Do you always try to shop at merchants who are gun friendly first?

What if I’m shopping for groceries or diapers for my kid? How do I check to see if that store or merchant is anti-gun?

What if the company I’m shopping from doesn’t make their political stances or donations public?

What if I can’t find out where they donate politically? If the company itself is not affiliated to political donations for anti-gun candidates or politicians, should I try to avoid them too?

All very valid questions! What do you do when you can only find the item you need from an anti-gun source? Do you go without or do you buy it but make your opinion known?

Where can I find this information so that I can make a better decision about where I can shop online or off without worrying whether I am helping to fund an anti-gun and anti-American company?

Join, Engage and contribute at the Anti-Gun Businesses Group at Firearms Friendly Now!

Because these are such tough nuts to crack, this is the reason for the Self Service Firearms Firearms Friendly Search Engine!

Businesses and service providers who ARE firearms friendly can join here free, then list and manage their own gun friendly links whether they are firearms industry merchants or not!

If you are a firearms friendly merchant that wants to help sponsor this site who is not yet listed in the Search Engine or your items are not yet listed in our Sponsor Shop, click Advertise for more information!

Watch the MSNBC nitwits proudly proclaim that Facebook finally bans those they agree are organized hate groups. “Facebook plans to ban a group of far-right media personalities as well as Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, from its social network and Instagram.”

Mises Institute – Following last February’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office , as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies ” had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.”

This latest decision adds to a growing body of case law establishing that government agencies — including police agencies — have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general:

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out.

Moreover, even though the state of Florida has compulsory schooling laws, the students themselves are not “in custody”:

“Courts have rejected the argument that students are in custody of school officials while they are on campus,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own — such as prisons, jails, or mental institutions.”

Hutchinson is right.

The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their “services.”

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

In both of these court cases, clear and repeated threats were made against the safety of children — but government agencies chose to take no action.

A consideration of these facts does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that law enforcement agencies are somehow on the hook for every violent act committed by private citizens.

This reality does belie the often-made claim, however, that police agencies deserve the tax money and obedience of local citizens because the agencies “keep us safe.”

Nevertheless, we are told there is an agreement here — a “social contract” — between government agencies and the taxpayers and citizens.

And, by the very nature of being a contract, we are meant to believe this is a two-way street. The taxpayers are required to submit to a government monopoly on force, and to pay these agencies taxes.

In return, these government agents will provide services. In the case of police agencies, these services are summed up by the phrase “to protect and serve” — a motto that has in recent decades been adopted by numerous police agencies.

But what happens when those police agencies don’t protect and serve? That is, what happens when one party in this alleged social contract doesn’t keep up its end of the bargain.

The answer is: very little.

The taxpayers will still have to pay their taxes and submit to police agencies as lawful authority. If the agencies or individual agents are forced to pay as a result of lawsuits, it’s the taxpayers who will pay for that too.

Oh sure, the senior leadership positions may change, but the enormous agency budgets will remain, the government agents themselves will continue to collect generous salaries and pensions, and no government will surrender its monopoly on the use of force.

Jim Benvie Of United Constitutional Patriots Explains Why They Do What They Do At The Undefended American Southern Border.

Find The Transcript below using Voice Record on Google Docs of video shared by Atomic News on Youtube of 4:08 video “Jim Benvie Of United Constitutional Patriots – This Is Why We Do What We Do”

“Some of the people ask me all the time why we cover our faces. I take a risk, I don’t cover my face. Somebody has to be the public face of the group. It’s because we’re being watched. If you look behind us here, this is Mexico. This is where the wall and this is dangerous where we’re standing okay people have spiders this is well organized crime keep in mind are involved in several businesses human trafficking sex trafficking drugs opioids people okay anytime guys like us out here interfering with how that business is conducted or possibly stopping what they’re trying to do it’s nothing for the cartel to put a hit on somebody’s family so we do take the necessary actions to protect herself people ask me also what is the rule of Engagement hear the rule of Engagement is is that we are here just like anybody else and the only time that we’re going to open fire is if we feel imminent threat or danger to our lives we are a group of basically volunteer Americans who come down here we’re retired vets retired lot law enforcement special we come down here not as a militia but as a group of Americans to help protect the Border crisis is going on down here this is a national security issue obviously border patrol is part of this as well we’re trying to assist them as far as in the overload there’s areas right now that the border patrol can’t cover because we have too many people coming through the Border claiming false Asylum and so what does that leaves it open to the cartel and people that want to smuggle drugs human trafficking I’m all the other illegal criminal elements that you can imagine they course those are the numbers you never hear about you only hear about the numbers that everybody catches you don’t hear about what gets through the border that isn’t record so that’s what we’re down here doing we’re also trying to bring awareness to the crisis and one of the things that were doing that nobody else is doing is we’re actually. Here 24/7 camped out documenting what’s actually happening on the border we have live videos on our page at United constitutional Patriots New Mexico border Ops you know a lot of people are accusing President Trump of manufacturing a crisis and I think the video that we’re down here producing which isn’t left or right is providing evidence that this is in fact the crisis-hit some of the ports are losing agents to come over here and help with these fake what I call the fake fraudulent Asylum claims and some people will say what what’s fake about him a lot of these people we have coming in as an example or from Brazil they’re not just coming in one or two at a time they’re coming in by the busloads we’re getting 46 at a time 50 at a time they’re dressed nicer than we are at a lot of them have cash in their pockets and so for them it’s an opportunity to come over here claim Asylum go through a processing center and then they get a court date that might not happen for 5 or 8 years and in the meantime they can have a baby they can anchor themselves in unaccompanied going up with phone numbers written on their onesies okay anybody who answers that phone can come and claim that baby okay lot of these women that are coming here they’re good they meet somebody on Facebook they get their plane ticket paid for it they fly they get here and then they’re told to go to a funeral Massachusetts or Boston or somewhere they get there they find out the welcome to prostitution with border patrol tied up in this crisis and when I say tied up I’m saying if you get a hundred people that come into that wall behind me that takes up sometime 728 trucks on a shift that might only have 17 to 18 people okay they’re tied up what do you think the cartel is doing our goal here is that is simply one thing it’s not to promote our group it’s not to be a militia we’re Patriots all we’re trying to do is document and spread the truth.”

Do you support their efforts? Should more Americans help? Watch the video, share and discuss below.

CBS News Spin -> “The militia group United Constitutional Patriots has recently uploaded videos of members stopping migrants at the border, sometimes at gunpoint. Their leader, Larry Mitchell Hopkins, has now been arrested in connection to a 2017 raid of his home. Alicia Caldwell, immigration reporter for the Wall Street Journal, joined CBSN to talk about militia groups at the border and Hopkins’ recent arrest.”

This is actual live video of Border Patrol responding to one of the Militia groups detainment efforts shot by the Militia group themselves.

How do you feel about this? Are people so concerned about helping to defend our borders that they are jumping on the wrong boats? Or is this just hype created by people who don’t want Patriotic Americans helping to defend our Southern Border?

Although much more lengthy, this video by Agenda Free TV, does a little better job of explaining the details of why he was arrested from what was a live aspect at the time.

 
Are there other groups doing great work that aren’t making it into the main stream media lenses for America to see?

The Eighteenth Official Democrat candidate for president in 2020 wants the government to buy your dangerous guns or else. If you do not want to sell your guns to the government, so they can then destroy them like Australia and now New Zealand is doing, he wants you to go to jail.

He then openly admits after the direct question was asked that the same guns that he wants to ban and confiscate ARE NOT the same guns that the crimes are committed with. This idiot then claims over 70% of NRA members want background checks. I don’t know about you, but not a single NRA member I know, or any gun owner for that matter, wants universal background checks. Let alone NRA members. Watch the video, share and comment below.

During a town hall on CNN Monday, crazy Democrat 2020 presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris vowed that if Congress doesn’t pass gun legislation within the first 100 days of her administration, she will “take executive action.”

Harris said, “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws, and if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.”

 
She and those like here are why the next election is always the most important election of your life. What do you have to say to her and people who support her?