Lynx Defense

AMERICAN & TEXAN MILITIA TRADITIONS

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    While many of those are good orgs from what I know of them, and definitely fill needed roles, I do not believe they are what the founders intended by the 2nd Amendment.

    Rhino,

    GRANTED. - As I've been asked in emails & phone messages, "I cannot show up to help but can I do anything??", I've listed a few of the many volunteer agencies that "interested people" can support. - Every little bit helps.
    Otoh, IF you can "show up" at the disaster area (and can support yourself while there - We CANNOT & WILL NOT support you.), don't wait to be asked. = When you arrive, simply ask, "What can I do??" = You will be given a needed task that otherwise either would NOT get done or would be "put off" until later.
    (I remember one 60YO+ man, who was disabled, who appeared with his PU after HUGO & said, "Is there anything that you need?? - I have a good PU." = Being told that disposable diapers & "little kids clothes" were BADLY NEEDED & unavailable, Mr. Finch went home to TN, got together with his wife, started calling friends & "like magic" trucks of disposable diapers & children's clothes just APPEARED, w/i 48 hours. = THANKS to "The Knoxville crowd".)

    ADDENDA: During the last major HOUSTON FLOOD, a man from New Orleans came to the "ad-hoc" R&R Center & offered his help "for anything that you need". - Told that we needed more help "picking people out of trees & off rooftops", he drove to a dealer north of Cleveland, TX, bought a 16 foot boat/motor/trailer & came back that same afternoon.
    (It was later learned that he & his family had been rescued during KATRINA.)

    yours, satx
     
    Last edited:

    EZ-E

    King Turd of Shit Mountain
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 4, 2017
    7,628
    96
    Middle of no where
    That's a pretty good list of sources. I had never heard of rantingly, so I will check them out. OANN and Newsmax, the wife and I watch on Pluto.tv, so we get a fair amount from them.

    The wife & i have just started watching SKY news.

     

    Bobk

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 8, 2008
    1,547
    96
    Seguin
    The wife & i have just started watching SKY news.

    Sky News is another good place to look. Many times foreign news sources have a different perspective or more details that what we get in the states. You might say a different opinion.
     

    Dougw1515

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 14, 2020
    3,488
    96
    USA
    My personal opinion is that NewsMax is nothing more than a whore slanting their headlines one way while the articles have a sublime slant the other way. They are simply looking to cash in on the Fox News refugees. The Conservative Treehouse and OAN is much preferred by me.

    Starting with A conservative/Right view and going progressively more right.

    The Conservative Treehouse-->OAN--->Gateway Pundit--->Populist Press
     

    kbaxter60

    "Gig 'Em!"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 23, 2019
    9,905
    96
    Pipe Creek
    Frankly I want to read from a place that is willing to hold EVERYONE’s feet to the fire.
    You know, I know that they have some questionable connections/history, but I am really starting to like the Epoch Times. They actually seem to do this and kind of have that "old school journalism" feel. I started reading some of the linked stories I get from them and have been pleased with their level and detail (and apparent lack of bias). I say apparent because I know all are biased and I am just appalled at the MSM in this country. Cannot stomach them.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    To All,

    Personally, I believe WHAT is NEEDED is a NEWS NETWORK on BROADCAST TV & AM/FM radio that is what PBS & NPR SHOULD BE but are NOT. = Such a government run (or quasi-government operated ) news source should run DOCUMENTED FACTS, stripped of "commentary", and as nearly "slant free" as it is possible to be.
    (Something like the BBC was 75 years ago but NO LONGER is.)

    BTW, IF I had my way, I would DEFUND PBS/NPR, as those 2 networks "news divisions" are NOTHING MORE than HOUSE ORGANS of the DIMocRATS Party.

    A public network of that sort that I want could also run cultural, educational & GOOD QUALITY entertainment shows, too.

    ONE of my "pet peeves" is that the British & Australians can make QUALITY entertainment shows but US commercial & public TV seems NOT to be able to.
    (Virtually ALL of the BEST entertainment on PBS is off of BRITISH or AUSTRALIAN TV.)

    yours, satx
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    SATX, explain how you defund a private entity? Neither are owned by the government.

    Good or bad, there is also that 1st Amendment. Freedom of the press?


    Axxe55,

    UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, you are once more at least MOSTLY "in error", as in 2018 the CEOs of NPR & PBS both testified under oath that their networks COULD NOT SURVIVE without being over 80% funded by grants-in-aid & direct funding from the federal government.
    (As NPR & PBS chief officers testified before Congress, printed facsimiles of their testimony is available from The Government Printing Office.)

    Is it your belief that those 2 witnesses COMMITTED PERJURY or did they tell THE TRUTH?

    As for the First Amendment, IF the government is paying the bills, the government can lawfully control the "editorial policy" of the sort of networks that I suggest, just as ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, etc. DO for those networks.

    yours, satx
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Axxe55,

    UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, you are once more at least MOSTLY "in error", as in 2018 the CEOs of NPR & PBS both testified under oath that their networks COULD NOT SURVIVE without being over 80% funded by grants-in-aid & direct funding from the federal government.
    (As NPR & PBS chief officers testified before Congress, printed facsimiles of their testimony is available from The Government Printing Office.)

    Is it your belief that those 2 witnesses COMMITTED PERJURY or did they tell THE TRUTH?

    As for the First Amendment, IF the government is paying the bills, the government can lawfully control the "editorial policy" of the sort of networks that I suggest, just as ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, etc. DO for those networks.

    yours, satx

    I thought you believed in the 1st Amendment. Or only when it suits your needs or beliefs?

    PBS and NPR are still privately held entities, and more than a few privately held entities receive government funding and grants. So because of that, should we restrict their rights and freedoms just because we may not agree with their viewpoints or opinions?

    Remember freedom of the press?
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    Do not attempt to confuse with facts minds that are all ready made up!

    Dougw1515,

    I'm SURE that you are CORRECT, though I keep hoping that "our very own resident hardhead" & "know it all" MIGHT learn a FEW things & stop listening to & believing PROPAGANDA, FOOLISHNESS & LIES.

    yours, satx
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    I thought you believed in the 1st Amendment. Or only when it suits your needs or beliefs?

    PBS and NPR are still privately held entities, and more than a few privately held entities receive government funding and grants. So because of that, should we restrict their rights and freedoms just because we may not agree with their viewpoints or opinions?

    Remember freedom of the press?

    Axxe55,

    SO you stoutly believe that the US taxpayers should pay 80% of the cost of TWO "house organs" of the DIMocRATS Party & that constantly broadcast LEFTIST PROPAGANDA for the FAR LEFT ??
    (IF & WHEN the taxpayers ARE NOT paying the bills, I'll defend NPR & PBS freedom to broadcast FALSE attacks on everybody except the LEFTISTS.)

    I also note that you (once more) evaded my question of: DO YOU BELIEVE that the SWORN TESTIMONY of the PBS & NPR CEOs were TRUTHFUL or was that sworn testimony INTENTIONAL PERJURY ? = you should answer those 2 questions with a simple YES or NO.

    yours, satx
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Axxe55,

    SO you stoutly believe that the US taxpayers should pay 80% of the cost of TWO "house organs" of the DIMocRATS Party & that constantly broadcast LEFTIST PROPAGANDA for the FAR LEFT ??
    (IF & WHEN the taxpayers ARE NOT paying the bills, I'll defend NPR & PBS freedom to broadcast FALSE attacks on everybody except the LEFTISTS.)

    I also note that you (once more) evaded my question of: DO YOU BELIEVE that the SWORN TESTIMONY of the PBS & NPR CEOs were TRUTHFUL or was that sworn testimony INTENTIONAL PERJURY ? = you should answer those 2 questions with a simple YES or NO.

    yours, satx

    Those questions are irrelevant to the what's being discussed. Frankly to answer your two questions, I don't have any idea if they were truthful, or if it was intentional perjury. Neither do you. BTW, I did answer them in the second paragraph.

    So, you are asserting that as long as what they broadcast is what you think or believe you, then you support their rights to freedom of the press and the 1st Amendment?
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    Those questions are irrelevant to the what's being discussed. Frankly to answer your two questions, I don't have any idea if they were truthful, or if it was intentional perjury. Neither do you. BTW, I did answer them in the second paragraph.

    So, you are asserting that as long as what they broadcast is what you think or believe you, then you support their rights to freedom of the press and the 1st Amendment?


    Axxe55,

    Personally, I believe that the 2 witnesses testified TRUTHFULLY. Thus your original contention is at least 80% WRONG.
    (You seem to make a practice of posting ERRANT NONSENSE.)

    Also, I don't generally much care what they say SO LONG as they do NOT attack my church (and in fact most Christian churches) and/or PROMOTE sexually deviant practices, which my Bible stoutly condemns. = Recently NPR has said that The Southern Baptist Churches are just as RACIST & EVIL as the KKK is.
    (PBS routinely ATTACKS the liturgy, the beliefs & even the content of the MASS of the Roman Catholic Church. - My adult daughter is DEVOUTLY Catholic.)

    yours, satx
     
    Last edited:

    Bobk

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 8, 2008
    1,547
    96
    Seguin
    To All,

    Personally, I believe WHAT is NEEDED is a NEWS NETWORK on BROADCAST TV & AM/FM radio that is what PBS & NPR SHOULD BE but are NOT. = Such a government run (or quasi-government operated ) news source should run DOCUMENTED FACTS, stripped of "commentary", and as nearly "slant free" as it is possible to be.
    (Something like the BBC was 75 years ago but NO LONGER is.)

    BTW, IF I had my way, I would DEFUND PBS/NPR, as those 2 networks "news divisions" are NOTHING MORE than HOUSE ORGANS of the DIMocRATS Party.

    A public network of that sort that I want could also run cultural, educational & GOOD QUALITY entertainment shows, too.

    ONE of my "pet peeves" is that the British & Australians can make QUALITY entertainment shows but US commercial & public TV seems NOT to be able to.
    (Virtually ALL of the BEST entertainment on PBS is off of BRITISH or AUSTRALIAN TV.)

    yours, satx
    SATX,

    I have to agree with you that it's a shame that the Brits and Aussies can make better shows than we can.

    Most of the series on US Television are rubbish, filled with crap, and try to convince me of things that I believe are morally wrong are normal. They even add political items into the story line. There is everything from immigration to BLM.

    It would be nice if the news wasn't biased but in today's world they all are. All of them trying to put the "talking points" out. That is why you hear the same buzz words over and over again.

    Different time indeed!

    Bobk
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    SATX,

    I have to agree with you that it's a shame that the Brits and Aussies can make better shows than we can.

    Most of the series on US Television are rubbish, filled with crap, and try to convince me of things that I believe are morally wrong are normal. They even add political items into the story line. There is everything from immigration to BLM.

    It would be nice if the news wasn't biased but in today's world they all are. All of them trying to put the "talking points" out. That is why you hear the same buzz words over and over again.

    Different time indeed!

    Bobk

    I sort of look it like this. The days of Father Knows Best, Leave It To Beaver, I Love Lucy and other similar programs are long gone.

    But, I still have complete control over what I decide to watch on TV at all times. And yes, there are many things I find morally repulsive, degrading and offensive. I change the channel and find something I find acceptable to watch. If not, I plug in a I Love Lucy DVD to watch.

    I don't watch any professional sports anymore. I won't spend one dime to watch them, or support them in any way again. Simply because of the way many sports celebrities want to preach their political messages, or the causes they support.

    Everyone has control over their viewing content on TV, and with all the streaming services now, I think we have even more control that we did in the past over what we watch on TV. Many of those, you can get streaming from channels out of the UK or Australia as well if that is what suits you.
     

    phoenix

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2014
    377
    26
    >

    "SEE WHAT THEY DID?"
    IDK how many noticed this, but, last week some dozen US National Guard members were removed from the inauguration forces. . . . .
    BECAUSE they had American "militia ties."
    Militia interest was termed "radical right-wing extremism" !
    Hello, do our current citizens have NO knowledge of American History and our cherished TRADITIONS ?
    Militia duty has always been a cornerstone of Americanism and citizens' sacred DUTY to our Country. Have our children been "shielded" from that vital element in our American History ?
    What PERVERSION !
    Yet this vile meme went by non-noticed and not condemned in any "news report" !
    So, now our Young are left to believe that there is something wrong with the patriotic duty of militia service.
    Everyone, Please pay attention.
    BonJour,
    leVieux
    bet they did not remove any with black lives matter ties. I hate to say this but i was waiting for them to only allow blacks to guard biden or democrats.
     

    kbaxter60

    "Gig 'Em!"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 23, 2019
    9,905
    96
    Pipe Creek
    I thought you believed in the 1st Amendment. Or only when it suits your needs or beliefs?

    PBS and NPR are still privately held entities, and more than a few privately held entities receive government funding and grants. So because of that, should we restrict their rights and freedoms just because we may not agree with their viewpoints or opinions?

    Remember freedom of the press?
    You seem to be confusing two different principles: freedom of the press (1) and free market capitalism (2).

    ABC and CBS are ALSO privately held entities, yet they don't get the advantage of taxpayer funds in a pipeline directly to them (as far as I know). They have to find sleazy sponsors who approve of their lies and will fund the nightly airing of said lies. NPR gets to use YOUR money to fund their nightly lies. Because their lies usually meet the approval of one party (which shall remain nameless), the funding continues unabated.

    That's not "freedom of the press", that's "government propaganda outlet".
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    To All,

    TWO of the "unsung heroes" of the last BIG Houston flood were Jack & "Jo-jo" Browning, who after they lost power, emptied out their freezer, gathered up their neighbors' BBQ pits, grills & other outdoor cooking stuff, started making soup & sandwiches & fed a LOT of local folks who would have otherwise gone hungry.
    (NOBODY told them to start feeding hungry people. They just did it.)
    A BIG THANK YOU to you & your neighbors!!!
    You seem to be confusing two different principles: freedom of the press (1) and free market capitalism (2).

    ABC and CBS are ALSO privately held entities, yet they don't get the advantage of taxpayer funds in a pipeline directly to them (as far as I know). They have to find sleazy sponsors who approve of their lies and will fund the nightly airing of said lies. NPR gets to use YOUR money to fund their nightly lies. Because their lies usually meet the approval of one party (which shall remain nameless), the funding continues unabated.

    That's not "freedom of the press", that's "government propaganda outlet".

    kbaxter60,

    You are 100%CORRECT about NPR & PBS. Further, you explained it FAR better than I did.

    yours, satx
     

    OLDVET

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 14, 2009
    2,077
    96
    Richardson, Texas
    For those of us who voluntarily TOOK THE OATH of ENLISTMENT, we are all as INDIVIDUALS, still bound by that sacred oath until death.
    I will never forget being sworn into the Army back in 1968. Especially the part that went "I will protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I never had to revoke that pledge when I was released from duty. Yes, I am still bound by that pledge until I die.
     
    Top Bottom