Friday, August 30, 2013
By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)
"I overheard a conversation at my local gunshop and wanted to know your thoughts on the subject. Two gentlemen were discussing cheap 7.62x39 namely tul ammo and wolf, they said that due to the cheap metals that are used to make this ammo that by roughly 4,000 rounds said ammo will ruin the barrel in your ak47. Being that it is not an easy task to replace a barrel in an ak, what are your thoughts."
This is why I tell people to conduct their gun research before going into a gun shop. I've never heard so much bullshit and false information as I've heard walking into gun shops. The salesmen often don't know what they are talking about. Frankly, if the salesman is under 50, I would ignore him. I'm kidding. Well, not really. Generally, the old guys tend to be the ones who know what they're talking about.
As far as the customers, too many people repeat crap they've heard from people who know nothing about the product. Last year, I walked into a gun shop, asked a 20 something salesman about the AKs and he gave me some dumb joke about the AKs and talked about the superior accuracy of the AR. The idiot then showed me a rifle he referred to as a Czech AK. There's no such thing. It was a Vz-59. Despite having the same caliber, he had no clue that the guns had two very different designs and they didn't even accept the same magazine.
Now it's true, you will need a gunsmith to get the new AK barrel replaced. However, it will take a hell of a lot of ammo and usage to wear a barrel out. Unless you rapid fire with corrosive ammo for two hours 7 days a week for the 10 years and never clean it, I doubt you'll have to worry about it. It's okay to repeat fire sometimes, but keep in mind that excessive heat is what helps the friction wear the barrel out over time. Few people have the money to wear a barrel out.
As far as Russian ammo, just clean the rifle after you shoot it. I prefer to stick with non-corrosive ammo as it is easier to clean the rifle after shooting. I've shot Wolf (Military Classic and Black box), Golden Bear, Brown Bear and Golden Tiger with absolutely no problems. Just clean the rifle and you'll be fine.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)
I think too many people assume that moving out of the city will guarantee or dramatically improve their safety if a societal breakdown situation. If a nationwide emergency causes the power grid to fail, some places will be safer than others, but no one will be as safe as you think. I've heard many people say over the years that I need to get out of the city and that I won't have a chance if the shit hits the fan.
But I'm starting to get the impression that these people don't use the nuances of environment and how it relates to emergencies. People often point out the cities will be more dangerous because of the people. And although I agree that in the short term, the cities will be very dangerous, I also think that a lot of the people in the cities will drive to the surburbs, while the suburbanites will try to move into the country. There's a lot of people living in the suburbans around Detroit with cabins in Northern Michigan.
If there's a national emergency, almost everyone in Southeast Michigan is going to be trying to move up North I-75. That means if you're a suburbanite who thinks you're safe, you will likely get stuck in traffic if you try to bug out in the early stages of a crisis. Your best bet maybe to wait until the first wave of violence and panic ends. Personally, I'm not bugging out until I run out of resources and/or facing an imminent threat with overwhelming force. Until that day, I plan to stay in my home and bug in for the long term.
Keep in mind that if you live in the suburbans, a lot of desperate people will be forced to leave the highways and major roads to find resources your suburban area.
Simply put, the city will have more desperate people, but the it will also have many more resources. The rural areas will have less desperate people, but less resources. When you go from the city to the country, you're leaving one set of challenges for a different set of challenges. My ideal scenario would be to locate in a rural area with trusted family and plenty of my own resources.
Remember if you are a suburbanite planning on bugging out, please have resources already at the location. And it would be best to have a trusted family member at the location who can guard it until you arrive. You don't want to show and find strangers in your cabin. if the situation is grave, I doubt a man would be willing to give up shelter for his family without a fight.
Here are the things you will want to have in your vehicle.
1) 4 Wheel Drive
If you have to abandon the major roads, this could can in handy. But also beware that 4x4 makes the vehicle more complicated and if it breaks, it could expensive to repair.
2) First Kid (and knowledge of how to use it.)
3) Fire extinuigisher (and knowledge of how to use it)
4) Water (this includes water bottles and water filters)
5) Lighters and matches
6) Two Way Radios.
7) Spare tire, spare auto parts and tools.
8) A Plan (that all household member are aware of.)
5 Ways To Improve the GOP Presidential Primary! SC GOP Primary Indicates Winner in General Election!
By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)
In the 2012 presidential race, the GOP had two big problems 1) They had a terrible candidate (with a liberal record) and 2) The primary seemed to drag on for months longer than it needed to. Obama had two major liabilities (Obamacare and the economy). Republican nominee Mitt Romney failed to capitalize on either. Not only did the former Massachusetts Governor sign Romneycare (which is the predecessor to the Affordable Care Act), but he failed to created any transparent economic ideas.
The GOP was stuck with a closet big government, corporatist who declared his supported for banning semi-auto rifles (in 2007) and a primary schedule that wouldn't quit. In 2016, the GOP will have to utilize its election schedule to weed out anti-gun liberals like Chris Christie and Over-the-top religious nutjobs (aka sleazy politicians preparing to be hardcore Christians to get elected).
Here's how I would fix the GOP Presidential Primary schedule.
1) Primaries, not Caucuses
Caucuses are too damn easy to rig. Remember Ron Paul being robbed in Maine.
2) Liberty loving States First
Force the candidates to appeal to voters in states with a strong culture of independent thought and liberty.
Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but she is a long way from a closet liberal (e.g. Mitt Romney) or a fascist (e.g. George Bush). As stupid as Palin seemed in 2008, I still trusted her more than McCain. And frankly, states such as Vermont, Alaska and New Hampshire are more likely to take a risk on candidates with fresh ideas. Putting these states first would limit candidates ability to become too depend on using religion to manipulate voters and therefore strengthen the eventual winner for the general election.
3) Red States before Blue States
Weed out the fake conservatives but forcing candidates to actually win over their base in the South, the American West and prove themselves in the Midwest. Why would you have the New York and D.C. Primary before Texas and Utah? And why in the hell is anyone voting in June?
The GOP is not going to win D.C. or NY, why not let Texas play a bigger role in deciding the nominee for a party is is supposedly conservative?
The answer is simple. The DNC and GOP serve the same masters and therefore the entire system is a fraud. But let's assume that it could be reformed.
4) Winner Takes ALL
Enough with letting Scrub#2 win some delegates with only 15.2% of the vote in Alaska. This models forces the weaker candidates out sooner so the better ones can gather up delegates and wrap up the nomination.
5) Shorter the schedule
Remember when Obama was bashing Romney in May 2012 and he was still stuck in the primary. By the way, with my conservative-states-first schedule, Romney would have had a harder time winning the primary and if he did, he would have been done by April 30th. In 2012, it ended on June 26th. What the hell?
Winner takes ALL
Jan. 3 Alaska
Jan. 10 Vermont, New Hampshire, Virginia
Jan 17 South Carolina
Jan. 31 Texas
Feb. 4 Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana
Feb. 14 Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana
Feb. 22 Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas,
Feb 28 Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania
March 6 Ohio, Iowa
March 13 Florida
March 20 Colorado, Wyoming, Missouri, Miss,
March 27 North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana
April 3 West Virginia, North Carolina,
April 10 Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, New Mexico
April 17 California, Oregon, Washington,
April 30 Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Conn., Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, Massachusetts, Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia
6) Common Sense
Is it realistic to expect Republicans never do well when there's 5 presidential candidates in the race after the South Carolina primary? Not really.
In 2008, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Paul and Giuliani were all in the South Carolina Primary. If you have six guys in the race at this point, you have a problem. it means the field is weak.
And this is why the GOP nominee lost in the general election. Remember McCain?
In 2012, Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Santorum and Perry were in the South Carolina Primary. The general election results were the same. Remember Romney?
What about 2000? Sure Bush stole the election in Florida, but I do remember there only being three candidates in the South Carolina Primary. Alan Keyes, John McCain and eventual presidential winner (and cheater) George W. Bush. Too be fair, Obama recieved plenty of votes via fraud in 2008 and 2012. but when the GOP field was small, the nominee won the general election.
In 1996, there were three GOP candidates in South Carolina: Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. However, the economy was strong and Dole was a terrible candidate.Plus, Ross Perot running as an independent didn't help. So he actually had more than three opponents.
In 1992, there were only two GOP candidates in South Carolina. But George H.W. Bush was an incumbent president. It's never a good sign to have a president being challenged by someone in his own party. One challenger is too large of a field when you're an incumbent. This only happens when you piss your own party off.
In 1988, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Pat Robertson were in South Carolina and big surprise, the GOP nominee won.
In 1984, there were no GOP challengers to Ronald Regan.
In 1980, there were only three candidates within the GOP presidential field: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and John B. Anderson.
Bottomline: Shorten the primary schedule to allow GOP nominee to battle the Democrat, use conservative states to weed out the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), use winner-take-all to weed out the scrubs and use common sense. If you have more than three candidates in a GOP presidential primary in South Carolina, the field is weak and the Republican Party is going to lose in the general election. When you have candidates that appeal to most of the conservative base, there is no need for 6 guys. Therefore, if you have 4, 5 or 6 guys, the candidates are failing to appeal to the base.
Side note: Here's a clue. If a country club Republican born into a wealthy family named Willard declares the certain guns should be banned, DON'T NOMINATE HIM. Conservative love guns, period! There's nothing wrong with being rich. In fact, I want a candidate who is successful, but if you lack charm, you can't afford to make yourself appear more out of touch by bashing the gun owners you need to win the damn election.
Use your head! The reason why Romney didn't get enough votes is because he didn't give enough people a reason to show up and vote for him. The GOP needs to stop bashing gays and start focusing on solving real problems like the deficit, unemployment, underemployment, shrinking middle class and inflation. They need to focus more on protecting gun rights, stop kissing the big banks collective ass and offer the public a real choice.