Guns and White Men

by Captain Pat

1 April 2005

Part One: The Meaning of the Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Included in our nation's bill of rights is our right to keep and bear arms. Since the replacement of fair and honest government by the Zionist Occupation Forces, ZOG has been busy scurrying about reinventing the supposed meaning behind our right to bear arms.

When convenient to our Zionist masters, the right to bear arms is interpreted as a right to own a rifle or shotgun for sporting purposes. 'Slick Willie' Clinton said, "You don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting, or a AK-47 for skeet shooting" in justifying the Brady Bill, which outlawed certain military style weapons. Many sportsmen didn't care when some of the nastier looking guns were outlawed, thinking 'My goodness what would I need with an Assault Weapon? The government is here to protect me. I just need a gun to hunt and shoot and have a good time.'

In all actuality, the framers of our constitution probably didn't even expect anyone would try to take away any hunting rights; back in the 1700s, hunting was a way of life. No, they intended for us private citizens to privately keep firearms of practical military use. That means anything the government arms itself with, the citizenry can and MUST arm itself with. In fact that means that any private citizen or collective of citizens should have the legal right to own a tank or any other military vehicle they want. The right to bear arms does not specify small arms! Hell, Patrick Henry, George Washington, and many other founding fathers owned fully functioning artillery pieces after the revolutionary war.

The right to bear arms, as anyone reading this should know, was to protect the United States citizenry from tyranny foreign and domestic. That is, we as Americans have the right to keep our government honest. The "shall not be infringed" clause was intended to keep the federal government from bull-shiting away our right to bear arms. Too late though, all you conservatives who think Washington, D.C., can't oppress you because you have a bill of rights had better wake up, because the 1930s era federal law outlawing private ownership of fully automatic weapons (thanks to the crippled old son-of-a-bitch FDR) is unconstitutional whether or not the Supreme Court thinks so. It's not open to interpretation either. The question isn't about whether or not the spirit of the constitution has been broken (it has), but the FACT that the letter of our law has been broken. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is black and white and not open to debate.

So exactly what does this tell us? Well for one thing it tells us that our federal government doesn't care about following its own laws and for another, the patriots of 1776 are more than likely spinning in their graves as you read this. What do you need to do? If you don't already have one and you're not a felon you need to purchase a semi-automatic rifle while they're still legal and learn to be proficient with it incase there ever is need for another American revolution. Don't think such a weapon is out of your price range. A simple SKS should cost a little over a hundred dollars, an AK-47 should run $250 and up, and an AR-15 or one of its derivatives should cost $600 and up. Now don't go about arming yourself with Molotov cocktails and explosives just yet, because you'll probably get yourself thrown in the Gulag without ever using them. Keep a clear head and prepare for the day the shit hits the fan!

Part Two: Stick to your Guns

So you're a White Nationalist. And as a White Nationalist it is your duty to own a military-capable firearm if at all possible. ZOG hasn't outlawed semi-autos yet and you can pick one up a lot cheaper than you would expect. If you are 18 or older, live in the United States (excluding California) and are not a convicted felon there is no excuse for you not to own a semi-automatic rifle. If for some reason you doubt this, which is hard to believe unless you're completely new to the struggle, reread part one above.

Once you have gotten the idea in your head that you need to own such a rifle the question is which one to choose. There are many on the market and the choice eventually falls upon personal preference and funds. Some popular choices are the AR-15, the AK-47, the SKS, the M-14, the Ruger mini-14, and even the vintage M1 Garand. I have handled and fired all except for the Ruger mini-14, but have only spent extensive time with the AR-15 and the AK-47 (Romanian) so take this into account when weighing my advice and for god's sake get a second, third and maybe even a fourth opinion.

The M1 is surprisingly very popular in Militia groups despite the fact it's a very dated weapon and is much more expensive and has many more problems than its successor the M-14. The M-14 is superior to the M1 in many aspects which is to be expected SINCE IT IS THE UPDATED M1! Still some people stubbornly stick to the Garand despite the fact that the M-14 fires the standardized 7.62 NATO round which will be aplenty when the shit hits the fan (not that the .30-06 cartridge is hard to come by). The M-14 offers a larger magazine capacity; it doesn't plink and toss out the empty stripper clip when you run out of ammo (very lovable when shooting for fun, but might get you killed in a firefight), and you can get it in a synthetic stock which won't warp in adverse weather. All in all if you can afford a Garand, but don't have a combat arm ready you better invest your money in something else, because an M1 may be fun to play around with or even take deer with, but it's not what you would want on the modern battlefield.

I'll skip the Ruger mini, because I'm not very experienced with it, and move on to the SKS, which is a good choice for someone without a lot of money. These little guys are Soviet surplus and will cost you little over a hundred dollars for one in good condition.

I will discuss the AK and the AR together as there seems to be a debate as to which would be preferable to own when the balloon goes up. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The AK is cheaper, more reliable, and packs a bigger punch, but is inaccurate at ranges over 200 yards. The 7.62x39 probably won't be easy to scavenge off of dead enemies, and the safety catch is a tad bit noisy. On the other hand, the AR-15 is a good deal more accurate over long ranges, and uses the common .223 round. The AR's disadvantages are the cost and the higher susceptibility to jams.

What it comes down to is how the guns will be used. For the guerrilla warfare that would accompany a revolution, conditions wouldn't allow for constant cleaning and oiling. The AK wins with its robustness here. Also the ranges in guerrilla fighting wouldn't exceed 200 yards in most cases so the AR-15's advantage in accuracy is minimal. However local terrain should be factored into the equation. If you live on the plains of Montana or Nebraska you would obviously be taking longer shots than someone in the heavily wooded Rocky or Appalachian mountains. So no definite winner in accuracy. Finally ammunition availability isn't much of a determining factor in choosing a weapon since if the owner of an AK ever ran short on ammunition he could pick up a M-16 or an M-4 off of a dead enemy just as easily as the owner of an AR could collect the enemy's ammunition. So this argument comes down to personal preference and funds. I personally would opt for the Kalashnikov simply because of its low maintenance and rugged reliability.

Once you have your rifle, be it one of the ones described above or one of the many other options available on the market, you should invest in some accessories. A tactical sling is a must and I would also suggest a bayonet if your rifle allows for one. You may think the bayonet is outdated and unsuitable for modern warfare, but that was the same attitude many Americans had going into World War Two and they quickly learned otherwise. Think about this as well: ZOG banned rifles with bayonet lugs with the Brady Bill and you know no gangbanging niggers or spics use bayonets to commit crimes. Obviously Big Brother thought they were a pretty big threat if he didn't want you to have them. Now that they're legal again go ahead and invest in one, it will only set you back about $15-$20 dollars and it could save your life. Bandoliers and extra magazines are a must and make sure you have at least one hundred rounds of ammunition for whatever rifle you own. Oh yeah -- and make sure you spend a lot of time at the range. If it ever comes to revolution you'll need to shoot straight.


Back to VNN Main Page