They oughta be careful of what they wish for…..they could end up gettin’ their feelin’s hurt. Just sayin…..
Key Graf: “Most are familiar with the right to be armed, while wholly unfamiliar with the duty assigned to that right. The preservation of such right is predicated upon first being armed then proficiency at arms, followed by the assurance of violence should any other right be taken. Your duties accompanying the right of being armed is the capacity for all three of those qualifiers. And that violence must be both quick and decisive; violence has no other legitimate purpose aside from the preservation of one’s liberty.”
If you’re familiar with some of the basic ideas of Libertarianism chances are high you’ll at least recognize something called the non-aggression principle. It seems simple at face value. Don’t go looking for a fight. Pressing a little deeper into the philosophy some claim it means committing no action which would harm others. In that regard aggression is confused with violence. Were it the same, it would create an internal contradiction; for many libertarians one of the core liberties is the right to be armed. If we’re armed, there’s an implication of threat, a promise of violence, based on certain conditions. In totality it would seem that this violates the precept of the NAP altogether. I argue that its viewed the wrong way- that violence and aggression are mutually exclusive concepts. In an era where aggression is openly being used as the mask on civilian disarmament has been removed, its important to understand the difference.
We have to define interpersonal violence as the intentional use of physical force against another person. Violence is not a random act. We must form an intent and a recognition that in that moment, such force is justified. Recognizing this definition, being armed becomes an implicit, and in some ways explicit, promise of violence.
I am armed, with the explicit implication of violence should you take any action of unjustified aggression against me.
Most are familiar with the right to be armed, while wholly unfamiliar with the duty assigned to that right. The preservation of such right is predicated upon first being armed then proficiency at arms, followed by the assurance of violence should any other right be taken. Your duties accompanying the right of being armed is the capacity for all three of those qualifiers. And that violence must be both quick and decisive; violence has no other legitimate purpose aside from the preservation of one’s liberty.
Aggression is separate concept wholly independent from violence. While aggression usually accompanies violence, in most contexts aggression is a posture and almost always precedes a violent act. It is a reaction. Aggression can be understood as weakness feigning strength. The raising of one’s voice, the beratement of the other, the unnecessary posing with one’s weapons for no purpose other than vanity; these are forms of aggression which precede violence. Each are forms of posturing. Posturing is much akin to a growling dog. The truly menacing dog won’t growl, he’ll just bite. He needs no confirmation of his own power, nor does he need any other justification than his prey is infringing on his territory. The small dog on the other hand will growl and snarl in an attempt to intimidate, inherently ceding their inferiority. Violence is thus natural when threatened, and among the prepared, aggression is unneeded.
So to say that one is armed nonviolent is an absurdity. The fact that I am armed implicates violence. It is a promise of violence, both quick and decisive in its nature. There should be no posturing, no prostrating with one’s weapons of an unnecessary goal. Rather, the presence of weapons and thus violence must serve an end. For me at least, that end is both a recognition of my rights through assured duties as well as training others to do the same. To build those skills and to foster that confidence in others. Violence is both necessary and a natural force; aggression is not. I am both armed and violent, trained to be violent, and train others in exercising that collective violence. That violence is quick and decisive, ending the fight as rapidly as it began.
Collective Violence. Individually, interpersonal violence exists as a resolution. However what of the concept of violence when extended to whole categories of people? When I am told “Hell Yes we are going to take your AR-15!” I consider this aggression with an implication of violence. Robert Francis O’Rourke, a product of a life of great privilege, acts through aggression. The man couldn’t disarm a child much less a trained adult, but he’ll send someone else to- make no mistake of that fact. But what serves as a deterrent to such aggression? Violence as a collective.
So with those two concepts better defined, can violence exist within the parameters of libertarianism? Absolutely. I argue that the core concept of one’s liberty is preserved through the promise of violence, that the proficiency and skill at such violence in all forms is a vital one. Aggression being an independent concept from violence, it is wholly possible to be non aggressive while being entirely violent. The difference is that violence must serve an end goal while being entirely justified. Amid those calls for civilian disarmament through force, there’s no better deterrent than building that proficiency at all levels, be it individual to collective violence.
Life, if you let it, will get in your way when it comes to practicing those skills that will keep you and your family alive in the worst possible scenario.Don’t let life do that! Make and schedule regular time for your dry fire and range practice. You’ll be glad you did even in the event you never have to use the skills you’ve honed. Why? Because you’ll be confident you had the skills if you needed them.
Time continues to slip by us, and according to the MSM, 7 in 10 Americans believe some really nasty, spicy times are ahead.
Train now, train often, and stack ’em deep!
Which sidearm, revolver or pistol, would qualify as ‘THE‘ ideal in a national contest of all the sidearms available today? That’s a tough question. Or is it?
We all have our favorites and can justify our choices to any ‘naysayer,’ right??
Smith, Sig, Glock, Beretta, Colt, Ruger, Kahr, etc, etc, etc, etc!
Mag fed, wheel gun, long barrel, short barrel, adjustable trigger, after market, etc, etc, etc, etc!
50AE, .45ACP, 10mm, 9mm, .357 Mag, 44 Mag, .38 Special, .380, 25 Auto, etc, etc, etc, etc!
And I’m sure there’d be no shortage of folks able to rank all the sidearms they’ve ever owned or shot as to their place in the ‘ideal’ line up.
What we can’t do a great majority of the time, is answer the question understandably and simply, ‘Which is THE ideal sidearm?’
And, this choice of sidearm has been mentioned countless times to countless audiences, friends, students and acquaintances before by countless people steeped in common sense, even though various authors, experts, and shooting writers fail to simply acknowledge this simple truth as they discover, debate, and judge, ‘the next IDEAL sidearm.’
Which is THE ideal sidearm?
The one that’s in your hand, loaded, and ready to employ against the threat you’re facing.
Once you know that, everything else falls into place, because no matter what your personal choice is, you’ll be doing dry fire drills, live fire, ammunition experimentation, mag change drills, and so forth, so when it IS in your hand, you’ll use it effectively, no matter who made it or what type of sidearm it happens to be.
In the first post on this rifle, here, I shot 175gr rounds from various manufactures from Berger down to Fiocchi (cost & inherent accuracy wise). This time, I’m shooting 168gr from various manufacturers: IMI, Federal, Fiocchi, and Mag Tech. Berger doesn’t make a 168gr HPBT match, at least, easily found for sale. So, I’ve got 4 match grade HPBT rounds to compare.
As you can see by reading the first report, the Berger 175’s were top notch in accuracy and quality of production. Lapua brass, match primers, superb projectiles, and bordering on ‘scary’ accuracy.
Now, to be fair, I fouled the barrel prior to my anecdotal evidence experiment, and didn’t clean the barrel inbetween brands. So, the Fiocchi had the dirtiest and warmest barrel temps to deal with. To rule that out, next phase, after the 168’s, I’m shooting the Fioochi first and the Berger’s last, with IMI (new batch of 175gr Match) ad Federal in the middle. We’ll see how that goes. Digression complete.
Something else I’m doing doing different is checking impact of the torque of the action screws on accuracy. Savage says they should be torqued between 30 and 35 inch pounds. I’ve torqued them as close as I could to 33 inch pounds. So, we’ll see what happens. If the first 3 shot groups (yeah, I know, 5 rounds is a better test and I’ll do that later) are more than an inch, I’ll adjust the torque to 35 pounds. If it shrinks it, great, if it opens up more, I’ll back it down to around 30 and see what that does.
Here’s the results as they were shot.
185 Gr Federal “Juggernaut” – HUGE disappointment as these rounds are loaded with Berger bullets and about as expensive as the Berger/Lapua 175gr below (about $1.24 per round). I really expected them to equal, if not best, the Berger brand. While not ‘bad,’ per se, the 1.5 inch large group was either a fluke or an indicator of possible QA concerns due to the lack of consistency.
Small: .416 Inches
Large: 1.5 inches
175 GRAIN HPBT MATCH COMPARISON
Berger 175 gr HPBT: The most accurate, and most expensive round in the 175gr range. You do get what you pay for! $1.24 per round, delivered.
Small: .311 inches – I’m thinking with some practice, I could easily do “one hole groups” with this ammo.
Large: .837 inches
Avg: .574 inches – Basically a half inch at 100 meters. On average. Don’t get NO better than that with factory loaded ammo!!
Prime 175 gr HPBT: I could easily stick with these due with the price point of .94 per round delivered; 30 cents per round less expensive than the Berger (which is a SUPERB round). If I were to be concerned with budget, this would be my round of choice.
Small: .540 inches
Large: 1.04 inches
Avg: .730 inches
Federal Match 175 gr HPBT: Meh. Federal Match oughta be better out of the box.
Small: .478 Inches
Large: 1.88 inches
Avg: 1.26 inches
Barnes “Precision” 175 gr HPBT: (Rounds had obvious water spots on the projectiles from improper storage – could have had something to do with performance, but all brands were purchased from the same distributor – no other problems noted whatsoever.) Will not use – actually feel I wasted the money on the test ammo.
Small: 1.61 inches
Large: 2 inches
Avg: 1.74 inches
MAGTECH ‘First Defense’ 168gr HPBT Match: If I go 168gr, these are going to be my round of choice…..these are the ‘poor man’s’ accuracy round. A real sleeper! Excellent performance all around. Average about exactly between a half in and three quarters of an inch group at 100 meters! REALLY good factory load alternative for 168’s.
SUPERB performance, especially when one notes MAGTECH is an ‘economy’ brand.
Small: .383 inches
Large: .832 inches
Avg: .670 inches
IMI 168gr Match (HPBT): Meh. I expected more out of IMI ‘sniper/match’ rounds. All 3 groups were very consistent, two of which were within .001 size differential. They do shoot the same, but the inherent accuracy wasn’t tight enough for me to consider these as my ‘go to’ round.
Small: 1.07 inches
Large: 1.30 inches
Avg: 1.22 inches
Federal 168gr Premium HPBT Match: Not happy AT all….my rifle doesn’t like this round; surprising, in that it likes other 168’s. I really thought this round would be at the top of the 168 crowd….
Small: 0.90 inches
Large: 1.5 inches
Avg: 1.2 inches
Get a load of THIS article in the NY Post about democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, aptly titled,
“Don’t Be Fooled by Bernie Sanders – he’s a die hard communist”
As the short post tells you, “If you read nothing else today…..”
As I’ve always held, “Progressive = Liberal = Socialist = Communist,” and the difference is in degree of virulence and willingness to commit violence, or have others commit violence, against anyone or anything who believes or stands for liberty, as espoused by the original experiment documented in the unanimous Declaration.
As time goes by, I am more and more grateful for my education about communism’s inherent evil and disregard for the human race. And, as Mike Vanderbeogh famously said, “A Socialist is a Communist that hasn’t found his AK-47 yet….”
This guy below? I really like his stance, and I really wish I could have met him.
(Buy Lots of Ammo TODAY!)
From Pet’s place….WRSA, here.
Do read all the links….
The ‘dumbing down’ started long ago, and its fruit is now ripe on the vine. Here’s where we are in 2019….imagine where we will be, in 2020, 21, 22….
“Self-determination, which has nothing to do with self-government but has become confused with it, is barbarous and reactionary: by sanctioning secession, it invites majorities and minorities to be intransigent and irreconcilable. It is stipulated in the principle of self-determination that they need not be compatriots because they will soon be aliens. There is no end to this atomization of human society. Within the minorities who have seceded there will tend to appear other minorities who in their turn will wish to secede.”
Walter Lippmann, U.S. War Aims (Boston: Little, Brown, 1944), p. 174.
Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” by Patrick J. Buchanan