Days of our Trailers: Le jeu de blâme

Days of our Trailers: Le jeu de blâme

http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#2zYItK/www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html/

Definitions
A fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) is one that fires a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted. In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun.

Submachine guns are fully automatic weapons that fire a handgun cartridge and can be operated by one person. Sometimes they are referred to as machine pistols.

A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second.

Federal Firearms Regulations

[Disclaimer: Firearms laws change frequently, and vary from state to state. None of the information here should be considered legal advice or a legal restatement of any Federal firearms laws or regulations. Consult a lawyer, your local law enforcement, and/or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for further information regarding firearms laws and taxes in your area.]

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

(Sources: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2, "FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons", and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, National Firearms Act FAQ. See also, "The Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective" [Hardy, 1986]) )

Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely. For further details see NRA state firearm law summaries.

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source).

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of BATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify BATF after moving a registered gun between states.

Crime Involving Illegally Owned Machine Guns

Again in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.
A Good Argument for Gun Registration?

An observant reader would think the strict registration requirements and extremely low rates of crime committed with legally owned automatic weapons are powerful arguments for "sensible" gun control. However an even keener reader notices that despite the sterling record of auto-weapons owners for over fifty years, and despite: registration, police approval, state approval, special taxes, waiting periods, and extensive background checks, in 1986, ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons was prohibited to civilians.

Making Green Sand

Here is a post from:

http://www.gizmology.net/greensand.htm

Making Green Sand

I've wanted to cast metal for a long time. I've had the equipment, the supplies, green sand, and everything else ready for months now... well, I finally got around to it!

Making Green Sand

Green Sand is used for metal casting. Simply put, it is a mixture of sand, bentonite clay, and a bit of water.

Bentonite is used in clumping cat litter, so to make green sand, I ground up some cat litter in a ball mill of my own design.

The drum is a 5-gallon paint pail, turned at 32 rpm. The grinding media was about 2.5 gallons of crushed granite rocks, ranging in size from 1" to 3". Six pounds of Tidy Cat clumping cat litter were dumped on top of the rocks, and the drum turned for 1.5 hours. This ground the cat liter very finely. (If you do this, wear a dust mask when you handle the bentonite.)

The ground bentonite (I guess you could call it "cat litter flour" - yuck) was added to a 5-gallon bucket of "fine" masonry sand. The bucket contained nine inches of sand, so I added one inch of bentonite to achieve a 10% bentonite mixture, and mixed the two dry for about ten minutes. I added about 32 oz water in six ounce (coffee cup) increments, mixing constantly between additions, over a period of several hours. I stopped adding water when the sand started to display "packability", or whatever you want to call it. Here is my Dave Gingery imitation...



I squashed a handfull of sand into a lump, and broke it in half. It held it shape quite well, and broke cleanly.

Continue to making the mold.

Back

"There are certain things that are true no matter how much someone may deny them. In the economic realm, for instance, you cannot legislate the poor into independence by legislating the wealthy out of it. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give to people what it does not first take away from people. And that which one man received without working for, another man must work for without receiving." -- Kenneth W. Sollitt

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
— Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

We have been apeasing the colectavists for years. They keep taking. We keep stepping back. They ask for a foot and in the name of working together we give them an inch. We compramise again and we slide closer to tyrany.

We need to ask for a yards and make them give up feet. We need them to compromise and let our nation slide closer to liberty.

Who is the man who will stand on top ogf the hill and shout "Liberty. Liberty. Cut the power and size of the Federal Government in half."

Men and women go to Washington (at our request)and they only take from us. They don't go to serve. They will only pass laws that create programs that we have to fund. We work and and they skim off more of our paychecks. They only enslave.

The back of the Federal Government has to be broken. I have two ideas.

1. Stop sending them money. No money no power.

2. Pitition the states that we live in. If our state governments won't intercede, then we cut off their funding to.

How do we keep the "entitlement crowd" from voting away our freedoms?

Funny

Great question

Don't say a word.

Be very careful. Just because you are innocent doesn't mean you won't go to prison.

Do you believe in a fair shake?

What happens when the common man no longer believes that the system is fair? What happens when we believe that we will face punishment just because we are in the wrong place at the wrong time? We need to get back to that place and time when we were allowed to resist unlawful arrest AND detainment. The police are just another arm of a government that is tyrannical. Most LEO are "good guys". The problem with the situation is that it only takes one bad decision by a police officer to ruin your life. The system protects the criminal and the LEO. The citizen is caught in the middle. Just because you wear a badge and a gun does not mean that I have to submit to your authority.

My opinion to my opening question: "What happens when the common man no longer believes that the system is fair?" Mr. LEO you will find yourself alone and in a battle for your life. There are law abiding citizens, who work hard and keep their noses clean, but we will not roll the dice. We will not go to prison!


The Largest Street Gang in America

Only two forms of government.

This is a great video. Watch all ten minutes. This needs to be taught in school.

Marines kick ass!

This is the message that needs to be heard. Lets put the congress critters on notice. They are the enemy of all who long to be free.

This Buds for you

Constitutional Ignorance

Another kool-aid drinker. Folks this is the enemy.

The new "N" word.

Sosialist is the new "N" word? WTF

Listen at 1:20 of video.

This was posted by Eulogy68 on YouTube:

Definition of a racist: anyone disagreeing with a Neo-Marxist Statist Socialist Anti-American piece of shit!

Does your shoulder hurt?

1. Most "men" coplain about shooting the Mosin Nagant m44.

Need a Laugh?

Funny commercials.

Armed and Preparred?

This should be the goal of every town in America. Every citizen should be armed at all times. Do you ever wonder what would happen if every thug, rapist, and thief faced deadly force? I saw a poster that had the best gun control argument: GUN CONTROL is the argument that a women found raped and strangled by her pantyhose is somehow morally Superior to a woman who has to explain to the police about the bullet that killed her attacker.

Then how are we going to stand up to the Federal government? Don't think it won't happen. I bet a lot of people thought that the War of Northern Aggression would never happen..... and I was taught in school that the Civil War was over slavery.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20090817/ARTICLES/908171005/1402/NEWS?Title=Plan-urges-firearms-in-every-Belleview-home

Send ths young man to DC.

Tase me please!

Fucktard cop tases 14 year old girl. She receives 18 staples to close the wound on her head. It seams that this cop views a little girl, who is running away from him, as a threat. I hate to see what would happen to a toddler who can't walk a straight line.

http://carlosmiller.com/2009/07/14/new-mexico-police-chief-tasers-girl-leaves-gaping-wound-on-her-head/

Great web site.

Here is information on our constitution. It seems that I wasn't taught about our founding in its true light.

http://nccs.net/

Do you support him or her for office?

Kent McManigal said...

If anyone still believes Republicans are pro-gun, just ask them the "X-ray question": "Do you support the absolute human right of every person to own and to carry, everywhere they go, in any way they see fit, whatever type of firearm they wish without asking permission of anyone, ever?" Hesitation or avoidance of an honest answer will tell you all you ever need to know about the person.

Wind and Solar Power

http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/

Raise your right hand

Oath keepers.

For all you military and law enforcement types: In a SHTF scenario there are going to be "men in uniform" who turn against us. Their paychecks and retirement funds are more important that the lives and liberties of the citizen that they are supposed to serve.

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2009/07/reactions.html

Great Post

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2009/07/feedback-on-20-more-questions.html

US has low Crime rate compared to Europe

US has lowest violant crime rate per 100,000 at 466.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The rifleman

Here is the link:

http://www.awrm.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=38;t=000085;p=0

Riflemen
Mike Vanderboegh12 April 2008

"The speed with which tactical forces forget the main lessons from their collected experience, particularly those pertaining to weapons usage, would be difficult to overstate." -- S.L.A. Marshall, Commentary on Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea, Winter of 1950-51, p. 15

"Combat Packs" Ain't For Combat After my last essay, Strippers, I received some disputatious comments regarding my insistence that only ammunition combat packed in stripper clips, bandoleers and easy-open steel ammo cans counted when the excrement hits the rotary oscillator. I was asked, "What about 'combat packs?'" For the uninitiated, "Combat packs" (also known as "Battle Packs") are plastic sleeves of boxed ammunition. The South African 7.62 NATO version is shown below.(PHOTO MISSING)Caption from Cheaper Than Dirt Catalog: "South African .308 military surplus ammo 147gr Berdan Primed, copper jacketed, 20 rounds per commercial style box, 140-rounds comes in sealed battle package. We sell these by these 140 round battle pack." Calling this form of packaging "battle packs" is, to my mind, false advertising of the kind that can get you killed. Trying to reload magazines or en bloc clips with loose rounds under fire is suicidal madness. Another critic said that his 7.62x39 ammo was just fine in the original "tuna cans" it came in from China. "It'll never go bad," he insisted. "And you'll never get a chance to use it in a hurry," I immediately countered. Oh, no, he said, he could show me right then how fast someone who had practiced the Zen of Chinese Tuna Cans could just whip it open in half-an-instant. I challenged him to open the can with that cumbersome Chicom can opener in the dark while I fired rounds into the dirt beside him. He declined, but grudgingly admitted my point. Look folks, you can doubt my ancestry if you wish, but never doubt my footnotes. Here's another one that makes my (and Mae West's) point about packaging being everything, this time of Korean War vintage:"There is a special hazard to infantry in night defense, revealed in a number of the company perimeter fights, which comes of taking loose ammunition into the ground to be defended. In these several examples the men thought that what they had at hand would be sufficient, but several spare boxes of grenades and of loose ammunition for the M1 were carried within the position just in case they might be needed. These companies were engaged throughout the night; before first light broke, the grenades and cartridges which the men were carrying were all but expended. It was then necessary to break open the loose stores. These were excellent combat companies and had so proved themselves in the fight up to that time. Yet such was the pressure of the dark and the enemy fire, and such the consequent nervous excitement, that the NCOs found they were unable to open the grenade boxes; after struggling vainly with them for many minutes, they at last dashed them on the rocks. Then the grenades spilled out over the hillside, and men had to crawl around, feeling for them in the dark.The situation was even worse with the loose rifle ammunition. There were no spare clips and the firers had dropped their own without noting where they fell. It was necessary to feel around the rims of the foxholes in the darkness to retrieve the clips; by the time the clips had been gathered, nerve tension had so greatly increased that even the leaders found it almost impossible to make their own fingers respond to the seemingly simple task of clipping the cartridges. Said one NCO of this experience: 'Though I have had many nights in combat, this sweat of having to deal with loose ammunition in the dark was the most demoralizing experience I have known.' Troops are not supposed to take loose ammunition into an active position under any circumstance; the fact remains that they do. The supply situation and the lack of time for full precautions sometimes impose this extra burden on the infantry company. But any grenade case which is so secure that it baffles ordinary enterprise in the darkness is probably a little too secure for security." -- -- S.L.A. Marshall, Commentary on Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea, Winter of 1950-51, pp 13-14"A little too secure for security." That sums up my argument against tuna cans precisely. I think I already made my point about Isandlwana. OK, so once more, you are NOT tactically ready until your ammo is truly combat packed in stripper clips, bandoleers, steel GI ammo cans and crates to facilitate storage, transportation and easy usage at the point of contact."They could not hit their shriveled testicles with their own crooked members" : "Sniper Disease" and the "Full-Auto Syndrome"Finally, one critic defended his planned use of loose rounds because, he said, he was a "sniper." My old buddy Bob Wright of New Mexico can wax most profanely, even obscenely, eloquent relating his experiences with constitutional militia recruits of the 90s infected with "the sniper disease." Now I'd like to preface what I'm about to say (and quote) on this subject by specifying that these observations are NOT about actual military snipers. They are directed at those of the armed citizenry who, without a DD-214, embrace what has become the "sniper myth." Perhaps the best way to do this is to quote from the manual on Sniper Employment (Book Three, 0500) from the Scout/Sniper Instructor School, Marine Corps Combat Development Command. Any Marine scout sniper will be able to recite this definition from Page One of that manual:"A scout/sniper is a Marine highly skilled in fieldcraft and marksmanship who delivers long range, precision fire at selected targets from concealed positions IN SUPPORT OF COMBAT OPERATIONS. The PRIMARY MISSION of a scout/sniper in combat is to SUPPORT COMBAT OPERATIONS by delivering precision fire on selected targets from concealed positions. The scout/sniper also has a secondary mission of gathering information for intelligence purposes. (Emphasis supplied, MBV)The Marines are unique in training men to be both scouts and snipers for the two missions are often mutually exclusive. Scouts, by nature, should gather intelligence and never engage unless forced to do so by the enemy or changed circumstances. Snipers on the other hand are tasked to commit maximum damage to the enemy by removing high-value targets -- enemy snipers, officers, forward observers, senior NCOs, crew served weapons and the personnel who serve them, commo gear, observations devices and ground surveillance radars. This dual tasking by the Marines puts great stress on the scout/sniper, whose intelligence and discipline is assumed to be up to the task of knowing when he is a scout and when he is a sniper. This is in keeping with the long history of the USMC in getting the most out of every asset they possess (which explains why reserve Marines were still being issued WWII K rations up into the 1970s, for example).Still, whether the sniper is Army or Marine, their actions are always directed by the unit commander or his designated subordination (in the case of the Marines it is usually the battalion S-2). And although sniper teams (usually two men) are given much greater latitude in prowling the battlefield looking for targets THEY ALWAYS DO THIS IN CONCERT AND COORDINATION WITH THE LARGER UNIT. To do otherwise is to risk the lives of the team or of the overall plan. There are times when a commander does NOT want things happening in a certain sector, or for certain enemy personnel to be targeted lest the enemy tumble to his overall plan. Snipers, in short, and this is contrary to the sniper myth that has grown up on the civilian side, are not "lone wolves" prowling about independently. They are an important, integral part of a combat arms TEAM.Few military snipers match the great body of fiction literature which has grown up around them. Indeed, although there are certainly exceptions to this rule, dealing with the average sniper of our opponents in the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries has been and is a simple three minute field problem for any competent American Army or Marine squad. Indeed, although there has recently been much Jihadist blather about "master snipers" culling American trophies in Iraq, the truth is much more prosaic. Witness this anecdote sent to me from the Baghdad AO of the 101st Airborne Division:"I will give you an example of what happened a couple of weeks ago. I was with a patrol that stopped along the border of Shulla and Ghaz. There was a sniper that had been popping off shots every so often for about three days. This guy hit no where close to what they should have been aiming at so the (101st) guys that we ran into that had a static OP on the site really did not pay it any attention. They said the guy must have an AK because at 300 meters or so the fire was completely ineffective. Well we get back to (name of base redacted) and lo and behold the IA (Iraqi Army) actually got the two bastards (19 year old punk kids), beat the hell out of them, stuffed them into the trunk of their nice BMW get away car and brought them over to us. The pictures are included. If this is an example of (the) Legend of Jabba or Judy or whatever, then I will say what I have always said about these heathen bastards; they could not hit their shriveled testicles with their own crooked members. The Dragunov that they had had the scope taped onto the rifle with packing tape.(!)There is and will always be a persistent threat of sniper fire. As (my wife) says, "even a blind chicken finds corn every now and then". While it is a threat I would treat it like any other out here. TTP's (Army Tactics, Techniques and Procedures) have not been affected by a rash of accurate fire coming from parts unknown. In this AO it just is not an issue. IED's and ambushes, on the other hand, are very much a part of the game."(PHOTO MISSING)(I have attached a copy of the photograph of this pitiful excuse for a Dragunov to this email, but as I am unskilled at this business, it may or may not come through. I hope it does because it is a hoot.) Back on the home front, I concur with Bob Wright's trenchant observations on armed citizens of the unorganized militia who eschew joining with others because (they say) they are "lone wolves" who need no training or organization. The militia "sniper's" motivation, he believes, reflects a fear of joining with others of like mind to train because behind that reluctance is "a positive terror of closing with and engaging an enemy." Indeed, Bob says that in his experience with militia "snipers" the "sizes of their rifle scopes are inversely proportional to their courage." "All this crap about a military sniper operating on their own, at their own orders and discretion like a 'lone wolf' is (expletive deleted). Yeah, a military sniper is on his own -- except for his spotter, his security team, the supporting squad, the Quick Reaction Force, the aviation assets for extraction and aerial fire support, plus the artillery, the overhead drones, the commo net and the satellite imagery. All of which the armed citizenry is a little shy of." "As soon as somebody tells you that he is a 'militia sniper' what he is saying is that he is not part of your team, will not be part of any team and lacks even the guts to form his own team. He justifies his own inaction by claiming an MOS that he is incapable of fulfilling. And if he did it in front of real military snipers they'd kick his ass for being a wannabe. Hell, read Hathcock's book and you will find that the bulk of his kills were made from a firebase perimeter." I might add that such perimeters were not perimeters made up of one "lone wolf" Marine.Rush Limbaugh calls himself the "Doctor of Democracy." Well perhaps. But as a self-taught consulting physician specializing in the wellness of geriatric republics, in my opinion "the full-auto syndrome" is just as malignant as "sniper disease" to the health and fitness of the armed citizenry. And the armed citizenry, I should not have to remind you, is the lifeblood and muscle of any true republic. Snipers, true snipers -- the long range marksmen who combine Camp Perry marksmanship with extreme physical fitness and field skills -- are a valuable, if small, part of the body of the armed citizenry. But what this republic needs more than anything right now is RIFLEMEN. Not the "range goobs" (as one of my buddies calls them) afflicted with "full-auto syndrome" who go to the range and blast away on fast semi (or full auto if they have the tax stamp) with all the inaccuracy and false pride of a monkey masturbating before a zoo crowd. You've all seen them. Heck, we've all done it once or twice, pulling the trigger just to see how fast we can empty a magazine. I'm talking about the guys who do it routinely, blasting away backstop dirt for no particular purpose. Like the Jihadists of Iraq, "they could not hit their shriveled testicles with their own crooked members." Let me return, if I may, to the lessons of the Korean War laid out by S.L.A. Marshall in a section titled the Value of Slow Fire:The Korean experience proves substantially that the fighting posture of the line is most sound when automatic fire is combined with slow fire in its weapons complex. . . Suffice to say now that any trend toward eliminating the semi-automatic, hand-carried weapons in favor of full-automatic weapons in the hands of all infantrymen should be vigorously combated. In perimeter defense, the time almost invariably comes when the automatic weapons run short of ammunition, with the local issue still to be decided. This is the crisis of the contest, when decision may swing either way, depending on which side is most capable of delivering the last few volleys.THE SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE CONSERVERS OF AMMUNITION. (Emphasis supplied, MBV) Apart from their great value in the hands of a good marksman at any stage of the fight, they compose the weapons reserve which becomes of inestimable value in the last hours when both sides are near the point of exhaustion. In the infantry company data from Korean operations there are numerous examples wherein the retention of the position depended finally on fire from the M1, and rifle fire finally decided the issue. The troops who carry the weapon almost unanimously recognize the vital importance of this factor. On the basis of their experience, they would not concur in any suggestion that the line could be strengthened by fitting it exclusively with full-automatic fire." -- S.L.A. Marshall, Commentary on Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea, Winter of 1950-51, p. 9Planting "Appleseeds," One Rifleman at a Time"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."We are fortunate today to have an organization that is traveling about the country, teaching Americans once more how to become, and what it means to be, a RIFLEMAN -- the Appleseed Project of the Revolutionary War Veterans Association. Let me quote from their website, http://www.appleseedinfo.org/ :Welcome to the Appleseed ProjectWhat the RWVA (Revolutionary War Veterans Association) is all about: The Appleseed Program is designed to take you from being a simple rifle owner to being a true rifleman. All throughout American history, the rifleman has been defined as a marksman capable of hitting a man-sized target from 500 yards away — no ifs, ands or buts about it. This 500-yard range is traditionally known as "the rifleman's quarter-mile;" a rifleman can hit just about any target he can see. This skill was particularly evident in the birth of our country, and was the difference in winning the Revolutionary War. So why me?This country was founded and won by riflemen who fought and beat British forces. We invite all interested marksmen to learn the skills and techniques necessary to shoot proficiently; and then hope you'll participate in teaching and practicing with others so that together we can save this great land. Why you? Well, that's simple: if you're on this page we're betting you're a patriot, and we hope you answer the call.What's a rifleman?In short, a rifleman is an armed American, trained in the tradition of American Liberty. It's a man who has learned to shoot a rifle accurately — accurate enough to score "expert" on the Army Qualification Course. Until you can do that, you're considered a "Cook," unprepared and unqualified to carry a rifle on the firing line of freedom. But after attending an Appleseed AQT shoot, you'll have the credentials necessary to be a true rifleman, and will understand the critical need for defending freedom in this country.Aimed, semi-automatic fire has been the hallmark of the American rifleman since 1942. The competence that comes from training, the confidence that is a part of proficiency, is needed today perhaps more than any other time in our Republic's long history. For the enemies of that Republic are deterred by these three things: our competence, our preparedness, and our will. They are not deterred by self-deceived "snipers", unskilled "cooks" or wild-eyed "range goobs." When you decide to become a rifleman you join ranks with all other the soldiers of this Republic who came before, militia, regular, volunteer. I urge any and all who wish to perfect their skills as riflemen to contact the RWVA at the website above. And I'd like to leave you with this observation of S.L.A. Marshall's, written in 1951 but as true today as ever:"In the judgment of the analyst, the great lessons from this last year of fighting experience have been in the moral rather than the material sphere. It is perfectly true that 'weapons when correctly used will invariably win decisive results,' but to leave it at that states only half the formula. Correct weapons usage is not finally the product of the perfecting of ordnance and of tactical technique but of imbuing men with a spirit which will make them wish to move and fight together as a body. So long as that spirit is present, they will do their work with crossbows and billhooks. As more complex machines and methods are added, they will learn to master them in the common purpose." -- S.L.A. Marshall, Commentary on Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea, Winter of 1950-51, p. xviPreserve that spirit. Become an American rifleman.Mike VanderboeghPO Box 926Pinson, AL 35126GeorgeMason1776@aol.com--------------------"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

Sonshi.com - Original Sun Tzu's Art of War translation (not Giles)

Just startin to read. Anyone else up to it?


Sonshi.com - Original Sun Tzu's Art of War translation (not Giles)

Ron Paul and Succession

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvliy8rEJDQ&feature=player_embedded

Resist unlawful arrest?

Here is a link to an intersting story.

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/artic...ews/news06.txt

The guy knows he has done nothing wrong. He is on his property. What happens if he decides not to let the police arrest him? The police get reports of a "crazy man" and when they get to the property they find a calm and submissive man. Is police work that hard?

How does resisting unlawful arrest come into play? Is that even an option?

I always pack a concealed handgun with me (I can do so legally) and in my car I always have a Marlin m1894 in 44mag with me. (setting in the passenger seat.) I fear that one day I will be pulled over in Salem or Portland and I will be arrested for having a loaded rifle with me. I am not sure of the exact situation I will lawfully get into trouble, but I always wonder if I will let the police arrest me. My record and my driving record are squeaky clean (remember sheriff lets me carry concealed) so I am not a trouble maker. BUT when do we take a stand. Government has all the power and they can grind up the little guy any time they choose. They have a lot of power and they are going to take more.

There are good, very good men and women who serve an authority that is getting more and more abusive. What is a citizen to do?

Why the Law is Foreign to Ginsberg

Here is a great article and the link to that article.


Why the Law is Foreign to Ginsberg

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009...gn_to_gins.html


By Selwyn Duke

There is an old saying, "A man who is capable of deceiving only others is not nearly as dangerous as a man who is capable of deceiving himself." Truer words were never spoken. When a person lies, he is deceiving others about reality, but at least knows he is engaging in deception. But when someone rationalizes -- which is when you lie to yourself -- he is truly lost. He then not only bends reality for others as a by-product of bending it for himself, but he can render untruths without having to lie. This is because a lie is when he tells an untruth knowing it's untrue. It's much like when the ever-prevaricating George Costanza character on Seinfeld gave his advice for beating a polygraph machine, "just remember . . . it's not a lie if you believe it." I think of this when I hear Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg tout the use of foreign law by American judges sworn to uphold the Constitution -- that would be our constitution. Speaking about this recently at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, she said,"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law [when handing down court rulings] . . . ."Well, you know what? I believe her. She and her fellow travelers really don't understand. That is, they don't grasp the correct legal philosophy well enough to understand what they're rejecting. Note that I called the legal philosophy "correct" and not "strict constructionism," and for good reason. When you call it correct, it follows that other positions are incorrect. But what is the other side of the coin of constructionism? It would be living-document legal philosophies. To accept these categorizations implies that we just have a bunch of different credible perspectives on constitutional law, and who is to say what is correct? Call it, legal relativism. But more on this in a moment. At her speech at Moritz College, Ginsberg served notice that -- like so many in legal circles today -- she is in fact very confused about her role on the bench. As an example of this, Adam Liptak at The New York Times tells us, "She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is ‘probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.' There is one reason for that, she said: ‘You will not be listened to if you don't listen to others.'"This is a striking statement, and it vindicates something I've long believed. I once wrote that part of the problem with our judges is that they're not content to just be judges. A judge is much like a referee at a baseball game. It's not his place to make or alter the rulebook (Constitution); his is simply to determine whether or not it has been violated. His like or dislike of a rule shouldn't come into play.Yet today we have judges who would be kings. They're not satisfied to just referee; that's too small a role for them. They want to be agents of activism, molders of men, shapers of society -- and they want the ego satisfaction attending such status. They want to be respected by their peers around the world, fellow members of the global judicial class. This is evidenced in Ginsberg's statements. Why should she care if the Canadian Supreme Court is cited more than ours? Popularity doesn't equate to perspicacity. After all, rap stars are far more popular than the most sublime moral philosophers. And, as far whether or not foreigners listen to her court goes, here's a newsflash: It matters not to normal Americans whether they do or not. They're not governed by American law; thus, our judges' rulings may be irrelevant to them. And foreign rulings should certainly be irrelevant to our judges.Thus, it seems that these things matter to Ginsberg because she isn't satisfied with her role (a common failing of man). She wants prestige and respect; she wants to set trends. Perhaps she should have started a cult. I hear there's some land available in northwestern Guyana. Yet living-document justices are comforted in their misfeasance by rationalizations they conjure up to justify it. One that Ginsberg has used is to criticize the view that the Constitution is "stuck in time." But she has it wrong. It is not stuck in time but stuck in law. Law can be changed through legal measures -- in the case of the Constitution, the amendment process -- but until then it's supposed to be "stuck." The alternative to being stuck in law is being subject to the caprice of those with greater power. That would mean that you could appear before a judge and he could rule based on whim or that a policeman could arrest you because he believed he had just experienced an epiphany about what the law should be. In other words, this thinking is no different from the rule of kings, where a Herod could deliver John the Baptist's head on a plate to please his wife. It is why G.K. Chesterton said, "There are only two ways of governing: by a rule and by a ruler." It is why we should have "the rule of law" and not the rule of lawyers. And this is why some of us have likened our Supreme Court to a de facto oligarchy. After all, on what basis does an oligarchy rule? Its members decide guided by nothing more than the dictates of their own consciences. So people can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want. They can wrap their living-document legal philosophy in a million pseudo-intellectual arguments. But, at the end of the day, it boils down to might makes right. When justices depart from constitutional constraints, they cannot be voted out of office or fired. The only thing constraining them then is their own consciences and the regard of their overseas peers -- just as with an oligarchyThis is why I would have far more respect for someone who overtly defies the law (think Martin Luther King and civil disobedience) and simply refuses to comply. For he is deceiving neither himself nor others. He is simply saying that the law is wrong, that it violates a higher law and that it's the duty of all good people to defy it. It is the difference between an open declaration of war and the use of subterfuge and subversion. This brings us to a question. If Supreme Court Justices can rule contrary to the letter and spirit of the supreme law of the land on the basis that the Constitution is not "stuck in time," why can lower courts not apply the same reasoning to what is called "settled law" (areas where the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution "definitively")? After all, how can law ever be "settled" if it can never be viewed as "stuck"? Why can a lower court not say, "Well, sure, the Supreme Court ruled that way five years ago, but times are a-changin' fast. The law has a different meaning today"? If the Black Robes won't be constrained by the Constitution, why should others be constrained by their unconstitutional precedents? We now come to the supreme arrogance of our oligarchs-cum-jurists. For their living-law philosophy isn't for all, is it? It's not for the citizen; for him law is stuck in time. It's not for the cop on the beat; interpretation isn't his luxury. It's not for the lower-court judge; for him precedent is to be pre-eminent. It's not even for the president, for the laws he signs are subject to Supreme Court judgments. And judgments based on what? Not the Constitution, obviously. It is again merely their own judgment. This raises the question of why we should respect the rulings of usurpers. If they will not view the Constitution as being stuck in law, why should we view the law as being stuck in courts? Are the dictates of black-robed oligarchs to be viewed as the only immutable elements in an ever-changing universe of laws? Oh, ignoring court rulings would lead to a breakdown in the rule of law and this isn't a good thing?Exactly.The point is that activist judges undermine the rule of law by setting an example of contempt for it. Others are then placed in the position of asking what adherence to the rule of law really means. Should they defer to court judgments made by those who don't view themselves as constrained by law? Or, should they rather use their own judgment -- as the justices are doing -- as to the real meaning of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution?This is what living-document legal rationalizations breed. And it is why I've often said that all our designations for jurists, such as "constructionist" and "pragmatist," are nonsense. Because, really, there are only two kinds of justices: Good justices and bad justices. Good ones do their job and abide by the Constitution. Bad ones lawyer the law. Hey, maybe Ginsberg and her fellow travelers should just be honest and boil this down to its bare essence. They could quote infamous occultist Aleister Crowley and say, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Abuse of power.

Will be adding comentary. I need to do some research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

First Swing of the Bat

...and maybe the last. Will be posting interesting quotes, speeches, and ideas concerning the battle of and for the Free. Liberty is for sale and those who vote and don't produce(work, risk and compete) have and will give away their inheritance for comfort. I believe that there is something brewing in our country. I believe that the Federal government has too much power and is ready to seize as much control as possible. I believe that the hard working, Law Abiding American Citizen is waking up. The problem with the LAAC is the that we have no problem with obeying the law. We just want to work hard, play hard and raise our families. We don't have time to protest. We don't have time to worry about what is going on in the depths of Government. We don't mind paying taxes. We don't mind following the rules. We are compliant. BUT deep down inside every LAAC is a rebellious trigger puller and we are willing and able to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Government does not fear the LAAC and this must change.

I have a very hard time trying to articulate my thoughts. One of the purposes of this Blog is to help me understand what I believe to be true concerning my responsibilities as a citizen of this great nation. There is absolute truth. There is absolute right and absolute wrong. If I can articulate and explain the principles and know them to be true , then I can decide with confidence weather the battle for freedom is worth my life or not. Our founding fathers gave us the amazing gift of Liberty and I pray that we can preserve it for many generations to come.