Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category



The Second Amendment And Illegal Aliens

BY Herschel Smith
5 hours, 18 minutes ago

Bob Unruh at WND:

Americans are being warned that the danger from the porous United States borders has increased because of a federal appeals court’s determination that illegal aliens have a right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

“Just think: Illegal aliens who are about to be deported have standing to sue for gun rights, but the sheriff of the fourth largest county located near the border, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, has no standing to sue Obama for violating the law and flooding his jurisdiction with illegal immigrants,” wrote Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review.

The outrage came on the heels of a ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said people “living in the United States illegally” share in the Second Amendment right.

In the ruling, which conflicts with the decisions of several other appeals courts, the Chicago-based court ruled one particular illegal alien was barred from possessing weapons because of a federal statute.

But the three-judge panel said Mariano Meza-Rodriguez is among “the people” cited in the Constitution and thus would be granted the right “to keep and bear arms” if not for the federal law.

He was found to have a bullet in his pocket when he was apprehended, but he argued that the charges that ensued should be dismissed because he possesses Second Amendment rights.

The author of the opinion, Judge Diane Wood, wrote, “We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded.”

[ … ]

Bob Owens at Bearing Arms said, “I don’t think for a second that the Founding Fathers would support the concept of granting criminal invaders the same legal status as legal immigrants, legal resident aliens, and citizens.”

I don’t go where Bob Owens does on this.  This isn’t about the second amendment to me.  I took a strong stand against illegal aliens and bearing arms before (I cannot recall where, perhaps in a comment at reddit/guns, or at Say Uncle), and was savaged, as if I was anti-gun.

There is a libertarian case against the ownership of weapons by illegal aliens.  It’s simple.  You cannot do things to take actions that adversely affect others, and the mere presence of illegal aliens on my home soil adversely affects me.

Libertarians notwithstanding, you do not have a right to do anything you want any time you want.  Your rights are circumscribed by God.  God gives me the right to own weapons.  God does not give illegal aliens the right to be in my country.  The discussion about weapons for illegal aliens shouldn’t even come up.  Let central and South America figure it out.

I don’t have to turn to the founding fathers to figure this out.  But what’s so rich about this – and Bob Unruh points this out – is that judges who would otherwise vomit at the notion of God-given rights and bearing arms, suddenly find it necessary to expand this right to people who have no right to be on this soil.  It must suck to be a progressive and face logical problems like this.  Being impaled on the horns of a dilemma is the sort of thing that sticks to your innards.

Canadian Supreme Court Rules On Firearms Registry

BY Herschel Smith
5 months ago

Yahoo:

Ottawa (AFP) – Canada’s high court struck a blow against gun control on Friday, with a decision that clears the way for the federal government to destroy data on owners of rifles and shotguns.

Ottawa ordered the database destroyed in 2012, but Quebec went to court to try to stop it, hoping to use the names of Quebecers on the list to build its own firearms registry.

The Supreme Court’s decision means that while Canadians must still obtain a license to own a gun, most will not have to disclose that they own a long gun.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a longtime advocate for the gun rights of hunters and farmers, said he was “happy” with this outcome.

But in Quebec, which also fought to maintain the national firearms registry created by parliament in 1995, there was disappointment.

The province pressed Ottawa to hand over parts of the database relevant to Quebec after the federal government shut down the national firearms registry three years ago.

But Harper’s Tory government refused, citing critics of the registry who complained the original had been an expensive intrusion on gun owners and should not be repeated.

Furthermore, the Tories argued, the registry did not help to stem crime.

With both sides refusing to yield and Quebec vowing to create its own registry from scratch, firearms regulations are sure to become a hot campaign issue in upcoming elections.

In a five-four split decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Quebec had simply failed to establish a legal basis for its claim to the data.

The court added that the disagreement over the fate of the information in the registry should have been negotiated in a political process, rather than adjudicated.

So here’s the scene.  The firearms registry is being done away.  Quebec wants the information, and this court case decided the issue.  Quebec doesn’t get it.  In the process, the Canadian supreme court looks a lot like the U.S. supreme court and other morons, and stipulated that in the future, the political process must be used to restrict God-given rights.  But it gets better.

Quebec Public Safety Minister Lise Theriault said the province would move ahead with its plans for a database of its own, allocating Can$30 million (US$24 million) for the project.

If the centralized government won’t help, they’ll do it themselves.  Sounds like New York or Connecticut, no?  But wait.  It gets even better than this.

Earlier this month, Harper earned widespread scorn over comments he made which seemed to wrongfully imply that Canadians have the right to shoot intruders.

“My wife’s from a rural area, gun ownership wasn’t just for the farm, it was also for a certain level of security when you’re ways away from police, immediate police assistance,” he’d told the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities on March 12.

Legal experts and the opposition pounced on the comments to suggest Harper had urged Canadians to take the law into their own hands.

“It’s vigilantism,” former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant was widely quoted as saying.

“People are going to find themselves facing the criminal justice system and being charged with serious crimes if they decide to follow what the prime minister is suggesting.”

Rather than being a God-ordained duty, self defense is “vigilantism” according to Bryant.  The former attorney general of Ontario is a damn communist.  And the damn communists (and Harper’s Tories) notwithstanding, the reasons for ownership and bearing of arms goes beyond hunting and self defense (American “Fudds” also notwithstanding).  It also enables us to kill people just like them.  The extent to which Americans get that will be directly proportional to the liberties we retain in the face of men just … like … the … rulers … of … Quebec in the U.S., federal, state and local.

The Second Amendment Creates A God-Given Right To Bear Arms?

BY Herschel Smith
5 months, 1 week ago

MSNBC:

Asked about the Second Amendment at a town-hall meeting yesterday, the governor told voters, “Send me a Republican legislature. And with a Republican legislature you’ll have a governor who will respect, appropriately, the rights of law-abiding citizens to be able to protect ourselves…. No rights are given to you by government. All our rights are given to you by God.”
The theological reference was a bit odd under the circumstances. Even if Christie genuinely believes the Second Amendment creates a God-given entitlement to firearm ownership, it’s up to policymakers – humans, in positions of governmental authority – to shape and place limits on this right.

First of all, Chris Christie’s campaign is over.  It’s far too late to convince any legitimate gun owner that Christie would be good for gun rights.  Now that this point is out of the way, consider the way the reporter, Steve Benen, worded this objection.  “Even if Christie genuinely believes the Second Amendment creates a God-given entitlement to firearm ownership …”  How on earth could a man-made document create a God-given right?  What kind of ignorance and sophomoric thinking leads someone to make such intellectual missteps?

As I have stated, “The basis [for bearing arms] comes not from the constitution or any other founding document, but from God Himself, and he answers to no one.  His laws have a deontological flavor (see Divine Command Theory).  He refers to no one outside Himself for notions of right and wrong, and when He speaks, it is right because He has spoken it and it follows the nature of His character, which is itself good.  Simply said, God doesn’t need the constitution, and neither do we need it to tell us it is okay to seek and employ means of self defense.”

For the grand finale of embarrassing brain freezes, Steve believes that it’s up to humans to “shape and place limits on this right.”  God, to whom man answers and who is in need of no one and nothing (see the “Aseity of God”), and who demands obedience rather than demurral, apparently hasn’t spoken clearly enough for Steve, who believes that creatures have the right to amend the word of the creator!

And there you have it.  The much heralded main stream media, who wouldn’t be able to perform good analysis work if their lives depended on it.

Comment Of The Week

BY Herschel Smith
5 months, 2 weeks ago

Blackwatch2:

“If we as Christians put more faith in Smith & Wesson than we do in God, then we’ve got a problem,” Jackson said,,,,,,,

Well, substitute the words Smith & Wesson with fire extinguisher or fire sprinklers. I’ll bet the state representative put her faith in fire prevention tools. I’ve always been amazed at peoples’ ability to rationalize that a building somehow has magical powers just because we call it a church. I was always taught that the “church” was wherever fellow Christians came together in the spirit of Christ. Tactically speaking, most churches are a nightmare. Everyone is facing away from the ingress/egress routes and focused on a single person. I’ve always carried in church, and always will.

Also, I’ve told fellow Christians that know I carry (even in church) the following: when you can tell me the date, time, and manner of my earthly demise, I’ll “beat my swords into ploughshares”. 10 times out of 10…..crickets chirping is the sound I hear instead of a reasoned response.

Semper Fi,
Blackwatch2

Maryland Attorney General Legal Brief On Guns

BY Herschel Smith
7 months, 3 weeks ago

Communities Digital News:

Maryland, at least in recent memory, has never been known to be a gun friendly state.

With the passage of the Maryland Gun Safety Act of 2013 in response to the tragedies of Newtown in 2012, Maryland become home to some of the harshest gun laws in the country. The law enacted bans on dozens of semi-automatic firearms, including the widely owned AR-15, and the venerable civilian model of the AK-47 and many of its variants.

The law has since been challenged a number of times, and upheld by several courts. However an appeal filed by a number of gun rights groups and businesses, as well as an amicus brief filed on behalf of the suit by twenty one state attorney generals, have forced Maryland to respond, and clarify their position on some of the most controversial firearms issues facing us today.

Filed on the day of the deadline, the “Brief of Defendants-Appellees” is now former attorney general Doug Gansler’s response to the appeal filed by the various gun control groups in the case entitled Steven V. Kolbe v. Martin O’Malley (4th Circuit Court of Appeals case number 14-1945). While the brief is seventy four pages long, and filled with cited case law and precedent, several particular passages stand out as noteworthy.

“The banned firearms [AR-15’s and AK-47’s] are not commonly used for self-defense, and more than ten rounds are rarely, if ever, required for self-defense. Thus, the banned firearms and magazines do not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection.” Pg. 24 of 74, under “Summary of Argument.”

AG Gansler goes on to argue that “The plaintiffs have failed to identify a single incident in which an individual in Maryland has used an assault weapon in self-defense, and Maryland law enforcement officers were similarly unaware of any such incident.” Pg. 36 of 74.

To clarify, the government of Maryland has just stated in an American court that semi-automatic rifles are not used for self-defense, and people do not required more than ten rounds to defend themselves, and therefore are not covered under the scope of the amendment that was put into the Constitution to ensure the people’s right to bear arms.

This statement, safely made by a man who would no longer hold the post of attorney general a week after the submission of this brief, begs the question of whether or not Maryland lawmakers and administrators watch the news, and it disregards on the basis of opinion the rulings of Heller and McDonald from the US Supreme Court.

In March of 2013, a student in New York used an AR-15 to defend himself and his roommates against a number of armed intruders..

In May of 2013 a North Carolina man used an AR-15 to defend himself against an early morning home invader.

In April of 2013 a gas station attendant and Iraq War veteran used an AR-15 in self-defense during an attempted robbery.

In January of 2014 a homeowner in Florida used an AK-47 to defend himself against three armed home invaders .

These stories exist and are not that uncommon, common enough for a cursory search by AG Gansler or his people to find out that while he may not be aware of AR-15’s being used for self-defense in Maryland, they certainly are being used in other states.

The author missed perhaps the most striking instance of self defense with an AR-15 (with multiple magazines), namely the example of Mr. Stephen Bayezes.  Furthermore, it’s obvious that the Maryland attorney general doesn’t care about consistency or correspondence with reality.  The Supreme Court has found in Tennessee versus Garner that law enforcement officers can only use a weapon in the same case that civilians can, i.e., self defense.  Yet the attorney general won’t argue that the police should have limited capacity magazines and no patrol rifles.  That’s because they don’t really believe the things they are saying.

But the main problem with both the attorney general’s brief and this short analysis at CDN is that the second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with self defense.  The best way to explain it for the attorney general’s office is this.  The second amendment doesn’t have to be invoked until the legislature passes totalitarian bills like this one, the governor signs these totalitarian bills into law, sniveling lackey attorneys write horrible briefs for the court to read, and awful judges accept them rather than hold the attorneys in contempt of court for submitting crap to the court docket.

The civilians have a remedy for such meddling foolishness on the part of the elite.  It’s called the second amendment, and the criminals upon which it is supposed to be used and to whom it applies are in government.  The constitution is a covenant – which includes both promises and consequences.  For whatever reason, the folks in Maryland haven’t seen fit to invoke this part of the governmental covenant yet, but no one can promise this will continue.

Those Dangerous Constitutionalists!

BY Herschel Smith
8 months, 2 weeks ago

The Blaze:

A sheriff in Washington state responded Monday to a controversial comment made by one of his deputies two weeks ago during a charity event.

Jerry Moffett, a deputy in Spokane County, Washington, was caught on tape at the Holiday and Heroes event during which some officers took underprivileged children shopping while others stood outside meeting and greeting those attending. But one woman who spoke to Moffett decided to record the interaction. In the video, the woman asks Moffett about the department’s Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) military-style vehicles.

“I’m thinking that is totally appropriate in Iraq but what kind of a situation in the U.S. would you see that happening?” the woman asked Moffett.

The deputy responded by saying, “We’ve got a lot of Constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, a lot of ammunition. They have weapons here locally.”

The Sheriff made a followup comment.

Knezovich said there is “no way” the equipment will be used on any law-abiding citizen. ”It will never be used to take your guns away,” he told the outlet. The outlet noted Moffett is a 20-year veteran of the force and an Army veteran … KXLY reported that Knezovich has since admitted that Moffett’s word choice could have been better, suggesting “extremist” would have been more appropriate than “Constitutionalist

Far from being shocked, disappointed or aghast at the comment by Moffett, I’m pleasantly surprised at his honesty.  It’s always a good thing when the truth comes out.  There is no reason for such equipment on police forces across the nation except for use on the people of America.  Moffett’s candid response reminds us of this truth.

I’m also pleasantly surprised that the Sheriff brought up his time in grade on the police force and his military background.  My own son believes that former military should try to avoid law enforcement if possible.  There are good men who are former military, and there are bad men who are former military.  Moffett is a bad one, and there is no justification for worship of the military.  I know what my own son answers to the question, ‘Son, will you fire on American citizens?’  He would sooner fire on his commanding officers who issued such an order.

Mike Vanderboegh was called a radical right-winger.  Hey, radical right-winger, constitutionalist or extremist.  It’s six one way and half a dozen the other.  As for Moffett, we know where he stands, and it’s because of people like him that we are constitutionalists and stockpile weapons.  Bring it, Moffett.

The Second Amendment: The Refuge Of Bumpkins And Yeehaws

BY Herschel Smith
8 months, 3 weeks ago

Timothy Carney:

Naturally, Democrats and the Left have tried to pry Southerners away from their guns and religion. Gun control has largely been a culture war effort for Democrats. “Some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome,” was Congressman Charles Rangel’s explanation for why gun control was both needed and difficult.

The Washington Post’s Gene Weingarten cursed the Second Amendment as “the refuge of bumpkins and yeehaws who like to think they are protecting their homes against imagined swarthy marauders desperate to steal their flea-bitten sofas from their rotting front porches.”

So let’s deal with the second amendment yet again.  To be sure, the second amendment was written within a certain cultural context of unorganized militia who used their own weapons, weapons they had to defend themselves and their families against both animals and men, as well as provide for themselves.  So one might argue for the notion that the presupposition necessary for the second amendment to make any sense at all is private ownership and use of guns.  But this requires deductive thought, and progressives aren’t big on that.  So in legal debating terms, I will stipulate, and I won’t press the issue because I want to make another more important point.

Progressives have yet to pick up on the fact that we don’t believe the second amendment gives us rights to defend ourselves or homes.  They would be much more aghast at the truth, but their blindness keeps them from seeing the truth.  God gives us rights, the state only recognizes those rights.

But more importantly, the second amendment says nothing about defense of persons or the home during the normal course of life.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.  I have a right anyway to defend myself and my family with any weapon I choose, so says God.  The second amendment says something different.  It says that the state recognizes that God gives me the right to shoot people who would take away our guns – like Gene Weingarten – through the skull, even if their taking is approved by the state.

Guns And State Preemption And Nullification

BY Herschel Smith
10 months ago

Guns.com:

With the stroke of a pen Tuesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) turned a controversial bill into law that will allow third parties to sue municipalities over local gun codes stronger than the state’s.

The measure, added as an amendment to a metal theft bill, had passed the state legislature earlier this month by wide margins. It allows groups such as the National Rifle Association to stand in for local citizens in challenging gun city and county control ordinances stronger than the state’s own laws in court.

With Corbett’s signature, the new law will take effect in 60 days, potentially dozens of strict city and county firearms laws under the gaze of gun rights groups such as the NRA, who called the bill Tuesday, “the strongest firearms preemption statute in the country.”

Now for federal threats:

Members of Congress who want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms will never give up. Fortunately, through our states we can effectively render any new federal gun laws powerless by using a legal doctrine upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

This is done by depriving the feds of any enforcement assistance by local law enforcement agencies in their state, a doctrine known as “anti-commandeering.”

Essentially, it provides that state legislation can prohibit state law enforcement from aiding the federal agencies attempting to enforce federal gun laws.

In other words, the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but the state isn’t required to help them.

Is this legal?

It is according to the US Supreme Court. For 150 years it has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of anti-commandeering laws.

Relevant court cases include:

* 1842 Prigg v. Pennslvania: The court held that states weren’t required to enforce federal slave rendition laws.

* 1992 New York v. US: The court held that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz v. US: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Independent Business v. Sebelius: The Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place.

What do you notice to be common between these articles concerning advocacy for state’s rights?  Answer: turning to the courts for moral and legal justification.

The new law in Pennsylvania would be impressive if only it had prepared the infrastructure to send state law enforcement after local authorities if they didn’t observe our rights.  Nullification of local regulations combined with spending some quality time in the hoosegow for the local politicians would send a strong signal to those who would ignore the law.  Frankly, I cannot imagine a weaker state government than one which passes a law only to have cities and townships ignore it, and then have to turn to the courts to tell the local authorities to obey the state laws.  It’s embarrassing and scandalous.

And turning to the federal courts to tell ourselves that it’s okay to ignore the federal authorities when their edicts violate the covenant upon which they are supposed to labor and lead is equally embarrassing.  More than simply not aiding federal authorities in their totalitarian measures, state law enforcement ought to be sent to arrest said federal authorities, throw them in the state penitentiary, and throw away the key.

Death By A Thousand Cuts: The Incremental Approach To Gun Control In France

BY Herschel Smith
11 months ago

The Bang Switch has a must read on gun control in France, lengthy, but well worth reading.  Some of it is highly detailed in the legalities of firearms ownership in France.  There are many salient points for gun control in America, but this quote encapsulates the spirit of the article.

YOU, my friendly fellow Americans, you have the second Amendment and this is pure gold. The founding fathers were pretty clear and pretty clever about that. I know I’m preaching in the choir for most gun owners but I’d love any Americans to understand where the US could end up if you’re not fighting for your rights. People need to wake up and start to defend their rights. As soon a government has some registration, they can add more and more guns in the “ban list”, or the “NFA list”, they can add more caliber, more area, more restrictions (for “safety” they will say). And step by step, guns will only be usable for sport and hunting… and people won’t have the right to defend themselves, protect their family.

Politics will tell you: “If someone break into your home, call for the police” … Oh wait? Here again, it really sound familiar to what we can hear *right now* from the gun control advocates in the US, just as the same we heard few decades ago in France! And from everything we can observe from France, all gun laws were always adding restrictions for a slow confiscation. And it has not real effects.

Why? Simply because criminals don’t obey any laws and the evolution of the homicide per firearms in France has a similar trend than in the US. And just like the US, there’s more and more guns and more gun owners in France, with an almost constant 10 percent increase each year.

Sure, the numbers of homicides per firearms per capita are lower in France than the US. But it’s not because of the new gun laws, that was already the case before 2013, and before 1995, and before 1939… Just like the UK numbers were pretty much the same before the gun laws than now… But in the other hand, it didn’t stop the violent crimes either which is in constant climb.

Most of the shooting that happened this year in France did happen in Marseilles, by criminals using non-registered full auto AK to kill a criminal from another gang because of the drug cartel and drug trafficking in Marseilles. And for that matter, none of the gun laws (current or past) have changed anything and increase the safety. It’s actually getting even worst because of the numerous violent mafias that come from the ex-soviet countries. And guess what, they don’t have any registration of their guns.

So, once again, we can say anything from numbers; But history speaks by itself. Gun laws don’t increase safety, don’t reduce violent crime, don’t reduce homicide per firearms, etc… Gun control is about controlling people. And registration lead with any doubt to confiscation, regardless if it’s done overnight or slowly over several decades like in France.

This French writer is telling you what the American left is saying concerning their ultimate aim.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

This lefty writer at Daily Kos couches a total gun ban in terms of safety, but even if he believes in this state sponsored utopia, most on the left know that it’s a lie.  In the end it’s all about control over people.

This is why universal background checks and a national gun registry gain no traction in the gun community.  We don’t believe the lie of public safety, and we know your ultimate aim.  We will never relent.  We will never register our guns.  We will never turn in our guns.  We will never be put on a list.  We will fight a gun registry with all of our might.

As the philosophers would say, these truths hold “positive epistemic status.”

It’s Hard To Articulate A Strong Biblical Case For A Heavily Armed Society

BY Herschel Smith
11 months, 1 week ago

So says Professor David Gushee of Mercer University.  He says, “That’s not Biblical reasoning; that’s cultural reasoning.”

To which I responded this way directly to Professor Gushee.

Would you care to respond this my article on this subject (it’s one of many)?  Stay orthodox, please.  No deconstruction or other oddball views.

I haven’t heard back from the professor.  I don’t expect to.


26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (675)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (29)
Air Power (9)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (6)
Ammunition (20)
Animals in War (4)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
AR-15s (51)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (37)
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 (26)
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 (7)
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 (214)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (115)
Department of Homeland Security (12)
Disaster Preparedness (2)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (5)
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 (1)
Featured (171)
Federal Firearms Laws (15)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (319)
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 (39)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (7)
Georgia (19)
GITMO (2)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (294)
Guns (754)
Guns In National Parks (2)
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 (42)
India (10)
Infantry (3)
Information Warfare (2)
Infrastructure (2)
Intelligence (22)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (169)
Iraq (378)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (33)
Islamists (39)
Israel (18)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (2)
Jihadists (72)
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 (1)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (12)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (7)
Logistics (49)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (236)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
MEDEVAC (2)
Media (23)
Memorial Day (2)
Mexican Cartels (22)
Mexico (29)
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 (15)
NATO (15)
Navy (19)
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 (210)
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 (19)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (2)
Police (169)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (160)
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 (88)
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 (147)
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)
Survival (10)
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 (88)
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 (13)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (3)
Uncategorized (40)
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 (16)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2015 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.