• ammodotcom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:18 AM
    Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice. – Arcesilaus, Greek philosopher and student of Plato on power and personal sovereignty There’s no two ways about it: The United States of America and its 50 state governments love putting people in prison. The U.S. has both the highest number of prisoners and the highest per capita incarceration rate in the modern world at 655 adults per 100,000. (It’s worth noting that China’s incarceration statistics are dubious, and they execute far more people than the United States. Indeed, the so-called People’s Republic executes more people annually than the rest of the world combined.) Still, that’s more than 2.2 million Americans in state and federal prisons as well as county jails. On top of those currently serving time, 4.7 million Americans were on parole in 2016, or about one in 56. These numbers do not include people on probation, which raises the number to one in 35. Nor does it include all of the Americans who have been arrested at one time or another, which is over 70 million – more than the population of France.
    0 replies | 49 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-29-2020, 02:21 PM
    It’s no secret that mainstream press coverage of gun ownership in the United States tends to be in favor of gun control. Journalists focus on how many people are killed by guns, how many children get their hands on improperly stored firearms, and how many deranged individuals go on shooting sprees. This anti-gun news bias is widespread among urban elites who have very little personal experience with guns and yet have no problem opining about the subject for influential newspapers like The New York Times or The Washington Post. Despite this bias, gun ownership has significant positive impacts on American society that often go unreported. There is actually a sort of semi-official policy regarding this: “if it bleeds, it leads.” This means, in short, that the more death and destruction, the higher up on the news the story goes. Nothing moves units quite like tales of gun violence, so the media complies by wallpapering coverage of tragic events like mass shootings, despite the fact that such events are rare and comprise a small number of the total deaths in America. What’s more, the media almost never reports on context when it comes to mass shootings, such as the well-documented connection between prescription antidepressants and shootings. Even when SSRIs are involved, there is a serious problem with mental healthcare in the United States, which has one of the lowest rates of involuntary commitment in the world. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to get someone who is clearly a danger to themselves and others locked away even for a short observation period. Of course, other, more tangential causes like the breakdown of civil society and the destruction of the family are never even considered.
    0 replies | 87 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-28-2020, 01:47 PM
    Is it really "creative" when all the boy is doing is acting like a girl? I'm fairly certain girls have behaved that way since the dawn of time. I'm "culture creative" myself. I behave like a Canadian.
    11 replies | 212 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-27-2020, 06:47 PM
    Simply astonishing. I didn't know all of this either, thank you.
    4 replies | 226 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-26-2020, 10:35 AM
    The USA PATRIOT Act provides a textbook example of how the United States federal government expands its power. An emergency happens, legitimate or otherwise. The media, playing its dutiful role as goad for greater government oversight, demands "something must be done." Government power is massively expanded, with little regard for whether or not what is being done is efficacious, to say nothing of the overall impact on our nation's civil liberties. No goals are posted, because if targets are hit, this would necessitate the ending or scaling back of the program. Instead, the program becomes normalized. There are no questions asked about whether the program is accomplishing what it set out to do. It is now simply a part of American life and there is no going back. The American public largely accepts the USA PATRIOT Act as a part of civic life as immutable, perhaps even more so than the Bill of Rights. However, this act – passed in the dead of night, with little to no oversight, in a panic after the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor – is not only novel, it is also fundamentally opposed to virtually every principle on which the United States of America was founded. It might not be going anywhere anytime soon, but patriots, liberty lovers and defenders of Constitutional government should nonetheless familiarize themselves with the onerous provisions of this law, which is nothing short of a full-throttle attack on the American republic. What’s Even in the USA PATRIOT Act? What is in the USA PATRIOT Act? In the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11, then Rep. John Conyers cracked wise about how no one had actually read the Act and how this was in fact par for the course with America's laws. Thus, before delving into the deeper issues surrounding the PATRIOT Act, it is worth discussing what the Act actually says. Here’s a brief look at the 10 Titles in the PATRIOT Act:
    4 replies | 226 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-23-2020, 04:25 PM
    Flamethrowers are actually useful for home defense. But otherwise I agree with you 100 percent.
    3 replies | 354 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-22-2020, 06:24 PM
    Prior to 1968, most adults in the United States could purchase a firearm without state interference. Guns were available in local retail stores, as well as mail-order catalogs, and as long as you hadn’t been convicted of a felony and you had the funds, there weren’t any questions asked. Things are different now. Depending on where in America you are and what type of gun you want to buy, there’s a good chance you’ll need to pass a NICS-mandated background check to complete your purchase. Although many people hold a strong opinion for and against gun background checks, they’ve proven to be an integral part of the state's gun control apparatus – and they don’t appear to be leaving anytime soon. Since background checks are such a requirement for today’s gun enthusiasts, it’s important for gun owners (and those who may someday be gun owners) to understand everything they can, including how the current system works and how it came to be. The History of Gun Background Checks in the U.S.
    3 replies | 354 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-21-2020, 12:56 PM
    On the flip side of things, being a politician must be easy when the only things your key voters demand are potatoes.
    8 replies | 303 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-19-2020, 10:24 AM
    Disclaimer: This guide is intended to be informational only surrounding the topic of ghost guns and 3D-printed firearms. It is not legal advice. Ever since the landmark ruling on 3D-printed firearms, outrage and moral panic have surrounded so-called “ghost guns.” Whether you’re a proponent ofSecond Amendment freedoms or just doing opponent research, it’s important to have the facts about what a ghost gun is and what it is not. It’s also important to know other related terms in the world of firearms – like how is a ghost gun different from a 3D-printed gun? And what is an 80-percent lower? This guide will answer all of your ghost gun questions, and will separate fact from fiction surrounding this polarizing topic. What Is a Ghost Gun? Put simply, a “ghost gun” is a catchall term for any firearm without a serial number. There are a variety of ways a person can come to own a firearm without a serial number that do not involve breaking federal law, which generally prohibits the removal of serial numbers but not, however, the ownership of a firearm without a serial number.
    0 replies | 160 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-16-2020, 07:11 PM
    What is the point of the Second Amendment if, according to the SCOTUS, citizens have no inherent, personal or private right to bear arms outside of service in a state-approved militia? Aren’t militia only needed when the state doesn’t approve them? From The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding the Court's Landmark Decisions: The next major Supreme Court case about the Second Amendment came a decade after United States v. Cruikshank, and supported its conclusion that states had the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. It started in Illinois, where Herman Presser gathered and trained his fellow German-American industrial workers in military drills, maneuvers and tactics. They called themselves the Instruct and Defend Association. Presser wanted to build a militia to oppose the private security firms like Pinkerton that were often hired by employers to break strikes and intimidate workers. After Presser and four hundred of his fellow militiamen paraded through Chicago armed with rifles, he was arrested and charged with violating the state's laws against military organizations. Presser argued that the state's law was unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment granted him the right to form and maintain his own "well regulated" militia.
    0 replies | 145 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-15-2020, 02:46 PM
    One of the common responses among the left, particularly those on the center-left, is that Cultural Marxism isn’t a real thing or, at the very least, that it has failed to influence culture in any meaningful sense. It’s important to point out that it isn’t necessary to prove the existence of Cultural Marxist foot soldiers self-consciously infiltrating our institutions to show that Cultural Marxism has influenced American culture and Western culture more broadly. It is simply necessary to look at what their aims are and to see if those aims have been met. The radical transformation of society over the last 60 years and the acceleration of this transformation can be attributed to a number of factors, including Cultural Marxism, neoliberalism, the destruction of civil society and the welfare state. It’s worth pointing out the degree to which Cultural Marxism has influenced public discourse in the country and, indeed, the broader West. In Western Europe, for example, Cultural Marxist dialogue is much more explicit and overt than it is in the United States. To see the influence of Cultural Marxism, one need look no further than any left online publication. But it’s worth identifying the importance of Cultural Marxism in Western universities. The ideas of Cultural Marxism are hardly the purview of economic, political and cultural elites. Indeed, they are pushed on just about any college student from the community college level all the way up to the Ivy League. What’s more, there is a strand of Cultural Marxism called critical pedagogy that is all about introducing these concepts to younger and younger children. Cultural Marxism can be seen in the rise of grievance studies, those areas of “study” which are little more than political parties within the university. This includes ersatz academic disciplines such as women’s studies, African-American studies, “***** studies,” and even whiteness studies – the last of which, unlike the studies that precede it, is about pillorying and villainizing whites rather than a sort of narcissistic view at their own history. The degrees granted by these disciplines are, of course, totally useless, leading to a mass of young people who are woefully unprepared to enter the job market while simultaneously saddled with massive amounts of debt. Such people are naturally easy pickings for leftist movements seeking to destroy society. The presence of Cultural Marxism in elementary education is a clear-cut example of the long march through the institutions largely being a successful enterprise. The indoctrination of college students produced generations of college graduates who went on to share these ideas with younger and younger children. Nowhere more than in public education has the long march through the institutions been more successful.
    0 replies | 438 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-15-2020, 12:57 AM
    Remember, if the government asks you how many family members you have, just tell them you lost them all in a "boating accident." It works with guns!
    15 replies | 689 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-15-2020, 12:11 AM
    “All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.” – George Orwell “I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.” – Jim Garrison “Putting aside all the fancy words and academic doubletalk, the basic reason for having a military is to do two jobs – to kill people and to destroy.” – General Thomas S. Power “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of sixty thousand population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than eight thousand people. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
    0 replies | 96 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-09-2020, 03:17 PM
    Picture this: You’re driving home from the casino and you've absolutely cleaned up – to the tune of $50,000. You see a police car pull up behind you, but you can’t figure out why. Not only have you not broken any laws, you’re not even speeding. But the police officer doesn’t appear to be interested in charging you with a crime. Instead, he takes your gambling winnings, warns you not to say anything to anyone unless you want to be charged as a drug kingpin, then drives off into the sunset. This actually happened to Tan Nguyen, and his story is far from unique. It’s called civil asset forfeiture and it’s a multi-billion dollar piggybank for state, local and federal police departments to fund all sorts of pet projects. With its origins in the British fight against piracy on the open seas, civil asset forfeiture is nothing new. During Prohibition, police officers often seized goods, cash and equipment from bootleggers in a similar manner to today. However, contemporary civil asset forfeiture begins right where you’d think that it would: The War on Drugs. In 1986, as First Lady Nancy Reagan encouraged America’s youth to “Just Say No,” the Justice Department started the Asset Forfeiture Fund. This sparked a boom in civil asset forfeiture that’s now become self-reinforcing, as the criminalization of American life and asset forfeiture have continued to feed each other. In sum, asset forfeiture creates a motivation to draft more laws by the legislature, while more laws create greater opportunities for seizure by law enforcement. This perverse incentive structure is having devastating consequences: In 2014 alone, law enforcement took more stuff from American citizens than burglars did.
    0 replies | 99 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-07-2020, 01:57 AM
    "Now, the funny thing about this boot remover – well, not so much funny as educational – is that it was owned by the man who fired the first shot at the Battle of Gonzales."
    8 replies | 836 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-07-2020, 12:43 AM
    “I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life.”– Murray Rothbard The terms "freedom" and "liberty" have become clichés in modern political parlance. Because these words are invoked so much by politicians and their ilk, their meanings are almost synonymous and used interchangeably. That's confusing – and can be dangerous – because their definitions are actually quite different. "Freedom" is predominantly an internal construct. Viktor Frankl, the legendary Holocaust survivor who wrote Man's Search For Meaning, said it well: “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way (in how he approaches his circumstances).” In other words, to be free is to take ownership of what goes on between your ears, to be autonomous in thoughts first and actions second. Your freedom to act a certain way can be taken away from you – but your attitude about your circumstances cannot – making one's freedom predominantly an internal construct. On the other hand, "liberty" is predominantly an external construct. It's the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. The ancient Stoics knew this (more on that in a minute). So did the Founding Fathers, who wisely noted the distinction between negative and positive liberties, and codified that difference in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    0 replies | 102 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-04-2020, 10:05 AM
    She probably thinks the cannon is a vaporizer.
    8 replies | 836 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-02-2020, 09:47 AM
    “Come and Take It.” It’s a slogan of defiance against government tyranny with roots in antiquity that continues to inspire freedom-loving patriots today. This updating of the classic Spartan molṑn labé (meaning “come and take them”) is a powerful challenge to would-be gun grabbers. Seeking to remove arms from the people will not come without dear cost. For the Texian rebels of the Battle of Gonzales, these words were not mere tough talk. They were words the Texians were willing to die for. The story begins in 1831. Texians in Gonzales, then a part of Mexico, requested a cannon from federal authorities to defend themselves from Comanche raids. The cannon itself was of little military use (historian Timothy Todish once said it wasn’t good for much more than starting horse races). Indeed, it probably served more as a visual deterrent to the hostile natives than a military one. Curiously, Gonzales was one the communities preferring Mexican rule to independence, even after relations between Mexico and the Texians began to sour. The town went so far as to declare their allegiance to the Mexican government of Santa Anna. However, on September 10, 1835, a Mexican soldier beat a Gonzales Texian, sparking widespread outrage. It was after this incident that the federal government thought it best to retrieve the cannon before it was turned on the Mexican government. Supreme commander of the Mexican military, Colonel Domingo de Ugartechea, sent out Corporal Casimiro De León and five soldiers of the Second Flying Company of San Carlos de Parras. Emboldened by other Mexican states in open revolt, the Texians refused to return the weapon, taking De León and his men hostage. Ultimately, it wasn’t about the cannon. The Texians were worried that the Mexican government planned to use recent unrest to disband local militias, which the Texians considered absolutely essential for freedom and safety. Texians decided to bury the cannon in George W. Davis's peach orchard. This and other methods of subterfuge delayed the arrival of 100 Mexican dragoons. By the time they arrived, Texians had amassed a force 140 strong. On October 1, 1835, these men voted and decided that if the Mexican government wanted their cannon back, they were going to have to fight for it. The simple refusal to surrender the cannon acted as the spark that ignited the wildfire of the Texas Revolution. The Gonzales Flag is a stark black-and-white banner, a simple design that acted as a stark gauntlet thrown at the feet of Mexican federal power. It was nothing more than a star, the cannon in question and the old Spartan slogan updated for modern times: “Come and Take It.”
    8 replies | 836 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-01-2020, 10:36 AM
    America is definitely not Europe, but we can find a number of parallels between European history and contemporary America. For example, we’ve previously written about the Italian Years of Lead as a possible template for urban unrest and low-level inter-tribal warfare in the United States. Another example of how things might play out in the United States is the Spanish Civil War. The Spanish Civil War is known to historians, amateur and professional alike, as the “dress rehearsal for the Second World War.” It is so termed because it pitted one side – which was equipped, armed and funded by Europe’s fascist regimes (Germany and Italy) – against a government largely funded and propped up by the Soviet Union. However, it is worth noting that General Francisco Franco’s nationalist forces were not themselves fascist (though there were fascists within their ranks) and that Spain remained neutral during the Second World War, later becoming a close ally of the United States in the fight against Communism internationally. While there are few perfect analogs to be found anywhere in world history, there are parallels between the contemporary domestic political situation in the United States and the period immediately before and during the Spanish Civil War. And while the situation in the United States might play out in a much similar way to the Spanish Civil War, it is worth noting that our previous Civil War was the bloodiest in human history. There is little doubt that a Second American Civil War would not be significantly more destructive. Prologue: The Situation in Spain Prior to the Civil War As we talk about the leadup to the Spanish Civil War, the situation will begin very much unlike modern-day America, however, it will become more like the contemporary domestic situation as time goes on.
    1 replies | 302 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    10-01-2020, 12:30 AM
    Blue state secession would turn into a mass exodus. States are not monoliths – even California is surprisingly red once you look outside LA and the Bay Area. And as soon as these states found themselves without a very important demographic – tax payers, who know how to fix engines and grow food – they might find themselves up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
    24 replies | 554 view(s)
No More Results
About ammodotcom

Basic Information

About ammodotcom
Ammo.com believes arming our fellow Americans – both physically and philosophically – helps them fulfill our Founding Fathers' intent with the Second Amendment: To serve as a check on state power.
Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Political / Activist Bio:
We believe in free speech, privacy and personal sovereignty. And that – like with gun control – unchecked expansion of state power in any of these areas deserves resistance. But while most people believe the problem is right vs. left, we believe it’s liberty vs. authoritarian.

Every round of ammo sold on our site goes to support these beliefs, which is why we voluntarily donate 1% of Ammo.com purchases to a pro-freedom organization of your choice.
Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 11:18 AM
Join Date
Home Page
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast




















Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast