Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Gun Run from Jason Hanson, editor of Spy & Survival Briefing

                                                         


 



A while back, some of my relatives stopped by… 

 

These are relatives I actually like, not the ones I try to avoid.

 

One of these kinsfolks is a 21-year-old girl who’s looking to get her first gun for concealed carry.

 

Naturally, this topic excited me…

 

So, I took her over to my gun safe and opened it (I’m pretty sure you could hear angels singing) so she could try out different guns.

 

A few included…

 

A Sig Sauer P226

 

Smith and Wesson M&P

 

Walther Creed

 

Springfield 1911

 

Sig Sauer P250

 

Canik TP9

 

Glock 19

 

CZ 75

 

Springfield XD

 

Sig Sauer P320

 

Walther PPQ

 

After handling the guns, she’s pretty sure she’s going with the Walther Creed, which is an excellent choice. (I love the trigger on the Creed.)

 

But, here’s what I told her to do first…

 

Since she had to leave shortly, I told her to go to her local range and shoot the Creed to make sure she really loves it.

 

And, if she does, give me a call so I can get her the gun at cost and save her some money.

 

How?

 

Well, it’s my favourite way to make a little extra cash, be a little more prepared in life…

 

And, of course, to have an excuse to buy more guns for the “Hanson Family Arsenal.”

 

You won’t make a fortune with what I’m about to tell you, but I can show you how to make a little extra – $1,200 a month or more, if you so desire.

 

It does take some work – not that much – but I know the word “work” scares off anyone under 30…

 

Which is good news for people like you and me.

 

So, if you want to (legally) “gun run” for fun and profit, let me show you how I’ve done it.

 

Even if you only make an extra $500 a month, I’d say it’s still worth it.

 

But, that’s obviously for you to decide. 

 

Go here if you want to check it out.

 

It’s pretty cool and gives you access to untold amounts of guns and gear that mere mortals can’t touch.

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Gun Controllers Collaborate with Unscrupulous Foreign Regime to Undermine U.S. Constitution ----from NRA

                                                               


      



 Last week, Brady – one of the older gun prohibition advocacy groups in the U.S. – teamed up with the government of Mexico to launch an assault against the American firearms manufacturing and distribution industry.

According to media reports, the move came in the form of a lawsuit that seeks to hold lawful and federally licensed companies in these industries responsible for the crimes of violent Mexican gangs and drug cartels, to the tune of $10 billion.

Not only that, the suit argues that the U.S. federal court in which it was filed should ignore both United States law and the Second Amendment and instead rule against the defendants under the laws of Mexico.

This breathtakingly audacious move shows not just the desperation of the gun control lobby to advance their anti-freedom agenda by any means necessary; it underscores their contempt for the uniquely American freedoms that set our country apart from the rest of the world. That Brady would ally itself with a foreign government that has become virtually synonymous with corruption proves just how detached the gun control movement has become from the values and traditions that define America. 

We have no desire to insult the decent people of Mexico, who, like the decent people of any number of U.S. cities, lead peaceful and productive lives of integrity, notwithstanding the official malfeasance and incompetence that infests the governments under which they live. We sympathize greatly with them.

Indeed, it has become commonplace for U.S. cities that allow crime to flourish and criminals to operate with virtual impunity to imperiously demand that the freedom of law-abiding Americans be infringed to compensate for their own failures. 

This is why the mayors of municipalities like Baltimore and Chicago – where even murder reliably goes unpunished – insist that the federal government must curtail citizens' Second Amendment rights in places with virtually no violent crime.  A 2018 Washington Post report – published before the more recent spike in violence in many U.S. cities – states: Some cities, such as Baltimore and Chicago, solve so few homicides that vast areas stretching for miles experience hundreds of homicides with virtually no arrests.”

Mexico, likewise, is hardly a model of law and order. The U.S. Justice Department publishes an annual Mexico Human Rights Report, the most recent edition of which, published in 2019, paints a similarly bleak picture:

Significant human rights issues included reports of the involvement by police, military, and other government officials and illegal armed groups in unlawful or arbitrary killings, forced disappearance, and torture; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions in some prisons; impunity for violence against human rights defenders and journalists; violence targeting persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons.

Impunity for human rights abuses remained a problem, with meagre rates of prosecution for all crimes. The government’s federal statistics agency (INEGI) estimated that 94 per cent of crimes were unreported or not investigated.

Still, this regime is good enough for Brady to team up with to undermine the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and to attack the businesses that make a robust Second Amendment possible.

Brady benefits from yet another population of unfortunate crime victims they can exploit for their own social and political agenda. And the government of Mexico gets the benefit of shifting blame for allowing a culture of violence and lawlessness to persist within its borders, with even the possibility of a payday, should they find a court with more antipathy against firearms than against endemic official vice.

Predictably, the New York Times hastened to carry water for the effort, publishing a lengthy article detailing the Mexican governments claims. However, even that piece quotes legal scholars who characterize the claims as a legal longshot and acknowledges that the current Mexican administration has done little to effectively quell violence in the country. 

The article uses the oft-cited claim that the Justice Department found that 70 per cent of the firearms submitted for tracing in Mexico between 2014 and 2018 originated in the United States.”

Of course, what the Times fails to mention is that ONLY firearms with U.S. import or manufacturing markings can be successfully traced by U.S. officials in the first place. The fact that ANY of the guns submitted for tracing werent found to have originated in the U.S. only shows that Mexican police dont understand how the U.S. tracing system works. It certainly doesnt prove that the U.S. is the only or even the primary source of crime guns in Mexico.

Furthermore, the Times also neglects to mention that many firearms of U.S. origin that end up in the hands of Mexican criminals were originally delivered to police or military forces in Mexico or in Latin America and then corruptly diverted into illegal markets and uses.

Finally, the New York Times completely ignores the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was, during the Obama administration, actively promoting the sale of U.S. firearms to suspected cartel operatives, supposedly to track the movement of the guns to criminal enterprises. Yet agents lost track of many guns before they could be recovered, resulting in their subsequent use in violent crime, including in an incident that cost the life of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. 

Ironically, Mexico already has the sorts of strict gun control laws that Brady and other firearm prohibition groups would like to see enacted in the U.S. Yet, the group ludicrously claims this merely strengthens their allegations that fault for firearm-related violence in Mexico must originate outside the country (as opposed, for example, to Mexican officials' wholesale inability or unwillingness to enforce those laws against violent criminals).

Needless to say, Americans enjoy a variety of robust rights that are shunned by foreign governments that exert a heavier hand against their own populations. It would be a crime, for example, for Bibles or other religious publications originating in America to be possessed in certain countries. Yet, no reasonable person would suggest those countries could validly demand that American courts use their authority to sanction publishers for making this material readily available in America. Likewise, the effort here by Mexico and its American collaborators is simply an attempt to impose Mexican public policy in America, contrary to the rights and traditions of the American people.   

Meanwhile, Mexico itself is a major exporter of social ills via its robust market in drugs, human trafficking, and other serious types of organized crimes, activities often abetted by Mexican government officials. That makes the combined Mexico/Brady gambit even more perverse.

The bottom line is that while Bradys effort with the Mexican government provides an excuse for agenda-driven officials and media outlets to pontificate and deflect, it will provide no relief to those suffering from crime and violence in Americas neighbour to the south. It is therefore not only frivolous but deeply cynical as well.

Friday, September 3, 2021

Camping with the family -- from Jason Hanson

 

                                                         


 


Today, I’m going camping…

 

We went camping last weekend too, but only the older kids and I are going this time.

 

The older kids wanted to leave the “babies” at home, and my wife was more than thrilled to stay home and do not have to go camping again.  

 

So, now that it’s just the older kids and me, this means I’ll have more time to test gear.

 

Whenever I buy gear, I always buy extras to have spares I can test or just to use camping in a non-emergency.

 

For instance, not that far from the campsite, we are going to is a small stream.

 

Once I get there, I will head over to that stream and scoop up some water.

 

Then, I will use some of the Israeli water purification tablets I have to purify the water.

 

Yes, I have several different ways to purify water in my Escape Bag...

 

But I haven’t used these Israeli pills in a while when camping.

 

The exact name of these tablets if you want to get some are: Taharmayim Israeli Water Purification Tablets.

 

These tablets have been used for over 20 years by the Israeli Defense Forces.

 

Each tablet will purify 1 litre of water, so you’ll need four tablets to purify a gallon of water.

 

Once you drop the tablets in the water, you should wait about 30 minutes and then you can start drinking.

 

These tablets kill all the usual nasty bacteria found in water that can make you sick.

 

You can buy these in boxes of 50, and they won’t take up hardly any space in your bug out bag or other survival kits.

 

Now, here’s the main reason I test and use my gear when I go camping…

 

Let’s say that the tablets didn’t work (I know they do), and I got sick from drinking out of the stream.

 

Well, a non-crisis situation is a good time to figure out that your gear doesn’t work and you need to get something else.

 

The first time to use your gear is not during an emergency, because what if it fails you then? (not good)

 

So, definitely consider testing some of your lifesaving gear from time to time and maybe spend a few minutes doing it this weekend.

 

Enjoy your Saturday.

Stay safe,

 

Jason Hanson

 

Former CIA Officer

 

Editor, Spy & Survival Briefing

 

Editor, Black Bag Confidential

Friday, August 27, 2021

Washington: A Life -------from Armed Citizens Network

 

Washington: A LifeWash Bio

By Ron Chernow
928 pages paperback, Sept. 2011 by Penguin Books
ISBN-13: 978-0143119968

Reviewed by Gila Hayes

For my Independence Day reading about our nation’s founders, the book I chose was a whopping 900+ page biography of our nation’s first president written by Ron Chernow. In Washington: A Life, the biographer replaces the image of a remote, austere commander in chief suggested by paintings and history books with a very human but determined individual who vowed not to be ruled by his temper or his social reticence. Of course, that Washington had flaws is not surprising; I was not aware of characteristics the book describes and came away feeling I knew more about the person he was.

Born to a Virginia landowner, the future president was only a boy when his father died. Lacking formal education, Washington hoped to join England’s royal navy, but his domineering mother prohibited it. Instead, he earned recognition in the Virginia Regiment during the Indian Wars. There, under the command of British Major General Braddock, he “acquired a powerful storehouse of grievances that would fuel his later rage with England,” the biographer notes.

When England tried to recoup the expense of the Indian Wars by taxing essential commodities, the colonials revolted. Washington, serving in the Virginia House of Burgesses, was reluctant to foment rebellion and discouraged early acts of insurrection. “Washington knew how indomitable the British military machine was and how quixotic a full-scale revolution would be,” observes Chernow. By 1774, even Washington was fed up. He supported bans on imports of English goods and travelled to Philadelphia as a delegate to the First Continental Congress.

Washington was uncomfortable among the other delegates. “Taciturn Washington, at forty-two, found himself in an assembly of splendid talkers who knew how to pontificate on every subject.” His silent demeanour inspired confidence, and his military prowess was well-known. Patriots looked to him for leadership even as he hoped to avoid “the horrors of civil discord.” Nonetheless, bowing to public pressure, Washington accepted command of four companies of militiamen whom he encouraged to train and study military science.

When British frigates disgorged soldiers onto American soil, Washington agreed to command the Continental Army. Worried about appearing to exploit the revolution for personal gain, he refused a salary. His preoccupation with his reputation is a repeating theme throughout this biography. He probably shouldn’t have worried; congress failed to pay its army or the officers more often than not, and even when the army disbanded in the fall of 1783, there was no money in the federal treasury to pay its officers and Washington, never good with his own budget, was near personal bankruptcy.

Washington’s war councils reveal character traits I’d not read about before. His was a consultive leadership style, and he was slow to make decisions without hearing all sides. Once he made up his mind, though, Washington was nearly impossible to dissuade.

From fighting for England during the Indian Wars, Washington knew the British Army could throw nearly endless men and munitions into the fray. By contrast, the Continental Army fought the entire war with severe food shortages, were poorly clothed and sheltered, sometimes armed only with spears and arrows when there was not enough gunpowder. His soldiers were committed to only a year’s service. When the army went unpaid, Washington had endless difficulty keeping troops. “For Washington, the failure to create a permanent army early in the war was the original sin from which the patriots rarely recovered,” the biographer writes. This influenced Washington’s later preference for a strong central government.

Telling of Washington’s experiences during famous Revolutionary War battles, Chernow portrays American troops numbering only several thousand battling tens of thousands of English soldiers and mercenaries. If the British army’s superior numbers and better armament didn’t kill you, the camps' lack of sanitation and disease likely would. By mid-August of 1775, over a quarter of Washington’s troops were sick and outnumbered 4:1, the biographer observes. Conditions at Valley Forge, the battle for Long Island, and the Siege of Yorktown, to name only a few, made the eventual victory truly remarkable.

Out of economic necessity, American farmers sold produce to the better-funded British army. Washington deplored wartime plundering of livestock and supplies from citizens and punished his starving men when they stole food. When the French were finally persuaded to join the fight, the dreadful condition of Washington’s army dismayed the new ally. The French treated Washington disrespectfully but loaned much-needed money and temporarily dispatched part of their West Indies fleet, making the Yorktown victory one of the war’s most decisive.

If the French maltreated Washington, backstabbing was worse among Americans vying for top military positions, and subordinates sabotaged him. Several colonists remained loyal to England; others aimed to profit from the war by backing the presumptive winner. Who can forget the story of the spy Benedict Arnold? Chernow writes an interesting chapter that tells how Arnold’s wife deceived Washington, Lafayette and Hamilton to assure her traitorous husband’s escape.

Washington feared “massive desertion or even full-blown defection to the British”, who lured American soldiers to abandon the revolution. Without funds for food and supplies, the cause seemed doomed. Providentially, the Americans began to win in the South, but an empty treasury made Washington anxious that the revolution would fizzle out before winning independence.

Finally, on November 1, 1783, word reached Washington of the treaty that ended the war. He resigned his commission and spent several years working his plantation and other lands before bowing to pressure to lead the Virginia delegation at the Constitutional Convention in 1786. Shays’ Rebellion demonstrated that without substantial reforms, a civil war was likely. He went to Philadelphia, where, with Ben Franklin too sick to serve, he reluctantly assumed leadership of the convention. The non-partisan role fit Washington’s “discreet nature” well, and Chernow writes that Washington’s leadership “reassured Americans that the delegates were striving for the public good” despite considerable suspicion. Outside the convention hall, he shrugged off the role of impartial arbiter, conversing in tea rooms and taverns with the other delegates and the locals.

After the constitution was ratified, Washington’s name arose as the natural choice for president. He was conflicted but felt he dared not seek advice for fear of appearing to campaign for election. Lafayette, Hamilton and others endorsed him, and the public liked the idea because he had no children to create a dynastic monarchy. Chernow writes that accepting the presidency was Washington’s most painful decision. He estimated that he could serve two years, then hand off the presidency to another; little did he know eight years of “arduous service” would follow the electoral college’s unanimous vote for him.

Washington’s presidency relied on numerous advisors – Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Jay and others. “The hallmark of his administration would be an openness to conflicting ideas,” Chernow writes. He appointed strong, intelligent men to his cabinet and was unafraid to ask for guidance from them. His administration was a “model of smooth efficiency,” although he demanded much of his subordinates. “Washington encouraged the free, creative interplay of ideas, setting a cordial tone of collegiality. He prized efficiency and close attention to detail.” Washington wrote, “Much was to be done by prudence, much by conciliation, much by firmness.” He preferred deliberation to fast decisions, valued silence over speech and hated boasting.

Taxation to pay the government’s debts caused the first big row in the cabinet. Chernow details additional growing pains the new nation faced, including great distress over slavery, relocating the capital, creating a federal treasury, bloodshed with the Indians over land, and foreign policy, to name only a few. Washington aspired to operate above backbiting and political power-mongering, seeing his leadership role as “surmounting partisan interests,” but was sorely challenged to meet that ideal.

A “venomous split” between the Federalists and the Republicans pressured the 60-year-old Washington to stay on for a second term, a period complicated by war between the English and the French. Despite a masterful neutrality proclamation, Washington’s cabinet fell prey to manipulation, especially the French foreign minister. The European war reminded the risks new nation faced due to a weak army and nonexistent navy. Funds were authorized for ships and soldiers, but that alarmed those who feared “an oppressive military establishment that might be directed against homegrown dissidents.”

That threat manifested in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-94, which Washington viewed as a test of the constitution, saying it would show if a few citizens could dictate to the entire nation. “He faulted the insurgents for failing to recognize that the excise law was not a fiat, issued by an autocratic government, but a tax voted by their lawful representatives.” When it was over, he gave clemency to all but two of the rebellion’s leaders, but his actions further alienated him from Madison and Jefferson who condemned Washington’s speech against “societies” acting against the government. They said he had abandoned his nonpartisan ideals and joined the Federalists. Was the outcome that bad? “Given the giant scale of the protest and the governmental response, there had been remarkably few deaths … showing it [the government] could contain large-scale disorder without sacrificing constitutional niceties,” Chernow writes.

By 1797, Washington was truly ready to retire to his beloved Mount Vernon. Instead of addressing Congress, he submitted his farewell speech directly to the American citizens, printed first in the Philadelphia newspapers. In his message, he challenged Americans to be better citizens, support the Union, and endorse a strong central government. “For opponents who had spent eight years harping on Washington’s supposed monarchical obsessions, his decision to step down could only have left them in a dazed state of speechless confusion,” Chernow writes.

The first president’s remarkable “catalogue of accomplishments” is crowned by showing “a disbelieving world that republican government could prosper without being spineless or disorderly or reverting to authoritarian rule. In surrendering the presidency after two terms and overseeing a smooth transition of power, Washington had demonstrated that the president was merely the servant of the people,” the biographer concludes.

Several chapters about Washington’s return to Mount Vernon and his later life debunk some of the myths that have risen up around our first president. Chernow writes of Washington’s largely unsuccessful attempt to distance himself from politics, continued budgetary problems on his properties, and his evolving relationship with Jefferson, Hamilton, Knox and others.

I learned many new details about the Father of our Country in this long biography and gained a new appreciation for his sacrifices and determination.

Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Homeowner Shoots And Kills Armed Intruder Who Kicked Down Door ---------from NRA

                                                                



Authorities said that a California homeowner fatally shot an armed intruder who kicked down his door Tuesday while he and his wife were eating breakfast.

The Fairfield Police Department in California received a call around 8:30 a.m. from a resident about a home invasion.

According to police, the married couple in their 60s were having breakfast when they heard a knock at the door. Suddenly, a 27-year-old male from Suisun City attempted to kick down the door.

“The husband, fearing for his and his wife’s safety, obtained his legally owned firearm to defend them,” Fairfield Police said. The intruder finally managed to kick the door in and entered the home. The husband then fired at the intruder, according to police.

The homeowner immediately called the police and reported that he shot the intruder, who fled the scene. (RELATED: ‘This Is My House’: Naked Man Breaks Into California Mansion, Kills Pets And Swims In Pool)

Police checked on the couple and then located the intruder across the street. Authorities said they found a loaded semiautomatic handgun with an extended magazine in the intruder’s possession. Officers began performing life-saving measures, but the suspect was pronounced dead around 9:00 a.m.

Police said the intruder had been on parole for a violent crime out of Alameda County.

According to the Stanislaus Sheriff's Office, a similar incident unfolded in nearby Modesto days earlier when a man broke into a home Friday and was fatally shot and killed by the homeowner in a gunfire battle.

According to the Stanislaus Sheriff's Office, authorities are also investigating another incident in which elderly homeowners fatally shot a woman attempting to break into their home using a fire extinguisher.

Tuesday, August 17, 2021

SAF: ‘MEDIA BIAS IGNORES POSITIVE SELF-DEFENSE STORIES INVOLVING GUNS’ from Second Amendment Foundation

 

                                                                    



BELLEVUE, WA – While the legacy media is quick to sensationalize every incident involving misuse of firearms, they just as quickly downplay or completely dismiss reports of lawful self-defence with firearms, and the Second Amendment Foundation is openly challenging the establishment press to explain why.

“Why are the gun prohibition lobby and their bought and paid for politicians and media mouthpieces ignoring stories like this,” wondered SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, after learning of a 12-year-old Louisiana boy’s recent heroic defence of his mother by using a hunting rifle to fatally shoot an armed intruder who was attacking her.

Gottlieb, who co-authored “Good Guys with Guns,” “Right to Carry”, and “America Fights Back,” said cases of armed self-defence seem to vanish from the headlines. However, let a tragedy involving a firearm occur. It becomes the launchpad for on-air interviews with gun control proponents, lengthy newspaper articles about past incidents and editorials demanding additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

“We’ve seen the media celebrate the heroics of private citizens who pull people out of crashed cars or burning buildings,” Gottlieb observed, “but if an armed citizen stops a restaurant gunman or kills a dangerous home invader, or even saves the life of a law enforcement officer, that story vanishes from the headlines quicker than coherency from a Joe Biden speech.

“We know from experience the gun prohibition lobby suddenly develops lockjaw every time a private citizen successfully uses a gun to save a life,” he continued, “and anti-gun politicians invariably dismiss such cases as ‘isolated incidents.’ But as municipal police agencies see their budgets cut, their morale sinking, and their officers leaving, private citizens will increasingly be taking care of themselves and others. Eventually, the media and politicians will no longer downplay, dismiss or simply ignore such cases.

“Armed private citizen heroes, regardless of age, may not fit the media narrative,” Gottlieb concluded, “but they fit the American mould. Instead of sweeping such stories under the nearest rug, we should celebrate that fact that such courage exists, along with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms that allows people to be victors rather than victims.”

Friday, August 13, 2021

GOA BEATS BLOOMBERG IN COURT from Gun Owners of America

 

GOA Wins a 2A Sanctuary Victory in Court!

GOA Victory over Everytown

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) beat Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety in court this Thursday.

The issue involved a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance (SASO) passed by Columbia County, Oregon citizens.

Bloomberg’s group tried to torpedo the 2A sanctuary movement by challenging a local 2A sanctuary ordinance.

But GOA, who was joined by the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), came to the defence of the ordinance. And we are very thankful that the court sided against Everytown.

Over 60 per cent of municipalities in the United States have passed 2A sanctuaries. So this case marks a huge victory for not only gun owners in Columbia County, Oregon but Second Amendment supporters nationwide.

You can read the GOA and OFF brief here and the judge’s decision here.

NRA Joins GOA’s Bump Stock Case

"Enough is enough. The federal courts cannot stand idly by while ATF continues to blatantly evade the statutes Congress wrote through cutesy "Interpretations" of the text..." - Exceprt from GOA/GOF amicus brief

Earlier this week, we reported to you that GOA and GOF have submitted a supplemental brief in our bump stock case before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ours is the only case that has been victorious in getting a court to admit what gun owners already knew — that a bump stock is not a machinegun.

The NRA announced yesterday that it is joining this effort, as they have submitted their own amicus brief.

We are glad to see the NRA join Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation in our battle to protect the Second Amendment, as the ATF’s Final Rule could force all semi-automatic firearms to be unconstitutionally regulated as machineguns.

Ammoland recently interviewed GOA’s attorney in this case, Rob Olson, who said that:

Congress did not delegate to ATF the authority to define or redefine the term “Machinegun.” This fact is important because the courts have ruled that only Congress has the power to write new federal criminal law.

Olson, who is also one of the attorneys in the 2A Sanctuary case mentioned above, makes the point that giving “deference” to the ATF “will only further embolden ATF’s lawless actions.” As stated by Ammoland:

Many consider the ATF to be out of control. The ATF is trying to use deference to shut down the unfinished firearm frames and pistol-stabilizing brace markets. Many do not believe that the agency has the power to do so because they would be making de facto laws. If GOA is successful in the bump stock case, then it could throw a monkey wrench into the ATF’s future plans.

This is exactly why this case is so important. A win, in this case, can help stymie other lawless attempts by the ATF.

GOA will make oral arguments before the court in October. Please stay tuned!

GOA Reaching Millions Via Traditional and Social Media