Often a military term generally meaning, Stop foolin' around; get only the gear you need, put it in one bag, and let's go. If someone says your shit is in one bag but there is no bag around, you're being complimented. So if you really want to know HOW to get your shit in one bag, here's the expert. Someone asked the question concerning the ammunition strategy, "How many magazines is enough?" We thought it was an excellent question. Thanks to Doc for some solid advice.
I calculate the minimum number as 3x whatever my standard carry is for that particular firearm. For example, my daily carry gun is a G30. I (nominally) carry 3 magazines for itone in the gun and two spares. So, my minimum for that gun is 9 magazines.
In reality, my wife has a G30 as wellso one would stock 18 magazines. And we often carry G21 mags (which fit) as the backup mags, so I have a minimum of 18 G30 mags, and 18 G21 mags.
As it happens, we have 4 G30's...so 36 G30 mags, and 36 G21 mags.
And we have 4 G21's...36 more G21 mags.
And as I said, those are minimum numbers. For my AR platforms, each one has at least 24 magazines. My M14's...21 each.
And so on.
We have a couple of FAL's...I bought 200 FAL magazines back when they were cheap (like a buck each). We also have a couple hundred G3 mags, for our PTR-91's, I got those at around $0.50 each. Since the mag is the most fragile part and crucial part of a weapon, it makes sense to stock up. Especially while we can.
It's clear some of us are serious weapons collectors.
Second Amendment and the Liberty Bell[/caption]As breaking news that an illegal gun ring has been snared in a sting by the Feds hits the media wires as I write this with the knowledge that the Supreme Court will soon address the right to bear arms issue again in a case from Chicago, it is more important than ever to remember why the Second Amendment is important, even precious to Americans who understand the consequences of ignoring the much maligned US Constitution.
We who appreciate the wisdom of our learned and conceptual founders have no choice but to oppose those in favor of touchy feely gun eradication laws, which leaves us helpless to defend ourselves and our families from intruders of every stripe, and worse, creating an environment where the rise of an oppressive fascist government intent on enslaving or abandoning its citizenry is inevitable.
A COMMON ERROR in Constitutional interpretation is the failure to examine the document in the context of its original meaning. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, suggesting to him that when examining and interpreting the Constitution, he should study the time in which the document was written, and “carry himself back to that time.”
This would seem to be good advice for today. The recent Heller vs. DC case might have gotten more votes in favor of Heller had the Supreme Court of today done just that.
We certainly know that during the time of the writing of the Constitution, every male citizen above the age of 16 was counted as a member of the militia. All males were assumed to own weapons (which most of them paid for), and be ready to muster when the call came. Of course, the first call for the militia was to fight the British in what has become known as the American Revolution.
Today, as during the early days of this country, the people are still the militia, in the usage of the word at the time of our founding. The actual purpose of having armed citizens was to guard against an overbearing government. In the inimitable words of our National Spokesperson, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, when speaking to Senator Chuck Schumer and other members of a Senate committee: “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect all of us (the people) from all of you (the politicians).”
We now live in a country that has been promised “Hope and Change” by our new president. Since we have no details of what “hope” and what “change” he was speaking about during the election, the Second Amendment is more important than ever. We must be ever more alert to signs of any government entity trying to erode the God-given and constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms and all other constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Mari Thompson is President of SAS, and is also one of its founding members.
GESTURE POLITICS SWEEP THE NATIONS. Guns and ammo fall into the hands of destroyers. Huns and sons of bitches. Puns are the gems of the language and the money they earn is thrown back into more guns and ammo. Enough said. Two Western governments once connected by an energy which flourished upon the land somehow found themselves compelled to sell their citizens short. Just so the stealth but vitriolic and plotting barbarians can rush in to steal their culture, their lives, and the souls of their children. Suicide. What kind of civilizational survival strategy is this?
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. We are told there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy b.1884 d.1943)
Of course these nasty, rather inconvenient statistics would never happen here in America, right, because we have our precious US Constitution to protect us from evil bandits and foreign and internal freedom fighters, right? Oops, Madame Sotomayor just slipped us a silver mickey, but hey, I think in the long run our millions of gun-hating people-loving progressive permissive class clowns might appreciate this...
Nn 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Priceless.
Bottom line: Americans must be crazy to cling to their guns and their religion and their matter of fact principles that fly in the face of all this BIG LOVE doled out by governmental gun control fanatics because every American know by now after all our progressive thought experiments that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with protecting oneself or one's family whether it be from a criminal enterprise or a criminal government.
Yes, that must be it. After all, they'll never come for me...
THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE has shifted over the last 20 years. Activists pointed to Britain, Australia and Canada as models of gun control policy; however, the statistics tell a far different story, says John Barnes of the Washington Policy Center. Read on...
It’s an age-old story. A criminal shoots someone, and then politicians propose gun-control measures that would have done nothing to prevent the shooting. On March 26, Kyle Huff killed six people at a late-night party in Seattle. Seattle mayor Greg Nickels immediately called for more regulations on guns. None of his proposals would have prevented the tragedy.
There is another side to stories about guns. In 1990 a group of gang members pulled a Seattle man from his bicycle and beat him. He used his legally-registered handgun to shoot one of the assailants and stop the attack. In 2002 a West Seattle woman shot an intruder who had broken into her home and was beating her roommate. In 2003 an elderly Tacoma man confined to his bed shot an intruder who had kicked in his door and attacked him. In 2004 a Spokane woman awoke one morning to discover an intruder in her house, whom she held at gunpoint until the police arrived. In all of these cases, if it were not for the legal use of guns in self-defense, the victims would likely be dead.
The gun control debate has shifted over the last 20 years. Back then it was common to hear that it is in everyone’s best interests if the government made guns go away. The legislative agenda of anti-gun groups was much more radical and overt. Activists pointed to Britain, Australia, and Canada as models of gun control policy.
In 1997 Britain banned handguns, and between 1998 and 2003 gun crimes doubled. According the British Home Office, between 1997 and 2001 homicides increased by 19% and violent crime increased by 26%, while in the U.S. those same crimes fell by 12%. Between 2000 and 2001, robbery increased by 28% in Britain but only 4% in the U.S. Domestic burglary increased by 7% in Britain, but only 3% in the U.S.
In 1996 Australia enacted sweeping gun control laws. In the six years following, violent crime rates rose by 32%. Canada isn’t faring well under its stringent gun control laws. Today Canada’s violent crime rate is more than double that of the U.S.
The fact that during this time right-to-carry laws were expanding in the U.S. makes these statistics all the more telling. Now 40 states allow citizens to carry guns. Violent crime rates are steadily declining in the U.S. Research—and common sense—show the “right-to-carry” by honest citizens deters crimes against persons and property.
Now even the most vocal anti-gun groups in Washington admit there is an individual right to own guns. The debates rage not over the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, but how to keep them away from criminals. But just because the debate has shifted doesn’t mean we are immune from bad ideas masquerading as sound public policy. Exhibit one is Mayor Greg Nickels’ knee-jerk call for more gun control.
Citing a rash of gun-related crimes in the past few months, the mayor wants the state to allow cities to tighten restrictions. He is going after the usual targets: “assault” weapons, the supposed “gun show loophole,” and requirements for trigger locks and “safe storage.” All of these are problematic.
There was a federal assault weapons ban in place from 1994 to 2004. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms says the ban did not reduce crime nationally. Criminals who wanted to obtain such weapons found easy ways to get them in spite of the ban. Moreover, law enforcement research shows these guns are used in only about 1% of violent crimes.
The National Institute of Justice found in the 1980s and again in 1997 that only 2% of criminal guns come from gun shows. A report by Handgun Control, Inc., (hardly a friend of gun rights) found only two of 48 big-city police chiefs said guns bought at shows were a major problem in their cities.
Research shows at least 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. Guns are used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes. Most often the mere sight of a gun prevents a crime from occurring or getting worse.
Reasonable gun restrictions are clearly necessary; obviously owning a machine gun shouldn’t be legal. But gun ownership is not only a fundamental constitutional right, it is a proven way to reduce crime and save lives.
Source: John Barnes, "Legal Gun Ownership Saves Lives," Washington Policy Center, May 17, 2006.
Of course, there are blank spots in the cited statistics above, but some trends are obvious. Deterrence is not a big headline grabber, but it does change the dynamics of who does what to whom and when. Indeed there are untold instances on record of someone "successfully" defending themselves and others against intruders, but of course the liberal media avoids these stories. What's more disturbing is the fact that often the surprised but alert homeowner is hauled into court to defend himself against charges, while the intruder skirts off. It's an outrage.
Criminals use guns illegally with impunity, and yet the system coddles them. Meanwhile law abiders are demonized, and if the anti-gun lobby has its way, soon they will be criminalized. Ironically, perhaps only then will the system begin to work in their favor again.
But don't take my word for it. Google the web using these four keywords: gun ownership saves lives. There are lots of stories supporting the data. One merely has to be open to the information.
That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.
That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.
That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.
That "NYPD Blue" and "Miami Vice" are documentaries.
That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.
That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.
That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't apply to manuals on gun repair.
That a woman in a microskirt, perfume, and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, "asking for it." And you won't allow either of them to carry a gun.
That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business, is reasonable. And it isn't a sign of police statism.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.
That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300 lb buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.
That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.
That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.
That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.
That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.
That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that constitution.
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gunmakers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.
That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a "weapon of mass destruction" and an "assault weapon."
That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun toting guards.
That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.
That the right of online child pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, and the claim that handguns are for self defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns, too.
That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops beer instead of guns.
That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.
Copyright 1999, 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson Permission is granted to copy in part or in total for non-profit purposes, provided due credit is given.
DOES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA need a drastic realignment of ideas and physical framework to deter a second American Revolution or Civil War and provide direction for the coming age where complexity is the norm? Yes. That is the opinion outlined in the penetrating Ludwig Von Mises Institute essay "On the Impossibility of Limited Government" described in more stringent detail in a most riveting book all patriots and political junkies should find time to absorbReassessing the Presidency:
"At the outset of the American "experiment," writes Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "the tax burden imposed on Americans was light, indeed almost negligible. Money consisted of fixed quantities of gold and silver. The definition of private property was clear and seemingly immutable, and the right to self-defense was regarded as sacrosanct. No standing army existed, and a firm commitment to free trade and a noninterventionist foreign policy appeared to be in place. Two hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically. What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it isan error."