Operation Himmler (less often known as Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods) was a 1939 false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by the Nazis to justify the invasion of Poland. This included staging false attacks on themselves using innocent people or concentration camp prisoners...

...For months prior to the 1939 invasion, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.

The plan, named after its originator, Heinrich Himmler, was supervised by Reinhard Heydrich and managed by Heinrich Müller. The goal of this false flag project was to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which could be used to justify the German invasion of Poland.

Operation Himmler (less often known as Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods) was a 1939 false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by the Nazis to justify the invasion of Poland. This included staging false attacks on themselves using innocent people or concentration camp prisoners...

...For months prior to the 1939 invasion, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.

The plan, named after its originator, Heinrich Himmler, was supervised by Reinhard Heydrich and managed by Heinrich Müller. The goal of this false flag project was to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which could be used to justify the German invasion of Poland.

Newton, MA, 05/14/2019- Today The Liberal Gun Club issued an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners in the case of new York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. The City of New York and the New York City Police Department- License Division, which challenges a law that unconstitutionally restricts when and where New York City residents can transport their firearms. New York City’s transport ban fails all heightened scrutiny and substantially burdens the lawful conduct of citizens.

As has been found in a recent case regarding safe and legal abortions, laws that restrict the rights of citizens must be narrowly tailored to be the least intrusive means of serving the governments interest. In the current case before the court the law has been used as a bludgeon rather than as a scalpel, resulting in the inability of NYC Citizens to transport their firearms in any manner, whether it be to their second home or training class, putting them at unnecessary risk and unable to gain levels of proficiency that all other states, including those that have heavy regulation, are available to them.

This law also prevents the citizens of New York City from carrying their firearm in the other 38 states that they could otherwise carry in, if not for this law, applying their laws nationally, regardless of local regulations.

In addition, although it’s not found in the brief, this law misses addressing the root causes of violence by a mile. Rather than working on the real issues behind violence such as toxic masculinity, the generational oppression of minorities, and a lack of universal healthcare, including mental health care, this law is used as a way to substantially impact those gun owners who abide by the law.

Controversy has erupted at the University of Massachusetts Amherst over a planned panel discussion about Palestinian human rights, with three Jewish students going so far as to file a lawsuit in an effort to have the event moved off campus, arguing it is anti-Semitic...

...The panel in question at UMass is set for Saturday evening. It is organized and funded by Media Education Foundation, a Northampton organization headed by Sut Jhally, a UMass Amherst communications professor...

...UMass officials have said they will allow the panel to take place.

“UMass Amherst is committed to fostering a community of dignity and respect and rejects all forms of bigotry. The campus is also firmly committed to the principles of free speech and academic freedom. As such, and as is required of a public institution under the First Amendment, UMass Amherst applies a content-neutral standard when making facilities available to outside organizations for the purpose of holding events,” the university said in a statement.

...“We will also insist and ensure that weapons that were designed and sold to the United States military, with the express purpose of killing people as efficiently as effectively and in as great a number as possible, are kept on the battlefields and are no longer sold in our communities, because they will end up in our synagogues, in our churches, in our mosques and public places.”

The crowd responded with strong applause...

...“We will also insist and ensure that weapons that were designed and sold to the United States military, with the express purpose of killing people as efficiently as effectively and in as great a number as possible, are kept on the battlefields and are no longer sold in our communities, because they will end up in our synagogues, in our churches, in our mosques and public places.”

The crowd responded with strong applause...

The Springfield Model 1795 Musket was a .69 caliber flintlock musket manufactured in the late 18th century and early 19th century at both the Springfield and Harper's Ferry U.S. Armories.

The Model 1795 was the first musket to be produced in the United States by Eli Whitney. It was based heavily on the Charleville musket, Model 1763/66, which had been imported in large numbers from the French during the American Revolution, and which at the time comprised the largest number of muskets in U.S. arsenals at about 20,000 muskets. The Model 1795 was used in the War of 1812


Service history
In service 1795–1865
Used by United States
Confederate States of America

Wars

American Indian Wars
Quasi-War
First Barbary War
1811 German Coast Uprising
Tecumseh's War
War of 1812
Creek War
Second Barbary War
First Seminole War
Mexican–American War
American Civil War

Source: LA Times

The National Rifle Assn. filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging a new Los Angeles law requiring companies that seek contracts with the city to disclose whether they have ties to the gun rights group.

The suit was filed in federal court on behalf of the NRA, including a John Doe, who is described in court documents as an NRA member and business operator with several L.A. city contracts.

“Plaintiff Doe participates in this action as a Doe participant because he reasonably fears retribution from the city and the potential loss of lucrative contracts should Doe’s identity be known,” the lawsuit says.

City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell championed the new law, arguing in a motion he presented last year that city residents and stakeholders “deserve to know” whether taxpayer funds are being spent on contractors with ties to the NRA.

Read more: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-nra-sues-los-angeles-disclosure-law-20190424-story.html

Alice More: Arrest him!

More: Why, what has he done?

Margaret More: He's bad!

More: There is no law against that.

Will Roper: There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws
all being flat?
This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down
—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.