With it’s left hand, the government is trying to pass laws banning assault rifles and your ability to protect yourself. With it’s right hand, it is ordering assault rifles to arm DHS thugs.
Well, at least we know why they got those millions and millions of rounds of ammo. They must think some kind of domestic war is coming. Do you?
Department of Homeland Security to Purchase 7,000 “Assault Weapons”
Via Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
The hypocrisy of the government knows no bounds. I have said repeatedly, and continue to say, that I am against all gun control at the moment because our government is extremely violent and not only do I not expect it to protect the American people in general, I believe it is far more concerned with protecting the status quo from the people. It has become crystal clear that the political and financial oligarchs are quite intentionally attempting to disarm the populace while arming themselves to the teeth in anticipation of some horrible economic event they know is inevitable. From the Blaze:
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.
That being said, it is reasonable for the Department of Homeland Security to request these rifles as they are indeed effective personal defense weapons. The agency is tasked with keeping Americans safe from those who wish to do the country harm, and its officials should be equipped with all the tools they need to do so effectively.
See the meme being pushed here? These guys want the entire population completely domesticated. They want us to depend on the government for food. For healthcare. For self-defense. Two sets of laws. One for the “rulers” and one for the “ruled.” This is the opposite of how things function in a free society.
I am sorry, but unless you think the DHS is preparing for an invasion by Al Qaeda, it is quite clear these weapons are being bought for future use against the citizenry of the United States. The writing on the wall couldn’t be clearer.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-28/department-homeland-security-purchase-7000-assault-weapons
The Department of Homeland Security Is Terrorizing American Citizens!
by Gary D. Barnett
http://lewrockwell.com/barnett/barnett45.1.html
As reported recently, heavily armed agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stormed a Leesburg, Florida Social Security office. This supposed drill was unannounced, and was understandably frightening to the local visitors to that office.
The armed DHS thugs arrived in swat team fashion, surrounding the building with their blue and white SUVs, and posting at the door of the Social Security building a guard with a semi-automatic weapon. Some began randomly checking the identification of locals, while others with drug sniffing dogs rifled through the rest of the building. One can understand their caution and hard-handed behavior due to the extreme risk posed to our country by Florida retirees.
There was obviously no cause to accost any of these innocent citizens, but when in this day and age, given the police state we now live in, do the feds care about cause? Apparently, the governor, the attorney general, and all the state police forces were absent, probably hiding behind their desks until the feds left after their fascist style raid!
The DHS had the audacity to call this assault “Operation Shield.” This sounds more like a name of a war operation in the Middle East than a raid on the elderly. This was done under the guise of a surprise drill with a mission to detect the “presence of unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous activities.” None of these existed of course, but why should that matter to the DHS, the most abominable agency of the federal government. The real mission of the DHS is to intimidate and terrorize innocent people so as to habituate and control them. It will be necessary to break down the resistance of the citizenry, so that the people will not take aggressive action against the state when civil unrest becomes the norm, and Martial Law is implemented. Obviously the government plan is working.
These DHS “checkpoints” are becoming far too common. What began just recently in Tennessee as a test has now spread to many other parts of this country. This was expected by those of us who understand the nature of the federal government’s aggression against freedom, but the speed at which it is progressing is dangerous. These checkpoints will continue to increase in number, and will continue to expand in area. A pattern is already obvious, and allowing this invasion of our rights to go unanswered is a fool’s game.
The remedy lies with individuals, and with individual states. We as sovereign individuals have to be prepared to resist the fascist advances of the federal government, and its preferred agency of force, the Department of Homeland Security. Most still cringe at the thought of Nazi or Stalinist enforcers who detained people and demanded to see their papers, but what difference is there between those enforcers of old and the DHS? When a heavily armed DHS or TSA thug dressed in combat gear and armor forces you to submit to his orders, and without any provocation, what else can that be called but tyranny? Refusing to acquiesce to this assault on our liberty should be the first step taken.
The individual states also have an obligation to protect their residents from federal invasions and bad laws, and should take immediate action to stop the feds from terrorizing citizens with these criminal raids. When DHS thugs come into any state to set up these fascist checkpoints, the sheriff’s office, and all other state police forces, by order of the governor or states attorney general, should immediately instruct them to leave. If they do not obey, then they should be arrested and jailed.
Eddie says:
I read this recent article by Wesley Miller of Collapsenet. It presents an alternative viewpoint on gun control, one you probably won’t agree with, but worth considering. I do not agree with everything he says myself, but ai think he is dead on about the recent hysterical rush of gun buying.
http://www.collapsenet.com/blogs/entry/hairy-eyeball-on/2013/01/18/disarming-the-united-states
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
29th January 2013 at 9:33 am
flash says:
“. A .223 round will tumble and rip up a deer, ruining the meat. An AK-47 round (.762 (sic) x 39 mm) does not have the accuracy or range for deer hunting.”
Bull-fffing -shit.
I’ve killed deer with both .The .223 is not nearly the meat destroyer a 30-06 is and the 7.62 X 39mm is as accurate out to 100 yards ( the most common killing range in any forested landscape ) as any other round I’ve popped off.
Chest cavity shots with a 55 grain lead tipped .223 will do absolute no damaged to the meat , but will shed the internal lung and hear system.
The fact that this guy self-identifies and an expert , tell me a lot about him..
An old friend used to define an expert as anyone who lived more than 25 miles form those in search of on.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
29th January 2013 at 9:49 am
Eddie says:
I agree with you on that one, but i agree with him about high-powered riflles shooting through walls and carryng for a mile or more with potentially lethal consequences.
Any weapon can be used for hunting. But some are better than others.Any weapon can be used for defense…but some are better than others.
My chief disagreement with Miller is this…TPTB are not about to disarm…so it is prudent, in my opinion, to have arms with capabilities to defend against government thugs if necessary.
But i agree with him that probably tens of thousands of guns are going out the door right now to people who don’t know how to use one, and probably that ultimately will cause more harm than good.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
29th January 2013 at 10:01 am
flash says:
“Banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will have zero effect on your liberty but it may have a tremendous affect upon your family’s safety and security. These really are weapons of war and they really do not have a place in civil society. Or even in a collapsed society.”
What a damn contradictory statement. In the event of a a collapsed society, there is no safety to be expected from owning a HC assualt weapon able to engage multiple targets T 300 + yards… but shotguns and handguns able to engage targets at 20-50 yards are supposedly ideal? WTF?
balderdash!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
29th January 2013 at 10:05 am
flash says:
Eddie…you don’t think a 9mm , .45 acp or a load of buckshot will blast though sheetrock?
The guy who penned this article is full of himself and full of shit and a dangerous influence to those who take his contradictory nonsensical spew as gospel.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
29th January 2013 at 10:10 am
flash says:
Eddie-But i agree with him that probably tens of thousands of guns are going out the door right now to people who don’t know how to use one.
And so are tons of prescription drugs which kill 290 people a day, but I don’t hear this holy-than –thou dickhead railing on about that.
Bottom line is morons die everyday from a multitude of reasons , none of which should preclude me from the right of defense of my family or self as I see fit.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
29th January 2013 at 10:16 am
Bostonbob says:
I read this this morning and was floored. Deep into the article it states how the “Defense Department” is upping its spending to 4.2 billion dollars on drones. I love how the Texas A&M student breathlessly exclaims how it will create a more ethical form of war by taking the emotion out of the equation. These will be used against us. This will not end well.
Bob.
Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs – Open Channel
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
9:26 AM
Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs
Fly over the mock wreckage of Disaster City with a Texas A&M student drone pilot.
By Isolde Raftery, NBC News
Randal Franzen was 53, unemployed and nearly broke when his brother, a tool designer at Boeing, mentioned that pilots for remotely piloted aircraft – more commonly known as drones – were in high demand.
Franzen, a former professional skier and trucking company owner who had flown planes as a hobby, started calling manufacturers and found three schools that offer bachelor’s degrees for would-be feet-on-the-ground fliers: Kansas State University, the University of North Dakota and the private Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.
Advertise | AdChoices
He landed at Kansas State, where he maintained a 4.0 grade point average for four years and accumulated $60,000 in student loan debt before graduating in 2011. It was a gamble, but one that paid off with an offer “well into the six figures” as a flight operator for a military contractor in Afghanistan.
Franzen, who dreams of one day piloting drones over forest fires in the U.S., believes he is at the forefront of a watershed moment in aviation, one in which manned flight takes a jumpseat to the remote-controlled variety.
Courtesy Randal Franzen
Randal Franzen went from being unemployed to earning a six-figure salary as a drone flight operator in Afghanistan.
While most jobs flying drones currently are military-related, universities and colleges expect that to change by 2015, when the Federal Aviation Administration is due to release regulations for unmanned aircraft in domestic airspace. Once those regulations are in place, the FAA predicts that 10,000 commercial drones will be operating in the U.S. within five years.
Although just three schools currently offer degrees in piloting unmanned aircraft, many others – including community colleges – offer training for remote pilots. And those numbers figure are set to increase, with some aviation industry analysts predicting drones will eventually come to dominate the U.S. skies in terms of jobs.
At the moment, 358 public institutions – including 14 universities and colleges – have permits from the FAA to fly unmanned aircraft. Those permits became public last summer after the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The government issues the permits mainly for research and border security. Police departments that have requested them to survey dense, high crime areas have been rejected.
Some of the schools that have permits have been flying unmanned aircrafts for decades; others, like Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio, received theirs recently to start programs to train future drone pilots.
Alex Mirot, an assistant professor at Embry-Riddle who oversees the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Science program there, said this generation of students will pioneer how unmanned aircraft are used domestically, as the use of drones shifts from almost purely military to other applications.
“We make it clear from the beginning that we are civilian-focused,” said Mirot, a former Air Force pilot who remotely piloted Predator and Reaper drones used to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere for four years from a base in Nevada.
“We want them to think about how to apply this military hardware to civilian applications.”
Among the possible applications: Monitoring livestock and oil pipelines, spotting animal poachers, tracking down criminals fleeing crime scenes and delivering packages for UPS and FedEx.
With U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan winding down, drone manufacturers also are eager to find new markets. AeroVironment, a California company that specializes in small, unmanned aircrafts for the military, recently unveiled the Qube, a drone designed for law enforcement surveillance.
Advertise | AdChoices
The FAA hasn’t allowed police agencies to fly drones over populated areas – because of concerns about airspace safety, as drones have crashed or collided with one another abroad. But that hasn’t stopped some agencies from buying them in anticipation of their eventual approval. The Seattle Police Department, for example, has two small aircraft, which two officers occasionally fly around a warehouse for practice. For now, a police spokesman said, federal rules are too restrictive to use them outside.
The domestic market is so nascent that there isn’t even agreement on what to call unmanned aircraft – “remotely piloted aircraft,” “unmanned aerial vehicles” – UAVs – or by the most mainstream term, “drones.” The latter makes many advocates bristle; they say the term confuses their aircraft with the dummy planes used for target practice – or with the controversial planes used to kill suspected terrorists abroad.
Industry attracting engineers and pilots
Students at Embry-Riddle train on flight simulators that closely resemble the Predator, an armed military drone with a 48-foot wingspan, because the FAA will not issue a drone license to a private institution.
Without guidance from the FAA, Embry-Riddle has struggled with how to create a robust program that will turn out employable graduates.
“As of now there aren’t rules on what an (unmanned aircraft) pilot qualification will be,” Mirot said. “You have to go to employer X and ask them, ‘What are you requiring?’ And that becomes the standard.”
The bachelor’s degree program also includes 13 credits in engineering, so students understand the plane’s whole system, Mirot said.
Embry-Riddle recently graduated its first student with a bachelor’s degree, but those who graduated earlier with minors in unmanned aircraft systems have fared well, Mirot said.
“I had a kid who deployed right away and he was making $140,000,” Mirot said. “That’s more than I ever made. Yeah, he’s going into Afghanistan, but he had no previous military experience or security clearance.”
Mirot said many of his students aspire to be airline pilots. But with salaries for commercial airline pilots starting as low as $17,000 in the first year, they plan to start in unmanned systems to pay off their loans, then maybe apply for an airline job, he said.
The University of North Dakota, which launched its unmanned aircraft systems operations major in 2009, has similar success stories. Professor Alan Palmer, a retired brigadier general of the North Dakota National Guard, said 15 of the program’s 23 graduates now work for General Automics in San Diego, which makes the Predator and Reaper drones used in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Engineering and computer science students, too, are in demand by the drone industry. At least 50 universities in the U.S. have centers, academic programs or clubs for drone engineering or flying. Many of the engineering students work on projects making the drones “smarter” – that is building more sensitive sensors – and studying how the robots interact with humans.
Advertise | AdChoices
George Huang, a professor at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, who builds drones the size of hummingbirds, said nearly all his 20 students work as researchers for the Air Force. This means they’re earning between $60,000 and $80,000 a year while still enrolled, instead of the $15,000 stipend that graduate students typically receive from their schools.
At the University of Colorado in Boulder, doctoral candidate Sibylle Walter said unmanned systems appeal to her because the results are immediate. In the past, she said, aerospace students typically ended up at Boeing or another big company and spent years working on one element of a project. Instead, she is working with her adviser to build a supersonic drone capable of flying up to 1,000 mph.
“The link between education and application is much more compact,” Walter said of the unmanned aircraft. “That translates to this new boom. You can build them inexpensively – you don’t need $100 million to build one.”
Ethical warfare?
Despite the promise of numerous civilian applications, drones continue to be controversial because of their role as weapons of war.
At Texas A&M University, which has an FAA permit to fly drones, computer science student Brittany Duncan is unusual among her peers: She’s a licensed pilot, a computer scientist and a woman. She probably could land a high-paying job for a military contractor, but she’s intent on staying in academia, studying robot-human relations, specifically how robots should approach victims of a natural disaster without scaring them.
John Brecher / NBC News
Doctoral candidate Brittany Duncan assembles an unmanned aerial vehicle in a lab at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.
On a recent hot, dusty morning, Duncan, 25, pulled a small aircraft from the back of a 4×4 pickup. Wearing black work boots and Dickies, she quickly assembled a remote-controlled aircraft that resembled a flying spider, then launched the aircraft – equipped with sensors and a video camera – over a pile of rubble to practice capturing footage.
At her side was Professor Robin Murphy, her adviser and a veteran of real-world unmanned aircraft operations, having flown over the World Trade Center after 9/11, the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the nuclear reactor in Fukushima, Japan, after the 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster there (although she stayed in Tokyo). She believes drones could revolutionize public safety.
“I could show you a photo of firefighters from today, and it could be a photo of firefighters from 1944,” Murphy said. “They haven’t had a lot of boost in technology. [Unmanned aircraft] could be a real game-changer.”
Duncan knows there is resistance from communities where drones have been introduced. In Seattle, for example, the ACLU argued that drones could invade privacy. But as Duncan sees it, this makes her work even more relevant.
“That’s the most important thing to me – that people understand good can come from drones,” Duncan said. “Every technology is scary at first. Cars, when they went only 6 mph, people thought there would be a rash of people getting run over. Well, no, it’s going slow enough for you to get out of the way. And it’ll change your life.”
Duncan said she considers the implications of working on machines that are for now mostly used for war. Despite conflicting reports on civilian casualties in drone strikes, she’s convinced that unmanned aircraft offer a more-ethical battlefield alternative because they take the pilot’s “skin” out of the game.
Disaster City, a giant search-and-rescue training ground in College Station, Texas, is home to a destroyed strip mall, a mock-up movie theater and towering buildings all made to be torched in the name of emergency preparedness. Clint Arnett describes how Disaster City works.
Advertise | AdChoices
“If you’re flying a UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter and look down and think someone has a surface-to-air missile, you’re going to shoot first and figure it out later because you’re a pilot and your life is in danger,” she said. But with drones, “(You) can afford to make sure that someone is a combatant before they engage – because you don’t have your life on the line. It takes your emotion out of the equation.”
While that debate continues, the Department of Defense is showing no loss of appetite for drones, despite the drawndown in Afghanistan. This year, it plans to spend $4.2 billion on various versions of the unmanned aircraft, 15 times more than it did in 2000.
For Professors Mirot and Palmer, that is evidence that their programs will stay relevant, no matter how the domestic deployment of drones plays out.
Looking ahead
There is an ironic twist to Randal Franzen’s move to climb aboard the cutting edge of aviation: When he went to Afghanistan, he learned that his assignment was to monitor surveillance video from a tethered balloon near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border – a military technology that – minus the cameras – dates to the Civil War.
From the base miles away, he monitored the rural area for Taliban activity, but mostly watched Afghans going about their daily lives. The retrained drone pilot said he found it fascinating.
“I grew up in Montana, swam in irrigation ditches, and they do the exact same thing – they’re just trying to make a living, raise some cattle and kids and do the exact same thing as everyone else,” Franzen said. There were moments that caught him by surprise – such as when he saw a man leading 10 camels through the desert while talking on a cellphone, walking several feet ahead of his wife, who was dressed in a full burqa.
Now home in Colorado, Franzen figures he’ll take at least one more far-flung military assignment as he waits for the domestic drone market to open. This time, though, he’d like to put his newfound remote flying skills to better use.
“I had three offers yesterday to go back and do the same thing for three different companies,” he said. “I talked to them about flying. I’d rather pilot something. I’d like to go play with something cooler.”
More from Open Channel:
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
29th January 2013 at 10:30 am
John A says:
Obama gun control disinformation rebuttal:
WAPO: Obama Fibbed About Gun Background Checks by Katie Pavlich
Two weeks ago when President Obama annnounced his new executive actions on gun control surrounded by children and Vice President Joe Biden he said, “Studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement.”
From the Washington Post fact checker:
Earlier this week, we gave this claim a “verdict pending.” We said we faced a bit of a conundrum because the 40 percent statistic was based on a single, relatively small survey of 251 people from nearly two decades ago — but that foes of gun control had made it difficult for further research to be conducted.
We also gave kudos to Vice President Biden for acknowledging that the statistic might not be accurate. So we said we would be watching carefully for how the statistic would be used by gun-control advocates in the future
Turns out according to even the Washington Post, that number is far from accurate.
Cash purchase from gun, hardware or department store, from pawnshop, or from seller at gun show, flea market or military, or through mail that respondent says “yes” was FFL [federally licensed dealer]: 22 percent
Add cash purchase from seller at gun show, flea market or military, or though the mail that respondent says “probably was/think so:” 20 percent
Add cash purchases, trades with family, friends/acquaintance that respondent says are or probably are FFL: 14 percent
In other words, rather than being 30 to 40 percent (the original estimate of the range) or “up to 40 percent” (Obama’s words), gun purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent. And since the survey sample is so small, that means the results have a survey caveat: plus or minus six percentage points.
So, do we really need new “universal background checks?” Marion P. Hammer says absolutely not, there are already plenty of laws on the books.
That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.
Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.
All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. (costing hard earned cash) Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.
It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.
It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that’s all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.
Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.
The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That’s now, today, with no changes to the law.
It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.
Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn’t pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/29/wapo-obama-fibbed-about-gun-background-checks-n1500227
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
29th January 2013 at 11:01 am
Administrator says:
“Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.”
General Douglas MacArthur
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
29th January 2013 at 4:01 pm
Novista says:
A small statistic of what gun control here did. Remember we had a massacre and weasel Howard jumped at the crisis. Well, we have some gun ownership, no scary looking assault rifles, though.
We have background checks, mandated safety training, waiting periods, fees … and high prices.
So I’ve bought a Rossi 30-30 lever action and a Puma .22lr bot action.
20 of the former, $24.99 (though bought locally so price might be better in a big city, don’t know.) The .22 LR standard, 50 – $6.70.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
29th January 2013 at 9:27 pm
AKAnon says:
Eddie-I agree w/ Flash’s assessment of Miller’s self-professed expertise. I could claim many of the same qualifications as well as a few others, but I come to different conclusions. Among other things, real testing at Gunsite Academy (the brainchild of the legendary Jeff Cooper) has shown that .223 tends to penetrate fewer interior walls than most handgun rounds, especially 45. The debate between shotgun, carbine or handgun for home defense is far from conclusive, but when the range exceeds 50 yards or so, virtually everyone recognizes the superiority of the carbine or rifle. Re “usefullness” of “assault weapons (or rifles, if you prefer)”-I have noted before that AR15s are by far the most popular firearm in NRA High-Power rifle competition, 3 gun competition, and other shooting sports. They have also become very popular for many hunting applications. Variations specifically marketed towards coyote hunting are available. And Flash is correct that with correct ammunition, they are very viable for many game hunting applications-Miller is full of shit. Your boy makes a few good points in the article, but then, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.
Re the current sales mania: I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I strongly support firearms safety, to include training. I suspect you and Miller are correct-some of the new buyers don’t have safe gun-handling skills and won’t make the effort to acquire them. That is a liability. OTOH, the more yahoos buy guns now, from FFL dealers, under whatever scrutiny currently exists, the better a distraction from those keeping a lower profile. I also get a vicarious thrill out of seeing folks exercising their rights, and rubbing it in TPTB’s noses. I am not envious one bit-I expect that most of those buyers will be on my side politically, at least as far as gun laws are concerned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
29th January 2013 at 2:14 am
flash says:
Wesley Miller (statist surrender monkey)-” An AK-47 round (.762 (sic) x 39 mm) does not have the accuracy or range for deer hunting.”
Tell that to this village hunter in Yakutia region of Russia who relays on his trusty Kalashnikov to not only feed his family and the village, but to protect them from feral animals as well The AK due to it’s ruggedness and dependable is a fine dual purpose rifle for those who can only afford one.
.. See video @ 16:00 .
http://rt.com/programs/documentary/roads-lead-khatystyr-people/
Disclaimer.I do not own a AK , but unlike respect-my- authority Wesley, I do have experience firing and killing deer with a 7.62 X39 round and .223 as well.
There enough morons on the left shooting their mouths of about the use or non-use of firearms without some self-declared expert (Wesley Miller adding his opinion as fact to further muddy the the issue for those who haven’t any experience with any firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm
Hunting and sport use
Since approximately 1990, the 7.62×39mm cartridge has seen some use in hunting arms in the US for hunting game up to the size of whitetail deer, as it is approximately as powerful as the .30-30 Winchester round, and has a similar ballistic profile.[13] Large numbers of inexpensive imported semiautomatic rifles, such as the SKS and AK-47 clones and variants, are available in this caliber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
29th January 2013 at 8:51 am
flash says:
One thing Wesley and the “are we allowed” ilk need to remember is that native Americans where killing 2000 proud Buffalo everyday with arrows…..but did they really need those 30 arrow quivers just to kill a rabbit, the blithering ilk doth query?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
29th January 2013 at 8:58 am
It all started with the Boo-slims… | Battlefield USA says:
[...] If it wasn’t for the Boo-slims, why… it would be like… the year 2000 again! [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
29th January 2013 at 3:21 am