Aggregator
UCLA baseball suffers freak injury ahead of freaky loss in NCAA Tournament
World Cup watch party in MacArthur Park? Clean it up first
Lefty-heavy Yankees eagerly await Giancarlo Stanton to bring lineup balance
Meet America’s Largest Doomsday Bunker Community
Vivos xPoint, a survivalist bunker community built on a former military munitions depot in South Dakota, was created as a refuge for people preparing for disasters such as nuclear war, pandemics, or societal collapse, according to a new report by the Wall Street Journal.
Marketed as “The Largest Survival Community on Earth,” the development offers long-term leases on converted concrete bunkers and promises a secure, self-sufficient lifestyle far from major population centers. While some residents use their bunkers as vacation homes or emergency shelters, the project has attracted significant controversy.
The Journal writes that instead of uniting residents around a common goal of preparedness, the community has become mired in disputes over property management and quality-of-life issues. Complaints have included malfunctioning septic systems, rising fees, property taxes, loose dogs, and an expanding list of community rules. Several residents have accused management of intimidation and unfair treatment, while the company maintains that only a small number of dissatisfied tenants are responsible for the conflicts.
Tensions have occasionally escalated into serious confrontations. In one highly publicized incident, resident David Streeter became involved in a dispute with a contractor that ended in a shooting after an alleged physical altercation. Streeter claimed self-defense, and a grand jury declined to indict him. Other residents have also faced eviction proceedings following disputes involving firearms or violations of rules that some argue were added after they signed their leases. These incidents have fueled ongoing legal battles between residents and Vivos.
A major source of frustration has been the gap between the community’s marketing and reality. Vivos promoted plans for shared amenities such as a restaurant, gym, store, medical clinic, community center, and other facilities. However, many of these projects have not been completed, leading residents to accuse the company of misrepresentation. A class-action lawsuit seeks refunds for tenants and alleges that Vivos failed to provide the livable conditions and amenities it promised.
Despite the disputes, some residents continue to value the location’s isolation, security, and peaceful environment. Supporters argue that the bunker complex still offers a unique option for those concerned about future disasters. Critics, however, contend that ongoing litigation, management conflicts, and unmet expectations have overshadowed the original vision, turning what was meant to be a haven from catastrophe into a community struggling with its own internal challenges.
Ultimately, the story of Vivos xPoint highlights a central irony of survivalist communities: preparing for external threats does not eliminate internal challenges. While the bunker complex was designed to protect residents from worst-case scenarios such as war, pandemics, or societal collapse, many of its biggest problems have stemmed from ordinary human conflicts over rules, property, and expectations.
Whether Vivos ultimately fulfills its promises remains to be seen, but its experience demonstrates that building a resilient community requires more than just a physical shelter...
Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 21:20ISS faces another air leak — as concerning space station problem that sprang up in 2019 won’t seem to go away
Christine Taylor reveals what saved her marriage to Ben Stiller 4 years after rekindling their romance
Christine Taylor reveals what saved her marriage to Ben Stiller 4 years after rekindling their romance
Tom Steyer assails ‘Trump’s tax loophole’ — but it’s just Prop. 13
What will it mean if Trump takes this Iran deal?
New details emerge from chilling dispatch calls before Josh Jacobs’ arrest: ‘Things being thrown’
David Stearns doubles down on belief in a Mets turnaround: ‘Not insurmountable’
Tech Now
Tech Now
Maryland's Glock Ban Aims At The Gun, Not The Criminal
Authored by David Manney via PJ Media,
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed SB 334 into law Tuesday, putting the state on a collision course with gun owners, firearm dealers, and 2nd Amendment groups.
The law targets "machine gun convertible pistols," mainly Glock-style semiauto handguns that use a cruciform trigger bar. Maryland lawmakers argue criminals can convert those firearms into fully auto with illegal devices called Glock switches.
The question remains: Why is Maryland banning future sales of common handguns because criminals already break the law with illegal conversion devices?
SB 334 bars manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, purchasing, receiving, or transferring covered pistols after January 1, 2027. Current owners won't have to surrender their firearms, and like hell they should. Active and retired law enforcement officers receive exemptions, and the law also allows immediate family transfers, inheritances, and certain gunsmith repairs.
State Sen. Sara Love (D-Montgomery County) sponsored SB 334. Del. Nicole Williams (D-Prince George's County) sponsored HB 557, the companion bill in the House of Delegates. The Senate passed SB 334 by a 28-16 vote on March 19. The House passed it 91-40 on April 9 before Moore approved the bill as Chapter 771.
Supporters frame the law as a public safety measure. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, and other officials have also pursued Glock through litigation, arguing Glock pistols can be converted too easily with auto sears.
Police officials have warned about converted weapons appearing in crimes and threatening officers. A fully automatic weapon in criminal hands can turn a street dispute into a massacre in seconds.
Yet the constitutional problem remains. Glock switches are already illegal under federal law and Maryland law. The new law burdens future lawful buyers because criminals misuse illegal parts. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm industry trade association, warned the measure would prohibit an entire class of lawfully made and lawfully sold handguns. The NRA also prepared a legal challenge after Moore approved the law. From the NSSF:
"To borrow on a line from James Carville, whom Democrats revere, 'it's the criminal, stupid,'" said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF's Senior Vice President & General Counsel. "These bills, and similar laws passed in other states, punish law-abiding citizens by infringing on their Second Amendment rights to legally obtain the firearms they choose to protect themselves and their families against criminals who, by definition, have no respect for life or law. Instead of enforcing the law and holding these criminals accountable, Maryland's lawmakers pander to gun control donors and antigun special interests to ban an entire class of firearms, which the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision clearly holds violates the U.S. Constitution. Should Governor Moore sign these bills into law, NSSF intends to have Maryland's Attorney General Anthony Brown explain in court why Maryland willfully violates the rights of her citizens and ignores its responsibility to hold criminals accountable."
Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, has called the bill unconstitutional and signaled a lawsuit. Maryland House Republicans also urged Moore to veto the bill, arguing the law bans the most popular handgun in the state because of conduct already forbidden by law.
The United States Supreme Court has said the 2nd Amendment protects weapons "in common use" for lawful purposes, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen requires modern gun laws to fit the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Maryland didn't solve the Glock switch problem by signing SB 334; it shifted pressure from criminals with illegal conversion devices to lawful buyers who want ordinary self-defense handguns.
Courts will decide whether the state can make that leap. Until then, Moore has given Maryland a gun law with a messy constitutional foundation and a lawsuit almost certain to follow.
Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 20:55