Sunday Jams - A Farewell

The Funeral will be held in Leeds, Alabama on Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 2PM,

Kilgroe Funeral Home

1750 Ashville Rd, Leeds, AL 35094  

205-699-3181 

Link to the Funeral Home

Link to Directions

A Patriot has passed on today.

Mike Vanderboegh, husband, father of three, and founder of the III% movement passed peacefully in his beloved Alabama home today.

In life, he fought tirelessly to restore the liberties that we had taken for granted. Because of his leadership and the movement that he created, we take them for granted no more. He was able to awaken minds to the possibility that a determined minority of free people could accomplish anything; so long as they did it together. They did not need a leader. They needed a cause and a banner from which to advance the cause of freedom. The III percent is that cause.

Mike continued to give everything after so much had been taken away by the illness. Through his struggle he became a symbol of what can be accomplished if we only have the indomitable will to make it happen. Through his words he was able to breathe life into the sails of a resurging Patriot movement. His work may be done, but for those that remain, it is just beginning,

A Patriot died today. But his work will live on in the everyday push for freedom. His was a voice that was made silent, but his work will continue to echo so long as free men and women have the means to resist The future doesn’t belong to the craven; it belongs to the brave.

Tacticool Tuesday - The venerable Woobie and GI Poncho

It has been said repeatedly that the best thing that the US military has invented, (other than advances in medicine, space travel, the internet, and robotics), is the Woobie, aka Poncho Liner.  Let's start there.

Poncho Liner

Our Hero

For the two of you in the free world that are uninitiated in its magic, the poncho liner is a camouflage synthetic blanket that is light, warm, and easily packable.  The poncho liner, affectionately and hereafter called a 'woobie", has largely remained unchanged since it was introduced to Soldiers in Vietnam.  It is by no means any more water resistant than any other light nylon, and it will not retain some of its warmth if it becomes drenched, (as wool would).  It will, however, dry much quicker and the weight savings and cost alone vice wool is enough to choose one over the other.  If you buy a gently used poncho liner at a surplus store for over twenty five dollars, you are being overcharged.

Necessity being the mother of invention, bright boys and girls have been improving upon the woobie for years.  According to BreachBangClear.com, the USMC has issued a product improvement in the way of a two way zipper.  Most often in temperate climates, a blanket is all that is needed when you are out in the elements. In adding a zipper, it keeps the heat in where it is needed and eliminates the need to carry a bulky patrol bag.   The addition of the zipper has two functions.  First, you can mate up two different woobies to make a double thickness blanket.  This also allows you to stuff some biomass insulation, (pine needles, cat tail down, leaves, etc.) in between the two mated blankets to increase the thermal retention capabilities in an emergency.  Especially in the field when the OPFOR is in the area, it is better to have a blanket on you that you can quickly discard than be wrapped up in a constricting sleeping bag.

The commercial market has produced some excellent ways for you to be able to buy your way out of a cold night.  There are a ton of excellent, undoubtedly tacticool, and pricey improvements to the woobie that are worth mentioning.  The top of the heap, Kifaru, makes the Woobie and and Doobie, (3.6 and 6 oz. of insulation). Hill People Gear has the Mountain Serape which comes also in two sizes.  Wiggys offers an improved poncho liner with zippers and with ties that is made with the same insulation found in their bags.  Snugpak has the cheapest of the bunch with their insulated jungle blanket.  The Kifaru and Hill People Gear blankets are designed to be snapped together around the body so you can essentially wear it in conjunction with your poncho.  You can, however, mod a USGI woobie to do something very similar with zippers.  That video you can find at the end of the article.

Poncho

The poncho is often overlooked with the introduction of Gore-tex and softshell overgarments.  In the military, I only ever really used the poncho to construct a hasty overhead cover, (just once), or to simply protect my rucksack from the rain when I had to ground it.  The poncho and poncho liner are on every unit packing list for the field but like the elbow pads or Camelbak cleaning kit, you rarely ever took it out of the plastic when it was given to you by the Central Issue Facility.

As I have started to look beyond the meat-headed military purpose, I see how much more useful the lowly poncho can be.  Normally, if I was out runing around in hot weather, (being a multiple heat casualty just about anything over 50 degrees is hot weather to me), and it began to rain, I would just keep going.  After all, I am made out of sugar.  I now see the poncho as something useful and breathable that can keep me from a fair amount of undue misery.  Contrary to popular opinion, you do not always have to "embrace the suck".  Not only is the poncho good for its intended purpose, it can be used in a variety of other ways.  The most popular being, of course, as a legitimate shelter.

Photo courtesy of Preparedness Advice

As I have stated before in another post, I am in awe of the ingenuity of the Alpha Tent.  With the addition of a couple of lightweight collapsible poles, you can make the poncho into a decent enough shelter for three seasons of temperate weather.  This is the most lightweight shelter system that I know aside from building a time consuming debris hut.  One Alpha tent with a tea candle can get you pretty far in a bad spot in the woods.

The poncho has also been product improved on the commercial market and thoughtful modifications have been done to make it more usable.  My favorite of the commercial ponchos are from Bushcraft Outfitters, the Poncho Tarp.  It is worth mentioning that they also produce the MEST Tarp which is 5x7 and weighs a whopping 13 ounces.  These two in conjunction, one cover, and one ground cloth, will weigh less than a normal two piece tent and are imminently more useful as they can be used for other things.  Had I to do it over again, I would have saved the money I spent on the Snugpak Ionosphere and bought these two instead.  We'll see what Santa brings.

I know that many foreign governments have also produced their version of the poncho and these can be found floating around the surplus world with varying regularity.  The Swedish and German are of decent enough quality.  I remember an eastern bloc version that was ridiculously reminiscent of a drab Klan outfit.  I'd stay away from that one.  I cannot personally speak for any of these, but I would recommend that you do the research before you purchase.  If, however, you find any of them for less than ten dollars, I would suggest you snap it up immediately.  Treat it to some Camp Dry on occasion, and you will can never go wrong with a lightweight groundcloth or cover.

Tying it all together

If you examine both the USGI poncho, and poncho liner, it does not look like it would mate up well,  I personally have not used the equipment this way, but that is not to say that my unique experiences will match up to yours.  This video illustrates now to put the two pieces together and some other small gear mods that you may find useful.

This mod video is in German, but it illustrates some wonderful ways in which you can product improve the poncho liner to create a more functional piece of equipment,  German over-engineering for sure, and God bless them for it.

If you wish to purchase a either USGI issue Poncho or Poncho Liner online, I would ask that you  to consider supporting patriot businesses like Main Gun.  You can find a link to that here.

Rawles offers solutions to the problems of a dying Leviathan

Madame President Clinton’s Coming War on the Blogosphere, and Your Countermeasures

by James Wesley Rawles

Now that Hillary (“Hitlery”) Rodham Clinton (HRC) has received the Democratic Party nomination for president, there is a strong likelihood that she will win the election in November and then be enthroned as president in January of 2017. I predict that she willwaste no time in launching an onslaught of punitive new policies via executive orders, presidential memoranda, and policy directives promulgated through her cabinet and Federal agencies to eviscerate our Constitutional rights (most notably the 1st and 2nd Amendments). A key goal this campaign will be silencing dissent in the alternative press and the American blogosphere. Given HRC’s history in government “service”, her outlook on life, her socialist agenda, and her vindictiveness, I anticipate that any or all of the following measures will be undertaken by the HRC Administration:

• The Department of Justice (DOJ) will be used to selectively prosecute dissenters for “hate speech”. For instance, simply objecting to illegal immigration or state sponsored relocation of Muslims will be called “evidence of hate.” They will also declare blogs, news sites, and podcasts to be “public accommodations” and hence saddle them with a long list of new restrictions that would effectively muzzle them from making any comments opposed to HRC’s agenda and “protected” classes. Even the use of “trigger words” could be restricted.
• The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) will be used to target dissenters who make any comments about any corporations, mutual funds, or banks, for “operating as unregistered investment advisors”.
• The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will be used to target Libertarians and other dissenters for “unlawful campaigning”.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will use their newly-assumed powers over the Internet to enforce a new radicalized version of the moribund Fairness Doctrine upon bloggers, vloggers (video bloggers), podcasters, as well as newspapermen, magazine writers, and talk radio hosts. Under this new and improved fairness policy, any media outlet that is deemed a public accommodation will be forced to free of charge provide equal space to assorted perverts, leftists, and Social Justice Warriors. Failure to do so will open up these news outlets to both criminal prosecution and costly civil lawsuits.
• The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will be used to selectively audit tax filings, levy bank accounts, garnish wages, and refer criminal prosecution of anyone who voices dissent of HRC’s statist/collectivist agenda. Lois Lerner’s group was just the precursor!
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be used to target dissenters who own property with seasonal puddles that could be deemed “wetlands” or creeks that could be arbitrarily declared “navigable waters”.
• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency will be used to target dissenters living within 50 miles of the Mexican or Canadian borders for harassment and intimidation, searching their homes without warrants.
• The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and associated Tribal Police will be used to target dissenters living within 100 miles of any Tribal Reservation for harassment and intimidation.
• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will crack down on any bloggers who make posts that might be construed as a product review or product endorsement.
• The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) will be used to limit the travel of anyone deemed by HRC’s cronies to be an Enemy of the State (through expansion of the No Fly List, Terror Watch List, and Selectee List).
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will crack down on producers of raw milk and nutritional supplements (and also on the bloggers who promote them).
• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will prosecute anyone operating unlicensed drones weighing more than just a few ounces.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will use both its own agents and paid (or coerced) surrogate agent provocateurs to infiltrate militias, patriot groups, and secessionist organizations. There, they will foment schemes that can be prosecuted under loosely-worded Federal conspiracy laws. (This is precisely what was done with the Bundy Ranch and Malheur Wildlife Refuge protestors.)
• Working in conjunction with the FCC, the U.S. Coast Guard will board any ship within Territorial Waters that they suspect of operating an unlicensed transmitter.

I can see all of this coming, and I refuse to be muzzled. I aim to misbehave. If need be, I will relocate so that I can still blog freely. In anticipation of HRC’s possible upcoming coronation, here are some possible countermeasures for my fellow bloggers to seriously consider:

1. Contract for the use of an offshore server in a country that has minimal influence from the United States government, and move your web pages there.
2. Get set up for encrypted e-mail. (The free GPG software installed on your local PC works quite well. And for those who are less tech savvy, the paid Unseen.is service in Iceland works fine.)
3. Post provisos on your web site that are similar to my own. (Most importantly, these provisos must declare that you do not operate a “public accommodation.”)
4. Buy an Iridium satellite telephone and a set of Iridium international power adapters. (Unlike cell phones or other sat phones, calls made from Iridium constellation phones can be traced only to a particular oval satellite “footprint” that measures hundreds of miles across.)
5. Buy several inexpensive prepaid “burner” cell phones. Pay greenback cash for these phones, and use an assumed name when you eventually activate them.
6. Buy a nondescript camping trailer or RV and quietly (via face-to-face contacts only) develop a “hospitality list” of like-minded families who own parcels of land that you can bounce between, in the event that you need to take refuge.
7. Buy a spare laptop computer (preferably one that is ultra-reliable, such as aPanasonic Toughbook), a 12 VDC car adapter, and a set of international power adapters.
8. Buy a USB external long range Yagi wireless antenna to use with your laptops. (The standoff distance that these provide will make it harder to pinpoint your location when using a public wi-fi hotspot.)
9. Buy a batch of at least 40 inexpensive 2 GB USB memory sticks that you can use to physically mail (or courier) digital content, to keep your locale secret.
10. Make sure that your passport is updated.
11. Do some research to develop a short list of countries where you would consider relocating. Ideally, a country should have respect for the freedom of speech, minimal taxation, minimal influence from the United States government, and NO rendition (extradition) treaty with the United States.
12. Establish an offshore bank account.
13. Beyond just offshore residency, if you can afford it, then buy a second passport. (Typically, this is done with a “Citizenship Through Investment” program.)
14. Via encrypted e-mail, develop contacts with foreign bloggers, and get their tentative agreement to post your ghost-written articles, if circumstances change.
15. Pray hard.

I don’t mean for the foregoing to sound alarmist. Consider me a realist. – JWR

Note: Permission is granted for re-posting of this entire article, but only if done so in full, with proper attribution to James Wesley, Rawles and SurvivalBlog, and only if the included links are preserved.)

Only the dead have seen the end of war

Rifle Cleaning - Long Range Shooting Tip

If you read nothing else all day...

The Myth of the National Three Percent Organization

by Kit Perez

A lot of people claim to be part of the Three Percent. A lot of people claim to know what the Three Percent stands for…but do they? There are quite a few myths out there about who we are and what we believe, and sadly, even some of the folks who claim to be in the Three Percent believe those myths. Truth is important; we’ll be dispelling one of the biggest myths today, and we’ll do it by going back to the source of the III% founder himself. Why is it important? Because of this: “there are apparently many people who have adopted the moniker of Three Percenter, for whatever reason, but who wouldn’t recognize these principles if they came up and bit them in the ass.”

Let’s get started.
The Three Percent is a National Organization: False.

All over social media, you can find groups claiming to be III%. They post the symbols, use the lingo (or try to), and talk about things like unity and their “national affiliation.” Some of these groups pattern themselves after the military, and wear self-assigned rank (usually an O-3 or above; no one wants to be the butterbar, apparently). They call themselves every variation of Three Percent you can think of, and many of them claim national legitimacy.

The following statement needs to be very clear:

There is no national Three Percent organization, and there was never intended to be one. In fact, the idea of a national Three Percent organization goes directly against what the III% was designed to be. The III% is a local concept, meaning that its entire purpose was to foster cooperation and small groups locally for the purpose of active resistance, defiance, and preparation. Your neighbors, your church, your family and friends. Mike Vanderboegh, the founder of the III%,wrote the following:

"I deliberately formulated the Three Percent idea as a movement, an idea, a philosophy and a discipline BUT NOT AN ORGANIZATION. Attempts at large regional, state or national organizations, anything beyond local formations, are subject to infiltration, dysfunction, discredit and collapse. Anyone who tells you different is selling something."

There is a huge push, especially by groups on Facebook and other social media, to bring in as many people as possible. They want unity, they want a huge crowd of people. Some militia groups attach III% to their names, and call each other Colonel and Captain and Major and even General. They claim to be networking and ‘working intel,’ but all of this effort goes in direct opposition to what the entire point of the III% concept is–and ruins its potential and efficiency. The strength of the III% concept is its small-group, locally-focused resistance model.

By insisting on a pyramid, top-down, crowd leadership structure, folks claiming to be part of a III% national organization miss some very basic points that Mike outlined above. There’s a reason why the III% was designed NOT to be a national organization. Let’s take a closer look at why.
Infiltration

The bigger the group, the more vulnerable it is. There are many who may feel as though they need the comfort of a large group. Part of that comes from a need to share responsibility. People claim to want to fight, or resist, or claim to be ready to do “violent things,” but they want to make sure they have a crowd behind them. This is why you see so many people say things such as “How much longer are we going to stand for X?” What they’re actually saying is, “I want to go and do something but I don’t want to do it by myself, I want to follow someone else who is going to do it.” This is incredibly exploitable because all someone needs to do is hone in on that need. Those are the folks who can be manipulated, who can be talked into taking actions that are immoral—and also against the III% catechism and values. The sheer math of group dynamics means that the more people you have, the more chance you have of being compromised. It’s that simple.

This is one of the many reasons that the III% was set up as a local concept. Your group is not your four states’ worth of guys who get together every few weeks or months, put on some face paint, and run around in the woods with you. Your group is your family, your close friends who understand what’s going on and would show up at 3 am no questions asked if you needed it. A group of five people, who have known each other for years and know each other’s secrets and weaknesses and strengths, is a lot harder to infiltrate than a Facebook group of 250+ people who have never met but call each other “brother,” or even a real-life unit of 50 people who get together to shoot their rifles or go to rallies. Infiltration is happening all the time, all over the movement–and nowhere more obviously than in these huge groups who insist on needing a following.

If you are strong enough in your beliefs, you don’t need a crowd to stand for them with you. A III% member following the catechism, following the principles and values, will probably not be part of a large group because they understand that the III% was not ever designed to BE a large group, but a network of local groups and local resistance. As Mike wrote:

"The Three Percent idea, being an idea, is internalized and finds expression in action when required without any top-down organization issuing orders."

Dysfunction

If there’s anything in the patriot movement, it’s dysfunction. Groups run by ego-driven individuals who insist on total obedience from their “troops,” people running around calling themselves “General” and complaining that someone took action without “proper protocol,” people spreading gossip and rumors while calling it “intel.” The level of drama in many patriot groups right now calling themselves III% is staggering. They use words like “opsec” as a catch-all phrase, throw around terms like “deploy,” and try very hard to copy the military in many of their endeavors, completely missing the point that the III% was never intended to be an organization at all, let alone one structured after the military.

Discredit
When a group chooses to deviate from a small group mentality, instead choosing to chase after numbers, they run the risk of their members eventually discrediting them and what they stand for. As has been written elsewhere, by bringing someone into your group and allowing them to be a part of your activities, you are saying that you identify with their belief system, and you are willing to let their actions help define your group culture. Unless every single member that you bring in shares your group culture and values, they will end up discrediting you. By default, this means you need to keep your groups small; this ensures that your group has a shared cultural value (much like John Mosby’s concept of tribalism) that will be enhanced and carried on by its members instead of morphed and changed or even discredited. If you say, “No, we aren’t defined by our members and they don’t all speak for us,” then why are they in your group? Just for the numbers? Would you allow a member of ISIS in your group? How about a neo-Nazi? Why not? Because they do not share your values.

In any large, top-down organization (which you seem determined to have out of whatever motive that can only be guessed at — failure to understand the nature of your enemy in a 4th Generation Warfare world; lack of imagination as to the probable negatives of such a move; misplaced enthusiasm at spreading an idea you apparently have failed to properly grasp; or, the simplest explanation, plain ego), personnel, my friend, is policy.

What does this mean to you? It means that your members are who YOU are, as a group. The loudmouth in your group who consistently says inflammatory things and derides others for not being ready to “rise up and fight” reflects on you and your group. The guy who insists on being a security risk because he’s “not doing anything illegal” reflects on you as a group. Whoever you take in must share your values. It’s not about being an echo chamber; you don’t all need to be Mormons or atheists or Presbyterians or Christians or home schoolers or whatever else. You do, however, need to be very clear on what your group goals are, and what you as a group believe or want to accomplish. Regardless of whatever else you believe, you MUST share the values and the catechism of the III% itself.

Collapse

The natural end result of large groups with infiltration, dysfunction, ego and problems, who operate outside the established framework of what the III% was designed to be and to do, is a collapse. This is why groups fail, over and over. Someone will rise to prominence as head of a group, will call themselves by some self-appointed rank and issue “orders,” and eventually the problems happen. Members ‘go rogue’ and do things to embarrass the greater group, seek more power or publicity, turn on their fellow members or leadership. Leaders themselves let the power go to their head, and find themselves acting like they are kings and tyrants themselves. Their groups implode, or split, and the various members form more groups, where they incorporate the same top-down model, the same poor vetting practices, the same refusal to study and understand the original concept of the III% and what it stands for. What happens to these new groups? The same things, over and over.

The Three Percent is a Local Concept

After 1500 words or so explaining what the III% is not, it’s time to explain what it is. We’re all familiar with the story of the colonists and their stand against the British. But while many who claim the title of III% know that story, they forget—or simply don’t know—that it is only a part of what the III% purpose is. The person best equipped to explain what the III% means is the person who designed the concept, who founded the very movement we claim to be a part of. In short, “Any stupid ass can call himself a Three Percenter, the proof is in the practice of principle.” It’s that simple. It’s not enough to claim the title. You must also live the life–a life of training, of self-discipline and discernment. A life spent forging relationships and networks that are close, solid, and trustworthy.

We have our enemy’s promises that they will negate any possibility of our using the standard methods of politics against them. They have won the “majority vote” decision. Fine. But if we are to avoid conflict, we must convince them of how little this actually buys them in the way of power. We do that by building up the armed citizenry, one three-man buddy team, one six-man fire team and one squad at a time. Don’t advertise. Friends and neighbors will do nicely. And remember, you’re doing this in case the deterrence doesn’t work. This is as real as it gets, folks. Act like it.

The III% has values and principles. Those who claim to be part of the Three Percent either must follow those values and principles, or they are not a Three Percenter. Those who commit actions that go against the catechism are not Three Percenters. Those who seek violence while claiming to be part of the Three Percent are not part of us. Those who set aside the small group, locally-focused concept of the III% in favor of vast bands of people only marginally held together by false ranks and fantasy are not Three Percenters. As Mike wrote:

These four principles — moral strength, physical readiness, no first use of force and no targeting of innocents — are the hallmarks of the Three Percent ideal. Anyone who cannot accept them as a self-imposed discipline in the fight to restore the Founders’ Republic should find something else to do and cease calling themselves a “Three Percenter.”

Anyone can wear the patch or claim the name. What matters, as always, are their actions.

Statistics tells us it does not matter what you carry, so long as you carry

I count myself very lucky that I have never had the opportunity present itself wherein I had to defensively pull a firearm from concealment to diffuse a situation.  As they say, it is only a matter of time for anyone.  The Old Man did tell me of an encounter he had in a side street of Birmingham earlier this this year when he was still mobile.  Having just come back from, (I think), the Birmingham Public Library, he was walking down a five foot or so wide passageway that was created by a gap in two large municipal buildings.  Not big enough for cars, but it did provide a decent enough place for foot traffic.  As he walked down the path, he was approached by a younger gentleman who noticed that Mike had a hat on that read, in part, "All Lives Matter".  I say in part because the portion that was written underneath was covered up, and said simply. "That's why I'm armed".  Valuable information that the guy would have taken into consideration had he seen it.  The kid, whom was guessed to be of reasonably athletic build and in his late teens to early twenties, saw the hat about 15 feet out and immediately changed his facial expression to stone cold hate.

When the two were just within striking distance, the kid changed his direction and punched at Mike.  The blow was so angry and forceful, he threw the full force of weight into it and became unbalanced.  Mike was able to just dodge the punch to his head and the attacker's kinetic energy carried him to the ground.  Thugs, of either the fake or very real variety, are by nature not the most pleasant bunch, so when they telegraph their intentions it is best to capitalize on it.  When Mike noticed a change in the guys demeanor, he had already started to reach in his front pocket to get a handle on the 380 Taurus.  When the thug struck at him, he was able to step away, pull out the pistol and aim it at his attackers face.  This did not entirely deter his assaulter from resuming the attack.

"It is going to be pretty sad day for your Mama when they have to pick your fucking brains off of the fucking wall after I shoot you", was the only thing that Mike could summon to say.  The kid was still visibly enraged and started to rise.  Fortunately for our would-be attacker, self-preservation took over and he deflated.  Upon seeing that the lead taken from the kids pencil, Mike said, "Now git".   Trayvon ran off in the direction he was originally going and Mike was able to continued going on his.

This was not the first time that he had to pull a pistol in Birmingham.  I believe it was in the mid to late 90's he occupied in one of his favorite things to do, which was to sit in his car and read a news paper that he had just bought at a gas station.  An older gentleman, that appeared to be homeless, approached his car from about 50 feet and said over and over, more loudly each time, "Give me 10 dollas".  When the guy reached to about 10 feet out, Mike produced a Keltec P11 9mm with an extra magazine, and told him, "How about I give you eleven plus ten".  Mr. Mugger made a surprisingly quick 180 degree turn and left without his 10 dollas.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

A 2011 article by Greg Ellifritz of the Buckeye Firearms Association aggregates the stopping power of various common calibers of pistol and compares the data by several factors.  Data is compared by the number of individual incidents per caliber, whether the incident netted one shot or multiple shots fired, if the shots incapacitated the target (or not), and the general shot placement of the bullet.  Math is hard to argue with but I would agree with the author that there are circumstances that are not addressed.  The study does, however, indicate that it is as much of the size of the dog in the fight as it is the size of the fight in the dog.







Now before we get into the weeds with that the venerable small game round, the 22, (or any particular pet round) as the "be all, end all" self defense round, the author has this to consider:

"In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this."

I contacted Mr. Eillifritz to see if I he could, perhaps, shed any more light on the subject or if he had altered his opinion in the years since he wrote the article. To my honor and delight, he is a regular reader and gave this very thoughtful response:

"After a few years, I am realizing that two additional factors come into play when determining how quickly an attackers stops after being shot. 

"The first is whether the attacker is shot by a cop or an armed citizen. A criminal knows that if he flees an armed citizen, he is likely to survive and not be arrested. The same does not hold true after being shot by a cop. The cop is going to continue the fight until the criminal is either incapacitated or arrested. That means criminals fight harder against cops than they do against armed citizens. 

"Many of the 9mm and .40 shootings are police incidents. I think that leads to a potentially inflated number of rounds taken by criminals in those incidents. 

"The other factor is the speed at which the rounds can be fired. Most people can fire a 9mm faster than they can fire a .45. In scenarios that are psychological stops (not physical incapacitations). it takes a certain period of time for the criminal to recognize that he has been shot and either flee or comply. 

"For the sake of argument, let's say that period of time is 3 seconds. In three seconds, I am likely to hit you with more rounds if I am shooting a 9mm than if I am shooting a .45. In reality, one bullet from either caliber would have likely caused the same reaction. The number of hits ends up more being a function of how quickly the shots can be fired rather than how effective the cartridge is. 

"I think these are the prime reasons why the .22 and .25 did so well. Both are primarily shot by armed citizens. The criminals got hit with one shot and fled. Also the .22 mini revolvers and tiny autos tend to be slower to fire than a full sized auto pistol. They are also more prone to malfunctions. Those factors may be the reason that those particular calibers required such a small number of shots to stop the attack. 

"Overall, that's about the only thing I can add to the information that I wrote back in 2011. If anything, it leads me to believe that there is even LESS difference between all those cartridges than my original study determined."

I could not find definitive numbers, one way or the other, of instances where the mere presence of a firearm brought about a peaceful resolution to the crime.  However, I think it is fairly self-evident that the presence of a firearm, any firearm, is usually enough to make an attacker question their life choice.  If you are going to choose to carry, and I sincerely hope you are even if a little state funded bureaucrat is telling you that you cannot.  But if you choose to carry, the Rawlesian philosophy of ATGATT, or All The Gear, All The Time, would mean you carry the weapon plus spare mags.  All. The. Time.  At the very least it just might save you 10 dollas.

One clear takeaway from the data is that we can argue about pistol calibers in perpetuity.  What trumps them all are rifles and shotguns.

Makes you wonder why, if handguns are the overwhelming winner in firearm related deaths, that the Social Elites want your long guns so bad.  You know...for the children.

Get off my lawn.

III% Fan-art for the day

Be sure and give them a like too.

The Battle of Athens 70th Anniversary. August 1st and 2nd, 1946

Click here for the David Codrea JPFO publishing of the 1995's Guns and Ammo article that popularized the event.

And who better to tell the story of why the battle was important than Mike in his own words.

A Restatement of First Principles. Part Two: The armed citizenry as the credible deterrent to federal government 

A couple of days ago, I began this series with A Restatement of First Principles. Part One: What is the purpose of the armed citizenry? I wrote:

In practical terms, the armed citizenry is supposed to:

1. Provide security in life, liberty and property to each citizen in his home from depredation by common criminals;

2. Provide security in life, liberty and property to the community by assisting, when necessary, duly constituted authority in maintaining civil order; and

3. Provide security in life, liberty and property to the states and nation by being the credible countervailing power to would-be tyrannical government.

These three functions are provided for in the concept of a "well-regulated militia," -- which at the time meant well disciplined, well led, well trained, well armed, with weapons of common caliber -- bands of citizen soldiers operating in the common defense of life, liberty and property.

As I wrote then, Tasks One and Two are, even today, largely uncontroversial and even unpolitical (except in the minds of the most demanding hoplophobes, see, for a current example, Law professor dismisses reason for Second Amendment as 'historical trivia'). Task Three, on the other hand, is entirely political, for this was the principal purpose of the Founders in codifying it in the the Second Amendment.

As the quotes cited in Part One from various men of the Founders' generation show, they were suspicious of a standing army and even a "select" militia and counted on the general militia of all able-bodied citizens to restrain the standing army if it was directed for some tyrannical purpose by an American would-be dictator. It is important to remember that these suspicious Founders fully expected a future American Caesar to be elected by a majority of the citizens, using the tools of the demagogue, and representing the "tyranny of the mob." The Founders were as critical of unrestrained democracy as they were Caesarism or monarchy. This is why they crafted a constitutional republic of competing branches and ordered liberty.

The armed citizenry was key to the maintenance of their ideal. And though their concept was, according to the military and political realities of their time, sophisticated, its premise was simple: as long as the people had the means to kill a tyrant, the would-be tyrant would be restrained by that fear even if the rest of the system of checks and balances had failed in allowing his rise. (Ben Franklin's comment at the time of the Constitutional Convention arguments is instructive: "It is good that we have provided for impeachment for the alternative is assassination.")

The Founders also understood the common militia as a countervailing power to local tyranny, and would have celebrated the 1946 Battle of Athens as a perfect example of what they expected from the citizenry. Note that the Battle of Athens was made necessary by the prior complete failure of a corrupt local system to protect the people. The Founders expected that the political process would be exhausted, as indeed they had done, before the people exercised their right to defensive use of arms. The Founders were, first and foremost, cognizant of the moral components of both politics and war.

But we stand now in the opening decades of the 21st Century, following that most ghastly violent 20th, where dictators ruled, genocides flourished and simple resistance by even an armed populace against the ever more powerful tools of the modern state has become more and more difficult, at least as the Founders imagined it given the realities of the late 18th Century.

Does this negate their idea? Certainly not. Nor does it, actually, change their requirement for trained, equipped citizen soldiers -- "well regulated militias" -- familiar with light infantry arms and ready to maintain order as required by Tasks One and Two above. Indeed, the citizen soldier of today must be as ready to muster and maneuver according to need as the Minute Men of old. And they must be as familiar with the entire range of weaponry required by the 21st Century soldier, including the laptop, as was Capt. Parker's company with the Brown Bess or5 Morgan's Rifle Corps with the Kentucky rifle, the knife and the tomahawk.

What has changed is the character of successful modern warfare and how that applies to the credible deterrence of tyranny, and that means applying lessons as old as Sun Tzu but called today by the moniker of Fourth Generation Warfare to the uniquely American realities today. From Wikipedia:

Fourth generation warfare is normally characterized by a violent non-state actor (VNSA) fighting a state. This fighting can be physically done, such as by modern examples Hezbollah or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In this realm the VNSA uses all three levels of fourth generation warfare. These are the physical (actual combat; it is considered the least important), mental (the will to fight, belief in victory, etc.) and moral (the most important, this includes cultural norms, etc.) levels.

A 4GW enemy has the following characteristics: lacks hierarchal authority, lack of formal structure, (has) patience and flexibility, (Has the) ability to keep a low profile when needed, and small size. A 4GW adversary might use the tactics of an insurgent, terrorist, or guerrilla in order to wage war against a nation's infastructure. Fourth generation warfare takes place on all fronts: economical, political, the media, military, and civilian.

Resistance can also be below the physical level of violence. This is via non-violent means, such as Gandhi’s opposition to the British Empire or Martin Luther King’s marches. Both desired their factions to deescalate the conflict while the state escalates against them, the objective being to target the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level. The state is then seen as a bully and loses support.

Another characteristic of fourth generation warfare is that as with third generation warfare, the VNSA’s forces are decentralized. With fourth generation warfare there may even be no single organisation and that smaller groups organize into impromptu alliances to target a bigger threat (that being the state armed forces or another faction). As a result these alliances are weak and if the state’s military leadership is smart enough they can split their enemy and cause them to fight amongst themselves.

Further, says Wikipedia, Fourth generation warfare goals are:

1 .Survival

Now, in the Founder's context, substitute "armed citizenry" for Violent Non-State Actor and delete any use of terror tactics, especially targeted against innocents. Governments think they can afford "collateral damage," the armed citizenry cannot. It is not just our survival that counts, but all of the people, even those who disagree with us but who are not combatants. But survival merely ensures you stay in the fight. It is the second goal that is primary:

2. To convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit.

Read that again. I would like to make just one change. My version would read thusly:

2. To convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived PERSONALbenefit.

Deterrence before any fight rests on this. Winning the fight after the tyrant begins his campaign of violence against the people cannot happen without it. The tyrant and his political decision makers must understand that they will pay a PERSONAL price for their depredations. If they fail to recognize before the fact then they must, like the Bugger Queens in Ender's Game, be taught by people who recognize that "the enemy's gate is down," and that whatever happens beforehand, the end will be when someone in the resistance comes straight for them, and not waste their efforts on the minions.

The metaphor only goes so far, of course, for we are talking about humans, not bugs. But if our tyrant-wannabes understand the credible threat of the cost up front, they will not go there, unless invited to do so by a belief that we are unready to meet them.

For their part, the Founders must be shaking their heads in dismay at our failure to use political means to restrain this unconstitutional imperial federal government as well as the disuse into which the militia system they gave us has fallen.

Only we can do anything about that, and time is short.

Not the First, First Lady Scandal

Trump's wife is now embroiled in a photo leak of some very NSFW pictures of her earlier days in modeling.  She is certainly not the first woman caught in the whirlwind of controversy that rocked a presidency.

Andrew Jackson's wife, Rachel, was not 100% divorced when she married Andrew.  The two were inseparable and, in point of fact, he would eventually fight a duel, (one of many for varying reasons) to silence a political opponent that levied charges of adultery against him.  Even though she had died just prior to Jackson taking office, the media used that fact to great benefit to try and discredit him. President Jackson would place the blame of her poor health at the feet of the media that used her to exploit the family for political gain.

On the other side of the coin, Coolidge's wife was alleged to have had a more than few notches in her belt at the expense of the Secret Service.

Presidents have also had plenty of time to involve themselves in public marriage disputes.

JFK was a famous womanizer, as was, of course, Slick Willy.  Fellow Ohioan Harding took sex at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave to dizzying heights.  So much so that his wife was alleged to have conspired to kill his love interests.   Always in the shadow of his predecessor, LBJ also fancied himself a man comfortable with the fairer gender and once quipped that “I have had more women by accident than he [JFK] has had on purpose.”  He was also said to have wiped out his prodigious member on more than one occasion to seem to try and prove a point (pun maybe intended).

Eisenhower and FDR both had trysts with close companions.  Even Dubya had a couple allegations of his own.  Cleveland had a "struggle cuddle" with a female friend that produced an illegitimate child.

It should be noted that the alleged affair that Thomas Jefferson was supposed to have had with this half-black slave was completely debunked.  The DNA evidence that was used to prove the claim, came from another person.

And then, of course, most recently we have this one:

Advice from a C130 Pilot

Dear Sir,

My name is D.J. Baker and I would appreciate it if you could tell me what it takes to be an F-16 fighter pilot in the USAF. What classes should I take in high school to help the career I want to take later in life? What could I do to get into the Air Force Academy?

Sincerely,
DJ Baker

****************
From: Van Wickler, Kenneth, LtCol, HQ AETC :


Anybody in our outfit want to help this poor kid from Cyberspace? LTC Wickler

**********************************************

A worldly and jaded C130 pilot, Major Hunter Mills, rises to the task of answering the young man's letter.


**********************************************

Dear DJ,

Obviously, through no fault of your own, your young, impressionable brain has been poisoned by the superfluous, hyped-up, "Top Gun" media portrayal of fighter pilots.

Unfortunately, this portrayal could not be further from the truth. In my experience, I've found most fighter pilots pompous, backstabbing, momma's boys with inferiority complexes, as well as being extremely over-rated aeronautically. However, rather than dash your budding dreams of becoming a USAF pilot, I offer the following alternative:

What you really want to aspire to is the exciting, challenging and rewarding world of TACTICAL AIRLIFT. And this, young DJ, means one thing, the venerable workhorse, the C-130. I can guarantee no fighter pilot can brag that he has led a 12-ship formation down a valley at 300 feet above the ground, with the navigator leading the way and trying to interpret an alternate route to the drop zone, avoiding pop-up threats, and coordinating with AWACS, all while eating a box lunch with the engineer in the back relieving himself and the loadmaster puking in his trash can!

I tell you DJ, TAC Airlift is where it's at! Where else is it legal to throw tanks, HUMVs, and other crap out the back of an airplane, and not even worry about it when the chute doesn't open and it torpedoes the General's staff car.

Nowhere else can you land on a 3000 foot dirt strip, kick a bunch of ammo and stuff out on the ramp without stopping, then takeoff again before range control can call to tell you that you've landed on the wrong landing zone (LZ).

And talk about exotic travel; when C-130s go somewhere, they GO somewhere (usually for 3 months, unfortunately). This gives you the opportunity to immerse yourself in the local culture long enough to give the locals a bad taste in their mouths regarding the USAF and Americans in general, not something those C-5 Galaxy pilots can do from their airport hotel rooms!

As far as recommendations for your course of study, I offer these:
1. Take a lot of math courses. You'll need all the advanced math skills you can muster to enable you to calculate per diem rates around the world, and when trying to split up the crew's bar tab so that the co-pilot really believes he owes 85% of the whole thing and the navigator believes he owes the other 20%.

2. Health sciences are important, too. You will need a thorough knowledge of biology to make those educated guesses of how much longer you can drink beer before the tremendous case of the G.I.s catches up to you from that meal you ate at the place that had the really good belly dancers in some God-forsaken foreign country whose name you can't even pronounce.

3. Social studies are also beneficial. It is important for a good TAC Airlifter to have the cultural knowledge to be able to ascertain the exact location of the nearest topless bar in any country in the world, then be able to convince the local authorities to release the loadmaster after he offends every sensibility of the local religion and culture.

4. A foreign language is helpful but not required. You will never be able to pronounce the names of the NAVAIDs in France, and it's much easier to ignore them and to go where you want to anyway. As a rule of thumb: waiters and bellhops in France are always called "Pierre", in Spain it's "Hey, Pedro" and in Italy, of course, it's "Mario". These terms of address also serve in other countries interchangeably, depending on the level of suaveness of the addressee.

5. A study of geography is paramount. You will need to know the basic location of all the places you've been when you get back from your temporary duty station (TDY) and are ready to stick those little pins in that huge world map you've got taped to your living room wall, right next to the giant wooden giraffe statue and beer stein collection.

Well, DJ, I hope this little note inspires you. And by the way, forget about the Academy thing. All TAC Airlifters know that there are waaaaay too few women and too little alcohol there to provide a well-balanced education. A nice, big state college or the Naval Academy would be a much better choice.

Hunter Mills,
Major USAF

The Napoleon of the Current Year

 

h/t to Daniel Almond for bringing this to my attention.

The New Nazis

I first came to live in Germany in January 2005.  As a Soldier, before you leave, other Non-Comms who had spent time there, would reminisce to no end about the crazy parties and the streets of beer. I did not really believe it, although as a freshly separated bachelor, I had entertained the idea.  Right after I landed in Rhein Main, I was introduced to bottle of kristallweizen, and the bartender, a gentleman that seemed to have been a consolation prize to the US Army after the war,  gave me the "facts-of-life" speech on living in Germany.  He did corroborate the stories of women that flowed like the beer, but he also gave me sage advice to never go at it alone and to stick to the main streets.  Turks, like wild dogs, travel in packs and hunt the weak or unaware.  I was incredulous.  It seemed odd to me that anyone would hate me on the sole basis of being American.  Furthermore, I just came back from fighting a country that hated Turkey.  I had not even seen a Turk much less had any reason to fear or dislike one.  I did not understand the radicalized mind then.  I know better now.

In Kaiserslautern of 2005, we had a rash of stabbings.  Always Turks.  Always single G.I.'s that would go down an alleyway as a shortcut and come out with a punctured lung or worse.  Eventually, the Air Force Security Police and the Army Military Police patrolled enough to push the gangs away, but it was easy enough find a fight elsewhere.  They had a particular dislike of black Soldiers, but to this day I still do not know why.  They had an affection for gangsta rap and embraced the thug identity in response to assimilation.  Violence and the inherent insulation of Islam would be the response to a world shifting below their feet.  Not much has changed for the better in the 10 years since.

I personally did not have a bad encounter with the Turks, but I have the Russians and the Old Man to thank for that.  When I started dating my wife, she had moonlighted as a bartender in a small pub outside of Saarbrucken.  The night we met, being obviously smitten, asked her if I could meet her again.  She said she had to work the next weekend but I could tag along and get some free beer.  Having a hot German chick pour beers for me all night sounded better than fine, so I took the train and met her in Saarbrucken.  Later in the evening, a group of about six or so Russians came in the bar, obviously already pretty tanked, and started harassing the locals.  They saw me, a lone guy flirting with the bartender at the end of the bar, and sized me up.  Having been pretty new to Germany and could not speak much of any German at the time, I asked the girl to translate, "if I have to get off of this bar stool, you will have to drink applesauce through a straw the rest of your life" to the biggest one.  I winked at him, pointed to myself and said, "Americana", and went back to drinking.  Neither I nor the locals were bothered the remainder of the night. 

I discovered to be true what my Old Man said to me a long time before that.  When dealing with hostile groups, you look at the biggest one like you are going to remove their testicles with something dull and they will usually back down.  However, if not, be mentally prepared to inflict wholesale violence.  I had to repeat this same look to groups of Turks in the proceeding years and have not had anything get out of hand.  I have been fortunate when many others I know have not.

Later in 2005, I did hear a story which I did not understand the "why" of it as I do now after having spent more time in both Europe and the Middle East.  Mein Kampf had been a run-away hit in Istanbul, and it made some small notice in some online publications.   According to the Daily Sabah, the book was banned in 2007 but has resurfaced this year.  As the last vestiges of a secular Turkey were removed with the recent failed coup, Atatürk's Turkey is no more.  Fascism, repackaged as Islamic Fascism, has once again come into favor.  It is not just the antisemitism that attracts them, but the idea that they belong to a great master race whose duty is to subjugate and rule the lesser species.  What was old is made new again. 

The current peace between the Muslim and westernized communities, (which includes the African and Eastern European neighborhoods), in Europe are tenuous and it is a breath away from blowing up.  For the first time in its history, Europe will be at war with foreign forces it placed within its own borders.  Fascism, whether it is the home grown or of the Islamic variety, is incompatible with Western culture and one will inevitably try to choke out the other.  It is its natural state.  For too long have Germans in particular, and the West in general, not looked at the oppression around them and told them very plainly that they will meet harm with overwhelming violence.  Perhaps it is past time that they could have done so and had any meaningful impact to the forces that conspire against them now.  I am sick to think that the beautiful cobbled streets and vaulted cathedrals of Berlin, Paris, or Vienna would see this kind of war again.

 History may not repeat itself, but it does sometimes rhyme.

Translated: Ottoman Germany

"Wir übernehmen das ganze Land."

"We will take over this whole land"

Happy Birthday Mike

Alex Jones vs. Young Hamas - Hilarity ensues

My disdain for Alex Jones may have reached at least a middle point with this one. Young Hamas doesn't know whether to defecate or go blind. The feminist white knights are particularly hilarious.

If more people got into these guys faces and challenged them directly, we would not have any of the problems we have today.

The Altercation:

Young Hamas Explanation:

Alex Jones Explanation:

I was quietly hating myself for doing nothing.

Reparations.me is a website by Seattleite Natasha Marin, that is dedicate to the pursuit of having affluent whites divest themselves of their 400 years of oppression by giving it (whatever that might be.  We'll get to that in a minute) to the needs of People of Color.  Or something.

Her bio/explanation:

Natasha Marin is a conceptual artist working across disciplines and media to collaborate with People to create opportunities for meaningful IRL and digital engagement.

Reparations began as a social media experiment on Facebook on July 15, 2016.

What if you actually did something meaningful for someone before the end of the year?

What if a stranger restored your belief in humanity, if only for a moment, by supporting you and allowing you to claim something you need in a material way?

I invite People of Color to ask for what we need to feel better, be happier, be more productive by posting in this space. These may be both material and immaterial requests.

I invite people who identify as White to offer services or contributions to People of Color in need of time, energy, substantive care, and support. 

I don't want to put limitations on this social experiment, but here's how I imagine it might work:

POC 1: I need a massage. This week.
White Person 1: [posts Groupon with code for redemption]

POC2: I need therapy. I can spend $10 a session.
White Person 2: [posts contact information to a therapist who they have made arrangements with.]

POC 3: I need groceries.
White Person 3: "I'll get them for you. PM me and I'll send an Amazon Fresh or Safeway delivery. You just pick out what you want. I have a $200 limit."

POC 4: I'm too upset to make dinner. I live in Seattle.
White Person 4: "Come over to my house for dinner, bring a friend if you like. PM me and I'll send you the address, or can I order delivery to you? What kind of food do you like?"

POC 5: I need a quiet place to work on _________.
White Person 5: "I have an office, spare room, house, that will be unoccupied on the following dates, would you like to use that space? I can send pictures ..."

POC 6: I want to scream and cuss at someone.
White Person 6: "I volunteer as tribute. How do we set this up?" 

POC 7: I want to escape this cruel world in a *Specific Videogame* but can't afford it on Steam right now. This is not a crisis, I just don't trust people easily and want to see if this works.
White Person 7: Thank you for giving me the chance to do something concrete and relatively easy. I was quietly hating myself for doing nothing.

And now while you are ruminating on how far out of touch with reality and history people are I offer this for the next installment of the world gone mad. Notice the progressive cops reaction to the scene. 

The New Language of the Left

In the past few days, I have been presented with two op ed pieces that are representative of a changing of the guard, so to speak, in terms of the leftist tone.  During the Bush administrations, the "Progressives" of the time, screeched at the top of their lungs that dissent was patriotic.  Under Obama, we were told that you must support your leaders.  You may remember being told by a certain opportunistically racist comedian that Obama is like your father and you should listen to him.  Even the Daily Kos was confused.  Such has been the tone of the socialists of last eight years.  But all of that ends with the RNC convention.  It is, after all, someone else's turn in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  That's how it works, right?

Now we have two puff pieces from two ends of the leftist political fourth estate.  These are by no means representative of the minds of the elites that are making the real moves towards their own ends, but it is a good indication as any into the mind of the rank-and-file.

From the Gawker, I present you "Who Will Win the Upcoming Civil War?" .  A note before you proceed: I will advise you  first to remove any beverages from around your electronics.  I come to know this from experience.  There is so much that is wrong with this article I can scarcely find the time to go into significant detail.  The presumptions that war is a "you have all of the green guys, and I have all of the blue" is as absurd as it is infantile.  I will not offer any additional commentary but if you want a real knee slapper, please do yourself a favor and read the comments.  I had originally given thought that this was satire.  No, gentle readers, it is truly the work of a true believer. 

The next one comes to us from the LA Times, If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.

It starts out: "Trump is the most brazenly authoritarian figure to secure the nomination of a major American political party. He expresses his support for all manner of strongmen, and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has actually worked for one: former Ukrainian president and Vladimir Putin ally Viktor Yanukovich."

That's interesting.  I only wish their microscope had been a little more inward focused when we raised concerns that Obama's ear whisperers were filled with an assortment of advocates of the worst sort of communist, identity politics, and muslim expansionism this side of GITMO. 

"In [the case that Trump gives unlawful orders], our military men and women, who swear to uphold the Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it."

The Oath of Enlistment states: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

"According to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice".  There is the onion in obeying unconstitutional orders.  Upon looking at it, I had not realized that you will not find the same verbiage in the Oath of Office that commissioned Officers must take.  I can assure you, however, that they are also under the same rules of UCMJ that everyone else must abide by. 

"But what about Katrina"?  I agree that the National Guard was completely wrong in what they did, however well meaning it may have been at the time.  Keep in mind that the military authority was under civilian direction.  They were an instrument of the terminally incompetent and corrupt state and local government.  It is not an excuse, but lessons were learned.  Education of what the Uniform Code of Military Justice is and how it relates to disregarding an enumerated right in the Constitution is why groups like the Oathkeepers are so important.  If no one is told it is wrong, how will they know?

And he concludes: "Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to."  Both salacious and thought provoking, but for me, it does not invoke terror given the present occupier-in-chief.  He expanded the Patriot Act to dizzying heights, bombed on behalf of Al Qaeda, and established ISIS which cascaded into flooding Europe with Jihadi terrorists.  Then there is all of the economic warfare he has waged with all of the expansion and creation of new government entitlements and power grabs.  I do not see how much more an administration can undermine the West, but we still have some months.

There is a common thread between the two articles.  The left has understood that they cannot win this by themselves.  As with any argument the left has produced, it always comes from a place of perpetual victimhood and weakness.  For their success they must have another group to do what they know they cannot, namely win against the American conservative gun owner in a stand up fight.  This should be of no surprise to anyone here.  If you want to know why they are after your semi-autos, this is it. 

"Now what we need to do is take away their guns..."