Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

She read the Second Amendment like a normal person. “Shall not be infringed.” Then she looked at America and asked: What happened? Because everywhere you turn, it’s restriction after restriction. Permit. Waiting period. Background check. Registration. Ban! And every time gun owners point that out, somebody says: “Well, the... First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, but speech still has limits.” Fine. Speech has limits. But nobody makes you get a license before you open your mouth. There’s no waiting period before you can have an opinion. There’s no background check between you and a printing press. Speech law usually punishes abuse after the fact. Gun law blocks access before you ever touch the gun. That’s the difference. And after thousands of gun laws, they still say it’s not enough. So let’s be honest: Does “shall not be infringed” mean anything anymore, or did they turn it into a suggestion? Drop your answer below.show more

Colion Noir

590,797 subscribers

45,937 views • 11 days ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

“Shall not be infringed” A federal judge in Texas just struck down key registration requirements under the National Firearms Act after Congress eliminated the tax used to justify them. This is a major victory for law-abiding gun owners, but the fight is not over. I will continue fighting to eliminate unconstitutional restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. Thank you to Gun Owners of America, the Silencer Shop Foundation, the NRA, and everyone who fought for this victory. NRA SilencerShop Gun Owners of America #americansheriff #2a #america #arizona #freedom

“Shall not be infringed” A federal judge in Texas just struck down key registration requirements under the National Firearms Act after Congress eliminated the tax used to justify them. This is a major victory for law-abiding gun owners, but the fight is not over. I will continue fighting to eliminate unconstitutional restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. Thank you to Gun Owners of America, the Silencer Shop Foundation, the NRA, and everyone who fought for this victory. NRA SilencerShop Gun Owners of America #americansheriff #2a #america #arizona #freedom

Sheriff Mark Lamb

39,040 views • 18 days ago

It turns out, violating a person‘s first amendment rights because you were pressured by a senator that didn’t like what they had to say is, in fact, not legal. And will cost you a lot. Right, Sen. Marsha Blackburn? Let’s remind everyone what the first amendment says, since apparently even MAGA senators that want to be governor are THAT FUCKING STUPID. The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that: “Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.” The government can't restrict free speech — not even hate speech or flag-burning or protests of military funerals. It can't muzzle the media, unless it concerns outright lies made with malicious intent. And peaceful protests are protected. Every Congressperson that had somebody fired over comments they made regarding Kirk violated that person’s first amendment right. Hopefully those people will also sue you after they’re done suing the employers that fired them illegally.

It turns out, violating a person‘s first amendment rights because you were pressured by a senator that didn’t like what they had to say is, in fact, not legal. And will cost you a lot. Right, Sen. Marsha Blackburn? Let’s remind everyone what the first amendment says, since apparently even MAGA senators that want to be governor are THAT FUCKING STUPID. The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that: “Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.” The government can't restrict free speech — not even hate speech or flag-burning or protests of military funerals. It can't muzzle the media, unless it concerns outright lies made with malicious intent. And peaceful protests are protected. Every Congressperson that had somebody fired over comments they made regarding Kirk violated that person’s first amendment right. Hopefully those people will also sue you after they’re done suing the employers that fired them illegally.

Dittie

24,779 views • 7 months ago

BASH: “So are you saying it's not okay for him to exercise his Second Amendment right – not to mention his First Amendment right to be there in the first place – but his Second Amendment right to carry a gun? And if you do, you can be shot by federal law enforcement?” BOVINO: "No, I didn't say that, Dana. I never said that. What I'm saying is we respect that Second Amendment right. But those rights don't count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers."

BASH: “So are you saying it's not okay for him to exercise his Second Amendment right – not to mention his First Amendment right to be there in the first place – but his Second Amendment right to carry a gun? And if you do, you can be shot by federal law enforcement?” BOVINO: "No, I didn't say that, Dana. I never said that. What I'm saying is we respect that Second Amendment right. But those rights don't count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers."

State of the Union

37,354 views • 7 months ago

A woman said the whole point of government is to trust the government to protect you. Then she said her safety plan is an app on her phone that can alert police when she feels threatened. That sounds comforting until you follow the plan past the button. She presses it. The signal goes out. A dispatcher has to receive it, triage it, route it, and send whatever unit is available from wherever that unit happens to be. Every step takes time. A violent encounter can be over in seconds. That is the gap the Second Amendment exists for. She does not object to the gun. She wants the gun to show up. She just wants it carried by a man with a badge after the fact. But police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you as an individual, and no app turns a notification into a force field. You can call 911 and carry a firearm. Both can be true. The firearm is what carries you through the minutes before help arrives.

A woman said the whole point of government is to trust the government to protect you. Then she said her safety plan is an app on her phone that can alert police when she feels threatened. That sounds comforting until you follow the plan past the button. She presses it. The signal goes out. A dispatcher has to receive it, triage it, route it, and send whatever unit is available from wherever that unit happens to be. Every step takes time. A violent encounter can be over in seconds. That is the gap the Second Amendment exists for. She does not object to the gun. She wants the gun to show up. She just wants it carried by a man with a badge after the fact. But police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you as an individual, and no app turns a notification into a force field. You can call 911 and carry a firearm. Both can be true. The firearm is what carries you through the minutes before help arrives.

Colion Noir

26,435 views • 9 days ago

James Harden got arrested in Houston because his gun was allegedly sitting in his car without a holster. In Texas. A constitutional carry state. Same gun. Same car. Same person. But if it’s in a holster, he drives home. If it’s sitting bare on the seat, he gets booked. That’s the kind of technicality that turns a law-abiding person into a criminal overnight. And here’s the part nobody wants to answer: Does a holster actually make him safer? Or does it just give the government one more box to check before they cuff you? Because the criminals carjacking people at 3 AM in Houston are not worried about holster laws. The only people these laws usually trap are the ones trying to follow the law in the first place. So be honest… Should James Harden have been arrested over this? Or is Texas pretending to be pro-2A while still letting tiny technicalities chip away at your rights? Drop your answer below. Shop America hat here:

James Harden got arrested in Houston because his gun was allegedly sitting in his car without a holster. In Texas. A constitutional carry state. Same gun. Same car. Same person. But if it’s in a holster, he drives home. If it’s sitting bare on the seat, he gets booked. That’s the kind of technicality that turns a law-abiding person into a criminal overnight. And here’s the part nobody wants to answer: Does a holster actually make him safer? Or does it just give the government one more box to check before they cuff you? Because the criminals carjacking people at 3 AM in Houston are not worried about holster laws. The only people these laws usually trap are the ones trying to follow the law in the first place. So be honest… Should James Harden have been arrested over this? Or is Texas pretending to be pro-2A while still letting tiny technicalities chip away at your rights? Drop your answer below. Shop America hat here:

Colion Noir

83,767 views • 2 months ago

ELON: FREE SPEECH SHOULD ONLY BE LIMITED BY LAW “People should be allowed to say things that are within the law. If the law isn't good enough, then great, well, talk to your elected representative and have them pass a law to change that. But otherwise we need to hold true to the Constitution and the laws and allow people to say things even if we don't like what they say. Obviously, the true test for free speech is when someone says something you don't like, because otherwise it's obviously not free speech.” Source: Elon Musk, Interview with Ben Shapiro, January 2024

ELON: FREE SPEECH SHOULD ONLY BE LIMITED BY LAW “People should be allowed to say things that are within the law. If the law isn't good enough, then great, well, talk to your elected representative and have them pass a law to change that. But otherwise we need to hold true to the Constitution and the laws and allow people to say things even if we don't like what they say. Obviously, the true test for free speech is when someone says something you don't like, because otherwise it's obviously not free speech.” Source: Elon Musk, Interview with Ben Shapiro, January 2024

Mario Nawfal

24,170 views • 6 months ago

BREAKING MEWS: In a desperate bid to finally stop the ghost gun menace, the enlightened overlords of New York and California have now banned 3D-printing lathes so citizens can’t whip up wooden ghost guns in their garages. Because nothing says “public safety” quite like criminalizing a CNC machine that costs more than your average congressman’s ethics. “Shall not be infringed?” Pfft. Now it’s “shall not be lathed,” with Sacramento and Albany solemnly declaring that any printed spindle capable of turning a broom handle into a single-shot .410 is a clear and present danger to democracy. Meanwhile, every red-blooded American with a $99 Ender and a dream is laughing into their freedom beard, whispering the sacred meme mantra, “you can’t stop the signal,” while the ghost of John Moses Browning high-fives the ghost of a 1776 minuteman. The politicians can ban the printer, ban the lathe, ban the wood, and probably ban breathing next, but the people will just whittle their next ghost gun out of a 2x4 with a pocket knife and a dream. Because the Second Amendment isn’t a suggestion. It’s a feature, not a bug, and no amount of coastal virtue-signaling can out-engineer American spite and ingenuity. Governor Kathy Hochul Gavin Newsom You wouldn't download a lathe would you?

BREAKING MEWS: In a desperate bid to finally stop the ghost gun menace, the enlightened overlords of New York and California have now banned 3D-printing lathes so citizens can’t whip up wooden ghost guns in their garages. Because nothing says “public safety” quite like criminalizing a CNC machine that costs more than your average congressman’s ethics. “Shall not be infringed?” Pfft. Now it’s “shall not be lathed,” with Sacramento and Albany solemnly declaring that any printed spindle capable of turning a broom handle into a single-shot .410 is a clear and present danger to democracy. Meanwhile, every red-blooded American with a $99 Ender and a dream is laughing into their freedom beard, whispering the sacred meme mantra, “you can’t stop the signal,” while the ghost of John Moses Browning high-fives the ghost of a 1776 minuteman. The politicians can ban the printer, ban the lathe, ban the wood, and probably ban breathing next, but the people will just whittle their next ghost gun out of a 2x4 with a pocket knife and a dream. Because the Second Amendment isn’t a suggestion. It’s a feature, not a bug, and no amount of coastal virtue-signaling can out-engineer American spite and ingenuity. Governor Kathy Hochul Gavin Newsom You wouldn't download a lathe would you?

Wny Poker

89,078 views • 3 months ago

Canada has almost every gun law American anti-gunners keep begging for. Magazine limits. Registration. Strict licensing. Regular citizens basically can’t carry. And when a gunman opened fire in Montreal, what was the government’s plan for everybody else? Lock your doors. Stay inside. Hide and hope. That’s it. The criminal still had a gun. The cops still had guns. The law-abiding people got a text alert telling them to wait and pray the door held. That’s the part nobody wants to admit. Gun control doesn’t make evil disappear. It just decides who’s allowed to fight back when evil shows up. So be honest: If a gunman is outside your home, your grocery store, or your kid’s park… Do you want a text alert? Or do you want the ability to defend yourself? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks Canada is the model America should copy. Extended Father's Day Sale: Code 2ADAD

Canada has almost every gun law American anti-gunners keep begging for. Magazine limits. Registration. Strict licensing. Regular citizens basically can’t carry. And when a gunman opened fire in Montreal, what was the government’s plan for everybody else? Lock your doors. Stay inside. Hide and hope. That’s it. The criminal still had a gun. The cops still had guns. The law-abiding people got a text alert telling them to wait and pray the door held. That’s the part nobody wants to admit. Gun control doesn’t make evil disappear. It just decides who’s allowed to fight back when evil shows up. So be honest: If a gunman is outside your home, your grocery store, or your kid’s park… Do you want a text alert? Or do you want the ability to defend yourself? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks Canada is the model America should copy. Extended Father's Day Sale: Code 2ADAD

Colion Noir

139,393 views • 2 months ago

The Supreme Court just handed gun owners a **9-0 win**. But here’s the part nobody saw coming: The ACLU was on the side of the gun owner. The gun-control groups were on the side trying to keep the ban. Read that again. This case wasn’t just about weed and guns. It was about the government trying to shut off someone’s Second Amendment rights by putting them in a category. No proof he was dangerous. No proof he hurt anyone. Just a label. And once the label sticks, the right disappears. That’s the game. Today it’s “drug user.” Tomorrow it’s whatever label they decide comes next. The Supreme Court basically said: Prove the person. Not the category. So here’s the question: Should the government be able to take your gun rights based on a label alone? Or should they have to prove you’re actually dangerous? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks every gun law is about “safety.” Extended 15% OFF Fathers Day sale Code : 2ADAD

The Supreme Court just handed gun owners a 9-0 win. But here’s the part nobody saw coming: The ACLU was on the side of the gun owner. The gun-control groups were on the side trying to keep the ban. Read that again. This case wasn’t just about weed and guns. It was about the government trying to shut off someone’s Second Amendment rights by putting them in a category. No proof he was dangerous. No proof he hurt anyone. Just a label. And once the label sticks, the right disappears. That’s the game. Today it’s “drug user.” Tomorrow it’s whatever label they decide comes next. The Supreme Court basically said: Prove the person. Not the category. So here’s the question: Should the government be able to take your gun rights based on a label alone? Or should they have to prove you’re actually dangerous? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks every gun law is about “safety.” Extended 15% OFF Fathers Day sale Code : 2ADAD

Colion Noir

57,560 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk: People should be allowed to say things that are within the law. “If the law isn't good enough, then great, well, talk to your elected representative and have them pass a law to change that. But otherwise we need to hold true to the Constitution and the laws and allow people to say things even if we don't like what they say. Obviously, the true test for free speech is when someone says something you don't like, because otherwise it's obviously not free speech.” Interview with Ben Shapiro, January 24, 2024

Elon Musk: People should be allowed to say things that are within the law. “If the law isn't good enough, then great, well, talk to your elected representative and have them pass a law to change that. But otherwise we need to hold true to the Constitution and the laws and allow people to say things even if we don't like what they say. Obviously, the true test for free speech is when someone says something you don't like, because otherwise it's obviously not free speech.” Interview with Ben Shapiro, January 24, 2024

ELON CLIPS

13,167 views • 6 months ago

Hawaii tried to make your concealed carry permit basically worthless. You could have the permit. You could pass the process. You could legally carry. But the second you walked into a gas station, grocery store, restaurant, or parking lot on private property… Your gun became illegal unless the owner gave you permission first. That’s not a right. That’s a permission slip. The Supreme Court just struck it down 6–3. And this matters way beyond Hawaii. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California — they’ve all been playing the same game: Give you the right on paper. Then make it illegal almost everywhere you’d actually use it. The Court just flipped the default back. You can carry unless the property owner says no. So here’s the question: Should your carry permit work by default… Or should you have to ask permission at every single door? Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still thinks these laws are about “safety.” America HAT:

Hawaii tried to make your concealed carry permit basically worthless. You could have the permit. You could pass the process. You could legally carry. But the second you walked into a gas station, grocery store, restaurant, or parking lot on private property… Your gun became illegal unless the owner gave you permission first. That’s not a right. That’s a permission slip. The Supreme Court just struck it down 6–3. And this matters way beyond Hawaii. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California — they’ve all been playing the same game: Give you the right on paper. Then make it illegal almost everywhere you’d actually use it. The Court just flipped the default back. You can carry unless the property owner says no. So here’s the question: Should your carry permit work by default… Or should you have to ask permission at every single door? Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still thinks these laws are about “safety.” America HAT:

Colion Noir

41,029 views • 2 months ago

I used to believe that if you were a felon, you should never get a gun again. No exceptions. Then somebody asked me a question I couldn’t answer: If a person has paid their debt, served their time, returned to society, and proven they are not violent or dangerous, why shouldn’t they be able to defend themselves? Now the DOJ has finalized a rule creating a pathway for some people to restore their federal gun rights. This is not a rubber stamp. Applicants still have to prove they are not likely to be dangerous and that restoring their rights would not be contrary to the public interest. But the bigger question matters: If you’re free enough to walk around in society, are you free enough to protect yourself in it? For nonviolent felons who served their time and rebuilt their lives, I’m at the point where the answer is yes. Violent felonies are more complicated. Sex predators and people who prey on children? That’s where my own logic breaks, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But this is the conversation gun owners need to have honestly. Because a right you have to petition for is still a right somebody else is holding.

I used to believe that if you were a felon, you should never get a gun again. No exceptions. Then somebody asked me a question I couldn’t answer: If a person has paid their debt, served their time, returned to society, and proven they are not violent or dangerous, why shouldn’t they be able to defend themselves? Now the DOJ has finalized a rule creating a pathway for some people to restore their federal gun rights. This is not a rubber stamp. Applicants still have to prove they are not likely to be dangerous and that restoring their rights would not be contrary to the public interest. But the bigger question matters: If you’re free enough to walk around in society, are you free enough to protect yourself in it? For nonviolent felons who served their time and rebuilt their lives, I’m at the point where the answer is yes. Violent felonies are more complicated. Sex predators and people who prey on children? That’s where my own logic breaks, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But this is the conversation gun owners need to have honestly. Because a right you have to petition for is still a right somebody else is holding.

Colion Noir

44,478 views • 4 days ago

ADAM CAROLLA: “If my kid was like, ‘I’m gonna go out and antagonize ICE officers,’ I’d be like, ‘Can’t you just get on that nice Honda 125 I just bought you, do a few hot laps around town?’ “Here’s what I wanna say to everyone. You are relying on these people to do something that’s not within human capabilities, which is see red, adrenaline dump, scuffle, pepper spray, have no idea who’s armed and who’s not armed, and not have anybody’s gun go off prematurely.” “That’s what you’re asking. It’s not gonna happen, but not as long as human beings are carrying the gun. So you will get shot. You can go, ‘Well, that’s not right.’ Well, I agree. It’s not right. Absolutely. But stay home. Stay home will be the answer. And then, if you stay home, by the way, then they can just do their f*cking job and that’ll be that like they do in many other municipalities.” “But you guys won’t do that. And then you make these arguments.”

ADAM CAROLLA: “If my kid was like, ‘I’m gonna go out and antagonize ICE officers,’ I’d be like, ‘Can’t you just get on that nice Honda 125 I just bought you, do a few hot laps around town?’ “Here’s what I wanna say to everyone. You are relying on these people to do something that’s not within human capabilities, which is see red, adrenaline dump, scuffle, pepper spray, have no idea who’s armed and who’s not armed, and not have anybody’s gun go off prematurely.” “That’s what you’re asking. It’s not gonna happen, but not as long as human beings are carrying the gun. So you will get shot. You can go, ‘Well, that’s not right.’ Well, I agree. It’s not right. Absolutely. But stay home. Stay home will be the answer. And then, if you stay home, by the way, then they can just do their f*cking job and that’ll be that like they do in many other municipalities.” “But you guys won’t do that. And then you make these arguments.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,472,523 views • 7 months ago

Bill Maher confronts Ro Khanna over California’s “ridiculous” gun laws. Maher caught Khanna off guard when he revealed he wanted a gun — but complained it makes “no sense” to own one in California, because “you might be the one to go to jail” for using it. Khanna tried to sound like he cared about the Second Amendment, but the exchange exposed he's not the moderate Democrat he claims to be. MAHER: “What does the panel think of the Supreme Court ruling that habitual marijuana users can’t be banned from owning guns? Now you have my attention… That’s awesome. That’s fair. I want guns and I can’t have them because I don’t, because it’s illegal.” KHANNA: “You don’t strike me as a gun guy. You would want guns?” MAHER: “Of course!” KHANNA: “Okay, I didn’t know that.” MAHER: “Why wouldn’t you want a gun?” KHANNA: “I don’t know. I mean, I don’t have a gun, but I mean, I respect the Second Amendment. I just, I wouldn’t have thought that you had guns.” MAHER: “I mean, I don’t because of that! But yes. I mean, I can’t expect the police to be everywhere like that… And of course, another complaint I would have about California is it almost makes no sense to have one because you almost can’t use it! Because if you do, you might be the one to go to jail. I mean, you can shoot an intruder in your house, but you better do it exactly right. He better be in your bedroom facing you… You shoot him on the lawn, you’re going to go to jail. I mean, that’s kind of ridiculous, isn’t it?” KHANNA: “I’m for investing in police. I’m for having public safety. I don’t think the answer to crime should be everyone takes justice into their own hands.” MAHER: “Even if there’s somebody in your house?!” KHANNA: “Well, of course, if they’re in the house. Self-defense.” MAHER: “Well, that’s what we’re talking about.” KHANNA: “Yeah, but… there are cases where people have taken the law in their own hands, shot folks who are innocent.”

Bill Maher confronts Ro Khanna over California’s “ridiculous” gun laws. Maher caught Khanna off guard when he revealed he wanted a gun — but complained it makes “no sense” to own one in California, because “you might be the one to go to jail” for using it. Khanna tried to sound like he cared about the Second Amendment, but the exchange exposed he's not the moderate Democrat he claims to be. MAHER: “What does the panel think of the Supreme Court ruling that habitual marijuana users can’t be banned from owning guns? Now you have my attention… That’s awesome. That’s fair. I want guns and I can’t have them because I don’t, because it’s illegal.” KHANNA: “You don’t strike me as a gun guy. You would want guns?” MAHER: “Of course!” KHANNA: “Okay, I didn’t know that.” MAHER: “Why wouldn’t you want a gun?” KHANNA: “I don’t know. I mean, I don’t have a gun, but I mean, I respect the Second Amendment. I just, I wouldn’t have thought that you had guns.” MAHER: “I mean, I don’t because of that! But yes. I mean, I can’t expect the police to be everywhere like that… And of course, another complaint I would have about California is it almost makes no sense to have one because you almost can’t use it! Because if you do, you might be the one to go to jail. I mean, you can shoot an intruder in your house, but you better do it exactly right. He better be in your bedroom facing you… You shoot him on the lawn, you’re going to go to jail. I mean, that’s kind of ridiculous, isn’t it?” KHANNA: “I’m for investing in police. I’m for having public safety. I don’t think the answer to crime should be everyone takes justice into their own hands.” MAHER: “Even if there’s somebody in your house?!” KHANNA: “Well, of course, if they’re in the house. Self-defense.” MAHER: “Well, that’s what we’re talking about.” KHANNA: “Yeah, but… there are cases where people have taken the law in their own hands, shot folks who are innocent.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

238,864 views • 2 months ago

Gun owners waited 14 months for suppressor approvals… Then suddenly the process gets cleaned up and people are getting approved in 48 hours? So let’s be honest — was the old wait time really about “public safety,” or was it just another way to make lawful gun ownership more frustrating, expensive, and confusing? Because if the government can process it in days now, why were law-abiding Americans forced to wait over a year before? Gun owners, I want to hear from you: Did you ever wait months for a suppressor approval? How long did yours take? Drop your wait time in the comments. Watch Full podcast link:

Gun owners waited 14 months for suppressor approvals… Then suddenly the process gets cleaned up and people are getting approved in 48 hours? So let’s be honest — was the old wait time really about “public safety,” or was it just another way to make lawful gun ownership more frustrating, expensive, and confusing? Because if the government can process it in days now, why were law-abiding Americans forced to wait over a year before? Gun owners, I want to hear from you: Did you ever wait months for a suppressor approval? How long did yours take? Drop your wait time in the comments. Watch Full podcast link:

Colion Noir

37,473 views • 2 months ago

Bull Armory built a gun that feels like it stopped respecting recoil. This Tac Comp has V6 porting and a compensator machined into the barrel. Ports first. Comp second. Recoil basically gets jumped in an alley before the gun even has a chance to move. And that’s the wild part. The gun barely moves. The only real “problem” is the concussion. It barks. You feel the blast. But after shooting it for a while, I realized the only reason I noticed the concussion so much is because the gun gives you almost nothing else to feel. No real flip. No real rise. No real shove. Just flat. Stupid flat. Texas flat. And under $3,000, this thing is clearly walking into the Staccato XC conversation with a lot of confidence. So now I want to hear from y’all: Is Bull Armory becoming one of the best values in the 2011 world… Or are you still taking the Staccato XC? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who thinks ports and comps on the same gun is doing too much.

Bull Armory built a gun that feels like it stopped respecting recoil. This Tac Comp has V6 porting and a compensator machined into the barrel. Ports first. Comp second. Recoil basically gets jumped in an alley before the gun even has a chance to move. And that’s the wild part. The gun barely moves. The only real “problem” is the concussion. It barks. You feel the blast. But after shooting it for a while, I realized the only reason I noticed the concussion so much is because the gun gives you almost nothing else to feel. No real flip. No real rise. No real shove. Just flat. Stupid flat. Texas flat. And under $3,000, this thing is clearly walking into the Staccato XC conversation with a lot of confidence. So now I want to hear from y’all: Is Bull Armory becoming one of the best values in the 2011 world… Or are you still taking the Staccato XC? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who thinks ports and comps on the same gun is doing too much.

Colion Noir

65,148 views • 2 months ago

8. Gun Rights — The First Line of Defense Against Tyranny 🔹 America has always had guns — even in schools. But mass shootings didn’t start until something else broke: the mind, not the trigger. This isn’t a gun crisis. It’s a mental health crisis disguised as one. Blame the tool, ignore the cause — that’s the script. 🔹 The First Amendment gives you free speech. The Second ensures you keep it. Disarmament was never about protection — it was about control. And a population that can’t defend itself is one that no longer needs to be convinced — only managed.

8. Gun Rights — The First Line of Defense Against Tyranny 🔹 America has always had guns — even in schools. But mass shootings didn’t start until something else broke: the mind, not the trigger. This isn’t a gun crisis. It’s a mental health crisis disguised as one. Blame the tool, ignore the cause — that’s the script. 🔹 The First Amendment gives you free speech. The Second ensures you keep it. Disarmament was never about protection — it was about control. And a population that can’t defend itself is one that no longer needs to be convinced — only managed.

MatrixMysteries

450,151 views • 1 year ago

Jon Hamm says he accepted Top Gun: Maverick before hearing the salary and told his agents they were fired if they lost the role “I’m driving down the road and my phone rings. It’s my agent: ‘They want you to do a part in the Top Gun sequel’” “I was like, ‘Well then, the answer is yes’” “They’re like, ‘Well, we don’t know the money and this and that.’ I was like, ‘No, no, no, no, no. The answer is yes. You work out the details, but the answer is yes’” “‘If this goes away, you’re all fired’” “To flash back to being 13, 14 years old in 1985, be asked to be a part of the next chapter of this, and then basically have all of my scenes be with Tom Cruise - it was like, ‘No, this is a no-brainer’” “‘The answer is yes. I’m sure it will be a big hit.’ And it was”

Jon Hamm says he accepted Top Gun: Maverick before hearing the salary and told his agents they were fired if they lost the role “I’m driving down the road and my phone rings. It’s my agent: ‘They want you to do a part in the Top Gun sequel’” “I was like, ‘Well then, the answer is yes’” “They’re like, ‘Well, we don’t know the money and this and that.’ I was like, ‘No, no, no, no, no. The answer is yes. You work out the details, but the answer is yes’” “‘If this goes away, you’re all fired’” “To flash back to being 13, 14 years old in 1985, be asked to be a part of the next chapter of this, and then basically have all of my scenes be with Tom Cruise - it was like, ‘No, this is a no-brainer’” “‘The answer is yes. I’m sure it will be a big hit.’ And it was”

sara

4,592,324 views • 1 month ago