"UNITED WE STAND" - Is It Just A Motto, and Not A Creed?

I was out and about today when I noticed a bumper sticker... one that I have seen probably a thousand times in my life. It stated simply, "United We Stand", but, for some reason, it struck me as odd this time.

Odd that we have it as our national motto, odd that it appears on our money (in Latin, no less; "e pluribus unum" - which translates as "From the many, one"), and even more odd that some people actually choose to display that sentiment on a lowly bumper sticker. It may have applied during our War of Independence -also known as the Revolutionary War - when we had a population of approximately 497,000. But, this antiquated sentiment has little application in the 21st Century, and for reasons of pure selfishness. (How old is this sentiment? Its origins have been traced back to the Greek slave, Aesop, who lived in the 6th and 7th century B.C.)

The current administration is working diligently to undermine our laws by discounting Congress and usurping our Constitution - that document which (until recently) was the foundation of our country's management philosophy, and is the basis for all United States laws (English Common Law notwithstanding). This so-called "transparent" administration relies almost exclusively on smoke, mirrors, misinformation, disinformation and flat-out lies. Obama's attempts to destroy our culture and our economy, incorporates the core precepts of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (Google it if you have no idea how to destroy a country), and is divisive in its implementation.

The areas of division are many, including (but certainly not limited to) these few:

Class Divisions - the old "have-nots vs haves", the rich vs the significantly-less-than-rich

Employment Divisions - the labor unions vs supporters of the right to work, and workers vs the indolent

Religious Divisions - the atheists vs religious, Christianity vs Muslims, Muslims vs the World

Educational Divisions - the educated vs dropouts,

Sexual Preference Divisions - "gays" vs "straights"

Racial Divisions - the whites vs non-whites

and last, but certainly not least...

Political Divisions - Republicans and Democrats are obviously the two major political divisions, but there are several smaller - virtually impotent - political parties. These two parties control our legislative process, and both claim to want what's best for the country. However... their philosophies are diametrically opposed, so it follows that neither is 100% engaged in what is best for the United States. Each is so busy trying to undermine the plans of the other that, more often than not, each party is overlooking any good that the other may proffer! Who the hell is looking out for our Democratic Constitutional Republic?? If you chose "none of the above" as your answer, you're probably right.

The Obama administration is replete with left-wing, "redistribute the wealth", disarm the citizenry (except them), Socialist-Progressives and communists, as I reported in this blog on August 2, 2009. Let's look at the techniques they are implementing to facilitate the destruction of the United States of America as we know it.

Pitting the "have-nots vs the haves" has probably been going on since the beginning of time. The most successful of the hunters and gatherers were undoubtedly envied and/or resented by those who either lacked the requisite skills/sufficient motivation to develop/improve those skills. But, without lifting a finger (with the possible exception of the middle one), they were allowed to gnaw the residual meat from the bones the hunters discarded, and eat the nuts and berries accidentally dropped by the gatherers. However, the insufficient felt that they too should be able to feast on the flesh of the animals and sit close to the fire. Unfortunately for them, this was the time during which the biggest, strongest and smartest made the law. When the do-nothings complained about their place in the Neanderthal society, the tribe either beat them into submission and forced them to work in some capacity, or banished them from the safety and security provided by the tribal lifestyle. Harsh treatment was necessary in order to insure the survival of the many in those harsh times... it was primarily a PoP (Produce or Perish) social structure. The term "entitlement" had not yet been accepted by society.

The employment divisions are equally clear, and is simply a variation of "haves vs have-nots". However, the right to work class struggle, strangely enough, is initiated by those who have. In order to protect themselves, members of labor unions believe that all skill marketing should be strictly controlled within the domain of the union. As tribes expanded into villages, and villages grew into towns, there became a need for job specialization within the community. Initially the specialization process was one of hit-and-miss. Successes were rewarded, failures were not. Trade "guilds" (first formed in the 14th century) were the forerunners of labor unions, and the concept was quite simple then. A youngster was "apprenticed" to a skilled artisan, where he/she would learn that trade from the ground up - first doing the most menial of tasks (many of which were probably not job-related), and eventually developing the skills of the trade. During this apprenticeship the "pay" was provided in the form of room and board. After a period of several years, the master craftsman would recommend his apprentice to the local guild, which body then decided if the apprentice was qualified to set out on his/her own. Today, union membership is about keeping jobs and pay raises for the less-than-qualified and the totally incompetent. The important thing is continuing the influx of union dues. My personal belief is that we have an inherent right to profit from our individual labors... not from those of our neighbors.

Religious divisions are slightly more difficult to identify, but just as easily provoked by those who wish to pit one belief system against another. Each belief system is certain that theirs in the only true belief. Quite simply then, if any one belief is true, then all others are - by default - false. This creates an ideal condition for fomenting inter-religious and, by extension, interpersonal discord! And, by way of comparison, the Judeo-Christian system(s) are primarily ones of tolerance and acceptance of variations in doctrine, whereas the Muslim/Islamic system is one of intolerance toward, and total rejection of, all other belief systems. Even within the Judeo-Christian system there are those who preach divisiveness for a myriad of reasons - most of which have no basis in fact or reality. Nonetheless, they seem to be at least minimally effective in creating those divisions. Everyone in this country has the right to believe - or not believe - as they so choose.

Educational divisions are relatively easy to pinpoint. Those with advanced education are generally in executive and management positions within an organization, and those with insufficient education are more likely to be found in the labor intensive jobs. This does not mean that one is superior to the other as insofar as their worth as human beings is concerned. It just means that one has taken greater advantage of their educational opportunities to prepare them for a work experience that provides them with a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, the professors of academia are overflowing with left-wing liberal Socialist-"Progressives" who subscribe to the Marxist philosophy of "to each according to his needs, from according to his ability", and thus it is taught, provoking discord between liberals and conservatives. The proper philosophy for a Democratic Republic should be, "to each by his own means", reflecting that we may only prosper from our own labors.

The sexual preference division is a relatively new social partitioning, and has been accomplished via the granting of "special protections" which are above and beyond those provided to the general populace under the Constitution. These special protections put the minority "homosexual community" at odds with the majority heterosexual community. In essence, it places them on some type of "endangered species" list... which may be an accurate description, since they cannot reproduce strictly within their own community. The creation of "hate crime" laws was instrumental in creating this division, and it includes other minorities including but not limited to, racial, religious and ethnic minorities. Such laws are totally unnecessary, because any physically aggressive action is well-covered in previously existing laws. Laws against assault, battery, theft, maiming, manslaughter, homicide, etc., have been around for centuries, and provide for "equal protection under the law". "Hate crimes" cover the state of mind of a transgressor - or quite plainly put, how he/she felt about the group in which the victim is identified, and the reason they took criminal action against them. Reason makes no difference - a criminal act has taken place, and should be punished under the law based upon that fact alone!

Racial divisions are fairly obvious since identification is based upon stereotypical physical features such as skin color and facial features. According to our president (lower case "p" is intentional), apparently white people don't like anybody of color just because they are "of color". We especially don't like Blacks because of the high contrast, and illegal aliens because most of them are brown (certainly not because they violated our laws entering this country). But, as long as the government can benefit (somehow?) from portraying the majority (white Christians) as basically racist, they will continue to do so. The only possible "benefit" to the political party is at election time, when they capitalize on this strategy at the voting booth. This brings me to...

Political divisions. Political divisions are similar in one respect to religious divisions; we are greatly influenced in our choice of each by the authority figures in our life... mainly our parents. All parents want their children to be "more" than they are, so we intentionally try to pass along our traditional belief systems (which most of us inherited from our parents) to our children. This is not exactly fair of us, but it is "normal" human behavior. It diminishes, to some degree, the child's right to choose. But, to permit that total freedom of choice would imply that we were not strong in our own beliefs, so we indoctrinate our children.

I have a personal theory that we are each endowed by our creator (your choice here - intervention by a "Supreme Being" or the sperm donor's DNA) with a unique internal "blueprint" for our life. My theory goes on to postulate that this unique internal blueprint is socialized out of us, beginning almost at the moment of birth. This is the "Cookie Cutter Mentality" at work. (If you want to be a socially acceptable "cookie" you have to fit the same mold as all the other little cookies.) It has its good points, and a multitude of bad points. What would happen if we were allowed free reign, with the exception of say, physically aggressive behaviors? There would likely be little if any prejudice in the world, because prejudice is a learned behavior, and there is no innate dislike of the unlike.
Reducing learned prejudices from our repertoire of behaviors, would result in minimal racism and less "my belief system is better than your belief system". With little physical aggression, there would be fewer boundary disputes between neighbors, whether next door or across the national border. It's a nice theory, but given human nature, it is not practical to expect such radical changes. We humans are fallible creatures. On the whole, we are not solitary beings, and we do tend to "go along with the crowd" in order to insure and preserve our acceptance in the society into which we were born. And therein lies the rub - to get along, one must go along. But, I digress...

With so many divergent social paths available in a free society, is it any wonder that free societies can be torn asunder from within? Yet oppressive societies also suffer from a similar tearing apart, by the inherent yearning that all people have for certain freedoms, especially the freedom to choose.

The above is not meant to be a "lesson", but rather to provoke thought and perhaps stimulate social discourse. Most sentient beings find it enjoyable to simply think, and consider it good fortune to have someone to share their thoughts with. Try thinking outside the box... you may like it! And remember, "United we stand, divided we fall"... it must be more of a creed than an empty motto, or we shall surely perish!

Pay Freeze for Queen in UK Austerity Measures!

"In a sign of dire economic times across the pond, Queen Elizabeth II will see six consecutive years of frozen pay, as new austerity measures in the U.K. have cut funding for the royal household."

In the interest of "belt tightening" the leaders of our government should lead by example. But something more significantly more immediate than a "down the road" approach. It's as easy to tell the populace to tighten their belts, as it is to spend other peoples money - which is what the Socialist-Progressives in our government do with great aplomb, and impunity.

Here's my suggestion: Every government official, being paid with our money in Washington D.C., should take an immediate 50% cut in pay and benefits (staffing allowances, etc), and a staff reduction of 30%. Then eliminate their retirement benefits and place them all into the Social Security retirement system. Cut the freebies - haircuts, lunches, healthcare, vehicles, drivers, and education packages for their children. I think most of us could live very well on $87,000 per year... that's one-half of the salary with which a Congressman begins his "government service" experience.

And, as long as I'm running the country, let's revert to the system under which elected officials were originally paid in 1813. No, not the $8 per day, that's just too severe. They were paid only for the days they were in session, ostensibly doing the necessary work required to satisfy the people. Not themselves, or the labor unions (which didn't exist back then), or some major corporation in which they were deeply invested. They were "the servants of the people"!

Then let's see how many of them want to make a career out of government "service". My best guess is that we would have about 500 vacancies to fill in the combined House and Senate. They are not royalty! They deserve nothing better than that which the average person has in the way of pay, benefits and perks.

Have you ever wondered why anybody in their right mind would spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $174,000 per year? Well, they're spending other peoples money, most of whom consider the expense to be more of an investment than a "donation". Could there possibly be a hidden agenda there? Could there be more "perks" for our elected representatives than simply their pay and allowances? Politicians would sell their mothers if they thought it would benefit them!

We know that they are all liars, and that they will play to whatever audience is in front of them during their campaign, only to do the bidding of their major contributors after they are elected. Knowing this full-well, we vote for them anyway, fearing that if we don't go to the ballot box, some other liar (the one whose lies we don't like) will get elected. We have no true leadership, only fools who have fooled us into electing them to run our country. If they ran a McDonald's franchise the way they run our country, it would be the only McDonald's to ever go bankrupt! If they were in charge of Utah's Bonneville Salt Flats, it would be depleted of salt within 90 days. Send Washington D.C. a message in 2012... replace them ALL!

And Now... For Something Completely Different

Everybody who likes school drumlines, raise your hand... well, mine went up, did yours? Perhaps it's because I was in the Disston Jr High Marching Band and Orchestra in St. Petersburg, FL, as a teenager, but I have always enjoyed a good drum cadence - or "street beat" as we called it back then. I wasn't a drummer, which is a good thing, since I undoubtedly lack the hand coordination and pure, unfailing sense of rhythm necessary to play a percussion instrument. In the mid-1950s South, there were still racially segregated schools, and as good as our school drumline was, the all-black 16th Street Jr High was far better. When they would begin to warmup at a parade staging area, all the white kids would be tapping their feet. 16th Street Jr High put on a magnificent "show"! Here's a "little something" for those of you who do enjoy a good drumline (if you think enjoying a drumline is a bit weird, check out the one below)...

I think I must have been a Scotsman in a previous life. There's something about the skirling of the (bag)pipes and the cadence of the (generally accompanying) drums that stirs my soul. I know... most Americans find the sound produced by the bagpipes to be something less than musical, but to me "the pipes" are felt as much as heard - it's a visceral experience. I was fortunate enough to see, live and in concert at the Dee Events Center in Ogden, UT, the premier pipe band in the world - the Black Watch (3rd Battalion, Royal Highland Regiment of Scotland) twice, 11 years apart. So this one is primarily for those of my friends and family of Scottish descent, but the rest of you may find that, when done well, the pipes may also move you...

Okay... one more for the Scots! If there was ever a man to play the lead in the movie "Rob Roy", it would be the first piper shown (and a couple of more times) in the following video - "Mull of Kintyre". If he's not the stereotypical highlander, nobody is...

I hope you enjoyed watching these videos as much as I enjoyed bringing them together for you!

Man-made Super-Flu Could Kill Half of Humanity

The following quote from an Internet source presents an interesting paradox for us, if it is true...

"A virus with the potential to kill up to half the world’s population has been made in a lab. Now academics and bioterrorism experts are arguing over whether to publish the recipe, and whether the research should have been done in the first place.

­The virus is an H5N1 bird flu strain which was genetically altered to become much more contagious. It was created by Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who first presented his work to the public at an influenza conference in Malta in September.

Fouchier said the strain circulates in animals, particularly birds, but rarely affects humans.
In the ten or so years since bird flu first emerged in Asia, fewer than 600 cases have been reported in humans. But the H5N1 strain is particularly vicious, killing roughly half of patients diagnosed with it. What stops it from becoming a major threat to public health is that it does not readily transmit from human to human. Or at least it didn’t – until now.

Researchers in Fouchier’s team used ferrets – test animals which closely mimic the human response to influenza – and transmitted H5N1 from one to another to make it more adaptable to new hosts. After 10 generations, the virus had mutated to become airborne, which means ferrets became ill from merely being near other diseased animals.

A genetic study showed that the new, dangerous strain had only five mutations compared to the original one, and all of them were earlier seen in the natural environment – just not all at once. Fouchier’s strain is as contagious as the human seasonal flu, which kills tens of thousands of people each year, but is likely to cause many more fatalities if released."

The question arises; why wasn't Fouchier tarred, feathered and run out of the Netherlands in fear of his life? And this is where the paradox comes in... the scientific community seems to believe that (given time) this adaptive mutation could have occurred naturally. If it had, we would initially be defenseless against it and scrambling for a vaccine. Therefore Fouchier's research allows the strain to be studied and - hopefully - an effective vaccine developed. But, here's "the rub"... Fouchier wants his study to be published! So does virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka, who led similar research in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and the University of Tokyo, and reached comparable results. And it is up to NSABB to give them the green light.
The other part of the paradox is, that many academics and biosecurity experts are naturally cautious about releasing information which could provide any bioterrorist with a ready recipe to hold the world to ransom. Some argue that such work should never have been done in the first place and call for international monitoring of potentially harmful research.

Assuming the natural mutation did happen someday, it would have yielded calamitous results for much of the world's population. Yet if it never happened naturally, somewhere in a laboratory (or two) there is now a man-made virus with the potential for mass destruction. I hope those labs have better security than the U.S. borders!

The Headline: "Eurozone ministers try to beef up rescue fund"

Personally, I was surprised when the Euro succeeded for more than 18 months! There were so many countries included with failing economies, that the other more solvent countries wound up subsidizing them to their own detriment.

What is causing the decline of the Euro? The same thing that is calling the US dollar into question as the "reserve currency" for International trade. Incompetent leadership, elected primarily by people who want a "nanny state" to support their laziness!

What will save the Euro? Greater employment and the internal production of consumer goods. Outsourcing only benefits major corporations, it does nothing for the workers of the country except place them on the unemployment lines instead of the production lines.

The USA should adopt an total isolationist policy for five years, and severely tax any corporation that outsources jobs - to the tune of paying FULL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for one American for every job they outsource overseas. We should also eliminate all foreign aid until we are free of debt... or at least have reduced our debt to a reasonable level. We provide foreign aid to approximately 90% of the world... of which 99% are ungrateful! We must also secure our borders, keeping those who have not been properly authorized out of our country. To make matters worse, almost all of our foreign aid goes into the pockets of those officials charged with the proper distribution of those monies!

We shoulder the cost of freeing those peoples subjected to tyrannical dictatorships, without just compensation or repayment. Instead, after freeing them (or even after not freeing them), we then pay to rebuild their country!

The working and retired taxpayers support the indolent through "welfare assistance", which should only be made available to those unfortunates who are physically and/or mentally incapable of getting or maintaining gainful employment. For the employable, welfare should NOT be "the family business", passed on from generation to generation. Welfare for the healthy should be of a specified and limited duration... say 18 months, during which time the recipients receive job-skills training and placement support.

Welfare must NO LONGER be a reward for creating more welfare recipients via the delivery rooms of the local hospitals. Let's say the first one is "on" the system... okay, but, each succeeding child reduces the welfare benefits by half. By the time the third child is born, the welfare benefit is reduced to 25% of what it was initially. Can't live on that? Then GET A JOB! The only person that is responsible for you is you! You are not entitled to live from the work efforts of others (unless you are a politician).

We should also follow the example of Italy's Premier Monti, who recently dissolved the existing government and installed a new one... with NO POLITICIANS in it! They're all cut from the same cloth - greedy, self-serving bastards, who couldn't care less about the people they supposedly represent, or the country they have taken an oath to protect.

The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part 2 of 2 Parts

Today is Thanksgiving, and we, as citizens of these United States of America, have a lot for which to be thankful. First and foremost are our protections under our Constitution. With that in mind, let's pursue Part 2 of my topic. (This blog is not meant as the "be all and end all" for firearms. Rather, it is an introduction covering only the basics.)

We've established that you have a "right to keep and bear arms", and that you may have determined you need to exercise that right by legally purchasing a firearm for home defense. Again, there are significant variations in state laws regarding such purchases, and the storage and use of a firearm, so be familiar with the laws of your state prior to buying a gun.

Let's begin by exploring the question "How much gun do I really need?" There are so many to choose from - long guns, handguns, shotguns, rifles, revolvers, auto-loaders, single-shot, high capacity - sometimes just the thought of selecting can be mind-boggling. As far as caliber goes, currently there's everything from a .22 caliber to a .50 caliber, and pricing runs the gamut from dirt cheap to ridiculously expensive (the main thing to keep in mind is to always buy the best you can afford). As with most things you buy, you pretty much "get what you pay for". Dirt cheap. more often than not, is unreliable and frequently may be downright dangerous. Quality can be had - inexpensively - if you know how to shop.

For a home defense long gun, I would recommend the Mossberg 500 in 12 gauge in any of its variations. They are reasonably priced at $250-$350 - if you shop around, and are as reliable as a Remington 870 costing $330-$1,100. You may feel that the recoil generated by a 12ga is too much to handle though, so don't be afraid to consider a 20gauge. One of the most intimidating sounds in a darkened house, is the unnerving sound of a pump action shotgun having the slide "racked", and an intruder can't tell the difference between the sound of a 12ga or a 20gauge slide being activated. Personally, I have a Mossberg "riot gun" that's 35 years old, and still works like the day it was new. Quality does not have to bankrupt you, and a short-barreled shotgun is excellent in a confined space, such as the hallways and rooms of a "normal" household structure. The main advantage of a shotgun over a firearm using a metallic cartridge and a solid projectile, is the dispersal of the pellet payload, and a minimal chance of over-penetration. One doesn't have to be an expert marksman to hit a target within 30 feet. A carbine length rifle also handles fairly well indoors, but the condition of over-penetration still exists. The "Glaser Safety Slug" offers a solution to over-penetration. This excellent round uses a copper jacket and it is filled with a compressed load of either #12 or # 6 lead shot. It is then capped with a round polymer ball that enhances feeding and reloading. It is now available in four rifle calibers from .223 to 30-06. The Glaser Safety Slug is recommended for the urban dweller and anyone who is concerned with over penetration.

The handgun for home defense has the advantage of being the easiest to handle in a confined space, but requires more practice and skill to use effectively than does a shotgun. A handgun also shares the rifle's potential for over-penetration. However, Glaser has handgun calibers available from .25 auto to 45 Colt. Handguns are available in calibers from .22 to .50, and the recoil increases with each upward step. Personally, I feel that any handgun of less than .38 Special caliber is "iffy", and I do not recommend the .25 auto or the .32 caliber handguns simply because they are generally considered ineffective. Although I own a few 1911's in .45acp and a couple of .357 magnums, my personal preference is for what I refer to as the "mid-class" handguns - chambered for the .38 Special and the extremely popular 9mm. The lighter recoil of the mid-class rounds facilitates quicker recovery on-target, and placement of a slightly quicker, more accurate second shot if needed.
Felt recoil is a combination of several factors - the caliber and weight of the handgun, the weight of the projectile, the amount of powder in the case, etc. Since most people buy their ammunition "off the shelf", as opposed to loading their own, they have no control over the amount or type of powder in their ammo. They do, however, have control over three factors: the caliber and weight of the handgun they choose, and the weight of the bullet in the ammo they choose. Generally speaking, the larger the caliber the greater the felt recoil; the lighter the gun weight the greater the felt recoil; the heavier the bullet, the greater the felt recoil. And, in the case of a firearm, the word "magnum" means even bigger felt recoil. The best handgun for home defense is one with which you can consistently hit a target within 30 feet. Some people find the recoil of even a mid-class round to be intimidating, while others can easily deal with the recoil of a .44 magnum. If you believe you would be bothered by the perceived recoil of a .40 caliber (or larger) handgun, then buy in the .38 Special/9mm class, and get something with a 3"-4" barrel length (a bit more weight, a bit less recoil than those cute little snub-nose revolvers).
Who makes the best guns? Ask that question in a room full of gun enthusiasts and you will start a never-ending discussion. We all have our personal likes and dislikes for rifles, shotguns and handguns. In sporting rifles and shotguns, the most popular names are Mossberg, Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Savage and Marlin in no particular order. In tactical rifles and shotguns, you have the same popular names (and throw in Kel-Tec, who is coming on strong) - plus 100 or so others, most of whom are "custom builders").
The list of leaders in handgun manufacturing is a bit longer and introduces some other names. Glock, Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, SIG, CZ, Heckler & Koch, Taurus, Kahr and on and on. A handgun must fit your hand properly! If it doesn't feel comfortable in your hand, or if it doesn't point naturally, you may as well be holding a brick. A relatively recent innovation in handgun design is the interchangeable grip/back-strap, which can resolve fitment problems for almost anybody, no matter what size your hand.
I own 15 handguns from 8 different manufacturers, and enjoy them all, but... I have a personal preference for the Glock pistols. They fit my hand, they point very well, they consistently hit where they are pointed, and Glock pistols are virtually indestructible: dropped from an airplane at 500ft into a field recovered and fired; run over by a truck picked up and fired; buried "naked" in soil for 2 years, dug up, hosed off and fired; and 1,000 rounds put through one in 14 minutes and it never failed to fire. G L O C K - that's how I spell dependability.
But, the bottom line is - get what works for you. Fit, function, and affordability... those are the key considerations.

The Second Amendment and Self Defense - Where Do You Stand? Part I of 2 Parts

And now for something completely different...

Most Americans with any interest in their Constitutional rights, are at least familiar with the wording of Amendment II. It's pretty straight-forward: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Today there are those who would argue the semantics of the Second Amendment, while ignoring its intent. How does one define a "well regulated militia"? That depends upon where one looks for their definition of the word "militia" (the "well regulated" part could easily be construed as a reference to the inclusion of prunes in their diet)...

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Definition of MILITIA

1

a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

However, current federal law defines "militia" thusly:

USC TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The government therefore basically defines the "militia" (after cutting through and eliminating all the political smoke) as being composed of: "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." and blah, blah, blah. Paragraph 311(b)(2) essentially says the "unorganized militia" are those able-bodied males, ages 17-45 whose only other qualification is that they are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Ageism aside, today that's roughly 61 million males that qualify as "militia"!

The Japanese had no real desire to invade the United States during WWII. Why? Because, as Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II, said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." His statement was an acknowledgment that because of the Second Amendment the American people are well-armed, and we have significant experience in the use of firearms. The Second Amendment is also the only one that insures we retain all the other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights! But, enough about the Constitution. Just believe, as I do... that, if the Second is modified or repealed, all the others will be in constant jeopardy. Here's what the U.N. thinks about our "right to keep and bear arms":

"As you enter the Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel."

The Second Amendment fits hand-in-glove with the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now you have not only "the right to keep and bear arms", but also "the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects", but the Fourth is primarily a prohibition of government searches and seizures. Logically extending that prohibition, if the government can't do it then neither can some crack-head burglar! So, what do you do to protect yourself and your family? To insure a level playing field, and perhaps gain a lifesaving advantage, you may buy a gun. But, before you do that, there are a few questions you need to answer:

1. Do I have the mindset necessary to actually use a gun, in an action that - quite possibly - could result in my taking the life of another human being? (If you cannot truthfully answer Yes to this question, do not buy a gun. Go to your local Big 5 sporting goods store and buy a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.)

2. If I must use a gun in the protection of myself and/or my family or others, am I willing to face the consequences of my actions? (Once again, Yes is the only acceptable answer to this question. There probably will be some consequences. How many, and exactly what those consequences may be will vary from state to state. Expect, as a minimum, some intensive questioning from one of your local law enforcement agencies. At the other end of the "scales of justice", expect long-term housing to be provided for you by the state, and possibly an early death by execution.) The laws vary from state to state as to what constitutes "appropriate and necessary use of deadly force". Be very familiar with the laws of your state of residence!

If you answered No to either of the above questions, you may stop reading now and go hug Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. The rest of you may now move on to a few practical questions.

What type of gun do I need? There are several types of guns from which to select the one that's right for your intended purpose. The fall into two general categories: "long guns" - which are rifles and shotguns, and "handguns" - pistols and revolvers. What you need is entirely up to you, but it must be a gun with which you are comfortable, and one with which you can repeatedly hit your intended target. Here are what I consider to be the main characteristics of firearms...

For use as in-home defense, either a long gun or a handgun will do the job. There are also advantages and disadvantages to all of them. Rifles and shotguns weigh considerably more than most handguns, and may prove to be unwieldy in confined spaces such as hallways. Generally speaking, rifles are also more powerful than most handguns, and over-penetration may result. That means that, even if you hit your intended target, the projectile may pass through and strike someone not involved in the burglary/robbery/home-invasion. If you miss your target, the projectile will, in all probability, penetrate one or more walls, increasing the possibility of striking an innocent bystander. For home defense maneuverability, a carbine-length barrel (generally accepted as a rifle barrel under 20" in length) will improve maneuverability. However, caliber-for-caliber the potential for over-penetration remains the same. Long-barreled shotguns present the same problem for maneuverability in tight areas, but less possibility for over penetration. A short-barreled shotgun (also known as a "riot gun"), loaded with almost any upland bird shot would be a good choice for in-home defensive use. The unnerving sound of a shotgun chambering a round is almost universally recognized, and may make an intruder decide upon an immediate departure from your premises. Using pellet-filled shells, the need for precise accuracy is eliminated, and due to their dispersion pattern the potential for "collateral damage" is minimal. Most shotguns produce significant recoil, which some people find disconcerting, if not injurious.

Handguns for in-home defense have the advantage of high maneuverability, and work very well in confined spaces. They do, however, present an entirely different set of problems. There are two divisions of handguns; the auto-loading pistol (popularly, but incorrectly called "automatic pistols"), and the revolver. Auto-loaders have the advantage of increased ammunition capacity per load. Generally, an auto holds from 7-19 rounds of ammunition per magazine, whereas most revolvers hold 5-6 rounds of ammunition per cylinder load. Handguns take significantly more practice in order to gain marksman-like proficiency, than do a rifle or shotgun. Auto-loaders may be almost impossible for people with weaker hands to actuate the slide, which is necessary to make the pistol ready to fire. Many women, and men with arthritis (or even relatively minor hand injuries), find this to be true - after they have purchased an auto-loading pistol. Auto-loaders also have somewhat of a reputation for being less reliable than revolvers, although if properly maintained today's quality auto-loaders are extremely reliable. On the other hand, revolvers, if properly maintained, have fewer moving parts to fail, and are at least theoretically more reliable.

Think about these things while I work on Part Two - How Much Gun Do I Really Need?

Here's Some Old News That Is Re-Emerging...

This was published about 2 years ago, but the issue remains open today - same requester, same amount, same Western nations targeted:

UN asks: How can we extract payment of $100 Billion a year from westerners to redistribute to other countries?

The Manchester (England) Guardian newspaper reports that Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economics adviser, George Soros, the hedge fund trader, Lord Stern, the economist, and others have met in London at the request of Ban Ki-moon to discuss ways in which $100 billion dollars a year could be raised from the citizens of western countries and redistributed to Africa, South and Central America and other poorer areas

QUOTE -

--------------------------------------…
"the world's top financiers have been told to work out how to raise at least $100bn a year for the rest of this decade, cash that will be used to help the world's poorest countries adapt to climate change.

"The prices we pay for our goods do not reflect one key cost: the damage that their production does to the planet's climate system," said Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE. "We need to find ways to extract payment from those who cause that damage and then use that money to fund developing nations so that they can protect themselves from the worst effects of global warming."

"The Trillion Dollar Question" The Guardian. Available online at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…
--------------------------------------…

To use their terminology for a moment, as we "Western nations" are "the ones causing the damage", how do you think the UN could best "extract payment" from us in the west to give to other countries?
Please keep in mind that it's only $100 Billion dollars PER YEAR, for at least a decade... so where will the money come from? Numerically speaking, we're talking about $100,000,000,000. That's a number that very few people can relate to, and I'm one of the majority who cannot. It boggles the mind! How does one quantify and visualize a number containing 12 digits? It has been estimated that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy - the Milky Way - but we can't see them all simultaneously. Besides, how many lifetimes would it take to count them?

Consider first of all, that the United Nations consists of 192 nations, most of which are communist, socialist, and/or dictatorships... which goes a long way toward explaining their failure to thrive. "Western Nations" - also known as "First World Nations" - are comprised, at the most, of only 25 countries (I say "at the most" because there is yet some discussion over exactly what qualifications a "Western Nation" must exhibit). The majority of those 25 nations are made up of Western European countries, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Assuming this "global warming debt" is apportioned equally, the cost per nation, per year, is $4,000,000,000 - that's 4 Billion USD per Western Nation. If, however, only the top ten industrialized nations are expected to foot the bill for the UN, that expense increases to $10,000,000,000 (10 Billion USD) per Western Nation.

The first question that comes to my mind is; Who objectively says there is such a thing as man-made global warming? Larry Summers, George Soros, and Lord Stern are all notorious left-wingers! Who were the "others"? Where is the balance in this meeting?
My second question is; Where does the U.N. get its authority to determine who must pay for this man-made non-problem?

How NOT To Advertize On The Internet

I recently sent the following email to Shopko. I found their reply interesting enough to send them a second email, and this is how the exchange went:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Feedback received 11/16/2011:
Whoever thought it would be a great idea to put your Black Friday Sneak Peek online as a PDF file is an idiot! The ad presents so small that we can't see what the sale products are and when we zoom in (assuming everybody knows how to do that) to see the products, the description becomes so distorted that we can't read it! Somebody at ShopKo needs to pull their head out and take a look at what they've done to the BF sale.

Shopko's reply:
Hi,

The intention of the sneak peek was for customers to be able to see some of our best deals and to plan ahead for their shopping trips. We did not have it set up like our usual online ads where you can click through and get full product information because the offers are not available yet and we did not want to confuse people by linking through to our site that would show different pricing.

The ad will be posted in the same format as all other ads at shopko.com/weeklyflyer next Thursday and you will be able to zoom and get full product information at that time.

Thanks,

Liz

Liz Pedretti

Digital Marketing Specialist

Shopko Stores Operating Co.

I thought this was a surprisingly weak explanation, and replied:

Hello Liz,
The key word here is SEE. That's the whole idea in visual advertising, and the PDF approach failed to achieve its intended goal.
What was meant as an attempt to not "confuse people", I'm certain actually became an irritant to many besides me. The difference is that thousands of annoyed people will keep their annoyance to themselves, whereas I chose to share mine with you in the hope that you would seriously consider not using PDF files for advertising again. It was like offering to "show" photographs to Stevie Wonder! "Hey, Stevie... look at this!"
Many people aren't familiar enough with their PDF reader to even know they have a "zoom" feature in it, and probably thought "WTF?", (I speak from 20+ years experience with computers - many of those years being spent performing customer relations in my own computer business) and then they simply closed their reader since they couldn't identify anything in the ad after the first large graphic.
Just a little "food for thought"...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving credit where credit is due, Shopko DID reply to my concerns, even though their response didn't actually address the issue.

"Major" Malik Nidal Hasan Trial Date Set... AGAIN

This will be short. For those of you who may have missed it in Section D, Page 33, (right under the ad for Discount Canary Lamination) , the terrorist, "U.S. Army Major" Nidal Hasan is now scheduled for trial on March 5th, 2012. If they get it right, he won't be in that wheelchair much longer...