Sun-Times Reporter Tries To Buy AR-15 To Show How Easy It Is. What Happens Next Is HILARIOUS. 

1 Comment

Once more a anti gun media thug gets slapped down by his abusive drunken past.

A reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times attempted to purchase an AR-15 so he could write a story wailing about how easy it is to buy the gun. But he was denied for a reason that is simply hysterical.

Source: Sun-Times Reporter Tries To Buy AR-15 To Show How Easy It Is. What Happens Next Is HILARIOUS. | Daily Wire


Thief Walks Into a Pawn Shop with Plan to Steal a Rifle. It’s a Dumb Plan. Really Dumb.

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

It is a shame the perp could not get more time because of stupidity.


Marlon Paul Alvarez, a 19-year-old Florida resident really wanted a shiny, new assault rifle. He wanted one so badly, as this video shows, that he went down to the local pawn shop and tried to stuff one down his pants.

The would-be thief fit the entire length of an AR-15 down his pants and tried to hobble out of the store when he was, of course, caught.

A judge voiced his concern at a hearing for the bumbling crook, according to the Sun Sentinel:

“You allegedly went into that pawn shop and removed an AK-47 rifle on display and stuck it down your pants,” he said.

“After a while, you pulled it out, put it back, then grabbed another assault rifle off another display and put that down your pants.”

Alvarez has been charged with grand theft and a bond has been set at $25,00

Remington Wins Opening Move In Bizarre Sandy Hook Lawsuit

1 Comment

This is from Bearing Arms.

Hopefully the judge will dismiss this frivolous lawsuit.

I also would like to see Remington counter sue for damages caused by this suit.

Attorneys for a group of Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre victims filed a bizarre case in December, essentially arguing that all self-loading firearms are too dangerous for the public to own, and that gun manufacturers are negligent for simply manufacturing their products. While the case is interesting as an example of creative fiction, it is laughable as a legal matter.

The case moved one step closer to a possible dismissal yesterdays as lawyers for Remington won the argument to move the case to a more palatable federal court unlikely to be influenced by Connecticut’s rabid anti-gun politics.

Remington gun manufacturer just won its push to move a wrongful death suit brought by 10 families of Sandy Hook shooting victims to federal court — and at least one legal insider says that’s a significant boon for the company.

The case was then moved to the 2nd U.S. Circuit, before U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny — a move that one legal mind says bears well for the company.

“The 2nd Circuit has previously refused to hold gun manufacturers liable or permit lawsuits against gun manufacturers for injuries caused by third parties,” said Timothy Lytton, a professor at the Albany Law School, AP reported. “It has a history of knocking these types of cases down.”

The case is attempting to hold the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of the Bushmaster carbine used in the Sandy Hook massacre responsible for the murders, even though the murderer acquired the firearm itself by murdering his mother to acquire it and the other firearms he brought to the school.

The lawyers for the family are attempting to claim that Bushmaster was negligent for even making the semi-automatic AR-15 carbine used to murder 26 and wound 2 at the school, despite the fact that semi-automatic firearms have been around since the 1800s and are the most popular action type for both pistols and rifles in the United States.

The AR-15 is the best-selling centerfire rifle platform in the United States year after year, and there are estimated to be more than 5+ million in the hands of American citizens.



Watch CNN’s Don Lemon try to define ‘automatic weapon’ (Video)

1 Comment

This is from Liberty UnYielding.

To call Don Lemon a moron would be an upgrade.

Lemon and others like him is the reason that CNN has zero ratings.


A first rule of journalism is to know what you’re talking about. This goes double for broadcast journalists who have occasion to interface with guests. Apparently CNN’s Don Lemon was absent from J school the day they taught this important lesson.

In this exchange with conservative radio host Ben Ferguson Lemon demonstrates that his dislike of guns probably stems in part from his ignorance of them.

In the video, via The Blaze, Ferguson asserts:

The gun law says that you and I can’t just go out and buy an automatic weapon, so let’s deal with the facts here. A semi-automatic weapon is a gun that you and I are allowed to own, and in different places they have different rules. But to imply that anyone can walk out and buy an automatic weapon is just not true, Don.

It is at this point that Lemon takes his first step in deep doodoo, insisting that he was, in fact, able to purchase an “automatic weapon” following the 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo. His next step is a doozy:

I have maybe shot a gun three, four times in my life — I don’t even live in Colorado. I think most people can go out and buy an automatic weapon. I don’t understand your argument there. It took me 20 minutes.

Sensing that the host is in over his head, Ferguson asks Lemon what his “definition of an automatic weapon is.”

“For me,” Lemon replies hesitantly, “an automatic weapon is anything that you can shoot off a number of rounds very quickly. I was able to buy an AR-15 in 20 minutes.”

Ferguson goes on to explain that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic — not automatic — rifle, noting that:

An automatic weapon is when you pull the trigger one time and it continually shoots off one after another, after another.

Lemon, who should backed out of the discussion long ago, accuses Ferguson of “getting into semantics.”

The video, which is pretty hilarious, follows:



(h/t Weasel Zippers)

“Journalist” Attacks 9-Year Old Is This Any Way to Promote a Political Agenda?

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

Is anyone surprised by this yellow journalist attacking this little girl?

The anti gun crowd has zero shame.


Shyanne Roberts is nine years old. She lives in New Jersey with her family, is an honor student in the fourth grade, likes the beach, music, soccer, fishing and hanging out with her friends. She is also a competitive shooter who is skilled in numerous firearms, and who has been wowing fans at tournaments for the past two years.

Recently, Shyanne also wowed some New Jersey state legislators by testifying against a proposed law that would limit the size of magazines in the state. “I am not a gangbanger or domestic terrorist,” Shyanne told the legislators. “This bill, if it becomes law, will severely impact me and a million other gun owners.”

Why will this law impact Shyanne? Because when she is competing against shooters from states that do not have these arbitrary limits, she will have to reload her magazine more often, which will impact her speed and her performance. All Shyanne wants is to be the best at her chosen sport.

And for this, so-called “journalist” Mike Kelly, a columnist for some New Jersey fish wrap called The Record has gone on the offensive against Shyanne, claiming her sport of choice is “creepy,” and essentially accusing her of being an unwitting pawn of the big, bad NRA, unable to think or reason for herself and manipulated by the nasty gun lobby. Kelly writes:


Watching the video, posted on Facebook, of little Shyanne with her new AR-15 is chilling. She likes the fact that the gun was painted purple and black — her favorite colors, she says, though she adds that she also likes pink, too.

“It’s beautiful,” she says of the gun, noting that she found it “well balanced.”

What’s astonishing is that if you closed your eyes, you might think that Shyanne is really an adult. But she’s not. Think of this tale as the weaponized version of the TV beauty pageant show, Toddlers and Tiaras — kids trying to act like adults, with adult make-up and jewelry, cheered on by adults for the sake of themselves.

Only, in this case, instead of a rhinestone tiara and ruby-red lipstick, the prime accessory for this child is an assault rifle (sic), with a magazine that holds 15 bullets (sic).


What this mediot finds appalling is that a child can be responsible, focused and good at what she does. She’s well-rounded and eloquent. She has been taught and coached well by her father, and has shown a considerable amount of skill at a sport that is both challenging and exciting.

Apparently Shyanne’s maturity and eloquence is something that Kelly cannot stomach, because she is a well-spoken, determined child who excels at an “adult” activity, and because he seemingly believes that being a child is necessarily equivalent to being stupid, naïve and goal-less. And because this child speaks with conviction and skill, and enjoys her sport of choice, she must necessarily be manipulated by the evil, cunning NRA that controls these shooting competitions, and the adults around her, including her own father!

This is the world according to Mike Kelly.

Because, really! What child could write such an articulate, convincing speech all by herself (according to some of the comments in the story, her father did help her with basic grammar and structure)? What child could have developed these “adult” ideas in her head all by herself? Children are supposed to be clueless and helpless, in this mediot’s uninformed opinion! It’s all part of childhood, right?

How can a human being with any decency and common sense, let alone an educated “journalist,” compare a child who excels at an activity that requires focus, accountability, personal responsibility, determination and concentration, and who so powerfully explains her positions to a room full of adult legislators, to the vapid, empty, spoiled reality show brats on Toddlers and Tiaras?

For the TV show, parents, many of whom are desperate to relive their youth vicariously through their little ones, paint them to look like prostitots. On the other hand, Shyanne’s father taught her basic gun safety at a young age, and helped her excel at a challenging skill that eludes many adults.

While painted, overdressed dolls parading their frightening slut fashion is a caricature of maturity, Shyanne is developing, honing, focusing, competing and winning at an actual sport that requires concentration, self-control, and the highest standards of personal responsibility and ethics.

And this pusillanimous punk Mike Kelly has decided to attack a child from behind his poisonous keyboard by comparing her sport to Toddlers and Tiaras, and her considerable skill to the clownish mockery of life that is that show.

Yeah, it takes a real man to ridicule a little girl from behind the warmth and safety of his computer screen, clutching his oh-so masculine Café Latte and nibbling biscotti, while mischaracterizing an AR-15 as an “assault weapon,” ignorantly referring to magazines as “bullet clips” and snidely, hypocritically deriding a fourth-grader as ignorant and easily manipulated.

If Mike Kelly kept a shred of credibility after showing his lack of research skills and knowledge deficiencies about firearms, it was terminally decimated by his cowardly, low attacks on a talented, intelligent, skilled, determined young lady.


Nicki Kenyon has been an avid gun rights advocate since she returned to the United States from an overseas Army tour in Germany. She began writing about Second Amendment issues in 2001 when published her first essay,“The Moment”. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in International Relations from the Johns Hopkins University and a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies from American Military University. Her area of expertise in those fields is European and Eurasian affairs. When not writing about gun rights or hanging out with her husband and son, she practices dry-firing her M1911 at the zombies of “The Walking Dead.”


Ten Examples of the Internet’s Worst Gun Advice

Leave a comment

This is from OutDoorHub.


If someone starts talking to you about "knockdown power" they better be talking about one of these.

If someone starts talking to you about “knockdown power” they better be talking about one of these.


Apparently I’ve taken on a task that it simply not possible without violating several laws of our physical universe—picking only 10 of the worst pieces of shooting advice from the across the vast and vacuous expanse known as the internet.

I stopped counting at 32,987,412,318. But no worries, I’ll persevere.

Here we go, drum roll please…

1. A firearm light or laser will just give away your position!

If the self-defense scenarios swirling around your brain involve moving ninja fights in the dark that emulate Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon moves, you’re absolutely right! A weapon light will give away your position, and your tactical pose hanging from the chandelier will be compromised. In real life, the benefits of seeing where and/or what you’re shooting at far outweigh any realistic disadvantages of “giving away your position.” One more thing, make it a point to tell the hundreds of thousands of military and law enforcement personnel who mount lights and lasers on their guns specifically for the purpose of fighting in the dark that this is a tactical blunder. What do they know anyway?

2. To defend your home, blast your shotgun through the front door!

We all know that politicians are (self-defined) experts in all things. Some of the best (worst!) gun advice in recent history comes from our very own vice president: “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” While blasting your shotgun through the door may help you drill a hole for one of those handy peep holes, it won’t help your legal cause in any way, shape, or form. Most likely, this strategy will send you straight to jail. Just ask the Virginia Beach man who actually did this when confronted with two armed and masked home invaders. The bad guys escaped, but the Biden disciple was charged with a crime. The “Biden Defense” is just not likely to yield a positive outcome. Come on, we all know politicians are immune to repercussions from bad behavior. It’s an expected part of the job.

3. Don’t use an AR-15 for home defense!

You might have heard from internet commandos that a “high-powered” .223 round will go clear through your interior and exterior walls, Margaritaville machine, and most of Montana—or maybe that if you torch off a .223 round indoors, the building will explode. Actually, most standard AR-15 ammunition will only go through a few pieces of interior drywall with any significant energy. The projectiles are light and traveling extremely fast. This combination results in rapid tumbling and fragmentation when barriers are hit. While there may be other factors in the debate on using AR-15s for home defense, over-penetration is not one of them—especially when compared to pistol ammunition and buckshot. Of course, exceptions apply if you choose to use ammunition designed to penetrate.

Here's some practical advice: Always keep one hand on the wheel while shooting a tactical rifle from a golf cart.

Here’s some practical advice: always keep one hand on the wheel while shooting a tactical rifle from a golf cart.

4. You should carry your self-defense gun with the chamber empty.

Unless your self-defense gun is a single-action revolver with a hammer-mounted firing pin, that’s almost always bad advice. If you think you can simply keep an eye on things around you so you have plenty of time to draw your gun, and rack the slide, in the event of an attack, try a Tueller drill sometime. It’s enlightening and will quickly relieve you of any security gained by carrying with an empty chamber. Also, please write Hollywood and tell them to stop racking the slide every time someone is about to fire a gun. It’s a waste of perfectly good pretend ammunition.

5. I only train for head shots.

Some of the couch commandos elite-speak of training for head shots to defeat body armor and perhaps save ammunition during these tough economic times. On the range, a cardboard target is pretty darn easy to hit anywhere you like. Now try that while running full speed. Then try that while you and the target are running full speed. Then try it when everyone is running full speed, shouting, and the target is trying to kill you. Enough said.

6. You don’t have to aim a shotgun!

The tireless persistence of this one is incredible. At any reasonable self-defense distance, a shotgun pattern is measured in inches, and when indoors, usually less. Compared to firing a shotgun, you need to aim it less if you were to swing it like a club.

7. Any advice that includes the words “knockdown power.”

Remember Wayne’s brother Isaac? As in Newton? According to him, and word is that he was really, really good at science, if your gun could knock someone down, you would also be knocked down in the process of firing it. In fairness, some people who use this term really mean “stopping power.” Even still, guns, and especially pistols, just make little holes. Rifles make bigger holes, and therefore are more likely to have “stopping power” as big holes in our bodies tend to make us stop and evaluate things. I’m thinking that cannons and howitzers do have “knockdown power,” as the last time I held one and fired it, I was, in fact, knocked down.

8. Standing downrange during training is the best to prepare for a real gunfight!

Unless you’re a special forces operator and need to train with a half-dozen of your buddies who will all be shooting in the same room, you don’t need to be downrange during training. Some schools insist on posting videos of “operators” being as “operate-y” as they possibly can by sending students and instructors downrange so they can hear they bullets fly by. If you want to learn self- and home-defense skills, avoid these schools like you would avoid Justin Bieber’s Tupperware Party.

9. You don’t need an AR-15!

If you’re ever the victim of a home invasion, you “need” about 14 miniguns, a howitzer or two, and a MK-19 Automatic Grenade launcher. Those tools are just not very practical, so you get by with what you have. Allowing people to define “need” is a slippery downhill slope that never ends well. Next time someone tells you that you don’t “need” an AR-15, ask them if they “need” a car that goes faster than 60 miles per hour, bacon or periodic bathing. We don’t “need” anything beyond air, water, shelter and calories.

10. It’s OK, you can ________, because this gun is unloaded!

There’s no scenario where playing with, or pointing, guns is “OK” because a gun is unloaded. Rule one: a gun is always loaded.

These are some of my pet peeves. What say you?

Images by Tom McHale

Two Anniversaries Gun Control Supporters Aren’t Celebrating

1 Comment

This is from the NRA-ILA.

By electing Constitutional Conservatives we can give the gun control lots more not to celebrate.


Gun control supporters have lately used the 20th anniversary of Bill Clinton’s signing of the Brady Act into law as an excuse to repeat their demand for “universal” background checks.  Even though most people who commit crimes with guns defeat the Brady Act by getting their guns by theft, on the black market, or from straw purchasers, anti-gunners have portrayed the law as having saved countless lives.

Nevertheless, the gun ban movement is altogether ignoring two other significant anniversaries associated with its efforts.

Last month marked the 40-year anniversary of the founding of the National Council to Control Handguns, which in its early days openly admitted that it supported banning the private possession of handguns.  It has since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and while its handgun banning rhetoric is more muted, its goals are still to ban guns by any means necessary.

Since the group’s formation, Americans have bought over 60 million handguns, bringing the total to somewhere around 100 million; 32 more states have adopted Right–to-Carry laws, bringing the total to 42; and, contrary to the group’s predictions, the nation’s murder rate has decreased to a 49-year low. That’s not much for anti-gun rabble-rousers to celebrate.

The other anniversary relates to something with a more contemporary significance. On Saturday, it will have been 25 years since the late-Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) introduced the first federal legislation in anti-gunners’ war against the most universally useful firearms of all time:  general-purpose semi-automatic rifles, such as the extraordinarily popular AR-15.

The bill was S. 386, the “Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989,” and it came as no surprise. The previous year, Josh Sugarmann had advised gun control supporters to start attacking the rifles to boost their efforts to ban handguns.  Mr. Sugarmann is a former staffer with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, as well as Amnesty International.  At the time, he had formed his own little anti-handgun group called the New Right Watch, which he later renamed the Violence Policy Center.

As Sugarmann put it, “assault weapons [will] strengthen the handgun restriction lobby. . . . It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an ‘old’ debate. . . . Handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.”

To the dismay of anti-handgun activists everywhere, Metzenbaum’s rifle-focused bill didn’t pass. President George H. W. Bush firmly opposed a ban on American-made rifles (although he later ordered that importation of over 40 models of foreign-made semi-automatic rifles be suspended, pending a new review of their eligibility for importation under the Gun Control Act’s “sporting purposes” test).

Metzenbaum’s bill would have banned the manufacture of the AR-15, various other firearms, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, regardless of the firearm for which they were designed. Furthermore, S. 386 would have required owners of banned firearms to register those that they already had and allowed the Treasury Secretary and Attorney General to designate other detachable-magazine semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons.” In these ways, the bill was even worse than legislation Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) sponsored five years later, which ultimately became the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban of 1994.

Metzenbaum’s bill was extreme, to be sure, but he was typical of most radical gun control supporters; ignorant of basic facts about guns but still self-righteous and indignant about them. In November 1993, when “assault weapons” were being debated in the Senate, Metzenbaum said, “I don’t know much about the weapons” but “they look quite ominous. We have pictures of them.”

He wasn’t kidding about the “pictures.” In putting together his bill that year, Metzenbaum’s staffers had flipped through an issue of Gun Digest and written down whatever names they saw printed beside “ominous-looking” guns.  Indeed, because the book had mislabeled one rifle, the bill even ended up proposing to ban a gun that didn’t exist. The media, who would have ridiculed any pro-Second Amendment senator for a comparable error, let Metzenbaum slide without comment.

Metzenbaum’s bills and a bill authored by then-Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) in 1989 were used as the starting point when Feinstein put together the language of her gun ban. Feinstein proved just as zealous and poorly informed as her fellow gun control supporters. A police officer from the Los Angeles Police Academy told NRA-ILA that Feinstein had visited the academy, ostensibly on a fact-finding mission.  Nevertheless, she rejected information that officers at the academy gave her concerning the infrequent use of “assault weapons” in crime and the foolishness of categorizing rifles according to whether they have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount or other external attachment.

Proving the officers right and Feinstein wrong, at least 730,000 AR-15s (sans flash suppressors and bayonet mounts) were manufactured and bought during the 10 years that Feinstein’s “ban” was in effect.  Meanwhile, the nation’s murder rate plummeted anyway.  Later, an independent study for Congress determined that the supposedly-banned firearms had not been used in much crime in the first place. Thus, over Feinstein’s tiresome protestations, Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Since Metzenbaum introduced S. 386, Americans have bought about four million additional AR-15s, raising the total to about five million, and an uncountable number of their components and accessories. Gun controllers have continued to insist that AR-15s and similar rifles are the “weapon of choice of drug dealers” and “not useful” for self-defense.  Yet most AR-15s are carbines configured for defensive applications, while also useful for target practice and a variety of shooting sports, such as “3-Gun” and the NRA’s new National Defense Match. For some 20 years, longer-barreled AR-15 rifles have dominated NRA and Civilian Marksmanship Program service rifle competitions, including those held during the annual National Rifle Trophy Matches and National Rifle Championships. These days they are also used for hunting everything from deer to coyotes to prairie dogs.

Over the last 25 years, gun control supporters have told more lies and spread more misinformation and disinformation in the context of the “assault weapon” issue than perhaps on any other gun control issue of our time. But the American people aren’t stupid, and they aren’t buying it. Today, general-purpose semi-automatic rifles are going strong. In particular, the AR-15 has become the 21st century version of the 1898 Mauser–the platform upon which the most versatile defensive, hunting and target shooting rifles are built.

Nothing is set in stone, of course. If President Obama was able to replace even one of the five Supreme Court justices who sided with the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, gains that took decades to achieve could evaporate almost overnight.  The Court’s statement that the right to keep and bear arms applies to all defensive arms that are commonly used for lawful purposes could be swept aside, banning handguns might be constitutionally permissible, and the Second Amendment could be reinterpreted as something that protects nothing more than a “right” of National Guardsmen to be issued guns while on-duty.

On the other hand, if everyone who owns a gun the prohibitionists have proposed to ban over the last 40 years votes for pro-Second Amendment candidates this November and in 2016, we will continue to deny gun control supporters the celebrations which have thus far eluded them.

Deputy Sheriff Tears Kevin de Leon Apart in Open Letter Following Ridiculous Gun Control Press Conference

1 Comment

This is from Guns Saves Lives.


Matt, from The Bang Switch, has absolutely destroyed California State Lawmaker Kevin de Leon following that idiot’s joke of a press conference earlier this week (see the full video at the bottom of this article).

Here is an excerpt from the open letter.

You assert that assembling a complete, functioning AR-15 from a legally purchased 80% lower is a simple task. I myself have completed that task, but I am not the average American. I have a well-equipped shop with all the necessary machinery, and the knowledge to use that machinery, in order to complete the lower receiver. You make it seem that any fool with a drill press can complete the task, which is a vast oversimplification.

I challenge you sir, to put your money where your mouth is so to speak. Show me how easily, you personally, can complete the machine work on that raw lower receiver forging you held up, and assemble a working AR-15.

The incident in Santa Monica that you mention, while tragic, is not evidence of any great crime streak or rising criminal trend in which “Ghost Guns” are being employed. To my knowledge, that is the only incident the State of CA has experienced where a firearm built on an 80% lower was employed to commit a homicide. Please, correct me if I am wrong on that matter.

View the full deal over at The Bang Switch, it’s good stuff. Their site was up and down today (probably due to the popularity of the letter), so you might have to try to read it later on.

Just in case you haven’t seen the idiotic ramblings of Kevin de Leon, you can check out his press conference below. Caution: I recommend a strong drink and an extra dose of blood pressure medication to get through it (I am not a doctor, the previous advice is probably not sound medical advice).

Gun Control

Leave a comment

Hat Tip to U. S. A. Admiral.



Armed Citizen in TX Stops Shooting Spree and Saves Cop by Making 50+ Yard Shot With a Pistol


This is from Guns Save Lives.

The title of this post says it best.




This is a pretty amazing story. An armed private citizen assisted a police officer who was pinned down by the gunfire of a madman who had just killed 3 people and could have killed many more. Amazingly the concerned citizen, Vic Stacy, did so by taking a shot of 50+ yards using only a pistol.

The caliber and gun are unknown, but Stacy mentions a “magnum bullet” which could mean a .357 or .44. Stacy landed multiple shots on the shooter and this allowed the police officer to also land shots with his AR-15 while the suspect was distracted.

According to,

Stacy raised his gun, fired, and landed one hell of a shot – by his estimate “a good 165 yards” – with a pistol (we do not know the make or caliber at this time). Stacy wasn’t even sure if he could make the shot at that distance: “I hope this magnum bullet’ll hold up, you know, this distance. And sure enough it did and I hit him in the thigh.”

At that point, Conner returned fire against Stacy with his AR-15. He missed his shot, luckily, but that gave dead-eye Stacy another opportunity to pull the trigger. Stacy “hit him again and put three more in him The patrolman got two shots in him with that AR-15. And it seems like he’s all over with, then.”

Conner died on the scene, but if it wasn’t for the aid of Vic Stacy, the body count might have been a lot higher.

According to follow up reports, the distance was corrected to around 50 yards.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: