Connect with us


This New DIY Gun Technology Terrifies Libs

Gun control is getting more and more strict – and this new DIY gun technology has liberals terrified.

On Friday, U.S. District of Massachusetts Court Judge William Young issued a 47-page ruling saying AR-15s and large capacity magazines are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Feds Hate That They Can’t Seize This Gun

The judge set the ruling in stone when he said, “The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms.’”

Young is not the first to deprive Americans of our Second Amendment rights. For instance, back in 2016 a gun-rights group made the decision to sue Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. That’s because she was attempting to broaden the definition of “copies or duplicates” of AR-15 and AK-47 models.

Healey’s end goal was to not only ban standard AR-15s and AK-47s, but also other versions of these guns. Versions that had been redesigned in order to get around the law’s misguided definition of “assault rifle.”

Unfortunately, following the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting, Healey was able to unilaterally change the state of Massachusetts’ interpretation of what defines an “assault weapon.”

Sidestep Gun Control With This Untraceable 1911

So how does this all relate? Well, Young’s ruling on Friday bans certain firearms that weren’t originally covered by the Massachusetts’ assault weapon ban. This court ruling bans guns that many people in the state have already bought. Which means that, with one stroke of the pen, Young’s choice to uphold the state’s assault weapons ban turns these once-innocent firearm purchasers into instant criminals.

Now, you may be wondering what legal grounds Judge Young had in making the decision to uphold Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban. Well, as it turns out, he was using the Antonin Scalia’s Heller ruling.

According to The Truth About Guns:

Young, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, backed his decision by quoting the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in a landmark 2008 decision that overturned Washington’s ban on hand guns. The ruling expanded individual gun rights but said the right isn’t unlimited.

“Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and “may be banned,” Young quoted Scalia as saying.

Now Scalia obviously had opinions about limiting the rights to keep and bear arms to weapons that were “in common use at the time.” However, gun-rights activists knew this would come back to bite us in the butt.

FREE Books Shows You How to Make An Off-The-Books Ghost Gun 

But wait – it gets worst. Young also chose to reject any and all attempts made by pro-gunners to challenge this ban. Even though the point of the challenge was solid: AR-15s are still extremely popular in America.

According to Young, “The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young said. “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”

What’s worse, the Massachusetts legislature is overrun with Democrats. And most of them are more than happy to pass stricter gun control – no matter what the cost. And so they’re not going to do a thing to challenge this.

Plus, you may be thinking “this is a great case for the Supreme Court to appeal.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been growing more and more tentative of taking any Second Amendment cases in the past few years. And, as more and more pressure comes upon them to enforce stricter and stricter gun control, pro-gunners with common sense are losing hope. Fast.

Young’s ruling is one of more than a dozen similar rulings in the past 6 months. And each of these further erodes our Second Amendment rights more than ever before.

This is bad. Very bad.

Each time rulings like these are passed, our Second Amendment rights are reduced further than our founding fathers could have ever imagined.

This Gun Is Invisible To The Government

Fortunately, the easiest way to avoid becoming a victim of these gun laws is by knowing specific “workarounds” that allow you to sidestep gun control.

Thanks to a recent breakthrough in technology (and a carefully placed loophole in American gun law), it’s now possible to make a completely untraceable 1911 pistol. And, better yet, it’s completely invisible to the ATF.

Your invisible 1911 is identical to any pistol you’d buy in a gun shop.

Only a lot more affordable.

And it doesn’t require a serial number, background check, or waiting period to own.

This is all possible thanks to the Free DVD on the following page.

Normally $49.99, this DVD is being given away for a limited time. That’s because the recent attack on the Second Amendment has inspired the company who makes them to give away as many of these DVDs as possible.

You can claim your Free DVD showing you how to make an invisible 1911 right here.

Do Not Wait to Get This Free DVD.

The loophole that lets you make your own invisible 1911 may soon be shut down.

Plus, we have no idea when the company who makes these DVDs will stop giving them away.

Click here now and confirm your shipping info, and they’ll get it out to you pronto!


Democrat Mayor Welcomes Illegals to Denver


During a recent interview with CNBC, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s comments regarding the city’s approach to immigration underscore a troubling trend of prioritizing the interests of migrants over the well-being of American citizens.

Johnston’s admission that Denver is grappling with an influx of migrants is a damning indictment of the city’s failed open-door policies. Rather than acknowledging the inherent risks and challenges associated with unchecked migration, Johnston attempts to portray Denver’s approach as a delicate balancing act between compassion and pragmatism. However, his words betray a dangerous naivety that threatens to undermine the safety and prosperity of Denverites.

By championing an ideology of unlimited hospitality, Denver has effectively placed the burden of its misguided altruism squarely on the shoulders of its own citizens. Johnston’s assertion that the city is proud of its ability to manage the migrant crisis is not only arrogant but also deeply troubling. Instead of celebrating the city’s failure to control its borders, Denver should be prioritizing the needs and concerns of its own residents.

Johnston’s plea for federal assistance serves as a thinly veiled attempt to absolve Denver of its responsibility for the consequences of its reckless immigration policies. It is outrageous that hardworking taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the city’s misguided generosity. Denverites should not be forced to accept cuts to city budgets and services in order to accommodate migrants who enter the country illegally.

Furthermore, Johnston’s insistence on portraying migrants as victims deserving of unwavering support only serves to exacerbate the problem. By perpetuating the myth of the noble migrant in need of rescue, Johnston glosses over the very real dangers and disruptions caused by uncontrolled immigration. Denverites deserve better than a mayor who prioritizes virtue signaling over their safety and prosperity.

It is time for Johnston and other proponents of open borders to face the harsh reality of their policies. Unrestricted immigration poses serious threats to national security, public safety, and economic stability. Denver cannot continue down this reckless path without risking irreparable harm to its own citizens.

In light of these challenges, it is imperative that Denver enact sensible immigration policies that prioritize the needs and interests of American citizens. This includes strengthening border security, enforcing immigration laws, and implementing measures to deter illegal immigration. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust placed in Johnston by the people of Denver.


Illegals Get the VIP Treatment from Biden's DHS!

POLL: Should American cities welcome illegals?


Continue Reading


Texas Dem. Rep: No Taxes For Black Americans


In a recent episode of the “Black Lawyers Podcast,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, ignited a firestorm of controversy with her proposal to exempt Black Americans from paying taxes as a form of reparations. This suggestion has triggered widespread outrage among conservatives, who see it as yet another attempt to further racialize American politics and deepen divisions within society.

Crockett’s proposition, which she herself admitted may not be successful due to the fact that many within the Black community are already struggling financially and may not be paying taxes, has been met with condemnation from conservative voices across the country. Critics argue that such a plan would not only be ineffective in addressing the underlying issues faced by Black Americans but would also exacerbate racial tensions and perpetuate a victimhood narrative.

By singling out one racial group for special treatment through tax exemptions, Crockett’s proposal threatens to further polarize an already divided nation along racial lines. Conservatives view this as yet another example of the left’s obsession with identity politics, where race takes precedence over individual merit and personal responsibility.

Moreover, Crockett’s suggestion of tax exemptions as a form of reparations is seen as deeply misguided and unfair. Conservatives argue that reparations, if they are to be considered at all, should be based on need and merit, rather than race. By proposing blanket tax exemptions based solely on race, Crockett fails to address the complex socioeconomic factors that contribute to inequality and disadvantage in America.

Conservatives also express concern about the lack of consistency and coordination between federal and state approaches to reparations. Crockett’s call for tax exemptions at the federal level raises questions about how such measures would interact with existing state-level initiatives, potentially leading to confusion and inequity in the distribution of resources.

As the debate over reparations continues to intensify, conservatives are calling for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach that focuses on addressing the root causes of inequality and promoting economic opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race. Crockett’s proposal, they argue, only serves to further entrench racial divisions and undermine efforts to achieve genuine unity and progress in the United States.



POLL: Should the federal government exempt black Americans from taxes?

Continue Reading


Whoopi Goldberg Claims Conservatives Want to “Bring Back Slavery”


In a recent episode of ABC’s “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg stirred controversy with her startling claim that some Republicans are inclined to “bring slavery back.” The comment, made during a discussion about the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate an 1864 abortion ban, has sparked widespread condemnation, with critics lambasting Goldberg for her inflammatory and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Goldberg’s assertion, delivered in the heat of the panel discussion, has been roundly denounced as not only inflammatory but also deeply irresponsible. By equating Republican policies on abortion with a desire to resurrect one of the darkest chapters in American history, Goldberg not only demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the issues at hand but also showcased a troubling disregard for reasoned discourse.

Conservative voices have been particularly vocal in their condemnation of Goldberg’s remarks, highlighting the egregious nature of her comparison and the harm it does to meaningful dialogue. They argue that such hyperbolic and baseless accusations only serve to further polarize an already divided political landscape, making it increasingly difficult to find common ground on important issues.

Moreover, critics have pointed out the dangerous precedent set by Goldberg’s rhetoric, warning of the potential consequences of allowing such inflammatory statements to go unchallenged. They argue that by indulging in sensationalism and distortion, Goldberg not only does a disservice to the public discourse but also undermines the credibility of her own platform.

In the wake of the controversy, Goldberg has faced mounting pressure to retract or clarify her remarks, with many calling on her to apologize for the offense caused. However, as of yet, Goldberg has remained steadfast in her position, offering no indication of contrition or acknowledgment of the harm caused by her words.

Goldberg’s comments are part of a greater problem in American media and politics: One where conservative Americans are routinely demonized for their beliefs without consequence. This rhetoric should alarm all patriotic Americans interested in the free and honest discussion of ideas and politics.


POLL: Do you think conservatives want to bring back slavery?


Continue Reading