To start I’d like to just post a response I posted on our instagram page to Toms Shoes CEO Blake Mycoskie, he recently went on the Tonight Show and made an impassioned plea to expand background checks and explained what his company was doing on the issue. You’re able to go to his website and send your representative a postcard asking them to expand background checks. Since then famous people have jumped on board along with some you wouldn’t think of like Country stars Florida Georgia Line and Dierks Bentley.
Dear @toms,
I appreciate your sincerity and I also want to end gun violence, I truly do. In fact I agree with you the background checks sound like a common sense solution that we can all agree on, it’s hard to argue against the idea that bad people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns and a simple background check could fix this. As a gun dealer (FFL) I even have to do these background checks in the shop and, contrary to what the media says I also am required to do them at gun shows. 
However, we come to ultimate issue… it doesn’t work, like so many government programs it’s just a warm blanket, it will make you feel good but the implementation and program will fall flat. I’ll give you two reasons why; the first one you can probably guess and that is “criminals don’t obey gun laws”. It’s almost cliche to say it since it’s been said time and time again but I guess that is because it is true. Vegas, Parkland, Aurora, Orlando, Ft Hood, Texas church shooter, Virginia tech, etc… all passed background checks. The San Fernando shooters obtained them illegally in a straw purchase to bypass the background check, Adam Lanza from Newtown stole the gun from his mom after he killed her. In my own town last year a man was denied a firearm for failing a background check… the same day he went on to steal one and murdered his ex-girlfriend. The other is the background check cannot be comprehensive enough to make a difference without violating all of our rights, after all who will get to define who is mentally ill? What prescription medicine can you be on? Can you have depression? When will things like social media posts be judged? All these violations of our privacy will ultimately be for naught because again criminals do not obey laws. If we really look at gun statistics it isn’t even these high profile “mentally ill” cases… we aren’t seeing prescription drugs or mental evaluations in Chicago yet every week is a Las Vegas massacre in the inner city. Background checks just plain don’t work.
I appreciate your sincerity and your drive to want to do something. After all you show what businesses can do, giving away 60 million shoes, no government program could match that efficiency. Government only aggravates the issues it can’t solve problems, maybe more accurately put is describing it as a Hydra, it solves one problem by creating two or more problems. Millions of dollars will be spent and no one will be saved. The result will be more data collection on citizens and another door to more gun control. 
I also want to be clear as a licensed gun dealer background checks only increase my business as more people have to come through me. This has nothing to do with money and everything to do with liberty and freedom. 
Again I stress my solidarity with people like Blake, I don’t want to see people murdered and is counter to why I wanted to sell guns in the first place. Selling firearms for me is about liberty and part of liberty is being able to defend yourself, the last thing I want to do is be part of any innocent person getting hurt.
In Libertarian and Anarcho circles it can be difficult or pointless to bring up the constitution but I feel that while the constitution is constantly manipulated and interpreted poorly, it is a common point for many Americans, no matter where they stand on issues. To further explain the issue of background checks I’d like to bring up a potentially more controversial topic than guns and that is abortion. The Roe v. Wade ruling focused on the “Due Process Clause” of the 5th and 14th Amendment
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” 
The court ruled that the right to privacy under this clause extended to abortion. Now I ask you if it extends to abortions why would it not extend to background checks? The information that would need to be provided would be generally medical in nature. Also how is denying a person a firearm, without a trial, due process? The person can appeal the decision by mailing a letter to FBI but is that not guilty until proven innocent?
Lastly the clear intent of the Second Amendment was in regards to citizens protecting themselves from government, what sense does it make to hand over the power to that government for them to decide who can and can’t have a firearm?
Numerous news agencies are reporting that any day Trump will be finishing up a ban on bump stocks which many say would include a mandatory turn in. This has been a long coming proposal ever since the Las Vegas shooter supposedly used this device.
For those of you who don’t know bump stocks (slide fire/ bump fire) is an interesting product that allowed for a faster rate of semi-automatic fire while still only producing one shot per trigger pull thus leading to a ruling by the ATF that bump stocks were not subject to NFA regulations (more on that later). Some claim that bump stocks can attain rates up to 800 rounds per minute, which any one in the gun world will tell you that this is a sensationalized claim. The Vegas gunman took about 10 minutes to fire 1,100 rounds, a lot of rounds but no more than could be fired without the addition of a bump stock.
More on Vegas since this is where the issue began, the tragic events of that day left 58 dead and 489 wounded. It is an incredible amount and if you add those numbers to the other times bump stocks were used since 2010, you would come up with a total of 58 dead and 489 wounded… Yep, as tragic as that event was, the bump stock is not commonly used. To compare let’s look at the 248 lives that have been lost since 2010 due to furniture mishaps, falling coconuts causing 150 deaths annually, high school football resulting in 12 deaths every year (96 deaths since 2010)… cows, bees, hot water, falling icicles, auto-erotic asphyxiation all result in more deaths than the bump stock. So why go after bump stocks?
No doubt the argument that is pushed by organizations such as the NRA is that “the bump-stock is a useless accessory that can easily be the sacrificial lamb, the goal of gun owners is National Reciprocity” (this is the right of gun owners to carry concealed no matter what state they are in). However history shows this will not work and incidents like this are why the NRA is losing members and money. You see gun control history has not been pleasant to the gun owner over the last century, not only in its restrictions but in its constant reinterpretations. Example: the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) was pushed as a revenue generating tool and not a prohibitive one, therefore not infringing on our rights. This act made gun owners pay the hefty tax of $200 for a shotgun less than 18 inches. As a frame of reference a shotgun cost a mere $6. A few years later a case made it to the supreme court, Miller V. United States. The case was regarding a 16 inch barrel shotgun and at that time Justice McReynolds ruled a 16 inch barrel shotgun had no MILITARY purpose therefore was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Fast forward to the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 where it was ruled a firearm must have a SPORTING purpose. This of course isn’t the end of the violations but I did it to express the point that the government words things how they want to, when they want to, in order to get the results they want.
This same line of government meddling will be used with the bump-stock ban and this is where the NRA hurt itself tremendously after the Vegas shooting. One they blamed Obama which is laughable, imagine an organization that said Obama was going to take your guns now saying Obama was too lenient then the guy they endorsed is actually going to pass gun control legislation in the form of bump-stock ban (and further background checks). Second was their wording in their statement after the Vegas shooting.
“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like full-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”
Countless people in the gun community saw a pro gun NRA endorsed president as a way to finally repeal the 1934 NFA and the 1986 Hughes amendment, or at least past the Hearing Protection Act which would remove suppressors/silencers from the NFA. But the NRA’s statement clearly shows they believe that these items need more regulations. Furthermore the issue becomes that of blaming a device. For years the NRA and their talking heads have said accessories such as pistol grips, magazine capacity, collapsible stocks, etc do not play a role in the deadliness of a firearm, and more so that the dangerous part isn’t the firearm at all, as it is only an object or tool. Blaming bump-stocks turns this argument on its head.
What’s more is some states have pushed legislation with proposed language referring to an increase in cyclic rate. Who gets to distinguish what is an increase in cyclic rate? It’s like asking what is a “livable wage.” Triggers can increase the cyclic rate by having a shorter reset, the reset is the minimum length a trigger must return before another pull can take place. Gas tubes can effect cyclic rate, muzzle devices, buffer systems, and on and on, even gun oil could have some effect.
Politicians have this nasty habit of continuing down futile paths and promising results only to head further down and continue to attempt to legislate a result. Just look at the spending on the war on drugs, education, and the war on terrorism. let us not forget to look back and realize bump stocks were invented specifically because of bad legislation, not to mention you can bump fire a gun without the stock. Ultimately banning bump-stocks will not save school children or prevent another Las Vegas, they won’t be exchanged for national reciprocity or any positive for gun owners, they will simply be the next legislative placebo used to chip away at our rights and be one more stepping stone for further bans.

Gun control by a thousand cuts.

On the surface a lot of the most recent gun control measures that Trump mentioned do not impact me at all, I can pass any background check and I don’t want a bump stock. This is not the point though. This is what the gun control lite crowd is hollering. We should trade ABC for XYZ, or that “what’s the big deal with background checks?!?” That sounds logical if that’s all you here or that’s as far as you dive into a subject….but that’s not it.

You see the main stance of us in the anti-gun-control crowd is a few immovable positions or albeit starting points for our arguments.
1. A gun is a tool, no better no worse. The person wielding the tool is solely responsible.
-this includes features such as pistol grip, bump stock, bayonet lug, etc…
2. Background checks are pointless as they have been proven time and time again to not stop a person driven to do harm. Example: most recent Florida shooter was investigated by the FBI… still passed a check. So what good is stricter checks when this person was specifically looked at??
-if a criminal is wants a gun why would the legality stop them?
-we have guns for defense, one of those things we are defending are our rights. It negates the idea when the government can tell us who can have a gun and who can’t.
3. Magazine capacity is a joke and have been proven that even a novice can quickly change magazines.
4. Most importantly freedom and liberty are dangerous. We have rights and accept the risks.

Therefore when organizations like the NRA want to push for a feature or another style of gun to be regulated more heavily they are attacking the basis of our counter arguments, they are chopping their own legs out from under them as they open up debate for more items. Example attacking an item such as a bump stock for its ability to increase the rate of fire is an extremely slippery slope things like triggers, length of gas tubes, and weight of the bolt carrier group all effect rate of fire. Will these now be classified as dangerous? If not right now are they setting up for future restrictions? Or background checks, we’ve already seen the overreaching powers of the federal government with unlimited spying, secret FISA courts, no fly lists, etc… why would we want to add to that? Why does anyone want one more list to be added to?

Finally why aren’t we looking for the actual reasons? Why do we see a spike starting in the 1960’s of mass shootings? Many people would like to blame assault rifles but sub-machine guns used to be mail order. What was the change?… why not look at the increase in single parent homes, the increase in “latchkey kids,” or the huge increase of pharmaceuticals… Bottom line is we have had guns in basically every household since this country was settled, you can’t tell me that a device is the cause and not a change in culture or another variable that has been a part of our lives since the middle of that last century.

More info on gun rights check out our link on our home page

I disagree with most of this (nothing against P&S), here is why…

1. The Antigun crowd is unified in the media because that is their largest promoter. The media and other organizations have paid for these people to be in front of cameras and protest. Who rented Charter busses for those kids to go to the Capitol? The teachers union. Look at how much people like Oprah and George Clooney have given just after that one shooting. Let alone groups funded by Bloomberg. Or Clooney’s publicist setting up interviews, or the national stage such as the Oscars that they get to share their hashtags…. (3,400 people attended the Oscars so it looks like all these people care about gun control, but what wasn’t on TV was the 65,000 attendees of SHOT show)

When was the last time NRA chartered busses for public protests? Those kids and anti-gun groups have professional organizers… we don’t. I will ask the question though, how did so many people show up for Bundy Ranch stand off, yet so few show up to other causes?

2. Only supporting pages that are just entertainment. I think the best way to explain my position is from two verses from the book of Truexodus:

“I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able”


“You have been believers so long now that you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things about God’s word. You are like babies who need milk and cannot eat solid food.”

For one we were all new shooters at one time, we all made stupid purchases, fell for stupid trends, jumped on certain bandwagons… and that’s all fine. But guess what… you are still going to get made fun of for it. I had to admit to the late great piehitter, 9mmsmg, and theGlocktor that I own a spikes tactical jack lower… when Vato tactical and Bastards in Co made fun of Systema I sent them a pic of my box set of systema DVDs… but those guys made spontaneous decisions on what was cool too… (hows that Desert Eagle working out for you 9mmsmg?)… I’m saying we were all once novices but the allure of some of the more, let’s call it “quirky,” got us involved and wanting to learn more. So while we knock it now, it’s because we’ve been through it. I grew up thinking clips are for rifles and magazines are for handguns… I thought that the 223 was designed to wound… these things we make fun of now, and it’s funny partly because we feel the cringe from when we believed it.

Those memes also start conversation and get people looking into it. For every one person that says “well the 223 was designed to wound” there are probably 50 more who saw the post and thought the same and had to look it up. So while sometimes we shit on Demo Ranch… he is entertaining, he is getting a generation to look and see the fun in it. You watch a video of him then may think… I want to learn more about XYZ and you go listen to what Military Arms Channel has to say or what Ian for forgotten weapons has to tell you about it.

That 2nd verse of Truexodus also applies to us now. We’ve been gun owners for a long time, and many of you reading this have been for longer than me… we need to know why we believe what we believe. A simple “the constitution” doesn’t cut it… why is the constitution a starting point, why does the 2nd matter, who does it apply to…and more importantly explaining that government doesn’t grant rights. Some times we need a refresher and go back to what our rights mean and perhaps more importantly why we hold on to them. This is why it is so annoying when a talking head like Wayne Lapierre or one of his cronies makes some useless statement that hurts our arguments and knocks the legs out from under us.

I also think we need to hold on to why we personally like firearms. I for one love every aspect of guns… and have been around them my entire life. They scratch my curiosity for the mechanical aspect, at other times they intrigue me on a design and on an artistic level, perhaps more importantly they are a tool I protect my family with and they are a symbol of what made this country great and our natural instinct to not be ruled.

3. Trolling and memes do not replace rationale discussion… well yeah of course not. But what the most important part of an essay? The intro… you have to grab your readers attention. Thats what a lot of memes are meant to do in the gun community. Get someone interested enough in a half a second to want to read more. Especially when there are a million other pictures and memes surrounding it… why would they want to spend time on yours? So no… memes do not replace discussion but that isn’t their intent.

Lastly… I’m all for being one united force but the problem isn’t the shitposters, trollers, memers, etc… the problem is the fudds and the die hard republicans who’s allegiance lies within party lines and who are more than happy with compromise. I for one will not align myself with them. I have no use for people who will bend so easily to political pressure or emotional pleas. I won’t use rights as bargaining chips and will not ask someone else to do so. For too long rights have been treated as such, so much so that many can’t even articulate what a “right” is… rights damn sure aren’t game pieces on a chess board.

So no… not only will I not give up any more rights, I also want my old ones back.

Therefore, I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for a compromise, I will not vote for “gun control lite,” I don’t want pandering, tricks, dangling carrots, chess matches, or anything else… i want those pure unadulterated rights that men stood up 240 years ago and said “fuck this shit” and drew a line in the sand and sent an epic break up letter that said no more! The rights that were so great that it caused men to stand up against their neighbors, to stand up against an army that was larger, better funded, better trained, better armed… I want those rights. The rights that caused men to look at their families and say “this is important.” The rights that men have sadly given up in a weak notion of hope that they would get something better in return… I want those rights.


I’ve said before that the reason so many people in our country do not understand the second amendment is because of how many times we should have used it and instead poorly trusted government officials instead. Frankly we are poorly educated in history, economics, civics… and we are pumped full of propaganda.

So here is some counter propaganda… actual information: This is just an excerpt from Lawrence Hunter’s post in the opinion section on

Americans have been taught to think of the U.S. Constitution as a rule, actually a set of rules—the fundamental rule-set for organizing and regulating the national government of the United States of America and protecting certain individual rights delineated in the Constitution from undue encroachment by government. That understanding is upside down and backwards.
The Constitution is not the rule; it is the exception (set of exceptions) that proves the fundamental, unwritten, general rule, to wit: “Anything not proscribed is permitted.” This unwritten rule of natural rights—derived from natural-law theory dating back to Plato, elaborated during the 17th century by John Locke and expounded upon by the Founding Fathers—predates the Constitution, and it is the only legitimate framework in which the Constitution can properly be understood, interpreted and implemented.

The Constitution, then, is like the no parking sign (the exception) that proves the general rule (“park at will”): “Unlimited parking is permitted unless it is explicitly and specifically restricted.” The general, unwritten constitutional rule of total freedom follows from the precept that government lacks any legitimate authority to exercise power and limit people’s behavior unless that power first is consensually delegated to the government from the people, the only legitimate earthly repository of authority to restrict their own behavior.

That is to say, the Constitution does not specify the set of rights to be protected from government incursion and then permit the national government to exercise any power it sees fit as long as it navigates successfully around those rights. The listing of rights in the Constitution, e.g., the Bill of Rights, is redundant, not defining. It was inserted after the fact for emphasis and extra protection against over reaching government officials. It was never intended to delineate an exhaustive list of rights enjoyed by people living in the United States. Indeed, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both feared and opposed the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

Hamilton explained why he believed it was both unnecessary and dangerous in Federalist # 84. He argued it was unnecessary to insert a specific list of rights into the Constitution because the document already presumes every conceivable right is protected unless it is specifically restricted therein by delegation of an enumerated power. It was widely understood that the general rule—“permitted unless prohibited”—was the foundational principle of the Constitution.

The Founders believed they had “so contrive[d] the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.” Ambition had been made to counteract ambition, they thought, and thus were the abuses of government to be controlled (Federalist # 51).

A Bill of Rights was dangerous because of the legal concept Madison and Hamilton called the “negative pregnant.” In Federalist # 32, Hamilton explained the negative pregnant and demonstrated how it worked within the confines of the Constitution, namely Article I, Section 10, which prohibits the states from laying any imposts or duties on imports or exports without congressional consent:

“The restriction [prohibition] in question amounts to what lawyers call a NEGATIVE PREGNANT that is, a NEGATION of one thing, and an AFFIRMANCE of another; a negation of the authority of the States to impose taxes on imports and exports, and an affirmance of their authority to impose them on all other articles.”
In other words, by stipulating what states could not tax (the negative), the Framers implicitly affirmed their power (the pregnant) to tax anything else without having to seek congressional authorization to do so.

Continue reading here:

Lawrence Hunter has other great posts as well, one being “Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry

Why as an anarchist do I like the flag and the constitution…
On the surface it sounds almost as nonsensical as “libertarian Socialist” which of course is a ridiculous proposition. But I assure you this position has more to it.
Flags and symbols are interesting, I’ve always liked the idea of symbols, how a rather simple design can convey so much (I remember even searching for symbols on dial up Internet…). Even now an icon on your phone or computer is meant to send a message, like if it has a Samsung logo it is saying it takes shitty pictures 😬. Company logos as well are meant to convey a message. Good graphic design starts with studying a brand, looking at its history and purpose.
“Well great we established it as a symbol… a symbol of the USA government 🇺🇸”
I don’t actually hold that opinion, there are so many origin stories that it is hard to say this is exactly what each thing fully represented in its original interpretation. Some are obvious others are like a class in abstract art. My point however is the current view or at least in recent history. I’ve read that before the civil war it wasn’t common at all to have a flag outside your home or have the level of reverence (for lack of a better term) that grew in the 20th century. Frankly I think that was spurred on by the amount of wars we had in the 20th… raising the flag was showing your support for your team in a way. Perhaps that is where the mysticism or lore in the flag comes from, however it got there…it’s there.
The way I’ve always viewed the flag is representing what was happening at the time, we were symbolizing our departure and refusal to fall under a tyrannical rule. In one story of the colors of the flag it is said that the contrast in red and white is symbolizing the separation of us and England. At this time the colonist were not under a flag that represented America, the flags the militias were using were their own or state flags. When Washington commissioned the flag he was bringing those militias together to fight tyrants. Again… representing the militias and continental army, not the government.
I will say the religious fervor that some posses when it comes to the flag does make it difficult to hold the position that I respect the flag. But I’m not gonna let them ruin it for me. For centuries civilization as existed as a “folk culture” stories and traditions are passed down, taking pride in ancestors and our cultures. So much of today is driven by pop culture that any reverence or relation to the past is looked down on or looked at as square and ignorant. We focus on this idea that we are more progressive or “woke” and try to disregard tradition as wrong because it’s old. To reference GK Chesterton an open mind has to close on somethings. You see this especially if you are a more seasoned Anarchist or long time Libertarian, people come in and start to have this knowledge that all of a sudden makes sense and can be applied logically to so much it’s like they spike and peak (and become incredibly obnoxious) then they mature and settle into being consistent.
I like the idea of a house with a flag flying, maybe its tribal mentality or the idea of belonging on a team… but again this is natural.
All that being said I do not care (at all) for the pledge of allegiance (or its Socialist writer), I don’t believe “disgracing the flag” is really a thing after all what they are doing is using the symbol to convey a message… their reasons may be ignorant but they are using a symbol to convey a message all the same. Of course as I said above I think this is stupid and they don’t grasp the full meaning of the flag (you are rebelling against a flag representing rebellion?)
(I am no flaggot and I think Flag adult Onesies should come with man buns)
The Constitution
Just like the flag I do not worship a piece of paper. I do respect the men who wrote it and their attempt. This does not mean I support intent over results. Example socialism, there is no way socialism works even followed perfectly… it always ends in failure. The Constitution however really failed in limiting the government, in other words people were not following it. So while I hold a Lysander view of the constitution and social contract I still appreciate the founders attempt to control a government (not a people).
Now let me bring this more into Anarchism. I think Anarchism is the best model, voluntary action is always preferred. But the constitution is in many ways a place where people can find common ground, even when it’s just lip service these people can be backed into a corner trying to justify their actions.
I will happily take going back to the words of the constitution compared to what we have now. Hell I’d settle for the branches just to work like they are supposed to and not a two branches seeing what they can get a way with through the Supreme Court which was never intended to be as powerful as it is. (Funny how republicans and democrats are small government when the opposing side is in power.)
Anyway, thanks for reading and making it through my jumbled thoughts on this. My main point is you can be proud of where you came from you can respect traditions, appreciate nostalgia all while not being a statist.


Meet the Memer gives you the opportunity to learn a little more about the people you like to follow (or the people you should follow)

1. What region/ state are you from:


2. What kind of work do you do:

I was a firefighter in the Air Force for 10 years but when I got out couldn’t find a civilian firefighting job, I ended up working in finance at a car dealership that led me to where I work now….accounting at a large investment company… and I’m the co-owner of Men of Arms (we started as separate companies but then merged last year 2017) So Ive had my own business for about three years but have been Men of Arms for almost a year now.

3. What got you into guns:

I don’t remember a time where I didn’t like playing with guns.

4. Favorite gunslinger (instructor, Pro shooter, or whatever):

Jerry Miculek.

5. What gun do you carry everyday:

Glock 19 gen 4. (cmc trigger, I think truglo sights, magpul magwell, extended mag release and slide release) I have stainless pins and extended take-down just because. I need to put the backstrap with beaver tail back on but I have to modify slightly to fit.

Glock 19 gen 4

6. Next gun you want
I want to build an AR15 off of the Quentin Defense platform. Then maybe a CZ scorpion micro.

Quentin Defense AR15

7. Dream gun:
I love sub machine guns so an UZI, beretta m12, vz58 or something like that

uzi open boltBeretta M12 smgvz58 pistol mini

8. Favorite book(s) that you’d recommend:
Problem with Socialism by Thomas Dilorenzo A great book on the basics of Socialism, he goes through all the arguments that are being brought up by the left.
Fools Errand by Scott Horton a complete look at the war in Iraq/ Afghanistan, I cannot recommend the audible version more highly.
Oklahoma City This isn’t a crazy conspiracy book, its more about the events surrounding it and the likely hood of more people involved.
Rise of the Warrior Cop No matter your view it is an interesting look at how the war on drugs and wars in the middle east increased the militarization of police.
Economics in one lesson An easy and essential read.

9. Favorite Podcast or Documentary
-Tom Woods Show
-Part of the Problem -Dave Smith
-Your welcome Michael Malice
-Libertarian institute-Scott Horton

I sometimes listen to Stefan Molyneux, Gavin McInnes, and Joe Rogan as well but usually just highlights or certain episodes, I listen to every episode of the other four listed.


Meet the Memer gives you the opportunity to learn a little more about the people you like to follow (or the people you should follow)

1. What region/ state are you from:


2. What kind of work do you do:

Air Force Veteran ( so make sure to #TYFYS) Now I work at a gun store. (he is Gun Shop Gary)

3. What got you into guns:

Grew up shooting with my family

4. Favorite gunslinger (instructor, Pro shooter, or whatever):

Courses of Action

5. What gun do you carry everyday:

Glock 19 (but don’t let him fool you because he also keeps that Sphinx on him)

6. Next gun you want
Valmet m76

valmet m76

7. Dream gun:
NFA stuff

8. Favorite book(s) that you’d recommend:
The Turner Diaries  ( I am convinced he said this just so I’d link to “the Turner Diaries” and end up on a watchlist… Side note: if you take it as a book and not a manifesto… its pretty interesting)

9. Favorite Podcast or Documentary
-Whiskey and Rebellion 

Meet the Memer gives you the opportunity to learn a little more about the people you like to follow (or the people you should follow)

1. What region/ state are you from
The Wild West
2. What kind of work do you do
Construction Management
3. What got you into guns
Growing up shooting gophers with a ruger 10/22
4. Favorite gunslinger (instructor, Pro shooter, or whatever)
Wyatt Earp. The “Vendetta Ride” is legendary.
5. What gun do you carry everyday
Stock Gen 4 Glock 19
6. Next gun you want
An AR-9
7. Dream gun
Anyone who doesn’t say a mini-gun is fucking lying.
Might I suggest the XM556 Microgun
xm556 micron
8. Favorite book(s) that you’d recommend
I’m an anti-government nutjob:
Against the state – Lew Rockwell,
No Treason: Lysander Spooner,
9. Favorite Podcast or Documentary
Any other spots we can find you? (Teespring, FB acct, podcast, website, etc)
IG @whiskey.and.rebellion
FB: Whiskey and Rebellion
YouTube: Whiskey and Rebellion
*I originally submitted this as a reply to the question about 3D firearms*
While it’s a highly controversial subject in the news it’s not even a remotely difficult one from the standpoint of freedom. At the heart of the matter is freedom of speech which has already been won by Cody Wilson the founder of Defense Distributed.
Freedom of speech which includes information is not protected so we can talk about just agreeable topics. What has muddied these waters is that people believe emotions and feelings dictate law in this country, but this isn’t the case, not even if the majority of the people feel a certain way.
While Donald Trump is known for his inconsistency so this is nothing new when he attacks 3D printed firearms, this mirrors his idea for shutting down what he claims as fake news. Even beyond Donald Trump both sides of aisle have issues with information when it is something you disagree with look no further than a person like Julian Assange, when Assange leaked information from Chelsea Manning the left applauded and right was furious. With the Wikileaks of Hillary’s emails whether they come from Seth Rich, Russian hackers or whoever else, the left was furious and the right applauded.
Also of note is that 3D printed guns are still in their infant stage. Costs of the 3D printer and materials needed to make a gun fire (more than once) or even reliably is astronomical. This is equivalent of saying that CAD files are available so everyone can machine a firearm. A CNC capable of making a reliable firearm along with the materials to make a firearm could probably be procured for less than a adequate 3D printer. But these CAD files are all available and have been available for decades, yet you can’t name an instance where this has been or problem or even happened.
In regards to the NRA stance which Donald Trump has said to have conferred with, what mainstream doesn’t seem to get is that the NRA makes up less than 4% of gun owners in the US, to put that in different terms, they don’t represent the majority of gun owners. The NRA represents manufacturers and large retailers who are their largest donors. Accessible firearms such as 80% and the idea of 3D printed firearms are products that take away from their bottom line.
Again plans for firearms are information that is already out there, people who think this presents a new danger have no clue how firearms work, or how easily one can be built from $20 of parts and Home Depot (not an exaggeration). Fact of the matter is information is not illegal, what someone does with that information could be but precrime is a dangerous and slippery slope.
Click here to see how accessible