PHOTO BOMBS

Immigrants caught at border believe families can stay in US and collect benefits

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of immigrant families caught illegally crossing the Mexican border told U.S. immigration agents they made the dangerous journey in part because they believed they would be permitted to stay in the United States and collect public benefits, according to internal intelligence files from the Homeland Security Department.

The interviews with immigrants by federal agents were intended to help the Obama administration understand what might be driving a puzzling surge in the numbers of border crossings that started over the summer. The explanations suggest the U.S. government's efforts to discourage illegal crossings may have been unsuccessful. Its efforts have included public service campaigns in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to highlight the dangers and consequences of making the trek across Mexico to cross illegally into the United States.

The Associated Press obtained copies of the interview summaries, which were compiled in reports by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Intelligence. They said hundreds of people traveling as part of families consistently cited opportunities to obtain permission to stay in the U.S., claim asylum and receive unspecified benefits. Immigrants spoke of "permisos," or a pass to come into the United States.

Clinton on Confiscation: ‘It’s Worth Considering’

If elected president, Hillary Clinton would consider a federal initiative to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens. Yes, it’s true. Clinton would seriously contemplate confiscation were she to become the next president of the U.S.
Yes, those of us with at least half a brain could read between the lines of her anti-gun rhetoric, voting record, and political history and come to that conclusion ourselves, but it becomes a whole different animal when we hear it directly from the horse’s mouth.
Last week, at a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire, a voter asked Mrs. Clinton, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”
Clinton responded by saying, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”
The National Rifle Association was quick to slam Clinton for her remarks, essentially calling a spade, a spade, a gun grabber, a gun grabber.
“This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation,” said Chris Cox, executive director of The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement. “Hillary Clinton, echoing President Obama’s recent remarks on the same issue, made that very clear.”
Clinton also made controversial comments about the landmark Supreme Court ruling that held that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not contingent upon militia participation or government approval. Clinton said last month at a private event that the, “Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
Cox also addressed that remark, saying, “Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it. 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,” he added. “Hillary Clinton’s extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people.”
Are they though? I’d like to believe that she’s the radical and I’m the average Joe but I can’t help but to see a change in sentiment. I mean, it used to be that talks of draconian gun laws, let alone confiscation, was political suicide in presidential politics (remember Al Gore?) but the Democrats running now seem very open to the idea of putting the Second Amendment on the chopping block. That was evident at the debate last week.  Perhaps the times are a changing. What’s more, is gun-control organizations are certainly taking note — and the credit for this apparent shift.
“Gun violence prevention has been front and center on the campaign trail this season and again in the Democratic debate tonight, and that’s a reflection of how far the gun safety movement has come in the last few years,” said John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety, in a statement that followed last week’s debate.
“This is a marked change from 2008, when gun safety was largely avoided during the presidential campaign,” he continued. “The political calculus has changed — candidates are now running on gun safety.”
“Less than three years ago moms across the country came together to confront the gun violence in our country that kills 88 Americans and injures hundreds more every day, and tonight we’ve seen the power of our movement,” said Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America Founder Shannon Watts, in a statement.
“The myth that addressing gun violence is a political third rail is now in the past,” said Watts. “As tonight’s debate shows, candidates can talk about solutions to reduce gun violence because there is a growing movement of Americans demanding their leadership on this issue.”
At the risk of sounding like a bit of an alarmist, I’m scared by the normalization of gun-grabbing. I know the political realities are such that enacting gun-control at the federal level is still an uphill battle for gun grabbers, but it is also apparent that they are making real headway, real progress on their mission to Europeanize U.S. gun laws.
Gun owners really need to come together in 2016 because if we don’t show up at the polls to keep a Hillary administration from taking over the White House, Clinton won’t just talk about taking our guns — she’ll actually attempt to do it.

Big City Sheriff Says Black Lives Matter ‘Will Join Forces With ISIS’ To Take Down America

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is not shy about his conservative views. He once described men and women protesting police violence in Ferguson, Missouri as “vultures on a roadside carcass.” He’s accused Democratic governors, senators and Attorney General Eric Holder of acting as cat’s paws for the “New Black Panther Party.” And he told a National Rifle Association gathering that open insurrection may be the appropriate response to gun laws he opposes. Similarly, on Tuesday night, Clarke offered a unique take on the Black Lives Matter movement:

Clarke has long straddled the border between mainstream Republicans and the conservative movement’s paranoid extremes. During his aborted presidential campaign, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) described Clarke as a “friend of mine” who has “talked to me about [policing] many times in the past.” Yet Clarke was also named “sheriff of the year” by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a group whose leader backed anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy during an armed standoff between Bundy’s supporters and federal officials.
In a 2013 speech to the CSPOA, Clarke labeled the federal government a “common enemy” and compared the federal government’s current actions to the outrages that triggered the American Revolution.
Despite his views, however, Clarke remains a high-ranking law enforcement officer with a badge, a gun, and a bevy of deputies at his command.

Pro Shooter Turns A Pumpkin Into A Jack-O'-Lantern... With A Gun

"Remember, pumpkins are volatile creatures."

Posted: 10/27/2015 12:38 AM EDT

If carving a pumpkin with a bunch of sharp knives isn't quite dangerous enough for you, here's another option for making a jack-o'-lantern: shoot the thing.
Pro shooter Kirsten Joy Weiss, who performs trick shots such as shooting the lead tip off a pencil,  shows how to use a rifle to make a jack-o'-lantern.
Or, as she calls it, a "gun-o-lantern." 

"Now remember, pumpkins are volatile creatures (really, they are! You’ll see why once you shoot one)," she writes on her website. "They don’t cooperate perfectly, but if you set perfection aside and simply shoot, you’ll love your results."
Check it out in the clip above.
No matter how you carve your pumpkin, keep basic safety tips in mind. The Consumer Products Safety Agency says more than half of the 4,400 Halloween-related injuries every year come from attempts at making jack-o'-lanterns.

Oklahoma Homecoming killer/school shooters/theater shooters

I really just do not understand why these people are still alive, when there is a crime like this,murder for no reason, and your positive of the killer, justice should be fast and an effective deterrent for others who are thinking of the insanity plea, take them out in front of the courthouse and HANG them by the neck until DEAD. Let it be public, after the copycat wanna be's see some one's eyes bulge out,face turn brownish purple feet kicking pissing and shitting themselves I promise you this shit will slow way the hell down. Crazy? Damn right they are but doesn't mean they should be excused,hell all the more reason to hang em high. All you hear about is them, name,parents,lawyers, it's bullshit. Lets hear about the victims while the degenerated fuckers are kicken and shittin, no reason these fucks should still be breathing.

Another Government Agency Spending Millions on Military-Type Weapons

The Obama Administration has declared Climate Change our greatest security threat.
The EPA is cracking down on environmental violations.
And the EPA is heavily armed.
Yes, the EPA has spent millions on guns, body armor, drones, assault ships and more:

The Environmental Protection Agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on military-style weapons to arm its 200 “special agents” to fight environmental crime.
Among the weapons purchased are guns, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities, according to a new report by the watchdog group Open the Books.

The message is clear:
Don’t mess with the EPA.
They’ll send an army after you.
What’s more, with over 1000 attorneys, they’re armed with one of the largest law firms in the country.

MSNBC host: White males can’t be described as ‘hard workers’ because of privilege

During a discussion about Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) chances of gaining control of the speakers’ gavel, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles Alfonso Aguilar called the lawmaker a “hard worker.” MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry immediately berated the guest for using the term to describe a white male.
Here’s a partial transcript of the unbelievable exchange:

AGUILAR: But let’s be fair. If there’s somebody who is a hard worker when he goes to Washington is Paul Ryan. Not only works with the Republicans but Democrats. You know very well that I work on immigration issue, trying to get Republicans to support immigration reform. Paul Ryan is somebody who has reported immigration reform, has worked with somebody like Luis Gutierrez. Luis Gutierrez is very respectful, speaks highly of Paul Ryan. This is somebody who’s trying to govern.
HARRIS-PERRY: Alfonso, I feel you. I just want to pause on one thing. Because I don’t disagree with you that I actually think Mr. Ryan is a great choice for this role. I want us to be super careful when we use the language “hard worker” because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall. Because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like. So, I feel you that he’s a hard worker. I do. But in the context of relative privilege, and I just want to point out, when you talk about work life balance and being a hard worker, the moms who don’t have health care who are working —
AGUILAR: I understand that —
HARRIS-PERRY: But we don’t call them hard workers. Call them failures, people who are sucking off the system —
AGUILAR: No, no, no —
HARRIS-PERRY: That’s true.

Another Holistic Doctor Found Dead – 11 Mysterious Deaths Since June

• Dr. Gaynor’s death is a sad and tragic loss, not only to his family and friends, but also to those of us who seek alternative healing therapies.
  What makes Dr. Gaynor’s death alarming, however, is the fact that he is the 11th holistic/alternative medical practitioner to be found dead in under three months and under unusual or suspicious circumstances. Apparently, some of these doctors had recently had encounters with federal agents. Is there a connection between them all? It seems fairly likely given the high number of deaths and the similarities between the kinds of work that they did.
  Here are the names and details of the other doctors who we recently lost.
   
• Mary Rene Bovier, 65, of Sharon, Pa., who was found dead in her home in an apparent stabbing on Aug. 12. Police are investigating it as a homicide.
• Jeffrey Whiteside, 63, of Grand Chute, Wis., a physician who was found dead in Door County on July 23 with a .22-caliber gun near his body. Authorities last month ruled the death a suicide. He was reported missing on June 29.
• Nicholas Gonzalez, 67, of New York City, who developed an alternative cancer treatment, died on July 21 of a cardiac-related issue.
• Ron Schwartz, 65, of Jupiter Farms, Fla., an obstetrician and gynecologist who was found murdered in his home on July 19. The death remains under investigation.
• Lisa Riley, 34, of Northhampton, Ga., an emergency room physician, who was found dead in her home on July 10 with a gunshot wound to her head. Her husband, Yathomas Riley, 32, a professional boxer, has been charged in the death.
• Patrick Fitzpatrick, 74, of Bismarck, N.D., a retired ophthalmologist, has been missing since July 5. His truck and trailer were found abandoned near a pea field on July Fourth near Willow Creek, Mont.
• Teresa Sievers, 46, of Bonita Springs, Fla., a holistic physician who was murdered in her home on June 29. Two Missouri men, one of whom grew up with Sievers’ husband in St. Louis, have been charged in the death.
• Bruce Hedendal, 67, of Boca Raton, Fla., a chiropractor who was found dead in his car on June 21 with no explanation. Friends say Hedendal was in great physical shape.
• Baron Holt, 33, of Raleigh, N.C., also a chiropractor who was found dead in Jacksonville, Fla., the same day as Hedendal. He also was considered to be in sound physical shape.
• Jeffrey Bradstreet, 61, known for his work on Autism, was found dead in a river in Rutherford County, N.C., on June 19 with a gunshot wound to the chest. Authorities have concluded the wound was self-inflicted, though his family suspects foul play.

quotes from our Founding Fathers…

“Firearms stand next to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensible.”
-George Washington
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny of government.” ~Thomas Jefferson
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason

The M4 Carbine at 750 Yards and Beyond

The M4 Carbine at 750 Yards and Beyond: Three Simple Things to Know

We took our 14.5-inch BCM M4 carbine upper to the Best of the West shooting range in Liberty Hill, Texas, to try our skill (and luck!) on their long-range, reactive steel targets. It may seem completely counterintuitive to all common knowledge on the Internet to take a non-free floated, 14.5-inch barreled 5.56 NATO with a mil-spec trigger out to 1,000 yards, but we live in the real world, with people crazy enough to try it.
And here are our three main conclusions after an incredibly fun day at the range.

Your rifle doesn’t really matter

A standard AR-15 with a non-free floated barrel is far more accurate than many shooters think, and it makes sense if we consider how an AR-15 is built.

Never judge a book by its cover…or an AR-15

It doesn’t have a complex, multi-faceted action to bed, operating rod or finicky top handguard like other military rifles (we’re looking at you, M14 and M1A). In theory, the AR-15 is actually configured more like a standard bolt-action rifle in terms of how the barrel is mounted to the receiver and how the handguards interact with it: straight in, with consistent outside influence. This makes the overall design inherently accurate, and the fact that an AR-15 doesn’t need bedding helps as well.
While our little gun isn’t an M4 carbine in the purest sense—it lacks a full-auto capable lower—the upper half is true to form, right down to the side-mounted sling swivel. It also has an extended and pinned flash hider, to comply with arbitrary federal barrel length laws.
The gun was configured with a standard, single-stage AR-15 trigger housed in a Rock River Arms lower. While having a crisp, lightweight, two-stage match trigger like a CMC would certainly help, it’s not a requirement to get good hits on practical targets. After all, ample practice with a standard trigger beats no practice with a match-grade unit every day of the week.
We’re not going to be shy: shooting an AR-15 without a free floating barrel at long distance isn’t easy, even off the nice concrete shooting benches at Best of The West. It takes practice, practice, and more practice. But with that practice comes ability, and the AR-15 is more than capable enough for the job… as long as the shooter is.

Your ammunition does matter

Quality ammunition will make a bigger difference at 750 yards than a match-grade rifle will. Take an off-the-rack M4 carbine to the range with excellent ammunition, and you’ll likely see better results than you would with a custom-grade rifle shooting crummy ammo.
We originally started out with standard, non-match PMC XP193 ammunition, which shoots a 55-grain ball projectile at around 2900 feet per second out of a 14.5-inch barrel. This round perfectly mimics the old military-issue M193 load, right down to the tar sealant on the case neck.
Unfortunately, making contact with the steel targets at 500 yards and further was difficult at best. The bullet simply isn’t heavy enough, and velocities aren’t consistent enough to produce a consistent group. Additionally, the light bullet doesn’t fare well in the wind. It’s just not very ballistically efficient, which, incidentally, is a big reason the military switched to the heavier 62-grain M855 round.
That being said, the XPM193 performed very well on 10-inch steel plates out to 250 yards. Missing was pretty much impossible at these close ranges; point and click accuracy was the norm. It’s still fantastic, clean ammunition for stockpiling and general target shooting.
Thankfully, we had brought the “big guns” for everything past 250 yards: Reloads carefully crafted with Hornady 75-grain BTHP bullets and a stiff charge of Varget powder, as well as factory Hornady steel match, also in a 75-grain flavor.
Switching to the higher quality bullet and hand-weighed powder charges made a night and day difference. We went from occasional hits at 500 yards to consistent performance all the way out to 750 yards.
With high-quality ammo, making contact with the 18-inch x 24-inch steel plate at 750 yards was simply a matter of calling the gusting winds correctly. The 10-inch plates were slightly more difficult, and required a precise elevation hold and exact wind call.

Your optics matter

Right after good ammo, you need to have good glass on your rifle. It’s certainly possible to hit what you’re aiming at with iron sights, but it’s going to be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to call wind corrections without some kind of optic.

The Vortex Razor HD Gen II 1-6×24 is definitely up to the task

We were shooting the excellent Vortex Razor HD Gen II 1-6×24, and were clearly able to see 5.56 impacts at 1,000 yards. Much like the idea that a standard rifle is good enough to make hits, this is another slightly counterintuitive principal: more magnification isn’t a good thing, unless the quality is there.
I would readily choose a 6x riflescope with the quality of the Razor HD series over a 25 power optic of lesser repute. Magnification isn’t everything.
No doubt, the Vortex Razor HD II 1-6 has the resolution needed to shoot past 500 yards. It also has an appropriate reticle.
Thanks to free ballistic programs and apps, figuring out your bullet’s exact rainbow-like trajectory at extended ranges is no longer guesswork. Furthermore, this drop can be expressed in useful angular measurements like milliradians (mils) and minutes of angle.
Conveniently, the Vortex Razor HD Gen II reticle has seven mils of drop built right in, represented by hashmarks along the vertical stadia line. This made it easy to look up on a computer-generated ballistics table how many mils the bullet dropped at a given distance, and hold over at the proper mark.
Once that was accomplished, it was a simple matter to favor left or right of the target depending on how far the wind pushed the bullet. The day we went, wind holds were typically one to two target widths left.

View through the Vortex Razor HD at 750 yards. Targets at 1,000 yards can be seen to the left.

Most of our time was spent on the 750 yard targets, with only a handful of shots taken at 1,000 yards. Winds were fluctuating wildly, and our heavy 75-grain bullets had definitely crossed the sub-sonic threshold at that distance.
It’s not that the 1,000 yard targets were impossible to hit; they were merely improbable. Lighter weight match bullets in the 62-69 grain range would probably help this.
It was far more fun to shoot at 750 yards with reliable results, so that’s what we did most of the time.

Give it a try!

The 5.56×45 cartridge should definitely not be your first choice if you’re going to be shooting at long distances, especially at the reduced velocities that a compact 14.5-inch barrel brings. There are far too many ballistically superior chamberings currently available, if your primary goal is hitting tiny targets ten football fields away.
That being said don’t stay home from the range if you don’t have a fancy match-grade rifle or a non-free floating barrel. Load up some quality ammo from Hornady, Winchester or Prvi Partisan, grab the gun you already own, and get out there!

More

Clinton, O’Malley Say Americans Are Their Enemies

In the days since last week’s debate between candidates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, some commentators have suggested that Americans have seen enough, that no additional Democrat debates are necessary. In one respect, those commentators are right. In just a few seconds during the debate, the two candidates who harbor the most extreme views on guns showed why they shouldn’t be entrusted with our country’s highest elected office.

It happened when the candidates were asked, “which enemy are you most proud of?”

Of the five candidates onstage, the only supporter of the right to arms, former U.S. senator and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb—who had already answered a question about gun control by saying that people have the right to defend themselves—said that the enemy he was most proud to have had was the one who wounded him with a grenade during the Vietnam War. Webb didn’t elaborate, but he was referring to an occasion on which, as a Marine Corps 1^st Lieutenant, he led an attack against a communist bunker system, an action for which he was awarded the Navy Cross “for extraordinary heroism.”

However, the other four candidates—gun control supporters one and all—reflexively associated the word “enemy” not with America’s overseas adversaries, but with other Americans.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee tempered their answers, at least, Sanders saying only that “Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry . . . do not like me,” Chafee saying that the “the coal lobby” is a group he’s “at odds with.”

By stark contrast, however, Hillary Clinton and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, far and away the most extreme gun control supporters running for president, showed no such restraint. O’Malley said his enemy is the five million member “National Rifle Association.” Clinton went further, naming not only “the NRA,” but also the health insurance companies, the drug companies, Republicans, and only one group of people who are not Americans, “the Iranians.”

How things have changed. In 2004, during the keynote speech at the Democratic Party National Convention, then-Illinois state senator Barack Obama said, albeit with questionable sincerity, “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.” In 2007, presidential candidate Obama claimed that he wanted to unify the country and break it out of what he called “ideological gridlock.”

Today, tempted with the opportunity to indulge herself in the deadly sin of hate before a national TV audience, the leading candidate for the same party’s presidential nomination did so without hesitation or remorse. She gleefully said that she considers tens of millions of Americans to be the “enemy.” She equated the NRA, American business interests, and Republicans with those whose signature chant is “Death to America.” And the party faithful in the debate hall cheered her with the same enthusiasm Obama’s “one America” speech received 11 years ago.

It was an ugly moment, but it shouldn’t define the character of our political disputes going forward. In deciding to whom to entrust the presidency of the United States between now and Election Day 2016, all Americans, regardless of viewpoint, should hold candidates to a standard higher than what Hillary Clinton appears capable of delivering.

Hillary Adopts the 40% Myth to Argue for Gun Control

Hillary Adopts the 40% Myth to Argue for Gun Control Among the many issues standing between Hillary Clinton and the White House is what various media outlets have delicately labeled a “credibility problem.” Politico was more blunt in an August 27 article, asking, “Can Hillary overcome the ‘liar’ factor?” That piece went on to cite a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 61% of respondents indicated they did not believe Hillary was honest and trustworthy. Worse, when voters were asked the first word that came to mind about Clinton, the top three replies were (in order of popularity) “liar,” “dishonest,” and “untrustworthy.” According to the article, “Overall, more than a third of poll respondents said their first thought about Clinton was some version of: She’s a liar. … [T]he striking reality is that, for Clinton, a lack of trust is the first thing many think of.” Count us in on that.

NEWS Trustworthiness Issues? Politifact Calls Out Clinton Deception That there are apparently still people (though, increasingly few) that find Hillary Clinton at all trustworthy is becoming more and more incredible. Late last week, Politifact took Clinton to task over comments she made about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to Politifact, at a campaign event in Iowa, Clinton remarked “[p]robably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability… They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” Politifact properly branded the statement “False.” That Politifact has been known to skew their work in favor of gun control advocates, shows just how patently false Clinton’s characterization of the PLCAA was.     NEWS  LEGAL & LEGISLATION Tell Your Congressional Lawmakers: No New Federal Gun Control! Recently, we reported on a partisan gun control rally on the Capitol steps that sought to exploit recent tragedy and loss to build momentum for a longstanding agenda. Anti-gun members of the president’s party, always quick to do his bidding, have been emboldened by Obama’s own not-so-thinly-veiled call for confiscatory gun control. This week, the air on Capitol Hill remains thick with rumors of the impending gun control debate. Word is that it may come in the very near future. With local elections days away in several states, the anti-gun, anti-constitution wing of American politics is looking to activate its base.

How refugees from terror strongholds could bring tragedy to the homeland

State Department and Homeland Security officials are putting American lives at risk by ignoring the fact that violent extremists will exploit the U.S.’s compassionate immigration policies and infiltrate refugee camps within the nation’s borders.
That’s according to a letter sent to Secretary of State John Kerry and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Wednesday by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. Randy Weaver (R-Va.).
The Republican duo acknowledged that the U.S. “is a compassionate country and has a role to play” in alleviating the refugee crises sparked by violence in the Middle East. But the lawmakers added that U.S. officials can’t let that compassion put American lives in danger.
“We must be aware that groups like ISIS will infiltrate refugee camps and try to seek admittance into the United States. As you move forward with the process of admitting more refugees into this country, it is critical that rigorous background checks and security measures are in place,” they wrote.
Kerry, in September, announced, “The United States will significantly increase our numbers for refugee resettlement in the course of this year and the year after … We are going to go up to 85,000 with at least, and I underscore the ‘at least’ — it is not a ceiling, it’s a floor — 10, 000 over the next year from Syria specifically even as we also receive more refugees from other areas.”
Kerry added that State Department officials are aiming to bring in excess of 100,000 refugees into the nation’s borders during the next fiscal year.
Lankford and Weaver said that in addition to conducting rigorous background checks on refugee applicants, the federal government should prioritize applications from members of religious minority groups — such as Yazidis and Christians — most at risk of persecution by ISIS in conflict-torn regions Middle East.
Despite the lawmakers’ recommendations, it isn’t likely that the government is going to do a better job vetting refugees any time soon. Top officials have admitted that decisions to let more refugees into the nation have been made without consideration of limitations in the vetting process.
Kerry, who directed State officials to open the refugee floodgates over the next year and a half, recently admitted that there’s no way the vetting process can keep up with the onslaught of refugees.
“We have new [post-9-11] laws and new requirements with respect to security background checks and vetting, so it takes longer than one would like and we cannot cut corners with respect to security requirements.”
Even if federal officials don’t “cut corners” in vetting refugees flowing into the country from terror hotbeds, many will still never have their backgrounds, affiliations and beliefs scrutinized because they don’t already exist in government databases.
FBI director James Comey said as much during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing Wednesday.
“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey told lawmakers Wednesday.
“And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them,” he added.

Proof our southern border is under attack by Muslim extremists

Hello I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty^®. America is in deep trouble. Your families are in grave danger. Imminent danger. I have breaking news that has been shared by a border agent with only me. The question is: Why isn’t your government sharing this threat with the American people? And why aren’t major mainstream news organizations like The New York Times, CNN or Fox News reporting on it? Why is there a media blackout?
The breaking news that I’m talking about is the grave imminent danger of radical Muslim terrorists crossing our open border with Mexico to attack our homeland. I’ve warned this was likely happening in hundreds of media interviews, speeches and columns for over a year now.
My prediction is no longer a fear. It is now a fact.
My trusted insider source at U.S. Customs and Border Protection called me only days ago to ask me to tell the American people about this imminent threat. He told me to “imitate Paul Revere” and get the message out to all Americans, before it’s too late. His quote was: “We don’t need to wait for Middle Eastern military-age males to invade our border. They are here. The Obama administration will not report this. But the American people need to know.”
Here is the news, as reported to me from a trusted border agent.
First, the U.S. government has received an urgent alert from the government of Mexico that Syrian military-age males are on the ground in Mexico and feared headed for the U.S. border. U.S. border agents are on extreme high alert.
This crucial threat has not been announced by our government. Why are the American people being kept in the dark? Why isn’t major media like The New York Times, CNN or Fox News reporting this? Why am I, a conservative political commentator, the only person with this important information? If one brave border agent wasn’t a close and trusted friend of mine, no one in the American public would know about this. That’s remarkable.
Now comes the second piece of the puzzle, also unannounced to the public. Connect the dots.
At this same time, alarm bells were set off across the entire border agent community by the capture only days ago of 11 Pakistanis at the San Diego border. This is another giant, blinking red flag. This is the first capture of its kind, according to my border agent source. Very few Middle Eastern military-age males have ever been captured at the U.S.-Mexico border. But even more alarming is the fact that there has never been a capture of 11 Middle Eastern military-age men in one group before. Let me stress, this has never happened before.
Again, this capture has not been reported by the U.S. government. Why? Don’t the American people have a right to know?
To make matters more alarming, my border agent source says they all entered Mexico with passports. But when they were captured crossing the border in San Diego, suddenly they had no passports. They claimed their passports were “stolen.” Their identities were confirmed from the Mexican database that originally logged their entry into Mexico. Why were they trying to hide their country of origin? Were they trying to blend in as “just more Mexicans crossing the border” so as to not set off alarm bells? Again let me stress: Why isn’t this story in the mainstream media?
Then yesterday, I received a new urgent message from my trusted border agent friend. Six more Pakistanis were captured crossing in the same spot from Mexico into San Diego. This is no longer a “coincidence.” This is a pattern. This is a sign of a new threat against our homeland.
This is bad news, folks. Something is wrong. My border agent friend says this has never happened before. And if 17 Pakistanis were captured within days, how many more have evaded capture? Are there hundreds already in the United States that were never caught by border agents? How many more are on the way? Will our border soon have a massive Muslim illegal immigrant crisis just like our allies in Europe?
And here’s the million-dollar question: Who is sending Middle Eastern military-age males to America? Who is paying for them? Is ISIS footing the bill? With what intent?
My source warns this is “the real thing.” These are likely bad guys coming to do us harm. This is proof positive of the disaster we’re facing from Obama administration policies that have produced a porous open border with Mexico. And let’s not forget Mexico is warning us that Syrian military-age males are also on the ground, headed our way.
Our government has made no announcement of these alerts and incidents. Connect the dots. This is a very bad sign. Our borders are open. Thousands of miles are poorly guarded. There is no wall. There aren’t enough border agents. Bad guys from the Middle East know our border is wide open. They will send thousands of bad guys our way, knowing they only need a few to get through.
These are just the first bad guys from the Middle East caught. But this is a surefire sign that hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of others have already crossed into America. Or they are en route. We face imminent, grave danger.
Military-age males are not coming here from Muslim war zones to play golf. They are not coming here for jobs. (By the way, news flash: There are no jobs. We have over 94 million working-age Americans not working) They are coming here to do us harm.
And how do dirt-poor Middle Eastern military-age males from across the globe get to Mexico? They can’t walk. There is an ocean to cross. They are penniless. It costs thousands of dollars per immigrant to be smuggled from Syria or Pakistan halfway around the world to Mexico. Common sense tells us these are radical Muslim terrorists smuggled into Mexico by ISIS or al-Qaida to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. If not, why not smuggle in women or children? Why only military-age males?
Common sense dictates the only way Pakistani or Syrian military-age males could get to Mexico or America is with the help of ISIS or other terrorist organizations. This is a plan. This is a coordinated attack upon America.
Until our borders are secured, until a wall is built, until drones are placed along the border to warn border agents of security breaches, America faces imminent danger and potential mass tragedy.
You are not safe. Your children are not safe. Our economy is not safe. One more massive 9/11-like terrorist attack in the middle of an “Obama economy” (already on the verge of collapse), and we all face economic Armageddon. And our enemies know that. The question is: Why doesn’t President Obama care?

6 charged in 'wholesale slaughter' of animals in Leon County

A pair of seemingly unconnected investigations by law enforcement officers in Leon County - one by Texas game wardens looking into a landowner's report of a suspected poaching incident, the other by county sheriff's deputies investigating incidents of vandalism and other property crimes - resulted this week in arrests tied to what state wildlife law enforcement officials say ranks as the most egregious, disturbingly vicious poaching-related case any can recall.

Six Centerville residents, four charged as adults and two juveniles, face a flood of criminal charges, including a total of 120 felonies and 58 Class A misdemeanors, for violations of state wildlife laws tied to what Col. Craig Hunter, director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's law enforcement division, called "wholesale slaughter of game animals, non-game wildlife and domestic animals."
According to officers, the group illegally killed at least 68 white-tailed deer, an assortment of other wildlife including alligator, blue heron, vulture and egret, six head of cattle (one of which was hacked to death with a machete) and several domestic cats during a three-month frenzy of criminal acts that included more than a dozen burglaries and several acts of vandalism and other damage to private and public property.

• 
  6 charged in 'wholesale slaughter' of animals in Leon County
• 
  
  
  
• 
  
  
  

The suspects also face criminal charges in those non-wildlife-related cases; the Leon County Sheriff's Office has filed charges on three of the suspects and is preparing to file charges on the other three. The six, facing felony charges that carry prison terms of as much as two years, also could face federal wildlife-related criminal charges and, if convicted of state charges, well over $10,0000 in civil restitution for illegally taken wildlife.
'Beyond poaching'
Game wardens seized nine firearms, including a .22 rifle fit with a homemade sound suppressor, from the group.
All of the charges involve violations alleged to have occurred in Leon County, a rural county located about midway between Houston and Dallas and bisected by Interstate 45.
Those charged as adults are Daniel Wyatt Pate, 20, and John Edward Persaud, 19, along with two 17-year-olds.
Two juveniles also face charges in the cases.
"I don't know how to compare this to anything I've seen before," Capt. Mike Hanson, Rusk-based supervisor for TPWD's law enforcement division and 23-year veteran Texas game warden, said of the case. "The scope is just way beyond poaching deer."
State game wardens began investigating the case after a Sept. 1 call from a landowner who had found a whitetail doe, dead from a gunshot, in his pasture the morning after his wife told him she had heard a shot during the night, Hanson said. At the same time, the Leon County Sheriff's Office was investigating a series of property crimes in the rural county. Those investigations began turning up information that tied suspects to both cases. TPWD wardens Oscar Hensen and Randy Harper and Sgt. Brian Stafford of the Leon County Sheriff's Office worked together and broke the case.
According to investigators, between June 4 and Sept 1, the six were involved in serial illegal activity that regularly included poaching whitetail deer at night.
'Some kind of record'
The investigation documented 68 illegally taken deer, most of them shot from motor vehicles at night from public roadways. In some instances, officers allege, the poaching occurred on the feeder roads of Interstate 45; officers said at least 15 deer were poached from land adjacent to the heavily traveled highway. In several instances, the suspects returned multiple times to the same areas, killing deer and committing other crimes, officers said. They killed as many as five deer in a single night of poaching, sometimes removing back straps and hindquarters from the deer but often simply leaving the animals to rot where they fell, Hanson said.
The total tally of deerillegally killed by the group almost certainly is much higher than the 68 whitetails they are charged with poaching, officers said. That total could easily exceed 100 when deer that were wounded and died later or were poached and not found or otherwise documented are included.
"We've really got no way to measure how many deer, total, were involved," Hanson said.
But even at 68 deer, the total far exceeds the largest number of deer involved in a single poaching case any TPWD law enforcement officers can recall.
"There have been cases where we've had people take a dozen or so deer over a period of time; I think 17 or 20 is the most I've ever heard of," Hanson said. "This case has got to be some kind of record."
'Pretty vicious crimes'
Officials underscored that the poaching of deer and illegal killing of other wildlife was just a part of the three-month crime spree that included shooting out the window of a business, shooting road signs, destroying mailboxes, shooting a parked truck as well as the burglaries (most of hunter's deer camps), the killing of livestock and the shooting of house cats and other animals.
The extent and range of crimes alleged against those charged shocked even veteran game wardens.
"I don't think I've ever see a case like this in the 41 years I've been in law enforcement," Hunter, TPWD game warden chief, said. "There are some pretty vicious crimes in there."
The charges filed against the group reflect the extent of those alleged crimes. The 120 felony charges filed against the group are for killing a white-tailed deer on private property without the consent of the landowner; each violation is a state jail felony punishable by as much as two years in prison and a fine of $10,000. The 58 Class A misdemeanor charges are for hunting from a public roadway and carry a penalty of as much as a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.
Game wardens said they were surprised that the poaching ring could operate for three months, firing what they suspect was hundreds of rounds of gunfire, usually at night, sometimes within view of travelers on Interstate 45 and leaving dead deer and other wildlife - evidence of crimes - scattered around the county without anyone reporting suspicious activity to law enforcement.
"It's baffling, particularly when you know how protective most landowners and hunters are of deer and other wildlife," Hanson said of how the group seemed to operate without fear of being reported or caught.
During their investigation, officers learned many landowners and others had heard gunshots during the night but never reported the incidents to wardens or other law enforcement.

6 Reasons for Texans to Vote Yes on Proposition 6 this November!

This November, Texans will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment to create permanent protections for sportsmen and conservation in Texas. Voting "YES" on Proposition 6 will protect the Lone Star State's outdoor heritage for future generations of Texas hunters and anglers. Here are just 6 reasons why all Texans need to vote YES on Prop 6 this November to protect wildlife and promote conservation efforts that sportsmen have spearheaded for generations.

1. Hunting and fishing are an essential part of Texas’ (and America’s) cultural fabric.

   
   Approval of Prop 6 will protect future generations of Texas hunters and anglers from extremists who will dedicate themselves to eliminating these treasured outdoor traditions in the Lone Star State!
   

2. The freedom to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife in Texas currently has no constitutional protection.

   
   The freedom to hunt and fish is a fundamental right that people often take for granted; putting it in the Texas Constitution is the best way for Texans to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy this rich, outdoor heritage.
    

3. Across the country, hunting and fishing are under attack like never before.

   
   Well-funded, national anti-hunting groups that seek to ban all hunting, trapping and fishing are more active now than ever before on the state and local levels.
    

4. Prop 6 would guarantee that future wildlife conservation and management decisions are based on sound science.

   
   Prop 6 would ensure that wildlife conservation and management decisions continue to be based on sound science in order to preserve Texas' hunting heritage for generations to come and to protect it against future attacks based on misguided emotions.
    

5. Hunting and fishing are economically beneficial to Texas.

   
   According to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the Lone Star State's hunters and anglers spend $4.1 billion annually and support 65,993 jobs.
    

6. Currently, 18 states have Right to Hunt and Fish amendments in their constitutions.

   
   These constitutional safeguards are a pro-active way to defend America’s rich, outdoor heritage from radical anti-hunting and anti-fishing groups.

MPX submachine gun

Sig Sauer SIG MCX SBR

Sig Sauer Introduces the Cutting-Edge MCX For 2015

The ultra-modular new MCX from Sig Sauer can quickly transform from a 300 BLK carbine to a 5.56mm SBR to a 7.62x39mm pistol—or any combination in between!

Jan 21, 2015

Sig Sauer has been pushing the envelope in recent years with its MPX submachine gun and P320 striker-fired pistol series, but now, in 2015, the company has gone even further by introducing its MCX series.

• RELATED: New For 2015: Sig Sauer Unveils Next-Gen SIG MCX
• RELATED: Sig Sauer’s MPx 9mm SMG Is a Compact Powerhouse

The MCX is an extremely modular platform that allows users to adapt its barrel, handguard, stock and chambering—5.56mm NATO, 300 Blackout or 7.62x39mm. Multiple barrel lengths are available, including 9-, 11.5-, 14.5- and 16-inch units, and shooters can quickly swap those in along with a new handguard, such as a slim KeyMod version or a larger one that will cover a suppressor, by accessing two captive Torx screws. For stocks, shooters can choose between a skeletonized folding stock, a retractable MPX-style stock, an SBX stabilizing brace for pistols, a collapsible M4-style stock or a slim, folding, retractable stock.
All of the MCX’s controls are ambidextrous, including the charging handle, safety selector and magazine catch. The gun was designed for 100-percent suppressor use, so the cam path is made of steel for extra durability. The feed ramps are also made of steel and are removable. The charging handle has steel pins. Finally, the forward assist deflector assembly is removable and replaceable. All of these features enhance the MCX’s extreme reliability. Sig will also offer MCX upper assemblies for use on AR-platform lowers.
For more information, visit sigsauer.com or call 603-610-3000.

The Cutting Edge in Tactical Firearms

When it comes to mission profiles, the only constant is change. When FN designs a tactical firearms system, flexibility in real world military and law enforcement operational environments is a key factor. Tactical Systems are developed from the ground up to address the specific challenges of modern tactical situations. The FN SCAR^® 16 and FN SCAR^® 17 are the law enforcement variants of the newest U.S. military weapon system. The FN P90^® with its innovative 5.7x28mm ammunition is the ultimate tool for today’s VIP protective detail missions, close-quarters combat, urban operations and dynamic entry scenarios.

FN SCAR® Series	FN P90® Series
FN F2000® Series

Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)

AUTOLOADING SPEED–BOLT-ACTION ACCURACY

Inspired by the legendary Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) made famous in battle by Allied forces around the globe, the FNAR^™ puts autoloading speed and bolt-action accuracy into one powerful package. Chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO (308 Win.) the FNAR^™ is available with either a 16" or 20" cold hammer-forged MIL-SPEC fluted barrel with chrome-lined bore and target crown. The matte black synthetic pistol grip tactical stock is fully adjustable. The FNAR^™ is equipped with multiple MIL-STD 1913 rails for mounting your choice of accessories. It is a multi-role, mid-caliber rifle that is ideally suited for recreational, long-range target and competition shooting.

FNAR™ Standard	FNAR™ Heavy
FNAR™ Competition

THE WORLDS FINEST MACHINE GUNS

Whenever the discussion turns to machine guns, the name FN proudly stands front and center. No other company in the world has more experience in the design, engineering and manufacturing of belt-fed automatic weapons than FN – from the legacy designs of John M. Browning that have protected America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines for nearly a century, to today’s machine gun variations that accompany our warfighters into harm’s way. FN makes the finest machine guns in the world. Period.
FN machine guns cover the entire spectrum: Light Machine Guns (LMG), Medium Machine Guns (MMG) and Heavy Machine Guns (HMG). The FN Family of Light Machine Guns consists of the M249 (also known as FN MINIMI^®) and the lightweight MK 46 Mod 1 in 5.56x45mm, and the larger caliber, lightweight MK 48 Mod 1 in 7.62x51mm. The FN Family of Medium Machine Guns consists of the M240 (also known as FN MAG^® or FN MAG^® 58) series in 7.62x51mm. Finally, the FN Family of Heavy Machine Guns consists of the FN M2HB-QCB^™, FN M3P^™ and FN M3M^™ (GAU-21) in .50 caliber.

M249 Series	MK 48/MK 46 Series
M240 Series	FN M2HB-QCB™

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

Friday, October 16, 2015

More

It’s one thing to support gun control. 

It’s another to make it the centerpiece of a floundering presidential primary campaign. 

But Hillary Clinton wasn’t finished when she latched onto the idea of opposing the NRA as a means of diverting the nation from the humiliating scandals and poll results plaguing her own bid to succeed Barack Obama.

First, she announced to her wealthy supporters that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” which demonstrates her opposition to the individual right to keep and bear firearms, including handguns, for self-defense.

Now, however, she’s gone even further and echoed President Obama’s references to Australian and British style gun control.

Today, at a town hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton was questioned by an audience member who noted that Australia “managed to … take away … millions of handguns, and in one year, they were all gone.” He then asked her, “Can we do that?”

She immediately responded that not just Australia but also the U.K. is “a good example” of a country responding to a “mass killing.” 

 “The Australian example,” she said, “that was a buyback program.” She went on to explain that the Australian government “offered a good price” for “buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward … .”  They were thus able, she explained, “to curtail the supply” of guns and “to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”  

Here in America, she went on, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” She compared the Australian and U.K. regimes to local gun “buybacks” and to Obama’s own “cash for clunkers” program, in which Americans were offered tax credits for trading older, gas-guzzling vehicles for newer, fuel-efficient models. “So I think that’s worth considering,” Clinton said. “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

The more details you know about Australia and Great Britain, however, the more extreme Hillary’s views become.

The misnamed “buybacks” of Australia and Great Britain were nothing like the failed “cash for clunkers” program, which simply sought to update the cars Americans drove, not to ban them. They weren’t even comparable to local gun buybacks, which attempt to incentivize the voluntary surrender of guns that their owners are free in most cases to replace as they see fit.

No, the Australian and U.K. “buybacks” were merely an attempt to mollify firearm owners whose property had been declared contraband and subject to seizure. They were, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, an offer gun owners could not refuse. The owners had the “choice” to accept the money and turn the guns they had previously been forced to register (supposedly so they could keep them under grandfather provisions), or they could risk the government forcibly confiscating the guns and being sent to prison for possessing them (supposing, of course, that they survived the confiscation attempt itself). 

If you own a gun now, take heed. President Obama and now Hillary Clinton finally made clear what they’re really after – national gun confiscation.

To hear Hillary’s remarks for yourself, see the video at this link: http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-australian-style-gun-control-worth-considering-for-u-s/.

The stakes in 2016 could not be higher when it comes to our fundamental freedom and the future of our nation.

President Obama Shows His True Gun Control Agenda

Most of the media attention on President Obama’s renewed calls for gun control has focused on the tone of his remarks, rather than on the substance of what he said. You don’t have to scratch very deep, however, to understand that what the president really wants to see in the U.S. is gun confiscation. 

Reiterating his support for gun control last week, Obama vowed, “I am going to talk about this, on a regular basis, and I will politicize it.…”

For once, we are willing to take the president at his word.

Clearly, the president is infuriated with Congress and the American people for failing to adopt his gun control agenda, but what is he actually promoting by way of solutions? His recent speeches have been long on vitriol, but short on specifics.

Just as clearly, the president has been unwilling to entertain any idea that mass murders can be adequately addressed by means other than gun control. In his Oct. 2 remarks, for example, he dismissed talk of mental health reform, such as that supported by the NRA. He insisted that anger, mental illness, and violence are problems that all nations face, but the U.S. is unique in its level of “mass shootings” and “gun violence.” He admitted, “Levels of violence are on par, between the United States and other countries.” But because American violence more often involves firearms, firearms must be blamed.

Rather surprisingly, the president undermined the gun control movement’s current push for so-called “universal background checks.” According to the president, “we can't sort through and identify ahead of time who might take actions like this….” It’s hard to argue he’s wrong, as the latest tragedy he is politicizing was once again committed, according to ATF, with firearms obtained through dealers, after successful background checks. 

The president has something more ambitious in mind, and he’s been consistent on this point for almost two years. As he has time after time in the past, the president on Oct. 1 invoked Australia and Great Britain – what he called “countries like ours” – as models for the U.S. They “have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president lectured. They prove “there are ways to prevent it.” 

What Obama is really proposing, despite some platitudes to the contrary, is the end of private firearm ownership for self-defense – which is essentially what happened in Australia and the U.K.  Below are summaries of those nations’ laws from the Library of Congress that make the point:

There is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Australia and Great Britain.

If you want to own a firearm in either country, you must first obtain the government’s permission, and you must prove to their satisfaction that you need it. Self-defense is neither a sufficient nor even legitimate reason to own a gun. 

The most popular firearms in America are banned in Australia and Great Britain, no matter what a person’s reasons for owing them. Australia bans AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. Great Britain bans handguns.  

After the bans were enacted, both countries forced residents to surrender prohibited guns to the government.

When the president complains that America refuses to enact “common-sense gun-safety laws” and rails against the ability of America to amass “arsenals” of guns and ammunition, confiscation is what he really has in mind.   To this end, he scoffed at the idea that more Americans should be armed or that anyone could in good faith oppose more gun control. “Does anybody really believe that?” he asked.

Obama has made it clear that he will continue to politicize tragedies in order to push his gun control agenda.  That’s really nothing new.  What is new is his admission that what he really wants to do is confiscate legally owned firearms.  Rest assured, the five million men and women of the National Rifle Association will continue to fight him every step of the way.

 

APPEARS IN Second Amendment News

Clinton Says That the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Friday, October 9, 2015

More

A recent CNN/ORC International Poll found that 57-percent of Americans do not find Hillary Clinton “honest or trustworthy.” If there are figures in American public life with a stronger disregard for the rights of the American people, they have yet to come to our attention.

Obviously, Clinton is referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. The central conclusion in Heller was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The McDonald decision made clear that this right is fundamental and applies to all Americans.

When Clinton said, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” she was making clear her opposition to our individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense; to her, governments at every level can strip us of this right without restriction.

It is hard to overstate the extremism of Clinton’s position on the Second Amendment. A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted prior to the Heller decision, asked those surveyed, “Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?” The response was unambiguous; 73-percent responded that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, while a mere 20-percent limited that right to state militia members.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after the Heller decision, in July 2008, mirrored these results. This poll asked respondents, “Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?” 78-percent opposed such a measure, while only 17-percent were found to be in favor.

And in May 2009, CNN and ORC conducted a similar poll that asked “Which of the following comes closer to your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? In addition to addressing the need for citizen-militias, it was intended to give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. It was only intended to preserve the existence of citizen-militias, and does not give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” Once again, the American public made their position clear; with 77-percent choosing “individual gun ownership” to 21-percent answering “only citizen-militias.”

A professional politician like Clinton is almost certainly aware of the public’s views on this matter, which is likely the reason she’s gone to great lengths to hide her most extreme positions on the subject. To be sure, Clinton has publicly advocated for all manner of gun control; including gun owner licensing, taxation, and bans on popular firearms. However, with Clinton’s latest comments, the discussion has moved degrees of legally permissible controls. Clinton has made clear that she does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects your individual right to have a firearm at all.

During her previous run for president, at the April 16, 2008 Democratic debate held in Philadelphia, Clinton made sure to feign some respect for the Second Amendment. Clinton stated, “I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns,” adding, “we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right…” When later asked whether she supported D.C.’s total ban on handguns, she staked out a similar position, noting, “What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.” Moreover, Clinton’s 2008 campaign broke new ground in hypocrisy when they attempted to paint her opponent, Barack Obama, as the more radical anti-gun candidate. A Clinton campaign mailer criticized Obama for telling people “he was for the 2^nd Amendment, in order to get votes.” Sounds familiar.

More recently, at an August appearance in Iowa, Clinton called to “balance the legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures and control measures.” Of course, there can no balancing of a right with an individual that does not even recognize that right’s existence.

The importance of Clinton’s extreme views cannot be overstated.  The next president could be responsible for nominating one or more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to the dissents issued in the Heller and McDonald decisions, we know that not all of the current justices view the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment as a matter of settled law. According to an item published in the Wall Street Journal, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has noted that a “future, wiser Court” could overturn Heller. If Clinton were president, there can be little doubt that she would choose to nominate those who share her false interpretation of the Second Amendment.

America deserves a president that holds a genuine respect for the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. It is never too early to learn how to help make this a reality. To find out what you, your family, and your friends can do to help, please visit https://www.nraila.org/take-action/, or call 1-800-392- VOTE (8683).

Battle of the Pumps: Mossberg 500 vs. the Remington 870

If you’re discussing 12-gauge shotguns of the pump-action variety, there is an excellent chance that you’re talking about Remington or Mossberg. As the respective makers of the outstanding Model 870 and Model 500, Big Green and Mossy have the shared reputation for developing and successfully selling the two most popular pump-action shotguns in history. But which is the better shotty? The answer may surprise you.

Action Similarities

There’s nothing quite as versatile as a pump action shotgun for hunting or defense.

Both shotguns have dual action bars, which means that the force applied to the bolt when pumping the forend is equally applied, right and left. This has long been a gold standard when it comes to pump action shotguns, due largely in part to the rampant success of both Mossberg and Remington in this genre.
Screw-in choke tubes are fairly standard on guns from Remington and Mossberg in barrel lengths greater than 22 inches or so, and are included on certain special-edition, 18-inch tactical models. For the most part, 18-inch to 20-inch barrels come sans choke threading.
Of course, these guns are both available in a never-ending variety of configurations, layouts and barrel lengths, from hunting to tactical purposes. And there is a literally endless list of aftermarket accessories and gizmos that can be added to customize your pump-action experience to your preferred tastes.
Remington and Mossberg shotguns alike have seen extensive military use around the globe, and have been proven in combat for decades.

Action Differences

One of the biggest practical differences between the two shotguns lies in their extraction methods. Mossberg thoughtfully included dual extractors on the 500, as opposed to the single extractor on the Remington 870. With cheaper ammo, shotgun extractors can sometimes “jump” over the rim of the shell or even tear through completely. That’s bad.
Mossberg’s twin extractor setup gives the platform an extra level of reliability in this arena, especially when the gun gets hot or dirty in the field. Even if one extractor starts to slip, the chances of the other giving out as well are almost nil.
Remington chose to machine the 870 receiver out of steel, while Mossberg went with the lighter choice of aluminum. While the idea of solid steel may appeal to a certain segment of the market, there’s really no practical difference between the two. Few users will ever have the opportunity to stress a 12-gauge shotgun to the point where an aluminum receiver will bend or break. And there’s no guarantee that similar stresses wouldn’t harm a steel receiver as well.

The Mossberg 590 below is a popular tactical variation on the legendary 500.

It’s simply a matter of taste. Although, due to its choice in receiver material, Mossberg makes a lighter shotgun to carry around.
The Remington 870 is far more compatible with aftermarket screw-on magazine extensions. Some Mossberg 500 variants aren’t even able to accept an extension due to their construction, but it’s easy to add more capacity to any Remington 870.

Loading

One thing is for sure, though, the Mossberg is far easier to reload than the 870. A slight digression from our topic at hand will make everything clear as to why.
In competitive three-gun matches, the pump-action king is the lesser-known Benelli SuperNova, for many reasons. Foremost of these motives is the ease with which the SuperNova can be reloaded, due in part to its cavernous loading port and (this is the point) the ability of the lifter to stay in the “up” position on its own after the first round is loaded.
The Mossberg shares this automatically-staying-up-lifter feature, unlike the Remington 870, where the lifter has to be manually moved out of the way for each shell. This competition-style benefit means that stuffing shells into a Mossberg 500 in the heat of a dove hunt is slightly easier in comparison to the Remington 870.

Controls are King

For the most part, pump-action shotguns have a very limited set of controls: The trigger, a manual safety, and a release button that allows the user to unlock the action without first pulling the trigger. And the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 are no different in this regard.

The dual extractors of the Mossberg 500 on the left may provide an edge in reliability over a Remington 870 on the right.

Where they do differ, however, is in how these basic controls are executed. The Mossberg 500 series is the clear winner here. Mossberg places the safety on the tang of the receiver, which puts it in an ideal position to be ridden by the thumbs of both left- and right-handed shooters. And the action release? It’s conveniently located right behind the trigger guard, again within easy reach of righties and lefties.
The 870, in contrast, features a traditional push-button safety that is better suited for right-handers. And the action release is placed far towards the front of the trigger guard, and is impossible to activate without breaking a firing grip.

Final Thoughts

On paper, at least, it seems as though the Mossberg comes out ahead. Lighter construction, better control placement, easier to load, etc. However, that’s simply on paper.
In the real world though, it really doesn’t matter where your action-unlocking button is. In addition, it really doesn’t matter if you’re a half-second slower on your reloads because you use a Remington 870, or if your shotgun weighs a few ounces more than another model.
Think about this: If you are one of the millions of Americans who can’t remember life before his or her Remington 870—or Mossberg 500—came along, you’re not going to be held back by your shotgun no matter who made it. A lifetime of familiarization beats any specification sheet or online article telling you which is best any day of the week.
The fact remains—both the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 have won their places at the table, while putting food on it as well and remaining the defensive (and offensive) tools of choice for citizens and professionals around the world. You just can’t go wrong with either of these hardy workhorses.