Video: Is USA On The Brink Of Civil War?

Janet Napolitano Asked About DHS's 2,700 Armored Trucks

Got 99 Problems – Owning an Assault Rifle Isn’t One

As it has been presented, the Obama Administration has indicated that he is ready for serious gun reform. He has pledged to put his “full weight” behind a legislative package for containing gun violence offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein. The bill aims to “stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devises.” It will ban 120 specifically named weapons, including handguns and shotguns, and strengthen the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004.

Now I am against violence of any form, but I don’t see why an assault rifle should be the focus of his political venom- guns do not kill people, people do. To focus on the tool misses the problem.

I have owned several SKS since 1990. If you don’t know what an SKS, see the image in this post of me on the book cover of my last book. No it is not a prop is is real and one of several. I like it because it fires the 7.62 x 39 (AK47/SKS) slug. Now for most this is an assult rifle, for me it’s just a rifle.

Some ask why I want or need an assault rifle like an SKS? My answer is based on two things: the second amendment and prospects of Tyranny. The second amendment says “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (keyword being regulated not maintained). There was no standing militia in the colonies. In fact they did not get together until 1774 (the Coercive Acts) when the British implemented gun control measures via an import ban on firearms and gunpowder;” the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. History is complete with examples of gun control and the results. Whether in Turkey where in 1911 when1 .5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated between 1915 and 1917, or even in modern times when in 1964, Guatemala established gun control allowing the government to kill 100,000 Mayan Indians between - From 1964 to 1981. I won’t even mention Nazi Germany, who killed 13 million weaponless Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals after established gun control in 1938.

The aforementioned represents Tyranny which refers to the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power and/or the despotic abuse of authority or oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. Fact is, according to the FBI homicide data, hammers, clubs and knives are responsible for more homicides than rifles In fact; the FBI concluded that rifles of all types are the least-used guns when crimes are committed. Not to mention that  most firearm murders (about11,400), are gang related, how many would you guess had legally purchased or registered weapons?

Now many would suggest that tyranny on behalf of the US government with it’s first black President is outrageous: maybe or maybe not but looking at the facts sughgest that anything is possible. Take the National Weather Service, who like the Department of Homeland Security in securing large quantities of ammo. Back in March,Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage. The NWS ordered 46,000 rounds of hollow point bullets and I don’t think they are for predicting tornadoes. Then there was the solicitation posted by the the Social Security Administration for for contractors to supply 174,000 rounds of “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition.”

The point is technology, if there is tyranny, then what good is a handgun against weaponized drones, Tanks and body armor? None. But I can rest assured that the 7.62 of the SKS can go through all and that makes me comfortable for I have 99 problems – owning an assault rifle isn’t one of them. For the fact of the matter is, when only the military and police have guns, it is called a police state.

FBI‬ Wants a Database of Your Tattoos

Ever since President Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012 into law, US law enforcement and military agencies have begun to document everything they can about American citizens. Whether it is the new biometric database that the FBI has started or the use of military spy drones domestically. Just this week, the firm D-Star Engineering has received what appears to be the first contract (for $4.8 million) awarded under the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (IARPA) Great Horned Owl (GHO) program to develop a new class of quiet small unmanned aircraft.

Now, FBI is consulting local police and vendors about new technology already at their disposable that would allow them to spot anyone by interpreting the symbolism of their tattoos.

According to recently released government documents, last week the FBI issued a request for information on existing databases “containing tattoo/symbol images, their possible meanings, gang affiliations, terrorist groups or other criminal organizations.” The request asks that all law enforcement agencies, vendors and academics to supply by Aug. 13 information about the capabilities of tattoo analysis systems. This follows work already underway by the FBI and Homeland Security Department to add iris and facial recognition services to their respective fingerprint databases.

Already, the FBI has amassed a large collection of biometric markers, including vocal tracks and handwriting samples. The question is who will the FBI and DHS target and how citizens can be sure that the government will not misuse this technology against innocent people. Another goal is to find out how tattoo databases draw on the knowledge of gang experts and how they may be used to document “possible meanings and gang affiliations” observed by officials nationwide.

Unfortunately, the overreaching activities of the FBI and DHS under the Obama administration raise major privacy and liberty concerns. Many of the activities described in the document, just like their online activities, are basic practices of any individual concerned with security or privacy. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Bureau have already stoked considerable privacy concerns from groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have called for more transparency and oversight of such monitoring activities.