The Definitive Firearms Thread

3045 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Reloading

Phecksel,

Man you've sure come a long way!

If you do get the reloading press, let us know what you think. Reloading is one of the most useful arts you could take up right now, IMHO, and those who can do it will have no problem making scratch in a collapsed society, let alone the cost saving benefits of doing it now.

Cheers,

Aaron

MrAmmo's picture
MrAmmo
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 1 2012
Posts: 5
i agree, with a few caveats,

i agree, with a few caveats, powder must be stored in a very controlled environment.

and the supply of smokeless powder may not be certain.

now, black powder is a different story

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
Aaron, Tell me about it. 

Aaron,

Tell me about it.  Friend is trying to talk me into a class that basically walks me all the way through instructor over a several month period.  IDK, but after watching a highly experienced shooter have a ND right into his leg, it really hit home on safety... and that was a few minutes after an AD with my own firearm {trigger kit had a safety failure}.  At least in my case, the muzzle was pointed at the back stop when it made a mess of my shorts ;)

Crazy thoughts, when is it enough?

Right now, I'd love some time to be able to enjoy the sport, work and higher priority family issues have been pressing :(  I can see getting deeper into competition, but have a ways to go to even being competitive.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Enough's enough

Phecksel,

Brother - you hit on a point that's near and dear to me.
Learning the way of the gun is, as odd and zen as this may sound, analogous to medicine. 
You may quit, but you'll never finish. While I suppose that many paths offer this, very few deal with such poignant ends as medicine and martialism. They are truly the yin and yang of life and death.

Setting that aside, the path of proficiency (and thereby) the power of life and death, cannot be understated or diminished. It cannot be taught rapidly, or taken for granted. There will always be someone better than you, and even if you're more skilled than someone else, there's always circumstance. It's so blindingly multifactorial that it presents an "unwinnable" situation... much like our economic turmoil.

Even the most experienced of practicioners have "mental malfunctions", or eventually train themselves into less than best practice. We have, God willing non-hazardous, negligent discharges that humble us.

There's something about being competent in the way of the warrior that carries a sort of quiet satisfaction. It requires that one have discipline, a measure of courage and (if you've been tested) a humble nature.

I have had 3 ND's in 30 years. Every single one was ENTIRELY my fault and no one elses, and every time I've broken a cardinal rule (though fortunately never more than one) and it has helped me shape how I handle firearms. The ND is more serious than any other martial oversight, as it can potentially kill innocent people. That's pretty profound when you think about it. An insufficient or poorly performed technique in a fight might get you beat up, or lesser yet, a lost competition. 

Safety with firearms is the utmost in terms of responsibility and discipline. It's truly amazing that more profound accidents do not occur.

Cheers,

Aaron

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
The irony of the whole

The irony of the whole incident, I dared to talk about it in a public forum, and was literally driven out of the club.  Here was someone that very negligently handled his firearm, and may have been on a pharmacuetical product that may or may not have altered his mental capacity, and I was the bad guy.  It was especially rattling to me, because I had my own AD due to the product defect just a short time before.  In retrospect, I was rattled enough that I should have gone home after my AD and called it a day.  Woulda coulda shoulda...

After I drummed out of the club for daring to talk about the incident, they put a new rule in place, a "qualified" range officer was now in charge of inspecting each firearm before that person left the line.  Best part, this qualified RO was talking to the guy who had the ND when it happened.  You can't make this stuff up!

I don't need to belong to a club that takes safety so lightly.  They had no tramau kit, they had no formal procedures in place for serious trama, they have no idea if the club was even financially protected, etc etc etc.

I had gone to a pretty big regional competition and informed the director of my inexperience, and I was impressed with how they walked me through the competition.  Also received a nice compliment on my handling and double/triple checking.

I can see loading turning this into a complete game changer for me.  Forgetting about TEOTWAWKI event, just the thrill of creating high precision no excuses ammo will be fun.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Please take a moment

I'm going to repost this as widely as I can, and I hope that:
1. The administration will excuse my flagrant use of their board to stir political action
2. That the message will be liked, shared and forwarded to your state and federal representatives
3. That we, as rational, decent people can calm the tone of this dialog, and help put the proverbial swords away.

http://www.facebook.com/aaron.moyer.355/posts/10152512050305657


Quote:

Dear Sir or ma'am,



I am writing to ask that you stand in opposition of the proposed assault weapons bans, and urge your further to consult both case law, historical context and the constitution on the subject before associating a misrepresented category of weapons with an extremely small, mentally unhealthy segment of society. 



A historical evaluation of prohibitions of any type shows that crimes increase drastically during such bans, and that often as not, enforcement is not capable of properly enforcing laws that are "committed" both by simple possession, and without a victim. These costly enforcement policies are apt to further strain a government that is increasingly unable to defend citizens, and as in the case of Castle Rock v Gonzales, has decreed that the police have no "duty to protect" citizens. 



Officers of the law and our soldiers are trained on these weapons in both an offensive AND defensive capacity - showing beyond a doubt that such weapons are not "assault" weapons, as 'assault' is a physical action taken against another, and as such, they could be described equally as "defensive" weapons. It is this mentality that we must change, as the firearm is not a construct capable of action of its own volition. Let us focus on preventing atrocity through understanding, respect and support for the spirit of the Bill of Rights.



I further urge you to suggest, and support training programs that promote responsible and safe ownership of firearms, to include fighting rifles that were intended by our forefathers to secure liberty, and that you do not succumb to the sensationalist claims that these weapons make our societies more dangerous. The facts show that statistically, you're nearly twice as likely to be killed by blunt object, and 89 times more likely to be killed in traffic. 



When we see social trends such as traffic fatalities, we ensure responsibility by bolstering education, awareness and enforcement of existing laws. 

I ask you, and our nations representatives collectively, have we truly given this approach a chance with firearms? 

Can we say that we've given the necessary effort to identify, understand and treat - not simply medicate - those who have mental health issues that make them dangerous to themselves and others? 

Should these steps be skipped for emotional expediency, and political convenience?



It is my greatest wish that we, as a nation, will find both peace and prosperity. But because our fore-bearers could not guarantee us peace and prosperity, they built into the bedrock of American citizenry the right to openly speak your mind, worship as you see fit, to protect and defend your home, community and nation with armament equal to that of the nations soldiers, and the rights of due process. 



I ask that we take a solemn moment to allow tragedy to pass before we commit to a plan of action that erodes *any* of these rights. I ask you to encourage this approach, as my representatives in our state and federal government. 



Please, as a citizen, a servicemen deployed to combat in Afghanistan and proponent of the notion that liberty is grown through education and trust, I hope you will understand that setting unnecessary or esoteric limitations on constitutionally guaranteed rights is an irresponsible approach to the maintenance of our country's greatest asset - our bill of rights - and to the security of a free state.



SSgt Aaron Moyer

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
Very Nice Sir

Aaron, that was very well thought out and worded. Thank you for posting. Mine have not been so eloquent.

Dear AB,

Before there was internet, before there were PACs, the first "assault weapons" ban lost the Democrats control of Congress.

If you support any portion of any type of gun control legislation you will lose your job.

We have the internet, we are better organized, we are better funded.

Why waste a good career attacking a scapegoat?

Very sincerely,

Tycer

joesxm2011's picture
joesxm2011
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2011
Posts: 259
FAlley's picture
FAlley
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 2 2010
Posts: 90
NRA Winning Public Influence Battle

I've been atching the gun debate with bemusement. Seeing two cultures without a middle ground between self-sufficient and dependent has been wholely interesting, and I hope I've learned something from it. I continue to believe that history ultimately comes in favor of those who favor firearms ownership, and happily so.

As a means of hope, I point to this article. While I believe there a fight yet left, I believe this remains a topic that, nationally, the NRA can continue to own.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influ...

"We found that the NRA and the pro-gun rights voices are winning the influence battle and will continue to be strong and more influential if the pro gun control voice remains fragmented. On the flip side, the pro gun control voice could certainly gain influence if they establish a more united voice."

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
ao

Tom Gresham, who has written for, produced and directed TV for Intermedia called BS on this yesterday.  http://www.guntalk.com/site40.php I have been listening to Tom for many years. If he calls it BS, I will believe him until proven otherwise. The article has no sources cited. 

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
For Jim H

http://www.cncguns.com/projects/ar15lower.html

http://www.arlower.ray-vin.com/disclaimer.htm

 

Machining AR-15 lowers. 

Let me know if you need help.

R

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Tycer wrote: Tom Gresham, who
Tycer wrote:

Tom Gresham, who has written for, produced and directed TV for Intermedia called BS on this yesterday.  http://www.guntalk.com/site40.php I have been listening to Tom for many years. If he calls it BS, I will believe him until proven otherwise. The article has no sources cited. 

Tycer,

Thanks for the heads up.  We'll see.  What aspect of it did he call BS on?  Could he just doing hired gun damage control?

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
deadly gun shapes

Give the following gun and civil liberty related story which almost defies belief

http://myfox8.com/2013/03/05/maryland-boy-suspended-for-pop-tart-pistol/

I thought a little apropos humor (that's an official humor alert now) might provide some needed comic relief.

banned-state-of-idaho.jpg

 

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
irrational fear

There is no justification for this kind of abject fear that boys playing with things shaped like guns instantly makes them a cause for alarm.

Its bred into us, as humans and males especially... Having the coordination required to hit something with a projectile has literally been a component of how humans survived for millions of years.

Take their toys, they use toaster pastries. Its instinct, and it needs to be honed in a positive way.
What an unbelievable mess.

Aaron

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1212
anti-gun hysteria in schools
A. M. wrote:

There is no justification for this kind of abject fear that boys playing with things shaped like guns instantly makes them a cause for alarm. Its bred into us, as humans and males especially... Having the coordination required to hit something with a projectile has literally been a component of how humans survived for millions of years. Take their toys, they use toaster pastries. Its instinct, and it needs to be honed in a positive way. What an unbelievable mess. Aaron

I really worry for my 4yo son and his cousin being in the US educational system.  These boys play such games all the time, often saying things like "I shot the bad guy!" or making shooting sounds while they play.  Completely normal and nothing worth being concerned about, but I foresee being called into some principal's office because my son supposedly 'threatened' another student by playing good guys vs. bad guys or something like that.  And quite possibly also being thrown into jail for putting my foot up said principal's or administrator's ass cheeky.   

We are still not certain if we will have him attending school in Mongolia or America as we are not sure how much of our time will be spent in either place over the next 5-10 years.  But if it'll be in the US I think it will have to be a private school that does not submit to this nonsensical anti-gun hysteria.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Clan Identity

This might sound misgynistic, but men naturally begin articulating and emulating 'warfare' with rival clans and devloping a sense of "good and bad" at an early age. If you take away their toy guns, they'll use sticks. Take the sticks, and it's pastries. 

With the drastic shift towards a more matriarichal society, this identity is being trod under, as women's anthropological world has been cooperation with close family units. This fundemental differences between the sexes demonstrates a massive rift in our current political environment, as generations of men who're raised in the feminine world of urbane sophistication in which a man is identified as successful by having possessions compete with more rural men who've long been epitomized by self-reliance, skill and capability. 

Teaching kids (especially boys) to be 'fearful' is a disgusting practice. Removing courage from society will sow absolutely no good, and to those who believe the trade off is worth it because these boys will grow up more intelligent - read a history text, and pick up some philosophy. 

Men - warriors - have been philosophical, courageous and capable in life for thousands of years, from Moses to Marcus Aurelius. And it's not a western or judaeo value system. Miyamoto Musashi was a warrior of matchless skill, and a devout student of philosophy, as was the Shambhalist teachings in Tibet. 

Borrwoing from Jefferey Donovan's book "The Way of Men", the primates who are dominated by a martriarichal society are generally more "caring" and this is associated with harmony, while populations of Chimpanzee (which are highly patriarichal) are more war-like, territorial and disposed to sexual division of labor. While I don't want to reach too far out into the esoteric philosophy of arms and training our boys, a Matriarichal society may have some niceity to it... but let's face it - this world isn't "nice". Biology is cruel and indifferent and the society that puts "feelings" before the ability to survive will last only as long as they can avoid being victimized. 

We are people. As long as there are people, conflict will exist. While intra-societal cooperation and caring are neat, they can be crippling during times of hardship... which is why the Chimpanzee model fits most of the dominant species on the planet...

In short, train your boys. They'll impress you with their capacity for both warriorship and virtue, and more likely than not, you'll be working *with* nature, instead of against it. 
Cheers,

Aaron

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Bravo A.M.
A. M. wrote:

This fundemental differences between the sexes demonstrates a massive rift in our current political environment, as generations of men who're raised in the feminine world of urbane sophistication in which a man is identified as successful by having possessions compete with more rural men who've long been epitomized by self-reliance, skill and capability. 

Teaching kids (especially boys) to be 'fearful' is a disgusting practice. Removing courage from society will sow absolutely no good, and to those who believe the trade off is worth it because these boys will grow up more intelligent - read a history text, and pick up some philosophy. 
 

A.M.

You have identified one of the fundamental problems in modern US life; and yes, it is a leading cause of our political conflict and paralysis.  Both sexes have their virtues and shortcomings.  Ideally they balance each other and the combination is stronger  Shifting both sexes to an androgynous middle is not good for anyone.

When the male attributes of aggression and courage are channeled properly they result in loving men who support and protect their families.  When fundamental aspects of the nature of boys are denied you create serious problems.  I suggest that mass shootings are just one example.

Thanks for sharing your insight.  Few people seem to understand this.

Travlin

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Balance

Travlin,

I agree entirely. It's not to say there isn't a place for both male and female nature, but there has been this sharp, fundemental change in how we approach nature and shape our young since women took a position of equality in the socio-political spheres of influence. 

Sure, men have been subversive, misogynistic and chauvinistic about their 'leadership' - but they never tried to force women to abandon their nature through political or social pressure. This is atrocious and I've seen several instances where young boys have been punished for playing "Good ____" vs. "Bad ____" and acting aggressive. The funny thing is, I remember those days myself. 
When boys play Good guy vs bad guy, the bad guy isn't really bad - he's an alternating role that the kid playing "good guy" uses to sharpen his skills. The kid playing bad guy isn't committed to doing bad, he just acts the part so that the good guy gets his licks in.

Misunderstanding this and denying children the establishment of any sort of delineation between right and wrong is an affront to masculinity and is tantamount to taking dolls from little girls to denude them of their nurturing instinct. 

To those who'd argue that no 'harm' comes from this nurturing, I'd digress. Emphatically. 
The modern American is told throughout their lives that they are winners, no one is better than them, there is nothing wrong with them. If they fail, they still pass. If they lose, they still get a reward.

Where is the incentive to increase one's self worth when the results are the same, win or lose?
Where is the incentive to be a "good guy" if you'll simply be labeled a 'bad guy' and punished?

When these instincts mature, stunted and deformed by the rampant statist maternalism, you get kids who have *no* concept of what it means to have their peers esteem. No concept of what it means to work hard for victory. No concept of how being "right" equates to discipline and decency. 

You get valueless, hollow youths like Adam Lanza, or James Holmes, who've totally embraced the fact that they're "bad"; they love violence. They crave it. They identify with the "bad guy", because the aspect of their nature that makes them violent has been heavily compressed and shoved into a musty psychological closet in which it must go to rot, never to be seen.

Men in general are supposed to be in touch with life and death. We're far more expendable than women, from a biological point of view. Through decadence and excess, we equal them in numbers, and as such, have become soft, opulent and out of touch with both our own nature and the nature that surrounds us.

We are being nurtured into thinking that we're something special in a world that starkly disagrees from the perspective of nature. We do not hunt for our food, nor do we slaughter our livestock. Few men have ever had any blood other than their own on their hands. The ones who do, often as not, were thrust into a situation in which they were the "bad guy" - the invader, the conquerer, the subjugator - and it damages their sense of right and wrong. This is evident in an entire generation of young veterans, who were simultaneously brought up to believe they were "good" and violence was bad. 

They never learned when and where it's appropriate. They saw it glorified, and took part in it, and now, what have they become? Many are perfectly capable of rationalizing. Many acted justly, or in defense of those who could not defend themselves. Our wars haven't been perfect, but I can tell you for every injustice you hear on the news, there are acts of kindless innumerable occurring - even in these countries at war.

The destruction of man's identity has lead us to this weak-knee'd "leadership", ambigious understanding of life and devaluation of our male culture. Boys need to be bought up with skills, with sensory stimulation (not just visual/auditory from TV and video games). They need to know what dirt feels like, get germs on their hands and in their cuts. They need to get hit, fall out of trees, catch a baseball, shoot a gun or bow, know how to climb and challenge themselves while they're young. 

Anything less is cheating them out of their nature.

Rambling off, but I feel better having said that. =D

Aaron

RNcarl's picture
RNcarl
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 13 2008
Posts: 382
lets ban Lacrosse

Well,

My son plays lacrosse. Teenaged boys hitting each other with sticks. "Firing" balls toward a target (the net) being guarded by... a human!  Balls wizzing by him at 70-90 mph! devil

Shoot it! Shoot it! being yelled by the coach on the field being heard by me sitting helplessly in my car!!! blush

I dunno....

wink

 

 

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1212
instincts and conflict resolution

Aaron & Travlin-

I wholeheartedly agree, the key is not suppressing the aggressive instincts but channeling them into a useful activity.  Just as you described, my boy and his cousin do alternate in their good guy / bad guy roles regularly, and so for them it doesn't involve exclusion or nastiness or "picking on" one person it is just simply play.  And sure, in some cases when they play somebody hits a little harder than they should and one or both gets upset or angry, but even that I think has some value in having them learn to resolve conflicts.  Perhaps that is another thing we've somewhat lost, the ability to resolve conflicts or to even be willing to confront someone in the times a conflict is necessary.  It seems too many people either go to the extreme of avoiding conflict (physical or social) at all costs, or to the other extreme where they escalate conflicts far beyond what is necessary.  Sadly, I think there are people who actually like this outcome; the first because such people will suffer more abuse without standing up for themselves, and the second because such people are easily manipulated to be either bullies or thugs.  I'm not 100% convinced that this is a planned outcome of social engineering (I think it's at least as likely a unforeseen consequence of "good intentions"), but at the very least I see certain interests and people in power seeing the trend and taking advantage of it.

So getting to the next question, how do we raise our kids to channel these instincts properly without making them unwitting targets of a politically correct society gone apeshit?  Sadly, in order to get by in society I have often had to wear a different 'hat' one might say in some work and public settings.  And while I suspect my kid will have to learn this to some extent later in his life, I don't want him to HAVE to learn this compartmentalization of sorts before he's even of school age.  Psychologically speaking that may hurt him in other ways down the road.  Quite honestly I think the the best way is to avoid the public school system altogether, unless one is lucky enough to be in a community that has very limited exposure to the PC culture.  Perhaps there is a market for secular private schools who's mission is "PC-free and practical" instruction.  Heaven forbid, maybe they can revive rifle and marksmanship classes  ;)

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Travlin wrote: A. M.
Travlin wrote:
A. M. wrote:

This fundemental differences between the sexes demonstrates a massive rift in our current political environment, as generations of men who're raised in the feminine world of urbane sophistication in which a man is identified as successful by having possessions compete with more rural men who've long been epitomized by self-reliance, skill and capability. 

Teaching kids (especially boys) to be 'fearful' is a disgusting practice. Removing courage from society will sow absolutely no good, and to those who believe the trade off is worth it because these boys will grow up more intelligent - read a history text, and pick up some philosophy. 
 

A.M.

You have identified one of the fundamental problems in modern US life; and yes, it is a leading cause of our political conflict and paralysis.  Both sexes have their virtues and shortcomings.  Ideally they balance each other and the combination is stronger  Shifting both sexes to an androgynous middle is not good for anyone.

When the male attributes of aggression and courage are channeled properly they result in loving men who support and protect their families.  When fundamental aspects of the nature of boys are denied you create serious problems.  I suggest that mass shootings are just one example.

Thanks for sharing your insight.  Few people seem to understand this.

Travlin

I couldn't agree more.  Aaron hit the nail on the head.  Of course, this view is politically incorrect but again, look where political correctness doctrine comes from.  Men can be both caring, compassionate, and loving husbands, fathers, and friends while still being capable and competent warriors, able to protect their loved ones and their way of life against evil forces.  For those who think evil doesn't exist, I'm happy that you've had such a sheltered life.  Those who have been exposed to it will never forget it.

 

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
A. M. wrote: Travlin, I
A. M. wrote:

Travlin,

I agree entirely. It's not to say there isn't a place for both male and female nature, but there has been this sharp, fundemental change in how we approach nature and shape our young since women took a position of equality in the socio-political spheres of influence. 

Sure, men have been subversive, misogynistic and chauvinistic about their 'leadership' - but they never tried to force women to abandon their nature through political or social pressure. This is atrocious and I've seen several instances where young boys have been punished for playing "Good ____" vs. "Bad ____" and acting aggressive. The funny thing is, I remember those days myself. 
When boys play Good guy vs bad guy, the bad guy isn't really bad - he's an alternating role that the kid playing "good guy" uses to sharpen his skills. The kid playing bad guy isn't committed to doing bad, he just acts the part so that the good guy gets his licks in.

Misunderstanding this and denying children the establishment of any sort of delineation between right and wrong is an affront to masculinity and is tantamount to taking dolls from little girls to denude them of their nurturing instinct. 

To those who'd argue that no 'harm' comes from this nurturing, I'd digress. Emphatically. 
The modern American is told throughout their lives that they are winners, no one is better than them, there is nothing wrong with them. If they fail, they still pass. If they lose, they still get a reward.

Where is the incentive to increase one's self worth when the results are the same, win or lose?
Where is the incentive to be a "good guy" if you'll simply be labeled a 'bad guy' and punished?

When these instincts mature, stunted and deformed by the rampant statist maternalism, you get kids who have *no* concept of what it means to have their peers esteem. No concept of what it means to work hard for victory. No concept of how being "right" equates to discipline and decency. 

You get valueless, hollow youths like Adam Lanza, or James Holmes, who've totally embraced the fact that they're "bad"; they love violence. They crave it. They identify with the "bad guy", because the aspect of their nature that makes them violent has been heavily compressed and shoved into a musty psychological closet in which it must go to rot, never to be seen.

Men in general are supposed to be in touch with life and death. We're far more expendable than women, from a biological point of view. Through decadence and excess, we equal them in numbers, and as such, have become soft, opulent and out of touch with both our own nature and the nature that surrounds us.

We are being nurtured into thinking that we're something special in a world that starkly disagrees from the perspective of nature. We do not hunt for our food, nor do we slaughter our livestock. Few men have ever had any blood other than their own on their hands. The ones who do, often as not, were thrust into a situation in which they were the "bad guy" - the invader, the conquerer, the subjugator - and it damages their sense of right and wrong. This is evident in an entire generation of young veterans, who were simultaneously brought up to believe they were "good" and violence was bad. 

They never learned when and where it's appropriate. They saw it glorified, and took part in it, and now, what have they become? Many are perfectly capable of rationalizing. Many acted justly, or in defense of those who could not defend themselves. Our wars haven't been perfect, but I can tell you for every injustice you hear on the news, there are acts of kindless innumerable occurring - even in these countries at war.

The destruction of man's identity has lead us to this weak-knee'd "leadership", ambigious understanding of life and devaluation of our male culture. Boys need to be bought up with skills, with sensory stimulation (not just visual/auditory from TV and video games). They need to know what dirt feels like, get germs on their hands and in their cuts. They need to get hit, fall out of trees, catch a baseball, shoot a gun or bow, know how to climb and challenge themselves while they're young. 

Anything less is cheating them out of their nature.

Rambling off, but I feel better having said that. =D

Aaron

Aaron,

You weren't rambling.  You wrote a masterpiece that I'd love to see in the NY Times. Seriously, try submitting it someplace where it gets more exposure.  I know I'm circulating it on my e-mail list and I'm sure after reading it, my wife will do the same.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1801
Is there still a need for warriors?

Nice thread going here.  I've noticed that those who emphasize the caring, cooperative, supportive, feminine perspective (both males and females) have a hard time acknowledging the competitive and violent aspects of every day human existence.  In fact those emphasizing that femine perspective want to believe that we can eventually EVOLVE into a society that rises above competition, violence and suffering.  Based on my religious beliefs, I doubt we can ever RISE to that plane of existence.  However, the objective observer in me sees that we are not anywhere near that kind of existence today (no matter how "protected" from violence some islands of modern society may be).  In nature, I see that competition is built into life at every level (from single cell organisms to human beings).  It's almost as if some Higher Being has designed life this way.  Hmmmm.

Anyway, as long as competition seems to be built into the structure of life I'm committed to "winning" that competition when there are individuals and "forces" that would take what is mine if I don't stop them, whether what is "mine" is life itself, possessions, advantages based on skill and knowledge, etc.

I am not willing to ignore competition and violence as everyday realities because it doesn't fit with my utopian ideas of what life could be if we could all just get along.  My religious beliefs tell me a Higher Power will establish such an existence, but they also tell me we will be fighting to the death until that happens.

Have you ever seen a time lapse study of tropical reef life forms (corals, urchibns, etc.) engaged in mortal combat for survival in ultra slow motion?  Fascinating.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Warriors

AO,

Thanks for the kind words, I shored it up and submitted it to the ArtofManliness.
If they don't take it, I'm fair certain that the MSM would turn their nose up at it. After all, it's a black flag sailing against everything they stand for.

THC,
What you wrote sums up nicely how pretty much *every* man who is worth his salt feels. 
There's not much utility in a man who doesn't care if he is a victim or not. No matter your belief system, man is a half of a whole. 

Our values, the instincts we possess - lets not forget that they are responsible for no less than half of the agricultural revolution, and the various civic, cultural and intellectual revolutions that have shaped the last 10,000 years of human history. 

No doubt, some professors will be keen on over-emphasizing man's violent tendencies, but that is natural selection. It's a fundemental component of resource scarcity. It's a fundemental component of the nature that shapes every living organism on this planet.

I refuse to be whipped by a society that says that I should be a flaccid, apologetic and materialistic man who's idea of a good weekend is a manicure and a Starbucks even more than I refuse to be branded an oafish barbarian who enjoys violence.

Neither are true. 
I'm simply comfortable enough with nature to know what I am, and whether by design or circumstances, it all serves the same purpose.
Cheers,

Aaron

ralfy's picture
ralfy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 60
Some points to

Some points to consider:

Natural selection refers to mutation and the effect of changes in the environment combined with mutation for a given species. Likely, violence may be driven by particular changes in the environment. Consider:

"How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Their Egalitarian Ways: Three Complementary Theories"

http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/how-hunter-gatherers-main...

"5 Reasons Why American Riots Will Be the Worst in the World"

http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/shield2.1.1.html

Thus, human beings are likely non-violent, but become so given a surplus of resources, increased complexity in human organization, etc., all the way to exposure to particular content in commercial mass entertainment.

With that, expect the need to possess firearms to grow as combinations of fear about the future, violent media, and more global crisis emerge. And don't be surprised if you realize that financial elite are the ones who own such commercial media, are financing the sale of armaments, and are engaged in financial risks that are part of the causes of the current economic crisis. This is not to argue that the middle class is not part of the problem, as the rich can only be so as long as consumers and middle class investors join them.

Finally, note that like food, medicine, and fuel, ammo for firearms and other needs that are taken for granted may be dependent on a JIT system that can only provide several days' worth of such to various towns and cities. With that, one may expect police and military forces to end up protecting distribution areas for their own use while the citizens end up turning on each other.

 

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Statism IS fascism

Not surprising. Flood their tip lines with false information.
Call in the likes of Seymour Butts, Richard Head and that dastardly bad egg Hugh Jass.
Run them in circles until the get tired of chasing imaginary tails.

Fight fascism, fight statism and long live liberty.
Aaron

jdye51's picture
jdye51
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 17 2011
Posts: 157
Wow. I just happened upon

Wow. I just happened upon this testosterone-fueled thread. It's interesting to read the viewpoints expressed here. It feels a bit risky to comment here since the opinions expressed all seem to agree with one another, but I will gather my courage and have a say.

I respect that they are thoughtful and passsionately held views even if I  disagree with some of them. I'm sure they arose as a result of life experiences, many of which I haven't had. I am coming from a viewpoint those on this thread may have little experience in either. So I offer what I have to say with the understanding that we represent differing world views  - and that's OK. I think communication about and between world views is a good thing.

As human beings we are a part of the natural world and its evolution and thus continue to evolve over time. What once served us and enabled us to survive may not be so useful now that we face the likelihood of our own extinction through our thoughtless and selfish exploitation of the natural world. Look all around you at the consequences of our ignorant and/or uncaring attitude towards the very planet that nourishes us. Nature is about balance/equilibrium and as a species we have upset that balance to the point that we are altering the global climate in irreparable ways. No amount of masculine protective energy (which I do value) can save those you care about when  larger planetary forces take over. It's out of our hands then.

Another way our world views differ is that I see us as spiritual beings having a physical experience. This may seem like so much nonsence to you but it is my perspective. Though I don't follow any particular religion, I value the counsel Jesus gave us to turn the other cheek and to love one another. He was a man of peace who could have taken up weapons against the Roman empire and become a man of power but chose not to. He said the kingdom of God is within. I have observed that many who claim to follow his teachings behave in opposite ways.

If you see violence as inevitable, it is. If you think that our time here is only about survival of the fittest, then it is for you. I believe we are more than flesh and blood beings and have the power of choice unlike other species who behave purely on instinct. We don't have to be this way, we are choosing it. We deny our power when we say we are victims of "human nature" and that's just the way things are. The climate situation may be too far gone now to prevent most of us from dying off (if not all). I would hope that those who may survive the great changes ahead evolve into a less aggressive and self-centered species who see the value in our connection to the planet and to one another as a strength far greater than bow and arrow or bullet.

I know I am off topic . I guess my own need for balance prompted me to write this post. There is value in what we each bring to the discussion whether or not we always agree. I'm sure much more could be said by others more knowledgable and articulate. I appreciate being able to have my say.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Thanks, but...

Deleted for useless post.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Aaron

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments