The Winchester Model 1907

For those of you who are sick of hearing that citizens don’t need “weapons of war” here is some useful information.

A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907, Americans were first able to buy the rifle pictured below: The semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.

It could be purchased from a Sears catalog and could be delivered via US Parcel Post.

It was is a semi-automatic, high powered center-fire rifle, with a detachable, high-capacity magazine.

About 400,000 of these were produced before World War Two. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these semi-auto rifles for some 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.

The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by more modern looking weapons.

The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and controversial, much-feared AR15, is
the modern black plastic stock seen today.

To summarize:

  • The semi-automatic, so-called “assault rifle” is 110 years old. It isn’t new in any significant way.
  • The semi-automatic rifle was not a weapon of war. Government proclamations and new laws made it a weapon of war 40 years after civilians first had them.
  • The semi-automatic rifle was and can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.

If you want to fix the horror of mass shootings, fix the things that have changed for the worse in the last 50 years.

This rifle technology in question was here long before the insanity began as a result of the Progressive movement and breakdown of the American family.

AG Barr NBC Interview Exposes Why The Media And Left Fear Durham Investigation

In an exclusive interview, Attorney General William Barr spoke to NBC News’ Pete Williams about the findings on the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the Russia investigation and his criticisms of the FBI.

If you haven’t seen this interview, I urge you to spend 24-minutes to watch it as it is extremely revealing.

Courtesy of Sharyl Attkisson article in The Epoch Times, below are 24 points Barr felt the need to make after the release of the Horowitz report. (All of the information is attributed to Barr.)

  1. Don’t expect Durham’s findings to be announced before late Spring or Summer 2020.
  2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.
  3. Regarding FBI’s actions in surveilling Trump campaign associates, it was a “travesty” and there were “many abuses.”
  4. From “day one,” the FBI investigation generated exculpatory information (tending to point to the targets’ innocence) and nothing that corroborated Russia collusion.
  5. It’s a “big deal” to use U.S. law enforcement and intelligence resources to investigate the opposing political party and I cannot think of another recent instance where this happened.
  6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”
  7. It was “wrong” for the FBI to presume the Trump campaign was part of a plot. They should have gone to the campaign and discussed their suspicions.
  8. The normal thing to do would be to tell the campaign that there could be attempted foreign interference. There is no legitimate explanation as to why the FBI didn’t do this. The FBI’s explanation for this was that they only do “defensive briefings” if they’re certain there’s no chance they’re tipping someone off. But this is simply not true, isn’t plausible, and doesn’t hold water because our intelligence officials and President Obama repeatedly contacted directly the Russians, the guilty party, to tell them to “cut it out.”
  9. If the purpose were to protect the election, you would have given the Trump campaign a defensive briefing. You could have disrupted any foreign activity in time to protect the U.S. election.
  10. As to the FBI’s motive, “that’s why we have Durham.” I’m not saying the motivations were improper but it’s premature to say they weren’t.
  11. The Inspector General operates differently as an internal watchdog. Horowitz’s approach is to say that if people involved give reasonable explanations for what appears to be wrongdoing, and if he cannot find documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary, he accepts it.
  12. Contrary to much reporting, Horowitz did not rule out improper motive; he did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motive. Those are two different things.
  13. Instead of talking to the Trump campaign, the FBI secretly “wired up” sources and had them talk to four people affiliated with the Trump campaign.. in August, September, and October 2016.
  14. All of the information from this surveillance came back exculpatory regarding any supposed relationship to Russia and specific facts. But the FBI didn’t inform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court that approved wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page four times.
  15. At one point early on, the FBI didn’t have enough probable cause for a wiretap warrant so they took the “Steele dossier” information against Trump, “which they’d done nothing to verify,” and used that to get the wiretaps.
  16. The wiretaps allowed the FBI to go back and capture Page’s communications, emails and other material from weeks, months, and even years ago.
  17. Should the four FBI applications to wiretap Trump campaign aide Carter Page have ever been made, considering there were 17 critical omissions or errors by the FBI making it appear they had better evidence than they had? This is the meat of the issue and “if you spend time to look at what happened, you’d be appalled.”
  18. The FBI withheld from the court all of the exculpatory information and the lack of reliability of the main FBI source, Christopher Steele, who was being paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign to find evidence connecting Trump to Russia.
  19. The major takeaway is that after the election in January, the FBI finally talked to one of Steele’s important sources to try to verify some of the “dossier” information and sourcing as they are required to do. This Steele source told the FBI he didn’t know what Steele was talking about in the dossier, and that he’d told Steele that the information he’d provided was “supposition” and “theory.” At that point, “it was clear the dossier was a sham.” Yet the FBI didn’t tell the court, and continued to get wiretaps based on the dossier.
  20. Further, the FBI falsely told the court that this source of Steele’s had proven reliable and truthful. In fact, what the source told the truth about was that “the dossier was garbage.” It’s hard to look at this “and not think it was gross abuse.”
  21. Were the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judges who approved the four wiretaps against Trump associate Carter Page badly misled by the FBI? Yes.
  22. Are people going to be held accountable including at the very top of our intelligence agencies and/or FBI? Well, they’re all gone.
  23. The whole Russia collusion hype was a “bogus narrative hyped by an irresponsible press” that proved entirely false in the end. Are former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI official Andy McCabe and others implicated in the Durham investigation? I’ve said I think in that group there was a failure of leadership. Quoting the Inspector General, the explanations he received “were not satisfactory.
    You can draw your own conclusions.”
  24. Why haven’t you already thrown people in prison? “These things take time.” The government has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we indict; it’s a substantial hurdle. Nobody is going to be indicted and go to jail unless that standard is met.
In his interviews this week, Barr has provided a treasure trove of information about what stands to be one of the most important investigations into our U.S. intelligence community of our time. He is clearly signalling that we can expect a shake up of a system that may have been broken for decades.