Jump to content

A Well Regulated Militia...

Recommended Posts


Part Two: What Rifle For a Rifleman?

Courtesy of Fred's M14 Stocks (www.fredsm14stocks.com)

Assume you were just born.

What would be really important to learn, once you reached a certain level of maturity?

That 401(k) accounts might be useful to retirement? The various competing prescription programs in Congress? Arguments about school class sizes? What a great and progressive president Bill Clinton was? What?

Well, some of us think it is simple.

You should learn freedom -- about what it is, and most importantly, how we got it. Just as important, you should learn how we keep it, help it to grow, protect it, and - in too many instances - how we get it back again.

Stripped to the bone, it's really a simple story:

We have freedom because somebody fought for it.
We keep it because we are willing to fight for it.
We lose it because we are not willing to fight for it.

We are fortunate that the people who fought and won it for us starting back in 1775 also gave us a written guarantee (that is, the Bill of Rights) that we would have the tools to protect that freedom. But, of course, they couldn't guarantee that we would have the sense or the will to do the hard work of defending Liberty.

It doesn't hurt to recognize how far we have slipped in the battle to maintain freedom here in 21st century America. It's even more important to understand how far the war on terrorism is going to further erode our freedoms. We have to have the sense to know the fight is HERE, and NOW. Once we know that, then we must be convinced of the rightness of our cause, and have the firm determination to use all of the tools available to us in reversing 70 years of creeping socialism.

If we can win the 'soft' fight in the political arena, we'll also win the 'hard' one by avoiding it entirely. Believe me -- you DON'T want to have to fight the 'hard' war. There's no joy in running for your life from people that want to kill you. Win the 'soft' fight by winning the political game, and there'll be no lying in the mud bleeding, no separation from home and family, no interrogation of your children by government agents, no lifetime prison sentences, no public demonization of "those domestic gun-nut terrorists".

The first step in fighting and winning the 'soft' war is mental: knowledge, determination, even anger - at what they have done to our country, to our freedoms. You should be angry -- really angry -- at being required to live in a world of both 'tolerance' and 'zero tolerance'. A world where at the same instant, 'tolerance' means "love every socialist, UN flunky, drug addict foreigner" - and 'zero tolerance' means that patriotism, achievement, love of freedom, and mistrust of government are scorned, punished, and finally, eliminated, mostly in psychiatric facilities. Yep, the Center for Disease Control is already into guns, inevitably leading to treating your political views and your exercise of Second Amendment rights as a 'medical/psychological' problem.

But anger alone won't solve any problem. You need to use that anger to motivate you into taking concrete action.

Let's assume you've already started to fight the 'soft' battles. Sure, you start to educate others - in your family, at work, wherever - to wake them up, get them out of the boiling pan, and into protecting and saving freedom. Some will scoff - but you have to wake them up to save America, so don't give up! And you vote, and get others to vote. And you write letters - 'to the editor', to your politicians.

You also get people down to the range, rifle shooting with you, as you finally learn how to shoot yourself. You do it gladly, because once you recognize that you may someday have to defend freedom, you have a duty to get ready.

Look at it this way: You have life insurance, fire insurance, and health insurance. Now, as you learn to shoot well, you've got freedom insurance. Of course, you hope you never have to call on any of them. But at least the paying the freedom insurance premium -- by learning to shoot yourself and teaching others -- is fun! And the money put into premiums can be gotten back out as dividends, later, if needed to defend our country against foreign enemies and their quisling allies.

But if you ever have to do it, you want to do it with minimum risk and maximum impact, and that means working at distances from 300 to 500 yards, where you are outside their effective range, but inside yours. If you never have to do use those skills in defense of Liberty, if it turns out to be insurance only, which you never have to use, at least you keep the tradition alive, and pass it on, a role secondary to none in importance.

So, with the stage set and you looking for an accurate, hard-hitting rifle to use in the 2A context, where do we go?

It's a favorite pastime amongst shooters, debating the 'best rifle' issue. Most times, the debate is over good and bad points of each firearm. But actually, the debate should be first over the projected role of the firearm. Like golf, with different clubs for long and short ball movement, the best tool you can select will be designed for the specific task you envision. It¹s the crowbar or wrench question. Which is better? Well, it depends on the task, naturally. If you have to open the lid of a wood box, the crowbar fits the bill. If you have to loosen a nut off a bolt, the crowbar is number 10, and the wrench is the choice.

Now, if the hammer ever falls, are you gonna face long-range shooting, beyond 600 yards? Or short-range, urban-style shooting, at 300 yards or less? Or will you be able to work mainly in the 300-500 yard distance, if you so choose? Short range stuff can conceivably be handled with an SKS, AK, AR-15 or other reduced caliber rifle, although the .308 gives a superior punch when obstacles are involved. In addition, the .308 offers better tracer performance for signaling or incendiary effect. According to reports from Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, you also get a knock-down performance with the .308 that the lesser calibers, especially the .223, lack. As one guy says in "Blackhawk Down" regarding intense urban close-quarters shooting, "when I shoot them, I want them to go down. I don't want to have to shoot them over and over."

As a budding Rifleman, you can appreciate the desire expressed in that comment - to do the job once, not again and again. Long range (that is, farther than 500 yards) is clearly .308 territory, with accurized rifle and ammo. But 'rack-grade' rifles can still be effective out there. That being said, it's in the 300-500 yard area where your standard .308 and surplus ball ammo really shine. Over 300 yards, so you are beyond effective range of their popguns, and out to 500, where you are still laying almost a thousand pounds of energy on the target. If you can set it up so you catch your opponent in this area, you'll dominate him, assuming you acquire Rifleman skills - the ability to hit a torso-sized target rapidly with every shot, at ranges from 25 meters to 500 yards.

If you have ever seen one of those WWII weapons training films, where the narrator talks of a machine gun replacing 6 riflemen in fire effect, you might question this approach. Here's where the narrator gets it wrong. First, those 'riflemen' in the film are not real Riflemen - probably no more than 5% of military-trained shooters are 4 MOA to 500 yard genuine Riflemen. So you are really replacing 6 'area-fire' weapons [the not-so-accurate infantrymen] with one 'area-fire' weapon [the machine gun]. And a machine gun is, by definition, an area-fire weapon, meaning you spray bullets in an area, like casting a fishing net, and hit whatever is unlucky enough to be in the area and to catch a bullet. An actual Rifleman is superior to an MG at Rifleman distances, because 90%+ of his shots will be a hit, whereas the MG will be lucky to get 3% hits. For a real-world example, see John George's WWII memoir "Shots Fired in Anger", where an unlucky Japanese Nambu gunner loses when he meets a rifleman.

Six no-kidding Riflemen can equal the firepower - the number of rounds per minute - of an MG, but that six-man team will quickly run out of targets. For the MG, the limit is the number of rounds you have; with riflemen, it is the number of targets. Look at it another way: a bullet from an MG is like a dumb iron bomb. A well-aimed bullet from a Rifleman is like Precision Guided Munitions - addressed to the target, speeding straight and true, with the target its destination.

As an illustration, someone recently shot the granddaddy of all assault rifles, the StG 44, at the RWVA range. In semi-auto mode, every time he pulled the trigger, a popup target at 200 yards went down. When he switched to 2- and 3-rd bursts, he went thru a mag without hitting a single target.

But wait, you say. You don't use full auto at 200 yards, you use it up close. Right?

So, my friend, the enemy is 'in the wire', even past the wire, and on top of you, in numbers. That's when you are going to start wasting ammo with full-auto fire? That's when you are going to wind up with an empty mag only a few seconds after firing your first shot? What sense does that make? One shot, one kill, at 25 yards, right?

As a Rifleman, you're not likely to let them get that close. 300 yards is more than close enough. My point is just that full-auto fire is pretty useless in the 2A context. There is real meaning behind the term 'toys for big boys'.

But what kind of rifle should a Rifleman use? Well, the good news is that most of you guys already have a rifle suitable for training to be a Rifleman. Starting with a very limited budget, the choice is clear. There is no faster bolt action rifle in the world than the No. 4 Enfield with its long-radius peep sight and ten-round magazine. The older No. 1 Mark III model is no slouch, but the No. 4 has a heavier barrel, and peep sights much superior to the open-sighted Mk III. They're cheap -- around $125, but try to get the No 4 Mk 2 or Mk 1/3 with the late trigger modification. Ammo runs about .15/round, and while most remaining surplus .303 ammo is corrosive, these rifles are simple to strip and clean, which you'll need to do that day to keep rust from forming in your barrel. In a pinch, any firearm will have to do, but if you have the time (and smarts) to pick and choose beforehand, and are on a tight budget, this classic is the one to get.

Second up the ladder is a semiauto, the SKS. If you practice with the Enfield until you can get 20 or more hits on a 4 moa target in a minute, you should be able to do 30 or more with an SKS. An SKS will run you up to $50 more than the Enfield, but the ammo is half the price. It is reliable, accurate, lightweight and very effective out to 300 yards, dropping off considerable past that (but still, in a pinch, usable). However, if you're serious about shooting at Rifleman ranges on a tight budget, just note the British .303 is still going strong at 500 yards or more. On the other hand, one of the RWVA regulars uses his stock Yugo SKS and commercial Russian ammo ($90/1000 rounds) to get consistent hits on the popups at 400 yards.

Next up: a big price jump to $400-500 for a CMP M1 Garand or an FN-FAL, both powerful and effective past 500 yards. Garand ammo and clips are getting a little tight, but you still find ammo in the .16-.22/rd range, whereas .308 is in the .12-.15 range. The M1 has the better sights - longer sight radius, better sight adjustment - and has the forward assist bolt handle, but the FN has a 20-rd mag, and extra FN mags are cheap. Add the bolt handle from the heavy barrel version so you have a positive forward assist, and you've cured biggest fault of the standard FAL.

Some people will stop there, with the FAL, as FAL prices range up to over $1200. Kinda raises a question about what you are getting with the cheap ones. But let's go one step farther, for you guys who have the bread and want the best. In my view, that's the M1A. You can still find them at gun shows for about $1100 new in the box. Used American-made ones might go for a hundred or two less than that, most of them are not used much at all. There is no better rifle in the defense of liberty than the M1A, under the standards anticipated above:

maximizing your impact while minimizing your risk,
keeping the other side in your 300-500 yard 'kill zone', while
keeping out of their 200 or 300-yard kill zone.

Where to begin? Why not set a goal? Get a British Enfield or SKS now, if that is all you can afford. Learn to shoot it like a Rifleman. Save up for an M1, or, better yet, an M1A. Make it a goal - a resolution - that you are going to get one. And don't assume you can take years to do it. They may not be around forever, and time is not on your side.

Buying an M1A requires choosing between rack-grade and match grade. You make this choice based on, first, your projected accuracy needs in the defense of the Second Amendment, and, second, selecting the most reliable and long-lasting rifle. Four MOA is good enough to hit a man at 500 yards, and a rack-grade out-of-the-box using surplus ammo should give you 3-4 MOA. Maybe, if you are lucky, and go to the trouble to 'match' various types of ammo to your rifle, you'll find one it really likes and maybe get 2-3 MOA.

Compare those results to the 1 MOA of a thoroughly accurized M1A. On the other hand, the match-grade rifle is much more expensive, requires handloading to optimize performance, and you'll likely give up some reliability - bad in life-and-death situations. In addition, that gilt-edge accuracy can have a short life-span of only a few thousand rounds, at best. On balance, you're better off with the rack-grade, putting the money saved into more ammo and shooting. Repetition is the mother of skill, and you'll want to put your new rifle through its paces -- again and again -- until you and your rifle are a well-practiced team in defense of Liberty.

Note: Everyone interested in becoming a Rifleman would be well advised to pick up a copy of Boston T. Party's Boston's Gun Bible (see www.fredsm14stocks.com/catalog/books.asp). Along with inspirational and hard-hitting chapters on Second Amendment issues, Boston has compiled an exhaustive comparison of all battle rifles and .223 carbines. His intensive evaluation says the M1A beats out the FAL by a small margin, but the lack of positive forward assist chambering on the FAL - potentially life-threatening -should be given far greater weight. You need to be able to correct a ammo feed problem quickly and with certainty if it occurs; a failure to feed/chamber is not a rare occurrence. However, add the forward assist modification from the heavy barrel version, and the FAL is back in the game.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gun grabbers in their own words.


It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals … the coalition’s emphasis is to keep handguns out of private possession — where they do the most harm.

– Recruiting flyer distributed by The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, formerly called The National Coalition to Ban Handguns


We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily-given the political realities-going to be very modest…So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again…Our ultimate goal-total control of handguns in the US-is going to take time….the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.

– Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (“The New Yorker”, July 26, 1976)


Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.

–Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy


We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons. And I would look forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a sidearm.

–Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner, and now a member of Handgun Control’s National Committee, during testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime Commissions


The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.

–U.S. Representative William Clay, Democrat (quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991)


Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.

– U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden


Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.

– Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, Nov. 18, 1993


We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! … We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!

– Rep. Charles Schumer, NBC Nightly News — Nov. 30, 1993.


We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing & import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.

–U.S. Representative Owens, Democrat


This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.

–Craig Washington, Dem.


If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it. I *could not* do that. The votes weren’t here.

–U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95


We urge passage of federal legislation–and meanwhile, in its absence, the partial remedy of state law–to prohibit, with few and narrowly drawn exceptions, the private ownership and possession of handguns, much the way existing laws prohibit machine guns, grenades and cannons.

– Adopted by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Board of Directors in September 1976; see national ACLU policy #47, “Gun Control”


My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not have guns. But I feel even stronger about the average person having them…most homeowners…simply have no need to own guns.

– Joseph McNamara, HCI spokesman, and former Chief of Police of San Jose, California


Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).

– Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview


There is no reason for anyone in this country — anyone except a police officer or a military person — to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun …The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.

– Michael Gardner, president of NBC News, in USA Today, January 16, 1992.


Only the police should have handguns.



I’m personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.

– Hillary Clinton, Nov. 4, 1993 New York Times


No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.

–U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat


The only thing a riflescope is good for is assassination.

–U.S. Senator Ira Metzenbaum, Democrat


The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.

–Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat


I don’t want to go for confiscation, but that is where we are going.

– Daryl Gates, Police Chief of Los Angeles, California


The Second Amendment has a profound influence on the entire gun control debate That’s because of an erroneous interpretation that the Second Amendment grants every American the “right to bear arms.” And thus any gun control legislation would interfere with that supposed right. But the truth is the Second Amendment only grants the right to bear arms to Americans serving in a militia

–Sarah Brady, Handgun Control Inc.


…a leading textbook publisher recently corrected the misinformation about the Second Amendment [that it give people the right to bear arms] previously included in its publications. And the newly written textbooks will soon be used in 11 state school systems. During this next year, we will be communicating with every major textbook publisher…we will expand this campaign to include reference works, government publications and other materials.

–Sarah Brady, Handgun Control Inc.


By making real the threat of civil damages against gun dealers who engage in reckless conduct, we are starting to provide a powerful incentive for dealers to…reevaluate the cost of doing business.

–Sarah Brady, Handgun Control Inc.


Here are seven more examples from the horses’ mouths:

1.      Dianne Feinstein on “60 Minutes” the week after the passage of Brady Bill: “If I thought I could get the votes I’d have taken them all”, That’s right Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.


2. Charles Krauthammer. April 5 l996 Washington Post: “The Brady Bill’s only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.’


3. Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53: “We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of hand guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.


4. W. Clay, Dem. Rep. St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993, pg. A1: Clay said the Brady Bill is “the minimum step” Congress should take. “We need much stricter gun control and eventually we should bar ownership of handguns except in a few cases.”


5. Senator J. Chafee, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15. 1992, pg. A13: “I will introduce legislation banning the sale manufacture or possession of handguns except in a few cases.”

6. M. Gartner, then President of NBC News, USA – Today, Jan 16, 1992, pg. A9. ‘I now think the only way to control handgun use is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.”

7. T. Winship, Editor – Boston Globe, in Editor and Publisher Magazine, April 24, 1993, pg. 24. ‘Investigate the NRA with renewed vigor. Print names of those who take NRA funds. Support all causes the NRA opposes. The Times-Herald is right. The work a day guy doesn’t envision total confiscation, but many with the real power to sway public opinion and effect change in America do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, harryramar said:

I've seen pictures of the Michigan militia, a bunch of fat slob old guys who strike fear into the hearts of no one.

well, maybe the owners of those all you can eat buffets, but no one else.

They aren't meant to strike fear.  Do you even know what a militia is for?  You are one stupid brainless fuck

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

What a militia is is a defunct type of citizen army that was useful in pushing back Indians and catching runaway slaves.

There are no militias in the US, unless you mean the National Guard.

The Idaho State Constitution disagrees with your assessment.


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, shintao said:

I have one. One of the problems with mine being somewhere early production,  the receivers were not hardened, and that could cause  them to crack. So while I have a low use, under 50 rounds, beautiful bore, you can't sell or assign them in gun shops, as they won't resell them. My dad bought it back in the 60's, new, still in the packaging and cosmoline. He used it for deer hunting, once.



Put a new receiver and bolt in. Fulton Armory has amazing products. Just keep your old receiver. Oil it and put it on the shelf. Then you can go out and shoot happy 7.62x51.  See, I can be nice top you. :)





Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

Okay ... what's "MOA" mean?


MOA = Minute of Angle = 1/60th of a Degree of Angle



Rifleman – someone who can, with rack-grade rifle and surplus ammo, maintain a 4 MOA group at ranges from 25 meters to 500 yards from field positions.


Part Eight: Ammo and Sights

Courtesy of Fred's M14 Stocks (www.fredsm14stocks.com)


...There are two basic sets of facts you need to memorize. The first is the relationship between where your shots are hitting on the target, the measurement unit of ‘minutes of angle’ – also known as ‘MOA’, and your sight settings.

MOA is what your sights are graduated in, whether an M1/M1A or scope. We’ll talk about other rifles later.

As the first step, you need to know that 1 MOA = ¼ inch at 25 meters. That distance is important, ‘cuz that’s where you’ll be doing a lot of practice shooting, until you acquire Rifleman skills.

That same 1 MOA equals 1 inch at 100 yards. How? Ratios – that icky stuff you avoided back in school. ¼ inch is to 25 yards as 1 inch is to 100 yards. Put another way, 100 yards is four times as much as 25 yards, right? And 1 inch is four times greater than ¼ inch, right?

Memorize this ratio so that you have it down cold: 1 MOA = ¼ inch at 25 yards = 1 inch at 100 yards = 2 inches at 200 yards = 3 inches at 300 yards = 4 inches at 400 yards = 5 inches at 500 yards...




Cone of Fire

The Rifleman is capable of a 4MOA standard. The accuracy accomplished at 25m will translate to Riflemen quality hits out at further distances. If one can keep all their shots in 1″ at 25m, then one can keep all their shots in 20″ at 500m. This is due to the cone of fire.



Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Veritas101 said:

They aren't meant to strike fear.  Do you even know what a militia is for?  You are one stupid brainless fuck

from the guy who said the popular vote is no indication of the popularity of the candidate. no wonder trump likes imbeciles like you, he can't fool anyone else. too funny

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rifleman information is interesting. Thank you for posting it.


But one thought: if you're giving people information on the use of weapons in case of civil disorder,  you need to include stuff on actual combat shooting, which is  likely to include many more scenarios than hitting a stationary target at a known distance. Stuff like walking your rounds up into a target (for those who are not really good 'one shot-one hit' people), not staying in one fixed firing position for too long, pre-figuring good firing positions with both concealment and cover, having all avenues of enemy approach covered (with each squad member assigned an overlapping arc to cover), etc.


Another point: guys who like guns will spend many hours and thousands of dollars perfecting their skills. But in an 'armed citizenry' scenario, you want people who aren't going to do this, still to be able to handle weapons competently. So you'd want your wife or girlfriend, or work mate who's not really into guns, to be able to become reasonably proficient in loading a magazine, inserting it, cocking the weapon, and getting rounds off in generally the right direction. It only requires a few hours practice doing this, but there is a big difference between someone who has never done it, and someone who has. And -- in my opinion -- you start them off with a little .22 with no recoil and not much sound ... and cheap ammo so they can shoot all afternoon at a range without busting their budget ... then work up to something more serious.  And I wouldn't bother with handguns -- not much use in real combat -- until they were comfortable with long arms. And above all ... safety, safety, safety. It's the unloaded gun that kills.


However, the real difficult thing ... and the thing that is most uncertain ... is, what kind of scenarios are you preparing for? If it's just the periodic Watts riot by drugged-up lumpens, over in three days, then the Koreans on the roof of their grocery store thing doesn't require much preparation.  Civil society is still functioning in the white and Asian areas, you probably have enough food to last thru the riot, the toilet works,  and so on. Probably the most-overlooked thing here is the legal side: being prepared for lawsuits from the relatives of the would be looters and rapists who happen to catch a bullet. Knowing what counts as self-defense, what evidence is admissible in court, etc. will be important.  (Drag the bodies indoors, give them a weapon or something that looks like one -- a toy rifle -- if they don't have one, etc... and don't be filmed doing it if you can help it.)


But for something approaching the Mad Max Apocalypse,  then the important thing is to going to be your social organization, supplies and stores,  backup, medical, comms,  and above all multiple plans.... an order of magnitude, or two, more difficult to organize because there is no parallel 'civilian' arrangement which can just be converted to a semi-military situation.  Which is, I suppose, why it's mainly religious cults which are best prepared for this.  And on the other hand, I think "preppers" have a fantasy vision in which they are alone (with a beautiful woman , of course) in their well-stocked isolated cabin up in the Sierras when five or so M13 bad boys walk up the road and get knocked   over by the lone prepper.  In reality, it will be the well-organized, the people who can mobilize, in an organized fashion, dozens, or hundreds, of fighters who would survive.





Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, harryramar said:

from the guy who said the popular vote is no indication of the popularity of the candidate. no wonder trump likes imbeciles like you, he can't fool anyone else. too funny

Already explained and won the argument you are a dumb fuck

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Veritas101 said:

Already explained and won the argument you are a dumb fuck

you lost weakling., think what you will I don't; give a shit what some trumpie think.

after all, you approved of don making his own son lie. that makes me so much better than you. now fuck off you dishonest little fella,



Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, harryramar said:

you lost weakling., think what you will I don't; give a shit what some trumpie think.

after all, you approved of don making his own son lie. that makes me so much better than you. now fuck off you dishonest little fella,



You are a dumb fuck that doesnt understand our system or how to use a dictionary.  You lose every argument but never know when to stop becuase you stupidly think the final word is the winner instead of the point.  You are a dumb unamerican fuck

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Veritas101 said:

You are a dumb fuck that doesnt understand our system or how to use a dictionary.  You lose every argument but never know when to stop becuase you stupidly think the final word is the winner instead of the point.  You are a dumb unamerican fuck

except your own words prove you are a dishonest little shit. anyone so inclined can go back and review what you wrote on this thread.

you claimed Hillary was less popular than don based on trump holding a rally in some angry right wing hot spot.

that was silliness and I suspect you know it. owning up and admitting a mistake takes more honesty and integrity than any of you loonie tune phonies have.

so  I won.

your own words prove it.

thanks and g'day mate


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil unrest and Self Defense are two separate issues, even though their solutions are both firearms related.


Civil unrest - generally deals with marauding bands of torch-carrying Communists... looting, burning, and committing violence on the Civil Society.


The last riot that threatened our neighborhood, our local militia determined interlaced shooting positions to defend our subdivision, and watches to man them. Every watch had armed, qualified riflemen. Luckily, the Communists chose other neighborhoods, as they would have been stacked like cord-wood had they chosen ours.


Self defense - is personnel. Small uncoordinated groups or singles, in and around the home, auto, or office, self or family, simply get the right tool for the job,  be it pistol, shotgun, or carbine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a firing shooting range in Los Angeles (near Pasadena) a few years ago -- I was surprised to find that about half, perhaps more, of the people there were Asians.  Were they just following a hobby, or were they planning for an American future in which they would need to defend their property from redistributionists?  I didn't ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2017 at 4:32 AM, Doug1943 said:

Although I normally carried the BAR, we used M1s when I was in high school ROTC in the 50s. I wonder what became of the millions that must have been manufactured? Sold to private owners? Except for the small magazine size (8, as I recall), a fine weapon. Presumably you can still get ammo for it?

Seeing how it's a 30.06, yeah you can get ammo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...