Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 1/6/2005 9:52:28 AM EDT
From Fred

Dear Fred:

Those of us who choose not to join the NRA using the "excuse" of not wishing to be on a list, do so because many of us believe the first ones to have their weaponry confiscated will be the ones who are members of the NRA and other organizations like it. I belong to no organization, I'm purposely off their "Radar Screen" so I can have the weapon(s) to help free people like you who will be the first to lose everything when the big day comes. We're not dolts who don't CARE, we're just CAREFUL.

Regards,
JM, email

JM, how many of those guys who showed up on April 19, 1775 were being careful?

”Careful” and “fighting” are, for most people, the opposite ends of the risk spectrum. Not for the Rifleman, though, because he fights carefully, generally staying 300 to 500 yards out, beyond the foreign invader's effective small arms fire.

Sometimes, you can get lost, if you don’t keep certain basics in front of you.

First: your belief that fundamental to your life is not the location of the nearest Walmart or the latest music video, but your freedom, and the fact that it is under attack by the liberals and - sometimes - the law and order country-club Republicans.

Add to that the notion that freedom is something worth fighting for, even dying for.

If it’s not, there’s gonna be a lot of disappointed people amongst those who came before us. Like the guys of ‘75, the ones who showed up on Battle Day - the first WTSHTF Day.

In fighting, the only way defense leads to victory is by outlasting your opponent, maybe even outliving him. Hiding is strictly defensive - and it’s not even fighting. So you’ll never win.

The whole idea behind fighting is to make one side give up to the other. The idea that one side, fighting, will give up to the other side, hiding - not fighting - is illogical, and frankly, stupid.

Why should he give up? He may not even know you exist, which is your whole point in hiding, right?. If he knows you exist, he may not even care, as you are no threat to him with your strategy.

Think how silly the notion is by putting it into historical context. On April 19, 1775, when the alarm bells rang, did the Minutemen come pouring out of their houses, and go hide?

And I know you’re going to say, “Fred, I’m only going to hide a while, then at the right time, I’m gonna come out fighting.” Right?

But, my friend, when will that day ever come? What is the magic about that day - the day you come out fighting - that The Day The UN Convoys Roll doesn’t have? If the UN convoys don’t bring you out, whatever will? And how will your fellow hiders - of whom you know few, if any - know to pick that same magical day to emerge from their cocoons? And if they don’t come out, what kind of impact will you - one person - make, all by yourself?

No, sir, if you’re not going to fight now, when the fighting is easy, if you are already hiding, in the soft crisis, you’re not going to fight later, when it’s gonna be hard.

Who is going to pass on the tradition, the skills of marksmanship, the love of freedom, if you don’t? How are we going to build our strength, if the smart thing is to hide? The most important thing right now is to get more people into shooting, to recruit more people to our side, to strengthen the tradition, to keep it alive, to pass it on so we can train our politicians and keep the UN convoys from rolling in the first place. So we can win the fight - before it starts.

And whatever happened to free America, where you live without fear, associate without fear, and are free, not a fearful loner afraid of contact with fellow humans? Sure, I know that our freedoms have and are being severely eroded, and that there's not a liberal out there whose head wouldn’t bob up and down like a yo-yo at the idea of confiscation of your firearms.

But I am not going to hide from that scrawny, stuttering, worthless, UN-worshipping, third-world-kissing idiot.

And neither should you.

Hiding only makes them stronger. Failure to resist only gives them victory.

You need to get out there, and you need to be ringing the alarm bell, winning hearts and minds to the cause of freedom, waking your fellow sleeping Americans to the threat and to the solution.

Where are your friends, your brothers and sisters, your neighbors on that list?

That “government list” is a roll of honor:

We, the undersigned, are free Americans...and we are not afraid.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 10:02:27 AM EDT
I like Fred!

First thing I read when Shotgun News arrives.

Michael Gray
(On many lists and proud of it)
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 10:08:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2005 10:08:56 AM EDT by STRATIOTES]
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 10:52:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By carguym14:
I like Fred!

First thing I read when Shotgun News arrives.

Michael Gray
(On many lists and proud of it)




+1
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 10:57:10 AM EDT
A few years ago Fred had an article in SGN about what people think about him on AR15.com.

Summer of 2002, IIRC.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 11:04:47 AM EDT
I love reading Fred's columns, he usually has a good point to make (as he does in this one).

But he's living in a fantasy land - nobody gets into 300-500M firefights. Snipers may fire a few at that range, but you don't win wars with an occasional few sniper shots.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 11:16:07 AM EDT
It takes all types. We need to be on the front lines but it is nice to have a "reserve" off the radar as well. Whatever you're comfortable with is good with me.

BTW, I like to read Freds article too. Seems to be on the mark most of the time.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 11:26:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
I love reading Fred's columns, he usually has a good point to make (as he does in this one).

But he's living in a fantasy land - nobody gets into 300-500M firefights. Snipers may fire a few at that range, but you don't win wars with an occasional few sniper shots.



Yeah, I dont know where he is, but here in Alabama, I doubt there is a reasonable shot above 300m just because of terrain.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 11:58:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
I love reading Fred's columns, he usually has a good point to make (as he does in this one).

But he's living in a fantasy land - nobody gets into 300-500M firefights. Snipers may fire a few at that range, but you don't win wars with an occasional few sniper shots.





No flame intended,but I don't plan on getting into ANY firefight,IF something were to happen.

Kinda like the war in Iraq-Those people are smart enough to know that you can't go one on one.
Hit and run.Inflict as much damage as you can,while minimizing yours
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 12:05:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2005 12:07:16 PM EDT by motown_steve]

No, sir, if you’re not going to fight now, when the fighting is easy, if you are already hiding, in the soft crisis, you’re not going to fight later, when it’s gonna be hard.



Amen!
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 12:09:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 2whiskeyP:
It takes all types. We need to be on the front lines but it is nice to have a "reserve" off the radar as well. Whatever you're comfortable with is good with me.

BTW, I like to read Freds article too. Seems to be on the mark most of the time.



The fight is going on NOW in the political process. By becoming a member of the NRA and getting on the "radar," you demonstrate to the politicians that there are a lot of people who care passionately about the RKBA. If everyone was under the radar, the pols would sell us out in a heartbeat.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 12:12:54 PM EDT
Not joining the group and fighting this issue in the political forum because you want to be a "hit and run commando" is really just code words for "I'm a pussy."
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 12:35:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 2whiskeyP:
but it is nice to have a "reserve" off the radar as well.


B.S. I'll agree with the previous poster - that is code for "I'm a coward".

If you won't fight when it's easy, blood free, and you get to live in your warm home, watch TV and drink beer. When all you have to do is help on the political front.

What makes anyone think they will actually go out and shoot someone, running/hiding like a fugitive when the heat is on.

Much easier to fight now and stop it before it comes to the second part.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 1:54:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2005 1:56:55 PM EDT by drjarhead]
I really enjoy most all fo fred's columns. Don't like him bagging on AR's all the time but whatever.

This thread is right on time, though, given all the sniveling about how we've already lost and "I ain't fighting for no losing effort" that I've been seeing around here the past few days. What some here don't understand is that is our determined WILLINGNESS to fight that keeps the JBTs at bay. When they are convinced that we have all lost the balls to fight then our freedoms are gone. Unless of course, you like the freedom to take your goat up the ass, molesting children, are an illegal alien or are some kind of other scumbag.

I'd be proud to fight along side Fred if it ever came to it but from the looks of it I'd say it's him, me and a half dozen men left.


But he's living in a fantasy land - nobody gets into 300-500M firefights. Snipers may fire a few at that range, but you don't win wars with an occasional few sniper shots.


The sniper is one of the most lethal battlefield weapons there is. Never underestimate the damage a sniper can do.
Further, if you can hit what you shoot at at 500m you can sure do so at 100. Being a well trained and proficient rifleman is what it's all about.


Yeah, I dont know where he is, but here in Alabama, I doubt there is a reasonable shot above 300m just because of terrain.


Nor here, but how does that refute what the man is saying about fighting for freedom or surrendering it? Attack his argument with trivialities for lack of anything better or take a long hard look in the mirror....



Kinda like the war in Iraq-Those people are smart enough to know that you can't go one on one.
Hit and run.Inflict as much damage as you can,while minimizing yours



I couldn't agree more but that will take a wide array of knowledge and skills.




No, sir, if you’re not going to fight now, when the fighting is easy, if you are already hiding, in the soft crisis, you’re not going to fight later, when it’s gonna be hard.


Amen!



+1.
Exactly.


What makes anyone think they will actually go out and shoot someone, running/hiding like a fugitive when the heat is on.


It would be best to live a normal outward life and search and destroy as opportunities present while remaining covert. Deception would be key. In many ways.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 2:12:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
I love reading Fred's columns, he usually has a good point to make (as he does in this one).

But he's living in a fantasy land - nobody gets into 300-500M firefights. Snipers may fire a few at that range, but you don't win wars with an occasional few sniper shots.



Please forward this tidbit to the fellas in Afganistan. Its my understanding that these distances are quite common. Open country and little to hide behind=Long Distances
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 3:38:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 2whiskeyP:
It takes all types. We need to be on the front lines but it is nice to have a "reserve" off the radar as well. Whatever you're comfortable with is good with me.

BTW, I like to read Freds article too. Seems to be on the mark most of the time.



Problem is who is in that so called reserve.

Do you really think those who won't join the first wave would stand up in large numbers and fight if those of us on the first wave fell.

I don't.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 7:06:32 AM EDT
Damn I wonder if a couple of you live on the same planet as I do. How many of you have shot at man sized targets at a measured 500m? And I'm not talking big black dots on beige paper across manicured lawns either...

I used to shoot at a military base with Plastic Ivans that would pop up at distances out to 500m. At that distance you could barely see them with the naked eye (and I have 20-15 vision in both eyes) - camo'd targets in brush are completely different from Highpower targets on a DCM range. Considering the range was a field (complete with tall grass and the occasional bush) the only way you could even see targets that far out was if you were standing (non a way to stay alive on a 2 way range) or at a higher elevation (we had a shooting position on a rooftop). If you were in prone or kneeling on the ground you were not going to see targets much past 100y-200y.

It was tough enough to hit targets at that range with magnified optics - and they were stationary. How much more difficult would it be if they were moving. Or if after that first shot all the targets dropped and started 3-5 second rushes - while their buddies were sending 7.62 rounds downrange from belt fed bullet launchers?


The sniper is one of the most lethal battlefield weapons there is.

Snipers are good - but they aint jack against Air Support or Arty. I"ve yet to see an Army fielded comprised completely (or even a good percentage of snipers). Snipers are a force multplier but they have limits.

And even then Fred is talking about using rack grade rifles, with standard M80 and iron sights at 500y.



Further, if you can hit what you shoot at at 500m you can sure do so at 100. Being a well trained and proficient rifleman is what it's all about.


Marksmanship is only 10% of the problem. I can take just about anyone and in a couple of hours he can be trained well enough to make consistant COM shots at 100y and head shots at 50. It isn't that difficult with a rifle. People need to focus more on weapon handling (loading w/o looking, clearing malfunctions etc) and tactics than they need to worry about making a 500y shot.


Please forward this tidbit to the fellas in Afganistan. Its my understanding that these distances are quite common.

Then you understand wrong. While 500y shots have occured, its still not the rule. Since the first use of the rifle in combat engagments have been typically at 100y and extreamly rare at 300y. It was true with .58 caliber rifled muskets, it was true in WW1 & WW2 with the .30-06 rifles and it's still true today.

Open up on soldiers at 500y - then expect them to open up with their machinguns while someone calls in Arty or Air Cover. The Vietcong learned that in Vietnam and the Taliban is currently being taught that lesson.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 11:00:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 11:05:12 AM EDT by drjarhead]

Originally Posted By Forest:
Damn I wonder if a couple of you live on the same planet as I do. How many of you have shot at man sized targets at a measured 500m? And I'm not talking big black dots on beige paper across manicured lawns either...



Yes, I have. With irons.
Tough shots, no doubt, with any rifle.





The sniper is one of the most lethal battlefield weapons there is.

Snipers are good - but they aint jack against Air Support or Arty. I"ve yet to see an Army fielded comprised completely (or even a good percentage of snipers). Snipers are a force multplier but they have limits.



Of course they do. And so does Artillery and CAS. If they can't find a few isolated snipers they ain't gonna hit jack except cow pies. Pretty damn expensive way to fight a war also--CAS with laser guided bombs and artillery to take out one sniper team???
And who the hell is going to stick around waitng for it.
Like I said, some of you guys seem to foresee large unit battles over open ground. Not what I would plan for AT ALL.

Further, if you can hit what you shoot at at 500m you can sure do so at 100. Being a well trained and proficient rifleman is what it's all about.


Marksmanship is only 10% of the problem. I can take just about anyone and in a couple of hours he can be trained well enough to make consistant COM shots at 100y and head shots at 50. It isn't that difficult with a rifle. People need to focus more on weapon handling (loading w/o looking, clearing malfunctions etc) and tactics than they need to worry about making a 500y shot.


I agree. Also important to stay in good physical condition. You better be able to move fast.
But do you really believe that someone you just trained is going to be proficient when the chips are down. Better someone who is well trained and a decent shot.



Please forward this tidbit to the fellas in Afganistan. Its my understanding that these distances are quite common.

Then you understand wrong. While 500y shots have occured, its still not the rule. Since the first use of the rifle in combat engagments have been typically at 100y and extreamly rare at 300y. It was true with .58 caliber rifled muskets, it was true in WW1 & WW2 with the .30-06 rifles and it's still true today.

Open up on soldiers at 500y - then expect them to open up with their machinguns while someone calls in Arty or Air Cover. The Vietcong learned that in Vietnam and the Taliban is currently being taught that lesson.



I'm not sure how this thread became focused on 500m shots when what it is about is having the will and the balls to fight for your own freedom and that of your children.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 11:09:58 AM EDT
If we were all as vocal as, say, Ted Nugent, we wouldn't have any gun control laws.
Link Posted: 1/8/2005 10:47:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2005 10:50:04 PM EDT by cabinboy95]
Folks:

The key points are

1) Can I keep my shots within 4 MOA at 100? 200? 400?

2) If not, how can I get to the point where I can do so?

3) In the meantime, when was the last time that I called or wrote my state and federal politicians to remind them of their obligations re the 2A? Have I even done that once?
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 10:11:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cabinboy95:
3) In the meantime, when was the last time that I called or wrote my state and federal politicians to remind them of their obligations re the 2A? Have I even done that once?



I don't know if you have.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 10:21:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
. Pretty damn expensive way to fight a war also--CAS with laser guided bombs and artillery to take out one sniper team???
[/qutoe]
You don't need laser guided bombs- there were CAS missions decades before it was invented - same with Arty.

Is it expensive? Then you better tell our guys to stop doing it.


Like I said, some of you guys seem to foresee large unit battles over open ground. Not what I would plan for AT ALL.

Agreed. But lets use the war in Iraq as a guidline shall we? They HAVE used CAS/Arty/ Tanks to take out snipers (matter of fact somebody recently posted an aritlce about the issues of dealing with the snipers and the force they would bring to bear.

I also recall in Vietnam the Military would set up 'Firebases' so artillery could support the troops in the field (to include patrols). Kinda like Cellular Destruction - just call up the local base and arrange for steel on target.


I agree. Also important to stay in good physical condition. You better be able to move fast.
But do you really believe that someone you just trained is going to be proficient when the chips are down. Better someone who is well trained and a decent shot.


I think we are thinking along the same lines. Idealy everyone would be versed in everything from CQB to 600M shooting - however reality limits training. Which would you rather people focus on - the stuff that is likely (0-100M) or the stuff that takes up less than 1% (500M+)? Fred seems to think the 2nd in more important. I (and history) disagree.

I'm not sure how this thread became focused on 500m shots when what it is about is having the will and the balls to fight for your own freedom and that of your children.


I think it was because I made a comment about agreeing with Fred on many ideas but his constantly harping on the 500y firefight/ambush that was going to save us was loony. A couple disagreed with me (offering little or no data to back up their comments).
Top Top