Omega Man
I know you're a good man. You don't look a bit
like you have common blood.
I know you must come from nice people!
--A Good Man is Hard to Find,
Flannery O'Connor
like you have common blood.
I know you must come from nice people!
--A Good Man is Hard to Find,
Flannery O'Connor
Those who prepare green wars,
wars of gas, wars of fire,
victories without survivors,
would put on clean clothing
and would walk alongside their brothers
in the shade, without doing a thing.
Keeping Quiet, Pablo Neruda
"My country tis of thee
Sweet land of State security
For thee I mourn"
--America,
Ranger's 2013 version
_______________________
Who is culpable for Mr. Wolfe's abetting of otherwise illegal owners in the process of caching weapons to which they are disallowed access? This sounds like conspiracy to Ranger.
The author further suggests that the gun "use common ammunition ... that any potential enemy might use." Would someone in the peanut gallery please enlighten Ranger: In this Land of the Free, who exactly is the imagined "potential enemy" referred to by the author? Is it my neighbor? Please inform me so that we might zero our weapons for the threat.
Wake up call: If this country transforms into "A Canticle for Leibowitz" or "Escape from New York" or a Road Warrior scenario, then Ranger won't be killing his neighbors; he will simply cap himself with his old .45. He would remind the crazies that those who come out shooting will only outlive the enemies amongst us by two weeks, reason being they will kill each other.
A good enemy is hard to find.
This month's Backwoods Home -- magazine of the tree-hugger crowd -- featured article by Claire Wolfe not usually paired with left-wing, pinko Commie back-to-earthers of the Foxfire or Mother Earth crowd.
The article -- Hiding a Gun: The Rules of Three -- was a basic instructional brief for anyone needing to cache a weapon, but the preface blew us away. States the author:
"You may want to hide a firearm if you are a peaceable person who is nevertheless forbidden to own a gun because of some misdeed in your past, or some arbitrary state law (pg. 12)." The author's actual intent is to encourage felons to violate current gun laws, an illegal gambit. Stalkers and perpetrators of domestic violence under restraining order also may not possess firearms, so who are these "peaceable people"?
The "misdeed" to which the author refers is probably not so benign.
The article -- Hiding a Gun: The Rules of Three -- was a basic instructional brief for anyone needing to cache a weapon, but the preface blew us away. States the author:
"You may want to hide a firearm if you are a peaceable person who is nevertheless forbidden to own a gun because of some misdeed in your past, or some arbitrary state law (pg. 12)." The author's actual intent is to encourage felons to violate current gun laws, an illegal gambit. Stalkers and perpetrators of domestic violence under restraining order also may not possess firearms, so who are these "peaceable people"?
The "misdeed" to which the author refers is probably not so benign.
After two sessions of digging and detecting, this is what finally emerged from the spot where Jack and I searched. A well-sealed plastic ammo box wrapped in a trash bag and thoroughly duct-taped. Inside the plastic box is an equally well-sealed metal ammo box. Both boxes contain desiccants. Inside the metal box is a pistol wrapped in corrosion-proofing paper. Once Jack finally got all the seals opened, that pistol emerged in ready-to-fire condition (fr. "Hiding a Gun: The Rules of Three")
Who is culpable for Mr. Wolfe's abetting of otherwise illegal owners in the process of caching weapons to which they are disallowed access? This sounds like conspiracy to Ranger.
The author further suggests that the gun "use common ammunition ... that any potential enemy might use." Would someone in the peanut gallery please enlighten Ranger: In this Land of the Free, who exactly is the imagined "potential enemy" referred to by the author? Is it my neighbor? Please inform me so that we might zero our weapons for the threat.
Wake up call: If this country transforms into "A Canticle for Leibowitz" or "Escape from New York" or a Road Warrior scenario, then Ranger won't be killing his neighbors; he will simply cap himself with his old .45. He would remind the crazies that those who come out shooting will only outlive the enemies amongst us by two weeks, reason being they will kill each other.
A good enemy is hard to find.
--The Peaceable Kingdom,
Edward Hicks
[Mr. Wolfe also references U.S. Army Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Manual [PDF](see Appendix D for caching information)].
Labels: back to earthers, backwoods home, foxfire, how to hide a gun, peaceable people
posted by rangeragainstwar at 4:03 PM
19 Comments:
Jim,
That's my girl Claire. She has a blog on Backwoods Home Magazine's site. I read her every post. She writes well.
Second try at Word Verification. Wish me luck.
Dave
The enemy, Ranger, are the Union Thugs, Leftists, Blacks, Latinos and 47%ers who have "Stolen" the Country from the Real Americans.
They are waiting for Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Andrew Napalotano, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Racist Limbaugh, Wayne LaPierre,World Net Daily, Free Republic or whomever tells them it's time to Take the Country Back from the Kenyan Usurper.
Not related to your post but on your belief terrorism is a legal problem. China considered using drones to kill the Myanmar drug lord Naw Kham for killing 13 Chinese sailors in 2011 (he was in a remote jungle hideout) but opted instead for legal avenues of a massive manhunt, capture and extradition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/world/asia/chinese-plan-to-use-drone-highlights-military-advances.html
They brought four conspirators to trial and executed them today March 1 by lethal injections.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/99866/burmese-militia-leader-behind-mekong-murders-executed-in-china/
Its sad to see how the drone precedent is being utilized by others (not that the US using it is moral at all) and the irony that China chose not too because doing so would harm "foreign citizens". They took pride that they weren't harming innocents in capturing and killing this 'terrorist'. Instead of broadly dehumanizing thousands that have ben killed and secretly covering up the war itself like America under Obama, the People Republic utilized rule of law instead! The shoe is on the other foot it seems. This seems like the model you espoused in tackling terrorism.
Note I'm not saying the trial was fair (indeed the retraction of guilt, public parade of the suspects, and national 99% conviction rate prove otherwise)
Mr. Kham was in the lawless Shan State and there was no reasonable way to capture him. Instead they sent a 200 strong investigative team and jointly patrolled the Mekong River. He was captured when he crossed into Laos from Burma.
The moral of the story to me is that just because the land is lawless does not mean raining death on them for years uninterrupted because the victims are invisible is the way to go. China no doubt would have killed dozens of innocents with its fledgling drone program in Myanmar (just look at the US record after 6+ years of undeclared war) and earned bad will from its neighbours. Instead it realized (perhaps ironically because it is not a democracy requiring its leaders to look tough for domestic reasons) that such measures will harm its long term interests down the road.
Contrast this to the American government which kills hundreds of innocent Pakistanis for one or two 'confirmed' terrorists and instead of realizing this source of contention, redefines 'militant' to mean male over puberty in a secret arbitrarily defined 'combat zone'.
Since thats not enough the US govt and media then childishly blames Pakistan's religion, Pakistan's double facedness, AQ for having 'human shields' though in the end those shields are dying by drone missiles that come without warning, and tries to push anti-Paksitan sentiment in the US pop instead of realizing that the Pakistani policy is a natural reaction and perfectly rational ( why kill its troops for America? Easier to focus on anti Pakistan Taliban instead of the anti US Taliban who are Pakistani friendly and Anti-India)
China might have got Mr. Kham and a bunch of other criminals in Shan State with a hellfire missile equivalent but they would have pissed off Myanmar nationalists, brought an arms race in the region for drones, and ensured that the area was permanently inhospitable to Chinese interests. THAT WOULD HAVE COUNTERED THE OBJECTIVE TO MAKE THE MEKONG RIVER SAFE.
Pity the US didn't consider this. They continue to use drones alleging they save lives though at the end of the day they ensure long term hatred thus requiring more drones to prevent all that hate to turn into terrorism in an infinite loop of death and misery for the Pashtun victim villages and the acquiescing Pakistani state as right-wing nationalism arises from this continued affront and terrorists target it. All this from the Commies who supposedly don't give a rat's a** about the rule of law.
Moe - I know that neck of the woods very well, bordering the state in Burma you mentioned.
Talk around there is those captured & now executed, were most likely not those responsible for the crimes attributed to them.
If you believe the drone story re Chin. desire not to injure/kill "innocents", I have a bridge across the Mekong to sell you.
Convenient patsies (esp. the criminal element) abound, especially with the immense daily profits and personalities involved..
Dave my man,
i really do worry about you.
jim
MOE.
yep we're off topic.
Terrorism MUST BE a legal issue. What else can define it?
The state can't declare war on it's own citizens as we have with al alwaki. Factually the state had no right to kill him either.
i will write on this today.
If T is warfare then when did the declaration of war take place?
You can't declare war on a noun.
I think the worse problem with drones is that it all takes place SOOO far away and most of us have our heads so far up our asses that we can't see day light.
jim
jim
Jim,
"The author's actual intent is to encourage felons to violate current gun laws..."
I think her point is that a person not in jail shouldn't have his rights infringed.
I tend not to worry about what my fellow humans are up to, unless I see clear signs that they intend to harm me or my posse.
Dave
Dave,
We are a nation of laws, and obviously i don't agree with the gun laws, but the dude abides with them.
Even if the laws are arbitrary they are the law.
Your reasoning does not include(i guess)violent offenders.
Do you wasn't violent types to have their rights restored after release?
This seems weird to want them armed.
Would you sell a gun to a gang banger after his release from prison for drug violence?
Surely most folks in prison are just peaceable folks that i'd like as a neighbor. Hell they might be better than NRA execs.
The mindset of this particular article and others that Claire wrote confound me.
I do not advocate gun ownership so that i can be an offensive force. I only advocate for defense,AND like it opr not i comply with the law.
Yep, i'm a whipped dog.
To do other wise is insanity.
jim
Jim,
Do I want violent types to have their rights restored after release? I never took them away.
If I understand the concept of rights correctly, no one can take your rights away, even if you are caged by Johnny Law. A right remains a right, irrespective of whether or not it's observed and respected.
I don't know any scary gang-bangers. (The scariest gang of all, the police, I cross the street to avoid.) It's none of my business whether or not they walk the streets strapped. I've never sold a gun, but if I were to, I would treat it like any sale I might make; a used car, a tool, or an hour of my carpentry.
Whether or not someone has been caged isn't a good indicator of their character. I've been in jail. So has Tommy Chong. And Martha Stewart. And Nelson Mandela. And don't forget all the plea-bargains and parole that allow dangerous drug-addicted, tax-evading felons like Willie Nelson to walk the streets.
My every action is guided by the calculated probability of breaking some arbitrary law. Like you, I comply. For now. And if I ever "snap", it won't be just because I possess a weapon I'm not allowed to own.
Claire never advocated offensive use of weaponry in her article.
I've got Word Verification figured out. If I hold a magnifying glass to my screen I can actually read their gibberish.
Dave
Dave,
Let's go back to square one.
Why would anyone want to cache a weapon.
She writes about sks's and shows a AR in the burial article.
You know my position on these items, but why hide them out?
Her reference to enemy ammo is indicative of a UW/GW mentality as is her links to SF FM's.
jim
Jim,
I have no cached weapons. So either you and I are not not doing our intel and we'll be blindsided when the government starts grabbing guns, or she's a little paranoid. Take your pick. Claire is heavily into the "Prepper" movement. She might be right. We're just one "emergency" away from martial law. Then a UW/GW mentality might be prudent.
Dave
Carpenter, I wouldn't worry about it. If the hammer falls its not the "militias" they'll be looking for, its me. There's a reason the CIA gave lists of Communists to charming characters like General Suharto and Shah Pahlavi. The Imperialists were using kill lists before it was cool.
In those broiling 60s The American Secret Police (some call them the FBI) assassinated the Black Panthers' community organizers and yet spared the common boors shoving shotguns... (and law books) in the faces of profiling police officers. Armed struggle they can deal with, class struggle on the other hand they cannot.
I tend to side with this Colonels assessment. If stockpiling ammo alone is supposed to stop tyranny than I've yet to see it.
Dave,
I'm an absolutist much like yourself,BUT.....
What do we do?
Read this months SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.
In it they say we must understand the problem before we can solve it. And of course the topic is labelled a PROBLEM.Again what do we do?
jim
Nikolay,
I'm glad they'll go after you first. It'll give me time to cache a weapon.
Jim,
What do we do? I kinda like your plan involving the .45. Save me a round.
I don't advocate forcing freedom on my fellow humans. I just wish there were some frontier left on this earth. I'm a back-slowly-out-the-door kinda guy.
Hit me with a linky on the Scientific American article. I went to their site but couldn't find any article like you described.
Dave
Dave,
will send link later.
Actually i'd use my old 357 mod 28 smith that i've had forever.
Old friends and all that.
jim
Jim,
My .357 is a Ruger Blackhawk. It's a fire-breathing dragon. My most accurate pistol.
Dave
Dave,
The Scientific American art. is mar2013Pg 10 Science Agenda.
I have a collection of Rugers.
I'll show them to u if u ever visit.
jim
Jim,
Scientific American's site requires a scientist to navigate. Unable to locate article.
I'd love to see your Rugers, and maybe do some cowboy single-action shooting. Florida is on my "someday" list.
Dave2364 odsFran
Post a Comment
<< Home