Illinois Firearms Store and Prospecting Store located in Cordova near Davenport and the border of Iwoa. We sell Guns, Ammunition, Shooters Supplies, Metal Detectors, Dredges, Gold Pans, Sluices and more. Give us a call or drop us an email if you have any questions. SW Shooters Supplies & Prospecting.
Posts Tagged With: ammo
^^ CLICK HERE ^^ to read the latest gear review from Concealed Carry Report contributing writer and gear expert, Mark Kakkuri on the Crossbreed MicroClip®. If you want more great gear reviews, be sure to sign up for the 100% FREE Concealed Carry Report on the right hand side of the page after you click on the link!
***This article is from the Concealed Carry Report, the USCCA’s 100% FREE weekly e-publication that goes out to 800,000 like minded, self-reliant citizens every Friday. Click the link below to read the full article and sign up to receive the CCR for FREE!***
Some Doctors and Nurses are beginning to ask “Do you have any guns in the House” on the basic reason for visit. They are saying “It is required under the Affordable Care Act.”….well that is not true…Here is what it actually says…. -taken directly from the Affordable Care Act:”
(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a) (1) (D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information elating to:
(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to-
(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
You may verify this at,
The complete article and video can be found at the link below….very interesting…
It is time to say “OK, we are leaving”….He has nothing but complain for the past two years on a regular basis. He wants our money and equipment but does not appreciate anything.
We should pull out and just let him fail and then refuse to go back. $Billions have been spent and given to his country and a fair share ended up in his pockets and the pockets of his cronies.
Bring our Troops home.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
As simple as these word are, we have been arguing about what they mean for a long time. Part of the problem is that many people engaged in the argument do not interpret the 2nd Amendment with respect for its historical context, but rather in light of what they want it to mean in support of their purposes. If we want to be honest about it, we must look to the origins of the amendment to understand it in the context of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, and only then can we consider it in our present context. The issue is further complicated by the fact that an increasingly large proportion of the U.S. population has no experience in the use of arms; they see arms as irrelevant to their lives at best or a threat at worst. This is important because the 2nd Amendment is always susceptible and becomes vulnerable when too many think it is an archaic artifact.
We must first understand that we did not invent the 2nd Amendment; we inherited it. The justification of the 2nd Amendment is rooted in late 12th and early 13th century England with the innovation of the Welsh; later called English, longbow. The longbow was a formidable weapon that made the English army the most feared army in Europe and determined the course of European history. It links to the 2nd Amendment because standing armies are expensive and the King of England did want to bear the cost; he relied on the barons of the shires to provide an army on demand. But the barons were not willing to bear the cost of a standing army either; they preferred to rely on the villagers of the shires for a militia of longbow artillery to support the king’s demands. (See G.M. Trevelyan, The History of England, Longman Group, 1973, p. 268)
This arrangement was complex in an economic as well as political context. In the 12th century, England was well on the way to shaking off feudalism and developing a corporate civil structure of local governance. William the Conqueror restructured England and introduced the manorial structure; Henry I introduced the legal notion of a jury with his Charter of Liberties, and Henry II introduced the peculiarly British notion of Common Law. The barons of the shires were tasked to raise the taxes demanded by the king under the manorial structure. This put the barons in the predicament of taxing the villagers while at the same time having to manage the productivity of the shires to provide the revenue demanded by the king. They were caught between ‘keeping the king’s pleas,’ and ‘keeping the king’s peace.’ The barons understood that a willing farmer was more productive at less cost to them than an unwilling farmer, and soon realized they had a vested interest in having a voice in the king’s demands, governance, and his expensive adventures. The barons also realized that, in principle, they had the power of arms effectively under their control. Their problem was maintaining unity in the face of royal power, but more than that, the challenge of sustaining the basic resource — the artillery of longbow archers.
The longbow was not a simple weapon either to use or to make. It took four years to make a longbow, and generations of experience to properly use it. The longbow was simply not something a local, ad hoc militia could train inexperienced conscripts to use. To solve this dilemma, the barons directed that villagers should keep a longbow in their homes and maintain their skill in the art of making and using it. Further, they established regular tournaments to achieve this goal. The barons were wildly successful in their efforts. They entered London on June 15, 1215 with their militias and forced King John to submit to the rule of law prescribed by the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta subordinated the king to the rule of law based on Henry I’s Charter and the notion of common law throughout the realm, and it set England on the path to developing representative parliamentary democracy.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was derived from our understanding of the British experience that militias were necessary to curb the tyrannical powers of the king. In our case, ‘well regulated militias’ were necessary as a condition of the colonies to agree to subordinate their sovereignty to a federal government. They wanted a guarantee of power to insure that some future federal government could not egregiously exceed its powers prescribed in the body of the constitution they agreed to. Furthermore, like the militias of the English barons, these state militias were formed ad hoc from the populace as needed on short notice and therefore depended on the populace being already proficient in the art of arms. The only way the Founders of America could guarantee this capability was to encourage civil proficiency in arms and make private ownership and use of arms a tenet of the constitution establishing the government. For these reasons, it should come as no surprise that the rights of freedom of speech and to ‘keep and bear arms comprise the first and second amendments to the constitution establishing them as rights of citizenship. We should not consider this rationale archaic. Democracy is fragile and always susceptible to despotism, and we should not be so arrogant as to suppose we are not equally susceptible.
Limiting the power of the federal government to subjugate the populace is the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and nothing in it restricts the use of arms consistent with maintaining proficiency consistent with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What we do with guns is the subject of existing criminal law, but having them is not. Arguments against the 2nd Amendment based on recreational use of arms and the futility of home defense are deflections. Under the 2nd Amendment, owning and using guns is not simply permitted, but is presumed; local, even federal, laws and regulations cannot lawfully infringe on it. The 2nd Amendment is always susceptible to tyrants, but is vulnerable if too many of us are ignorant of its purpose.
I might just retire in Vermont….
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont’s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as’a clear mandate to do so’. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent.” Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state. “There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says.
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state …. it’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.
“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.
Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!
Pistols and revolvers each have their own advantages and disadvantages. This article discusses the pros and cons of each type of handgun:
Generally speaking, a semiautomatic pistol is a handgun where the magazine slides into the grip of the gun, and some of the energy from firing the gun is used to eject the spent cartridge and load a fresh one. Compared to revolvers, pistols have the benefits of a larger magazine capacity (often as high as 15 rounds on larger pistols), easier trigger pull, faster rate of fire, and a more compact shape. On the down side, pistols are not as mechanically simple as revolvers, and rely upon the first round firing successfully in order for the second round to be cycled into the chamber. This means that revolvers may be better suited for self defense, at least for people who don’t take meticulous care of their guns. That said, the reliability of modern pistols is exceptionally high.
Revolvers have multiple chambers contained in a cylinder, each which holds a round. When the trigger is pulled, the cylinder rotates and a new chamber is lined up with the barrel. The gun then fires. This system has various advantages and disadvantages over a pistol. First, a revolver is very mechanically simple, and there is little that can go wrong with the firing process. This means a revolver may be a good choice for self defense, especially for those who don’t clean and care for their guns as often as they should. On the down side, revolvers tend to be bulkier than pistols, heavier than pistols, and tend to hold fewer rounds. Additionally, many of the safety features available on modern pistols are not available on revolvers.
No matter which type of gun you select, be sure to handle it safely, store your gun safely, and practice firing it often. The level of responsibility and skill that the use demonstrates matter more than the specific pros and cons of the gun itself.