BREAKING NEWS: Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Massachusetts.
National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.
During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.
Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.
And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.
History. Study it, or repeat it.
Tennessee Senate passes bill to allow permitless carry of handguns
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WZTV) — The Tennessee Senate passed a Gov. Bill Lee backed-bill that would allow for permitless carry of a handgun in the state for people over 21 and military members over 18.
Lawmakers voted 23-9 on third and final consideration to move the measure forward on Thursday with an amendment prohibiting a person who has been convicted of stalking or someone convicted of DUI once in the past 5 years or twice in the past 10 years.
SB 0765/HB 0786 was introduced by Sen. Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) and Rep. William Lamberth (R-Portland) would permit both open and concealed carrying of handguns for anyone over 21 and 18 for military members.
Right now, the measure is already legal in over a dozen states.
Governor Bill Lee has supported removing the permitting and training process for getting a gun for over two years. It still has hurdles to overcome in the House before going to Gov. Lee’s desk.
There’s a separate constitutional carry bill making its way through the Tennessee Legislature that has less restrictions than this bill.
Full Amendment language:
“Any person at least 21 years old or at least 18 years old and is a member of or honorably discharged or retired from the United States Armed Forces or any National Guard or Reserves is exempt from the offense of open or concealed carrying of a firearm with the intent to go armed if legally in possession and not prohibited from carrying a firearm.
Creates a Class B misdemeanor offense for a person to carry a handgun who has been convicted of stalking, aggravated stalking, or especially aggravated stalking, convicted of two or more DUIs within the last ten years or one within the last five years. Creates a Class B misdemeanor offense for a person to carry a handgun who has been adjudicated as a mental defective, judicially committed to or hospitalized in a mental institution or has had a court appoint a conservator for the person by reason of a mental defect.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein has reintroduced her unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” which outlaws commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms based solely on cosmetic features. Take action to stop it now! NAGR.org/StopAWB
Quote of the day…
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. – Daniel Webster
Keller’s Riverside Gun Store in Mason, Texas
Please scroll down to read all of text.
Listen to this actual radio gun ad in Texas . It’s only a minute long –
stay on, it gets better at the end. Only in Texas !
Keller’s Riverside Gun Store in Mason , Texas
This is a real commercial.
Less Focus on Gun Control, More Focus on Who Controls Guns
“Today, as the Vice President meets to discuss gun control, I can’t help but wonder why parents’ groups haven’t been invited to the table? As the President of the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, I would be happy to represent over 500,000 women worried about the security of their most precious possession, their children and the ability to protect them. One in 10 women has already made a choice about protecting their children and has chosen to own a gun (CNN).
“Shouldn’t Parents’ Television Council, who works tirelessly to protect our children from the glorified violence in media, have a seat at Vice President Biden’s table as well? Shouldn’t we have more input from groups who represent those with mental illness? National Association on Mental Illness should have a say, given that the shooters in Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine all exhibited signs of mental illness. Vice President Biden needs to pull up a few more chairs and bring all concerned to the table focusing less on gun control and focusing more on those who control the guns.”
If you would like to schedule an interview with CWALAC CEO and President Penny Nance please contact Alice Stewart at email@example.com or 202-365-5654.
Magnum Research’s Apocalyptic Desert Eagle
Should you ever find yourself surrounded by Zombies or other unworldly forces, the new Magnum Research Mark XIX Apocalyptic Desert Eagle certainly makes a good defense. The new Cerakote distressed matte white finish should intimidate even the wildest of beasts and evil undead.
For shooting enthusiasts who do not really worry about the apocalypse, this new Mark XIX Desert Eagle distressed white finish earns kudos for the “cool factor”. The new Cerakote finish consists of a multi-step process which involves a high-temperature ceramic coating that holds up under normal use. It has been tested for durability and has proven to be very tough.
The Apocalyptic Desert Eagle comes in two calibers: .50 AE and .44 Mag. The .50 AE is a gas-operated, semi-automatic pistol with a 7-round capacity. The .44 Mag. has an 8-round capacity. Both guns measure 10.75 inches in length with 6-inch barrels. Slide width is 1.25-inches, height is 6.25 inches and the weight with an empty magazine is approximately 4 pounds, 5.8 ounces in .50 AE, and 4 pounds, 6.6 ounces in the .44 Mag. It has a trigger reach of 2.75 inches and a sight radius of 8.5 inches with the 6-inch barrel.
The construction of the Desert Eagle utilizes the latest CNC machine technology providing exacting specifications with tight tolerances creating a work of art in a precision firearm. This Desert Eagle features a G10 grip. The G10 material is a high-pressure thermoset plastic laminate consisting of multiple layers of woven fiberglass mesh cloth impregnated with an epoxy resin binder. It is anatomically formed and provides an ideal hand seating angle for two-handed shooting allowing for comfortable, rapid and accurate firing. The Weaver style accessory rail easily allows for aftermarket optics and scope rings.
The MSRP on the new Apocalyptic white matte distressed pattern for the Mark XIX Desert Eagle is $1895 for the DE44WMD and $1922 for the DE50WMD.
For more information about Magnum Research products, visit www.magnumresearch.com.
The M-14 is the shortest-lived “official” standard service rifle in the history of the United States. It survives in military service as the M21 sniper rifle in some reserve units, in the U.S. Navy and in special operations units. The rifle is still the weapon of choice in the U.S. military when a 7.62mm NATO combat rifle is required and thousands of them remain in storage. Despite the fact that the M-14 was officially replaced throughout the US Army by the M-16 in the early 1970s, there are those who still prefer it over the lighter rifle. The M-14 forms the basis for the Marine Corps’ Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) and special operations’ Mark 14, Mod 0 modular rifle.
The history of the M-14 begins in 1945. Ordnance Engineers at the Springfield National Armory had completed development of a new select-fire rifle designated the T20E2. The T20E2 appears to be very similar to an M-1 Garand except for a muzzle brake, a 20-round magazine and a selector switch on the receiver under the rear sight. By late summer of 1945, the new rifle was considered ready for service. The T20E2 was not as reliable as the M-1 and the recoil of the .30-06 cartridge in fully automatic fire made the rifle almost impossible to control. Regardless, the Army ordered 500,000 T20E2 rifles for the invasion of Japan, but the end of the war in August caused the order to be canceled.
The Army was developing a shorter .30 caliber cartridge that would reduce recoil, while maintaining ballistics similar to those of the .30-06. Improvements in smokeless powders accomplished in World War II along with engineering assistance by Winchester resulted in a .308 cartridge that was one third smaller and lighter than the .30-06 but with nearly identical ballistics. The new cartridge would eventually be standardized by the U.S. Army and NATO as the 7.62 x 51 mm cartridge.
A series of trials for a replacement for the M-1 Garand began in August 1952. There were two American rifles, the T44 with a modified Garand gas system and the T47 that used a falling bolt mechanism. The Belgian Fusil Automatique Leger (FAL) and the British EM-2 bullpup rifle were also evaluated. When the tests were completed in December 1952, the FAL proved superior to all other candidates. The British EM-2 and the American T47 were dropped from consideration. Development of the FAL, designated T48, and the T44 rifles continued.
Final testing was conducted in 1956 and included a series of shoot-offs between the T44 and the T48. To this day, the testing is controversial and the fact that the FAL went on to be adopted by the military forces of more than 90 countries, while the T44, type classified as the M-14, was adopted by fewer than 10 nations calls to question the objectivity of the test personnel. On 1 May 1957 the Army announced that the T44 would become the standard U.S. Army rifle and type classified as the M-14.
The M-14 was manufactured at four facilities: The Springfield National Armory, Harrington & Richardson Arms, Winchester and Thompson Ramo Woodridge (TRW). There are few differences between manufacturers in terms of reliability and safety.
Despite being beloved by millions of GIs, the M-1 experienced minor problems throughout its service life and the M-14 seemed to have cured most of those. The M-1’s bulky gas cylinder near the muzzle was reduced in size and moved back 8 inches. The way in which the gas was used to operate the action was also modified. When a cartridge is fired in an M-14, some of the expanding gases that drive the bullet forward are bled away through a port in the barrel like the M-1.
With the M-14, however, the gases expand into a short gas cylinder via a vent in the wall of a hollow gas piston rather than against the front of a solid piston connected to an operating rod. When the piston is filled, it moves to the rear, pulling the gas vent out of alignment with the gas port and shutting off the further gas flow. As the piston travels to the rear it uncovers an orifice in the cylinder bottom that vents the gases trapped in the hollow piston out of the gas cylinder. The M-14’s milder action all but eliminated most parts breakage. The M-14 gas flow can be shut off for launching grenades by rotating a spindle valve on the side of the gas cylinder block.
The M-1’s eight-round en block clip was replaced by a 20-round detachable box magazine. This allowed the soldier to “top up” his magazine via stripper clips or loose rounds at any time. This was impossible with the M-1’s clip. And there was no spring steel clip to bounce out of the breech with a distinctive “ding” that could alert an enemy to the fact that the rifle was empty. Further, when a 20-round magazine was empty, it could quickly be replaced.
The basic M-14 is a select-fire weapon; that is, it can be fired in semiautomatic mode or on full automatic. Soldiers quickly discovered that the M-14 in full automatic was impossible to control and was virtually useless tactically. This was partly because of the M-14’s traditional stock design that directed recoil forces to a point above the shooter’s shoulder, forcing the rifle down at the rear and up and to the right at the muzzle. Even the M-14A1 with its modified stock assembly that helped redirect recoil forces and its muzzle brake/compensator was virtually uncontrollable on full auto and the barrels overheated very quickly. As a squad automatic rifle, the M-14A1 was rendered almost useless by its design and the fact that it was never designed or intended for sustained automatic fire. These ineffective weapons were soon to be replaced by the 7.62x51mm M60 machine gun. Other than the M-14A1, virtually all other infantry M-14s had their selector switch removed. The M-14A1 was never fully satisfactory and production was terminated in January 1963, well before production of standard M-14s ceased.
Although the M-14 was type classified in early 1957, no production rifles were manufactured until July 1959.
The M-14 received its baptism by fire in Vietnam in 1961. U.S. Army advisers to the Republic of Vietnam Forces used the M-14 extensively in combat against the Viet Cong. The rifle was considered too large and heavy for the slightly built Vietnamese soldiers to use effectively, although the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) soldiers were equipped with M-1 rifles weighing even more. Because of availability issues, M-14 distribution was generally limited to Americans.
Questions also arose regarding the M-14’s accuracy. Rumors began to circulate, some regarding the various manufacturers’ ability to build accurate rifles, others regarding the 7.62x51mm cartridge. It was eventually determined that a combination of factors led to the M-14’s accuracy issues and once the causes were determined, they were rectified with relative ease. The M-14 today is considered to be an accurate and reliable rifle and the 7.62x51mm cartridge itself is considered one of the most inherently accurate cartridges ever produced.
At the time that the M-14 was still in early stages of fielding, the Army was investigating ArmaLite’s AR-15 rifle, developed by Eugene Stoner, Jim Sullivan and Robert Fremont. The Army staff, however, wanted no part of the AR-15 and was stalling its development. Proponents of the M-14, having taken years to get the rifle into service, were actually preventing further development of the AR-15 concept.
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara eventually demanded a full investigation not only of M-14 versus AR-15 testing but of the M-14’s overall performance in combat. The Army’s inspector general found that several tests had been rigged to show the AR-15 in a poor light, although the AR-15 had outperformed the M-14 in almost every category. In January 1963, Secretary McNamara announced that when that year’s production contracts for the M-14 were fulfilled, production of the rifle would be terminated. At the same time, he announced what was expected to be a one-time buy of 85,000 AR-15 rifles for the Army and 19,000 for the Air Force. The new rifle was type classified as the M-16.
A total of 1,380,346 M-14s was manufactured over approximately four years. Harrington & Richardson built 537,582; Springfield 167,100, Winchester 356,501 and TRW 319,163. The M-14 would remain the “Standard A” rifle until January 1968, but the M-16 was fast replacing the M-14 in Southeast Asia. When the M-14 procurement was canceled, the Marine Corps had been equipped with the M-14 for only a few months and the Army had never been completely reequipped.
The program to develop a National Match M-14 rifle began in 1959 and the first rifles were produced in 1962. In the first two years, 7,200 National Match rifles were manufactured at Springfield. TRW made 4,874 for the 1964 matches and the final 2,094 for the 1965 matches were rebuilt from existing service rifles at Springfield as production of new rifles had ceased. As it turned out, the National Match M-14 rifles made an excellent platform for a sniper rifle. The Army discovered that the National Match M-14 fitted with a range-finding telescopic sight served very well as a sniper weapon. After experimentation and field-testing the new sniper rifle was type classified as the M21.
As of the time of this writing in mid-2009, the M-14 is still playing an active, if limited, role in the U.S. military. As mentioned, it is in use by several special operations units as the Mk 14, Mod 0 and forms the basis for the Marine Corps DMR. The latter rifle is modified in such a way that it is extremely difficult for the rifle to be converted to select fire. Some units have deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq armed with M-14 rifles.
The civilian versions of the M-14 for the most part use commercial receivers with no capability to accept select-fire components and since the original M-14 was rarely used in full automatic, commercial versions might well be considered for purchase if supplies of government-owned M-14s ever become exhausted.
Despite being replaced as the military’s standard Infantry rifle in the early 1970s, the M-14 will continue to “soldier on” for the foreseeable future. There isn’t any other rifle that does anything appreciably better and there is a substantial inventory of M-14 rifles and components for repair parts.
M-14 SPECIFICATIONS (Basic Version):
Caliber: 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester)
Operation: Gas, select fire
Feed: Detachable box magazine,
20 rounds standard
Barrel length: 22 inches
Twist rate: 1:12
Overall length: 44 inches
Empty weight: 8 pounds, 9 ounces
Reprint from TACTICAL-LIFE
The Glock 19 appears to be the go-to sidearm nowadays for America’s troops.
The Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) announced in October that it would be switching to the 9mm Glock 19 from the .45 Colt 1911.
Prior to that announcement, U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley reportedly requested in March that the Glock 19 find its way into the hands of his soldiers.
But the Marines and U.S. Army weren’t the first to see the benefits of using the G19. In December 2015 it was reported that the U.S. Navy SEALs were trading their Sig Sauer P226 MK25s for the Glock 19.
To examine the Navy SEALs’ switch, we’ve brought in Don Adams (Doitrite) via The Loadout Room to discuss the advantages of both the Sig Sauer P226 MK25 and the G19:
People are so offended by the Glock 19 replacing the MK25. Sig and Glock fans argue whether the Navy SEALs are stupid or smart for hours. I doubt this is going to be an argument that will cease any time soon. I want to add my 2 cents on what might be going on here.
Our military has held its current standard weapons inventory for a couple decades with very little deviation. The only change I observed in my time in the Marine Corps was an introduction to the full-auto capable MK12 with delicious OTM rounds. Times were changing fast, but I got out before the next shifts came in the form of the IAR to replace the SAW in some units, and even the Colt M45 to the Glock 19. MARSOC was the first to take the path to the Glock publicly, if I remember correctly.
I personally don’t care what the military or SF use for their pistol or rifle. Most of the time it is political in nature, as well as being budget based. If the entire military chooses the Glock 19 for their sidearm, just to skip the trials since it’s already NATO approved, so be it.
The end fact is that the pistol, no matter the model, is going to get abused, neglected, and broken. But people put too much stock into the military selection. We civilians are not in the military and when we purchase a gun, we are not getting a used and neglected gun. But let’s just look at the two pistols that are the head of this debate, shall we?
The MK25 is a very big deal, even today, for the metal framed lovers. Now this pistol has been around for decades and has seen plenty of changes, but it is still pretty much the same. I like this pistol for its easy to use controls, and how easy it is to work on for being a DA/SA pistol. The controls on this pistol are a little spread out and are pretty simple in their uses.
The grip on this pistol is actually pretty fat, and it isn’t great with gloves on if you’re vertically-challenged like me. The trigger on this pistol is undoubtedly a good trigger and a standard for other pistols on the market in the DA/SA configuration to look up to. The mag capacity is a little strained at 15, but 18rd mags are available aftermarket. If you prefer the popular thumbs forward grip with gloves, you may hold down the slide stop on the last round.
Glock 19 Gen3
The Glock 19 needs no introduction. It is the envy of a lot of pistol companies that have followed it into the polymer striker fired world. Anyways, all the controls are tight together and completely unobtrusive and dehorned. You have to mean to use them in order for them to work.
This pistol is the perfect size, and has a size to capacity ratio that other pistols try to match. It takes little training to learn and has a simple manual of arms. It is easy to work on and replacing a part can be done in less than a minute.
But this system does have its problems. The mags don’t fall out easy without a flick to encourage it, and the pistol does need sights replaced almost right away due to the cheap stock sights that are very easy to deform.
I like the Sig MK25 and I like the Glock 19. Both pistols are good, but they are from two different worlds and time periods. Their triggers and their purposes are night and day different.
I see the MK25 as a home defense and duty pistol, while I see the Glock 19 as a carry pistol. The debate about the switch to the Glock 19 will continue forever, just as the Beretta vs Sig debate still lingers. Some people will never accept this switch.
In my opinion, you should just go out, get whatever pistol you like and enjoy shooting it. I don’t really put much stock in military decisions, as I am no longer a part of that gun club. Seriously, I don’t see the point in using their choice as being a standard for your choice since the military doesn’t always make the best choices for its troops. But the only thing I am going to be watch is what parts on the Glock 19 will break constantly. What do you think?
Gun News – Rifle Manufacturer John Noveske Mysteriously Killed Shortly After Posting Controversial Article
By Bob Price
Guns don’t kill people. People on psychotropic drugs kill people – sometimes with guns.
Last week, publications in the firearms industry around the U.S. reported that legendary rifle manufacturer John Noveske died in a tragic single car accident. According to The Outdoor Wire website,
“Oregon State Police (OSP) Sergeant Tyler Lee reports that on January 4, 2013 at approximately 9:13 p.m., a 1984 Toyota Land Cruiser driven by John Noveske, age 36, from Grants Pass, was westbound on Highway 260 near El Camino Way. As the vehicle negotiated a right curve, it traveled across the oncoming lane onto the dirt highway shoulder until it struck two large boulders. The vehicle rolled and Mr. Noveske was ejected.”
The firearms industry is a very close community and the loss of John Noveske will be greatly felt by us all. This time of year, in particular, gun dealers and manufacturers gather at many trade shows and distributor shows to line out plans and purchases for the upcoming year. I am sure this will be a major point of discussion at the upcoming S.H.O.T. Show in Las Vegas later this coming week.
Interestingly, about a week before this car wreck, Noveske published a post on his Facebook page about the connection in recent mass-casualty shootings to drugs being prescribed to the people who committed these crimes. In a January 10th article I posted in response to an email from Sen. Dick Durbin, I said that rather than focusing on the guns being used in these shootings we should look at the people who are committing these crimes and what might be causing them to take these extreme actions.
The Natural News article re-posted Noveske’s last Facebook post, dated December 27th. This writer makes no claims about the accuracy of the following text from that posting:
Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.
Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking
Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)
Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)
Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.
Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.
A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”
Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.
Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.
Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.
Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.
Missing from list… 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds….
What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21…… killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az
What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24….. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado
What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or
What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Roberts is the only one that I haven’t heard about being on drugs of some kind.
Noveske was not the only highly-visible person in the firearms to die since this recent anti-gun panic began. The New York Daily News reported, along with several other publications, that Keith Ratliff, creator of number 10 ranked YouTube channel, FPS Russia, was found shot to death in his Carnesville, Georgia. His death is being investigated by local authorities as a homicide. He was found with a single gunshot wound to the head that, according to investigators “was not self-inflicted”.
Are these deaths related in any way other than the coincidence of them both being highly visible in the firearms industry? Only time will tell, but for now I think it is important to look at the message Noveske discussed just before his death. Is there an epidemic of over-prescription of drugs that are altering peoples’ mental states tp the point where they are committing these horrible crimes? Let’s have a real discussion about the issues related to violence committed by people with guns. Certainly this is a more important issue to look into than how many bullets I can put into a magazine.
Quote of the day…
Bushido is all very well in its way, but it is no match for a .30-06 – Jeff Cooper
What Does the Bible Say About the Right to Bear Arms?
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “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.”
In light of recent mass shootings, however, this right of the people to keep and bear arms has come under heavy fire and heated debate.
The current White House Administration and several recent polls seem to suggest that most Americans favor stricter gun laws.
So, what are the concerns for Christians in this debate over stricter gun laws? Does the Bible say anything about the right to bear arms?
Is Self-Defense Biblical?
According to conservative leader and Wall Builders founder David Barton, the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Second Amendment was to guarantee citizens “the biblical right of self-defense.”
Richard Henry Lee (1732–1794), a signer of the Declaration of Independence who helped frame the Second Amendment in the First Congress, wrote, “… to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
As many of the Founding Fathers recognized, Barton believes that “the ultimate goal of the Second Amendment is to make sure you can defend yourself against any kind of illegal force that comes against you, whether that is from a neighbor, whether that is from an outsider or whether that is from your own government.”
Obviously, the Bible does not specifically address the issue of gun control, since firearms like we use today were not manufactured in ancient times. But accounts of warfare and the use of weaponry, such as swords, spears, bows and arrows, darts and slings were well-documented in the pages of the Bible.
As I began researching biblical perspectives on the right to bear arms, I decided to speak with Mike Wilsbach, the manager of security at my church. Wilsbach is a retired combat veteran who also teaches personal defense classes. “To me the Bible couldn’t be clearer on the right, even the duty, we have as believers to self-defense,” said Wilsbach.
He reminded me that in the Old Testament “the Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn’t send in the Marines. The people defended themselves.”
We see this clearly in passages like 1 Samuel 25:13:
And David said to his men, “Every man strap on his sword!” And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword. And about four hundred men went up after David, while two hundred remained with the baggage. (ESV)
So, each man had a sword ready to be holstered and used when required.
And in Psalm 144:1, David wrote: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle…”
Besides instruments of warfare, weapons were used in the Bible for the purpose of self-defense; nowhere in Scripture is this forbidden.
In the Old Testament, we find this example of God sanctioning self-defense:
“If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.” (Exodus 22:2, NLT)
In the New Testament, Jesus sanctioned the use of weapons for self-defense. While giving his farewell discourse to the disciples before going to the cross, he instructed the apostles to purchase side arms to carry for self-protection.
He was preparing them for the extreme opposition and persecution they would face in future missions:
And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38, ESV)
Conversely, as soldiers seized Jesus at his arrest, our Lord warned Peter (in Matthew 26:52-54 and John 18:11) to put away his sword: “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Some scholars believe this statement was a call to Christian pacifism, while others understand it simply to mean in a general sense that “violence breeds more violence”.
Peacemakers or Pacifists?
Rendered in the English Standard Version, Jesus told Peter to “put your sword back in its place.” Wilsbach explained, “That place would be at his side. Jesus didn’t say, ‘Throw it away.’ After all, he had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason … was obvious—to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. Jesus was saying ‘Peter, this is not the right time for a fight.'”
It’s interesting to note that Peter openly carried his sword, a weapon similar to the type Roman soldiers employed at the time. Jesus knew Peter was carrying a sword. He allowed this, but forbid him to use it aggressively. Most importantly, Jesus did not want Peter to resist the inevitable will of God the Father, which our Savior knew would be fulfilled by his arrest and eventual death on the cross.
Scripture is quite clear that Christians are called to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9), and to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-40). Thus, any aggressive or offensive violence was not the purpose for which Jesus had instructed them to carry a sidearm just hours earlier.
Life and Death, Good and Evil
A sword, as with a handgun or any firearm, in and of itself is not aggressive or violent. It is simply an object; it can be used either for good or for evil. Any weapon in the hands of someone intent on evil can be used for violent or wicked purposes. In fact, a weapon is not required for violence. The Bible doesn’t tell us what kind of weapon the first murderer,Cain, used to kill his brother Abel in Genesis 4. Cain could have used a stone, a club, a sword, or perhaps even his bare hands. A weapon was not mentioned in the account.
Weapons in the hands of law-abiding, peace-loving citizens can be used for good purposes such as hunting, recreational and competitive sports, and keeping peace. Beyond self-defense, a person properly trained and prepared to use a firearm can actually deter crime, employing the weapon to protect innocent lives and prevent violent offenders from succeeding in their crimes.
In The Life and Death Debate:
Moral Issues of Our Time, leading Christian apologists James Porter Moreland and Norman L. Geisler wrote:
“To permit a murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”
Now, let’s return to Exodus 22:2, but read a little further through verse 3:
“If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder. But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty of murder…” (NLT)
Why is it considered murder if the thief is killed during a daytime break-in?
Pastor Tom Teel, an associate pastor entrusted with overseeing the security personnel at my church, answered this question for me: “In this passage God stated that it’s okay to protect yourself and your family. In the dark, it is impossible to see and know for certain what someone is up to; whether an intruder has come to steal, inflict harm, or to kill, is unknown at the time. In the daylight, things are clearer. We can see if a thief has come just to swipe a loaf of bread through an open window, or if an intruder has come with more violent intentions. God does not make a special dispensation to kill someone over theft. That would be murder.”
Defense, Not Offense
Scripture, we know, does not promote vengeance (Romans 12:17-19) or vigilantism, but it does allow believers to engage in self-defense, to resist evil, and to defend the defenseless.
Wilsbach put it like this: “I believe I have the responsibility to defend myself, my family, and my home. For every verse that I have used as a case for defense, there are verses that teach peace and harmony. I agree with those verses; however, when there is no other alternative, I believe I am charged with the responsibility to defend.”
Another clear basis for this idea is found in the book of Nehemiah. When exiled Jews returned to Israel to rebuild the Temple walls, their leader Nehemiah wrote:
From that day on, half of my men did the work, while the other half were equipped with spears, shields, bows and armor. The officers posted themselves behind all the people of Judah who were building the wall. Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked. (Nehemiah 4:16-18, NIV)
Weapons, we can conclude, are not the problem. Nowhere does the Bible forbid Christians from bearing arms. But wisdom and caution are of the utmost importance if one does choose to bear a lethal weapon. Anyone who owns and carries a firearm should be properly trained, and know and carefully follow all safety rules and laws pertaining to such a responsibility.
Ultimately, the decision to bear arms is a personal choice determined by one’s own convictions. As a believer, the use of deadly force would be applied only as a last resort, when no other option is available, to prevent an evil from being committed and to protect human life.
Quote of the day…
They’ll have to shoot me first to take my gun. – Roy Rogers
Forget Jade Helm: Obama quietly implementing OUTRAGEOUS rule against gun owners
Written by Allen West
The Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution states, “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.”
That statement is pretty clear to understand and comprehend, yet some folks just can’t seem to get over it. There are liberal progressive folks of the left who feel it is their mission in life to relegate the Second Amendment as meaningless. Now, what I am about to say will probably anger some people but so be it.
I’m often asked about FEMA camps along the interstate, Walmart stores closing, and the impending Operation Jade Helm. I continue to tell people that while you’re running around with your hair on fire concerning yourself about these stories, the Obama administration is doing the “Kansas City Shuffle” — you look right while they go left.
Get a load of THIS quiet assault going on – not just on our Second Amendment, but our First as well.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, “Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.
“In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail. According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.”
“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting. “This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.”
The result is that the Obama administration is going to assault the First Amendment in order to undermine the Second. Once again the bureaucratic regulatory state has reared its ugly head, developed a rule and posted it to the Federal Registry without the consent and knowledge of the American people, nor their Representatives. This is yet another means by which the Obama administration — aka, the liberal progressive left, is seeking to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Of course you’re asking, how can this be done and what does the State Department have to do with this?
As the Examiner writes, “At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers. The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.” …
As typical for the government gobbledegook, it took State Department 14-pages to explain but the NRA sought to encapsulate their overreach: “With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released’ into the ‘public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.”
Now of course the Obama defenders will say what does this have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms — much ado about nothing. But here is the objective: the government is seeking to restrict the free speech of American gun owners and the gun industry in sharing information pertaining to their ability to keep arms. Furthermore, the government is using regulatory coercion and threat of imprisonment to create behavior modification — not exactly a positive reflection on our governing system.
In addition, the Obama administration is seeking to surrender U.S. Constitutional gun ownership rights to international code — a violation of the sovereignty of our Republic. It’s just another attempt to chip away at our liberty by circumventing the legislative process and our rule of law. THAT is why this matters.
We’re entering that dangerous area of critical mass where America has an executive branch and a president who in their final eighteen months together will complete their fundamental transformation — by any means necessary.
The Obama administration and the progressive socialist left have effectively become “da man.” And because they’ve gone down that path, we may be entering a time of warranted civil disobedience. To think, that if I, Allen West, a law-abiding American citizen, were to write technical details or make a video about my Bushmaster AR-15 on this website without prior approval of the State Department, I could face a $1 million fine or 20 years in jail is simply beyond belief and comprehension. Welcome to the new America, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood liberal progressives.
Message to State Department: first of all, teach John Kerry how to ride a bike, then leave us the heck alone and stop trying to undermine our individual rights.
Message to President Obama: get a strategy to defeat ISIS, because we are not going to allow you to disarm our citizenry so your Islamist pals can overtake us here in our homeland. And I say that fully aware that PSD-11 demonstrates the Obama administration’s collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood — and we know exactly what the Brotherhood has intended for America in their Explanatory Memorandum written in 1991 by Mohammed Akhram. In case you don’t know, a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11 was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, no one is allowed to actually read it.
So please folks, instead of FEMA camps, Walmarts, and Jade Helm, study the ITAR and realize how the Obama administration is doing everything possible to slowly undermine your right to keep and bear arms.
Then, flood State Department phone lines demanding they rescind the unconstitutional rule or face the wrath of American gun owners who will not comply.
Quote of the day…
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. – Daniel Webster
VETS TOLD THEY CAN ‘BUY BACK’ 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
‘This is illegal and is called extortion’
A legal team investigating the Obama administration’s order that certain American military veterans deemed “incompetent” give up their weapons says the problem is worse than expected.
People who live with veterans now are being ordered not to possess a gun, and some veterans are told they can “buy back” their Second Amendment rights by giving up their veterans’ benefits.
“This is simply unbelievable, On the one hand the [Veterans Administration] and the FBI have found veterans to be mentally ill and too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms, while on the other hand allowing these allegedly dangerous people to buy their firearms rights back,” wrote Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation in a report.
“This is illegal and is called extortion.”
The organization has been looking into claims by a number of veterans and their family members.
The veterans were sent a letter telling them they were being classified as incompetent and the government was assigning someone to help them handle their benefits and payments.
Consequently, they were told, they could no longer own weapons, under penalty of fines and jail time.
The problem was that the veterans were being determined guilty without a hearing regarding the potential loss of their constitutional rights, USJF said at the time.
WND broke the story that the Obama administration insisted it was routine for officials to send out letters informing veterans that an unidentified “report” indicated they may be declared incompetent and consequently stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
It’s the same administration that in 2009 warned that “returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists.”
The 2009 report from the Department of Homeland Security was called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It also said Obama’s governmental managers were “concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”
So when hundreds, perhaps thousands, of veterans began receiving letters like the one dispatched from the Portland, Oregon, office of the Department of Veterans Affairs, alarm bells went off.
In the recent report, Connelly explained he’s uncovered so far “a coordinated effort by multiple federal agencies to disarm the American people.”
He cited the tactic of sending letters to veterans about being appointed a “fiduciary” and the resulting loss of constitutional rights.
“As we have gotten more aggressive in representing individual veterans to defend their constitutional rights the VA has adopted additional tactics against our American heroes,” the report said. “Some veterans have never gotten any letter or official notification from the VA. They find out they are on the NCIS list [of people banned from having weapons] when they try to purchase a firearm.
“Often they can’t even find out why they are on the list.”
Or veterans are told they are incompetent and can appeal the decision.
“But [they] are being told that if they do defy the government and appeal, their benefit payments can be suspended for the duration of the appeal, which can drag on for years,” the report said.
“The families of veterans are also [being] told that since they live with a veteran who has been declared incompetent they can’t own or purchase firearms.”
Or there’s that option to give up benefits, the report said.
And it’s expanding. Seniors on Medicare, some dental patients and even children seeing pediatricians have been questioned about firearm ownership.
Medical records are being passed from the Department of Health and Human Services to the FBI “of anyone who has ever told their physician they were feeling depressed, even if never treated, and anyone who has taken certain drugs for things like PTSD, ADD, or ADHD, among others.”
And, the report said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is adding regulations that ban from owning weapons anyone who ever was “examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist,” a routine part of many family court cases.
“What is next? Will you have to surrender your firearms to keep your Social Security, or to stay on Medicare? Will you have to certify that neither you nor any of you[r] employees own firearms in order to get a contract with the federal government?”
The door to the dispute opened when USJF received a copy of a letter to a veteran from the Portland VA Medical Center several years ago.
The letter warned the vet that “evidence indicates that you are not able to handle your VA benefit payments because of a physical or mental condition.”
“We propose to rate you incompetent for VA purposes. This means we must decide if you are able to handle your VA benefit payments. We will base our decision on all the evidence we already have including any other evidence you sent to us.”
The VA also warned: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.”
The letter was signed by K. Kalama, Veterans Service Center manager in the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs. But it didn’t present the “evidence,” the source of the evidence or why the veteran’s competency even was questioned.
At the time, WND contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs, and spokesman Randy Noller responded with a statement that the letters were no more than routine. But questions about why the letters are being sent, what evidence is used to determine a veteran is incapable of managing his or her affairs, who provides that information and why it is provided remain unanswered.
“The Department of Veterans Affairs’ policy to inform veterans of their rights regarding the Brady Act has not changed,” the statement said. “As has been policy for multiple administrations, VA acts in accordance with federal law and works with the Department of Justice to properly maintain the NCIS database. VA notifies any veteran who may be deemed by VA to be mentally incapable of managing his or her own funds of the opportunity to contest this determination and also to seek relief from the reporting requirements under the Brady Act, as required by law.”
Also unanswered was who makes the decision to put in motion the department’s decision to “deem” veterans “mentally incapable.”
Connelly noted the letter “provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA.”
“In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent,” he explained.
“This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
Read the letter that got the investigation started: