Translate

Saturday, January 22, 2011

III Percent Patriots: Congresswoman to carry concealed...

III Percent Patriots: Congresswoman to carry concealed...: "NBC reports the Congresswoman will carry concealed. Good for her! The same story cites that Dem Heath Shuler has been carrying conce..."

SFMEDIC: Random Thoughts and Guns

SFMEDIC: Random Thoughts and Guns: "http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2012-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00..."

Friday, January 14, 2011

Alexis Tocqueville



The Greatest Dangers Of The American Republics Proceed From The Unlimited Power Of The Majority

   
Democratic republics liable to perish from a misuse of their power, and not by impotence-The Governments of the American republics are more centralized and more energetic than those of the monarchies of Europe-Dangers resulting from this-Opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson upon this point.

   Governments usually fall a sacrifice to impotence or to tyranny. In the former case their power escapes from them; it is wrested from their grasp in the latter. Many observers, who have witnessed the anarchy of democratic States, have imagined that the government of those States was naturally weak and impotent. The truth is, that when once hostilities are begun between parties, the government loses its control over society. But I do not think that a democratic power is naturally without force or without resources: say, rather, that it is almost always by the abuse of its force and the misemployment of its resources that a democratic government fails. Anarchy is almost always produced by its tyranny or its mistakes, but not by its want of strength.
   It is important not to confound stability with force, or the greatness of a thing with its duration. In democratic republics, the power which directs e society is not stable; for it often changes hands and assumes a new direction. But whichever way it turns, its force is almost irresistible. The Governments of the American republics appear to me to be as much centralized as those of the absolute monarchies of Europe, and more energetic than they are. I do not, therefore, imagine that they will perish from weakness. f
   If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation, and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.
   Mr. Hamilton expresses the same opinion in the "Federalist," No. 51. "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: and as in the latter state even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves, so in the former state will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that, if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of right under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it."
   Jefferson has also thus expressed himself in a letter to Madison: g "The executive power in our Government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the Legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period." I am glad to cite the opinion of Jefferson upon this subject rather than that of another, because I consider him to be the most powerful advocate democracy has ever sent forth.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Vanderboegh: A Handgun Against An Army - Ten Years After

Mike Vanderboegh
29 July 2008

The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed.

The Founders understood this.

So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived.

Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril.

Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all firearms," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers are quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?"

Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion.

Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the Army of American Constitutional Liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events.

Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty," as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him.

The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?"

The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments.

Like Stalin, the Clintonistas and other holders of the Imperial Presidency could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep.

Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"-- a political system rejected by the Founders.

Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.

This is why God in His wisdom, and the Founders in their sagacity, made sheepdogs.

Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep. They still cast a nervous collective eye toward the sheepdogs among the flock. They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government.

Wolf
Sheepdog

American Voters, er, ah, Sheep

Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheepdog's clothing -- the sheepdog being an ancient and honorable vocation accepted by the sheep as a necessary burden for their safety -- and they yip and yowl insistently in off-key falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Indeed, these wolves could only achieve what they have by convincing the flock (and most of the real sheepdogs) that they are protectors of the flock with its best interests at heart.

But here's the problem for these wolves parading as sheepdogs.

There are not enough of them to eat as well they please just yet without having their meal rudely interrupted.

True, they are outnumbered by the sheep, but they care not. Sheep, after all, are sheep. "If God had not wanted them shorn, He would not have made them sheep," the bandit leader Caldera tells Yul Brynner in "The Magnificent Seven."

What wolves DO care about is the threat posed to them by the real sheepdogs who the Founders of the flock with great foresight placed between the wolves of government and the flock of the people and charged with its protection -- the sheepdogs who these wolves merely pretend to be.

Real sheepdogs of course have no appetite for the lives and liberties of the sheep. They exist, they live for, they relish in, their role as the true guardians of the flock. Ready in an instant to lay down their lives for the defense of the helpless, they operate always within the Founders' carefully drawn borders, faithfully and honorably. Indeed, the concept of honor is most often found only in sheepdogs, for the sheep have no need of it in the day-to-day wandering of the flock and, as for the wolves, it gets in the way of their appetites. And these sheepdogs, the smarter, more perceptive ones among them, are infinitely suspicious of the lupine-mandarin class who continually try to overstep the boundaries the Founders of the flock set.

Every now and then, the appetite of the wolves is for an instant revealed too nakedly. Some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn, for example, and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves -- they and the sheepdogs -- according to the rule of law of their ancestors and the Founders of the flock, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. This always happens when the real sheepdogs are looking the other way, or are mesmerized by some lupine excuse.

Sadly, over time the majority of the flock -- including many of the sheepdogs -- have learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were sheepdogs one and all, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged.

Yet, the sheepdogs still stand ready and so the wolves must be gradual in their predations. Most of the sheepdogs are, after all, watching the perimeter of the Founders' grazing fields for threats from without, or are preoccupied with forays to foreign fields where other sheep are being victimized by other wolves. They are close, these wolves, into converting many sheepdogs into cooperating with their schemes. And there are some of the more alert sheepdogs that the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not-- for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters."

Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten many sheep in generations. To the wolves' chagrin, the honest sheepdogs are armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content to watch the numbers of these honest sheepdogs diminish, as they are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheepdogs are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".)

When the number of the sheepdogs fall below a level that wolves can feel safe to do so, the throats of the remaining guardians of the flock will be torn out and the eating of the sheep will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep and the sheepdogs into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two to complete the process, the wolves can wait.

The Cliffs of Insanity: Fair Warning To The Collectivists

The Cliffs of Insanity: Fair Warning To The Collectivists

Jared Laughner and the Culture of Irresponsibility

Jared Laughner and the Culture of Irresponsibility

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Learning About TEOTWAWKI
This is one of those subjects in which the more you learn about it, the more you realize what you don’t know and need to learn. It is literally impossible to envision every survival scenario and prepare for it. Survival prep can be a daunting task especially if you have lived an entire life assuming that somehow a safety net would be there if anything bad happens. The more you think about all the things that could happen in modern life, the more you realize the impossibility of preparing for everything. There are things you can do and learn now that will cover ninety percent of anything likely to happen and I am going to talk about predicting and controlling those things.
Take MZBGs for example, Mutant Zombie Biker Gangs. No, seriously they exist and if you think this is just some Hollywood fantasy, think again. In the US we currently have a permanently ingrained generation of people who believe that anything anyone else owns is theirs for the taking. We also have a large population of people extremely capable of becoming MZBs under the right conditions. Does anyone remember  how quickly the total lawlessness, looting and violent attacks started during Katrina and the LA riots? I call this crowd’s mindset, Malignant Entitlement Syndrome. If you were unfortunate enough to be in one of those places, at that point in history, it would probably have occurred to you that you were not prepared well enough to survive. Even if you had 4 or 5 well armed Marines as escort,  an armored vehicle, a well equipped paramedic and a determination to survive at all cost, driving through LA or New Orleans would have been hazardous to your health. So the question posed is; How long does it take the average person who has grown up as a product of social safety nets, well versed in the malignant entitlement syndrome values and who fervently believes that you have something of value only because life is unfair to them and you don’t deserve the life-style you lead, to decide they will just take what they want from you when SHTF ? When does one shift from being just an ordinary social parasite with MES, to becoming a fullfledged MZB ? My answer is that it is directly correlated with the general degradation of the overall economy and how difficult it becomes to get comsumer goods like, food, water, alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, medicine, clothing, shelter, basically everything most people take for granted and think they are entitled to just for inhabiting the earth and breathing its air. Anyone who has ever been in a true life-threatening survival experience will tell you;  the world doesn’t owe you anything just because you were born.  An adjunct question to that is, Will the people I call friends and neighbors ever become MZBs that I need to worry about ? The answer is, it depends on how good of friends they are and how badly they may need the things I have. Have you seen the movie “The Road” or read the book ? Its difficult for the average person to think this is anything more than a typical Hollywood movie trying to cash in on people’s unconscious fears and not a perfect example of how quickly human beings can become brutal killers who will cause unspeakable agony or that a good life-long decent person who is simply trying to survive will quickly turn a blind eye to human suffering when everything is at stake. If you have ever found yourself in a situation where life itself hung in the balance of your next decision or act and continued along this path for days or weeks at a time, you will know that this movie is not about celluloid MZBs but what can happen, has already happened and probably will happen again. Just ask the survivors of the Rwandan genocide.
Just in case you are still thinking, “This is just paranoia and one person’s  delusion” Here are some pics of full-fledged MZBs  I’ve pulled from police records and internet sources,  who are getting a jump on their counterparts of the future.  Ask yourself what your life would be worth to them if you had something they wanted.





Don’t keep insisting. “Oh those are just a few isolated instances”
These people are multiplying like rabbits and inhabit every place that people live in America.  A good percentage of them stay locked up in prisons and mental institutions  but often, very often,  society in its infinite wisdom will find ways to let them out. What happens during a social-order collapse and they break out by the thousands ? 
OK now what about the average person becoming an MZB after a SHTF situation like this guy ?






Just kidding. That’s Bill Gates when he got locked up. He won’t be one you have to worry about because he will be on his private Gulfstream  jet heading for an armed mountain top compound in Peru or on a 200 foot yatch that has solar electronics and its own salt/fresh water conversion system. I guarantee every crew member on board will be well armed and well trained in the tactical use of deadly force as well as emergency medicine. Life takers and life savers. That’s what I pride myself on being.
There is an old colloquial saying, “If you can’t beat them join them.”  This is exactly what a great number of people will do if faced with this kind of choice. If surviving with the least personal disability means joining the MZBGs versus fighting them it will seem like a no-brainer. If they have something to fight for and defend like a home and family most people will make a stand to the death.
"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself.
The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?"

- William J. Bennett
  In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy
  November 24, 1997