Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category



National Council Of La Raza Advocates Assault Weapons Ban And Universal Background Checks

BY Herschel Smith
5 days, 20 hours ago

NCLR:

ORLANDO, Fla.—NCLR (National Council of La Raza) announced today that its Board of Directors has unanimously voted in favor of policies aimed at reducing gun violence in the nation. The position, a first in the organization’s 48-year history, was announced at the 2016 NCLR Annual Conference during the National Affiliate Luncheon, a gathering of the nation’s Latino leaders representing NCLR’s Affiliate Network of almost 300 community-based organizations. The announcement comes after the nation has experienced a series of mass shootings and other incidents of gun violence, most recently the horrific events in Orlando, Baton Rouge, St. Paul, and Dallas.

“Our announcement today comes as we hold our Annual Conference in Orlando, the site of the largest mass shooting in our nation’s history, which took the lives of 49 innocent people, most of whom were Latino,” said NCLR President and CEO Janet Murguía. “The tragic event at Pulse nightclub changed Orlando and it has changed NCLR. Today, by formally adopting this position, we join with the vast majority of Americans calling for an end to gun violence and we will urge policymakers to adopt common-sense measures to reduce mass shootings and gun violence, saving countless lives.”

The NCLR Board of Directors adopted a position to reduce gun violence that includes the following elements:

  • Reasonable restrictions on the acquisition of firearms and ammunition consistent with the protection of the civil rights of all Americans, including support for universal background checks
  • A ban on assault weapons.
  • Collection and analysis of data related to gun violence to understand causes and develop prevention strategies.

Why should you care what La Raza advocates, you might be asking yourself?  Well, you should care a great deal.  It isn’t credible that an organization such as this one, who represents so many Latinos, would advocate a position that is out of accord with their own constituency.  In other words, they represent Hispanics and Latinos, and thus Hispanics and Latinos favor gun control.

This is entirely consistent with what we already know about Hispanics and Latinos and their tendencies concerning gun control.  Remember this when you consider open borders, amnesty and pathways to citizenship.

Prior:

Hispanics Have Again Said They Favor Strict Gun Control

Hispanics And Latinos Favor Gun Control

Fourth Wave Feminism On Men And Guns

BY Herschel Smith
5 days, 20 hours ago

David Codrea:

“Here’s An Idea: Only Women Should Have Guns,” this new theme goes. “[S]ince it’s abundantly clear that they’ll commit less violence than men and be vulnerable to violence committed by men, let’s take all the guns away from men and give them to women.”

I recently heard another engineer complain that the engineering schools should be graduating at least as many women and men.  Why? I don’t really know.  Just because, I suppose.

I would rather people pursue their God-given talents and ambitions rather than be pigeonholed into a degree program just because they are a woman or man.  And as for guns, the fourth wave feminists just think men are dirty, unruly, loathsome creatures who need to be controlled by laws and regulations and requirements.  The true spirituality belongs to women.

Hey, now that I think about it, who would do all of this taking away of guns the feminists propose?  They might just have to turn to those nasty men with guns.  Do LEOs know what the feminists really think about them?  They would just as soon you be a woman, but if you must be a man, then at least you need to do their bidding until they can replace you.

Massachusetts Attorney General Knows Her Case On Guns Is Weak

BY Herschel Smith
5 days, 21 hours ago

Commonwealth Magazine:

Christopher Pinto, president of the advocacy group Massachusetts Gun Rights, Inc., of Worcester, claimed he bought an AR-15 for his wife on Wednesday to beat Healey’s directive and insisted he intends to keep it.

“What is she going to do, come to my house and get it?“ asked Pinto, who was in Cleveland as a delegate at the Republican National Convention.

A group of gun owners gathered at the State House Thursday evening to protest Healey’s action, with another rally planned on Saturday when the Legislature is in session. Many said Healey’s decision was not an enforcement of the law but rather stemmed from her interpretation based on what they say is her anti-gun stance. Most in attendance said they own the types of rifles Healey says are illegal. Even though she said she won’t take action against those who bought them before Wednesday, the protesters said they were concerned she could change her mind and arbitrarily confiscate their weapons in the future.

One of the comments is interesting.  We read, “I called the local gun shop around noon on Wednesday, while they had heard something in the news they had not received any directive to stop selling the firearms so they sold the remainder of their stock (they were out by 2pm). These directives require some form of legal notification not someone forwarding something from facebook. She had a press conference in the morning and posted it online but until the notification was officially delivered to the gun shops they had no duty to stop selling.”

Note the position of the FFLs versus the AG.  The AG announced her decision in an opinion piece and over Facebook.  That’s not how legal orders get disseminated.  The commenter is right.

The AG is doing this, I surmise, because she knows her case is weak and unsupported by law, and is trying to effect law from her office anyway.  She is the kind of person who whispers in the ear of the playground bully in order to get someone else beaten up.  She isn’t going to do the work herself, but she will dispatch men with warrants and guns, and show up in court in order to prosecute what she believes is evil.  Or if she can’t, she’ll try to bully people into doing her will because of what might happen to them.  Compliance to avoid the unknown.

She’s what school girls call a “mean girl,” a totalitarian and control freak with an obsession.  She needs to be put back into her place.

South Carolina Has Another Gun Problem

BY Herschel Smith
1 week, 2 days ago

His name is Elliott Summey.

Charleston County Council Chairman Elliott Summey, a guns rights advocate who said he owns “a pile of guns,” now has said he mistakenly voted in favor of a resolution last week calling for state and federal authorities to outlaw the very type of firearms he owns.

Summey said there was some confusion at last Thursday’s vote because the resolution, as originally presented in writing, called for laws “banning all assault-style weapons” in South Carolina. Summey said he took that to mean fully automatic machine guns that fire hundreds of rounds, as were depicted in a video shown to council.

The council action had no force of law — a resolution is a statement of opinion — but it’s passage was noted by the National Rifle Association and websites such as Firearmslife. Summey, who switched political affiliations in 2012 and joined the Republican Party, issued a statement Monday disavowing his days-earlier support of the resolution.

“I’m not voting to take away guns that I already own,” Summey said Tuesday. “That’s insane.”

No, what would be insane is to believe you didn’t mean your vote.  A real gun owner and gun rights supporter wouldn’t have been hoodwinked by words, and would have voted against any new gun control law anyway.

What happens down in Charleston anyway?  Where do they get these people?  It was the Charleston lobby that persuaded the now defrocked Larry Martin to kill open carry because of all that tourism that would certainly have shut down if someone had seen a gun.

Good grief.

Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience

BY Herschel Smith
3 weeks, 3 days ago

David Smalley at Patheos:

I live in Texas. I’m a gun owner. I have a concealed handgun license. I’ve taught my kids how to fire weapons.

I also understand and appreciate our Constitution. I’m fully aware of the 2nd Amendment, and how its authors wanted to prevent government tyranny. Considering what they had gone through, they had every right to demand such a thing.

When an author begins by giving you his bona fides, watch out.  There’s no better way to start an anti-gun rant than to claim that you own guns and truly do, honestly do, sincerely do, understand gun owners.  True to form, he treats us to this.

I know enough about weapons to have a near perfect score on my firing test, to know that the “c” in SR9c stands for “compact” to make the weapon easier to hide; and to know that the AR in AR-15 doesn’t stand for ‘Assault Rifle,’ but ‘Armalite’ after the original company who made the gun.

Am I a gun nut? Maybe. But I like to keep myself skeptical and informed. And that includes realizing when I’m being illogically influenced by my culture, and taking necessary steps to correct it.

You see, one thing that’s more important than situational knowledge, patriotism, tradition, or protection, is common sense.

At this nation’s beginning, it made sense for the citizens to be armed similarly to the government to prevent tyranny.

Today, that’s ridiculous. The very concept is outdated. Some have said to me; the point is for the citizens to be “as armed as well as the government.”

For starters, today, the military has fully automatic M-16s. Citizens can’t buy that. You have to get a tamer version: AR-15.

You can’t have flame throwers, bombs, bazookas, Z10 attack helicopters, bradleys, tanks, fighter jets, nuclear reactors, or a plethora of other secret military weapons you don’t even know exist.

So even today, with the 2nd Amendment in full effect, we don’t have the rights to be “armed as well as our government.”

Secondly, what if you were? I could hand you 50 AR-15s, give you 1000 illegal bombs, steal you a couple of tanks, and smuggle in some bazookas, and even let you fully train 500 of your closest friends.

If the government wants your shit, they’re going to take it.

You still wouldn’t be a match for even a single battalion of the United States Marine Corps. Not to mention the Air Force, Army, Navy, National Guard, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, and Seals.

So stop acting like your little AR-15 is going to stop tyranny.

First of all, he’s assuming that the armed forces wouldn’t frag officers who issued such a command.  But assuming that the entirety of the armed forces participated in whatever operation Smalley is conjuring, if only several hundred thousand armed Americans fought back, it would be a bloodbath.

This argument – and I’ve seen it numerous times – is locked in the mindset of early twentieth century warfare, oblivious to MOUT, CQB, insurgencies, and fourth generation warfare.  A nuclear weapon is of no use when the enemy lives among friend, and friend and foe all look the same.  Ask any veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom how easy it is to ferret out insurgents from among the population or fight insurgents in the shadows.

As for “If the government wants your shit, they’re going to take it,” perhaps so.  But then again, perhaps not.  You see, the mere existence of the argument itself is evidence against the affirmative and in favor of negation.  The government wouldn’t want to ban weapons if they were of no use in destabilizing tyrannical governments.  Hitler wouldn’t have wanted the Jews disarmed if he hadn’t intended to do them harm.  Also consider the role of gun confiscations in the Armenian genocide.  See Dave Kopel, et. al, at National Review, and also Brett Stortroen, Gun Confiscation as a Prelude to the Armenian Genocide.

Finally, those Marines to whom Smalley refers are somebody’s sons.  I recall very distinctly a missionary from the European theater years ago during communist rule (I refuse to give his name or specific location) who gave my church the back story behind the falling of the wall in Germany.  Night after night the crowds began to grow to tear down the wall.  The German army was eventually deployed to shoot the protestors, but remember that the East German army, while working for a communist country, were sons of mothers and fathers in East Germany.

As soon as the army was deployed, grandmothers went to the wall.  “Shoot us,” they yelled.  The sons of German mothers and grandmothers refused to shoot their own family, and the rest is history.  Now recall reader and commenter Fred’s comment on one post.

As for the military; are they still trained on illegal orders? My nephew is in tech school (navy) and I told him before he went in to seek a deep understanding of illegal orders and to make sure they trained him on it. I also told him that if he took his training and turned it on his fellow citizens I would hunt and kill him, this child that I love and helped to raise up. He understood that this is no small matter.

Smalley makes this sound much easier than it will be, that is, if the government ever decides to harm civilians based on their religious viewpoints, gun ownership or some other reason.  But war always sounds easier than it will be, yes?

Concerning James Comey, Hillary And Guns

BY Herschel Smith
3 weeks, 3 days ago

David Codrea:

Whereas Hillary can skate on perceived reckless conduct when Comey himself acknowledges it is “a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,” gun owners also deemed guilty of recklessness now face a “terrifying new precedent,” per a Conservative Review analysis of the Supreme Court’s 6 -2 decision in the Voisine case.

“[T]he court ruled that crimes of recklessness rise to the same level as ‘misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence’ which preclude individuals convicted of such a crime from firearm ownership by federal law,” the article explains.

“Congress was not worried about a husband dropping a plate on his wife’s foot or a parent injuring her child by texting while driving,” Justice Clarence Thomas protested in his dissent.

Yea, we’ve discussed that case before.  And I agree with David that the defendants were not the outstanding citizens you want for such cases, but of course that’s irrelevant.  It often takes defendants that who are otherwise less than outstanding citizens to prove the larger point being made, i.e., rights applies to all men, not just the pretty people.

But it gets even worse than that.  As we’ve seen, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, “… the word “use” does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.”

Notice the words intention, substantial likelihood, and recklessness.  The point is that this list of potential infractions that would prohibit firearms ownership can be construed to be virtually anything concocted by the mind of the executive.  Stay away from law enforcement.  Don’t ever involve them in anything.  Give them wide berth.

As for Hillary, did you really think the administration would hold her accountable?  I didn’t and said so to those around me.  Laws apply to little people.  If you’re reading this, you are a little person.  Act and plan accordingly.

Paul Ryan Promises To Give Gun Control A Hearing In Congress

BY Herschel Smith
4 weeks, 1 day ago

Paul Ryan is no stranger to gun control.  It’s important to remember that, and what we’re going to discuss isn’t anything new for Ryan.  As an aside, it’s remarkable that the Congress, when they lost that horrible worm John Beohner, couldn’t even break from the establishment any more than to put in a man just as connected to the establishment.  Let’s be clear – Paul Ryan isn’t controlled by the establishment, he is the establishment.  At any rate, he’s promised to give gun control a hearing in Congress.

A week after Democrats staged a nearly 26-hour sit-in demanding a vote on gun control measures, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the House will vote next week on legislation to block suspected terrorists from buying guns.

In a conference call Thursday, Ryan told rank-and-file Republicans that the House will take up a terrorism package that will include measures to disrupt radicalization and recruitment, as well as a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, according to a source on the call.

It’s unclear exactly which bill will be brought to the floor.

Democrats launched a daylong protest on the House floor last week demanding a vote on such legislation in the wake of the Orlando shooting rampage that killed 49.

Ryan on the call reiterated that it’s important to ensure suspected terrorists can’t obtain guns, calling it common sense. But the Speaker said he wanted to approach the issue deliberatively to protect due process and Second Amendment rights.

The House next week will also take up a bipartisan bill by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) that seeks to address gun violence by overhauling the mental health system. That bill recently cleared the Energy and Commerce Committee.

A Democratic source said the more controversial gun-purchase provision may be similar to a bill sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that’s backed by the National Rifle Association.

Democrats say the Cornyn bill doesn’t go far enough since it includes a “probable cause” standard that would require law enforcement officials to prove that a gun buyer is an actual terrorist rather than a suspected terrorist.

David Codrea weighs in on this.

Define “due process.” Is it being charged, tried in accordance with laws respecting rights, and found guilty before being denied a fundamental right? Or is it some law enforcement careerist using a secret list of undetermined sources and reliability convincing a judge or panel of unknown political sympathies that some tenuous “probable cause” alibi exists?

The same concern applies to mental health-related gun prohibitions—has the “accused” been afforded the equivalent protections of a jury trial, or is someone who may be quite learned in the field of mental health and quite ignorant and opinionated about “gun control” all that’s needed to sign off on a “no guns” life sentence?

And I’ve argued the same, but quite frankly I’m becoming very disillusioned at the so-called “criminal justice system” in America, all of it, and I see no reason to believe that a trial by jury would yield anything better than an empowered federal executive.  Remember that half of America routinely votes for communists anyway, and most of the other half is often confused.

David issues this warning though.

The correct position for the Republicans to take on guns, since the only clear mandate is the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, is to reject all citizen disarmament attempts, and make the monopoly of violence cult fight for every inch. We know that’s the end game, so why cede any beachhead from which they WILL launch further attacks? Why make any concessions, even on a floor vote?  What, are we going to find out which politicians are anti-gun? We don’t already know?

Of course, there is no legitimate reason to pursue this any more in Congress.  As I’ve observed before, gun confiscation on a massive scale won’t happen in America.  The progressives will nickel and dime us to death, with everything from mental health checks to domestic abuse record keeping where the mere perceived threat of harm is enough to place a person on the no-gun list with all of the white patriots in flyover country who believe in the second amendment.

The thing progressives have going for them is that they aren’t purists.  They aren’t looking to get everything at once.  They are incrementalists, and will take less than perfect in their eyes in order to achieve the desired end state.  The grand progressive plan isn’t to go all in on collection of guns at once.  It’s to bleed the country dry, death by a thousand cuts.  Paul Ryan is currently negotiating what the next cut will look like.

The Supreme Court On Domestic Violence And Guns

BY Herschel Smith
1 month ago

Jurist:

The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday ruled [opinion, PDF] 6-2 in Voisine v. United States [SCOTUSblog materials] that a state law conviction on reckless domestic assault is sufficient to bar possession of a firearm under federal law. Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong had pleaded guilty to violating a Maine statute [text] that makes it a misdemeanor to “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause[ ] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person.” When later investigations revealed that both men were in possession of firearms, they were charged and convicted under a federal law [18 U.S.C. § 922 text] that prohibits any person convicted of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms and ammunition. On appeal, the petitioners argued that, because their domestic violence convictions were based on recklessness, and not intentional or knowing conduct, they were insufficient to support the federal charge. Focusing on the meaning of “use … physical force,” the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the convictions. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan found that

… the word “use” does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.

So it isn’t really just physical force that’s included under the rubric of domestic violence, but it expands to “intent” and a substantial likelihood.  You don’t reckon that this will be abused by angry spouses looking to get even or inflict emotional injury do you?  You don’t reckon that “domestic abuse” will become the new crime applied to virtually every gun owner who has a domestic squabble, do you?

And as for prohibiting gun ownership for such things as the perceived “intent” to do harm, any present or future spouse is affected in a similar way as the “criminal.”  Remember that a felon or person found guilty of domestic “abuse” cannot just not own guns, he cannot even be around others with guns.  That means that homes are left unprotected, including spouses who never had anything to do with this whole mess to begin with.  It’s called the law of unintended consequences.  Or perhaps the Supreme Court intends this outcome, and if so, isn’t that a pretty picture, ladies?

Dear reader, as you know from previous posts, do not ever talk to the police.  And make sure that you and your family are on good terms, know and understand each other, and know and understand the threat that the state poses.  Do not ever turn to the state for protection, guidance or justification.

Quartz Magazine On The Second Amendment

BY Herschel Smith
1 month ago

Meredith Bennett-Smith:

Now the Constitution, much like the Bible–another flawed text used for centuries as a tool of oppression and tyranny–has become a crutch for lazy leadership and moral ambiguity. It’s an excuse for cowards to masquerade as patriots. Today, the NRA treats personal gun ownership as an inviolable right, regardless of its function or purpose.

[ … ]

To be clear, I know plenty of responsible gun owners. I want hunters to be able to hunt—but not with semiautomatic weapons. And I would like people who enjoy a little target practice to be able to do so at to their local firing range—but not with semiautomatic weapons. If you want to fire 43 bullets a minute, join the military.

Just to be clear, ownership of weapons is indeed an inviolable right, but not because of the second amendment.  It is so because God says so in the very document you think was a tool of tyranny.  But the only tyrants here are you, Meredith, and those of your ilk who want to disarm others.  You are control freaks, every one of you.  The bible you criticize teaches me that any attempts I might make to control you are based in wickedness.  I don’t want to control you or anyone else.  I want you to have liberty.  But you have no liberty to remove mine.

Second, I understand that your acquiescence to bolt action rifles for hunting is merely baiting.  It’s ineffective baiting, to be sure, but it’s still baiting and you don’t really mean it.  I know that as soon as someone changes the calculus and does something a little different such as use a scoped bolt action rifle from a stand off distance as did Charles Whitman, you’ll come for the bolt action rifles too.

Third, I know that you’re a liar, and you know it too.  You don’t really want to disarm everyone, because you don’t advocate disarming the police.  You just believe in the same thing all communists do, i.e., a monopoly of force.

Finally, it gives me amusement and pleasure to point out the obvious.  You can never effect this outcome because we have the guns.  Understand?  You can’t take them from us because you eschew them and we don’t.  What?  You didn’t really think we’d give them up, did you?  And you didn’t really think those cops would want to be gunned down as they try to confiscate weapons, did you?

The 40-Clip Magazine

BY Herschel Smith
1 month ago

Yahoo:

When James Carville sat with Sarah Palin for a Politicon conversation on Sunday, he was polite. He praised her 2008 Republican National Convention speech. He even seemed to sympathize with her for being scapegoated in John McCain’s presidential campaign.

But then he challenged her on wanting to “take back the country,” a common Tea Party phrase that has morphed into Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again,” and their conversation quickly turned into a debate over gun control.

Carville, the Democratic strategist, said to the former vice presidential nominee: “When you say you want to take back the country, what is it you want to take back?”

“I want to take back the interpretation of our constitution that is being wrongly interpreted today,” Palin said.

“Where are we going haywire on the Constitution?” he asked.

Palin’s response: the Second Amendment.

“It is black and white, and we have a right, of course, to bear arms,” she said. “People who can interpret that to, ‘Oh that means not everybody has that right.’ Or to take certain things like ammo, ‘Well that doesn’t apply.’ Or we can get rid of AR-15s because AR-15s weren’t invented for hunting. I say, ‘Yeah, the Second Amendment wasn’t written in the case the moose turn on us.’ Of course it wasn’t mean for hunting.”

Carville, though, pressed her further.

“Do I have a right to possess a bazooka? Do I have the right to have a surface to air missile and live close to the Los Angeles Airport?”

“Well, that is such a stupid question,” Palin responded.

The Palin-Carville conversation was among a number of marquee events at Politicon, a gathering of political junkies with panels, standup comedy, film screenings and art displays at the Pasadena Convention Center.

Carville went on. “I was in the Marine Corps. I have guns. I grew up rural. Why do I need a 40-clip magazine?”

I’ll concede Carville’s point.  I can say with certainty that I don’t need a 40-clip magazine.  Depending upon what that beast is, it might even make my rifle too heavy and out-of-balance to shoot accurately.

But I reserve the right to have one whether I need it or not.  I might buy one just to have it – just as soon as I figure out what it is.  As for Carville, even the US Marine Corps graduates a Gomer ever now and then.

Prior:

High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

High Ammo Clips

Automatic Bullets In Rapid Fire Magazine Clips

Duck Hunting With Bullets

The Fully Loaded Ammunition Cartridge


26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (677)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (31)
Air Power (9)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (7)
Ammunition (22)
Animals in War (4)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
Antonin Scalia (1)
AR-15s (66)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (41)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (26)
Australian Army (5)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (2)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (49)
Battle of Bari Alai (2)
Battle of Wanat (17)
Battle Space Weight (3)
Bin Laden (7)
Blogroll (2)
Blogs (5)
Body Armor (17)
Books (2)
Border War (7)
Brady Campaign (1)
Britain (27)
British Army (35)
Camping (4)
Canada (2)
Castle Doctrine (1)
Caucasus (6)
CENTCOM (7)
Center For a New American Security (8)
Charity (3)
China (10)
Christmas (8)
CIA (12)
Civilian National Security Force (3)
Col. Gian Gentile (9)
Combat Outposts (3)
Combat Video (2)
Concerned Citizens (6)
Constabulary Actions (3)
Coolness Factor (2)
COP Keating (4)
Corruption in COIN (4)
Council on Foreign Relations (1)
Counterinsurgency (215)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (122)
Department of Homeland Security (13)
Disaster Preparedness (2)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (6)
Drone Campaign (3)
EFV (3)
Egypt (12)
El Salvador (1)
Embassy Security (1)
Enemy Spotters (1)
Expeditionary Warfare (17)
F-22 (2)
F-35 (1)
Fallujah (17)
Far East (3)
Fathers and Sons (1)
Favorite (1)
Fazlullah (3)
FBI (3)
Featured (176)
Federal Firearms Laws (17)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (451)
Football (1)
Force Projection (35)
Force Protection (4)
Force Transformation (1)
Foreign Policy (27)
Fukushima Reactor Accident (6)
Ganjgal (1)
Garmsir (1)
general (14)
General Amos (1)
General James Mattis (1)
General McChrystal (40)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (7)
Georgia (19)
GITMO (2)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (400)
Guns (936)
Guns In National Parks (3)
Haditha Roundup (10)
Haiti (2)
HAMAS (7)
Haqqani Network (9)
Hate Mail (7)
Hekmatyar (1)
Heroism (4)
Hezbollah (12)
High Capacity Magazines (11)
High Value Targets (9)
Homecoming (1)
Homeland Security (1)
Horses (1)
Humor (13)
ICOS (1)
IEDs (7)
Immigration (45)
India (10)
Infantry (3)
Information Warfare (2)
Infrastructure (2)
Intelligence (22)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (169)
Iraq (378)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (38)
Islamists (58)
Israel (18)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (2)
Jihadists (78)
John Nagl (5)
Joint Intelligence Centers (1)
JRTN (1)
Kabul (1)
Kajaki Dam (1)
Kamdesh (9)
Kandahar (12)
Karachi (7)
Kashmir (2)
Khost Province (1)
Khyber (11)
Knife Blogging (2)
Korea (4)
Korengal Valley (3)
Kunar Province (20)
Kurdistan (3)
Language in COIN (5)
Language in Statecraft (1)
Language Interpreters (2)
Lashkar-e-Taiba (2)
Law Enforcement (2)
Lawfare (6)
Leadership (5)
Lebanon (6)
Leon Panetta (2)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (14)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (8)
Logistics (49)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (240)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
MEDEVAC (2)
Media (23)
Memorial Day (2)
Mexican Cartels (23)
Mexico (30)
Michael Yon (5)
Micromanaging the Military (7)
Middle East (1)
Military Blogging (26)
Military Contractors (3)
Military Equipment (24)
Militia (3)
Mitt Romney (3)
Monetary Policy (1)
Moqtada al Sadr (2)
Mosul (4)
Mountains (10)
MRAPs (1)
Mullah Baradar (1)
Mullah Fazlullah (1)
Mullah Omar (3)
Musa Qala (4)
Music (16)
Muslim Brotherhood (6)
Nation Building (2)
National Internet IDs (1)
National Rifle Association (17)
NATO (15)
Navy (20)
Navy Corpsman (1)
NCOs (3)
News (1)
NGOs (2)
Nicholas Schmidle (2)
Now Zad (19)
NSA (1)
NSA James L. Jones (6)
Nuclear (53)
Nuristan (8)
Obama Administration (216)
Offshore Balancing (1)
Operation Alljah (7)
Operation Khanjar (14)
Ossetia (7)
Pakistan (165)
Paktya Province (1)
Palestine (5)
Patriotism (6)
Patrolling (1)
Pech River Valley (11)
Personal (28)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (2)
Police (201)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (238)
Poppy (2)
PPEs (1)
Prisons in Counterinsurgency (12)
Project Gunrunner (20)
PRTs (1)
Qatar (1)
Quadrennial Defense Review (2)
Quds Force (13)
Quetta Shura (1)
RAND (3)
Recommended Reading (14)
Refueling Tanker (1)
Religion (106)
Religion and Insurgency (19)
Reuters (1)
Rick Perry (4)
Rifles (1)
Roads (4)
Rolling Stone (1)
Ron Paul (1)
ROTC (1)
Rules of Engagement (74)
Rumsfeld (1)
Russia (28)
Sabbatical (1)
Sangin (1)
Saqlawiyah (1)
Satellite Patrols (2)
Saudi Arabia (4)
Scenes from Iraq (1)
Second Amendment (158)
Second Amendment Quick Hits (2)
Secretary Gates (9)
Sharia Law (3)
Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahiden (1)
SIIC (2)
Sirajuddin Haqqani (1)
Small Wars (72)
Snipers (9)
Sniveling Lackeys (2)
Soft Power (4)
Somalia (8)
Sons of Afghanistan (1)
Sons of Iraq (2)
Special Forces (24)
Squad Rushes (1)
State Department (17)
Statistics (1)
Sunni Insurgency (10)
Support to Infantry Ratio (1)
Supreme Court (2)
Survival (12)
SWAT Raids (53)
Syria (38)
Tactical Drills (1)
Tactical Gear (1)
Taliban (167)
Taliban Massing of Forces (4)
Tarmiyah (1)
TBI (1)
Technology (16)
Tehrik-i-Taliban (78)
Terrain in Combat (1)
Terrorism (92)
Thanksgiving (5)
The Anbar Narrative (23)
The Art of War (5)
The Fallen (1)
The Long War (20)
The Surge (3)
The Wounded (13)
Thomas Barnett (1)
Transnational Insurgencies (5)
Tribes (5)
TSA (12)
TSA Ineptitude (10)
TTPs (1)
U.S. Border Patrol (5)
U.S. Border Security (13)
U.S. Sovereignty (14)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (3)
Uncategorized (42)
Universal Background Check (3)
Unrestricted Warfare (4)
USS Iwo Jima (2)
USS San Antonio (1)
Uzbekistan (1)
V-22 Osprey (4)
Veterans (2)
Vietnam (1)
War & Warfare (210)
War & Warfare (40)
War Movies (3)
War Reporting (18)
Wardak Province (1)
Warriors (6)
Waziristan (1)
Weapons and Tactics (57)
West Point (1)
Winter Operations (1)
Women in Combat (17)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2016 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.