Jtuxyan on March 22, 2010, 01:49:12 pm
Quote
Who says?  Where do you draw the line?
Let's say I come to you and inform you I need your land for a new military facility.  I take your store, by force, paying you what _I_ decide it's worth, and turn it into a PX, which I then hand over to a monopoly contractor.  I take your farm, again by force, and turn it into an extra 9 holes for the officers club golf course.  Naturally, your farm is worth far less than a golf course for Our Fine Officers.  (I had a co-worker who actually lost her farm for this very reason.)

WHERE do you draw the line?  Better to draw it right at the edge of your nose.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

In an AnCap society, the ultimate measure of right and wrong is economic force. If a lot of people think that what the military is doing is wrong, to the point that they can sanction them, refuse to pay them, etc, your land will be safe. But if the majority thinks that they like the new SAM battery and you should have sold when you had the chance, you alone do not have the economic power or force of arms to reverse the decision.

This means that it's possible for a military force in an AnCap society to violate people's rights up and down the board, as long as they can paint them as "the bad guys" in the minds of enough of the people.

Jtuxyan on March 22, 2010, 01:50:14 pm
Quote
And as to government and misleading studies.  The government funds those studies, papers, and articles, used to "prove" and promote government positions, on the taxes of the very people they are attempting to dupe.  They steal from us in order to lie to us.  I consider it a violation of the 1st amendment in principal, if not in fact.  The 1st amendment barred the government from supporting a church as it protected the individuals right to free speech.  It should have barred the government from editorializing in the same breath.

Yes? And? A cigarette company that tells me my smokes are making me healthy is taking my money and using it to lie to me and give me lung cancer.

sams on March 22, 2010, 03:36:06 pm
Looks like one more debate getting out of and  ::)

Sure I do concede a point that the escape from Terra handling of the matter of war was somewhat simplistic, weak or I just happen to love war movies to much  ;D The Terran Navy was so incompetent that I really couldn't stop laughing  ;D
 but we can concede that at least the Soviet Army under Stalin order was this incompetent  ;D
So lets go back to the terrible question of how an AnCap society defends itself  against a well organized and led army, so lets check our premise:

A - The target is a prosperous AnCap society with :
- A lot of self-defense weapons (handguns, rifles, and some more exotic calibers for gun nuts)
- Some sort of Private security agency with capacity ranging from mere policing operations to paramilitar capacities, like when protecting very valuable assets. (think a lot of competing Black Water roaming around)
- A lot of industries, including weaponery, which can produce advanced combat system for a demanding clientelle.

B- Aggressor is a national army with the ambition to conquer the AnCap society because its economic value

So lets discard what will likely NOT happen:

1- Surprise attack : ''Amateurs look strategy, professional logistic'' such an attack require some level of logistical planning, which mean that there is a chance that a society of free man , especially if some of them have some big assets on the line, may eventually discover the attack in time
2- One bullet supplier dilenma : Uberly impossible, since if it is a society of free man, and no one is bared of being a gun nut, there would be at least dozens of ammunition manufacturers and maybe thousands of redistributors with HUGE stocks, so not one will likely be in the position of the ''mighty bullet provider'' ;D
Also virtually every owner may well have a lot at home ... after all recreational shooting requires a lot of bullets. Also the security agencies are likely to have a lot of ammunitions, so even if there is NO supplies of ammunitions, there is a almost guaranty ratio of 200 bullets or 20 magazine per rifle owner ;)

Sure you need that almost all people have strong feelings about an AnCap society, but when people who don't use to pay taxes are under the thumbs of an army who see them has milk cow ... they might fight to defend their property ;)

I'm not saying that the invasion will fail, but that at least it won't be such an easy deal, since if you have a company who want to make money out providing a SAM humbrella to its customers, I doubt your refusal to provide them you piece of land would be a problem business wise

If you want to picture this correctly, stop thinking that the AnCap army will be something like a national army, but more like a market were the product is security and defense... now imagine the guy you pay 5000$ per month telling you that you home who bombed because they couldn't find a place to install the same battery ... subsitute SAM battery by any other service(food, computer) and you will easily see the solution

Jtuxyan on March 22, 2010, 05:25:19 pm
Quote
If you want to picture this correctly, stop thinking that the AnCap army will be something like a national army, but more like a market were the product is security and defense... now imagine the guy you pay 5000$ per month telling you that you home who bombed because they couldn't find a place to install the same battery ... subsitute SAM battery by any other service(food, computer) and you will easily see the solution

Two problems with that:
  • My grocer can't have me beaten or killed. At least, I don't think so.
  • The reason my grocer gets my money despite being unable to have me killed is because *I like food* and he has the power to not give me any food. A military does not have the power to not give you any protection. If you live under their SAM umbrella, they can't make it so every house in the area *but* yours is protected. Thus, there is a free rider problem unless they can use force to make you pay up.

Zilabus on March 22, 2010, 08:00:47 pm
Alright, a response to sams two main points.

1.) I'm not a hundred percent sure what you're first point is, but I think the just of it is that there is a chance that a group of free men could be aware of foriegn threats. This is true, but highly unlikely. It takes years of work and money to find a reliable information source in a foriegn government. While you have a chance of stumbling onto the enemy preparing to attack, if they are actively trying to work in secret, it's about the same as you winning the lottery.

2.) Not quite so impossible at all. When we look at free markets, we see that larger corp. actively work to grow larger and fight off any competition. If the biggest supplier of arms is some company called Beyer-munition, they aren't going to like the 20 little guys cutting into their profits. They'll buy them out, pay to have them shut down, close of the modes of transport Beyer-munition uses to them, or use any other manner of technique used to beat out competition. The warehouses full of munitions and redistributers with their trucks loaded to the brim would have no reason to keep so fully stocked, especially in wartime. Scarcity means you can sell less for more. And finally, even if all of the fighters in the area had 200 bullets, or approx. 20 magazines, that isn't really enough to sustain combat for a long period of time. Let's look at a current example to see how effective 200 rounds is. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html You may say such a study is unreliable, but even if it is, you're looking at 1250 times 20 magazines. Cut it in half, or even quarter it, to make sure it's the best estimate possible, and you still have a pretty damn large gap.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 08:04:46 pm by Zilabus »
Bring back the funk.

Heinlein Libertarian on March 23, 2010, 12:08:05 am
Under normal circumstances, being stuck with one ammunition supplier is improbable. In wartime, it becomes a real possibility.

1) Not Primary, but definitely Secondary Targets: If there is a war, munitions plants are going to be targets that are very high on the enemy's list. Not as high as SAM sites, artillery parks or supply dumps, perhaps, but waaaaay up there. . Sometime after the cliff side SAM sites are gone, somebody will do everything they can to knock these puppies out and watch the war effort grind to a halt.

2) Location, Location, Location: Ammunition is only useful if there is some reasonable and steady method of getting it to where it is needed and in the quantity needed. If you need to use ships, trains, bridges, any major means of transportation short of the mule to get it where it is going, you are going to have problems. Transportation systems fall right behind ammunition factories on the "bomb this now" scale. If one factory is close enough to get the ammo where it is going, and another is not, you are going to have to deal with the closer factory.

3) How Many Massive Factories? Modern armies use up a LOT of ammunition. You need a factory capable of supplying ammunition in the right calibers, and in the right quantity. Factories require a lot of cash and time to build, and so they tend to be centralized. They require a lot of heavy, expensive and scarce machinery to produce in any sort of quantity. They also require trained people to work the machines. There are not likely to be a large number of usefully-sized munitions factories in any given nation. Even the ones that do exist are probably going to have to retool to meet the new need for military calibers, at the same time as they run three shifts.

Smaller manufacturers could make up some of the difference, but coordinating transport to the will be a nightmare. Imagine a family reunion where the whole clan decides to drive sixteen hours to the same theme park. One person has a (mostly) incomplete and partially imaginary map. Nobody has a cellphone to coordinate. All driving will be done by night (maybe your family is totally albino, I can't explain why this would occur.) Now, imagine that bombs are dropping, people are dying, and the roads have massive craters in them. Try keeping track of that for a day, you will be daunted. Try keeping track of that for a month, and you will be both hopelessly insane and a qualified S4 (supply/logistics officer.)

4) Time. It takes time to negotiate a new contract with a supplier. You have to make contact, review capabilities, bargain, and the supplier will have to retool as appropriate and arrange transportation. If you are under heavy attack, this is time you probably don't have. Therefore, you may be forced to deal with one supplier by the constraints of time.

terry_freeman on March 23, 2010, 12:10:12 am
What makes you think that collecting intelligence is something that can be done only by governments? How do you think entrepreneurs become successful, if not by collecting information?

Furthermore, what government agency can assure 100% loyalty? There's always a fifth column, somebody who thinks that the government policies are wrong, somebody who will do what he can to stop them, often for quite patriotic reasons.

If you think AnCap is a bunch of isolated amateurs, think again. It will involve highly professional organizations, and will lack the rigid top-down disease which infects socialist institutions such as the U.S. military.

You worry about AnCap organizations beating you up. Have you somehow failed to notice the many private security agencies which already exist in America? I saw a Brinks truck picking up some cash from a convenience store the other day. I got to thinking, if the insane theories about self-destructive AnCap were true, then we'd surely have efforts by Brinks to muscle in on the business of other security firms. There'd be shootouts all over the place.

Why not? Well, oddly enough, warfare is not a very economical business model. That's why private security agencies do little of it, and governments do a lot of it. There are actually more private security agents in America than there are government police forces. It is the government, however, which is frequently in the news for brutality, false arrests, SWAT raids on the wrong address, accidental or possibly unjustified shootings, and so forth. I'm not sure why you prefer the government model, given the negative evidence. Perhaps you're simply oblivious to the number of private security agents who quietly get their jobs done without a lot of murder and mayhem - to say nothing of the 70 million armed Americans who are even less conspicuous.





Heinlein Libertarian on March 23, 2010, 12:49:24 am
Holding soldiers liable for damage they inflict on the property of others is insane and unworkable in a time of war.

Consider carpet cleaning costs. Every apartment in which I have lived has required that I shampoo the carpet when i move out. This generally costs about $50. Soldiers are going to be running around on ground covered in a lot of nasty stuff. Dirt, dust, mud, blood, less pleasant bodily excretions, bits of their fellow soldiers, spoiled food, shrapnel, splinters, fuel, radioactive/chemical weapons residue, etc. This stuff will be tracked on carpets in any building the soldiers enter. If they have to fight from inside that building, you will have red-hot shell casings landing all over the carpet, and quite possibly starting fires. Most soldiers are careful to avoid or mitigate fire traps like carpet, but in a hasty defense it might not be possible to account for everything. In all likelihood, every carpet these soldiers come in to contact with while conducting a defensive action is going to have to be replaced or very thoroughly cleaned. This will add-up very fast, resulting in a situation where it is financially suicidal to defend anything.

Of course, you could simply let the enemy take the area, then recapture it, and blame the enemy for the damage. This will get a lot of people killed, and possibly a lot of people taken hostage by the enemy, but it will reduce your financial liability.

How do you determine who is responsible for what damage? CSI makes figuring out what bullets went where and came from what gun look easy, but how do you do that in an urban war zone? What if the AnCap country and the enemy use the same caliber bullet, or both sides are capturing and using the other sides' weapons? How can you tell who threw which grenade? Whose shell caused the shrapnel hole in your wall? Figuring out who is liable for what damage would require expenses far beyond the value of whatever property is destroyed, and would likely be impossible.

There is also the time it takes to negotiate the purchase of a home/business/apartment building with the owner before it is used in a defensive action. Realistically, there is not going to be any negotiation, and necessity will be the justification for every confiscation. What if there are disagreements down the line about the necessity of seizing a particular building? Are you going to get your supplies cut-off because you might, in the heat of battle, have seized a building that was not 100% necessary to the defense?

Finally, are you really going to charge the people who protected your property from being stolen by the enemy? After all, if the soldier wasn't there, you would not have your property at all. You would also probably be enslaved by whoever just invaded you. How do you calculate gratitude?

Quite frankly, if you tried to charge them, I doubt you would have very many soldiers after a day or so. Most of them would get tired of being asked to pay people whose homes they just defended with their lives.

Heinlein Libertarian on March 23, 2010, 01:32:34 am
How far does free speech extend in a war zone?

Is it legitimate to shoot a reporter who reports on troop movements and damage in such a way that they are providing free intel and bomb damage assessments to the enemy? I would argue that it is perfectly legitimate to shoot them.  Providing such information qualifies as fighting for the enemy without wearing a uniform. They are, in other words, spies.

Is it legitimate to shoot somebody who is lying about the actions of your unit in an effort to get your unit shunned by their suppliers? Is there a moral or practical difference between lying to get you shunned and bombing your supply lines?  Once again, this qualifies as an active attempt to hamstring the defense of the nation and is no different from fighting for the other side. At the very least, intentional efforts at deception qualify as attempted sabotage. Shooting saboteurs is legally and morally acceptable in my book.

Finally, we return to the blabber. This is the person I suggested could or should be shot.

The Blabber does not have ill intent. He is trying to protect his property rights, and objects very strongly to your use of his property for purposes of defense. He has not shot at you or your troops. He has not threatened you. He does intend to head downtown and raise some trouble about his property, but he does not intend to invent stories, merely to tell them his own way. His rabble-rousing could convince enough people that your unit did something wrong that deserves shunning.

Modern armies require vast amounts of fuel, ammo, spare parts, food, water, trained mechanics, etc. to continue operating, A modern army without resupply will grind to a halt in a few hours. If you are being pursued by an assaulting force, this will very rapidly result in your unit grinding to a halt and being overrun. Tanks without fuel or spares are very expensive, very explosive fixed artillery pieces. Guns without bullets are clubs.

One of the truisms of an assault is that most armies will not take prisoners unless people surrender in significant numbers and offer no defense. After all, the point is to punch a hole in the defenses, and run wild in the rear area. There is not time to deal with prisoners when speed is the key to your success. Thus, if you are being assaulted and the enemy is succeeding, your only real option is to fight and die or run away. If you do not have the fuel to move your tanks and artillery, you have just handed the enemy some shiny new equipment that they can turn on you with a shipment of bullets or a little diesel. Your men are going to have to go in to a fighting withdraw, one of the most difficult, dangerous and tiring movements for any army to pull off. Also, impossible to pull off without bullets.

Losing your supply line means you are, in all likelihood, dead. The Blabber is putting your life, and the lives of all of the men and women under your command in serious jeopardy by trying to get you shunned. Yes, I would shoot him to preserve those lives. I view it as morally identical to shooting a plague carrier who does not know they are infected to prevent them from walking in to a supermarket. The Blabber, like a lot of civilians, is probably not thinking of the consequences for you of his actions. Lack of knowledge and intent to do harm is irrelevant to his impact. He is just as dangerous to you as if he intended to bomb a bridge to stop your resupply.

I'd also suggest that you ask yourself how much time you think a busy commander in the middle of combat has to deal with questions/complaints from behind the line? If some Blabber heads back and comes close to convincing people that you should be shunned, how much manpower can you devote to spreading the truth about your actions? How long will it take to gather the information you need about each incident, and will you be able to do so given the fact that the people involved might be dead, POW's or MIA? Given that most TV and radio stations are probably rubble, and the radio frequencies are probably being jammed, how do you communicate in a timely manner?

War creates a few situations where murder is justified. Civilians never leave until they can hear the enemy's guns. This has been true in every war since we left the trees and decided that walking on two legs might be a good career move. This tends to create problems for military units moving in to the city to defend it. When there are massive columns of refugees trying to flee a city by any means possible, it tends to clog the roads. Most armies will permit firing on civilians under these circumstances if they refuse to make way in reasonable time. Given that they have just been shelled or shot at by the enemy, a lot of civilians are too frightened to do anything but run. Brutal? Yes. Unfortunate? Yes. Effective? Extremely. It only takes doing this once or twice, and from then on, civvies will move when asked. Is it justified? Well, those refugees will pretty rapidly become slaves and/or be captured or killed by the enemy if you don't get to the front to defend the town. Kill five, and you have just saved five thousand.

Finally, ask yourself this: If you and your unit are being shunned because of actual/perceived conduct, what is your incentive to keep fighting? What is your incentive to stay loyal to your country? Why not join the other side? Most people who are willing to fight for AnCap in the first place are not going to just switch sides, but being shunned for doing something you perceived as necessary provides a powerful incentive for people to turn traitor. 

Heinlein Libertarian on March 23, 2010, 02:03:08 am
Sam-

The quantities of munitions you find in a home are not going to do it. First, there is the compatibility problem. Calibers need to match, which is not particularly likely. Military weapons are designed for different purposes from civilian hunting rifles. Furthermore, home defense does not require an assault rifle. Shotguns are going to be a lot more popular. Personal defense means pistols that you can wear with you to work and the store comfortably. In other words, not likely to be a .45.

Second the munitions are probably the wrong type. Even in an AnCap world, I'm not going to have tank or artillery ammunition in my basement. Same goes for heavy machine guns.

Third, the quantities of ammunition you need to fight a battle are HUGE. In WWII, it was estimated that it took about a ton of munitions to kill one enemy soldier. Today, it's a little less thanks to better intelligence and more accurate munitions.

This may seem like quite a bit, but human beings are very tough to kill when they have any sort of cover or protective gear. World War I taught us that you can shell trenches for a full week using everything from phosgene to HE and not kill any more that 20% of the defenders.

Moreover, most firing is done simply to keep the other guy's head down or keep them away from an area. Vast quantities or artillery are dropped on targets like roads, to prevent reinforcement. Mines are generally emplaced so that people will avoid the minefields, rather than step on them.

dough560 on March 23, 2010, 09:35:41 am
To the Heinlein Wanta Be.  I really suggest you read the "American Zone".  Pay attention to the details, you might learn something if it doesn't offend what you believe to be right and true.

Your argument about the SAM sight is a crock.  I served with such a unit during the 70's.  Granted location can be important, but not as important as you make out.  The owner of the prime location doesn't want to let you use his property?  So what.  Go to pan B.  It's commonly done.  A militia group such as you are describing would have site access, contingency and fire plans worked out long in advance.

An armored advance?  During the early 80's during the test program of the Fast Attack Vehicle (FAV), an MP Battalion at Fort Lewis, WA, wiped out an Armored Brigade using a mix of M19 Grenade Launchers, M2 .50 machine-guns, M249 Squad Automatic Weapons and Tow Missile Launchers.  When I said wiped out, I mean to the last vehicle.  Opposing force kill ratio was in the neighborhood of 90%.  That's why the only place you see a FAV is in the movies.  A $20,000 dune buggy with a few thousand in hardware with some motivated operators, ruined the big boys day and their $1,000,000 tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Since the National Firearms Act passed, small arms development went into slow motion.  All refinements of the AR15/M16 whether in materials, ammunition, modifications, action types, sights and lasers were spurred by civilian competition.  The military resisted these refinements until their noses were rubbed in it to the point it could not be ignored.

Your fantasy about ammunition procurement and consequently transportation, has previously been dealt with.  You didn't like the answer.

Ammunition expenditure in battle.  You have people receiving marksmanship training, trained to the lowest common denominator.  It is normal for a soldier to receive 42 rounds of ammunition for zero and qualification on a 1,000 inch (25 yard) range every three months with the M16.  If he is lucky, one time a year he will shoot reactive targets located between 50 and 300 meters.  Only the marine corps does known distance qualification out to 500 meters.  The more people shoot.  The more ammunition they expend and the more they train in range estimation, the higher their hit ratio.  Improved sighting systems (developed for civilian competition) have increased the hit/kill ratio.  The more they train, the higher their confidence and the higher the likely hood of aimed fire on target instead of spray and pray.  Result, less wasted ammunition.

Compare 168 rounds of ammunition for M16 zero, training and qualification for the average soldier for a year.  A civilian who  may shoot that much or more during a practice session.   Additionally factor in the civilian rifle probably will be built for a heavier caliber, capable of hitting harder and out ranging the military rifle or carbine. People who participate in cowboy, three gun, IPSC, IDPA, NRA ..... can be expected to fire thousands of rounds a year.   It is reasonable to expect the libertarian militia members to participate is similar activities, plus individual and unit training.
 
People who have been there, done that, might talk to you depending on your attitude.  If they do, they'll tell you last thing they want to tangle with is a small, well armed, equipped and motivated team.

sams on March 23, 2010, 11:29:20 am


@Heinlein:

I'm not saying that an AnCap society is ''invincible'' ... I'm just saying that they aren't such a ''piece of cake''.
dough560 got it right.

Lets see your point :

1- People will tend to own mostly shootgun for home defense :
Even in the US, where automatic weapons are forbiden to civilians, people tend to upgrade their M16 to full automatic. But lets see, you live in a world NO ONE is bared from owning a FULLY automatic weapons, you going to get stuck with grandpa shootgun  ;D
Because ANY one can get great calibre weapons and purchase kevlar armour, you will basicly see a run for everyone to earn the deadliest most powerful weapons available : Military graded weapons.

2- Not enough ammunition of the proper calibre:
Not really, if you consider ammunition and weapons like any other goods, you will see that the calibre standardization process will be similar like of any other product.
There is no ''compact disc'' supreme authority or Operating system standard. ... markets tend to standardize products, where at least 70% of the customers use standardized products will the other 30% try to use something more exotic. You can see this pattern with operating systems, when Microsoft Windows is practically the standard, with some exotic options for more ''nutty'' guys. why the same selection process don't happen with bullets ?

3- Lack of ''heavy weapons'':
Such a free society will tend to get heavily armed, and the safety agencies, like the ones needed to protect valuable assets (banks vaults, facilities, people) will be the one armed with the biggest calibre and most powerful weapons.
Sure there won't be B-52 or armored tanks, but this is because there a difference of mindset between a national army and private citizen in a militia or security agency:
-army: A almost unlimited supply of cash from the tax payers (the pentagon just override the cost of almost any weapon they develop), so they are not submitted to the pressure of a business, they still love tanks, artillery and fighter jets  ::)
-Private: We have a limited amount of cash and we need to make the most of it  ;) so will not see tanks or aircraft carrier, but instead highly powerful and effective weapon will be preferred to dumber ones

4- Not enough ammunition:

Do you really believe that people will require bullets after the fighting start ? a whole society of free carry weapon will have a LOT of ammunition among suppliers and people.

What an AnCap society won't have is an army with offensive capacities, but will have great defensive capacities.

terry_freeman on March 23, 2010, 05:16:23 pm
In an AnCap society, it will be perfectly legal to own full-auto battle rifles - and this practice will be socially encouraged. The typical homeowner will have such a rifle, and a thousand rounds or more, and will train on a monthly basis, earning prizes and recognition in regular competition. A high percentage will be skilled at 300 and 500 yard distances.  They'll have proper scopes and the skills and equipment to properly allow for range and windage. They'll also have much more powerful equipment, including explosive devices which can destroy tanks. The Afghans are able to improvise such equipment even in their much smaller economy; in an AnCap society, you'll find everything you need to destroy a tank at your local hardware store. Practice sessions will be a rite of passage for teen boys and girls.

Meanwhile, badly-trained conscripts in the hypothetical invading army will be trained to shoot and pray at distances of 100 yards. They will, however, be highly skilled marchers who look splendid in parades.

Recalibrate your thinking. Imagine a world where you and your neighbors trust each other with the most deadly equipment, including the ability to destroy tanks, planes, and ships. Imagine that the ability to project great force is no longer rationed by an inefficient socialist military force, but is abundantly supplied on the free market. 

Think back to the earlier strips of EFT; the tools used to mine asteroids are commonly available - and capable of punching holes in battleships.

pendothrax on March 23, 2010, 05:42:15 pm
As for the highly motivated small groups, I remember a private company composed of ex special forces operatives that contracted with an african government for action against the rather large rebel army having an effect well outside of their raw numbers and equipment.  that is, until the government was pressured into allowing the U.N. to send a rather large and inneffective peacekeeping force instead.  I think what special forces records are available would show the real life examples of small, motivated and well equiped forces causing havoc with large national army type forces. 

And, i have not seen any examples of extermination warfare on the broad scale, throughout history.  Even Tamarlane only created piles of head from cities that DEFIED him.  He still expected to conquer and recieve tribute money from most cities and areas in his path. 

As for the cost of gas agents, consider an artillery shell version to be a few hundred dollars.  This covers roughly a few hundred yards square at most.  Multiply by the size of a country, even say Lichenstien, and this is a large cost.

Now add in the cost of the equipment required to place the gas on the ground.  Now multiply this cost by maintanance, replacement of lost equipment, and manpower costs for operation of the equipment.  possibly multiply the  amount of gas due to air movements, terrain irregularities, and other factors.

this cost becomes rather extreme rather quickly....

wdg3rd on March 23, 2010, 08:48:11 pm

Personal defense means pistols that you can wear with you to work and the store comfortably. In other words, not likely to be a .45.


I'm not sure what you're getting at there.  A .45 Colt Commander was my carry gun for three decades, until it started to wear out and misfire too often.  The Sig I carry now is also .45 ACP.  (And no, I don't have a CCP, as those are almost impossible to get in New Jersey, which makes me a criminal -- as a wise man said, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six).
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

 

anything