by -
102 9779
Connecticut State Police/Getty Images

This is absolutely ridiculous …

A Connecticut Judge ruled that the families of the victims in the 2012 Sandy hook massacre are allowed to sue the gun-maker who produced the rifle used in the killings.

The legal action names Remington Arms, maker of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, model XM15-E2S, as well as the distributor and seller.

Judge Rules Victims’ Families Can Argue Semi-Automatic Rifle is “Military Weapon” Should Not Have Been Sold To Civilians

To be clear, it appears as if the judge simply ruled that the victims’ families can continue their case to sue the gun-makers in court.

It does not appear that they have already done that. Or even that they will win.

From the story on, “Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said a 2005 federal law protecting gunmakers from lawsuits does not shield the companies from legal action in this case.

She ruled that lawyers for the victims’ families can still argue the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.”

Suing Gun-Makers for “Gun Violence” Makes As Much Sense As Suing Ford, Chevy or Chrysler for “Car Violence”

The whole idea is ridiculous that any company should be held liable for what the end user does with its products that they purchased.

As Bob Owens as pointed out, Hillary Clinton is a big proponent of this type of legal action …

“Campaigning in South Carolina today, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued that accident victims and people who were intentionally run down in hit-and-run attacks with vehicles should be able to sue the automotive industry for damages incurred.

Clinton pointed out that almost every vehicle sold in the United States is capable of exceeding the speed limit and may be obtained by criminals second-hand, and often times illegally, to justify her position.

“So far as I know, the car industry and car dealers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate.”

Of course, that’s satire to prove the point that the entire notion of punishing a manufacturer for something the end user does with one’s products is incredibly ridiculous and that ONLY ant-gun people could get away with this.

Ridiculous. And a Dangerous Precedent …

To be VERY clear, this is not just about guns or gun manufacturers or even gun rights. As points out, if a lawsuit such as this is actually won it would set a dangerous precedent …

“Could you imagine being a business owner; selling a legal, functional product; and being sued every time an individual who buys your product uses it to commit a crime?

“Should a rope manufacturer be liable when someone is hanged by that rope? Should a knife manufacturer be liable when someone is stabbed? Could a restaurant be sued when someone eats its perfectly safe food but dies of a heart attack or diabetic shock?”

They continue, “If allowed to proceed, lawsuits such as the one in Connecticut could lead to all sorts of other outlandish claims being asserted against producers merely for selling their legal products, even though they rarely have any control over who buys their products or how people use them.”

“Could the maker of salted peanuts be sued if someone intentionally sneaks peanuts into the lunch of someone else who has a known allergy, and who dies as a result? The situations are analogous, and legally, there’s no difference.”

Let’s Hope Reason Prevails …

Because there doesn’t seem to be much common sense left in the “justice” system …

What are your thoughts? Do you think this sets a dangerous legal precedent? Just another way that anti-gun judges are twisting the law to push through their agendas?

by -
13 5091

It’s tax season.

Today I would propose that nothing is LESS American than paying taxes.

In fact, it’s inarguable that America’s best years were when America had ZERO income tax.

In honor of tax season, let’s talk about why America has never need the IRS, the income tax, or central planners in Washington DC trying to “manage” the country.

Never Forget America Was Founded With ZERO Income Tax!

The U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787 with no internal tariffs or taxes on interstate commerce.

The Federal Government was extremely small at that time.

And yet America not only survived, but it thrived. In fact, America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history.


America’s Best Years: The “Gilded Age” Before Income Taxes

Here’s some interesting facts. From Wikipedia:

During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly.

For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%.

Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a scientific management revolution transformed business operations.

By the beginning of the 20th century, gross domestic product and industrial production in the United States led the world.

Kennedy reports that “U.S. national income, in absolute figures in per capita, was so far above everybody else’s by 1914.” Per capita income in the United States was $377 in 1914 compared to Britain in second place at $244, Germany at $184, France at $153, and Italy at $108, while Russia and Japan trailed far behind at $41 and $36.

… From 1869 to 1879, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for NNP (GDP minus capital depreciation) and 4.5% for NNP per capita. The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880s, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled.

Economist Milton Friedman states that for the 1880s, “The highest decadal rate [of growth of real reproducible, tangible wealth per head from 1805 to 1950] for periods of about ten years was apparently reached in the eighties with approximately 3.8 percent.”

For people that think they need the Federal Government to impose an income tax to “manage” the nation or to “grow the economy” you’re completely out of your mind.

America’s best years — and the fastest and most extreme growth of the US economy — was during the years when there was no income tax in the United States.

Real wages grew too. Economic historian Clarence D. Long estimates that (in terms of constant 1914 dollars), the average annual incomes of all American nonfarm employees rose from $375 in 1870 to $395 in 1880, $519 in 1890 and $573 in 1900, a gain of 53% in 30 years.

Before The Income Tax, The Poor Were Still OK

Whenever you bring up the amazing benefits to America before the income tax, the ugly brain-washing that we all received from our Public Education rears its head and people want to claim that the “robber barons” of the era were making their fortunes at the expense of the poor and that everyone but the 1% was suffering in America.

Not true.

First, much like today’s billionaires such as Warren Buffet, Andrew Carnegie published an article in 1889 that said philanthropy was the responsibility of the wealthy (titled “The Gospel of Wealth”).

Carnegie ended up donating over 90% of his wealth to philanthropy.

John D. Rockefeller donated over $500 million to various charities, slightly over half his entire net worth.

In short, there was plenty of charity by the wealthy without the Government stealing it from the wealthy to give to bloated welfare programs.

Second, a rising tide lifts all boats. When technology and the growth of a nation rocket upward like the period before the income tax in America — even the “poorest” of America became the richest in the world.

Much like today, where everyone on welfare or complaining about minimum wage is still in the top 1% of income in the world — as the standard of living rockets upwards in the US — even the poorest of the poor become wealthy compared to the rest of the world.


“A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax” – Plank #2 from the Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx’s Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto lists “A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax” as plank #2.


Because it’s one of the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, to eventually bring about a communist state.

It helps incite class warfare and gets the people on the lower end of the income and wealth scale to focus on attacking their fellow citizens … instead of … the greedy pigs running the government (I just had flash backs of Animal Farm just now!)

Sadly, America has adopted many of “planks” of the Communist Manifesto, but that’s a discussion for a different time.

The United States Government Would Still Be Too Big With Absolutely Zero Income Tax

For those that worry the entire Government would collapse with no income tax, don’t worry it would still be too big.

As Ron Paul explains, we’d still have a HUGE Federal government with no income tax …

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax.

That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s.

We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all.

I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”

The Paul campaign has published before, “Policy wonks can go back and forth arguing over budget specifics. Dr. Paul’s point is that we can eliminate the income tax & fund a level of government from the recent past. Whether that year is 1995, 1997 or 2000 is irrelevant.”

Think about it, if the Government is still collecting — literally — trillions of dollars it could still run a bloated bureaucracy like it did during the Bush Sr. and Clinton years. I remember those times, and not once did I think “gee whiz, the Federal Gov is way too small!”

The Government Can’t Stick To It’s Budget Anyways! So Why Worry About Less Money!

Thinking more critically about this, on January 8, 1835 was the ONE time in US History that the US Government was debt free. When Andrew Jackson took office, the national debt was about $58 million. Six years later, it was all gone. Paid off. And the government was actually running a surplus, taking in more money than it was spending.

So thought exercise for you

Even if the government collected 100% of your income in taxes, it’s clear that they would spend MORE than that amount every single year (there is a federal deficit each year).

So why does it matter how much they steal from you in income taxes anyways, if they’re just going to continue to spend MORE than that?

The Federal Debt is already at $20 Trillion and it will keep going up.

Back in 2012 Tony Robbins put out this video when the National Debt was “only” $15 trillion. The punch line is that you could — literally — take ALL (as in 100%) the profits, salaries, assets, expenses, revenues, holdings and even corporations of the “rich” and it still wouldn’t pay for even one year of federal spending.

In short, the Federal Government does not have an income problem.

It has plenty of money coming in every year. And it would still have plenty of money with no income tax (we’re still talking trillions of dollars). The Federal Government has a spending problem.

Don’t buy the lie that it’s “Patriotic” to pay taxes. The Income Tax is theft. It’s wasteful. And it’s a way to slowly use class warfare and communist ideals to corrupt America.

If you’re reading this post, chances are you’re here either to defend your love for Glocks to the death or to decry what some perceive to be rampant fanboy-ism for the Austrian gunmakers ubiquitous pistols.

Either way, your opinions on the matter are likely pretty strong.

But before you jump to your typical conclusions on Glocks, take the time to read what Off the Grid News has to say about why these guns continue to hold an edge over the rest of the handgun market.

Even if you get to the end of the article and still don’t agree, we’d love to hear your informed objections in the comments below.

Without further ado, here’s the post:

Nowadays, handguns from the Glock family of Safe Action pistols are among the most common you’ll see. The Austrian company makes their handguns in a variety of sizes and calibers from 380 ACP up to the awe-inspiring 10mm. If you have not considered one of these handguns in your survival strategy, you may be shortchanging yourself.

First, a Little History

The year was 1982 and a new handgun hit the market called the Glock 17. The concept was radical for its time: There was no hammer, no safety and the frames were made of plastic. The handguns even shipped in what could best be described as a black Tupperware box as opposed to the wooden or cardboard cartons more common in that day and age.

Myths surrounded the import. For example, some said it would be used by terrorists to hijack planes because it could bypass a metal detector thanks to its plastic frame. That statement, however, was flat-out ridiculous because the pistol still contains more than one pound of steel in its construction.

There also was great interest in the Safe Action feature. External safeties had always been seen as necessities on semi-automatic pistols since their invention. But Glock eliminated them by creating what they called a Safe Action trigger. This purpose-built, two-piece trigger performs the function of a safety and prevents the pistol from being fired should it drop on the ground or be struck by another object.

Eliminating a manual safety was key in allowing Glock to take over the majority of police handgun contracts as the firing sequence resembled that of a revolver, which allowed users to draw, point, aim and shoot without having to disengage a safety switch.

Perhaps Glock’s biggest advantage at the time was releasing their first model with a 17-round magazine. It was one of the largest pistol magazines available at the time without extending beyond the grip frame. And it has remained the ideal ever since. Glock and a number of aftermarket supporters also offer 10-round magazines for those who reside in restrictive states.

Shooting the Glock

There is a bit more muscle needed and a small bit of science involved with successfully and accurately shooting a Glock. The polymer frame forces the shooter to maintain a firm and strong grip. Otherwise, the frame can exhibit too much flex when the follow-through portion of the firing sequence is committed and the heavier-style trigger is the bane of single-action, semi-automatic pistol fans everywhere.

Some shooters claim the bore axis is too high, or that “they shoot too high” when firing a Glock. This varies depending upon the shooter, as most shooters do not experience this.

Aside from that, the Glock is one of the ultimate handguns to have when a disaster strikes. Aside from its reputation for reliability in the most adverse conditions (Glocks have been dropped from helicopters, run over with HUMVEEs, buried and caked in sand and mud, and even frozen in a block of ice without suffering any negative effects) they can be completely disassembled by only using a single punch.

For those concerned with home defense and self-defense, Glocks remain a great choice.

The smallest handgun in their lineup is the Model 42, a single stack handgun chambered in 380 ACP. This is part of Glock’s Slimline, along with the slightly larger Model 43 in 9mm and even larger Model 36 in 45 ACP.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the competition frames represent their largest handguns, including the 17L, 34, 41 and 40. The latter is probably the most powerful handgun that the company produces – a 10mm with a 6-inch slide that pushes the ballistics of that cartridge toward true Magnum revolver performance. This makes for an ideal sidearm in bear country, and Norwegian Police have been using the shorter Model 20 in the same caliber for decades in areas frequented by polar bears.

Their most popular handguns tend to be in the three basic sizes: full size (represented by the Model 17 in 9mm and 22 in 40 S&W), compact (Model 19 in 9mm and 23 in 40 S&W) and subcompact (Model 26 in 9mm and 27 in 40 S&W). The larger calibers such as 45 ACP and 10mm are built on slightly larger frames, with the compact models having a length that falls between the compact and subcompact pistols.

In recent years, Glock has been incorporating other features into their latest pistols. They have added rails to attach lights and lasers, included removable plates on the top of the slides to install optical sights, and added threaded barrels for use with silencers. They even offer interchangeable back straps to fit hands of all sizes.

The aftermarket support for the company makes them a hit with customers who want to try different calibers, triggers or install a stock and convert the Glock into a short-barreled rifle. Personally, I never leave my Glocks in factory condition and have customized them. I have installed, among other add-ons, fiber optic sights on a few and find them superior to night sights for a variety of reasons.

Just about every holster manufacturer offers leather or Kydex rigs to carry the Glock and in many ways, this Austrian-made pistol is more of an American handgun than the ones actually made here.

Ok, now you have your chance to say your peace about the Glock. You’ve heard one side of the story, so now you can give us yours. Or maybe you just want to chime in with some good-hearted support for the pro-Glock camp.

Regardless, give us a shout in the comments.

by -
36 4718

Seeing gun control regulations move forward in states across the country can be extremely disheartening.

When you see one unconstitutional measure after another simply breeze through legislative bodies that are supposed to uphold the Constitution, it can almost make you give up hope.

Thankfully though, it seems that for every anti-gun state in the union, there’s a pro-gun state that’s stepping up to the plate to balance it out.

Case in point, take a look at Tennessee’s latest pro-gun bill that takes an amazing step toward maintaining gun rights for the state’s citizens.

The bill was passed just days ago, and it does something that no other state has done before.

It prevents any international gun restrictions from ever infringing on Tennesseans’ Second Amendment rights. That means that no matter what happens in the rest of the world, gun owners in Tennessee will stay armed and protected.

Activist Post has more:

On Thursday, the Tennessee senate gave final approval to a bill that sets the foundation to stop enforcement of gun control imposed by international law or treaty.

House Bill 2389 would prohibit law enforcement officers from enforcing provisions of international law and treaties that limit gun rights as specified in the state’s constitution.

The bill reads:

On or after July 1, 2016, no personnel or property of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any international law or treaty regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories, if the use of personnel or property would result in the violation of another Tennessee statute, Tennessee common law, or the Constitution of Tennessee.

“This bill prohibits any interference of [the right to keep and bear arms] by international treaty,” said Tennessee Rep. John Windle, who introduced the bill in January.

HB2389 now moves on to Governor Bill Haslam’s desk. He must sign or veto the bill within 10 days of transmittal, or it becomes law without his signature.

If this bill passes, Tennessee will be shielded from the pesky, anti-second amendment UN Arms Trade Treaty which has been described by Gun Owners of America as part of a plan “to bring back the framework for a global gun control regime.”

The ATT was signed by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 25, 2013 but was never ratified by the US Senate.

The NRA blasted the Obama Administration for signing the treaty, saying “This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme [and is full of regulations and requirements that are] blatant attacks on the constitutional rights of every law-abiding American.”

Recently, Oxfam International renewed its push for the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

Want to move to Tennessee yet? We all wish our own states would step up and do something as courageous as this.

Tell us what you think in the comments.

by -
2 1583

The advancement of the gun control agenda over the past several months is breathtaking to consider. Measures of restriction to the access of firearms for the average American are more harsh than ever, and conservatives are shocked to see legislation that just a few years ago would’ve been totally unheard of.

However, the really scary part is that these new gun control rules could simply be a Trojan horse to distract pro-gun activists from the real threat to their Second Amendment rights, which is ammo control.

Liberals figured out a long time ago that the most effective way to keep Americans from staying armed isn’t just to keep them from getting guns.

It’s much easier to let them have their guns but then to keep them from getting the ammunition they need to fire them.

Liberals keep this part of their agenda pretty close to the vest though, which causes many conservatives stay distracted by gun regulation while completely ignoring ammo laws.

According to The Daily Sheeple, ammo background checks could be the next major blow to gun rights in America. See what they have to say below:

Second Amendment supporters have always warned of the “slippery slope” that leads to all out gun control. That analogy is never more appropriate than when the subject of California’s gun laws comes up. By all appearance the state has hit that slope hard, and won’t stop tumbling, which is the only reasonable explanation for their latest gun control push. Gavin Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco turned Lieutenant Governor of California, has recently proposed a doozy of a ballot measure.

He wants ammunition purchases to require a background check, much like you would need to purchase a firearm. “It seems to me the most dangerous part of the weapon is not the weapon itself, it’s the ammunition,” he said last Friday at the Sonoma County Brady Campaign chapter.

The idea occurred to him after he tried to buy Sudafed, but was turned away because he doesn’t own a driver’s license (don’t be so surprised. Affluent leftists can afford to hire drivers, and presumably armed guards as well). “But interestingly, you can buy ammunition anywhere” and without any identification, he noted. Also interesting, is that he never stopped to wonder if requiring an ID for cold medicine is just as asinine as an ammunition background check.

The law would also criminalize anyone who happens to own high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, which he falsely claimed are“disproportionately responsible for mayhem.” The California State Sheriff’s Association has criticized his proposal, claiming that “Effectively, this measure will create a new class of criminals out of those that already comply with common sense practices that now exist.”

Liberals might seem clueless, but strategies like this show their true cunning nature.

Give us your reaction in the comments.

by -
37 4298

Liberals know that there’s more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to gun control. They understand that it’s a long, hard battle to take firearms out of Americans’ hands, so they’re going for the ammunition the guns fire instead.

It’s a cunning tactic, and it’s infuriatingly effective. After all, how good is a gun if you don’t have the bullets to shoot it?

Well, one state is taking this scheme to the next level, and conservatives who live there are concerned about what it could mean for their rights.

It probably comes as no surprise, but the state in question in California.

WND has the full story:

Gavin Newsom, California’s Democrat lieutenant governor and governor wannabe, is riding a wave of Second Amendment crackdowns on his campaign trail, including a policy push to regulate ammunition purchases as tightly as firearms’ buys.

“It seems to me the most dangerous part of the weapon is not the weapon, but the ammunition,” Newsom said, Breibart reported.

The ‘Stop Hillary’ campaign is on fire! Join the surging response to this theme: ‘Clinton for prosecution, not president’

As such, Newsom said if he’s elected governor, he would make anyone trying to buy ammunition have to go through the same background check process now required of potential gun purchasers.

During delivery of remarks at the Graton casino, Newsom compared buying ammunition to buying cold medicine, and recounted how he was denied the ability to purchase Sudafed once because he didn’t have a driver’s license with him to show the pharmacist.

His point?

“Firearms Guide: 5th Edition” is the world’s most extensive firearms, ammunition and air guns reference guide and gun schematics library on DVD for Windows PC. Get yours today at the WND Superstore.

It’s not logical to require identification for cold medicine, but not ammunition, he said, the Press Democrat reported.

Newsom also vowed as governor to add on more reporting requirements for licensed firearms dealers, and to mandate a license for those who wish to sell ammunition.

Can you believe they’re taking ammo restriction this far?

Tell us your thoughts in the comments.

Do you suffer from severe GAS?

Never heard of that before? Maybe you’re more familiar with it spelled out as Gun Acquisition Syndrome.

You love firearms, and you’re always eyeing the next addition to your collection. It’s ok. We won’t tell your wife.

Well, that’s perfectly fine and all, but some guns might be more worth your consideration than others. Furthermore, some are all hype.

Can you guess which ones we’re talking about here?

Check out this list from Off the Grid News and see if you were right:

1. Desert Eagle in 50 AE. Arguably, it is the most powerful semiautomatic pistol ever made. The Desert Eagle has it all in the looks department, too, and the manufacturer offers them in a number of attractive finishes. The power and look made it a natural for placement in movies and video games, as well. Realistically, however, this is a special purpose handgun designed for hunting and silhouette shooting sports. It is a heavy pistol with a large grip that makes it impractical for self-defense for most people.

If you must have one, do so after you have enough “real guns” to fill your needs.

2. S&W 500 or S&W 460. These revolvers leave the Desert Eagle far behind in the power game. What they really did was put the rifle caliber bolt-action and single shot pistols out of business. Why grab a Remington XP-100 chambered in 7mm BR or 308 Winchester when you can duplicate the ballistics in an easier shooting revolver?
Still, the recoil is extremely harsh, and most new shooters who try one seldom make it through a box of 20 rounds before trading it in or selling it at a loss.

3. Sphinx SDP. Many shooters have never heard of these fine pistols from Switzerland that are renowned for their perfect craftsmanship. Holding a Sphinx is like holding an engineering marvel in your hands. You will find no flaws or machining marks on one of these pistols. Almost as if it were created by magic.

Why is it on the list? Craftsmanship of this nature comes at a price, and $1,200 for a CZ75 clone, no matter how well it works, is a bit much. We have never found these pistols to be more accurate than a CZ or Tanfoglio offering. Save the money and buy more ammunition.

4. Winchester 1911. No, not a 1911 pistol, but a semiauto shotgun that was made that very same year. In an effort to bring a semiautomatic shotgun to market without infringing on John Browning’s patents, Winchester came up with the most dangerous design in the world.

The recoiling barrel means that once it is loaded, the only way to unload it is to push the barrel rearward. More than one gunowner did this by placing the butt on the ground and pushing downward with their head in front of the muzzle.

5. TEC-9, DC-9 or MAC clones in semiautomatic. As full auto machineguns with stocks, these guns are fun and actually pretty useful. In semiautomatic with no stock, you end up with a heavy awkward clunker that is not very good at anything apart from looking cool in a photo op. Why shoot an awkward and heavy 9mm when you can do better with any real semiautomatic handgun, such as a Glock 19 with a 32-round magazine?

There are others out there, but these seem to be the ones we see new people drawn to that end up being rather expensive mistakes. If the world is your oyster and you have money to spend and a battery of dependable firearms to defend yourself and your loved ones, then by all means seek one of these out if it is on your short list.

But if it is going to be one of your first firearms purchases, know that you can do better.

What do you think? Do you agree with this list, or are you offended to see one of your favorite guns?

Give us your reaction in the comments.

by -
0 1142

The gun control issue doesn’t just involve the government and the people. Private enterprise plays an important role too.

The individuals who operate the major retailers we shop at daily have an especially powerful position in the gun control debate, because they have the power to either stifle 2nd Amendment rights by preventing Americans to carry in their stores or encourage them patriotically.

Unfortunately, there have already been several businesses who have come out in opposition of firearms, and they’ve openly promoted anti-gun policies as a result.

However, other businesses are taking a different approach by taking the absurd anti-gun rhetoric of gun-grabbing liberals and telling them to shove it.

Thanks to the Conservative Tribune, you can know exactly who these businesses are. Here are five who most recently took a stand against gun control:

Starbucks: In 2013, Moms Demand Action went after Starbucks for their supposedly gun-friendly policies, eventually reporting that they had succeeded in getting the corporation to ban all guns from their locations around the country.

In truth, they secured no such victory as CEO Howard Schultz later clarified that he had simply “requested” that open carriers not be so flamboyant about it, and “requested” an end to the so-called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” in which gun owners would flock to the coffee chain outlets and post pictures to social media including their coffee and guns.

Staples: In 2014, Moms Demand Action targeted office supply chain Staples, even attempting to march into the corporate headquarters to hand deliver a gun-ban petition to CEO Ron Sargent. The only thing the demanding moms succeeded in doing at Staples was getting promptly escorted out of the building by security, which is as far as their proposed gun ban went.

Kroger: Later in 2014, the anti-gun moms set their sights on the Kroger chain of grocery stores, attempting to pressure them into banning guns on their property. After only two weeks, Kroger essentially told the moms to take a hike, as their policy of abiding by local gun laws would remain their corporate gun policy.

Kroger CFO Michael Schlotman later explained that his company flatly rejected the demanding moms because they believed that gun laws were best set by legislators, and not by grocery stores or special interest lobbying groups.

Fred Meyer: Following their stunning defeat at Kroger, Moms Demand Action then absurdly went after Kroger subsidiary Fred Meyer, who instantly shut the campaign down the very day it was launched by reaffirming that they would follow whatever the state and local laws were.

Target: Moms Demand Action made quite a bit of noise when they announced a victory over gun carriers at Target, thinking they had scored an agreement with the retail chain to ban guns on their premises.

However, the interim CEO’s statement that “guests not bring firearms into Target” was immediately clarified by PR group manager Molly Snyder, who made it clear that the CEO’s statement had been “a request and not a prohibition.”

It’s incredibly encouraging to see these businesses take a stand against the dangerous anti-gun trends of our time. If you appreciate their support, be sure to shop in their stores as often as you can.

Give us your thoughts in the comments.

by -
41 6318

Walk into any room of people in America and tell them Hillary Clinton is a bald faced liar; you probably won’t get much of a response, because practically everybody already accepts that statement as fact.

The Clintons are well-known for a lot of things, but lying has to be the thing they’re known the most for.

They represent the classic slippery politician. One day they’re saying one thing, and the next they’re saying another. All the while, they actually believe something else altogether!

Such is the case with Hillary Clinton’s stance on gun control. To nobody’s surprise, she’s been telling the public one thing about her gun control agenda and secretly planning something far worse.

The Washington Free Beacon breaks the news:

While Clinton has previously supported an assault weapons ban, this is the first time since launching her campaign that she indicated that she would take on the Supreme Court over gun issues.

Although Clinton did not identify which Supreme Court case she disagreed with, she appeared to be criticizing the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., unconstitutional.

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

She also used some of her strongest language yet to criticize the NRA, vowing to take on the gun rights lobbying group and make this a key component of her campaign.

“I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA and we’re going to do whatever we can,” she said.

Clinton argued that the NRA has “so intimidated elected members of Congress and other legislative bodies that these people are passing the most absurd laws.”

“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.

The comments earned applause at the closed-door fundraiser, and demonstrate Clinton’s efforts to appeal to progressive donors as she faces a growing challenge from the far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, who has been criticized by some liberal observers for his broad support of gun rights.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about the specific areas where Clinton disagrees with the Supreme Court. However, the Heller ruling is considered the most sweeping and controversial second amendment decision made by the highest court in recent years.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment granted gun rights to individuals whether or not they were members of an organized government militia in 2008. That ruling overturned the District of Columbia’s total ban on ownership of handguns and other strict forms of gun control. It also created the legal precedent that continues to influence all federal court rulings related to Second Amendment cases.

The NRA responded to Clinton’s remarks in a statement to the Free Beacon.

“Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s legislative division. “The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment. A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”

The Clinton fundraiser was hosted at the Greenwich Village home of John Zaccaro, a convicted felon. During her remarks, Clinton also proposed the creation of a national infrastructure bank, which she indicated would be modeled on the work done by the Clinton Global Initiative. She did not take questions after her speech.

Gun owners already knew that another Clinton presidency would be bad news for gun rights, but now it’s clear just how threatening Hillary really is.

Give us your thoughts in the comments.

by -
62 6135

America’s haters are becoming more courageous by the day. It used to be unheard of for someone with such an inflammatory and downright insulting message as “Death to America” to even so much as utter the words of their opinion. But now, it’s evidently okay for these people to go out on the street and shout it from the rooftops.

That’s exactly what this man did in Florida when he walked along a busy roadway holding a boldly colored sign with handwriting that said “Death to America.”

He stood there unfettered for some time, and he probably thought that nobody would be brave enough to confront him. But then he got a swift kick of justice… literally.

Two people approached him, said they actually liked the sign in order to get his guard down, then beat the snot out of him.

A video of the whole incident can be seen on The Blaze. Here’s a report of what happened:

After a couple spotted a man holding a sign that read “Death to America” on a curb in Middleburg, Florida, they decided to take matters into their own hands by physically beating up the man and snatching the sign away from him in a Tuesday encounter that was caught on camera.

The man and woman were driving past the curb in a gray Nissan when they saw Charles Brownett standing there with his sign, which read “Death to America” on the front and “Because of Obama’s policies” on the back, according to WJAX-TV. The woman in the car allegedly shouted at Brownett, “Why don’t you leave America?” to which he responded, “Give me some money,” the Clay County Sheriff’s Office report stated.

The duo then parked their vehicle at a nearby McDonald’s before walking back toward Brownett. The man, who can be seen wearing an orange shirt in video footage, shouted, “Actually, I like that sign. Give it to me,” according to WJAX.

A scuffle then ensued during which the man with the orange shirt can be seen tackling Brownett and wrestling with him, as the woman, wearing a gray shirt in the footage, walks over to join them before kicking Brownett several times. A fourth unknown person attempted to break the two men apart, but the man in the orange shirt used the lull in the fight to punch Brownett several times in the face, witnesses said.

Of course, we shouldn’t encourage violence like this, but it’s hard to say this guy didn’t have it coming to him.

Tell us what you think in the comments.


0 218
I'll be the first person to admit that I'm not really a country music fan. Now, before you start a flame war in the...