Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
AZR,

I have seen those "gunbucket" pistol holsters for sale at the PX and the bazaars in Afghanistan and Kuwait.  Curiously many soldiers actually wear them.  Not the ones with any damn sense or combat experience mind you but plenty chair warming warriors.  Give me faith in our long term chances when the US military hits the streets.  Bill can back me up on some of the silly shit troops wear these days.

22
I like Bundy a little better for that statement of his. It's absolutely true.

Welfare took a proud, agrarian people who had survived slavery with the family unit intact, and it turned them into a dependent class. One of the reasons why I always caution people I know against taking government money. They always say, "Well, you work hard so I don't know why you shouldn't take something from the government's hand. It certainly wouldn't hurt you."

Well, it probably didn't hurt that first generation much either. But the second? And the third? The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons unto the seventh generation. And I think taking that government handout is the first sin.

I can't speak to the holster issue. Often as not, if I'm carrying a pistol it's just stuffed into my jacket pocket. I follow the premise of the late great Colonel Cooper who believed that a pistol was only good for fighting your way to your rifle.

Any time I operate out in the world armed it's generally with a rifle ... my simple old Sears and Roebuck 30-30 lever action which I've had all my life. I don't go into urban areas as a general rule (too far from me) and the only real hooliganry out here is the methheads looking for crap to steal. And they don't even show up around here anymore. We've earned a rather unfortunate reputation as those people who will shoot at you if you come around at night.

Which is just plain shameful for a pacifist like myself.

I recently was explaining my pacifist position to someone at the cafe in town.

He interrupted me and said, "Possum, didn't you shoot at that Higgins boy last year? That don't seem like a pacifist thing to do."

Well, it is sometimes difficult to be a pacifist when people try to steal your stuff and shoot at you. I also claim to be a vegetarian, but pretty much only when there ain't no meat on the table. :)
23
And... rope and noose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp

Quote
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Intellectually, this is a very sound observation and worthy of dialogue as long as that dialogue can involve people capable of intelligent and rational argument.

How do you think Statist media can spin it though?



Also, looking at equipment that some of the anti-fed forces have.  Disgusted by some of the pistol holsters.



That's a gunbucket (one size fits nothing).  Slow to draw.  Spare magazine accessible to the wrong hand.  Rotates funny on the belt based upon weight distribution.




Eric Parker (the guy taking aim from the highway overpass at the peak of the conflict).  Drop-leg gunbucket with spare magazine attached to holster, no anti-rotation friction material to keep the pistol oriented properly, no belt keeper to stop the belt attachment from drifting forward or back.  Too low on the leg.  I rather doubt he's ever actually ran with that setup.


I just don't understand what is so flipping hard about getting a holster that:
1. Actually fits your gun.
2. Doesn't flop around like a fresh caught salmon.
3. Puts your spare magazines on the correct side of your body.


Lots of holsters out there that cost about as much as a box of ammo, and can do all of the above.  There's no excuse.
24
What would be good for Possum would be either the abolishment of government altogether or the shrinking of it so that it didn't come out to my part of the wilderness and bother me.

But the conservative patriot movement (and I guess the patriot movement is made up of a lot of ideologies, but the conservatives seem to be the loudest) winning control would just be more of the same government but under new management. Same as we've always had.

Everyone fights for who gets the right to steer the ship, but there's never a consideration as to why there has to be a ship in the first place, and the only thing both parties agree on is that they must team up against anyone who demands to be let off the ship.

I can't see that I've got much of a dog in this fight, so far. Except when the hammer comes down, the government is going to utilize the opportunity to stamp out ANYONE with a dissenting view, whether they are violent or not, and my view is certainly a dissenting one.
25
> ...while I don't concede that public land has a right to exist.

Exactly right; it's an absurd concept when it comes to anything but the property that's necessary for the operation of their "services."  And almost all of those are bullshit too.

But till those larger issues get resolved--personally I think July 4 would be a dandy day to settle the "public land" issue--this incident comes down to just what I noted:  whether the interaction between individuals, no matter what they call themselves and no matter what they believe their justifications to be, should be handled as if we're all thugs, or not.

More proof of the idiocy of sheeple is that when they look at all the armed goons in tacticool, they don't bother to think back and recall, "Gee, this is why I thought government was necessary, so that we don't have this."


> who wins, what seems to be to be certain is that it won't be good for ol' Possum.

Why is this, and what could happen that you would?
26
Hrm. I had not understood the ethics of it.

They are starting from a premise that's much further downstream than I'm at. They seem to be arguing about who has the right to do what to public land, while I don't concede that public land has a right to exist. The government cannot own anything because all of its money is stolen money. They produce no capital of their own.

But Bundy seems to want to lay a claim to it for his own, while there's also an ongoing civil case where the Shoshone tribe has also laid claim to that same patch of land that they argue goes back well before even the creation of Nevada.

If Bundy was arguing that the land was empty and unused and anyone had the right to settle there, I might feel more favorably to him.

One thing is for sure though ... if the bullets start flying, I've got to pick a side and it certainly ain't going to be the side of the government. I'm afraid though that, whether a revolution is won or lost, we may end up looking back on these times as the "good old days of freedom". Whether it's the conservatives who win, or the government who wins, what seems to be to be certain is that it won't be good for ol' Possum.
27
> I have found it difficult to really take sides in this matter.

That's because you're viewing it as a conceptual--ethical--matter, like "Which side is right in this issue?"  But that's not what it's about at all---it's about whether or one gang can ever be justified in forcefully taking what belongs to someone else.

You can say, "Well, that's the question...who the hell owns it?"  The confusion arises from failing to distinguish civil matters from criminal matters.  Civilly, they can do whatever the hell they want with papers and words.  Judge Napalitano already came up with one way to do that...file liens on his property.  Of course, that may just put off the battle until the land transfers.

But that's the important distinction---words versus bullets, filings versus combat, belief versus possession.  The relevant issue here is exclusively whether brute force will be used by one party against another.  Legally, it's civil versus criminal.  Everything the government is asserting is properly a civil matter---there is no person standing forth claiming that the Bundy's engaged physical force against them, and so there is no cause for defensive action on some other person's behalf, which would be the only conceivable justification for the government's actions.

Complaints like these are always in the form of "everyone" somehow being harmed even though nobody is harmed.  The is no Complainant asserting physical harm, hence there can be no Crime.  This renders the BLM plain aggressors and no set of "arguments," legal or otherwise, can make them anything but.

AZR, I'd bet almost anything the Bundys will not be Waco'ed.  And I'll bet everything I've got (and I have) that if such an horrific tragedy occurred, the casualties of Govco--there and across the country--would far, far surpass any possible civilian casualty count.  That much is nearly certain IMO, which is why if anyone screws up badly, we will experience something beyond imagination.
28
I would be more heartened by this Bundy situation if more people recognized that this is what comes of having a government as opposed to just blaming Harry Reid or Obama.

Yes indeed...  if more people realized that no politician, bureaucrat, etc. has any legitimate authority over their lives... and that electing someone else to exercise that bogus "authority" won't ever make any difference. When some people are given power to impose their will on other people - absolutely regardless of their stated intentions or motives- tyranny is the inevitable result.
29
General Discussion / Re: Ranchers vs. Regulators: The Clark County Range War
« Last post by Possum on April 23, 2014, 06:02:56 pm »
Not terribly long ago. About 3 years. But we spent about a decade getting ready to live a life without any sizable income.

There ain't really any difference between living in SHTF and living without hardly any income. It don't matter if the stores are chocked full of food if you can't afford to drive to town and buy some.

I've always said that America is in sort of a slow-motion SHTF. It's impacting everyone at different rates. You can be starving in the ditch and a man in a fancy car will drive by. He may not know it, but he's about 3 months away from starving in that same ditch.

I would be more heartened by this Bundy situation if more people recognized that this is what comes of having a government as opposed to just blaming Harry Reid or Obama.
30
General Discussion / Re: Ranchers vs. Regulators: The Clark County Range War
« Last post by Edheler on April 23, 2014, 05:58:03 pm »
Ed, do you think there's an actual "resistance" as opposed to just a mob of people calling themselves patriots?

I used the word for a lack of a better one-word term to describe what I observe. If the US government decided to become tyrannical there would probably be thousands of different groups who would resist. Thus I think calling them collectively a 'resistance' isn't terribly inaccurate. There certainly isn't any existing organization today.

What preparedness are you lacking? I suppose I'm about as "prepared" as I'm going to get. Got garden, got game, got ammo. If we had to we could go further off into the hills to the west ... the landowner there is friendly towards us as I have worked as a gillie for him now for a few years. But I would hate to leave what I have built.

Most of us don't have your situation. From what you have written it sounds like you started long ago. I will be ready regardless of what happens but I might like more time. There is still a lot I would like to learn.

I'm not particularly inclined towards fighting at this time and would rather just be left alone.

I don't think that all of us will be allowed the luxury of being left alone. If it were an option the world as we know it would not exist.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10