SurvivalBlog presents another edition of The Survivalist’s Odds ‘n Sods— a collection of news bits and pieces that are relevant to the modern survivalist and prepper from “HJL”. As winter begins to set in, our thoughts turn towards heat. There is an article on a wood stove competition today that is very interesting.
WD-40 Defense
Reader T.J. sent in this video of a store clerk using the super secret WD-40 defense when he was threatened. This obviously occurs in some area where firearms are forbidden because the would-be robbers only have hand tools to threaten the clerk with and the clerk grabs the nearest thing to defend himself which happens to be a can of WD-40 lubricant. The move befuddles the attackers who eventually give up and leave. The takeaway here is that the clerks attitude was obviously the difference and the real reason why the attackers left. I can’t help but wonder how much more effective that can of WD-40 would have been when combined with one of those cheap Bic lighters also usually found on the counters at convenience stores.
Social Media
Reader M.P. sent in this article on Fox News detailing yet another reason why you really don’t want a presence on social media. As if buying a gun in New York didn’t already require ridiculous hoops to jump through, proposed legislation in the State would require a purchaser to consent to up to three years worth of search history on social media to gain approval of an application. The proposed legislation would also be applied to those who are renewing existing permits to carry or possess a pistol or revolver. Things specifically looked for would be commonly known profane slurs or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation as well as threatening the health or safety of another person, or acts of terrorism.
While identifying potential terrorist seems worth it for some, the language about gender, religion or sexual orientation is incredibly disturbing. Does that mean if you are a Christian preaching against the sin of homosexuality that you can no longer qualify for a permit? It also seems to be pretty arbitrary on who makes the decision of what is dangerous or offensive. I suspect this bill will be challenged on constitutional grounds.