I found this article interesting. Let me know what you think!

Should America Subarm its Citizens?

By Alan KorwinAlan Korwin

There’s a point between fully armed and disarmed that is subarmed. Being subarmed is dangerous. Officials would never stand for it themselves. It’s the point where you don’t have a very good gun, or certainly not the type you’d prefer, or not the type your police prefer for their own safety, and not the right ammo, or certainly not enough of it. It isn’t the caliber you want, and the magazine is too small. You’re subarmed.

It seems there are people at work in the government and the euphemistic gun-control movement who have figured out if they can’t disarm the public -- because the public will not stand for it and put up intense opposition -- they can subarm the public (that’s you) a little at a time. If you’re subarmed, and they’re fully armed, that’s pretty much victory for them and a shift in control.

Because it happens by bits, the big picture is obscured. Little by little the power shifts from the public to the authorities. We used to have parity with government, and this kept government in check, made America the liberty capital on Earth. We the people were equal with our hired hands. Both sides were in a state of stasis, equilibrium. They had matchlocks, we had matchlocks.

They had flintlocks, we had flintlocks. They got cap and ball, we all had it. We grew up together, we were partners in this, developed the field together. Self-contained cartridges, rifled barrels, bolt action, revolvers, semi-auto, improvements to everything, optics, full auto... the story starts to rag out right there.


Two Gun Laws: Tectonic Shift in American Freedom

In 1968 our employees in government decided it was time for us to fill out paperwork for any gun purchased from any manufacturer. It’s been that way ever since, despite the enormous trash piles generated by “news” media to the contrary. It’s no big deal -- maybe -- but every gun made and sold legally to an American since then comes with government paperwork.

Twenty-two years later, in 1986, the scales of e******y tipped over. The Gun Control Act basically said members of the state could have machine guns but the peasants (that’s us) could not -- only one-shot guns for us. Matching firepower was no longer for the masses -- it was for the hired help only. Two centuries of Gun E******y between government and the public was over. Now that’s a big deal.

Oh, the few full autos in public hands at the time could remain, but this was subarming on a grand scale, an order of magnitude, it made the two sides totally unequal. The miniscule number of now collectible machine guns people owned could be cherished, lost to wear-and-tear and jealously safeguarded -- thanks to five-figure price tags instantly springing upon a closed finite market.


Say Goodbye to Officer Friendly

The rapid decline in freedom everyone has been noticing was catalyzed. The rise of the police state became more intense. SWAT raids (multiple battle-equipped specialists with machine guns and overwhelming power) have gone from 3,000 per year in 1980 to as many as 80,000 per year now, this despite the fact that there has been a consistent drop in both violent and property crimes every year for the past 25 years! Today, there are less than half as many violent and property crimes committed as there were in 1993. Yet, the Andy Griffith Show officer is solidly in the past, and Officer Friendly is nearly extinct.

We weren’t a police state then and we’re not one now, we’ve just started looking more like one than anyone would like -- and toe the line, pal. Not to worry, our morals are still intact. Or are they.

You’re overwhelmed when a dynamic entry team of eight masked, body-armored men storm through your door with flash-bang grenades at two in the morning, like the state does these days. You’ve been subarmed to the point of being gunless when they have MP-5 machine guns and you have the civilian single-pull-of-the-trigger AR-15 you’re so proud to own. It's the gun you insist is OK because it’s the one-shot model, not the machine gun it looks like, which ignorant gun h**ers fear it really is. And they want to confiscate that too.

The seven-round magazine New York got saddled with is a subarmament joke and the people responsible should be brought up on charges for infringement and violation of oath of office. They swore to uphold the Second Amendment, not to find workarounds. Small magazines endanger the innocent when peril lurks. Ask police if they would stand for that.


Of Course Ammunition Is Dangerous

Meanwhile, BATFE bureaucrats are deciding some ammunition is more dangerous than other types, so it should be banned. How utterly preposterous! What needs to be banned is the BATFE. Ammunition cannot be banned based on the fact that it is dangerous! And a government agency cannot exercise power that Congress has no legitimate delegated authority to give it.

Everyone knows that ammunition is dangerous -- because that’s its purpose! Not just dangerous, deadly dangerous. It is supposed to be. If it’s not dangerous, it’s flawed. What BATFE is really seeking is to have some ammo removed because it might be used against them, making them bulletproof -- but they won’t ban it for themselves, and it could be used against you. Judging ammo -- which is beyond the delegated power an agency can have because it infringes on our rights -- is like judging which words are too dangerous to say. BATFE doesn’t want you to think about the logical angle:

Using any type of ammunition at all in any unjustifiably dangerous way is already grossly illegal many times over at every level and can carry the death penalty. Murder is illegal. Attempted murder is illegal. Planning a murder is illegal.

Using any kind of gun and any kind of ammo for any of that is criminal at the state and federal level with no wiggle room. That’s enough for this rogue agency or any other. Banning ammo is an infringement ploy.

If authorities can justify subarming the public based on ammo type, the Second Amendment will have been eviscerated, and this is intolerable. All subarmament efforts should be spotted, called out for what they are, and summarily halted. There are no excuses, no saturation “news” stories about crazed maniacs that justify taking action against the public. The responsible parties should be reprimanded, discharged from or v**ed out of office and publicly ostracized for acting against the interests of the United States. The jig is up.

You're stereotyping yourself. Democrats aren't the most intolerant group there is but, they are getting there. The most intolerant groups are progressives, SJWs, socialists, c*******ts, and the mainstream media. Liberals are about the only good Democrats left! Go liberals!

If you mean the Jews contributed 6 million bodies to the Holocaust then, yeah, I guess they did. I'm pretty sure that contribution wasn't voluntary though. As far, as Omar and Tlaib are concerned, I don't consider what they did courageous at all. They're Israeliphobic, and that's overwhelmingly obvious!

lol, I agree

Where do you get your info? This is entirely untrue!

From Wikipedia: In June 2016, in response to criticism, Trump asserted publicly that he had given approximately $102 million to charitable causes from 2009 through 2015[44] and released a 93-page list of the beneficiaries of the money.[45] Subsequent reporting by the Post and other news organizations found that many of the donations Trump claimed as having made personally over these five years were made by the Trump Foundation, which by 2009, no longer held any money donated by Trump.

- So, from 2009-2016, the Trump Foundation donated $102 million to charitable causes. Your other statement about proper divestment is ignorant, at best, disingenuous, at worst. Trump tried to divest himself from the Trump foundation but was prevented from doing so by the New York Attorney General who happens to be a Democrat.

Will Politifact change your mind?

Trump-O-Meter
Take no salary
"If I'm elected president, I'm accepting no salary."

Updates
Trump donates 2019 salary to USDA, surgeon general
By Sophie Austin on Monday, August 19th, 2019 at 3:29 p.m.

President Donald Trump continues to maintain his campaign promise to donate his $400,000 annual White House salary with U.S. government agencies.

In August, a White House spokesman announced that Trump donated $100,000, his second-quarter salary, to the U.S. Surgeon General's office.

"I donate 100% of my President's salary, $400,000, back to our Country, and feel very good about it!" Trump tweeted Aug. 16.

His first-quarter salary in 2019 went to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Trump donated his third quarter salary for 2018 to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Trump's older brother Fred Jr. died after struggling from alcoholism in 1981.

The president donated his 2018 fourth quarter salary to the Department of Homeland Security and has donated to various federal entities during his time in office, including the National Park Service, the Department of Education and the Veterans Administration.

This pledge remains Promise Kept.

Hatred of what? Which lies? I'm not saying I disagree with you though, if you're referring to promises he hasn't fulfilled or broken, that's every single president we've had for the past 50 years. What you're saying is simply too vague for me to agree or disagree with you. For all I know, you're saying Trump ran on nothing but hatred of evil and Democratic lies. You have to be more specific

I found this interesting especially considering the amount of times I've fact checked a statement with this site and found it skewed against Republican statements to an almost ridiculous degree while entirely ridiculous Democratic statements get as favorable a rating as they can possibly give.

Politifact Vs. Facts (And Rick Perry)
by Leon H. Wolf

Over the last few years, a number of (allegedly) non-partisan fact checking organizations have come out that purport to provide a neutral analysis of the claims of politicians. I’m at a loss as to what function these organizations are even supposed to provide – at least over and above what you could find for yourself through competent use of Google. In reality, of course, they mostly provide an excuse for marginally talented l*****t hacks to criticize Republicans. None of these organizations fits that bill more than Politifact.

Today we have a pretty good example of the problem inherent in all these websites. In a speech he gave in June 2015, Rick Perry touted his “border surge” wherein he deployed the Texas National Guard to aid border control efforts on the border.

Now listen, everyone with a brain – even the Donald – understands that i*****l i*********n is a complex issue and that the solution to it will inevitably involve a complex and multifaceted approach. That being said, Rick Perry is not a college professor and he does not have several hours to give a dissertation defense as to the various possible effects of his “border surge” and the possible confounding factors in assessing the efficacy thereof. He is a politician and he has your attention for a few seconds at a time for each issue.

So in the course of giving this speech, he noted that one piece of evidence that supports his claim that the border surge worked is that border apprehensions dropped by 74% during the course of the surge.

Enter Politifact to evaluate this claim. Now, you might think that Politifact’s job in this sort of scenario would be to determine whether border apprehensions did, in fact, drop by 74% during the course of the border surge. And lo, they did exactly that! And guess what they found, Perry’s claim was 100% correct! Surely, a “True” rating is around the corner for Governor Perry, right?

Wrong. Politifact instead scored a statement that they admitted to be factually true as “mostly false.”

How did they reach this bizarre conclusion? Well, they basically interviewed people who offered their opinions that other factors might have been completely or partially responsible for the (admittedly factual!) 74% reduction in border apprehensions, including seasonal fluctuations, economic factors, actions taken by the Mexican government, etc. They also add, in news that is completely irrelevant to the claim actually made by Perry that they were supposed to be evaluating, that some people consider other metrics to be better indicators of border security than border apprehensions.

Look, wh**ever. I’m not an expert on immigration policy. I expect that probably there are a lot of factors that go into the rise and fall of border apprehensions, and for all I know there are lots of better ways to measure border security overall. However, none of that has a damn thing to do with what Politifact ostensibly exists for – which is to evaluate whether what Rick Perry said is true or not. Arguing about the causes for the fact in question or the policy significance of those causes is not the purview of alleged fact checkers, but rather of partisan pundits.

If Rick Perry says that border apprehensions dropped by 74% during a given time frame and the facts reveal that they did drop by 74%, then his statement is true. It does not become “mostly false” because he didn’t natter on during a stump speech about how that statistic didn’t control for other possible confounding factors or because there are other statistics that would have been better metrics for evaluating the policy he put forth. Memo to Politifact: a fact doesn’t become a falsehood simply because you prefer other facts.

Intuitively, what Rick Perry is setting forth makes sense. It stands to reason that a bunch of additional people watching the border would reduce the incidence of illegal border crossings by some amount, unless you believe that all i*****l i*******ts are somehow invisible to border patrol agents. Definitely that’s not the only possible solution to any multifaceted approach and no one (including Rick Perry) is suggesting that it is the end all be all of controlling the border, but the statistic he cited was, beyond caveat, factually true and at least probative (if not dispositive) of the success of his efforts.

The fact that Politifact can’t admit this is evidence that, really, they mainly have a problem with the facts – and Rick Perry.

She won the Democrat nomination by c***ting Bernie Sanders! Democrats didn't trust her, and rightly so!

Nikolai, you're part of the reason people think the MSM is so liberally biased because, you fail to include Fox News as part of the MSM. Fox is the second most watched News in the US. You're exactly right that their news in 2004 was shoddy! You're problem is assuming that because, their news fits with your beliefs better, they're more honest. They aren't! They're worse than they've ever been! I can show you f**e news after f**e news from both sides! It's d********g! Both sides of the MSM are so agenda driven these days, they look like i***ts at best and liars at worst. Their research appears to have either been contracted out to 2nd graders or it's nonexistent! You're being duped! ABC appears to be more accurate than others in the MSM but, the rest are crap!

Way to go, Dummy boy! You're a wonderful example of everything wrong with both parties! The opposing people are simply deplorables who can't have any issues with your candidate! They can't think for themselves and, there, obviously, can't have been anything they were unhappy about! Instead of addressing issues because, there aren't any issues ever, you can just brand them with stereotypes, and pretend you don't have a single neuron in that head of yours to think any deeper!

Because, many Americans find it easier for the MSM to tell them what and how they should think and feel as opposed to deciding for themselves. It's really sad!

I completely agree with you! By the way, Fox News is just as much Mainstream Media as CNN. Neither can be trusted I know this because of the massive amounts of f**e news they both put out. I know it's f**e news because, I've researched several of their "stories" and found huge problems with their reporting.

And the holocaust never happened either, right?

Thankyou for clarifying and correcting me on that point!