to search simply because they believe there is a gun inside.

“Whatever the issue might be, whether it’s mass surveillance, no-knock raids, or the right to freely express one’s views about the government, we’ve moved into a new age in which the rights of the citizenry are being treated as a secondary concern by the White House, Congress, the courts and their vast holding of employees, including law enforcement officials,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which is defending John Gerard Quinn.

The controversy arose after police officers in Texas executed a no-knock raid on Quinn’s home, based on their belief there was an AK-47 rifle inside.

In its appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Rutherford Institute pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a no-knock entry is justified only with a specific warrant or if officers believe someone might be hurt or evidence might be lost.

“Here, the police based their no-knock entry solely upon their suspicion that the occupants of the residence may have been in possession of a rifle,” the appeal explains. “That the suspected possession of weapons was the only ‘justification’ for use of a no-knock entry in this case is undisputed.”

The petition asks that the court establish that an individual’s exercise of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in his residence does not deprive him of his Fourth Amendment protection against “no-knock” searches.

Quinn’s home had been “stormed by a SWAT team that failed to knock and announce its entry in keeping with police protocol for non-violent situations,” Rutherford said.

“Although the SWAT team had been granted a search warrant on the basis of leads provided by informants that Quinn’s son may have been involved in drug activity, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry.”

The SWAT team forcibly broke into Quinn’s home after he had gone to bed and proceeded to carry out a search of the premises. The raid resulted in police finding less than one gram of cocaine, which Quinn was charged with possessing.

The appeal also raises other constitutional issues, including a defective answer from a judge to the jury deliberating the case and the inappropriate use of evidence that should have been suppressed.

But on the issue of the gun in the home, the brief argues that the Supreme Court never has held that suspected possession of firearms is sufficient cause, without more, to justify a no-knock entry.

The brief also criticizes earlier court comments about the AK-47.

“The [court] seems to think than an ‘AK-47′ rifle is some sort of ‘exceptionally’ dangerous weapon. Actually, despite the faux mystique surrounding that particular type of rifle fostered by popular media, the AK-47 is not uniquely dangerous,” a footnote in the brief explains. “It is the most-used rifle in the world because there are 100 million of them, it is cheap to make and easy to repair, and because it can be chambered for a wide variety of calibers.

“When chambered for .223 caliber … it is no more dangerous than any other .223 caliber rifle such as the AR-15 – the most widely used hunting rifle in the U.S. today,” the footnote says.

“As a gun collector who prudently kept his legally owned collection safely secured in gun vaults, it was altogether possible that Mr. Quinn could have had a large number of guns in his home and no ammunition. The point here is not to argue that ‘possession’ of guns does not roughly or usually equate to possession of ‘working’ guns. The point is: an AK-47 is no more powerful – and is indeed less powerful – than many common hunting rifles.

“The police, being weapons experts, obviously knew this – but testified about the ‘dangerous’ nature of this particular gun because they knew the jury would have heard of it in the media and would know about its mystique as the weapon of choice for terrorists around the world. Clever, but misleading.”


What Is An Assault Rifle?

Leave a comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

I think Ronald Reagan said it best.

The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Ronald Reagan


Almost everything on the liberal agenda uses an Orwellian label and the “assault” gun ban is no exception. The media campaign for the ban has been so successful that many don’t even know what an assault rifle actually is, yet are all for banning them. None of the guns banned in the erroneously titled Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (FAWB), were actually assault rifles as they were all semi-automatic only. The true assault rifles were already highly controlled before they even existed, by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulated all fully automatic weapons. Furthermore, the importation or manufacture of assault rifles has been banned for civilians since the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986.

In short: An assault rifle is a selective firerifle that uses a medium powered cartridge and a detachable magazine. The phrase “high powered assault rifle” is an oxymoron and use of it demonstrates ignorance of the topic, as does “semi-auto assault rifle.”

Selective fire means the weapon is capable of firing in fully automatic (the rifle continues to fire the next cartridge as long as the trigger is pulled), or semi-automatic (loads the next round automatically but requires the trigger to be pulled each time the gun is fired). Burst fire rifles discharge more than one shot, as in a 3 round burst per trigger pull, and are considered automatic rifles; they are TRUE assault rifles.

Medium or intermediate powered cartridges fill the gap between the pistol ammunition (used in sub-machine guns) and full powered (high powered) battle rifles. Pistol ammo lacks the stopping power and range for many battle situations. While the full powered rifle ammo, with over 2,000 ft. lbs. of energy, has too much recoil for affective full-auto use in lightweight rifles.

The first assault rifle was the German Sturmgewehr, also called the StG44, and literally translates as “storm rifle”. The rifle got its intermediate power by shortening the 7.92 x 57 Mauser rifle cartridge to the 7.92 x 33 Kurz. This was developed late in World War 2, long after automatic rifles were controlled for civilian use in the United States. In response to the German design, the Russians developed the AK-47, and the US adopted the M-16. The M-14, although capable of selective fire and has a detachable magazine, is a battle rifle and are not an assault rifle because the 7.62 x 51 (308 Winchester) cartridge would be considered a full power cartridge for military purposes, and is virtually impossible to aim accurately in full-auto firing. Semi-auto for civilian use versions of the AK series rifles and the M-16 are what the media tries to claim are “assault weapons”.

Prices skyrocketed, and there was an explosion of sales between when the FAWB passed and went into effect; creating a huge demand for slightly modified versions of the banned guns that, once cosmetically adjusted, were not affected by the FAWB. Ironically, the guns were not very popular for civilian ownership before their ban, and were seldom used in crimes, accounting for less than 2% of armed crimes*. I was unable to find evidence of any legally owned assault rifle ever being used by the owner in a gun crime.

The term “assault weapon” is a phrase coined by the media and their anti-gun minions. It would be very difficult to define, since the common determination of what is an assault weapon is based on its appearance and what they feel is offensive. They usually include things like pistol grips, high capacity magazines, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and folding or collapsible stocks. True assault weapons generally have these features and though it’s not a requirement, often will have a short barrel to keep weight down and allow for quicker/easier handling. I have never heard of any civilian causality caused by the pistol grip, folding stock, or flash suppressor of a weapon. But I have no doubt that many lives have been saved because of their intimidation factor, making it less likely that one would even need to fire the weapon, whether it’s in self defense or to prevent a crime. Keep in mind that virtually any weapon can be used for assault, and any object as a weapon.


*Congressional Research Service report: see page 93, paragraph 2.



NRA opposes U.N. arms treaty

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Post.

Lurch Kerry says “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”

His boss Comrade Obama is willing to support the treaty.

Will Lurch Kerry or Comrade Obama win the debate?

I am leaning toward Comrade Obama considering his past.


The National Rifle Association, which is battling a raft of gun control measures on Capitol Hill, also has an international fight on its hand as it gears up to oppose a U.N. treaty designed to restrict the flow of arms to conflict zones.

Negotiations open Monday in New York on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require countries to determine whether weapons they sell would be used to commit serious human rights violations, terrorism or transnational organized crime.

The gun lobby fears that the treaty would be used to regulate civilian weapons. Human rights activists counter that it would reduce the trafficking of weapons, including small arms such as the ubiquitous AK-47 assault rifle, to outlaw regimes and rebel groups engaged in atrocities against civilian populations.

“This treaty is a common-sense alignment of the interests of governments, law-abiding citizens and individuals all over the world, who deserve the right to live free from harm,” said Michelle A. Ringuette, chief of campaigns and programs at Amnesty International USA. “Any step toward restraining the illicit sale and transfer of weapons used to commit horrific crimes is a good move forward, and the world could use a lot more steps in the direction of ending human rights abuses.”

The Obama administration, which has wavered on the treaty, signaled Friday that it was willing to support the accord. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said in a statement. “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”

The NRA is among the treaty’s most vocal opponents and a founder of the World Forum on Shooting Activities, an international coalition of gun rights activists and gun manufacturers who plan to speak against the treaty.

“What we really object to is the inclusion of civilian firearms within the scope of the ATT,” said Tom Mason, the group’s executive secretary and a lawyer who has represented the NRA at U.N. meetings for nearly two decades. “This is a treaty that really needs to address the transfer of large numbers of military weapons that leads to human rights abuses. We have submitted language that you can define what a civilian firearm is.”

The NRA also argues that the treaty could infringe on gun rights as understood in the United States and could force Americans onto an international registry.

Activists say the NRA wants to gut the treaty. “The NRA claim that there is such a thing as ‘civilian weapons’ and that these can and need to be treated differently from military weapons under the Arms Trade Treaty is — to put it politely — the gun lobby’s creativity on full display,” Ringuette said in a statement. “There is no such distinction. To try to create one would create a loophole that would render the treaty inoperative, as anyone could claim that he or she was in the business of trading ‘civilian weapons.’ ”

The American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights said in a white paper last month that “it is unlikely the proposed treaty would compromise Second Amendment rights,” and if it did, “the treaty itself would be void.”

The treaty, which has been years in the making, would cover battle tanks, artillery, combat aircraft, warships and missiles as well as small arms and light weapons. Global sales of conventional arms reach tens of billions of dollars annually, and the biggest players are the United States, China and Russia.

The treaty lacks real enforcement mechanisms, but activists said it could be used to name and shame arms exporters who violate its terms.

The United Nations seemed on the verge of adopting a draft treaty last July when the United States suspended negotiations on the last day, and China and Russia, which had their own reservations, also pulled out.

The Obama administration said it had a number of technical issues, but activists said there was also a failure of political nerve several months before the presidential election. During the negotiations, the NRA organized a letter signed by a group of 51 Democratic and Republican senators opposing the treaty. The senators warned President Obama that they would “oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.”

After the election, the administration agreed to return to the negotiating table along with China and Russia. Officials at Amnesty and other organizations said they were confident that China and Russia would support the final draft, which is expected to be negotiated next week.

The NRA seems reconciled to the likelihood that a treaty will pass. “I tend to think they will do something,” Mason said. “They are just desperate for a product. They want to bring something home.”

If the NRA loses this month in New York, the organization would probably shift its focus to the Senate to prevent ratification of the pact.


Let’s Stop Acting Like There’s a Debate about the 2nd Amendment

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

There is not any debate form the left on The Second Amendment.

The left only wants to void the Second Amendment and  confiscate guns.

In fact they want to scrap The Bill Of Rights.

The left only wants The First Amendment to apply to them only.

Guns and Flag

After the president, with help from his fraternizers in the deceptive state-run media, somehow won his re-election campaign, I thought it was important to note the first thing Obama and his administration did was turn its attention to the United Nations gun treaty talks.

Hmm, I wonder … If he really had the support of the American people, why is he so busy trying to disarm those who supposedly love him so much?

And all the while Obama and his administration are busy trying to disarm the American people by conjuring up criminals guilty of some sort of gun crimes as an excuse for new gun legislation.

Well, then, let me help: This administration need not look any further than within its own ranks.

And this, friends, is the very reason we are an armed people.

As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder is guilty of putting thousands of assault rifles (AK-47s) into the hands of Mexican drug lords in an attempt to blame the American people for the crimes administration officials are guilty of contriving and committing. As a result, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, along with hundreds of Mexican civilians, including teens at a birthday party and a Mexican beauty queen.

The state-run media conveniently pulled a media blackout on Fast and Furious, and some Americans gave them a pass and have “forgotten” the atrocities committed upon them by their own government, therefore strengthening tyranny so it might assault the people again on a later date.

The “later date” occurred in Benghazi, when Ambassador Chris Stevens, two Navy SEALs and another U.S. citizen were killed on Sept. 11, 2012.

The Blaze reported:

“The details of the September 11 attack that killed four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are still murky, and there is certainly more to be known.

“Former CIA officer Clare Lopez argues that the key issue is the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with al-Qaida.

“‘That relationship, Lopez argues, could be connected to the rise of Islamic brigades in Syria, who recently created a “Front to Liberate Syria” to wage jihad against the Syrian regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.’”

The Business Insider stated:

“In 2011 the U.S. sold $33.4 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and $1.7 billion to Qatar as sales tripled to a record high and accounted for nearly 78 percent of all global arms sales.

“‘The opposition groups that are receiving most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,’ one American official familiar with the situation told the New York Times.”

So, America, was Ambassador Stevens gun running to extreme jihadists? Was Eric Holder responsible for putting guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels? You decide.

Holder has been contriving a gun grab for years. For those who didn’t know, it recently came to light that Holder encouraged the media to “brainwash” the youth about how bad guns are when he was a part of Clinton’s anti-gun administration.

What is interesting here is that the young, through Hollywood and video games, are conveniently taught a “thug” mentality and how to commit crimes. In the meantime, corrupt politicians wait to trample the Constitution and legislate new policies to disarm the American population, leaving them defenseless when the crimes are committed.

Just look at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc.

Thomas Jefferson stated that the whole purpose of government is to “ensure your rights,” not to take them away.

What this administration is attempting to do is exactly what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any other dictator has done. They blame the weapon rather than the person committing the crimes and all the while subtly encourage criminal activity.

Friends, this is not about guns; it is about control. And this issue is not to be overlooked, because gun rights stand between a free country and an enslaved, possibly an exterminated, people.

The Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE State, the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [violated].”

According to Federal Statute Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 (a), all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are either citizens of the United States or have declared their intent to become citizens are members of the “unorganized” or reserve militia.

It is time for America to get out of the debate because there is no debate.

We have rights given unto us by our Creator. Period.

President George Washington, when arming the people of the United States of America, said:

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

We would do well to heed President Washington’s warning, since over 56 million people in the 20th century were exterminated by their own governments under the guise of gun control.

Read more:

The Makings of a Good Democrat

Leave a comment

This is from Political Outcast.

Joseph D. Morrissey has all the makings of a Good DemocRat.

In 1999 Morrissey brutally assaulted a man say he would kill him.

Morrissey had his law license was  revoked.

Joseph D.Morrissey would make Turd(Ted) Kennedy very proud.

A week ago Thursday, Joseph D. Morrissey, a Delegate to the Virginia legislature introduced a bill into the Virginia House of Delegates (similar to House of Representatives in most states), to ban assault weapons and other gun control measures.  In an attempt to shock his fellow politicians, he suddenly held up an AK-47 assault rifle and told his colleagues that no one needs to own one of those horrible weapons.  Morrissey spoke out against all forms of violence, especially violence committed with a gun.

During Morrissey’s tirade against assault weapons, he had his finger on the trigger of the assault rifle as he shook it in the air.  Republican Todd Gilbert actually interrupted Morrissey and asked him to take his finger off the trigger before anything accidental happened.  Anyone who knows anything about guns and handling them would know that you never put your finger on the trigger of a gun unless you plan to fire it.

Morrissey is a good Democrat, following in the traditions of the Democratic Party and its biggest heroes.

So what made Morrissey such a good Democrat?

From 1989 to 1993, Morrissey served as the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Richmond, Virginia.  While prosecuting a rape case in 1993, he had his law license suspended for 6 months following the complaint of the rape victim.  She claimed that Morrissey allowed the father of the rapist to pay $50,000, half to her and half to charities of Morrissey’s liking and then offered the rapist a plea bargain that reduced his charge from a felony to a misdemeanor and then hid the details of the plea bargain from her, which is a criminal offense.

Earlier that year, he was censored for misconduct for the way he mishandled a felony drunk-driving case.  In this case, Morrissey took it upon himself to issue a new arrest warrant for the driver that reduced his felony charge to a misdemeanor without just cause.

In 1999, Morrissey physically attacked another person.  During the attack, Morrissey shouted:

“I’m going to kill you. I’m going to beat your head in.”

He then proceeded to start beating the victim and smashed his head into the corner of a brick wall.  In 2002, he was convicted of the physical assault.  He was ordered by the court to pay his victim $500,000, which he finally paid in 2007.

By this time, Morrissey had a legal rap sheet as long as many career criminals.  In 2003, his license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia was revoked by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board.

So what does a disbarred lawyer do to make a living?  You go into politics.

In 2007, Morrissey ran for the Virginia House of Delegates, 74th District, which includes part of Richmond, Virginia the eastern part of Henrico County, Charles City County and a portion of Prince George County.  The people of the 74th District paid no attention to Morrissey’s unethical past and voted him into office and he was sworn in in January of 2008 and continues to serve to this day.

I suspect his position as a member of the House of Delegates was enough pressure to get the Supreme Court of Virginia to approve a petition to re-instate his license to practice law and re-admit him to the state Bar Association.

With a legal misconduct rap sheet a mile long, being disbarred and irresponsibly waving an assault rifle on the floor of legislature evidently qualified Joseph D. Morrissey to be a good Democratic politician.

Read more:

The Shotgun: How the English lost their right to self-defense!


This from Clash Daily.

Obama and the progressives  Communist want for America.

We need to stay alert.


You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.  With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.  You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.  One holds something that looks like a crowbar.  When one intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.  Three blasts knock both thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.  In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.  Yours was never registered.

The police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.  They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask. “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.  “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.  Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them.  Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.  As the days wear on, the story takes wings.  The national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.  Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.  After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.  The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.  The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.  The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened!

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.  How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.  Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.  Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw.  When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.  The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals.  Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.  Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.  During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.  Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.  Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Tony Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.  Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.  Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?  The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars;sound familiar?

Read more:



Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: