Hero Neighbor Sees Naked Man Beating A Woman And Instantly Knows What To Do

The victim of a nearly daylong ordeal at the hands of a violent captor – believed to be an ex-boyfriend – last week, one woman owes her life to her own bravery and the decisive action of an armed neighbor.

WTAJ reported that suspect Henry Yancey held the victim hostage for more than 20 hours, during which time he threatened her life, stabbed her, and savagely beat her. As soon as she saw a brief window of opportunity, the woman ran out of the Altoona, Pa., home, only to be chased and captured by a nude Yancey, reports indicate.

One neighbor described the ensuing ordeal as sounding “like a stampede” while another said the suspect jumped on the victim and began beating her before he “got up and started stomping her in the face.”

For a third neighbor, Henry Oppenheim, there was no alternative to getting involved to save the woman’s life. He told reporters that he immediately ran inside his home to grab his firearm.

“I said, ‘Let her go,’ and then he finally did it,” Oppenheim said.

At that point, other neighbors joined in to make sure the victim got to a safe place until help arrived. She has since been treated and released from a local hospital. As for Yancey, he is facing serious criminal charges including attempted criminal homicide and making terroristic threats.

Oppenheim’s actions are being heralded as heroic by WTAJ readers and others via social media; however, he maintained that his reaction was the only one he felt he could take and that he would do the same if it happened again.

“In a heartbeat,” he asserted. “Not a second thought. No reservations.”

h/t: Guns.com

Did this neighbor do the right thing to save a woman under attack? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Gun Owners In This State Are Taking A Big Stand Against Harsh New Bill

Despite the fact that gun owners in Oregon are now facing new legislative Second Amendment roadblocks, a coalition of activists are determined to stand up for their constitutional rights. As the Gateway Pundit explains, state Senate Bill 941 – which mandates background checks for all private firearms sales – was recently signed into law, provoking the ire of gun owners who already feel their liberties are under attack.

One way these pro-gun advocates plan to make their displeasure known is through a demonstration set for May 30 at the capitol building in Salem.

The ‘I Will Not Comply Demonstration’ is being promoted on Facebook; and, as of this writing, nearly 1,000 individuals have expressed interest in attending.

“We will form up on the capitol steps in Salem to make sure she [an apparent reference to Gov. Kate Brown] knows just how many people she made into criminals in one stroke of a pen,” an event description states.

The social media posting has already attracted dozens of supportive comments.

“Everyone that likes their freedom should go to this,” one Facebook user wrote. “I don’t prefer to be a disarmed sheep. And that is what they want!!!”

Despite the event’s name, there is no overt push to get attendees to disobey the new law. Instead, the rally’s organizer left any such decisions to the individuals who participate.

The description encourages attendees to “do what you think befits an i [sic] won’t comply rally” while practicing “proper weapons safety” at the location.

Should citizens stand up for the right to bear arms? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Supreme Court Makes A Major Gun Ruling That Will Have The NRA Cheering

The National Rifle Association is publicly supporting the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision to allow convicted felons to attempt to sell any firearms taken by law enforcement. The decision came in response to a case involving former U.S. Border Patrol agent Tony Henderson, whose 19 guns were confiscated by the FBI upon his arrest on drug charges.

Following his guilty plea, Henderson was a felon prohibited from possessing firearms; however, he did not want to simply lose the roughly $3,500 his gun collection was worth. He petitioned a lower court in an effort to allow a third party to take possession of the guns and attempt to sell them on his behalf. That effort was unsuccessful at every stage of appeal up to the Supreme Court level.

The NRA had a vested interest in the case and publicly advocated on behalf of Henderson’s cause.

According to Associated Press reporter Sam Hananel, the pro-gun organization “argued that the government’s attempt to prohibit any sale or transfer prevents law-abiding citizens who want to buy the guns from doing so.”

Though certain aspects of the case warranted clarification, the panel ultimately agreed that convicted felons should be permitted to attempt selling property confiscated by authorities.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the decision that this change is in no way an invitation for a felon to bypass existing law “by arranging a sham transfer that leaves him in effective control of his guns.”

Should individuals convicted of a felony be able to try to sell guns they owned prior to their conviction? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

‘We The People’ Need To Circle The Wagons: The Government Is On The Warpath

“The government is merely a servant―merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” ― Mark Twain

How many Americans have actually bothered to read the Constitution, let alone the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (a quick read at 462 words)?

Take a few minutes and read those words for yourself—rather than have some court or politician translate them for you—and you will be under no illusion about where to draw the line when it comes to speaking your mind, criticizing your government, defending what is yours, doing whatever you want on your own property, and keeping the government’s nose out of your private affairs.

In an age of overcriminalization, when the average citizen unknowingly commits three crimes a day, and even the most mundane activities such as fishing and gardening are regulated, government officials are constantly telling Americans what not to do. Yet it was not always this way. It used to be “we the people” telling the government what it could and could not do. Indeed, the three words used most frequently throughout the Bill of Rights in regards to the government are “no,” “not,” and “nor.”

Compare the following list of “don’ts” the government is prohibited from doing with the growing list of abuses to which “we the people” are subjected on a daily basis, and you will find that we have reached a state of crisis wherein the government is routinely breaking the law and violating its contractual obligations.

For instance, the government is NOT allowed to restrict free speech, press, assembly, or the citizenry’s ability to protest and correct government wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the government continues to prosecute whistleblowers, persecute journalists, cage protesters, criminalize expressive activities, crack down on large gatherings of citizens mobilizing to voice their discontent with government policies, and insulate itself and its agents from any charges of wrongdoing (or what the courts refer to as “qualified immunity”).

The government may NOT infringe on a citizen’s right to defend himself. Nevertheless, in many states, it’s against the law to carry a concealed weapon (gun, knife, or even pepper spray); and the average citizen is permitted little self-defense against militarized police officers who shoot first and ask questions later.

The government may NOT enter or occupy a citizen’s house without his consent (the quartering of soldiers). Nevertheless, government soldiers (i.e., militarized police) carry out more than 80,000 no-knock raids on private homes every year, while maiming children, killing dogs, and shooting citizens.

The government may NOT carry out unreasonable searches and seizures on the citizenry or their possessions. NOR can government officials issue warrants without some evidence of wrongdoing (probable cause). Unfortunately, what is unreasonable to the average American is completely reasonable to a government agent, for whom the ends justify the means. In such a climate, we have no protection against roadside strip searches, blood draws, DNA collection, SWAT team raids, surveillance, or any other privacy-stripping indignity to which the government chooses to subject us.

The government is NOT to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process. Nevertheless, the government continues to incarcerate tens of thousands of Americans whose greatest crime is being poor and brown-skinned. The same goes for those who are put to death, some erroneously, by a system weighted in favor of class and wealth.

The government may NOT take private property for public use without just compensation. Nevertheless, under the guise of the “greater public interest,” the government often hides behind eminent domain laws in order to allow megacorporations to tear down homes occupied by less prosperous citizens in order to build high-priced resorts and shopping malls.

Government agents may NOT force a citizen to testify against himself. Yet what is the government’s extensive surveillance network that spies on all of our communications but a thinly veiled attempt at using our own words against us?

The government is NOT allowed to impose excessive fines on the citizenry or inflict cruel and unusual punishments upon them. Nevertheless, Americans are subjected to egregious fines and outrageous punishments for minor traffic violations, student tardiness and absence from school, and generally having the misfortune of being warm bodies capable of filling privatized, profit-driven jails.

The government is NOT permitted to claim any powers that are not expressly granted to them by the Constitution. This prohibition has become downright laughable as the government continues to claim for itself every authority that serves to swell its coffers, cement its dominion, and expand its reach.

Despite what some special interest groups have suggested to the contrary, the problems we’re experiencing today did not arise because the Constitution has outlived its usefulness or become irrelevant–nor will they be solved by a convention of states or a ratification of the Constitution.

No, as I document in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the problem goes far deeper. It can be traced back to the point at which “we the people” were overthrown as the center of the government. As a result, our supremacy has been undone, our authority undermined, and our experiment in democratic self-governance left in ruins. No longer are we the rulers of this land. We have long since been deposed and dethroned, replaced by corporate figureheads with no regard for our sovereignty, no thought for our happiness, and no respect for our rights.

In other words, without our say-so and lacking any mandate, the point of view of the Constitution has been shifted from “we the people” to “we the government.” Our taxpayer-funded employees—our appointed servants—have stopped looking upon us as their superiors and started viewing as their inferiors. Unfortunately, we’ve gotten so used to being dictated to by government agents, bureaucrats, and militarized police alike that we’ve forgotten that WE are supposed to be the ones calling the shots and determining what is just, reasonable, and necessary.

Then again, we’re not the only ones guilty of forgetting that the government was established to serve us as well as obey us. Every branch of government, from the Executive to the Judicial and Legislative, seems to be suffering this same form of amnesia. Certainly, when government programs are interpreted from the government’s point of view (i.e., the courts and legislatures), there is little the government CANNOT do in its quest for power and control.

We’ve been so brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing that the government is actually looking out for our best interests, when in fact the only compelling interest driving government programs is maintain power and control by taking away our money and control. This vital truth, that the government exists for our benefit and operates at our behest, seems to have been lost in translation over two centuries dominated by government expansion, endless wars, and centralized federal power.

Have you ever wondered why the Constitution begins with those three words “we the people”? It was intended to be a powerful reminder that everything flows from the citizenry. We the people are the center of the government and the source of its power. That “we” is crucial because it reminds us that there is power and safety in numbers, provided we stand united. We can accomplish nothing alone.

This is the underlying lesson of the Constitution, which outlines the duties and responsibilities of government. It was a mutual agreement formed by early Americans in order to ensure that when problems arose, they could address them together.

It’s like the wagon trains of the Old West, comprised of individual groups of pioneers. They rarely ventured out alone but instead traveled as convoys. And when faced with a threat, these early Americans formed their wagons into a tight circle in order to defend against invaders. In doing so, they presented a unified front and provided protection against an outside attack. In much the same way, the Constitution was intended to work as an institutionalized version of the wagon circle, serving as a communal shield against those who would harm us.

Unfortunately, we have been ousted from that protected circle, left to fend for ourselves in the wilderness that is the American frontier today. Those who did the ousting—the courts, the politicians, and the corporations—have since replaced us with yes-men, shills who dance to the tune of an elite ruling class. In doing so, they have set themselves as the central source of power and the arbiters of what is just and reasonable.

Once again, we’re forced to navigate hostile terrain, unsure of how to protect ourselves and our loved ones from militarized police, weaponized drones, fusion centers, Stingray devices, SWAT team raids, the ongoing military drills on American soil, the government stockpiling of ammunition, the erection of mass detention centers across the country, and all other manners of abuses.

Read the smoke signals, and the warning is clear: It’s time to circle the wagons, folks. The government is on the warpath; and if we are to have any hope of surviving whatever is coming at us, we’ll need to keep our wits about us and present a unified front. Most of all, we need to restore “we the people” to our rightful place at the center of government. How we do that depends largely on each community’s willingness to get past their partisan politics and blind allegiance to uniformed government officials and find common ground.

To put it a little more bluntly, stop thinking like mindless government robots and start acting like a powerhouse of citizens vested with the power to say “enough is enough.” We have the numbers to stand our ground. Now we just need the will.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Republican Introduces Pro-Gun Bill Designed To Protect Military Spouses

One Virginia lawmaker is hoping his concern for the wives and husbands of deployed service members will result in an expansion of their gun rights. Republican Rep. Scott Rigell recently introduced a bill that, if passed, would allow military spouses living in Virginia to purchase firearms while their families reside in the state.

There were several factors that led Rigell to propose such legislation.

“Considering the threats we face from Islamic extremists – foreign and domestic – and lone wolves,” he said, “it is prudent that our military families have the tools they need to protect their loved ones.”

As representative of the Virginia district with the most active duty military members, Rigell explained that he is uniquely attuned to the complaints of military families. Specifically, he said he has heard that a 1968 law has prevented the spouses of servicemen and women serving in other states from purchasing a gun in Virginia.

“We have an obligation to protect these men and women,” he asserted, “and ensure they have access to the resources they need to defend themselves and their families in any community they are stationed for duty.”

Rigell’s proposal would fill a gap he recognized in the aforementioned Gun Control Act, which allows service members to purchase firearms in the state they are stationed in but offers no such allowance for their spouses.

“Spouses should be able to purchase handguns in their state where their husband or wife is stationed,” he said. “They have the right to protect themselves; and this bill allows them to fully exercise their Second Amendment right.”

Do you think military spouses should have legal access to firearms? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth