ETHICS, LAW & GOVERNMENT
By Robert E. Podolsky

INTRODUCTION

Ethics Ethics are the means by which we decide what actions are permissible and what actions are not. What is less known is the fact that every ethic consists of two parts:

A value that defines what it is that we want more of in our lives, or what we wish to maximize, and
A belief, or system of beliefs, that describes what actions we are to take to obtain more of the value that we seek.

Still less often recognized is the fact that an ethic may be valid or invalid. Valid ethics produce the desired results – an increase in the values sought. Invalid ethics produce the opposite effect – a lessening of that which is sought or desired. As an example, consider the ethic adopted by our country’s founders. The value they wished to maximize was freedom for the country’s people (except possibly slaves and women). The belief system was based on the principles of a democratic republic honoring majority rule. What has been the outcome? Each year but two (1865 and 1920) we have had less freedom than the year before.

Today, through the proliferation of ever more restrictive laws, almost every aspect of our lives is regulated or controlled by our federal, state, county, or municipal governments. Without government permission we cannot own property, drive a car, board a plane, alter our home, open a bank account, operate a business, ingest prescribed medication, carry a firearm, or do any of a thousand other things that our forefathers and foremothers would have considered to be our inalienable rights. In short, the founders of our country chose to adopt an ethic that is invalid – because its adoption produced the opposite effect of that desired.

While we are on the subject of ethics, let’s consider two other specific ethics that are especially relevant to an understanding of the dilemma that humanity currently faces. The first I shall refer to as the Power Ethic. This ethic seeks to maximize power over others in the hands of those who adopt it. The belief system that supports this ethic can be summarized by the statement, “Might makes right”. In other words, those who can afford to buy weaponry and to pay or coerce young men and women to use those arms in battle have the right to exercise power over others for whatever reasons they wish. This is the ethic adopted by those who invented government as-we-know-it in Sumer eight thousand years ago. This ethic is still the creed of those who run the governments of the world today.

At first it might seem that the Power Ethic is valid – because, indeed, those who have adopted it have succeeded in accumulating more and more power over their fellow men and women. But there are secondary consequences. Included among these are wars, terrorism, slavery, hunger, poverty, international strife, drug addiction, interpersonal violence, bureaucracy, oligarchy, environmental degradation, and all manner of crime. If the macroscopic trend continues it is more than likely that the end result will be the total annihilation of all human life on our planet – thus reducing the earth to a radioactive cinder. Like a ubiquitous parasite, those who have adopted the Power Ethic will destroy their host and themselves with it. So in the end the ethic is not valid.

By contrast, consider an ethic that chooses creativity and its logical equivalents as the values to be maximized. Such resources as love, awareness, objective truth, and evolution may be considered as logical equivalents of creativity, because whenever one of these resources is increased they are all increased, and vice versa. John David Garcia, the brilliant author of Creative Transformation, called this ethic the Evolutionary Ethic, so I will do likewise. We might note at this point that all prosperity, and ultimately all happiness, derives from someone’s creativity. The belief system that empowers this ethic begins with the notion that an act is good if it increases creativity or any of its logical equivalents for at least one person without limiting or diminishing creativity for anyone. From this definition a broad range of principles can be derived by simple logic. This ethic, it turns out, is valid. Curiously, the adoption of this ethic generally maximizes prosperity and happiness, even though these are not logical equivalents of creativity. In fact, ethics based on the maximization of prosperity and happiness are not valid – producing poverty and unhappiness instead. From this point on I shall use the terms ethical and unethical in reference to this ethic specifically.

There are several other valid ethics which I choose not to discuss in this article – except to note that each of them proves, upon close examination, to be logical equivalents of the Evolutionary Ethic in that they call for the same behavioral decisions when deciding between alternate courses of action.

From the foregoing we can see that humanity’s BIG PROBLEM is the fact that the world’s governments, without exception, have chosen the Power Ethic as their de facto basis rather than the Evolutionary Ethic or one of its logical equivalents. The BIG QUESTION that humanity faces today is whether this choice is irreversible – and if not, what we must do to avoid the doom that the Power Ethic is leading us toward.
GOVERNMENT BY LAW

In an ethical society freedom is limited by ethical law. belief Those who wish to behave in a parasitic or predatory manner are forbidden to do so. The mistake of our founding fathers was to maximize freedom in such a way that the most predatory, parasitic, and generally unethical persons were permitted to dictate the law, thereby making the rules that allowed the ultra-wealthy to dominate the rest of us. We must reverse this trend if humanity is to survive, let alone thrive. To achieve this end we must understand the nature of ethical law and refute the validity of unethical law. To aid in clarifying this distinction, I shall refer to unethical laws as government edicts, or simply as edicts.

In making this distinction let’s ask the question: What is law? Does a person who has the resources to exercise power over others have the right to do so? If so, might makes right, and anyone who can afford to buy weapons and persuade others to use them to enforce their will has a right to so. This is the premise upon which all of today’s governments are founded. This has been the true basis of law throughout the world for at least eight thousand years, since government was invented in Sumer.

If we reject the validity of this definition, and indeed we should, what is the alternative? To answer this question properly, we note first that all law presumes the use of force or power over others. But it takes only a simple exercise of logic to see that the exercise of power over others is only ethical in self defense against someone who has initiated or threatened the use of force for their own purposes. Therefore ethical laws are only those that provide defense against such unethical acts.

Since everyone has the right to defend themselves against the use of violence, it follows that everyone has the right to delegate to others their authority to defend themselves. From this we conclude that all ethical laws embody this principle: All ethical laws, all legitimate laws, represent a contract under which a group of individuals, each having the right of self defense, agrees to enforce a mutual defense pact. Ethical law can exist for this purpose alone.
Furthermore, we note that all existing laws, and edicts, forbid some act or permit the act only when a tax is paid to the government. Thus, laws and edicts fall into two categories delineated by the Latin names of the categories of acts which they forbid:

Mala in se are acts generally recognized to be evil in and of themselves. These forbidden acts include murder, rape, torture, slavery, theft, robbery, fraud, assault, and a host of related acts long ago recognized as evils by the general public. The forbidding of mala in se is the basis of all legitimate laws – all other laws comprising artifacts of the Power Ethic.
Mala prohibita are acts which are not evil in and of themselves; but which have been forbidden because someone wants to impose their will upon someone else. The vast majority of these Power Ethic edicts, forbidding mala prohibita, are readily recognized by one or more of three characteristics:

a. These edicts take resources (money, for example) away from one group of individuals, who own them, and bestow them upon another group of individuals, who do not own them. Taxes, in their various forms, comprise most of these instances. Government “takings” by eminent domain are another example.

b. These edicts forbid acts which are ethical and/or require acts which are unethical.
c. The enactment of these edicts requires the delegation to a governing body of authority which the legislators do not possess as individuals. In other words, they permit groups of people (e.g. legislators and law enforcement officials) to commit acts which would be illegal if performed by them as individuals.

From the foregoing we can logically conclude that the actions required for the enforcement of edicts forbidding mala prohibita are themselves mala in se. From these simple considerations we can now describe how our legal system must change if we are ever to live in an ethical society. The following description is not sufficient for the creation of an ethical society, but it is necessary. Absent these changes, those who believe that might makes right will continue their parasitic depredations, and the other changes that are necessary (and sufficient) for the emergence of an ethical society will never take place.

CHANGE THE LAW
If we are ever to live in a just, ethical society, the law must be changed. Indeed, the legal system itself must be changed. Stated briefly, this means that we must stop enforcing laws against mala prohibita and delete these edicts from the law books. Let’s examine more closely what such an undertaking entails. We start by reviewing the definition of an ethical act: An act is ethical if it increases creativity or any of its logical equivalents for at least one person, including the person acting, without limiting or diminishing the creativity of anyone.

The following secondary principles follow logically from the definition above and are specifically relevant to the actions of government or the state.

Ownership is absolute:
The first requirement for the formation of a just society is that the public understand what is at stake. The basic principles of ethics and law are simple. They can be taught to children at an early age, beginning with the concept that ownership is absolute. Ownership is not a privilege granted by government – and it may not legitimately be denied or taken away by government except under the following two special circumstances: (a) when the purpose of such confiscation is restitution, whereby property that has been stolen by force, coercion, deceit, or edict-based ploy is returned to its rightful owners or (b) when the property confiscated is used by someone to violate another’s rights, as when a law enforcement person disarms a violent or threatening perpetrator. Any grade-schooler can understand this. It is why as small children we feel violated when our parents insist we share something that we had been told we owned.
Violation of ownership is theft – and theft is unethical:
As a logical consequence, property taxes, estate and inheritance taxes, duties, tariffs, and sales taxes must be abolished, thus acknowledging that government holds no ownership interest in the property currently being taxed. Of course the same principle applies to all other taxes as well.Under our current system, all real property, i.e. real estate, is taxed by government entities, usually at the county level; such taxes constitute a form of rent paid by the would-be owner of the property. This practice would be appropriate if government owned the property. But in reality, government owns nothing that it has not taken from its rightful owners by deceit, force or coercion.
Ongoing theft is slavery:
When someone takes another’s money or property by force or coercion, the theft is called robbery. When this occurs on an ongoing basis, the theft comprises an act of slavery. Thus the taxation of revenue, as in the case of income taxes, is a case at point – it is slavery, a malum in se, and must be abolished for an ethical society to exist.
Unethical means can never achieve ethical ends.
All ethical means are ethical ends in themselves.
The exercise of power over others (coercion) is unethical except in self defense.
No individual has a right to perform any unethical act.
No individual can delegate to another a right that he/she does not possess.
No group (and therefore no government agency) can ethically perform acts which would be unethical if performed by an individual.
No government has a right to perform unethical acts.
Acts of government must be ethical to be legitimate – and therefore government acts which are not ethical are not legitimate.
Only enactment of ethical laws and their enforcement are legitimate acts of government – and therefore written government mandates that allow government to steal from or enslave individuals are not legitimate laws. They are, rather, illegitimate edicts.
Government edicts constitute predatory manipulations of the public in the service of special interests.
The same reasoning applies to unethical regulations created and enforced by all government agencies.
From the above principles we can logically conclude that (1) all legitimate laws must be ethical and that (2) it is unethical, and hence illegitimate, for government to enact predatory edicts in the name of law.

Based on the preceding principles, we can now begin to sort out the specific categories of laws that are legitimate from the illegitimate edicts. The short list is comprised of those laws that are legitimate:

Laws forbidding the initiation or threat of interpersonal violence.
Laws forbidding theft, burglary, robbery, fraud, and contractual deception.
Laws defining ethical contract relations.
Laws defining ethical judicial procedure.
Laws forbidding unethical acts of government.
Laws providing ethical non-monopolistic services on a voluntary subscription basis.
Laws protecting privacy.

It is tempting to say that all other laws are bogus, but it is possible that some valid forms of law may be mistakenly omitted from the above list. So to set the record straight, here is a list (probably incomplete) of some types of government edicts that are clearly illegitimate:

All laws permitting slavery, bondage, and involuntary servitude, be it full-time or part-time, whole-body or partial. All taxes: direct, indirect, and hidden, fall into this category.
All laws that would take a resource away from someone who owns it and gives it, directly or indirectly, to one who does not. Taxes, tariffs, and real estate takings are specifically included in this category, as are all government sponsored subsidies, foreign aid, charity, and “bailouts”. All government activities paid for by confiscatory taxes are included.
All laws regulating trade by imposing duties, taxes, or other fees that raise consumer prices on all goods or on specific goods selected by the regulating agency.
Laws mandating trade embargos or sanctions.
Laws that nurture parasitism at home or abroad.
Laws requiring the purchase of permits before the owner of a property can alter or repair an item of real property.
Laws requiring government inspection of real property that has been modified or repaired.
All zoning and land-use laws.
Laws requiring acquisition and use of a social security number or comparable identifier.
Laws permitting surveillance, search, and seizure without probable cause and due process. All laws permitting government access to private records without probable cause fall into this category.
Laws forbidding the use of strong encryption of private records and those forbidding the sale of software that provides such encryption.
All Laws permitting “emergency powers” permitting suspension of these legal limitations of government power.
All laws proposing to regulate the “professions”.
Every kind of licensing law, including (but not limited to) drivers’ licenses, business licenses, professional licenses, hunting and fishing licenses, automobile registration laws, and laws mandating various insurances, such as automotive liability insurance, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance.
Laws providing financial nurturance of the sick, the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, the business failure, the bankrupt bank, the collapsing foreign government, etc. These are not legitimate functions of government under any circumstances.
Our entire system of government-run courts must be dismantled and replaced with a new private system, paid for by voluntary subscriptions; else judges will continue to have conflicts of interest when judging cases involving the practice of taxation. In the meantime, tax evasion defendants must demand that judges in such cases recuse themselves, because their salaries are directly at stake in the outcome.

HOW NOW?
It should be obvious to the reader that the changes to the law and to the legal system outlined above will be abhorrent to those who seek power over others and who profit from the depredations of government. Those in power today will stop at nothing to remain in power and to sustain their policies of slavery and corruption. Their first line of defense will be to persuade the public that the current system of government and law is necessary for the public’s well-being. Those whose livelihoods derive from taxes will tend to agree. Those whose professional turf is protected from the competition of free enterprise will be happy to believe that government acts in their best interests.

The first priority for those of us who want to live in a thriving ethical society must be to demonstrate that the current system is not necessary – that, in fact, there is at least one viable alternative. Let’s see how this might be accomplished.
The primary reason that most people fear anarchy and submit to government is the fact that government is organized. Government is based on an organizational principle. It presumes that hierarchy is the only valid form of organization that can result in a law-abiding society. But hierarchy was invented as a means of power-brokerage – the top-down sharing of power that allows those who participate to receive some of the benefits presumed to be owned by those at the top of the hierarchical pyramid. This presumption is directly derived from the Power Ethic. But we know from the ethics that this is invalid. Therefore we must also recognize that hierarchy is unethical. If we are ever to live in an ethical society we must replace hierarchy, as manifested in all our institutions, with an ethical form of organization. How can we do this?
There are many ethical organizations and many systems of ethical organization – but they all have one thing in common: Participation is voluntary, and therefore all group decisions are based on consensus – the unanimous consent of the group. For this to work, membership in the group must be based upon an ethical contract. There are many laws on the books that set out to define a valid contract – some are well written – others are not. The best ones contain the following basic elements and provisions:

The parties to the contract are clearly identified.
The purpose of the contract is clearly defined.
What each party to the contract contributes to the group participating is specified.
The liability that each participant undertakes – and the limitations thereto – is defined.
What each party to the contract is to receive in exchange for his/her participation and contribution is clearly set forth (the quid pro quo).
The duration of the agreement is specified together with the means by which the contract may be terminated.
The right of any participant to withdraw from the contract is affirmed; and the legal and financial consequences of such withdrawal are specified.
The means by which the contract can, and may be, amended are detailed.
Violations of the contract are defined, together with the various consequences of such violations – including various penalties to which violators may be subject.
The separability of the terms of the contract is affirmed – assuring that if some portion of the contract is later deemed invalid that the remainder of the contract shall remain in effect.
The means by which disputes concerning the contract and other matters are to be resolved is specified.
The court having jurisdiction (if any) over disputes concerning the contract is specified.
Affirmation that each person signing the contract has read it, understands it, and has received adequate legal advice to understand all the possible legal consequences that may result from becoming a party to it.
Affirmation that each person signing the contract does so of their own free will.
Signatures of the parties and (where applicable) signatures of witnesses.

At this point it behooves us to consider the myth of the “social contract”. Many apologists for the status quo assert that we are all born as parties to a contract – and that, as a consequence, we are all subject to liabilities defined by the state or government. In other words, in return for the various benefits, real or imagined, that we receive from the government, we owe the government a portion of whatever resources we derive from our experience of life. We should note that the only people who promote this myth are those who want to spend our money or to exercise power over us through the enforcement of edicts forbidding mala prohibita. They would have us believe that they have a valid claim on the money that we receive in exchange for our creativity and productivity.

Now ask yourself:

Did I sign this so-called contract?
Did I voluntarily agree to the terms of this contract?
Does this contract promise to give me something that I actually want?
If so, am I free to acquire that which I want in other ways?
Does this contract contain a valid exit clause?
Does this contract specify the quid pro quo that tells me what I am to contribute and what I am to receive in return?
Does this contract specify what actions on the part of government constitute a breach of the contract and the penalties that attach thereto?
Does this contract affirm my right to withdraw from the contract?

Even proponents of this mythological contract only answer “yes” to the last question above. They say I can withdraw from the contract by giving up my citizenship and leaving the country. This is the logical equivalent of saying, “submit to the contract or else…” And what is the “else”? It is the loss of every birth-right that is mine – inviolate and inalienable.

Thus we see that the enforcement of this fictitious contract by edict constitutes mala in se – an evil (unethical) act in and of itself, unsupported even by the government’s own contract laws. I categorically reject the “social contract” and defy anyone to write a cogent, rational, ethical defense of it.

So how can we organize a group of persons in a manner that is ethical and lawful? More specifically, how can we maximize the creativity of the group to be organized within a set of ethical constraints? The requirements of a legitimate contract, as specified above, comprise a good starting point. The mandates of the Titanian Code of Honor can be added because they are compatible with these contractual principles and expand somewhat the scope of the agreement upon which the group is to be organized. If properly enforced, this addition requires that the group will undertake to achieve only ethical outcomes and to use only means which are ethical ends in themselves. For a still broader set of constraints the group may choose to incorporate the Titanian Bill of Ethics into its founding documents or bylaws, as illustrated in the Constitution of Titania.

If we want the group being organized to be as creative as possible, which is a highly desirable goal, then we have to consider the size of the group as one of the variables that must be optimized as well. The twenty years of research on this subject by the late John David Garcia proves, with a high degree of confidence, that the optimum number of participants is eight, where, as nearly as possible, the numbers of men and women in the group are equal. Small variations from this 4×4 formula are acceptable. So a group of four men and five women works, as does a group of four men and three women. In either of these cases the number of one gender does not exceed the number of the opposite gender by more than one, and the total varies from eight by no more than one. For convenience I call a group defined in this way, and trained in an optimized communication process, an Octologue. The easily learned communication process makes unanimous decision-making fairly easy and acts as a creativity amplifier. John David Garcia invented the process and through my own research I have enhanced it – we call it “autopoesis”.

Although implicit in the above description, it may not be obvious that the decisions of an Octologue are constrained to be unanimous. Majority rule is specifically not acceptable, because it violates the principles of the Evolutionary Ethic. The sole exception to this mandate is that the group may unanimously decide to delegate its authority to an individual or to a committee – such authority to be revocable by any member of the Octologue if the designated member or group fails to act in accordance with the unanimous will of the Octologue as a whole.

If you have been following this discussion closely it should be obvious that there are many valid ethical purposes that call for more than eight or nine participants. How are these to be achieved with only eight or nine people? Well of course they cannot. But the solution to this difficulty is fairly simple. For a project requiring more than eight people multiple independent Octologues can contract to work in concert toward a common ethical goal or purpose. I call such a contractual concatenation of Octologues a Holomatic Matrix – or HoloMat for short. Employing the contractual principles described previously, there is no limit to the number of people that can participate in a HoloMat. For really big projects a HoloMat could consist of millions of people!

IN CONCLUSION

The foregoing subject-matter raises many questions that are beyond the scope of this brief introductory article. Included among them are:

What massive evidence exists to indicate the validity of the Evolutionary Ethic?
Why should we believe the Evolutionary Ethic truly has the beneficial transformative power suggested?
How can a socially stable society be attained and maintained without resort to the use of taxation?
How can laws against mala in se be enforced without resort to edicts forbidding mala prohibita?
How can those who benefit the most from governmental adoption of the Power Ethic be persuaded to give up their coercive power in favor of the Evolutionary Ethic?
Can this transformation be achieved without resort to armed revolution?
What resources will be required to bring about such a transformation?
Once achieved, what effects will the transformation have on the economy, foreign policy, business, education, and labor relations?

Answers to these questions exist. But the most important question you must answer yourself: How committed are you to living in a truly ethical society – and what will be your contribution to its creation?

Get pragmatic advice about S – please go through the webpage. The times have come when proper info is really only one click of your mouse, use this possibility.

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

The state of Colorado recently passed Gun Bill “HB-1224″. In a nutshell the bill prohibits magazines that contain 10 or more cartridges, and shot-shell magazines that contain more than five rounds. Colorado clearly didn’t learn the same lesson the rest of the country did with the Clinton Bill that basically enacted the same laws. The laws have since come off the books, and there is little evidence to prove that the Clinton Magazine Ban had any effect on Gun related offenses whatsoever. Even so, it’s very clear that the Colorado Governor prefers Gun Laws over jobs and revenue in his state.

What is very clear is the amount of jobs and revenue that Colorado is going to lose as a result of this new ban. One of the worlds largest firearm magazine producers, “MagPul”, based it’s main production facilities in Colorado. Unfortunately, the company is now looking to move as a result of the new legislation. Not only is Magpul leaving, but so is a successful firearm optics company called “HiViz”. The Outdoor Channel has also decided to immediately halt all production in the state as a result of the new law.

The Governor of Colorado had this to say regarding the moves: ”We realize some companies may choose to relocate, and we respect their decision to do so,” said Eric Brown, a spokesman for Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper. Now there’s a Governor who’s going to stand his ground no matter the cost to his state’s economy. We will not spend any time bashing the Governor for his stance, as this sort of thing has a way of being righted at the polls. Good luck on your next re-election campaign Governor…..you’re gonna need it!

There was a lunatic that murdered innocent moviegoers in Aurora. This was a tragedy, and our hearts and prayers go out to the families. Unfortunately, this ban will do absolutely “Nothing” to curtail a would be mass murderer if he/she decides to go on a rampage. Large magazines will still be bought and sold in Colorado, just not legally. This will undoubtedly give the bad guys the upper hand. Only criminals will own these high capacity magazines now. So I guess you could say the law did accomplish something. It made the law abiding public less able to defend themselves against criminals who could care less if they’re breaking the law by having a 50 round magazine in their rifle.

In summary, the only thing left to say is that I’m glad I don’t reside in Colorado. By the looks of things, there are many there who strongly oppose this new ban. So much so that they are looking to leave the state. We understand that your intentions are admirable Colorado. You should have put a LOT more thought in to this bill before passing it. In the long run it’s going to keep millions of tax dollars out of your economy, and drive down tourism, hunting, and shooting sports. Colorado has sent a clear message. Luckily this nation is still a Free one that allows it’s citizens and companies to take up residence elsewhere. We at GRFA don’t blame these people for leaving. That’s exactly what we would do if based there. By the time they figure it out and make the necessary changes it will be too late to repair the damage…….it’s a real shame.

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

Ever wondered if an in-law, a neighbor, or even a co-worker has a criminal record? Need to check Marriage Records, Birth Records, etc.? This service has got you covered 1,000%. Gain access to a database containing over 1 Billion Records! Yes, you heard us right….over 1 Billion with a “B”. With this affordable service you can Investigate Anyone Fast! Don’t take our word for it, give it a try and see for yourself. You will not be disappointed! Click HERE to be directed to the service.

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

It’s been a tense week with the Boston Marathon bombing, the explosion in Waco, Texas, and the Ricin letters sent to a Senator and the President. Today, the 19th of April, 2013 marks a date when multiple law enforcement came together for a common cause. To apprehend or terminate the bomber who was holed up in a Boston neighborhood. According to early reports the Boston Bomber Coward was Caught hiding in a boat in a homeowners back yard. Evidently he was injured during a shootout with police, and is listed in Serious condition at a local hospital.

Our country seems to attract the most bold of psychopaths. Our free society seems to bring out the best in the best, and unfortunately, the evil in the worst. What was very apparent today was the fact that our country came together for a common cause. To bring an evil 19 year old suspect to justice. It takes a real special kind of coward to leave a bomb on a crowded street in order to kill the most people possible. There is no discrimination, old, young, male, female. These cowards are the scourge of society. Their intentions are never clear, except for the fact that they all want to kill Americans. What is it about us that makes people from other countries want to kill us? We represent all things that people of oppressed and famine stricken countries should aspire to be. Free to speak, worship, protect, and live however we choose. Why are those qualities that make people want to kill us? Does being the greatest country on earth automatically place a giant bullseye on our foreheads? Obviously we don’t think so, but there are some in other countries that would argue.

All we can summarize with is the fact that because Americans are vigilant and determined to bring those to justice that intend to do us harm, we can sleep a little bit easier tonight knowing one of the Evil Doers has been apprehended and will never again target Americans. For those of you in other countries who may read this article, don’t hate us because we live free! Our society is full of patriotic people who love their country and it’s people. Even though we come from so many different ethnic backgrounds. That is what makes us so great! God Bless America…..Land that I Love!

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

Gun Liberals Defeated

It was undoubtedly doomed from the start. President Obama’s administration introduced legislation that would have limited Assault Weapon production, reduce magazine capacities, and expand Federal Background checks to all states. The only bill that really ever stood a chance of passing was the background check. But as the battle wore on, it became clear how the country really felt about these proposals, and the Gun Control Liberals are Defeated in true American fashion.

What the Obama Administration fails to grasp is the fact that gun control is already being properly managed at the state level, and any further requirements would be the same as double-taxation. What do we mean by that? Well along with the state background checks already in place in most states, now you would have the additional check and registration of gun purchases from the Federal Government. This check would definitely come with another registration fee to cover the cost of the new “Department” that would have to be created to manage such a task. This would have to be subsidized with federal tax dollars. Great! Just what we need, another tax on a process that’s already in place at the state level. No Mr. President, the people have spoken. We are more than content with the already burdening process it takes to buy a firearm in this country. Adding another step at this point is simply ridiculous.

With the bills losing all of their punch on the Senate floor, we must commend our great citizens who took to the phones, mailboxes, and doorsteps of our local and state level governments to express our disapproval of these new proposals. It reiterates the fact that the citizens of this great country still have some control over our Federal Government. Let’s not forget the NRA, and all of the other great organizations who lobbied against these new proposals. Without funding it could have taken a turn for the worst as far as the voting was concerned.

President Obama made used the failure to express his disappointment by holding a press conference. “All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation. And with that, hopefully we can put this blatant disregard for the Second Amendment to rest. In some cases the voice of the few can influence the minds of the many. But in this case we were talking about personal protection of both family and home. This is something the great citizens of this country do not take lightly Mr. President. While you and your family are heavily guarded by the Secret Police and their fully automatic weapons, the “average” citizen is forced to do the same, but on a much smaller scale, and with far less resources. We did exactly what any sensible society did in this case. We voiced our opinions and made our choice clear. We do not want the Federal Government restricting our Second Amendment rights as American Citizens.

Join the Forum discussion on this post

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

Just click image

First I must apologize to my loyal readers, as well as those of you here for the first time. We make it a point to bring you topics relevant to the Second Amendment, but this is something I recently chose to participate in so I wanted to share it with you. I want you to know that when it comes to offers like this, there is no greater skeptic than “yours truly”. But after looking deeper in to this program I soon realized that there is so very little to lose. Consequently, there are massive gains to be made. What am I talking about exactly? It’s a new mobile App that allows members to earn a commission by promoting the app to new members. Now wait before you click away. The app’s concept is based on “self help and personal development”. What does this mean exactly? Well I can show you much faster than I can explain. Just click here and check it out for yourself. This is a fantastic opportunity to make a supplemental income very easily. Again, please remember that it’s very rare that we will go to the effort of interrupting our normal article flow in order to bring you something like this. So please take the time to check it out: http://www.iLivingApp.com/vipentry 

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

The Ruger 10/22 is the perfect project to customize a rifle to fit you and your personality.

There are many reasons why a shooter looking to build a custom rifle should consider the Ruger 10 22. The Ruger 10 22 is a perfect starter build because it’s very affordable relative to an AR, Remington 700 build. I built a custom 10 22, and let me tell you, it’s probably the most fun, least expensive rifle in my arsenal. It’s commonly known to anyone who’s familiar with buying firearms and ammunition that the .22 cartridge is by far the most affordable. Combine that with some experimental combinations, and you have yourself something very special. For example, you can purchase Sub-Sonic .22 caliber ammo for just a few cents more per round. Use this ammo with a very accurate bull barrel with a muzzle brake. Now you have a little to no recoil, extreme accuracy, and decibel levels that remind you of a suppressed rifle. It’s just too much fun to fire this weapon. As a matter of fact, I have to pick a fight with my wife at the range in order to get a turn behind the Ruger 10 22.

Now let’s talk about build cost. First things first, we need a doner rifle. This could be an old beat up squirrel rifle that sets in your coat closet. Or it could be a like new rifle. You can always convert this rifle back to it’s factory state rather quickly, so have no fear of breaking down that showroom new rifle. Let’s assume you must buy a new doner because you don’t own a 10 22. That will set you back close to $240.00. This will most likely be the most expensive single purchase you’ll have to make. See, I told you this was affordable. Once you have the factory rifle, it’s time to decide on a stock. There are many ways to go here. There are hunting styles, varmint styles, tactical styles, benchrest styles, etc. The choices here are plentiful, so it’s best to have a general direction you want to go with your build. For the sake of this article, let’s assume you’re going the tactical route. Pro Mag makes an excellent polymer stock that can be had for as little as $99.00. Here’s a look at the one I used: ProMag Archangel Deluxe Target Stock, Ranger Green Polymer This stock is lightweight, yet is sturdy enough to manage a .930 bull barrel with no issues. We might as well go ahead and discuss barrels. When it comes to barrels there are two main things to consider, weight and length. They basically go hand in hand because the longer the barrel the heavier it will be. Consequently, barrel O.D., or Outside Diameter like a .930″ bull barrel will add extra weight to your rifle. If you’ll be using this rifle for squirrel or rabbit hunting for example, you wouldn’t want a heavy bull barrel due to the extra weight.

At this point you basically have a custom rifle. Add your favorite optic to this rig and you’re in business. This reminds me that you will have to buy a picatinny rail for your rifle, but these can be had at a reasonable price as well. Here’s the one I used: UTG .22 Tactical Low Profile Rail Mount (#22)

As far as optics go, if you go with the bull barrel for example, you want an optic that’s proportionate to the size of the rifle. Keep in mind that we’re not dealing with a lot of recoil here. This gives us many more options in the lower end of the price range of optics. I went with a scope made by a company called Osprey. This scope is not only affordable, but the extreme magnification will allow you to see your hits on target easily at 100 yards without  the need for a spotting scope. That in itself makes a high powered scope worth considering. Here’s a link to a great deal on high mag glass: NcStar 10-40X50AOE Red Illuminated Scope Rangefinder/Green Lens/Ring/Sunshade (SEFR104050G)

At this point you could walk away and have a great shooting platform that will give you countless years of fun. But, if you’re like me, you will want to make sure the action has the best components as well. If you place a premium on accuracy, you will want to make this part of your build a necessity as well. The real beauty of the Ruger 10 22 is the simple design of the action. The lower trigger housing is made and sold as a single unit. So it’s basically a drop and go situation. The bolt is almost as easy, and can be replaced in minutes as well. Here’s a high quality drop in trigger assembly by Timney that has an outstanding reputation: Timney Ruger 10/22 #1022 C Trigger This one’s top of the line, but you can find these in a much cheaper price range. If you want a guide to walk you through your build, this is the one to have: Customize the Ruger 10/22

Overall, the Ruger 10 22 build can be built by the novice gunsmith. This does not mean you should take on this project yourself if you have little or no experience with a build like this. Check with your local shooting range to find a reputable gunsmith to assemble your rifle for you. You should be able to get this done at a reasonable price. I can tell you from personal experience, my custom 10 22 ranks as one of, if not the top choice for overall range fun that I own. This is a powerful statement as I own many rifles and pistols that the Ruger is up against. It’s for the reasons in this article that I believe a Ruger 10 22 build is a perfect starter custom for a shooter that wants a real custom rifle that won’t set you back thousands. Did I mention it’s a blast to shoot as well! Get yourself a Hot Lips loader, Butler Creek 50 Round Hot Lips Loader 10/22, and a couple of 50 round magazines and you have yourself a winning combination.

Here’s another pic of this beast: 

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

The US Senate finalized vote number 91 on March 23rd, 2013. GRFA is making a point to inform it’s readers as to how the votes went, and to understand just where your States Senators stand on such a vital piece of Legislation. There has been a lot of rumor floating around the country with regard to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Vote and what it means for the Second Amendment in the US. For the record, let’s clearly define just what the Senators were voting for/against. Statement of Purpose: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” This vote clearly has more significance than the local/nationwide media are willing to admit. It’s becoming more and more apparent that the current Federal Government’s politicians fight like schoolchildren at every turn. They disagree so often that we must take action if we’re to see any real legislation passed. Luckily for us, there were just enough Senators who believe in our Second Amendment and what it represents for our country.

This information is a clear indicator of where your state stacks up against those in favor of the Second Amendment, and those who are looking for radical changes to our Fundamental right to protect ourselves and our families. Here is how the voting went:

Alphabetical by Senator Name:

Now, if you want to protect your right to keep and bear arms, use this vote at the polls to make your voice heard. While it’s important to have a clear balance in Government, it should be noted that only Democrats voted in favor of allowing the United Nations the power to decide the fate of our Second Amendment. It should also be noted that there were a few Democrats who voted to keep the United Nations out of our country’s Fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Rather than list them individually, simply study the chart above to learn where your state stood on this very important vote. It’s very discouraging as to just how close we came on this. With 53 YEA’s, and 46 NAY’s, we clearly have some work to do at the polls if we want to ensure our Second Amendment freedom.

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

I said I would never spend this kind of dough on a custom rifle. I’m sure you’ve all heard the phrase “never say never”. Surprisingly the process what actually a lot of fun, and my Remington 700 Custom Build is Finished. I met some great new people in the process, and learned a lot about custom gun building and how it’s done. I can tell you that if you’re considering going down this road you must be patient, vigilant, and steadfast in your decisions. With that said, the final product is a platform that I will be very happy and competitive with for many years to come. I will also tell you that if you don’t possess one of those virtues I mentioned above, you can always buy a complete rig and stay within your budget. There are many fine precision rifles being made today that stand out on the range. Brands like Tikka (Sako), Remington, and Savage, just to name a few.

What does it take to create a custom bolt action rifle that you will be happy with? It will take a lot of study and homework on your part if you’re to be successful. You must consider your budget first and foremost. Can you build the custom rifle you want with the amount of funds on hand? Once you decide that, then you can begin the process.

I would like to share with you the components that made up my build, along with a few images of the final product. First you must decide on a caliber. Caliber choice will point you in one of two directions with regards to your action. There are “short” and “long” bolt actions depending on the caliber you choose. I went with the .308 caliber due to it’s accuracy, versatility, and high choice of bullets to choose from for both hunting, as well as competition. On the other hand, I also own a 7mm magnum, which is part of the “long action” platform. A little research on line with tell you right away which you’ll need based on your caliber decision. Basically it comes down to length of the cartridge in question. After you’ve made your caliber choice it’s on to the brand of action you want to use. The most common action used by builders today is the tried and true Remington 700 action. It’s versatility and proven reliability make it a favorite among builders. The Remington action is cylindrical, making a base platform that works for all types of setups. When it comes to the action there are a few things to consider besides long or short. There are Benchrest actions that can be had for a premium price, as well as Stainless Steel actions, or the traditional blued steel. If you plan on painting your rig you could save some cash by going with the blued action. The Benchrest, or 40X  Remington actions come in either a single shot or repeater style. This simply means there is a cutout in the bottom of the action to accept either a magazine, or a spring loaded floorplate to hold more than one cartridge. Smiths will tell you that the single action is the preferred for it’s overall strength, but I personally don’t think there’s much difference The benefits of having say a 10 round magazine at the ready far outweigh the debate over the strength of the action.

Next we must decide on a barrel. There are also many things to consider when choosing a barrel. Manufacturer, twist, overall length, fluting, muzzle brake, etc. Twist rates will require a complete article, so for now we will stick with the build summary. There are many great barrel makers out there today that have excellent reputations among competitive shooters. Brands like Bartlein, Lilja, Brux, Rock Creek, just to name a few. We recommend joining a forum to gain knowledge and opinions about different barrel manufacturers. We have initiated a forum here, but due to the fact that it’s fairly new and our members are just finding out that it’s here, you may want to check back to our forum in the future for related topics. Barrel taper and length will have a huge impact on the overall weight. While many prefer a Palma or Heavy Varmint barrel, the trade off is weight gain. Many pounds in most cases. Take this in to consideration when deciding what you’re going to be using this platform for. If you’ll be hunting and toting this rifle over long distances, you’ll definitely want to stay away from the two I just mentioned.  Barrel availability is a big deal here. Most barrel makers can take several months to fill a custom order. Something to keep in mind while deciding.

Next would be your stock or chassis, depending on personal preference. I went with a chassis from Accuracy International. Why? Because my homework gave me all the data I needed to make a solid decision. The functionality, looks, and performance were everything I was looking for in a chassis. The basic differences between a stock and chassis are a chassis is pre-molded or forged to accept the barreled action right away without any modification. Whereas a custom stock requires a lot of modification to accept a barreled action.

From there you want to consider Optics, or your scope for the rig. There are a slough of choices in the marketplace when it comes to Scope selection. You must decide what features you will need based on the type of shooting you will be doing primarily. If your goal is to shoot at longer distances, say 300 yards and beyond, you should consider a high magnification scope from the 20X to 40X magnification. If going the high magnification route like I did, you will want a Variable objective, or “parallax” adjustment opposite the windage turret. This will allow you to quickly gain focus of your target at different distances and magnifications. Stay tuned for the series of follow up articles that highlight more details of the bid, as well as custom load development and how important it is. Meanwhile, here is a glimpse of the finished product.

Join the Forum discussion on this post

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson

Gun Laws

November saw a statewide passing of a new Amendment that will strengthen Gun Rights in the great state of Louisiana for years into the future. This is going to arguably fly in the face of the Federal Governments attempts to restrict Gun Rights across the nation. There are many states enacting similar legislation, like Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Alabama, and Iowa, just to name a few. The NRA and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal promoted the amendment. This Amendment in Louisiana makes gun ownership a fundamental right. The amendment also calls for Strict Scrutiny of proposed gun laws in the future. While the other states are still tied up in court, voters in Louisiana passed the measure by an astounding 73% to 27%. Of course we all know what that was……a Landslide victory for the Second Amendment, and all gun owners in Louisiana.

Louisiana has got it right folks. Instead of our Federal government trying to decide what’s best for our citizens, we need to remember that our Second Amendment is a Fundamental Right created by the forefathers of this great nation. The simple fact that these politicians think they can override, modify, degrade, or criticize that right have another thing coming. As a nation we can’t sit idly by while these Liberals and their ideals that don’t match that of the citizens of this great country attempt to force legislation down our throats. We at GRFA promote a challenge to you as Americans with a sworn duty. That duty is to vote in the local and Federal elections. Although we have the great folks at the NRA in our corner, as well as many local representatives, the quickest way to stamp out these individuals and their radical ideas is to Vote Them Out! There are many other things we can do that will make a difference, but voting will have a lasting impact that can’t be ignored or silenced over time.

The hair stands up on the back of my neck just thinking about the idea that someone in government has somehow twisted the Second Amendment in to anything less than what it is. We have a Fundamental Right to protect our Families, Homes, and Possessions from those that intend to do us harm with the greatest equalizer there is, a firearm! With crime on the rise in many areas of the country due to the record breaking unemployment lines, we need our Second Amendment protected more than any other time in our history. If we don’t take a stand now and make our voices heard it will only embolden these politicians in government to limit or destroy other freedoms we regard so highly in our country.

I will sum up my rambling with a recent position that Rand Paul has taken that indicates just how ridiculous these gun restrictions are. Most of the advocates of Gun Control legislation are in fact protected daily by men with guns. This Hipocrisy must not go unchecked. It seems only fitting that these legislators do nothing to abide by the very principle they are advocating. It’s no different than a 350 lb Professor teaching a health and fitness course. Or telling our children not to smoke, while a lit cigarette hangs from our lips. These analogies may seem ridiculous to you, but think about it for a second. Is this not exactly how these officials are behaving? At the end of the day you must decide what you’re willing to tolerate. God Bless You, and God Bless America.

Join the Forum discussion on this post

Join our fight for the Second Amendment - "I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery"- Thomas Jefferson