Questions about AK Rifles and Ammo

 By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)

Viewer Question

"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."

My Response,

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.

The Suburbanite Who Bugs Out!

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.

What the Hell Happened? Violence and Moral Decay in Black Communities!

By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)

Four black teens (ages 16-19) brutally attack man in Little Italy. They broke his jaw. I see young black kids (usually from single parent homes) getting into a lot of trouble here in Flint. And it's only a matter of time until one of them gets shot.

 Mob Of Teens Brutally Attack Man In Heart Of Little Italy

This story is not a reflection of all black youth, but clearly we have a problem. Most of our black children are being raised in single mother homes with little or no male influence. The fathers are too often not playing an active role in the children's lives. We have a large percentage of our black mothers with children from different fathers. What we have here in America is a black population that is becoming extremely unstable.

Not only is the black unemployment rate dramatically higher than whites, but we are grossly over-represented in the prison system.

According to the National Institute of Justice, although only 1 out 106 white males are incarcerate in the U.S., one out of 15 black males are incarcerated. Think about that. 1 out of 15 black males are incarcerated. If that's not a sign of instability and failure, what the hell would qualify. And before people send me messages about poverty, slavery and economic inequality, let me cut through the bullshit. Slavery, poverty and racism are terrible, but none of it justifies the violent madness in our black communities.

One Word: Murder!

According to the FBI, even though blacks only represent 12% of the general population, we consistently represent 50% of all murder offenders every year.

LOOK AT IT: Uniform Crime Reporting

Let me break it down for you. In 2011, the United States had 12,664 murders. 50% of the murder victims were black and 46% were white. It gets worse. Here's a racial break of the offenders: 52.4% were black, 45.2% were white. Again, blacks only represent 12% of the population. Houston, we have a f&*%@#$ problem!


There is no conspiracy. Although, most black males are not violent criminals, we are a serious problem. We are producing too many degenerate, thugs. They are killing one each other, they are killing innocent children and they impregnating our women and creating more instability. Our families have broken down, our communities are non-existent and we have lost control.

And the worst thing is that we refuse to admit that we are failing., Just as we refused to admit that the ultra liberal, corrupt union loving, tax-you-to-death, urban disaster known as Detroit was failing. The auto industry's decline hurt Detroit, the political class' response made the problem worse. And now we are making the problem in the black population worse by assuming we can ignore the core problems and blame it on someone else.

We can't blame white people for this madness. Yes, their is systematic and individual racism, but people deal with that all over the world. There are people in Africa who don't even have fresh drinking water. So how can we blame poverty for the the outrageous violence in black areas.

The type of insane killing in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Flint and D.C. is symptomatic of a cultural and moral breakdown.

What the hell happened to black culture? Obviously, most black are not violent loons. Is this the result of CIA operations to poison black communities with crack? Did it begin with the break down of the family? Or maybe it was a combination of factors?

What the hell happened?

Fallout from the George Zimmerman Verdict

By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)

Despite my disdain for George Zimmerman, I'm disappointed by the acts of foolishness that has followed the verdict. A 73 year old black musician was beaten after singing a song in tribute to Trayvon Martin. According to the victim's family, 43-year-old Dinalynn Andrews Potter yelled, "it's all your fault" just before rushing on stage to attack 73-year-old Lester Chambers. 

Lester Chambers Attacked After Dedicating Song to Trayvon Martin: Family


In Oakland, there were huge protest in support of Trayvon Martin. There were no arrests, but one journalist claimed he was assaulted when he entered the crowd. At various points, protestors stopped traffic and police retreated. It looks like this acts are isolated incidents and there is no indication that there will be any large scale riots.  


In national news, race exploitation extraordinaire Al Sharpton, declared that he will organizing protests in 100 cities nationwide. Activists are now calling for a federal inquiry into the case.They want the feds to look at the case to see if Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's civil rights. My guess is that this case is going to be used to push some sort of gun control nonsense. As usual, anti gun authoritarian NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is calling for an end to the "Stand Your Ground" statute. There is no way in hell I'm going to like these people use Zimmerman's actions to take away my right to bare arms and defend myself.

Bottom line: The media will continue to exploit this for as long as they can. They'll keep distracting people from the deteriorating economy, while we focus on everything but the powers that be.





 

George Zimmerman Prediction

By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)

So here's my George Zimmerman prediction. I can see it going both ways, but I actually think he's closer to a guilty verdict what most people think. His story doesn't pass the smell test. He claimed to be driving in his vehicle when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through his neighborhood. Zimmerman called 911 and claimed Martin looked suspicious, yet Zimmerman had no probable cause of that Martin committed a crime or even that a crime was committed.

In almost all states, citizens have the legal right to both conceal carry (with a permit) and make a citizen's arrest. It varies from state to state. For example, in Michigan you can only make an arrest for felonies if you have probable cause. In Colorado, you can make arrests for both misdemeanor and felony offenses. No there was no evidence that Martin committed a crime before Zimmerman followed him in his car and fought Zimmerman.

I don't know what happened that night. Maybe Zimmerman freaked Martin out by following him and Martin attacked. Although, I have some serious doubts that Zimmerman would yell her help when he was the one with a gun. And the kickboxer instructor's claim that Zimmerman couldn't fight effective, seemed very silly after learning that Zimmerman trained in kickboxing for a 18 months.

Drama at George Zimmerman trial as Trayvon Martin's parents walk out of court after jury is shown graphic pictures of their son's body

Maybe Zimmerman snapped or maybe he acted foolishly and started a fight he couldn't win. I just think when you have a jury of six women and the defendant is presenting a story this flawed, there is a real risk of conviction.

On the other hand, the defense has done a good job of creating doubt, Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must prove Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder beyond all reasonable doubt. And I simply think they failed. The 911 tape is so important. Even Trayvon Martin's dad couldn't tell if the person yelling in the 911 tape was his son. That says a lot. A jury could easily conclude that its reasonable doubt.

Do I think Zimmerman is innocent? Absolutely not. He followed the kid even after being told by the 911 operator that it wasn't necessary. he claimed to exit the safety of his vehicle to see what street he was on, but how could he not know when he had been doing neighborhood watch for so long. Why wouldn't he know his own neighborhood. Especially after making over 60 calls in a gated community to 911.  And why would he leave a car to find a street sign? He was already in a car. Why didn't he simply drive to the nearest sign? It simply doesn't pass the smell test.

And don't even get me started on Zimmerman's claim that Martin stood over him and said "You're going to die tonight motherf***er". Wow, that sounds like a cheesy 90s action movie line. It was wise of the defense to stop him from getting on the stand and telling this story. It's not believable and the defense has already created doubt. But is it reasonable doubt?

The defense had a witness claiming Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. It helps support the claim that there was a struggle. But it doesn't clear Zimmerman, because he initiate the conflict by following Martin. 

The prosecution for O.J. Simpson was incredibly incompetent and he walked. This team may not be as bad, but it is likely that Zimmerman will walk. But I have a feeling that there is a decent chance that this all-female jury may convict him, simply because he followed Trayvon, shot him and lied about what happened. If it was Zimmerman who was yelling help, should he be acquitted. When if he started it and simply lost the fight and then cried for help? Can you start a fight, lose and then shot someone in self defense?

Bottomline: It's clear Zimmerman shot him and lied about what exactly happened. I think he is guilty of manslaughter, but the prosecution blew the case. If the jury sticks to the law: the verdict will be NOT GUILTY (of second degree murder). If they use common sense, it will be GUILTY (of manslaughter).

Will there be riots?

If it's a NOT Guilty verdict on 2nd Degree Murder or Manslaughter, there will be NO RIOTS. A rally or protest, but no riot. I think the media is hyping this up to provoke a riot and they will fail.

Detroit Bankruptcy Imminent! 25 Shootings in 48 hours in anti-gun NYC!

By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)

25 shootings in 48 hours in anti-gun NYC. Six people are dead. One guy shot an 11 year old girl (Tayloni Mazyck) and now she's paralyzed from the neck down. But hey, at least has plenty of gun laws forbiding law abiding citizens from carrying firearms. Now the city can be terrified by the low life scum. And who can forget the shootings in anti-gun Chicago over Memorial Day weekend. Criminals don't care about laws.

NYC Sees 25 Shootings and 6 Deaths in 48 Hours

11-year-old Brooklyn girl feared paralyzed by stray bullet moves arms in sign of hope

In Detroit, the Emergency Manager Kevin Orr maybe conceding to the fact that bankruptcy maybe unavoidable. He continues to desperately seek a solution to this financial mess. According to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Orr is organizing a meeting with creditors and unions in June to work out a deal to avoid bankruptcy.

 Via The WSJ

"Kevyn Orr, appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder in March to take control of the long-struggling city, plans to use the meeting to present a detailed restructuring plan for Detroit's liabilities, which he says total about $17 billion...

Over the coming weeks, Mr. Orr is expected to ask the city's largest unions, pension funds, creditors and bondholders for concessions. It is unclear whether such moves could stave off bankruptcy - or pave the way for it by serving as a template for a court-supervised reorganization.

But with a declining population, shrinking tax revenue base, an already bare-bones police force and a startling high unemployment in Motor City, I don't see how they can avoid a bankruptcy.

Simply put, it's going to be the largest municipality bankruptcy in America history.


Detroit Bankruptcy Imminent