Military Equipment; Really? Everyone Can Buy That Stuff.

Anyone can purchase all of this equipment. Even I have to own
more than half of the things they are wearing.

According to Al Jazeera, due to the increase in "military equipment" used by police officers, President Obama has announced his plans to decrease the funding of such equipment. An interagency group claims that there is a "substantial risk of misusing or overusing" armored vehicles, "high-powered" firearms, and camouflage in policing situations. Obama originally supported the use of "military equipment" for police officers, but due to increasing anger and scrutiny of officers, Obama has reversed his position and decided to limit the amount of the "military equipment" that has become hated for some reason. The list of proposed bans includes vehicles that operate on tracks, aircraft and other vehicles that have weapons on them, firearms that operate with .50 caliber ammunition or greater, grenade launchers, bayonets, and uniforms of camouflage. However, most of these have no reason to be banned or limited, as almost all can be purchased by a regular civilian. Don't believe me? Police officers generally use AR-15 rifles, Glock handguns, Sig Sauer handguns, .308 rifles, etc. All of these firearms can be purchased from atlanticfirearms.com and bigskyguns.com, among other sites online or local firearms stores. Also, the body armor used can be purchased by civilians, as well. Actually, civilians can buy body armor that is much greater in protection than that used by police. The company AR500 and USPALM both sell plate carriers that can accept Level IIIA armor plates, while most officers use Level IIA plates. AR500 even creates and sells the plates for the carriers. Bayonets are legal as well. Any firearm with a bayonet lug is allowed to have a bayonet in the civilian market, in most states. The thought of even banning or limiting camouflage uniforms is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone can own camouflage. Even I own camouflage uniforms. Camouflage can be purchased from any number of places, including Airsoft GI and eHobbyAsia (these are where cheaper versions of camouflage can be purchased), among other websites and stores, such as Kryptek for more expensive, yet durable camouflage. If you do not believe that civilians can purchase such "military equipment," just watch Cory from RangeTimeTS operate an AR-15 with a battle belt and a chest rig (tactical vest without plates) at his tactical shooting range. Others at the Haley Strategic course were wearing plate carriers. All those present at the course demonstrate that civilians have the ability to purchase the same equipment law enforcement uses. Not only should officers use the equipment, but they should have more, as crimes just seem to be getting worse and worse and hatred of police seems to be getting greater and greater.

A civilian wearing a US PALM plate carrier. Proof that military
and police are not the only ones who can purchase "military equipment."

Arrested for a Shirt

The shirt the 14 year-old was arrested for.

According to FoxNews, a teenager was arrested after refusing to turn his National Rifle Association, or NRA, t-shirt inside-out. Teachers claimed that the 14 year-old "disrupted an educational process" and "obstructed an officer." Originally, a teacher (presumably anti-gun) asked the teenager to turn his shirt, which featured a camouflaged AR-15 with a scope, inside-out. After refusing to turn the shirt inside-out, he was falsely charged with the previously mentioned accusations. However, the teen did nothing wrong. As long as the school does not have a policy that specifically states that there is to be no firearms on clothing (which is not necessarily Constitutional), then they had no right to infringe upon his 1st Amendment right. By using his 1st Amendment right, he was defending his 2nd Amendment right, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, the teachers acted in a totally unprofessional manner. They clearly did not know the Constitution's Amendments, so they infringed upon the first of the original ten. The judge in the case did know the Amendments and chose to drop the charges on the teenager. The mother still plans on suing the school for wrongly charging her son, though. It is just too bad that the teenager was not in South Carolina. Earlier this year (2015), South Carolina proposed a bill that would allow for a 2nd Amendment class to be taught in classroom. The bill would mandate that a three-week NRA regulated curriculum be taught in each and every public elementary, middle, and high school. The bill was known as the Second Amendment Education Act. Clearly, had the teenager with the NRA shirt been in South Carolina at the time, he would have been praised, not ridiculed. Personally, I hope that the Second Amendment Education Act passes, as it would actually allow children to understand firearms as what they truly are. Firearms are tools used to do bad things, but they are used for good more then evil most of the time (the media just refuses to talk about that). If children and teens were taught that firearms were not evil killing machines, maybe people would not be afraid when they see one. I know I am not afraid of firearms when I see them; I just want to shoot them at a range. How easily we forget that more people are killed with cars than by firearms every single day.

Now the American Flag is Not Allowed?!

According to FoxNews, protest broke out in a South Carolina town after a high school student was told he could not fly the American flag on his truck. After not removing the flag, school officials removed it themselves. This action sparked a great amount of controversy and protest. Dozens of individuals were involved in the peaceful protest, in which flags could be seen flying on cars and in hand outside the school. The school was forced to react to such a protest by allowing the American flag on vehicles. Originally, the school's policy was the banning of all flags on vehicles, but that changed with this protest. However, just the American flag is allowed on vehicles at the school (not that that is a problem). Many of the protesters were veterans who fought to allow that flag to fly high. It is truly disheartening to see a school act in such an anti-patriotic way, but the true patriotism shown by the protesters restored my faith in humanity. Unfortunately, this is not the only situation when the American flag has been the center of controversy. In a Georgia homeowner's association, a 70 year-old veteran named Tony Cumberworth had flown the American flag outside of his home for over 20 years. However, one day he received a violation notice that stated his flag was to be removed. The homeowner's association told Cumberworth that the flag was to be removed within four days, otherwise he would be required to pay 50 dollars for each day after the initial four days. As Cumberworth read all the policy letters of the homeowner's association, he could find nothing on flags. USAtoday reporters went out to find the members of the homeowner's association to ask about the flag. Some members did not even know that Cumberworth was asked to take his flag down. After the reporters from USAtoday interviewed Cumberworth about his situation, the homeowner's association rescinded the original violation notice. Cumberworth is still proudly flying his flag in the front yard of his house. I personally do not understand what is the problem with flying this great country's flag. We live in America. If you do not stand behind that flag and the men who fight to protect it, then something is wrong.

God, Guns, and Guts Made This Country. Can We Keep All Three?

According to FoxNews, a two-star general in the United States Air Force, by the name of Craig Olson, runs the risk of being court-martialed for talking about God. General Olson gave a speech on "GOD TV" where he stated that God had given him the ability to perform all the actions he had ever done, including those of extreme difficulty in the military. After all the resounding claps ended, Olson asked the crowd to pray for the leaders of the Defense Department, as well as the soldiers that are getting ready to be sent to combat overseas. However, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation claims that Olson must be court-martialed and "aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable crimes and transgressions." The foundation states that the general's statements have left "...countless members of the United States Air Force...utterly disgusted and shocked." Of course, I cannot believe this to be true, as there are many people in the entire United States military that are Christian, so therefore they would not be "...utterly disgusted and shocked" by Olson's statements. I could see a few being "...disgusted and shocked," but "...countless members" seems absolutely ridiculous. My only question is, what about all the Chaplains in the military that preach Christian values, are they performing "...unforgivable crimes and transgressions."? Unfortunately, this is not the only time Christianity has been attacked. When Congress meets weekly, they can be found in Room 219 in the United States Capitol, praying, and  saying, "seek God’s wisdom and guidance in leading our great nation." However, advocates of a secular state and leaders of other religious groups claim that the great nation of the United States of America was not founded as a Christian nation and that Christian values are not under threat, as many Christians state. Of course, the secular advocates and religious leaders are wrong. Let me explain with a rhetorical question. What was the religion of George Washington and the other Founding Fathers? And the fact that they say that Christian values are not under threat is a compete lie. Personally, I know that I can rarely speak of my Christian beliefs in my school, but atheists can state that Christianity is wrong all they want (Yes, this is an actual situation that has happened a few times in previous years). How easily we forget that our Pledge of Allegiance states, "...one nation under God."

Proof the America is still a country based on Christianity.

ISIS Is At It Again



Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

According to BBC, a recent audio message has been allegedly created by the ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The message states the all Muslims should go to areas of "caliphate" that have recently been obtained in Iraq and Syria. While analysts are not 100 percent sure if the voice in the recording is truly Baghdadi's, they highly suspect that it is. This new message has contradicted a previous statement that recorded Baghdadi as being killed in an American air strike. The voice in the new recording is very clear and has even been called melodic. While many have suggested, if Baghdadi is alive, that possibly he could just be in poor health and just incapacitated, but the voice on the message would suggest otherwise. Due to the lack of visual in the message, many people have began creating every speculation they could possibly think of. Of course, should Baghdadi be alive, a wave of fear would spread across America again, as suspected members of ISIS had just recently attacked an art exhibit in Texas that was displaying the Prophet Muhammad in a cartoon-y manner. Two men began firing into the exhibit and supposedly had a car bomb. The two shooters were killed by security forces before being able to drive the car inside the building, causing massive amounts of death and damage. Investigators are still attempting to figure out if the two were simply inspired by ISIS's actions or if they were truly active members. In my opinion, ISIS must be brought down by whatever means necessary. ISIS is similar to a rabid dog. What is the only way to stop a rabid dog? A bullet to the head.

The security at the Texas art exhibit.

The Truth About "Assualt Weapons"

An AR-15 with a suppressor.

According to FoxNews, a man by the name of Larry Correia explained the falsehoods in President Obama's speech on what should be banned on "assault weapons." He stated that the president clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he was speaking about firearms. By breaking down each individual part that would likely be regulated and/or banned by a federal gun control act, Correia described why the act would be an idiotic action. One of the proposed banned pieces of a firearm would be the flash suppressor. However, this does nothing to make a firearm more deadly, so therefore banning flash suppressors would simply annoy firearm owners. Correia explained that most people wish to ban flash suppressors simply out of ignorance, as they most likely believe that a flash suppressor is the same as a suppressor (or silencer as it is commonly, and incorrectly, called). I will continue more on suppressors later. Also, "barrel shrouds" would be banned, but the funny thing is, most politicians do not even know what a "barrel shroud" is. Not to mention the fact that it is not called a barrel shroud, but instead a hand guard; we are not going to talk about that though because it would make most of our politicians look like complete and total buffoons. One politician, named Carolyn McCarthy, was actually quoted saying that she thought a "barrel shroud" was a "...shoulder thing that goes up." "High-capacity" magazines are also on the list to be banned. I feel like a broken record saying this, but if the firearm ships with a 30-round magazine, then it is not "high-capacity" magazine, but instead a standard-capacity magazine. Also, who wants less rounds in a fight when the criminal ignores the law and continues to use 30-round magazines, while the law-abiding citizens only have ten-round magazines. The fourth proposed piece to the firearm to be banned was the pistol grip. The pistol grip is literally a piece of plastic or wood on most firearms that does nothing more than allow you to hold the firearm with your dominant hand. The fact that it is even thought of being banned just proves their idiocy and ignorance with firearms. The final proposed accessory to be banned would be collapsible and folding stocks. This would be an absolutely ridiculous to ban, as collapsible stocks simply adjust the length of pull, so numerous individuals can use the same firearm with comfort. Folding stocks are created to allow for a smaller package, so that the firearm can be placed inside a case easier. Now, I will get back to the concept of suppressors. Most people view suppressors in a terrible light because of movies and situations such as when a man was caught in Ireland with numerous illegal firearms, drugs, and sound suppressors. Of course, only situations such as this hit the media, but suppressors are actually used in a legal manner more often than not. Yes, suppressors are actually legal in 39 of the states in America. Due to the National Firearms Act of 1934, more commonly known as the NFA, a 200 dollar tax stamp can be paid to acquire one, along with a Form 4 to attach a suppressor to a firearm. Companies such as SilencerCo, AAC, Surefire, and Gemtech have all made great amounts of money off of the sale of suppressors. Personally, I wish that the NFA would be repealed over a period of time, as, if the NFA was repealed instantaneously as most people want it to, then the resale value of NFA items would diminish instantaneously, causing citizens who own numerous NFA items to automatically own cheaper items that used to cost thousands of dollars. Also, suppressors should not be restricted, as they are great items for hunting and self-defense, as in hunting, other animals in the area would not be startled by a loud shot, while in self-defense, a suppressor would conceal an individuals location from attackers, as well as not cause damage to someone's eardrums. I personally wish to see more law-abiding citizens using suppressors, as they are extremely useful and fun to use. Suppressors and "assault rifles" (yes, I am talking about the incorrectly termed semi-automatic rifles) are both great items in the firearm industry and both must receive more positive recognition.

Military Arms Channel explains all the necessary

knowledge of those interested in suppressors.

Iraqveteran8888 proves suppressors truly are

fun to shoot.

I See WAY Too Many Problems

The eight different non-lethal 40mm rounds available.

According to FoxNews, a new form of non-lethal ammunition has hit the market. This non-lethal ammunition is marketed toward law enforcement officers in an attempt to limit the amount of negative headlines involving police officers using deadly force. The non-lethal ammunition is a 40mm "grenade" that is launched from a standard launcher and has the range of approximately 300 feet. The "grenade" is not a grenade at all, but instead a blunt projectile that launches with the force equal to that of a baton or ASP strike. There are also different types of 40mm ammunition that can be used in any standard launcher. Some of which include pepper rounds, DNA rounds, and a standard energy absorption round. The energy absorption rounds hit the target and spread the force across multiple nerve endings and this is similar throughout all the rounds, but the pepper rounds produce a similar effect to pepper spray and the DNA rounds mark a target for an extended period of time so that officers have the ability to determine those involved in riots and arrest them for their activities at a later date. My only concern is the effects at a close range. If the effective range of the launchers with such rounds is 300 feet, then the force at closer ranges would be far greater, so my question is, how extensive would the blunt force trauma be at close range? Someone with just everyday clothing being shot with such an object would be quite highly damaged at close range. In a riot situation, where rioters are in very close proximity to officers, these 40mm rounds possibly possess the potential to break ribs, rupture lungs, and even cause massive damage to the heart. I personally think that other non-lethal options, such as the Ironfist 38mm non-lethal weapon system, ISPRA multi-effect grenades, Condor GL 310 - Bailarina, and the Samson NL RWS, would be much better for officers. All previously mentioned non-lethal options have their own purposes, but some can provide a multi-purpose role, as well. All of them provide better options to officers that the 40mm non-lethal round, as they would not deduce the same amount of blunt force trauma to an individual's body. However, any non-lethal option that is given to police officers is better than none at all.

This video may be using firearms to demonstrate

blunt force trauma, but it gets the point across.

To explain blunt force trauma from the 40mm

non-lethal round, imagine the same crater being

created at a very close range, but without a plate

of Level IIIA body armor to protect you.