Friday, February 16, 2018

Hi, my name is AR-15. Some of you know me...........

...but many more of you know of me -- through the media. But you may not know the real me. 

I’m that cool, sleek-looking black gun you’ve seen profiled by the press. They put me in newspapers and on TV, showing my picture as if it’s a mug shot, even though I’ve never committed a crime. Oh, bad people have at times used (and abused) me to do bad things, but not really that often; as even The New York Times admitted in 2014, firearms such as me -- which that paper and others call “assault weapons” -- are only used in two percent of gun crimes (most are perpetrated with handguns). 

And that’s another thing. For a long time I didn’t mind the misnomer; it massaged my ego and made me feel like the big man on the block when I was called an “assault weapon.” But Mr. Duke convinced me that “pride goeth before a fall,” as the Good Book says. He pointed out that the term “assault weapon” was popularized by anti-gun zealot Josh Sugarmann, whose goal was to besmirch my reputation and get me banned. In fact, Sugarmann, not at all a sweet man, actually once said, “Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” 

And it’s true, especially in my case. The public knows my appearance well; people have seen my cousin and dead ringer, M-16, fired machine-gun style in war movies for decades. But, alas, I, AR-15 -- the weapon available to the public -- can only be fired semi-automatic. This means that every time you pull my trigger, one shot, and only one shot, is released.
So even if we accept the term “assault weapon,” that’s not me. To qualify, a gun must be capable of fully automatic fire (machine-gun style), and no such weapons are readily available to the public. So unlike cousin M-16, who originally had a select-fire feature allowing him to be shot in various ways, I’m just a one-trick pony. 

So even if we accept the term “assault weapon,” that’s not me. To qualify, a gun must be capable of fully automatic fire (machine-gun style), and no such weapons are readily available to the public. So unlike cousin M-16, who originally had a select-fire feature allowing him to be shot in various ways, I’m just a one-trick pony.
Despite this, I’ve become a media whipping boy. Even when those rare crimes are committed in which a gun of my class is used, but which don’t involve me personally — such as the horrific Orlando incident, where Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX — my face is front and center.  In fact, that’s what finally inspired me to speak out, articles such as this outrageous one from Daily News writer Gersh Kuntzman. Reporting on how he tried me at a Philly gun range, he actually wrote:

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions -- loud like a bomb -- gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.  

None of the above is true; I know because I was there. Oh, in my younger and more impetuous days, I would’ve gotten a thrill out of being portrayed as such a macho guy. But the Truth will set you free (something the propagandizing Mr. Kuntzman should ponder).
And the truth is that I never bruised Mr. Kuntzman. One thing I can rightly puff up my chest over is that I have very little recoil because I’m high-tech -- my mechanism is designed to absorb much of the energy of the blast. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Mr. Duke had the opportunity years ago to fire me on multiple occasions, and he says that I have by far the least kick of any firearm he ever used. And if you don’t believe him, trust your own eyes. Below is a video of a seven-year-old girl trying me for the first time (forward to 2:55 if you want to see just the actual firing).  

Did the little lass say “Ow!” or register discomfort in any way? Did she rub her shoulder? A 12-gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot could have knocked that little tyke on her kiester, but me? Also know that Kuntzman fired me only three times before bowing out, grousing that I was a “dangerous weapon.” And that fact, my friends, comes from Frank Stelmach, who was quoted by Kuntzman and who owns the gun range the journalist visited. You see, Mr. Duke actually called Stelmach, and one of the first things the man said to Duke -- as he complained of how Kuntzman misrepresented his words and the experience at the range -- was “It would be nice if journalists would write what you actually say!” 

And by the by, Stelmach said that Kuntzman never mentioned anything about his shoulder or expressed that he was experiencing any kind of discomfort. Stelmach also called the notion that an ultra-low-recoil weapon such as me could bruise a grown man’s shoulder “nonsense.”
As for my “explosions” being “loud like a bomb,” well, I can belt out a song, but not like some other firearms. And no wonder. I fire the .223 cartridge, a small-caliber round the same diameter as a .22 (yes, .22s are those cute little rounds you put in your Marlin as a kid). Of course, my round is a lot more powerful than a .22 (in your face, Marlin!), but just take a look at these “killing power” rankings of rifle rounds. It’s hard to admit, but my small .223 has the second least power of the 41 cartridges listed. In fact, when a lady friend of Mr. Duke’s tried me years ago, she remarked that, owing to my almost non-existent recoil, I was “like a toy.” It’s quite emasculating. 

Of course, then there are my magazines; for the Kuntzmans of the world, no, those aren’t things you read that usually contain liberal propaganda. They’re objects loaded with cartridges that, assuming they’re removable, you then insert into firearms. It’s true that high-capacity magazines are available for me. But criminals would always get them on the black market; moreover, with just a bit of effort, any gun’s removable magazine can be modified to hold a large number of rounds. So why am I singled out?
The answer is simple: my looks -- and others’ prejudices. Take a gander at me below: 


Am I not a sharp-looking guy? Black is beautiful!
But it’s also seen as “menacing,” especially by liberals in the media. Face it, since I’m functionally no different from other legal firearms -- semi-automatic just as most guns sold in America are -- I can only conclude that I’m profiled as dangerous because of my sleek military-like appearance and my color. If I looked like those much more powerful hunting rifles, would you really be troubling over me?
As Mr. Duke likes to put it, this is standard liberal style over substance. Never sparing my ego, he points out that assuming I’m a machine gun because I look like cousin M-16 is akin to putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and expecting to go 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds. Of course, my self-image will survive, but being misunderstood, mischaracterized and discriminated against is a bit depressing. 

It’s enough to make me want to shoot myself.
This piece was written by AR and edited by Selwyn Duke for grammar, punctuation and style                   
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to
To contact the author, email the above and write “Att: AR”


Just One ‘Gun Law’ Could Have Reduced ‘Stoneman Shooting’ Killings

The “Only Ones” the “law allows” to be armed will never be able to prevent multiple victims from being slaughtered. (@FranklinWSVN)

by:David Codrea
“Another school shooting” has rocked America, once more bringing out how divided the country is on guns. As we’ve seen before, furious words are being hurled by  raging citizen disarmament zealots manifesting their hatred of those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and accusing “NRA” of having “blood on its hands.” As usual, we see opportunistic and strident “progressive” politicians, cheerleading “journalists” and foaming-at-the-mouth “celebrities” egging that on, and posturing loudly for new “gun laws.”
“Debate” with fanatics vested in citizen disarmament is a wasted effort. At best, those attempting to inject reality into the public discourse may help enlighten those who have not given the matter close scrutiny and retain open minds. As for those whose minds are on lockdown, ask what laws would have made a difference in the atrocity at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High. You’ll get the same tired old platitudes.

Background checks? How have those worked at “stopping the violence” in places like Chicago? Besides, the suspect reportedly passed one.
Banning so-called “assault weapons”? Those represent only a small fraction of homicides committed with firearms, so anyone seriously proposing that needs to also demand a ban on handguns.
As previously reported at Oath Keepers, Nancy Pelosi admitted the “slippery slope” gun-grabbers used to ridicule as “paranoid,” but  which the founders of the modern disarmament movement freely endorsed. And lest you think banning all guns hasn’t been a long-term goal, check out what I found from the Jan. 1968 issue of GUNS Magazine while doing some research:

It’s only in recent times that gun-grabbers feel it more prudent to mask their true goals with terms like “common sense gun safety laws.”

So much for the lie that “No one is talking about taking your guns.” Of course they are. That’s the end game, or at least the beginning of the end game.
Not on our watch.
OK, so if guns are at a stalemate, what about identifying common factors to stop killers before they can strike? Like Hollywood’s Department of Precrime…?
There are plenty of conflicting reports about the suspect’s mental state, temperament, politics and ideology, with many playing “Gotcha” to conflate and spread blame. And people are naturally curious about such aberrations in their midst and information gets put out there that later turns out to be inaccurate. We’re still finding out much about him, not that the finger-pointing matters in terms of resolving anything. And our finding out is being hampered anyway now that the suspect’s social media presence is being taken down, forcing the public to rely on major media passing along what civil authority wants them to know.
The only relevant ideology is that he is twisted and evil. No one in his right mind advocates killing innocents.
Speaking of “right mind,” how about the “fact” that “everybody knew” the suspect was a likely school shooter?  Even the FBI had been informed and they didn’t follow up properly!

While we don’t know what they legally could have done, it’s tempting to believe they could have taken the suspect out of the general populace.
On what grounds? We can’t throw away due process. Recall that despite three visits, cops from a few years back say they didn’t have enough to remove the Isla Vista killer from circulation (which, among other things, was a spectacular admission of how California gun registration has proven useless at preventing anything.)
So I’m saying that’s just the way it is? Nothing can be done?
Not at all. There is one “gun law” that at least had the potential to make a difference, but it was being infringed by “gun free school zoned” edicts.  Broward County Public Schools, of which Stoneman Douglas is part, explains on its website:

No person shall be authorized to carry any weapon or firearm into any meeting of the public school district; any school athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any school facility; and/or school sponsored event. Any person possessing, transmitting, and/or using a weapon on School Board property shall be subject to arrest. In addition, employees who violate this policy may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. The SBBC hereby waives the exception in section 790.115(2)(a)3., and therefore prohibits the possession of any firearms in vehicles for student or campus parking privileges. a. Certified law enforcement officers are exempt when working within scope of their employment. b. School Board property shall be defined as school grounds, facilities, administrative offices, bus stop, school bus, or vehicle provided for transportation by the school system. c. School sponsored activities shall be defined as any approved School Board event or official School Board business, on or off School Board property.

Don’t look for the Second Amendment to be recognized any time soon by our representatives or the courts as “being necessary to the security of a free State.” Instead, look for renewed demands to enact even more citizen disarmament edicts.
We’ll see if this puts the kibosh on the Republicans’ stomach for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity with the midterms coming up. And don’t be surprised if some “gun rights leaders” — prone to endorsing “compromises” on things like “bump stocks” or “Fix NICS”  — decide it’s time for them to extend another olive branch to those who want nothing less than everything.
The proper response of course, for those who would “guard with jealous attention the public liberty,” is to respond to gun-grab demands with one word:
“No.” You can add “Your move” for effect.

For those who still insist on the disarmament we see so many calling for, I have one question:
How many men who resist are you willing to see killed in order to make that happen?
Don’t be surprised if some of the more emotion-driven and restraint-challenged answer “All of you.”

This shooting only reinforces the problem with “victim disarmament zones” and the utter necessity of armed officers in the schools AND armed and trained school staff and teachers.   As for calls to disarm us and ban guns, remember, in Paris, the terrorists at both the Charlie Hebdo and theater attacks used select-fire AKs which were smuggled into the country and were entirely illegal in France.  France’s ban on all such weapons in civilian hands didn’t matter.

A terrorist, a drug lord, a gang, or a raving lunatic, can all get whatever they need on the black market worldwide. That is the reality.

Given that reality, exactly what gun law here in the U.S. would have possibly prevented that crime?   None.  You can’t legislate away the existence of modern firearms.   They will exist.  But you can empower we the people, in all places, to be the protectors and actual first-responders the founders expected us to be as the militia.  An armed populace – including teachers and school staff – who are allowed to protect the children under their care, is the answer, just as it has been the answer in Israel for decades in defense of their children at school.  It works.   in fact, that is the only thing that works when a school is targeted for attack.  Everything else is simply too slow, as this latest shooting again demonstrates with the police failing to stop the shooter in time to prevent 18 deaths, and counting.

The staff and the teachers need to be able to put a stop to the killing, because they are ALWAYS THERE and don’t need to come from somewhere else.  They and they alone can provide the fast response that is needed to stop the killing.  When seconds count, the police are only moments away.  And that means the teachers and staff need to be armed and trained, just like in a church the staff and volunteers need to be trained.   The recent mass slaughter at Sutherland Spring Baptist Church in Texas shows that reality all to well.  Even with a local hero like Stephen Willeford responding as fast as he could with his own AR to stop the killing (beating the cops there) he was nowhere near as fast as an armed church member would have been, if any had been armed.

Whether it is a church, a school, a college, a mall, or any other public soft target for terrorism or mass murdering nuts, the answer is that the intended victims must be able to defend themselves and to protect those under their care.
One answer short term is for us trained military and police veterans to volunteer to do shifts at schools as armed guards across the nation until we can get enough teachers and staff trained up.  I’ll serve,  Won’t you?    Stewart

Protecting children in Israel.

Armed teacher in Israel.

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Always listen to this song when.....

3 Dog Night

....MSM,Congress,The FBI and DOJ says trust me: 

What we really need on TV Talk Shows today...


A return to the days when PC was not a word...when humor,facts,and common sense ruled the airwaves...Fair and Balanced was not just a was what we saw and enjoyed ! 

Story Example : 

And how Carnac the Magnificient would have reported on it: 

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Culture Mass Exodus Underway in California… Largest in Over a Decade

By V Saxena 

At least one major California metropolitan area is currently experiencing its largest mass exodus in a decade because of its left-wing policies, constant crime and its exorbitant home prices.
“I loved it here when I first got here. I really loved it here. But it’s just not the same,” one departing San Francisco Bay Area resident, Carole Dabak, told location station KPIX.
Though Dabak spent 40 years living in San Jose, about 50 miles south of San Francisco, she reportedly plans to relocate to Tennessee because of “crowding, crime and politics,” according to KPIX.

“We don’t like it here anymore. You know, we don’t like this sanctuary state status and just the politics here,” she added.
And it isn’t just the Bay Area that’s bleeding. According to an Orange County Register report from April, 2017, “the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates show that domestic migrants continue to leave the state more rapidly than they enter it.”

Considered one of the most left-wing metropolitans in the United States, the Bay Area hosts some of the country’s most radical policies in regard to illegal immigration, taxes, crime and other top issues.
The Bay Area’s lax attitude “toward vagrancy and homelessness” have been especially detrimental, gradually transforming Bay Area Rapid Transit system into a secondary home for drug-addicted drifters, as reported by Breitbart.

But even more damaging to the quality of life in the once-beloved metropolitan has been its lawmakers’ embrace of sanctuary city laws that prioritize the well-being of illegal immigrants over the safety of the lawmakers’ own constituents.
The Bay Area’s lax attitude toward homelessness and illegal immigration likely played a role in spurring the metropolitan’s violent crime rates to “rise much faster than the national average” in 2016, as reported last year by The Mercury News.

And many suspect it’s also to blame, in part, for the killing three years ago of San Francisco resident Kate Steinle by five-time-deported illegal immigrant Jose Ines Garcia Zarate.
According to Russell Hancock, the president and CEO of Joint Venture Silicon Valley, the exodus is also being driven by skyrocketing home prices.
“You can’t even contemplate getting into the housing market here,” he told KPIX. “And I don’t mean just service workers, I mean highly skilled professionals. The tech elite are having a hard time affording reasonable housing in Silicon Valley. So this is difficult, this makes it very difficult for employers trying to recruit.”
In a report published earlier this month, Mansion Global magazine revealed single-family homes in San Francisco now have a median price of $1.415 million. In contrast, the median price of a single-family home in my town of Raleigh, North Carolina, is $234,300, according to Zillow.

Question: Who would want to live in a leftist-dominated metropolitan that welcomes illegal immigrants like family, treats homeless criminals with kid gloves and prices homes out of the reach of everyday Americans?
Certainly not me. And apparently, not Dabak and many like her.
And what cities in the country are drawing the most new residents? According to the real estate services firm Redfin, the top draws in the United States are Phoenix, Arizaona, Las Vegas, Nevada, Atlanta, Georgia, and Nashville, Tennessee. It’s probably no coincidence that each of those states has a Republican in the governor’s mansion.
Did I mention yet that the San Francisco Department of Public Health recently voted unanimously in favor of launching a “safe space” for drug users to get high?
“The facilities provide a safe space where people can consume previously obtained drugs, such as heroin and fentanyl, under the supervision of staff trained to respond in the event of an overdose or other medical emergency,” reported local station WXIN.
Again, who the heck would want to live in this dump!?
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about the mass exodus from this formerly beautiful metropolitan area.
What do you think about life in the Bay Area? Scroll down to comment below!

On Feb. 22 the Mueller probe may be destroyed (and Obama with it!)

by: Stephen Dietrich

Americans overwhelmingly believe that former President Barack Obama illegally surveilled President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
On Feb. 22, 2018 we may finally get our answers.
An uncovered email from former National Security Advisor Susan Rice may end what critics have alleged is a partisan investigation into Trump by special counsel Robert Mueller. On Feb. 22, we could instead see the tables turned… and see the Trump administration open an investigation into Obama’s wiretapping.
On her last day in office in 2017, it has been revealed that Rice sent a suspicious email to herself detailing a strange meeting of top Obama administration officials on Jan. 5, 2017.
What that email contained has raised eyebrows across Washington, D.C. — and the American people could finally see Obama indicted for his suspected crimes.

Rice wrote —
On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present…
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia…
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro put it best in three questions:
“First, why was Rice sending a memo to herself, except to create a paper trail designed to paste a friendly gloss on a rather suspicious meeting? Second, how exactly would Obama have planned to prevent the intelligence community from handing over information to the incoming commander-in-chief?” Shapiro asked, pointing out that as the new commander in chief Trump has constitutional authority over every part of the executive branch, which includes the intelligence community.
“Third, Obama said he didn’t want to interfere with anything from a law enforcement perspective. But how about from an intelligence-gathering perspective?” Shapiro asks.
On Monday, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Rice demanding answers by no later than Feb. 22.

“If the timestamp is correct, you sent this email to yourself at 12:15 pm, presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time. In this email to yourself, you purport to document a meeting that had taken place more than two weeks before,” their letter reads, and then demands the answers to a number of questions.
The Daily Wire summed up their demands —
  • Why did Rice send the email?
  • When was she aware of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation?
  • Was she aware of the FISA warrant on Carter Page?
  • Did Comey or Yates mention any media coverage of the Steele dossier?
  • Was she aware of the Steele dossier?
  • Were there any more meetings of this sort?
It’s time the American people got the answers they deserve.

— Stephen Dietrich is the Associate Publisher of The Horn News