Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
American Dystopia
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, August 14, 2006

As I mentioned on Friday, I bought a new rifle. Now, I don't have a lot of experience buying guns in California. Several years ago, I bought a Sig-Sauer pistol as my duty firearm, and a Glock as my off-duty piece. When I no longer needed the duty piece in 1997, I sold the Sig, although I kept the Glock for home defense.

Prior to that, the only place I ever bought guns before was in New Mexico. In NM, you go into the store, fill out the little one-page federal "Are you a criminal or full-goose loony?" questionnaire, plop your money down on the counter, and walk out with any gun you want.

When I bought my sidearms in California, there was a waiting period for pistols, which irked me, but which I accepted.

On Friday, I learned that there is now a waiting period for rifles as well. Not only that, but there is a paperwork requirement now that takes an hour to wade through, as well as a computer registration and state DoJ background check—complete with fingerprinting—that is required.

Moreover, because I bought an SKS, there's a raft of requirements I have to know, in order to keep from becoming a felon. For instance, take a look at the rifle.

Yugoslavian SKS M59/66

See that little black, triangular dealie that sticks down from the bottom of the rifle, right in front of the trigger. That's the integral, 10-round magazine for the rifle.

Now, guess what would happen if I took 10 minutes to remove the magazine cover, and replace the magazine well with the assembly to mount a 10-round detachable box magazine. My SKS would be transformed into a highly illegal "assault weapon", the possession of which would send me up for a stretch in Soledad or Folsom. Do you know why it would be an "assault weapon"? Because it has a flash supressor.

Even worse, any semi-automatic rifle with a box magazine holding more than 10 rounds would become an "assault weapon" automatically. In fact, a pistol that has a magazine capacity of greater than 10 rounds is an "assault weapon" in California.

That's the law in California, which, in the California Penal Code §12276.1 bans "assault weapons":
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. (C) A folding or telescoping stock. (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher. (E) A flash suppressor. (F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer. (B) A second handgrip. (C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel. (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following: (A)folding or telescoping stock. (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Oddly, the integral 10" fixed bayonet on the SKS is perfectly legal. But that flash suppressor, boy...that turns the rifle into one dangerous mother-f*cker.

And you want to know what really takes the cake? Try California Penal Code §12275.5:
12275.5. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section 12276 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.
The legislature, in other words, arrogates to itself to determine the "legitimate" purposes for owning a firearm. "You can own this gun. It has a legitimate purpose, you see. But owning that gun is illegitimate. We in the legislature know what kind of gun you should, and should not, have." Never mind that the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of caliber, magazine capacity, rate of fire, or anything else. The state legislature has decided that what the Founders really meant was to magnanimously grant American citizens the privilege owning firearms for "hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities."

My friends, that's how liberty is extinguished. One, small step at a time.

And, of course, if that's the democratic will of the people, we have to abide by it, don't we? After all we can still have guns. We can have rifles and pistols with 10-round magazines. And really, what conceivable legitimate purpose could anyone have for owning a rifle or pistol that holds more than 10 rounds? Or 5? In fact, why does anyone need anything other than a single-shot weapon?

So, we comply. And where do we end up?

Divider

At the moment, I'm reading The Multiplex Man, by James P. Hogan, a novel of the near future. And it's quite a dystopia that Mr. hogan has created. Everyone shares car rides, because, to conserve our precious resources, everyone—everyone who is allowed to drive, that is—is issued a driver's license that allows them to drive on alternate days. Everyone has either an "odd" or "even" driver's license. In fact, the whole culture has been subtly shifted.

For instance, take a look at this brief passage, where the protagonist, Dick Jarrow, is watching TV at a bar. Take a close look at the plot line of the cop show Jarrow is watching:
The TV above the bar was showing a police movie, complete with the virtually obligatory cast of ethnic tokens: white protagonist (angry, maverick), two blacks (police chief, mature and tolerant; protagonist cop's partner, streetwise and loyal), one Hispanic (Catholic, dedicated family man), one liberated female (naive, learning fast—but not fast enough to avoid getting laid by maverick cop). Jarrow personally found the formula tiresome, but he accepted that it was necessary to instill correct notions into the masses.

After a while, a bearded, dark-haired man wearing a black woollen cap and navy donkey jacket sat down on the next stool. From his exchange with the bartender when he ordered a beer, his name was Paul. Meanwhile, on the screen, the plot line delivered as trustily as Old Faithful: maverick cop finally pisses off overtolerant chief and gets suspended ("I'll take the badge and the piece"), but tries to hunt down villains independently, wasting family-man partner in the process. Official team arrives in time to save the mess, maverick cop consigned to deserved oblivion, while wiser-now female gets promoted and will manage okay from here on. All a packaged lesson in the ultimate wisdom of appointed authority and the folly of individualists who think they can go it alone.
Not exactly "Lethal Weapon", is it?

But Mr. Hogan has it exactly right. As P.J. O'Rourke once said, if there is ever a totalitarian state erected in the US, it will be a peculiarly American and suburban kind of totalitarianism, where everyone mows their lawns, and paints their houses regularly.

A few months ago, Jon asked the question, when is armed resistance against the state justified? In response, some people took the position that Dave Schuler of The Glittering Eye did:
In a liberal democracy like ours civil disobedience and revolution are almost never moral or justified.

In a country like ours civil disobedience is only justified when the electoral system has itself been subverted. This was the case with respect to African Americans particularly in the South prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Age and, particularly, the Voting Rights Act. Their civil disobedience during that period was justified.

Revolution is never justified as long as the country remains a liberal democracy.
The phrase "liberal democracy" is a pretty non-specific term. Is a state that bans the ownership of firearms with magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds a "liberal democracy"? Is a state that bans mentions of a candidates name in political commercials less than 60 days prior to an election a "liberal democracy"? Is it still a "liberal democracy" if the president argues that he has the wartime power to hold American citizens in custody as "enemy combatants" indefinitely, without any charges, trial, or habeas corpus? If the US was still a "liberal democracy", would any of those things obtain?

And, what does democracy have to do with it anyway? Fifty percent plus one person can vote to put blue-eyed people like me in concentration camps. That would be perfectly democratically (though not Constitutionally) legitimate. Democracy is just as tyrannical as any other form of government. A thing is not automatically legitimate simply because 50%+N of the population wishes it.

Divider

Which brings us full circle as to why I bought an SKS in the first place, along with a 1,000 round case of hollow-point ammunition for it.

Was it because I'm an avid hunter? Hardly. I have no interest whatsoever in hunting. If I want to eat meat, there's any number of supermarkets, butcher shops, or specialty stores to supply me with it. Killing and butchering an animal just seems like too much work. And, it's all icky and stuff.

Is it because I enjoy the sport of shooting? No. I mean, I enjoy shooting, and SKS owners say that the rifle is an absolute blast to shoot, but if I was really after a rifle suitable for competitive marksmanship, I would've bought something in .22 caliber.

I've never thought of myself as a wacky survivalist type. But the truth is, I bought it for no other reason than because it is a reliable, dependable, battle-tested infantry rifle, designed specifically for combat.

I hope I never have to use it for the purpose for which it was designed. I know what infantry combat is like, and I hope never to experience it for the rest of my life. What I hope is to take my new rifle down to the range every few months or so, and have a blast popping off a few hundred rounds. That'd be great.

I hate to say it, though, but this, increasingly, not the country I was born in, nor the one that I dedicated fifteen years of my life to defend in uniform in the military and in law enforcement. I hope that, at the end of the day, the American people will come to the point where they say, "this far, and no farther!" But, I am less convinced each day that this will happen.

If California bans my rifle, I will "transfer legal ownership" to my family in New Mexico, or move out of state. But, if I ever need a combat rifle, for any reason, well, from now on, I intend to have one.

Moreover, I encourage every American to own a rifle of similar type. At $200 or less, almost everyone can own an SKS. If you have more money, you should have an M1 Garand, AR15, M14, SVT40, AK-47, or even a Lee-Enfield SMLE.

I want the government to know that a huge percentage of law-abiding Americans own battle rifles, and the ammo to supply them. I want the government to be nervous about the willingness of the American people to give those weapons up by government fiat. And I want government officials to know why they're nervous. What I want, more and more, is a government that is frightened into abject terror of an American people who are both ready and willing to defend their rights. A government that operates as the servant of a free people, not their master.

Because, at the end of the day, the right of firearms ownership has nothing whatsoever to do with "hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities." Unless, of course, one considers resisting a tyrannical government to be an activity which falls into one of those categories.

Make of that what you will.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I believe there are two things that are supposed to protect our rights in our constitutional representative democracy: the constitution, and the fact that a candidate generally needs at least 40% (or so) of the popular vote to govern.

The latter is a great protection against a fast slide into tyranny. As much as many people hate President Bush, for example, he was certainly acceptable to more that 40% of the voters in 2004. It’s pretty unlikely he could muster a win if allowed to run in 2008, however, as the repeated grasping at power has worn thin even among the faithful. Even with recent attacks on freedom of political speech in the name of campaign finance reform, David Duke isn’t going to sneak in as president.

The constitution, of course, is supposed to protect us from the slow slide into tyranny. However, we seem to have go astray in that regard in the past 30 years. Somehow Roe v. Wade seems to have been judged on the merits of social necessity (at least, in the majority opinion), not of constitutionality. As mush as I’d like to see a pro-choice law personally, can anyone read about "penumbras and emanations" with a straight face?

There’s been such a strong sense of the SCOTUS steering judgments towards what they seems to judge as fitting the moral sense of America (or worse, of the world) recently. That attitude totally destroys the protection the constitution gives us against a slow incremental slide into totalitarianism.

And the attacks on the Second Amendment certainly seem to be the worst. I don’t see the word "except" anywhere in the Second Amendment. The intent is clearly to include military weapons. I can buy that a howitzer is not the sort of gun that one "bears", fine, but nothing at all in the constitution permits the government to restrict "assault weapons". An effective military rifle is exactly the sort of thing we are intended to keep and bear. There’s not even a little uncertainty in the text.

How did we go so far astray?

 
Written By: Skorj
URL: http://
Yup.

I hate guns. I really do. My father taught me to shoot too young, and without ear protection. Guns are loud, nasty, and they (can) turn people into idiots.

That said, I completely agree with Dale and Skorj. I need to own one, and I’ve been researching which one to buy. The compelling argument for me, as if the evening news wasn’t enough, is this thought: A gun I own and don’t need is a much better thing than a gun I need and don’t have.

Regardless of whether I like them or not. So far, my personal frontrunners are both Remingtons - the 7400, and the 597. The 7400 only carries four rounds, but it has a drop-out box magazine, which you can change out pretty quick with practice - and the 597 doesn’t have the stopping power at .22 gauge, but it has a 10 round mag, which *can* be intimidating if used properly - and which is also a lot easier to take to target practice, as Dale mentioned. I discuss other alternatives at the link below for those truly curious.

The SKS - I dunno. I accept that I may be called upon to hunt in order to survive and I am by skill, practice, and mental attitude prepared to do so. But for *most* of the walking grocery I can get close enough to harvest, a .22 will do a fine job. Would I kill another human being for political reasons, or to protect myself? I’m not too sure I would. Would I kill another human being to protect my family? Hell yeah. I’d kill’em twice if it was possible. So there may be a "real" rifle in my future.

However, my wish for all intelligent men, women, and children in this country is that we may expend all our ammunition at the range and never need to put a bullet elsewhere.

-Gil
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Gah. http://giltaran.livejournal.com/66148.html#cutid1
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
"But for *most* of the walking grocery I can get close enough to harvest, a .22 will do a fine job"

Gil, you’ll go hungry or be eating a lot of squirrel and man cannot live on squirrel alone.
 
Written By: markm
URL: http://
Squirrel, sage hen, jackrabbit, yeah. I know what you’re saying, a .22 can’t kill anything over 50 pounds cleanly, and that’s a very legitamate point. But I’ve eaten all of the above killed with a .22. Squirrel is nasty, jackrabbit does NOT taste like chicken but can be a fine meal, and sage hen (grouse) is a really tasty dish. I also like rainbow trout more than cutthroats, and bass more than either of those. Stripers are a little oily, but the small ones are good - and smallmouth bass is a meal fit for even the pickiest eater.

Venison, in my experience, tastes like old feet. Elk is better. Moose is pure heaven for a carnivore. But you don’t get any of these from a .22. Buffalo, btw, is a very close match for beef, just a lot more lean. However, to harvest any of the "large caliber" animals, you need to carry a block and tackle (for field dressing), and go with enough guys to carry the meat back - and frankly, I don’t know four guys whose judgement with a firearm I would trust my life to.

There are many alternatives to large bore centerfire rifles for taking game - and if that’s the only way to eat, laws to the contrary aren’t gonna mean much.

-Gil
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
I’m a gun owner and will never willingly give them up. I’m also licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I got my license in early 2002 - out of fear the gov’t would use 9/11 as a reason to stop issuing them. Last week I received a notice in the mail from Georgia. You can no longer ’renew’ concealed weapons permits. You have to go through the entire process again, background check, fingerprints, etc... giving the state the opportunity to decide ’you know what - we don’t think you should have that right’. Very frustrating.

And BTW - though I have had the right to carry for close to 5 years now, I never have. But it’s nice knowing that 1.) I can and 2.) when I go to gun shows, I can just buy what I want and walk out with it.

Good luck Dale - I’ll be keeping an eye out for an SKS as well as a new Glock to carry around.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
If California bans my rifle, I will "transfer legal ownership" to my family in New Mexico, or move out of state.
I recently had an opportunity to pursue a job that would have required me to live in NYC.

I turned it down because any place that violates my constitutionally protected right to bear arms wouldn’t think twice about forgoing that free speech thing either. And it’s already happening.

However, as an avid gun nut myself, your rifle is worthless. You’ve got bullets. They have bombs. You need light to see what to shoot. They have night-vision. You have you. They have militarily trained police squads. You have a car. They have a tank.

And we’re talking about the police.

When I was a Marine, we were specifically instructed that we were to never,under any circumstances, go against our own countrymen. That we were to be used to defeat a foreign enemy and that internal matters were not our task. Honestly, I’m not even sure the armed services these days would not fold and do the government’s bidding to quell the masses. I’m not in anymore, so I don’t know what they’re teaching these days so my fear may be unfounded.

No, there won’t be an uprising. We’re too comfortable to be bothered with possibly losing our cable TV and Internet access simply to regain something as trivial as our liberty.
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
Robb Allen wrote:
However, as an avid gun nut myself, your rifle is worthless. You’ve got bullets. They have bombs. You need light to see what to shoot. They have night-vision. You have you. They have militarily trained police squads. You have a car. They have a tank.

And we’re talking about the police.
And the militia has geeks. At least the foresightful groups do. I have night vision. Others have other loud skills.

The only thing that explains why there are so many drug planes flying instead of in flames in Eastern Ky is that the locals don’t let the feds have too high an arrest rate for the locals to tolerate (I’m not saying they’re happy about it).
When I was a Marine, we were specifically instructed that we were to never,under any circumstances, go against our own countrymen...
I wonder about that too, if that attitude is current common in the armed forces and is promulgated from the top down.
...We’re too comfortable to be bothered with possibly losing our cable TV and Internet access simply to regain something as trivial as our liberty.
Probably true. However, it remains to be seen as the New Deal and like promises become unkeepable, how comfortable we will stay.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
However, as an avid gun nut myself, your rifle is worthless. You’ve got bullets. They have bombs. You need light to see what to shoot. They have night-vision. You have you. They have militarily trained police squads. You have a car. They have a tank.

That’s the reason I never think about guns without also thinking about hunting. Because I know the truth is, if my government wants me dead - hey, I’m dead.
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Gil wrote:
Because I know the truth is, if my government wants me dead - hey, I’m dead.
That’s no excuse for not being able to have a chance at taking some of them with you.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Skorj wrote:
"However, we seem to have go astray in that regard in the past 30 years."
Uh Skorj, I’d say it’s been 110 years since the constitution was taken really seriously as set of strict priveleges to exercise power and prohibitions on that power.

Just saying, where you been?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
When I was a Marine, we were specifically instructed that we were to never,under any circumstances, go against our own countrymen.
"They" were pounding sand up your *ass.

You’re d*mned straight there are times that you can be deployed against your fellow countrymen. It’s called martial law for a reason.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
The even/odd driving days plan was implemented (not sure if it is still going) in the Philippines a decade ago. Most people ignored it or bribed cops when caught.

So lots of bad ideas end up implemented somewhere.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
That’s no excuse for not being able to have a chance at taking some of them with you.

http://www.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?storyID=123025060

What makes you think my first inkling of the government’s desire for my demise won’t be meeting St. Peter? -Gil
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Gil,

I think maybe that isn’t the correct link, it talks about airshows.

And you may never see it coming.

If what all the greater you have is a .22, then you’ll have to get awful lucky to do much about it if you do see it coming.


Yours, TPD, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
California gun laws are ridiculous. I just moved from San Diego to Utah. My brother-in-laws have been teaching me how to shoot here, with a Beretta Storm 9mm rifle, which has a (I can’t remember exactly) greater than 15 round clip and a pistol grip on the front. I must be a dangerous maniac with such a horrible assault weapon. Who knew I was so dangerous :)
 
Written By: Clark Taylor
URL: http://
Soap Box
Jury Box
Ballot Box
Bullet Box

The police have an APC. We have bottles filled with gas and a bit of soap. Plus, with all the arms floating around the world, getting something plus-sized wouldn’t be unheard of.

I never want to see us get to that point. Which is why WE must work to change the government we have, using the means our Founders gave us.

I’ve asked this before, what would you fight and die for? Your family, your liberty, other peoples liberty?

It’s the difference between "us" and "them." They fight to enslave, we fight to free.

Or at least, that is how it should be.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
oh yeah, and y’all are welcome in Indiana, where it is still relatively easy to get an SKS or other "nasty" rifle, and we just got a life-time carry permit law enacted.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
"And, of course, if that’s the democratic will of the people, we have to abide by it, don’t we?"

For as long as I’ve been typing out my optimistic nonsense online ("optimistic" in that I’ve kept hoping that anyone would finally understand what’s going on), I’ve asked people over and over: "What will you have to say when the rest of these morons vote your ass into a sling?"

No proponent of democracy — to include all of you voting types whose hearts are, I’m convinced, in the right place — has ever been able to answer that question. Never, ever. I can’t even recall suspecting that any of them ever looked at it straight. They just go out like lights, time after time: like flagrant neurotics who think the disaster right in front of their faces will just go away if only they close their eyes. And the Dave Schulers in the joint just keep on droning their bloody pious crap, which is nothing more or less than the idea that a slave granted the privilege of choosing his master is somehow something more than a slave... but you shouldn’t call him that because it offends the memory of Frederick Douglass or something, as if the idea of begging permission from bureaubots here, there & everywhere isn’t outrageous enough an affront to an American’s political sense, and we should wait for a time when these monsters will step out of the TEEVEE tube, into our living rooms, and start putting a leather lash physically on our backs.

How many times do I have to say it?

The question of private property is closed. It is not open to the opinions of herds at a poll. And you’re going to keep on getting what you’re getting until you understand that it is the premise of democracy — not the concrete result of any given poll, whether at your local precinct or the ones delivered by your so-called "representatives" at "congrees" — which must be directly and explicitly rejected.

Join The Voters’ Boycott, and say why you’re doing it. Don’t entertain any rubbish about "complacency" or "apathy". Get your conviction up on both feet and tell everyone that they have no right to be voting on other peoples’ rights.

Otherwise: keep your guns in shape, because that’s where this thing is headed, anyway. There will be no third course.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Ahhhhh....a kindred spirit! I am no survivalist, but I have been watching with growing dismay the slide we are experiencing and wonder, "What will it take to make the rest of them wake up?" If you took the Constitution and examined its stated purpose vs. the current reality (i.e., generation & interpretation of gun laws) I think there would be a collective gasp that might be interpreted by the Weather Channel as "a significant low pressure system is circulating over the US."

The most ready (and egregious) evidence of just how far we have strayed from the Constitution’s intent can be seen in the Kelo decision that SCOTUS dumped (literally) upon this nation last year. Make no mistake, that was not isolated incident....it happens repeatedly around the entire country. Add to this abuse, the 2nd amendment issues, the income tax, yada, yada, yada (you get the idea).

Bottom line: given the incredibly corrosive power of "poltical correctness" and the seeming inability fo so many to even acknowledge the explicit dangers of a resurgent "Islam by any means", I’m afraid it is a matter of time before the US experiences some incident that will necessitate martial law. Then the Marines, the Air Force, the Navy and the Army will face some very difficult decisions. The rest of us...we’ll be busy trying to find enough food and medicine to carry on; so having that “assault rifle” may be the only thing that has real value in the long run. (Sorry, didn’t intend to end on such a negative note.)
 
Written By: Unscripted Thoughts
URL: http://
Tom Perkins wrote:
That’s no excuse for not being able to have a chance at taking some of them with you.
The importance of this really can’t be overstated. I’m not worried about the US military being sent against civilians, I’m worried about some new Brownshirts pulling people out of their houses and disappearing them. An American soldier’s oath of loyalty is first to the US constitution, and every soldier I’ve known takes this seriously. On the other hand, history shows that if things go bad, they’re likely to go bad in the form of some new organization, loyal first to a leader and eager to use violence on their neighbors.

The number of people willing to be Brownshirts is small in any population. Being willing and able to take one with you when they come for you is enough to meet the threat. Be willing to take one with you when they come for your friend or neighbor and they haven’t a chance. Irregulars kicking down a door at 4AM and dragging someone away is only a viable tactic if people don’t resist effectively: the Marines can clear houses with minimal casualties because they’re so amazingly good at it, but any less competent group is going to take unsustainable losses.

You can stop the historically likely threat if things ever get ugly, simply by being willing and able to take one with you if they come for you or your loved ones.
 
Written By: Skorj
URL: http://
Come to Florida. Home of the free, brave, and well-armed.

I am blessed by sunshine, no state income tax, beautiful beaches and a reality based appreciation for fire arms. I can go to any " gun show" and pick-up an Uzi, AK, M4, or SKS. Token papaerwork, no wait. In FL, while "on the street", I am legally empowered to shoot to kill fight-back in the presence of the "threat of an assault" with my S&W640 .38 spec P+ carry-piece. I can attend a two-hour gun class and walk out with a concealed carry permit. I have several gun ranges to choose from that invite full-auto ( Uzi .45) work-outs.

C’mon down...BYOG ( bring-your-own-gun)
 
Written By: Eric
URL: http://
You’re d*mned straight there are times that you can be deployed against your fellow countrymen. It’s called martial law for a reason.
Mark is right.

May Day, 1971, Washington DC, 82nd Airborne Division.
The Nixon administration was determined to keep the Capital open at all costs. The Federal government already had various plans drawn up to deal with major disruptions in cities through out the country. These plans had been developed in response to the urban disorders of the 1960s. The government now put one of these plans into action to protect the Capital. While protesters listened to music, planned their actions or slept, the authorities quickly moved in 10,000 Federal troops to various locations in the D.C. area, including 4,000 paratroopers from the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division.
Been there ... done that. Didn’t like it one bit.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The reason an armed populace is necessary is to provide a check/balance against tyranny.

The military is only the arm of tyranny, if such appears. The tyranny is from the politicians. No security service in the world can stop an assassination if there are 1000 people with rifles. And no military/BATF could hunt down every single person with weapons without significant members of the military/bureau rejecting such a move.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution, not a politician...not even the President.

Sometimes I wonder if that calls me into action against Roe v. Wade...but that was decided long before I joined the military, and other military didn’t rise up against that, either.

Still, a gun grab would engender such a refusal to carry out orders by most military. Especially with all the training about lawful orders teaching soldiers to take personal responsibility for their actions, not just "follow orders or else".

Despite the leftist fantasies about jack-booted thugs, there are no such faceless, personality-less entities. It happened in Germany because their military took oaths of loyalty to a person, not like our oath to the Constitution. The military would never allow tyranny. The National Guard helps make sure (suspender AND belt), and the armed citizenry of the U.S. helps make sure the politicians face a personal threat if they try to tyrannize us (suspenders AND belt AND staples!)
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Gun thoughts:
Pistols:
The big debate is between 9mm and .45 caliber.
The 9mm allows larger magazine capacity, but lacks stopping power. The .45 has great stopping power, but your magazine capacity is far smaller (often less than half), or if they try to double-stack the magazine, has a handgrip like a 2x4 (too big for most people to feel comfortable).
If you don’t already swear allegience to one or the other, a good compromise is a .40 (or 10mm). The bullet small enough to have a larger magazine capacity, but stops nearly as well as the .45, from what I’ve heard.

Rifles:
There are advantages and disadvantages to every rifle.
The main ones:

SKS (7.62 Warsaw): big bullet, but not much powder behind it, makes it not very accurate/useful beyond 100 yards. Which is enough for most people. Ammo is cheap, but the brass can’t be reloaded. Same ammo as the AK-47.

.308 (7.62 NATO) rifles:
Cheap ammo readily available (any NATO nation surplus, like India and Portugal). Big bullet with plenty of powder makes it useful/accurate up to most ranges you can see with your average scope. 400 yards is doable with average marksmanship against a man- or elk-sized target. 200 yards is eaily doable. You can get bolt-action rifles (for greater accuracy) in most hunting styles. But there are also lots of "battle" rifles, like the M-14 and clones, FN-FAL and clones, AR-10 and clones, the VEPR (Russian semi-auto hunting rifle based on the AK-47 action), etc. You can spend from $200 up to $2-3k, depending on appearances and tuning.

M-91/40, M-38, M-44 (7.62x54r) Russian WWII rifle, only bolt action available (99.9%). Big bullet in the .308 class, quite accurate. The listed rifles all use the same ammo, but most are available from $50 to $200, depending on condition.

8mm rifles, usually only bolt-action available:
Biggest bullet, great for larger game. The caliber of the German Mauser in both WWI and WWII, so there are lots of cheap bolt-action rifles available, like Turkish Mauser, Czech Mauser, Egyptian Mauser, etc. German Mausers are expensive. I’ve found Turkish Mausers in great shape for $70. Ammo isn’t expensive, and usually easy to find online, but not always in stores.

Swedish Mausers, mostly only bolt action available:
6.5x55 caliber, meaning lots of powder behind a long, skinny bullet. That means a heavy bullet with lots of velocity, penetration, and stopping power, but with very easy recoil. Best quality of rifles. 7-8 years ago, you could get one for less than $100, but now it’s hard to find a good one for less than $300. Ammunition is fairly easy to find.

Swiss K-31
7.5x55
Limited quantities, but last time I checked, still not really well-known. Bolt action, but a unique straight-pull that makes for quick cycling. Extremely accurate, can hit with open/iron sights what other rifles would need a scope to hit. Some have described as built like a Swiss watch. Heh. 3 years ago you could get one for $140. Now I think they are closing in on $300, but you can still find bargains for $200 or so. Maybe. Ammunition is hard to find and relatively expensive. The quality and tight tolerances of the rifle mean it would cost $2000 if you had one built today, so it’s a true bargain.

Other rifles:
British SMLE, .303
Japanese 6.5mm
Italian 6.5mm (usually crappy quality...)
All sorts of hunting calibers like .270, 7mm, .243, etc
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Roll your own.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Being a born-and-bred city mouse, hunting isn’t really my thing. I’m a firm believer in firearms for personal and/or home defense, though, be it against tyranny or criminality. Right now, I don’t own any guns because of a couple of things that maybe you knowledgeable folks can help me out with.

1) I can get my hands on an old Army .45, a P-38, a .22 target pistol, and some sort of carbine (as I recall, I’ll have to dig around in my late father’s closet to be sure). Since my primary object is home defense, I’m leaning toward a shotgun, but there’s a dizzying variety (and that’s not even counting the different loads). I’m looking for something with stopping power, but that I can maneuver with in a narrow hallway. Any suggestions?

2) I don’t have kids or child visitors, but I don’t feel like arming Joe Burglar, so I need some way (e.g., a gun safe) to secure the gun(s) while I’m at work. It would have to be something Joe Burglar couldn’t just break into or carry off, and big enough that the shotgun and theoretical carbine (either an M1 or M2) would fit. Any advice in that area?
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Stick with the shotgun for stopping power. I don’t know about maneuverability...best to stick in your room behind your mattress and wait for the burglar to come in there, rather than meeting one in a narrow hallway where your advantages are minimized.
Maybe go two rounds of birdshot followed by one of buckshot or a slug to handle an intruder with a protective vest.

But the old Army .45 will do fine for stopping power and maneuverability, too. It’s magazine capacity limitation shouldn’t really be a problem in home defense. If you need more than 7 rounds with no time for a speed reload (practice it at the range), you aren’t practicing good shot discipline.

For safes, it depends on what you want to put in it. If you already have the firearms you listed, you need a small rifle safe, and one that you can bolt in to the wall. The cheaper ones are too easily carried off where they can be opened at the thief’s leisure...
There is a bedside pistol safe that uses biometrics, and another that has two locking modes (daytime: keyed deadbolt for security; nighttime: 4-button combo for speed) that’s not too expensive. But I don’t know brand-names.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Besides discouraging internal tyranny, any foreign intruder has got to realize that there’s no way they’re gonna find ’em all, or even most of them, except maybe after a large noise, which is considered "a little too late" in that sort of game. That’s a good thing.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
The importance of this really can’t be overstated. I’m not worried about the US military being sent against civilians,

Why not? Any brownshirt agency would be controlled by the feds or else destroyed by it. The trend is not towards tolerance of armed, violent, non-state actors in this country. Far from it.

Frankly, I don’t see the army stepping in against any military agency commanded by the president, who, as it has been loudly argued in here, is the commander-in-chief, and can there for take any security-related measure he darn well feels is constitutional, regarldless of what the document itself says.

I’m a leftist. I’d usually be anti-gun in my personal views, although comfortable with local majority preferences that allow me to live in anti-gun states and other states to do other things. However, the recent administration has shifted my feelings a little. I can’t wait for the mocking reaction - after, living in anticipation of your government gunning you down makes sense, but living in anticipation of the George Bush admin making that even more likely is crazy talk...

The National Guard helps make sure (suspender AND belt), and the armed citizenry of the U.S. helps make sure the politicians face a personal threat if they try to tyrannize us (suspenders AND belt AND staples!)

Hmmmm



Article Tools Sponsored By
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: August 15, 2006

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 14 — In an unusual act of bipartisan and regional unanimity, 51 governors have joined to voice their strong opposition to legislation to let the president federalize National Guard troops in a disaster without local authorities’ consent.

In a letter to Congressional leaders last week, the governors detailed their argument that the measure, drawn up after Hurricane Katrina and tucked into a military authorization bill that the House recently passed, would undermine their authority and autonomy.

“This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors,” read the letter, conceived in large part by Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican, “and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors as Commanders and Chief of the Guard to the federal government.

“We take very seriously our constitutional duty to protect our citizens and lead our guard. We are responsible for the safety and welfare of our citizens and are in the best position to coordinate all resources to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters.”

Many local officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, have been critical of what they describe as federal interference with their National Guard forces. That includes President Bush’s order last spring that the Guard help shore up the Border Patrol as Washington works to hire 6,000 agents in an effort to increase border security.

Although the president already has the authority to call up any branch of the reserves into involuntary service in the case of a terrorist attack overseas or the use of unconventional weapons, that power does not extend to natural or man-made disasters.

The bill in Congress would extend the president’s power to such disasters.

The administration has been criticized by some conservative lawmakers and policy experts as chipping away at states’ rights. “I think it is apparent that it is a federalism issue when you have this sort of outcry from state governors across party lines,” said Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group. “It is not clear anymore that federalism is a priority for the Republican Party except for rhetorically.”


 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
For those who are interested and haven’t seen the site.

A Well Regulated Militia


Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I’m a leftist. I’d usually be anti-gun in my personal views, although comfortable with local majority preferences that allow me to live in anti-gun states and other states to do other things. However, the recent administration has shifted my feelings a little. I can’t wait for the mocking reaction - after, living in anticipation of your government gunning you down makes sense, but living in anticipation of the George Bush admin making that even more likely is crazy talk...
No mocking.

But, welcome to the real world. Both Republicans and Democrats are interested in one thing: power. The only real counter-balance to that is an armed citizenry. If it takes George W. Bush to make you realize that, then I’ll welcome you, even if you’re a little late to the party.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Both Republicans and Democrats are interested in one thing: power.

Don’t disagree, on the politician level.

The only real counter-balance to that is an armed citizenry.

Not sure. Not ruling it out, though.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Messed up those italics tags pretty good on there.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Great Article —

A lot of people don’t know that you can still buy AR-15’s in california. hold up, i’ll explain ...

The assault weapon ban was a 2 tier ban:
1. banned by make and model
2. banned by feature (hinging on "detachable magazine")

which basically means this ... If you buy a "lower receiver" (the bottom portion of an AR-15, which contains the serial), that is not a "listed" by "make and model" Assault Weapon, AND build/complete it WITHOUT banned features, then it IS legal.

This kind of defeats the purpose of the AR, but here is what you are hoping for. You spend the $250 in hopes that california "reclassifies" these new "Off List Lowers" as Assault Weapons. Then you get a mandatory 90 days to register them as Assault Weapons ... Once they are Assault Weapons, you can have as many "Evil" features as you like. If it never gets reclassified, at worst and if you need to use it for what it was intended, you could remove your "fixed mag kit" or put "on" your pistol grip in a matter of minutes. THAT’S ILLEGAL, BUT IF YOU’RE USING IT TO FIGHT, IT’S THE LEAST OF YOUR WORRIES.

Obviously, the CA Legislature is pissed and trying to close the loophole. I’m sure you can see their panic.

http://forum.knowcaguns.com/viewtopic.php?id=36
That link is more "in depth" about the battle between "us Gun Enthusiasts" and "Them".

It’s my site and please feel free to ask us any questions ... We want everyone to understand their Opportunities.

thanks,
Trent

http://forum.knowcaguns.com
 
Written By: Trent
URL: http://forum.knowcaguns.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider