The Modular Ultra Low Concussion Shrouded Rifle Muzzle Brakes are here! Available as a Tactical or Professional System!
Tactical TriDelta on an AK47. A non-sponsored video review by Graham Baates.
There are sociopaths who have decided to feed off of others’ productive efforts. They feel that they do not need to prepare for future disasters because, with their guns, they will just take what they need to survive. This article discusses how to quickly recognize and avoid such dangerous people who may have a strong potential for violence and crime. This article will give some specific clues to consider, but one of the best ways to recognize dangerous, crime prone people and the violence they bring is by being aware of your own gut feelings.
No matter how exciting or entertaining some people seem to be, think twice about staying involved with them if they:
1. Are alcohol or drug abusers who easily can lose control of themselves, especially when they are under the influence of their drugs or when they are in desperate need of their drugs.
2. Show little or no evidence of empathy.
3. Seem to be incapable of feeling guilt.
4. Seem to be hostile and impulsive.
5. Appear to have a strong preference for action instead of thought.
6. Exhibit rapid and extreme mood swings.
7. Tend to project blame from themselves unto others.
8. Seem to live mainly for the present and have little appreciation for the future consequences of their actions.
9. Exhibit a sense of entitlement.
10. Show resentment toward authority figures and do not conform to normal social customs and laws.
11. Have friends who are similar to them.
12. Casually mention past altercations, arrests, or incarcerations.
13. Believe more in fate than in their ability to determine their futures and to avoid crime.
14. Have facial scars that possibly came from their past, violent encounters.
As an early warning system, these clues are imperfect. There are some types of dangerous people who may exhibit some of these clues, but not all or even most of these clues. There are even normal people who may display some of these clues, but who never will resort to violence and crime. Nevertheless, the more of these clues that you detect, the more you should be on your guard and the more you should avoid extended association with such a potentially violent, crime prone person. It is probably better to be too suspicious than to be too naïve and trusting as this young woman discovered.
Matthew 26:15 reads, “All who draw the sword will die by the sword. Sociopaths will get what they deserve. Being associated with a sociopath in any way also can put innocent people at risk.
If you shoot lots of ammo—like many of our readers do—Bonnie Watson Coleman thinks there’s a better-than-average chance you are a criminal, a terrorist, or both. And she wants new Attorney General Loretta Lynch to keep a close eye on you and your activities.
Unfortunately for you and me, Coleman isn’t just your run-of-the-mill, radical anti-gunner. Rather, she’s a radical anti-gunner who’s also the brand-new U.S. congresswoman from New Jersey. And her very first piece of legislation—just introduced this week—targets American gun owners by hitting them right in the ammunition.
Coleman’s bill—called the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015—would require federally licensed ammunition dealers to confirm the identity of online buyers by verifying a picture I.D. after a purchase is made. The bill would also require ammunition sellers to report sales of more than 1,000 rounds across five consecutive days to the U.S. attorney general if the individual is not a dealer.
READ MORE BELOW!!!
In the lush forests of southern Germany sits a fenced-in compound of drab white buildings that house a company under siege.
Heckler and Koch is one of the most successful gun makers in the world. Its HK416 assault rifle is said to have been used to kill Osama bin Laden and the G36 is standard issue for militaries across the globe.
In years past, the company profited from Germany’s aggressive export policies. In 2008, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government approved a controversial but lucrative licensing deal for HK that allows Saudi Arabia to produce the G36 itself.
But lately, the mood in Berlin has shifted. And HK’s most important client has become its fiercest critic.
Last year, Berlin reversed course on arms exports following a storm of media criticism. Tighter restrictions ground HK’s Middle East business to a halt, hammering revenues.
Even worse, for a company that prides itself on engineering it likens to “fine watchmaking”, the government is now questioning the quality of its signature product.
The G36, Berlin says, does not shoot straight in hot weather or when it heats up through constant firing.
“This weapon, the way it is now constructed, has no future in the German armed forces,” Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen declared last month.
HK, a private company with 700 employees, has always avoided the spotlight. Now it is front-page news and in a fight for survival, its reputation damaged and its business practices and finances under scrutiny.
Last week it invited a small group of reporters to its headquarters in Oberndorf south of Stuttgart.
The message was clear: there is nothing wrong with the G36, a gun HK began delivering to the Bundeswehr nearly two decades ago and has sold to over 30 other countries.
“We are convinced that there is some sort of campaign against us,” said Andreas Heeschen, a 54-year-old German investor who bought the firm from British Aerospace – now BAE Systems – in 2002 and recently relocated from London to Oberndorf to take a more active management role.
HK is vowing to fight back. Executives said it is considering legal action against the government for what it sees as politically motivated slander.
The conflict is more than a battle between a defense firm and a disgruntled client. It also reflects Germany’s struggle to define its role in a world of heightened security risks.
Seventy years after the end of World War Two, Germany is still reluctant to send its troops to crisis zones. Yet until recently it encouraged companies like Heckler and Koch to ship arms around the world.
Berlin is now tacitly acknowledging the hypocrisy of this stance. But reversing course is proving messy – for the government and the gunmaker.
“We initiated a lawsuit on this over a year ago, and we are excited that the appeals court agrees with us,” Paul said.
Now, they’re saying it’s illegal in that Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act doesn’t authorize that—that the government has gone too far—I think that’s a good first step. We want the Supreme Court to eventually rule on whether this is Constitutional or not. Our main complaint, or one of our main arguments is, the Fourth Amendment says you have to name the person who you want to get a warrant—but not naming anyone and putting “Mr. Verizon” down and saying you can get the records of millions of people, you’re not writing a specific warrant.
You’re writing a generalized warrant. This is one of the things that we fought against that the British were doing to us. James Otis famously argued in court that the writs of assistance that the British were using were non-specific and didn’t use the person’s name—and so we wrote the Fourth Amendment to try to stop this kind of stuff. I guess it’s gratifying that the courts are beginning to recognize the problem. We are anticipating and eager for this to get to the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the Second District’s U.S. Court of Appeals wrote a 97-page ruling in which it found the NSA’s data collection program illegal. This particular case was different than Paul’s class action lawsuit against it, which was filed in Washington, D.C., last year.
“A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday ruled that the once-secret National Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk is illegal. The decision comes as a fight in Congress is intensifying over whether to end and replace the program, or to extend it,” the New York Times’ Charlie Savage wrote. “In a 97-page ruling, a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a provision of the USA Patriot Act permitting the Federal Bureau of Investigation to collect business records deemed relevant to a counterterrorism investigation cannot be legitimately interpreted to permit the systematic bulk collection of domestic calling records.”
Paul, probably the most outspoken politician against the NSA’s program, said that he’s “all for” data collection against suspected criminals and terrorists as long as the NSA follows the constitutional process of obtaining a warrant for each time they do it.
“Yeah, I’m all for it—like recently the shooting in Texas, if you’ve got probable cause and you call the judge and you put that gentleman’s name on it, by all means go get it [his records],” Paul told Breitbart News.
And if he’s called 100 people and you’re suspicious and you go back to the judge and say, ‘you know what, there is some suspicion that some of these people he called may also be terrorists,’ just keep getting warrants. The thing is, the warrants are not that difficult to get in our society. Every house that’s entered into in this country for murder suspects or rape suspects or burglars, the police stand on the corner and call a judge on their cell phones and get a warrant.
But having that additional step that separates the police from the warrant helps to keep bias out of the situation and keep systemic problems from occurring regarding the gathering of records. The problem I have is we’re gathering the records of every law-abiding American instead of targeting our searches for people who are threatening us.