Leaderboard

This week many of us are bound to be traveling for the holiday and spending time with family and friends. I wanted to go ahead and wish everyone here a very [b]Happy Thanksgiving[/b] and safe travels! For those of you who are currently off of American soil, serving our country, please be safe and enjoy the holiday as best you can knowing that we're thinking of you back here in the States. I realize that for the majority of us here on TGO, the recent election did not go exactly as we had hoped it would and we are gravely concerned about the future of our nation. There are some here who are without a job, and we likely all know someone who has either lost their employment or otherwise taken a hit because of the economy. Several of us this year have lost loved ones or are presently watching someone close to us writing what may be the final pages of their life's story. But despite all of those bad things, I take comfort in knowing that we have much still to be thankful for. If for no other reason than simply the fact that we still live as free men and women in what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as this Great Experiment. Enjoy the week ahead!

Patriotism has nothing to do with political affiliation. Serving your country, recognizing the rights of others and obeying the law show patriotism. No, I am not a liberal and no I am not a Democrat. I am a thirty year retired USMC MGySgt, a Vietnam War veteran (4 tours "in country") and was a Republican for over forty years. I am now an Independent as I will not wear a brown shirt and red armband and worship a Republican King and his court, nor will I allow a Socialist Democratic Party to dictate to me how to live. We are right now at the same point Germany was in 1934: only two choices and both of them are bad.I don't Identify with either party, I identify as being an American, and I have earned the right to call myself that by service to my nation, not by party affiliation. The store owner had the right to do what he did but he would never get my business.He was a good Republican but a lousy American.

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1353370773' post='848479'] keep this subject grounded in reality versus theory.[/quote] You can't.

http://shirt.woot.com/offers/online-debate-team

As to the pelvis....It MAY work ..it MAY not. I had a girlfriend who was in a car wreck. The car went off the interstate and flipped end over end . Her pelvis was broken in THREE places..... yet she crawled 50 yards back to the road to flag down help....so if a 17 year old girl was able to do that I don't hold out much hope for a pelvic shot to turn off the bad guy's trigger finger. If pain does not stop them, then we are back to needing to turn off the lights....so why not just skip straight to shutting off the power? As to rounds hitting them in the " credit card" or the "ocular-nasal triangle" YES those are all that will for sure get into the cranial vault and hit the brain....Both Platte and Maddox had pistol bullets recovered from under their scalp that did not penetrate their skulls in the Miami FBI shootout in 1986. The skull IS very hard and rounds need to be directed into the eye orbit and nose to reliably hit the brain.... But....... does anyone really think that a bullet through the teeth or a bullet in the jaw or square in the forehead does not hurt and does not have some kind of negative effect on their ability to do damage to us? And why do we always seem to assume that we will just fire ONE round and stop? The first 1 might not hit him in the eye, but the follow up shots will be doing damage too.... Also consider this....what follows the bullet? SOUND, hot gas and burning powder. At less than 3 yards that is like having a cherry bomb go off at arms length. If nothing else it is very likely to get them to close their eyes and flinch. Do we think that will make it easier or harder for them to continue their assault? And again....we keep shooting until they quit doing what made us shoot them to begin with . There is no "shoot 2 and assess" it is "keep shooting until they are no longer able to hurt you. "

[quote name='S&WForty' timestamp='1353358426' post='848337'] That sure is a short sighted statement. Not everyone can hop from job to job especially in this economy. I've had to endure that same line in the Parking Lot Bill thread if someone works for a company that bans firearms from employees' cars. Perhaps someone can drive to work and home unarmed and pray for the best. I guess that same person working on Thanksgiving should pray that their family doesn't miss them. [/quote] Everything comes at a sacrifice. Want to feed the family? Then you might have to work on Thanksgiving. Don't like it? Then work somewhere else or don't work at all. Sorry, I've missed several Thanksgivings and Christmases while deployed to war along with hundreds of thousands of other Sevicemembers that have endured the same. I never expected pity or appreciation, so I have a hard time empathizing with a person that can just go find another job.

Meh. If your employer requires you to work in Thanksgiving, find a different job. I agree that family is important, and Thanksgiving serves as a day for the family to get together, but I've missed birthdays and every holiday there is when I served in the military. It sucked, but it was the profession I chose and I knew that it came with sacrifices such as that.

Let's define the problem a little better..... Is the target a suspect held at gunpoint 6 yards away who suddenly produces a weapon? Or is it an aggressive panhandler who had maneuvered to within 2 arms length and then suddenly produced a weapon? Or is it an active shooter who is 30 yards away? Or is it someone doing their best Trayvon Martin impersonation who has mounted you and working the ground and pound trying to beat you to death? You see the answer largely depends on the situation. If he is 30 yards away then COM is all you are likely hit ....no matter how good a shot you are . If he is farther than 5 yards then the head is not an easy shot unless he is not mobile. At less than 4 yards (and closing on you) then head shots are A LOT easier than most people realize. Can you hit a volleyball at 3 yards ? How about 2 yards? If we plug it into actual close range assaults the head shots get easier...IF that is what you have trained to do and trained to do it against live opponents while you are semi adrenalyzed. And if you understand the OODA concept, action vs reaction, and how to exploit that to your advantage it is easy. How about in touching distance? With him on top of you ? Once you have grabbed his left arm and pulled across to your left side(unbalancing and dropping him onto his face and chest onto the ground) and scooted your hips (to your right) out from under him? Now you just draw and lay the muzzle on the back of his left shoulder and fire a shot from 4 inches from his head. Can you make THAT shot? I would hope so. So we see that depending on the distance and depending on your training and depending on your skill as a shooter and your ability to shift gears from the defensive to the offensive you can in fact make head shots IF you try to. Would I recommend it for the typical CCW license holder? No. But there are people out there carrying guns in public that have FAR and AWAY more skill than the typical CW holder and FAR and AWAY more skill than the typical police officer. For THOSE people? They can make those shots. You just have to make a real serious assessment of your skill level and decide accordingly. And that decision does not need to be made for the first time in the middle of the situation when it is real....... As for me, in MOST situations the body shots are plan A. But realizing pistols are notoriously weak stoppers plan A is actually a burst of 3 to 5 to the body...and then IMMEDIATELY stage for the headshot. If the head is still there...then take the shot. If it is not...then he fell down....and we simply do not take the shot. Pretty simple. I look at the body shots like a flurry of punches to the body setting them up for a knockout blow.....if they fall from the body blows then we don't throw the hook.... The body shots at 3 yards (assuming you understand grip and follow through) are fired like a burst from a submachine gun. Due to the close proximity of the target these can be fired at warp speed and still get tightly grouped high COM hits. These are more times than not going to be LIKELY to do what needs to be done.....but I do not EXPECT them to. I EXPECT to then have to take the head shot. And since I am EXPECTING it, I am already looking for a sight picture and getting ready to take the head shot once the last shot of the body burst is fired. Not standing and gawking wondering why it didn't work and what to do next. Training fills in those empty pages in your mental rolodex so you know what to do next and don't hesitate or freeze. But there are situations where head shot might be plan A. If the BG is rapidly closing with a contact weapon or if he is reaching for a weapon and at 2 arms length distance then the head may well be plan A. but for MOST situations outside 2 arms length then the body is still plan A.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353337356' post='848138'] ....I've lost a lot of respect for certain of members of this forum in this thread, who have repeatedly advocated smaller government, fewer firearm laws to get us closer to our God given rights, but are happy to throw those principles away to get the state to pass a law because it saves them from making some hard choices.[/quote] Agree that ideally, best legislation is to repeal ... 1. statute that going armed is a crime 2. statute which makes carrying past a sign a criminal charge Second best to 1. is to extend exception for going armed to vehicle, for everyone, since it is already covered under "castle law" part of self defense statutes ....and let chips fall where they may regarding public facilities and their employees. Since this is still a faraway pipe dream, most agree we must grab the fruit that can be picked at the time. Btw, this law ain't gonna affect me one way or the other, I'm just for expanding gun rights any way possible, including yes, even adding a few more words to TCA, since it's more feasible to do that than take any away right now. - OS

The first option should be center mass. Its the best and largest target. If the threat fails to stop, your next target is the pelvic region. Splitting the pelvic girdle will take away the threat's mobility and there are several large arteries in that area. If the threat still doesn't stop, your last option is the head. And when we're talking about the head we're really talking about an upside down triangle that goes from the eyes to the nose. That's it. The forehead is very hard and has been know to deflect bullets because of the slope. From the cheekbones down is also a poor choice because there are no vital targets in that area. So to sum up: 4 to 6 center mass, 4 to 6 pelvis and if you don't get compliance after that, you have to make a precise shot to the eyes/nose area. This all was from the class I took from Tiger McKee.

[quote name='DaddyO' timestamp='1353102600' post='846826'] I can even see them passing a law that says if you currently have a 401K, then you have to choose... either your 401K or government retirement (including Social Security), but not both. Bastards. [/quote] Just a decade or two ago, someone who actually saved for their own retirement and ran their financial life responsibly would have been held up as an example of how to life. Now, if you have any money at all you are part of the "evil rich" and you deserve to be punished.

Hey like the title says I'm new to reloading so new I don't have a loader yet, I am planing on getting a dillon loader for Xmas no I'm sorry Christmas (lets put Christ back in Christmas) What is a good bullet, and powder for a reload. I am planning on getting the Dillon Square B deal so if I go to other calibers I can do it rather easily. I have checked all kinds of threads on here and on line to find the best bulk Bullets and powder but I want to know what you folks do. I will use them for target range mostly but if the #### hits the fan I want to have thousands of loads to have on hand. I will probably end up with a 45 also so what ever powder I get I want to be able to load them also. If I go to reload ak47 or AR15 is the powder the same as the pistol round etc. Thanks FlyBoy

With a new Glock 19 Gen 4, electronic muffs, some ammo, Comp-tac holster and mag pouch. Took a lot of looking and deciding. In the end, the Glock fit my hand the best, the trigger is decent, the price was right, and it was available. Off to the range tomorrow to give it a wringing out.

This buck dressed at 107 pounds and came down with a shot of about 10 yards. Hand loaded 230 grain .45 acp XTP. Bullet passed through and lodged in the hide on the off side. Life is good! [img]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f397/dsayre/004-1.jpg[/img] He had 3 1/2 inch spikes growing downward on his head. Craziest thing I've ever seen! [img]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f397/dsayre/003-1.jpg[/img] Dave S

[quote name='sigbrown1297' timestamp='1353371218' post='848484'] Looking for a processor near Nashville for WHEN get my deer I would like to do some summer sausage, and jerky as well. Much appreciated. [/quote] Cant help you with the processor but I just want to point out that attitude has a lot to do with having a successful deer hunt! When you get discouraged, your hunts become miserable, you get tired, you fall asleep, and you leave your stand early. Maintain a positive attitude and you will find yourself seeing a lot more deer. I get my deer processed at Jeff Kings off Highway 72 in Mississippi. Prices are like $55 for a whole deer. They do everything but link sausage. Happens to be one of the best and he is on my way to my land.

[quote name='TGO David' timestamp='1353363277' post='848409'] I don't have a budget. I'll spend whatever it takes to build a good one [/quote] change user name to TGO David Trump

[quote name='Cruel Hand Luke' timestamp='1353362245' post='848395']TMF, no one is saying (at least they shouldn't be) that shooting people in the pelvis NEVER works. Just like no one is saying shooting in the head ALWAYS works. I have friend whose dad shot a guy in the leg and the guy stopped. But then you have guys like my great grandfather who killed two guys after BOTH of them had shot him in the torso. Neither one hit anything vital...and he hit both the other guys multiple times in the chest and they died on the spot. You just don't know how someone will react to being hit in a non vital area.Sometimes they crumple and sometimes not.... Most people shot in the heart, spine or brain react the same.... [/quote] I agree with what you're saying, but I'm just trying to keep this subject grounded in reality versus theory. It is not realistic to think you'll be able to engage a small area of a person's face in a situation like this, no matter how much you train. I'm saying this having done more failure drills than I could count with the collective fingers and toes of all the people on this board. I still do them. But I would never trick myself into thinking that I would choose that as a primary target, especially when I know I can get 5 shots off faster into one sight picture than two to the chest and one to the head. The split second it takes to make the transition to a different sight picture isn't worth it to me, especially when I know I might not land the shot on a moving nugget. If I can't finish it with 5 shots to the body in quick succession, than I have landed into the remotest of remote situations, made even more remote by the assailant not responding to fear or pain. So if I ever get attacked by 7 ft tall tweeker who is high on PCP and wearing body armor I might be in trouble. Otherwise, my experience tells me that my course of action is most likely to result in a more positive outcome with out assuming more risk. But I'm a "play the averages" sorta guy.

It's their company and they can do with it what they will - well at least they should be able to.....

[font=Helvetica][size=3] [img]http://site.lapolicegear.com/blog3/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/p1.jpg[/img][/size][/font]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1353356558' post='848318']Meh. If your employer requires you to work in Thanksgiving, find a different job.[/quote] That sure is a short sighted statement. Not everyone can hop from job to job especially in this economy. I've had to endure that same line in the Parking Lot Bill thread if someone works for a company that bans firearms from employees' cars. Perhaps someone can drive to work and home unarmed and pray for the best. I guess that same person working on Thanksgiving should pray that their family doesn't miss them.

Like this... [img]http://patrickleanne.smugmug.com/Other/random-stuff/i-fRZSPjk/0/L/Christmas_for_engineers-L.jpg[/img]

Betty Boop (kidding) I like Rusty's suggestion. Lot's of folks are using the x's on either side now with most of the normal usernames taken. You can even add extra x's on either side if need be. I am pretty proud of mine. H1GHSCOR3 if anyone wants to add me. Pretty in to Black ops 2 now.

But I saw it on the internet [img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/603913_489513107737612_1081253837_n.jpg[/img]

I decorate by using invisible decorations. State of the art things.

NIce! I have killed a doe before with a .45. It is a lot fun to hunt with a 1911.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353337356' post='848138']People here wonder why we can't get this bill passed.... IMHO, people who support this bill have lost their way on the fundamentals of conservative principles [/quote] To be accurate, the TFA and NFA didn’t just go “to town” on legislators who don’t want to see this bill passed; they went “to town” on one particular (soon to be former) legislator who violated her oath of office by not following the rules of the legislature [u][i]and[/i][/u] violated her alleged conservative principles to kill a bill that had successfully passed every hurdle needed to get to the floor for a vote. Her actions in this matter were worthy of Jimmy Naife as there was no evidence that she opposed the bill on principles or because she thought it was a bad bill and even if she was opposed on principle; it is the floor of the people’s house where such opposition or support for the bill is [i]supposed[/i] to be shown. The evidence showed that this legislator acted for the sake of political expediency in that she didn’t want to have to record a vote on the bill and either anger the pro-firearms community and lose those votes [u][b]OR[/b][/u] anger the likes of FedEx and Nissan and Bridgestone and lose their campaign contributions. Since she couldn't have it both ways, she punted and her actions were the epitome of exactly the kind of legislator that no state legislature needs...she deserved to be removed and I’m very proud that I played a small part of making that happen through my membership in both the organizations you cite as well as some significant, for me, donations to the campaign of that legislator’s opponent. I agree, 2[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment advocates [u][i]should[/i][/u] be pushing the legislature to pass laws the recognize our rights to keep and bear arms [b][i]including the passage of laws that push back against entities like businesses who overreach their authority by adopting policies that attempt to control what a citizen can have or not have in his/her privately owned vehicle[/i][/b]; especially when these entities do so without offering any rational or logical reasons for doing so (at least none they are willing to articulate in public). That you have decided that the problem this bill addresses isn’t a problem or isn’t a problem that the legislature should address can be debated. However, to cavalierly say the people can chose to work or shop somewhere else both ignores some harsh realities about our economy right now and doesn't do much to bring people to agree with you...I could just as easily and correctly say that this wouldn't be a problem at all if businesses didn't overreach their authority by attempting to control the legal contents of a vehicle and that many, including me do believe it’s a problem and one that, because of the actions of some businesses, the legislature needs to address. Your assertion that such a law would be an expansion of government is an exaggeration - a “parking lot” bill, if one is passed, will not necessitate the creation of or expansion of a state agency nor would such a law require an business to do anything at all except to not dictate to employees/customers what they can/can’t have inside of their vehicles. I will agree, on principle, that I would rather not have to add words to the Tennessee Code but I would also prefer the businesses don't arbitrarily and without rationality, attempt to dictate what I can and can't have inside of my vehicle just because that vehicle is parked in a parking lot where they have invited me, indeed, [u][i]NEED[/i][/u] me to be. Their actions, which I believe are arbitrary and capricious, have brought us to the point that society, through the state, feels it needs to react. Our founders, in their wisdom, addressed property rights in the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment which specifically both protects property rights and allows for the manner that those property rights can be infringed, even up to and including confiscation…courts, based on the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment, have found such “parking lot” laws Constitutional…many businesses with some very high-priced attorneys have made their arguments against these parking lot laws and those arguments have been found wanting. Can and do courts make errors? Of course they do. Are some courts "liberal"; of course some are. However, I don't see any evidence to show that the makeup of the 10th Circuit is "liberal" and if they were, it would seem counter-intuitive for them to find in favor of a "guns in parking lots' bill. This was, after all, a unaminous decision; one I've read (at least most of) and I can see why they decided as they did. Further, no one here has offered any significant facts that would lead me to think the court is wrong. If these laws truly are Constitutional, we are left then with the issue of whether such a law should or should not be passed in Tennessee. On that question, I’ve heard a lot of opinions and phrases such as “it’s wrong” or “it’s not a conservative position” and even my principles have been called into question. However, I'm more than content with where my principles lie and I believe such a law should be passed and will continue in that position unless or until someone can present a cohesive and rational argument against such a law in Tennessee.

Yea AR pistols & SBR's are definately "a blast" to shoot that is for sure, probably one of the most just for fun guns out there except ones with a happy switch on them. You are more than welcome to put some rounds through one of mine to see how you like them before decideing to buy/trade/build yourself one.

If i were Gruden i wouldnt leave my Monday Night football gig to work harder and look after a bunch of kids. He has it made where he is.

I would say a 20 gauge would be perfect.

I've been away from this soap opera for a week or so. Did I miss anything? No? Didn't think so. Anyone convince anyone about anything? No? Didn't think so.

Wow, I feel sorry for some of you. Once my neighbor asked me to come over and take care of his pool, drink beer and use his pool while he was on vacation. It was a real PITA but someone had to do it!

[i]I believe in Center of Mass and as many rounds as it takes to stop the threat. [/i]

As a FL fan it saddens me to see him be fired.

[quote name='dralarms' timestamp='1353247601' post='847554'] Good except for the fact of the warning, now he will get the chance to do it again. [/quote] Yeah, there's that. But there's also that the gun carrier was spared most any type of legal or psychological repercussion. - OS

[quote name='Garufa' timestamp='1353265732' post='847712']If the nutcase purchased the knife at the store how did he get it out of the fiendish packaging to commence his rampage?[/quote] Must have had either another knife or a eight year old accomplice.

Heres a heart warming neighbor story from yesterday. Lawn company cuts her grass, blows a four foot pile of leaves from her yard into mine. (I have no trees.) Yes, I blow them back. She comes out and yells at me, " I paid to have those blow there!) Me> " What?!" I feel your pain.

My experience tells me you will draw and fire without thinking about your equipment and you will fire where and how you have trained; chances are you will not have time to do anything else. My training was firing into center body mass without using sights. If you think you will have time to get a sight picture or make a head shot; train that way. If I were a “Shot placement guy” I would be dead.

He showed her his, she showed him hers. Sounds like neither liked what they saw.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353106091' post='846856'] What's the logic behind removing open carrying in lieu of carrying a knife? [/quote] Well, carrying a concealed weapon (be it a knife, stick, gun, blackjack or whatever) is not going to cause the manager of the waffle house I am eating in to ask me to leave like the gentleman sitting next to me was when another customer complained about the XD strapped to his side. Although the waffle house was not posted the manager still had the right to deny him service after the complaint was made. I on the other hand was able to finish my eggs in peace while still having my S&W Bodyguard covered by my outer shirt. My question to you would be what is the point in letting people know you have a weapon? I carry not because I feel the need to excersise my 2A right, I carry to protect my family and, God forbid, I ever have to use a gun for defense, I prefer the BG hear it before he sees it. Now my intent was not to deny others open carry, for me it is not that big a deal. For others it seems to be. Thats fine, lets rephrase the question. What are the opinions of modifying the current HCP law to something like a WCP (weapons carry permit) law?

Happy Happy

I can even see them passing a law that says if you currently have a 401K, then you have to choose... either your 401K or government retirement (including Social Security), but not both. Bastards.

Congrats on the choice. But be warned....Glocks multiply in the night. You may only have one now, but soon there will be more. I think Glocks are asexual.

Congrats! The older I get the more I just want to associate with my dogs. Mg wife is dying for another puppy, enjoy the puppy age and take pictures while you can!

Speech by Ron Paul. Fantastic. While I don't agree with every position he takes, I do agree on the principles he advocates 100%. Please share http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q03cWio-zjk&feature=youtube_gdata_player This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty. It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire. The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start. In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history. All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe. The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending. The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.” Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January. I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled. If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government. During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty. I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have. Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable. They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British. Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies. But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt. The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary. This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone. That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts. The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed. The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends. If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue. Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees. If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream. This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely—that is until it too fails. There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty. The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse. If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results. Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties. Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests. The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves. Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people. But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism. Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause. It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests. After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live. Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples: Undeclared wars are commonplace. Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement. The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system. Debt is growing exponentially. The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights. Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people. The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way. It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial. Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington. Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.” Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders. Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine. Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy. Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions: Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison? Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk? Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp? Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution? Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane? Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold? Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy? Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air? Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require? Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes? Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ? Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem? Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US? Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch? Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same? Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes? Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth? Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty? Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty? Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination? Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong. Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them? Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people? Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties? Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same? Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty? Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands? Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions. Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do? Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy. Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible. Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way. We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons. Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties. It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor. Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber. Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them. Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative. The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds. This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens. It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money. Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant. Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts. Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted. We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required. The Constitution established four federal crimes. Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code. Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems. The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist. Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.” Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly. Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1. The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be. Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis. It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it. Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.” It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves. American now suffers from a culture of violence. It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will. Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.” The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse. This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: “destroying a village to save a village” was justified. It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the mess that Iraq is in today. Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well. First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. If this cycle is not reversed society will break down. When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program. When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer just can’t be helped. When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All moral standards become relative. Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress. Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession. Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified. Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power. If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom. If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem. It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt. But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach. Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties. The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation. Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people. I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom. Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible. If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents. Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement. Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims. What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five. 1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny. 2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result. 3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression. 4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood. 5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns. Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends. What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity. What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state. No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty. The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do. Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare. What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance. The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC. Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits. A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt. The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government. The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community. The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change. It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles. Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish. The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed. To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular. The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected. I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY. If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.

[quote name='Sour Kraut' timestamp='1353032184' post='846311'] ..humans are assholes.. [/quote] No truer words have ever been spoken!

Ridiculous.

One in the chamber, hammer down, no safety. My SIG & most of my Berettas are DA/SA & are decocker only models & that what I prefer.

I don't consider safeties as a necessary feature for responsible gun owners. For the types of people that look down barrels and finger twirl with their drunken buddies, absolutely. The only pistol I have with a safety is my 1911, but that is required due to the SA design. DA pistols and revolvers don't need safeties.

I gotta call BS on this whole story. I saw Crocodile Dundee, he didn't get arrested...and that was a real knife.

"Just send me to hell or New York City, it would be about the same to me." ~ Hank Jr.