Interesting Article


PDA






Norton
June 7, 2004, 02:30 PM
Saw this article on a site at :
http://www.lrpworldnews.com/news/index.php?option=articles&task=viewarticle&artid=33&topid=5&Itemid=3

Interesting to say the least....





>>Police State: Keep and Bear Arms - Part I - Let’s be Specific
By Al Lorentz
DISCLAIMER: I am not advocating the violent overthrow of the United States Government, I AM advocating the protection and defense of the Constitution of The United States of America from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Let’s get down to brass tacks, the next few articles are going to deal with arming yourself and I am going to be very specific.

Amendment II 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.

Most of us are so aware of this portion of the US Constitution that we can memorize it verbatim and this is good. I wish it were so that all of us could memorize at least the first ten amendments to the US Constitution as well but at least we have the most important amendment covered, the one that stands as the guarantor and protector of the rest. Keeping and bearing arms is not just a suggestion, it should be seen as a mandatory requirement for every citizen.

A quick review of the writings of the Founding Fathers will reveal that they believed the worst protector of human rights (aka God given) were public servants and governments. As a matter of fact, the most likely suspects for suppressing the rights of the people were realized to be the ones who were supposed to ensure the same rights, namely the government. I say this because I want to be perfectly clear that your choice of arms has little to do with duck hunting or protecting yourself from crime and everything to do with standing athwart the plans of tyrants who would subjugate you and rule over you.

You must be armed AND well trained in the use of those arms. That is what the term “well regulated” means, it does not mean “controlled by the tyrants who you are arming yourself against” as the tyrants conveniently translate it. Keep in mind that the same people who wish to interpret “well regulated” as being controlled also want to disarm you… disregard everything they say as lies and disinformation.

You are the Militia, you are supposed to be armed.

The Militia were not crazies, they were not duck hunters and they weren’t the local target shooting club, they were a civilian organization trained to defend their local village or town. They were not the private army of the government of the state any more than they were under the direct control of the King of England, this would have been self defeating since the King and most politicians are prone to send trained troops off to fight as mercenaries abroad or worse, to use them against the populace whom they are supposed to serve. The militia were local citizens and they sought to be well armed and well trained, to be well armed without training is to waste ones money and everyone else’s time.

I recommend therefore that first and foremost you go out and buy a rifle and that you learn to use it. To be specific, you need to buy the best rifle you can afford, preferably in a common caliber. I realize that at the gun show you can get a fairly good deal on weapons that are in bizarre and no longer used calibers but that is why they are being sold cheap… the ammunition is so expensive you can’t afford to become proficient.

A good rifle will be accurate up to 300 yards and beyond but a longer range rifle is better. You should buy a rifle that will shoot a heavy caliber round, avoid .22 caliber. Some choices (but not limited to) are NATO 7.62x51, 7mm Mag, .308, 30-06 and 6.5x55 Mauser. 7.62x39 is also acceptable although the AK series of weapons were designed for shorter ranges and are not as accurate as the calibers above. Your goal is going to be to shoot at 500 yards and beyond.

Designated Marksman rifle. If you are a good shot, buy a hunting rifle with a scope on it. Ideally your hunting rifle should be taken to the gunsmith and accurized but that is not as important as your making sure the weapon is sighted in and that you are accurate with it. Make your goal to be able to hit a man sized target at 1,000 yards.

Basic Rifleman. If you are not a good shot, you need to become one, anyone (and I mean this literally) that has most of their body parts, is not afflicted with a debilitating disease and at least one good eye can learn to be a good shot. A good basic rifle is the FAL or better still, the CETME which is a copy of the German G-3 battle rifle and shoot 7.62x51 NATO ammunition. I have seen this excellent weapon sell for as little as $300 with extra magazines included! Your goal should be to shoot accurately at ranges up to 500 yards as a basic rifleman.

You should have at least 100 rounds of ammunition for your rifle and ideally, 1000 rounds for it. Plan on replenishing the ammunition on a regular basis and drag yourself to the range or to your cousins farm twice a year to keep your marksmanship skills high. Your marksmanship is the most important skill you have regarding being “well regulated” and should be taken seriously. You can also practice your shooting positions and basic shooting techniques at home without having to fire your weapon.

Remember, even if you have a very basic bolt action rifle without even a scope, the basic rifle in your hand is more valuable to you in time of peril than the expensive and deluxe one sitting on the shelf at the gunshop. Also remember that gun safety is paramount and should be practiced at all times.

Avoid buying fancy gee-whiz weapons and spending your money on accessories of little or no value. You probably don’t need a folding stock on your rifle as much as you need some extra magazines or ammunition. I had a con artist at the gunshow try to get me to trade my M-16 for a pistol that looked like something James Bond would carry but was in fact a piece of junk. Don’t let the dealer at the gun show talk you into foolish choices, if you are not certain of what you want, take a friend along that is knowledgeable.

As a professional warrior and leader, let me close by saying that I would prefer to take into battle a squad of men armed only with bolt action rifles, but who were well trained with them, than to take twice as many men armed with the latest weapons but having poor training. It is not the sound and fury of your weapon that will carry the day but rather the ability to place your rounds on target. To quote a great movie “Aim Small, Miss Small”, this should be the maxim for our marksmanship program.

Next week we will talk about shotguns, pistols and other secondary and backup weapons.

Al Lorentz is a Fundamentalist Christian, father and devoted husband, state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas. Al has served as a Marine Sniper and later as an Airborne Ranger in the Texas National Guard. He welcomes your comments at allorentz@truevine.net.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Article" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mulliga
June 7, 2004, 06:50 PM
I recommend therefore that first and foremost you go out and buy a rifle

You should buy a rifle that will shoot a heavy caliber round, avoid .22 caliber

Your goal is going to be to shoot at 500 yards and beyond

:rolleyes:

ID_shooting
June 7, 2004, 07:26 PM
:scrutiny: 500 yd rifle :rolleyes:

Most firefights are done at ranges of less than 300 yds.

itgoesboom
June 7, 2004, 09:17 PM
I could be mistaken, but I believe the concept is to have longer range rifles than the possible enemy, because the militia would be outgunned in so many other areas.

The militia wouldn't have access to tanks and artillery and air support and such.

So the idea is to avoid being in range of the average line troops, and hit them from a longer distance, while remaining hidden.

I.G.B.

Norton
June 7, 2004, 11:53 PM
We all know that there may be factual errors in these types of articles, and we could argue the relative virtues and limitations of FALs vs Cetmes.....but I always find it nice to find a pro-gun article on a site that not's necessarily a "gun site"........

itgoesboom
June 8, 2004, 02:16 AM
May not be a gun site, but by just spending five minutes on that site, I have seen enough to think of it as a tin-foil hat site, definatly not a mainstream site.

I.G.B.

Norton
June 8, 2004, 06:40 AM
itgoesboom....in addition to being a poorly designed site, the information there was, as you said, pretty "tin foil hattish". Not even sure how I got there....must have been one of those middle of the night link following sessions:p

JohnBT
June 8, 2004, 10:03 AM
My .22 ammo will shoot more than a mile. It says so right on the box. ;)

JT

Molon Labe
June 8, 2004, 10:53 AM
Mr. Lorentz sounds a lot like “Fred” of “Fred’s M-14 Stock” fame.

Found this interesting:

Al Lorentz is [the] state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas.

I went to the web site for the Constitution Party of Texas:

http://www.cptexas.org/leaders.shtml

And didn’t see any mention of his name.

ojibweindian
June 8, 2004, 02:41 PM
Maybe the source is a "crackpot", but there is some sound advice in the article.

I recommend therefore that first and foremost you go out and buy a rifle and that you learn to use it. To be specific, you need to buy the best rifle you can afford, preferably in a common caliber.

Who can argue with that piece of advice?

A good rifle will be accurate up to 300 yards and beyond but a longer range rifle is better. You should buy a rifle that will shoot a heavy caliber round, avoid .22 caliber. Some choices (but not limited to) are NATO 7.62x51, 7mm Mag, .308, 30-06 and 6.5x55 Mauser. 7.62x39 is also acceptable although the AK series of weapons were designed for shorter ranges and are not as accurate as the calibers above. Your goal is going to be to shoot at 500 yards and beyond.

If TSHTF and my neighbors and I are forced to confront regular, professional troops, I can tell you that it won't be at a distance of less than 300 yards. Why? Because we don't have mortars, machine guns, arty, and the ability to call in air strikes. As far as I'm concerned, the best tactics would involve lots of shooting and scooting and intermediate ranges of 400-600 yards. The cartridges listed above, with the exception of the 7.62x39, are all pretty decent at those ranges.

You should have at least 100 rounds of ammunition for your rifle and ideally, 1000 rounds for it. Plan on replenishing the ammunition on a regular basis and drag yourself to the range or to your cousins farm twice a year to keep your marksmanship skills high.

About the only bad piece of advice in this "snippet" is shooting at distance only twice a year. I've found a place to shoot that allows for shots of roughly 400 yards, and I go there a few times a month. I'm now at a point to where I am consistently hitting torso-sized targets.

Anyway, maybe the author is a bit daft, but some of his points are valid, or at least worthy of consideration.

itgoesboom
June 8, 2004, 05:04 PM
Well, the advice really isn't that bad, it's just that, well, they kinda lose all credibility when this is posted on a site that claims (in other articles) that the Govt. blew up the building in OK, not McViegh. Just in five minutes of looking at that site, it seems that all they really want is to over throw the Govt, and not peacefully either. Sure they have their disclaimers, but come'on, it just looks like it is their fantasy to have some sort of violent revolt against the .gov.

Also, realistically, look at it this way. Right now we have what, 250,000 soldiers in Iraq? Plus others from other countries. And that is a country the size of California. And that country has 24 million people, compared to California with 35 million.

Look at how tough it is for our military there. Sure we are winning. We won the war, and we will win the peace, eventually. But just a small percentage of the 24 million people in Iraq are causing the troubles.

So, considering our military really doesn't have more than, maybe 1.5-2million soldiers, and we have a total population of over 270 million, more than 80 million legally armed, do we really think it logical that we would need to fight our own military?

There is no way that our military, even with the help of all of our Law Enforcment officers would be able to fight off even 1/10th of our armed populace.

It's just pretty unrealistic, if you ask me.

I.G.B.

Mulliga
June 8, 2004, 06:32 PM
If TSHTF and my neighbors and I are forced to confront regular, professional troops, I can tell you that it won't be at a distance of less than 300 yards. Why? Because we don't have mortars, machine guns, arty, and the ability to call in air strikes
[tinfoil hat]

Long range marksmanship from a few snipers would be useful, sure, but how many people can reliably nail human-sized targets at 600 yards? You might be able to, but I can't - hell, I can barely see things at that distance, and taking the armed forces on with a CETME or a FAL is just laughable. The Marines have plenty of snipers and heavy-barrelled M24s, and I don't - in a shooting war like that, I'd bet on them.

[/tinfoil hat]

Bartholomew Roberts
June 8, 2004, 06:46 PM
If TSHTF and my neighbors and I are forced to confront regular, professional troops, I can tell you that it won't be at a distance of less than 300 yards. Why? Because we don't have mortars, machine guns, arty, and the ability to call in air strikes.

So why on earth would you confront troops who do have those weapons from a range where they can use them against you? Of the four weapons systems you mentioned above, three become much less useful the closer you are to the people who have them.

On the other hand, if somebody shoots at me from 600yds away and I have arty, mortars and air support on hand, there are going to be some pretty explosions going off in short order. Is it coming from that farmhouse? Who knows? Send Mr. 155mm over to scout that out.

yy
June 8, 2004, 08:59 PM
wait, are we criticizing the content or the messenger? I see criticisms here that border on ridiculing the second ammendment as a defense of our freedoms.

The messenger may sound fishy, but some of the message was still sound. you know, a broken clock can still be right twice a day.

So I'd like to recognize that 1. rifles are better than handguns, 2. the second amendment isn't about hunting or personal crime fighting (those are secondary or n-th order effects), and 3. good equipment without training just wastes money and time.

In addition, we should recognize that snipers are a venerable profession, lest the media brainwash us into associating snipers with murderers. I'd want sniper training too if I didn't have to wear glasses all the time.

DesertEagle613
June 8, 2004, 09:12 PM
No one said snipers are bad, just that most people can't shoot that well and it's unrealistic for 500 yds to be the standard.

For the rest, I think if you read around this site you'll find that you're preaching to the choir

itgoesboom
June 8, 2004, 09:44 PM
YY,

Not sure if you are implying that my response was anti-2nd amndment, because that is exactly the opposite of how it is.

My point is that considering how well armed we are, when you compare to other countries, that it would be just about impossible for the Govt. to go against us militarily.

That was the point in my posting numbers. Right now, in Iraq, we have 250,000 or so soldiers, trying to pacify a population of 24million in a space the size of California. Of those 24 million, figure a little less than half are armed, since half are women who don't go armed in that part of the world, and also young children (<13) who are also (probably) unarmed. So let's guess 11 million people with guns in Iraq.

Of those 11 million, you are probably talking only a couple thousand, at most, that are really being the trouble makers, trying to kick the US out and want the Baath party back, or just want the US out and are willing to fight for it. Probably 10-15,000 at the very most.

So you have 15,000 insurgents fighting against 250,000 soldiers, not to mention the new Iraqi CDF and Police forces. Because they are using guerilla tactics, they are laying the hurt on our soldiers, although they are losing, and will lose in the long run. That is a 16.67:1 ratio of US solder to Iraqi Insurgent. Overall, you are looking at 44 armed Iraqis to every single US soldier in theatre.

The US military is comprised of just over 2 million soldiers, sailors and airmen, including national guard and reserves. Compared to a population of 270 million, with roughly 80 million LEGAL firearm owners. Do that math on that and you come out with 40 American firearm owners for every soldier, sailor and airman in our Military.

Lets then assume, hypothetically, this situation plays out. The Govt. declares martial law, everyone is under curfew, 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments are suspended. The ENTIRE military is activated to deal with the civilian population and are given orders to violate the BOR and Constitution, and kill American civilians, if needed.

What % of the Military would actually go against their own population, in America? Lets make the # pretty high, and let's say 50% goes against the population. That means 1million soldiers, airmen and sailors fight against civilians. Of that number, how many will be combat troops?

On the other side of the coin, lets say that just 10% of legal gun owners, and that other 50% of the military decide to go against the Military rule, you now have 9 million firearm owners fighting a military of just 1 million, and that 1 million still accounts for sailors on their ships which are going to be pretty useless for attacking the majority of the country.

In Iraq, our soldiers have a 16:1 advantage over Iraqi insurgents, and they are still getting bloodied on a daily basis. Now we are talking 9:1 disadvantage, against armed civilain populace with more variety of weapons as well, and most of the 9 million will have had military training.

So my point is that the 2nd amendment is working, even in a limited capacity. It is what is helping prevent the .gov from going against us. Trust me, those planners at the Pentagon know the numbers, they know the score.

So I am not saying it is unrealistic for American Civilians to stand up to the military, I am saying it is unrealistic for the Military to stand up to American Civilians.

I.G.B.

Hawkmoon
June 9, 2004, 01:52 AM
No one said snipers are bad, just that most people can't shoot that well and it's unrealistic for 500 yds to be the standard.
I'm not so certain that 500 yards is unrealistic. I'm old enough that when I went through basic training and AIT we trained and qualified on the M14, not the M16. And the qualifying shoot included targets as far out as 500 or 600 yards (don't recall now, it wasn't my best day ever). We had to hit at least a percentage of those man-sized targets (pop-ups), even the ones at the farthest distances, or we wouldn't qualify. This was all done with iron sights.

An M16 won't be a tack driver at that range, and if you hit somebody at that range the bullet will just about bounce off, but the M16 is a close-quarters combat weapon. And it is performing so abysmally in the sandbox that the ordnance department is now looking at alternate (larger caliber) cartridges that can be retrofitted to work in M16s and M4s with a simple barrel replacement. Why is the M16 a failure in Iraq? Because we're engaging the bad guys at longer ranges.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Article" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!