Time for a Reboot

Our nation has a misconception that government is permanent. The perception is that we can't change or alter our government substantially. Well we can. The colonists that took the traditions of classical liberalism to fruition by force did it. Two-hundred and thirty years ago, the Founders of this nation who were exasperated with the rampant authoritarianism of the English Empire rebelled against their masters.

These men took the existing operating system and replaced it with a better system. They rebooted their system because it had become too intrusive and oppressive. The King's men no longer respected private property or basic rights of the Americans (who were still really British in those days). So those British citizens risked everything and fought their own government in a bid to end the corrupt oppression forced upon them by the King's government. It was a horrible risk, but they took it. The price of being forced into a lower status by the State was no longer worth not fighting for the few that initially took up arms.

So, it isn't unheard of for Americans to change their government by force when grievances aren't rectified. It isn't unheard of for a populace to rise up against its oppressive servants-turned-masters of a State. Thomas Jefferson even encouraged rebellion against the State as a necessity:

"A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

But is this a viable philosophy towards rebellion in this era? In the 1700s, free speech's range was limited to how far a speaker could shout and how fast a paper could be delivered. If the State prohibited or regulated public speech or the press, the last and only recourse was a reactive act of force against the State's force.

These days, speech has many more outlets. These outlets can be easily monitored by the State, but are much harder to regulate or control. The Internet is the bastion of free speech. It can monitored easily, but its very global ethereal nature retards attempts at censorship or control.

This attempt at regulation failed miserably.

Unfortunately, with the exception of a few civil liberty-minded politicians, the State could care less about the opinions of its citizens. Given the more uncontrollable nature of speech in our current technology age, is force less necessary than it was centuries ago?

I say no. Although citizens are more able to speak freely to a larger audience because of technology, that same technology denies anonymity for most people and also enables the State to monitor and catalog information on citizens. This provides a different, but no less dangerous, threat to the liberty of a nation.

Just as in self-defense, one must eventually turn to force when threatened and confronted with intimidation. Even if this intimidation originates from the State, it must be resisted.

The Citizen's Creed

The following is not to be memorized or memorialized as the Pledge and Anthem are. It is merely the thoughts of a free-thinking and libertarian-minded individual living in the USA.

I am a citizen of the United States of America. I possess natural rights. These rights are assumed with every human life (or are given by the Creator according to belief). These rights are not granted to me by any government, piece of paper, or other human. These rights are, however, outlined and enumerated in the Bill of Rights in order to restrain the State from interfering with these rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant me these rights, but protects and states them.

The State does not have the authority, though it may have the power, to restrict what I do with my brain, body, genitalia, property, currency, or thought unless I seek to do or do harm to others. It is not the business of men I do not know to control my life unless in the defense others.

Nor is it the responsibility of the police to protect me. I am dependent upon myself for protection and reliant and cooperative with the justice system only for the prosecution of criminals. I am reliant upon myself for my needs, basic or advanced. I do not need the State to educate my children, feed me, keep me healthy, look out for my welfare, nor assist me. My personal preparation and ability or my voluntary community will carry me or aid me.

I am not a sovereign citizen, for I am a citizen of the United States of America, and will remain so until the State no longer respects me as an individual or my rights. However, I owe no allegiance to the State, nor my leaders, nor any patriotic symbol of the Nation. My only allegiance is to uphold, defend ,and respect the rights and liberty of myself and others. I will be tolerant and loving until others plan, wish, or do me or mine harm. It not my business, just as it is not the State's, what others do in their home.

The State ceases to be legitimate when it and its components seek the elimination of human rights via a monopoly of force. I will resist this force to my best ability. I will lend my hand to the Nation, not the State. The State serves us and should be monitored closely and restrained by the Nation.If the State has overgrown its bounds and is infringing upon the liberty of individuals, it should be replaced.

No Pledge or Alliance binds me to the State. I am not responsible nor beholden to it. My loyalty is bound only to its respect of my rights.

Rights are mine. The State cannot take them away, but it  can suppress them. Paramount among these rights is that of free speech. Free speech enables the non-violent restraint of the State. Criticism, challenge, and reform are enabled by free speech.

Second of all is my right to bear arms. This right enables defense against those that wish harm and defense against the monopoly of force the State attempts to hold.

There are other rights that all citizens possess that deserve to be respected. And if the State does not not respect them as stated in the Constitution, the State should be, at minimum, be reformed, and at most, removed. This is not treasonous, nor un-patriotic (whatever that means anymore). It is exactly what happened in 1776, and is how this nation was born. It is American to the core to resist illegitimate authority. The original Patriots resisted overbearing and illegitimate authority, we should not hesitate either.

Precision and Accuracy

Currently trained as an engineer, I have had the distinction between precision and accuracy driven into me. But I've noticed that in the shooting community that the usage of one is neglected or that they are used interchangeably.

Picture from http://www.carolina.com/teacher-resources/Interactive/accuracy-versus-precision-beanbag-toss/tr10646.tr

This is unfortunate, since the distinction is important, even in shooting.
Precision is a function of the rifle's build qualities and the ability of the shooter. Precision is the ability to fire bullets within a certain distance of each each other (normally a good benchmark is 1 MOA see below). This is normally referred to as "a grouping".

Accuracy is something quite different. An accurate rifle setup will deliver bullets with the center of the shots being the intended target. An inaccurate rifle setup is the result of the sights or optics not being aligned with the barrel. Accuracy has more to do with whether the bullet struck close to the target or not ("closer" being subjective), where precision involves whether the rifle is able to deliver a bullet to very close to the same location again and again.

Often an "accurate" rifle is actually precise. The user adjusts the optic/sights to make the setup accurate by definition, but the gun is capable of shooting bullets nearly on top of each other. Obviously the goal of any shooter is to be precise and accurate, even though most would just say accuracy is the goal.

Precision and accuracy together produce repeatability. Th ability to hit small targets consistently and reliably is the object of almost all shooters.

With this post, I wanted to bring up these definitions, no matter how trifling they are. I find it odd that the two distinctions aren't used more often in the shooting world, given the fascination with precision rifles.

***
Roughly speaking a 1 MOA rifle means it can reliably hit 1" at 100 yards, 2" at 200 yards, and 5" at 500 yards.
A 3 MOA rifle would hit 3" at 100, 9" at 300, and so on.
A sub-MOA rifle would hit smaller that an inch at 100 and smaller than 4" at 400 yards.

One MOA is considered by many to be a fine rifle and sub-MOA rifles are considered superb.

The Beginning and End of the Constitution: Boston

We're all aware of the events in Boston. It is national news that a large portion of Boston was in lockdown and that searches by thousands of law enforcement officers were underway. When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was eventually caught, the people of  Boston came out and applauded the work of their public officials. And rightly so. After a chase which resulted in one MIT campus officer dead and a transportation officer severely wounded, the officers that exhibited extraordinary bravery and courage against heavily armed suspects should be applauded.

But now, what about the massive civil liberties infractions against the residents of Boston? What about the paramilitary SWAT and FBI teams that ,without warrant or justified cause, unlawfully invaded people's homes and privacy?

It doesn't even matter that if those people complied or agreed or not. There were direct violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

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

People were told to stay in their houses and to not use cell phones or social media in case the suspect was using cell-phone activated explosives or social media for information. So people (citizens) were told to not communicate or speak with others or their neighbors and to stay in their homes. A direct and onerous violation of the 1st Amendment since it attempted to restrict free assembly and free speech.

Perhaps even more disgusting were the house-to-house raids of entire streets. A video of which I have included below.

 I'm not trying to steal the video. I just wanted it to originate from somewhere besides YouTube in case it is pulled down. The original video was uploaded by YouTube user rambone5 and can be found in higher quality here. (Blogger restricts videos to under 100 Mb.)

No warrants were served, but unreasonable searches were. What a horrific violation of people's right to stay in their own home unmolested by the State! This is almost un-fathomable to think that 2013 America allows this bullshit to occur. Maybe it is because this happened in New England, where the populace is accustomed to their rights being played with. I have a feeling this wouldn't fly in certain regions of the Midwest. They wouldn't try it, and if they did, there would be significant resistance, possibly even armed, from the populace. One terrorist running rampant does not eliminate my rights. The only thing that eliminates my rights is my death.

At which point does law enforcement no longer become justified and their actions no longer within the law. I would say when they start directly violating the Constitution. Citizens have to follow rules and laws respecting others. So does law enforcement. 

I'm sorry officer. From my warm live hands. Get off my porch.

The video above struck a huge nerve in me. The poster was just a dude in his house when the paramilitaries came down and descended upon his street. Change the houses and the uniforms and what difference is there between that scene and Nazi troopers searching houses for Jews in 1942?

Now that it has been done once, expect it again and again. Each time the boundary will be pushed farther in order to "protect the people". Larger areas will be searched and anyone who resists will be dealt with faster.

Gradually, as more of these disgusting searches are done, there will be less resistance from the media or from independent viewpoints. It will become normal and people will expect it. For my part, I'm not coming out of my house and you sure aren't coming in mine without a fight. I'll probably lose and be labeled a domestic terrorist but at least I will have tried to protect my rights.

That may sound like bluster, but it is going to come to that for some of us within my lifetime and it isn't going to be pretty.

The forces of evil won two victories this week. They killed 4 people in Boston and injured hundreds. They also successfully caused the invasion of the homes of hundreds (maybe thousands) of people, resulting in countless unreasonable searches. It was bullshit like this that caused the original Americans to rebel against redcoats invading their homes and searching them. If some of the original patriots had heard this and seen the storm coming, I think they would have said this too: Keep your powder dry , America.


Note: Here's some light humor to end this very serious post. Maybe there's hope if this is what is interfering with our rights:

Scolder in Chief Uses the Common Sense Assault

The chief neo-liberal is scolding like a mother hen again. I'm not going to go into much of what he actually said (you can see the whole speech below), but I will make some general comments.

First off, Obama likes to throw around the now infamous "90% of Americans approve of increased background checks" like its the ultimate showstopper. But even if we overlook the dubious statistics polls that he is using (an excellent response from Colion Noir here), we must remember that what a majority thinks  on this subject does not matter. If a majority of Americans believed women should not vote, we would have to repeal the 19th Amendment, instead of ignoring it with unlawful legislation. If the majority of Americans wanted the US government to discriminate based upon religion, the 1st Amendment would need to be repealed first, instead of ignoring it with unlawful legislation. Now these things are obviously not popular, but the principle holds true. The Bill of Rights exists to oppose the whimsy and social waves of the masses. It exists, including the 2A, to recognize and protect rights we possess as humans. So even if the numbers Obama likes to throw around ad nauseam are true, which I personally doubt, it wouldn't matter. The opinion of the populace do not remove natural rights from the minority. That is a slippery slope to oppression.

I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced.  "A prop," somebody called them.  “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said.  Are they serious?  Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue?  Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

To answer the questions posed: Yes, they have a right to weigh in, like all other Americans with 1st Amendment rights. They have a right to speak about their opinion and their emotion and their pain. But you do not have the right to use that pain for your own and your party's agenda. Nor is their loss irrelevant. It just has no place on a podium next to you, Mr. President, when your party is attempting to circumvent the Constitution. You cannot equate their presence beside you to their right to speak out.

This tragedy and the parents' grief has been used to pull the heartstrings of America. This is an attempt to use emotion as the catalyst for politics. When we dally in the business of regulating rights, no one needs cloudy eyes. We should be clear headed and logical when writing off rights. This use of emotionally charged images is dirty politics and very dishonest and disrespectful way to address the American people.

While we are talking about disrespecting the people he is supposed to serve, let us talk about Obama's righteous indignation and scolding.

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. 

 I'd say it was quite a good day in DC, Mr. President. A large minority of Senators, including four Democrats decided to listen to their constituency and regard the Bill of Rights by voting down onerous regulations of arms. Nor do you, Mr. President, have any superiority to scold those people that are defending the Constitution you are supposed to defend.

 But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try. 

Denying millions of Americans the right to their chosen method of  defense and resistance to Statist oppression is not worth it. We could also save lives by denying alcohol to the general populace (didn't work out to well in the 20s), restricting motorcycle use , or requiring everyone to drive 30 mph everywhere. But we don't. Those types of legislation are asinine and arbitrary. They are also restrictive and overreaching, and would create a massive political backlash, just like this attempt of gun control did. You and your party's attempt at control failed for a reason, Mr. President.

The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. 

This is one of the examples of what I call the "common sense assault". The common sense assault is an Orwellian thought manipulation technique. It implies guilt upon anyone who disagrees with what the speaker deems common sense. After all, sane people have common sense right? Adding the adjective common sense before an objective apparently adds a halo around the objective. Opponents now oppose "common sense" instead of opposing un-Constitutional and ineffective legislation. Don't fall for it. Here is where knowing some data comes in handy. This handy link demonstrates that rifles account for a tiny minority of murders committed with firearms. Also, a universal background check would not have stopped Lanza, Holmes, or many other mass murderers from acquiring their weapons. Now Obama's common sense doesn't make any sense anymore.

I believe we’re going to be able to get this done.  Sooner or later, we are going to get this right.  The memories of these children demand it.  And so do the American people. 

This is a threat and it serves as a warning to everyone who wishes to protect our natural rights. All the Statists need is another excuse to try. This will come sooner or later when another coward, pumped up by the attention given to Holmes and Lanza, wishes to write his name in history. Then there will new stern words from Obama and more families and token un-elected police chiefs paraded before the MSM cameras. This fight is not over, nor will it ever be.

Stay alert America.

The transcript to this speech can be found here:
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/04/17/president-obama-speaks-common-sense-measures-reduce-gun-violence#transcript

April in Modern America: Martial Law

It's been many hours now since the Tsarnaev brothers started their second rampage in Boston. One dead LEO, one severely injured LEO, one dead suspect, explosive ridden streets, and several gun battles later, the search for the remaining bomber is still not over.

Despite the display of power and force shown by local, state, and federal agencies (including FBI, DHS, and the National Guard), the 19-yr old terrorist is still at large. There even exists the possibility he has escaped the parts of Boston currently under lockdown.

A military vehicle of the Boston police. Is this what America is coming to? Armored policemen in armored vehicles patrolling our streets?

So, by Protectionist logic, the more that we the people are protected by the bureaucracy and police state the safer we will be. However, this is being shown to be false. While all these resources are being spent and the the police force in this country has been growing, these people have been plotting. Despite the existence of the onerous Patriot Act and the activities of the DHS and the NSA, these terrorists still were able to kill 4 and wound more than 150. The State has failed you and always will. They do not have your best interests at heart.

What can we learn from this? The government can only offer you limited protection, if any at all. The government was unable to intercept these seemingly independent operators. The government was unable to detect the devices, even though there were apparently warnings of this (since they already had bomb dogs and warnings out the day of the bombing). The government was unable to corral the rampage after their pictures were published, resulting in one LEO death and one LEO injured. The map below shows how these two brothers have traveled across Boston with that expensive police machine one step behind.

Picture from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22212946

In addition, there's been further craziness across the nation this week. Today is the anniversary of both the Murrah Building bombing and the siege of Waco. Although it seems the Boston attacks were not related to any Patriot movement (Chechnyans aren't normally defenders of the Constitution), there was an oddly-timed explosion at a fertilizer factory in Waco, TX. Yes, a fertilizer factory ,which makes the same ingredient that McVeigh used in the Murrah building bombing (a protest against the Waco siege). Very odd is what I say.

This has been an amazing week (and not in a good way). Two bombs that killed 3, a mysterious explosion that kills 15 (so far), two very sad and emotional anniversaries, and a continuing chase that has explosives littering the roads of Boston. Furthermore, because of some of those events, Boston is in a state of unparalleled state of martial law.

If were in that neighborhood, I would have a sign on my doors:

Anyone that comes through this door unannounced will be shot on site. Police please announce yourselves. Terrorists go to hell.

If there was ever a time to own a firearm for defense, it is now.

If there was ever a time to speak out against an affront of civil liberty, it is now. While under the guise of their own safety, people were forcefully ejected from their own home for no crime or even suspicion of crime. These people did nothing wrong but they will be removed from their property by force "for their own safety", as judged by a nameless bureaucrat.They are not given a choice of protecting themselves or their property. It looks similar to the Katrina forced evacuation, except, this time, it is because of one person, not a massive act of nature. The State is giving these people no choice.

Now that the groundwork has been laid and the people of America have allowed this lockdown to happen, we can expect more of these State actions of force in the future. The pictures will be the same, but the reasons will be different and increasingly varied.

The thing that makes it so much worse is that, despite these Draconian measures and after almost 8 hours of martial, they still haven't found the lone suspect!

Welcome the new America!

Keep your powder dry and your firearm close. Safety is an illusion.

Let's Stop With This Stupid "Ban Pressure Cookers" Analogy

Listen up, gun community. I've noticed a "joke" going around the internet among the community lately. In short, let's stop doing it. It makes us look petty and childish. The argument, even if jokingly applied, is about as ridiculous as the nuclear weapon argument used by anti-2A people.

Even Rush Limbaugh gets in on the act with a caller. Enjoy the tripe:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/04/16/ban_pressure_cookers_and_ball_bearings

.....And again here on Arfcom (AR15.com for anyone wondering)...

We all know that pressure cookers and cars are not explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. A parallel cannot be drawn between arms, which are protected, and cars or pressure cookers.

I completely expect to hear this droll and un-imaginative "argument" for the next year, just as we are continually assaulted with the following "argument" from the new left:

NeoLiberal: "So what stops a person from having a nuclear bomb or an F16 for defense? The Second Amendment must have its limits!"

(An excellent response to which can be seen here by Colion Noir.)

We (the gun community) need to step up and stop putting all this BS out on the Internet, even among our own community since this content is public. We know why they are going after our firearms, and, more importantly, we know why we have the right to bear arms. We don't need to make up cute little asinine arguments to support our rights. We have firearms and the Constitution for that.

We have no right to drive cars or use pressure cookers. Let's just stop with this useless mouth finger diarrhea.

/Rant Over

A few thoughts on the tragedy in Boston

Note: Future additions from text written Monday night will be in different colors according to day:
4/16/13
4/17/13

By now, the world is aware of the tragedy in Boston during the famous marathon there. There is much uncertainty regarding perpetrators, motives, means, or any meaningful details really.

But one thing we do know is that evil men are bound to do evil things to good people. The innocents were going about their business when two bombs ripped through their bodies. Lives will be changed forever as, of 9 CMT 4/15/13, 3 have died and many more have been maimed or dismembered.

Scene of one of the bomb sites. A bomb technician assesses what I assume is the ignition location while the blood of innocents lies on the pavement.

Evil exists in the world, and we often cannot be protected from it by the government, family, or a firearm. Incidents like this remind us how ignorantly blissful we are in our daily lives. We don't have targets on our backs, we aren't law enforcement, celebrities, politicians, or public figures. We are average Joe and Jane; we don't expect some mad men to load up a pipe with black powder and ball bearings and blow it up in the middle of a crowd. (Note: it only speculation that the bomb was a black powder/ball bearing pipe-bomb.)

Let's check out the perspective though. Today, 30 people died in bombings around Iraq. These attacks happen weekly, if not daily in Iraq and other shitholes around the world. But we barely take notice of them. We are secure and safe in our green castle that has been built for us. We think rarely of danger in our streets, our leaders want us to believe it is safe here. But it isn't. Our country is increasingly becoming the target of Islamic extremists, and the fundamentals want nothing but to spread their filth to our streets.

But this stuff happens now here at home, although it is a tragic part of life around the world. Now I'll stop with the philosophical stuff and get into some more speculation.

Perpetrator(s):

From the lines above, you might have gotten the idea that I think this is the product of a Muslim extremist terrorist. While I think that the most likely suspects are religious fundamentals of the Islamic variety, there is also the possibility this was a crazy Unabomber-esque pyschopath or some sort of unhinged McVeigh-like American claiming allegiance to a patriot movement. No patriots ever willfully killed innocents, so damn them if they claim allegiance to liberty and the preservation of rights.

My bet (that's a figure of speech, I'm not really gambling on any of this) is that this is the product of a small cell or lone wolf that was Islamicly-motivated by some jihad or fatwa or other nonsense.

Still very little word on any suspects, even though, with the camera coverage, there is bound to be many opportunities to find one. There are several amateur analyses like this one here from Infowars (and yes I threw up a bit in my mouth for actually linking that).

Why are they holding back? No one knows, but if this turns out anything like the Newtown shooting, any real answers (if they are real) will come out very far down the line. I'm still holding on to my independent Jihadist small cell or lone wolf theory of perpetrators. Organized terrorist networks would have done much more damage.

Method:

After talking a bit with a friend of mine who has some experience with explosive substances, it appears that the explosion might have been caused by a "dirty" burning powder, like black or smokeless (commonly used in ammunition) or other related substance. Given the lack of a defined and strong shock-wave (like that with high-speed and high-pressure explosives) and the amount of white smoke, a high explosive, like what most networks use, is unlikely.

The second explosion looks very similar to a tannerite or powder explosion.

It also seems likely that bomb contained anti-personnel shrapnel like nails or ball bearings to inflict maximum damage without needing a fast explosion velocity or fatal shock wave. Officials are now saying the bomb was placed in a pressure cooker inside a backpack. They have also confirmed that the explosive was a "low" (or slow) explosive. This does not rule out, but seems to support the theory that the bomb was black, smokeless or cordite powder. It also seems certain now that the bombs were surrounded with shotgun pellets, nails, and ball bearings for maximum effect on people. This is the work of a coward, a worthless piece of humanity.

Expect a news conference within days saying the ingredients were bought from a reloading supply company, and that reloading powder will now be regulated. Hopefully I'm wrong.

So far, there haven't been any federal confirmations of the explosive used, but there has been speculation among the MSMs regarding the possible use of gunpowder. Hopefully I was dead wrong above.

U.S. Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said "most likely gun powder" was used in the devices.

Unfortunate incidents like these are often used by our supposed masters to enact new regulations to protect us. As horrible as this attack was, I am very concerned about the consequences down the line.
Do you prefer a safe prison, or a dangerous freedom?

Constitutional Patriots groups are apparently racist and quite dangerous

CNN article tells us extremists are on the rise

Southern Poverty Law Center's report on hate groups aka "patriot" groups

Mark Potok's report is full of incendiary adjectives like "furious", "explosive", and "hard-core". The author picks and chooses his wording, and the words of others, to paint a frightening picture of the Patriot movement. A picture that brings the KKK, the American Family Council (themselves a target of a potential mass shooter last year), Constitutionalist county sheriffs, libertarian politicians like Rand Paul, and the law-enforcement oriented Oath Keepers under the same broad umbrella. An umbrella that drips with drops of racism...according to Potok.

Our newest favorite liberal Statist...and he comes with a look of caring concern

The bigotry of some groups, like the Aryan Nation or the Ku Klux Klan, cannot be denied. They are disgusting groups, whose distorted view of the Constitution and patriotism, has nothing in common with the views of motivated libertarians or Patriots. Not only these groups see the world through a distorted view of the Constitution and Founder's intent, but they typically distort Christianity in their bigoted worldview also.

We're really still scared of these guys? They're playing ring around the rosies!

The more disturbing thing about this report, and the talk of others like Potok, is the gravitation towards labeling those with anti-government allegiances "terrorists". If the connotation of the patriot movement becomes that of "domestic terrorist" in the public's lexicon, then the US government has the gears rolling towards turning on its own people.

There have, of course, been several attacks by people claiming allegiance to the patriot movement (Timothy McVeigh being the most obvious example). However to characterize all Patriots as capable of committing mass murder is equivalent to charging all Muslims with the capability of committing jihad (something the liberals vehemently oppose, as do I).

In truth, the Patriot movement is dangerous to liberals and the State: it shows these Statists that there are still those who uphold personal liberty and that are willing to stand up for it if necessary. That's why the movement and the people within it must be discredited with smear jobs like this report. Scare the general public and work to change the connotation of a group negatively using language manipulation. Classic modern liberal tactics.

What's in a Name?

Turns out, in my case, it is some sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek play on words.

My name is a play on "feed the madness", which I'm sure is what any liberal who stumbles upon my page would think I'm doing with all this crazy talk about guns.

"Here's a flyer against that Feed the Madness dude."

Except I'm using "FDE" instead of "feed". FDE stands for Flat Dark Earth, a common tan color in modern firearms.

Plus it stops liberals from being racist and calling a gun "black"

Ar-15s and Ak-47s are not the problem

I’ve been paying very close attention to the Second Amendment debate raging in the public forum across this nation recently. There seems to be a commonality in all the discussion and debates emanating from the control side. That commonality is the lack of actual facts, statistics, and meaningful thought in the arguments.

English pundit Piers Morgan likes to bring up that AR-15s were used in Clackamas, Aurora and Sandy Hook. While he is correct, he implies that AR-15s are the weapon of choice for mass murderers. Not so, Thomas Hamilton, the perpetrator of the infamous 1996 Dunblane massacre in England (which prompted the UK’s very restrictive rifle and pistol ban) only used pistols, half of which were 6-shot revolvers.

Charles Whitman, a former Marine, killed 14 people from a bell tower at the University of Texas in 1966 with a Remington 700 deer rifle. I have that same hunting rifle at home. Timothy McVeigh, using common products easily found, blew up the Murrah Building and killed over 100 people in Oklahoma City. In Apeldoorn, Netherlands, a Dutchman killed 5 people by plowing his car a high speed into a parade. None of these cowards used AR-15s, AK-47s, rifle magazines holding 10 or more rounds, or any sort of scary tactical features currently included in Feinstein's proposed ban.

Furthermore, it can be seen that, from FBI crime statistics, that rifles account for only 2.7% of total murders in the US from 2007 to 2011. Since the FBI doesn’t further breakdown the type of rifle used, it cannot be known how many of the rifles used were semi-automatic or similar to an AR-15, but it can be safely assumed that not all of them were.

More striking is the fact that more people were killed with blunt objects alone, knives alone, or personal weapons alone (defined as feet, hands, etc) than by rifles between 2007 and 2011. These statistics do not come from the NRA, but from the FBI. It cannot be claimed that the statistics are biased towards a Second Amendment defense.

It is ridiculous, as Morgan, and many others suggest, to severely regulate or ban millions of pieces of property owned by millions of law-abiding Americans just because two or three psychopathic cowards used them in recent events.

As President Obama and others in his party use the death of children to further their agenda, we must look beyond the rhetoric and emotional arguments using children’s tears and look at the facts.

As the amount of firearms has increased and the number of firearm laws decreased in the past years, FBI stats show that the total number of murders has declined (by 15% from 2007 to 2011). What has increased, however, has been the perception of the frequency of gun crime as portrayed by certain media and political figures.

There has been an appearance of an increase in gun crime, while, in reality, it has been declining despite rises in the number of firearms and in population.

It is my hope that the nation will not get caught in the stream of demagoguery and will pause to look at the facts behind firearms in the United States.

Bersa 9mm Ultra Compact Pro

Bersa is an Argentinian company that produces the widely accepted and known Thunder 380. The Thunder also comes in 22 LR and is based upon the time-tested Walther PPK. The Thunder 9 Pro is a Bersa design which serves as the duty weapon for Argentina's police force and has won several pistol matches. The pistols are made in Argentina and not generally widely known, though I think they should be.

Walther PPK

Bersa Thunder 380

Bersa UC Pro

Full-size Bersa Pro

The Ultra Compact Pro's general features include double/single action, exposed hammer, 13+1 double stack magazine capacity, ambidextrous slide release and safety, ability to shoot +P, and a keyed trigger lock. The UC's edges and general design are also rounded in order to reduce snagging. The magazine also has additional plastic to ensure a full grip. This pistol has been designed with carrying in mind, although the design has not been taken to the Glock extreme of eliminating and minimizing controls.

Not American made, but neither are Glocks.

That being said, the pistol is still a big pistol, and its heavy. But that isn't surprising, it is a nearly all metal design that holds a double-stack magazine. It features a steel slide and barrel with an aluminum frame. This definitely isn't a Ruger LC9. The only plastic parts I can find are the magazine base, the sights, and the grip...everything else is metal. The weight does pull down your pants, but it also holds the gun down during firing. And if you're into metal guns, like 1911s or Sigs, and not into Glocks or XDs, you'll love the feel of this gun.

Weight loaded with 14  115gr Remington +P hollowpoints: 2 lb 1.875 oz

The Safety-

The Bersa features an ambidextrous two-position safety that is easily manipulated. Like the slide release, the safety is a large button with a ridge that naturally allows for easy manipulation with one finger. The safety also serves as a decocker, in fact, it seems to be its main function. Since the pistol is single/double action, the exposed hammer can be cocked. Putting the safety on "safe" decocks the hammer, disables the trigger, and locks the slide forward. This means that "safe" and "decock" occupy the same space, therefore the pistol cannot be carried hammer back/safety "safe".

So the pistol must be carried either:
1) Hammer cocked, safety "fire" (not recommended since the single action trigger pull is quite light)
2) Hammer down, safety "safe" (also not recommended since now two actions must be used to deploy the weapon)
3) Hammer down, safety "fire" (this is how I carry; all that is required is that the weapon be drawn and the long double action trigger pulled.)

Note the hexagonal disabling key. Stupid is what that is.

The safety is what I consider one of the weaknesses of the design. The safety is functional,  but with just a little more design, it could have been even better. if the safety had been designed like the FNX SA/DA pistol, the safety would be pushed down to decock, level for fire, and up for safe. This would have enabled carrying cocked and "safe", which would have made the Bersa's single action trigger much more useful.

The Trigger-

The trigger comes with a mixed review. It is excellent in SA mode: crisp with a little travel before engaging the sear. Once the sear is engaged, the light trigger breaks cleanly. However, it turns long and hard in DA mode. It takes forever to finally break, almost all the way to the rear of the trigger guard. Not only that, but it is rather heavy. This is of course to expected from any DA, but the long pull is the main fault of this trigger. It is overcome-able with practice and also provides safety while carrying hammer down/safety "fire".

So the trigger comes with a few misgivings, but overall, for a $400-$450 gun, the trigger is excellent.


Ergonomics-

Here is where the UC Pro shines: its double-stack design is still small enough for my 5'-2", small-handed wife to comfortably hold and shoot and the magazine release, safety, and slide release are ambidextrous.

Note the wear marks on controls...more about that later.

The magazine release is not truly ambidextrous, but can be switched from right to left-handed shooters as needed. This is a feature lacking in some guns double the price. The slide release and safety are also large and easy to operate without being sharp or catchy. Bersa seemed to go out of their way to ensure a contoured and smooth design for these controls. The takedown lever is located in front of the slide release on the left side of the gun.

Another positive, if minor, feature are the ridged surfaces on the forward side of the grip, hammer, front of the trigger guard, slide, and magazine release. This makes these surfaces easy to find by touch and also helps rack the already easy-to-rack slide (it was quite easy for my wife to rack this weapon, unlike other pistols she has tried).

The Sights-

Nothing much to say here really. The sights are a basic white 3-dot setup. Satisfactorily,  the sights are interchangeable with Sig #8 sights, so upgrades, like tritium night sights, are possible. It seems, to me, that the front post needs to be buried into the rear sights a little too much and that took me a while to get used to.
But that could be the way I shoot and your experience may not be the same.

The Finish-

The finish might be the only real downside to this gun. After only several months of Kydex contact, the safety and slide release began losing finish, as can be seen in the picture a little ways up. Maybe this is how they make the gun this cheap and still maintain all the good features it has. That or I'm tough on guns, since the holster it has been in has been a Glock holster. So maybe the wear is from abuse. However, the finish on the throat of the chamber and other wear areas is now gone after 800~1000 rounds.


Holsters-

As I mentioned above, I am currently using a Kydex Glock holster loaned to me by a buddy. That will change soon however as both Crossbreed and UBG offer holsters for the Bersa UC Pro. The Crossbreed will be inside my waistband as soon as possible. But don't expect to find an appropriate holster at your local gunshop or even sporting goods store, this gun is too much of a un-kept secret.


Takedown-

Dis-assembly couldn't be simpler with the Bersa. The takedown lever is rotated clockwise a quarter turn and the slide simply slides forward. No need to mess with safeties or triggers.Once the slide is off, the recoil springs and guide can be removed and the barrel removed from the slide. Field dis-assembly is now complete as all the major parts can be accessed, cleaned, and oiled.

The end result.
1. Slide
2. Barrel assembly
3. Double recoil springs
4. Recoil spring guide
5. Frame assembly

Quality-

In terms of bang-for-the-buck, this pistol is excellent quality. With prices ranging from the high $300s to the mid $400s, there isn't much competition at that price range with these features. If 9mm Luger isn't your cartridge of choice, the gun is also offered in .40 and .45 and in different color schemes also.




Personal Pros

• All-metal design
• Capacity of 14 +P rounds (for 9mm) in a compact pistol
• Excellent SA trigger and safe, but difficult, DA trigger
• Large, but smooth, controls
• Interchangeable sights

Personal Cons

• Unnecessary gun lock
• Two-position instead of three-position safety
• Very long DA trigger
• 
  

Final Verdict?

Buy again and again. maybe in .40 and .45!

Time to stop equivocating

I consider myself a member of the gun community. Not an activist and reviewer extraordinaire like Nutnfancy, nor a capable  2A apologetic like Colion Noir, nor an industry icon like Travis Haley, but an ordinary citizen with average firearms capability and knowledge. But as a young (21 years) member of the firearms community in the United States, I am disturbed by not only the direction that the anti-gun activists want us to go but also the direction many within our own community lean.

We are reaping what the NRA sowed so may years ago. The focus of the gun community, with a  few "hardcore" exceptions,  has been oriented towards hunting and sporting rifles. This is partly what allowed the previous AWB (assault weapons ban) to be passed. The focus was on salvaging whatever rights we could so we could continue the tradition and heritage of pastime shooting and hunting that the true purpose behind the 2A was lost.

NRA doing what it does best...compromising

It seems that many in the firearms community seemed wary, if not ashamed, to openly come out and declare the true purpose of the 2A. The NRA carefully writhes around the true issue and takes noticeable pains to distance itself from any militia or ultra-patriotic content. It is also known for its compromises on certain issues like a UBC (universal background check) and even the '94 AWB. It justifies this by claiming credit for the sunset clause which caused the ban to expire in 2004 (and heaven be praised for that, thumbhole stocks are just horrible).

Is the NRA truly on our side? Maybe...they are certainly a powerful tool to be allied with. They have many contacts in DC and more funds than any other firearms lobby. They have numerous industry connections and have control over the 40 page glossy advertisement called The Rifleman.

But they and similar-minded individuals (not to solely pick on the NRA) are still weak in ideology. The 2A was there for a reason, and it sure as hell wasn't for plinking, hunting, competition, sport shooting, or even for personal self-defense. These things are all just practice for the main event, which is the security of the State. For this reason the right of the people to bear and keep arms is protected. It is NOT for hunting or any other purpose than to maintain a passive-until-needed army of citizen soldiers who are self-armed and have no official ties to the State.

In the very history of this country, it has occurred that men rose up against foreign armies and domestic threats with their own arms, equivalent to the military of the time. And those who could not bring to battle equivalent arms were promptly crushed.

In the American Revolution, men brought their own fine weapons that they were skilled with and defeated the finest army of the time. In Athens, Georgia in 1947, veterans of WW2 used their skills and arms to defeat a corrupt county government that had committed election fraud for years. Battle Of Athens

It is rare that these actions have been taken, but the option MUST remain open for all. The ability to overthrow tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive, and un-Constitutional governments is perhaps the final, and most drastic, check and balance in the American system.

It is weak and dishonest for those in the gun-community to deny or equivocate about the true purpose of the 2A. If it is out of fear that we do not speak of overthrowing a corrupt and oppressive government  than we have already been defeated. If you live in fear of the NSA, a SWAT team on a no-knock warrant, the FBI, or any other paramilitary organization coming for you, then you've never needed the 2A more than now.

The 2A exists to prevent the State from forcing upon the people a monopoly of force. The 2A exists to protect the right of the people to maintain a capability to do away with a corrupt or tyrannical government. Plain and simple, no excuses, no equivocation.

This lady doesn't equivocate, why should you?

Suzanna Grupp testifies (skip to 5:00 for the best part)

Weapons designed for the military and perfectly Constitutional to own. Don't deny it.

While I'm on the subject of equivocation, the denial and squirming among the gun community about the origin and function of the AK-47, and, specifically, the AR-15 are getting old. Let's face it the AR-15 is 90% the military M4/M16. The design is nearly identical, most civilian ARs can be (very illegally of course) made fully automatic in an under an hour. The trend in the gun community to go "milspec" makes these civilian owned firearms even closer to M4s... Most any AK you buy is identical to those used in Syria, Afghanistan, Mali, or any other -stan in the world except that it isn't fully automatic (and all the better, even 7.62x39 is hard to find these days). So let's stop with the verbal surrender.

Every time I hear someone calling a AR-15 a Modern Day Musket, Sporting Rifle, or any other ridiculous synonym, I cringe. Hiding behind these little euphemisms is just a self-enforced form of political correctness that some in the community use because they're afraid to offend or shock people.

A real Modern Day Musket

Does this mean that guns really are inherently evil or bad since some of us seek to hide behind euphemisms or equivocation? No, it means that some of us are afraid to speak the whole truth.Afraid of the consequences and responsibilities of owning a highly effective weapon.

So come out and admit why you own the firearms. Its not just for hunting, plinking, or competition, it is for self-defense and for the defense of liberty. And next, don't hide the purpose or details of these firearms...we are perfectly justified in owning near military-grade weapons. The more the general public is shown responsible gun owners who don't writhe under pressure and tell it like it is the better.