Why we prep
Here’s another reason why you – and your friends and family – should prep:
Sometimes it gets hard to distinguish between dumb or evil, based on the bad actions taken by people. That’s not to say folks can’t be some degree of both in specific situations, or even in lifelong behavior. But there is a difference. And I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, because far too often the results of their actions – whether caused by evil or stupidity – are the same.
Case in point: Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican congressman, has introduced a bill (with 28 co-sponsors as of this writing) that would “…prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.”
I don’t know too much about Rep. Curbelo, so it’s hard for me to assign him the appellation of “evil.” But I don’t have any problem with considering him to be as dumb as a box of rocks. I mean really, what is any semi-auto rifle but a combination of parts? What is the currently acceptable rate of fire for a semi-auto rifle? Any two new rifles, fresh from the manufacturer’s box, can have wildly different rates of fire based on the types of materials used in their construction, the recoil mechanisms used to cycle the gun, the trigger pull weight and travel distance, and a host of other design variations.
Ostensibly, this bill was introduced as a knee-jerk reaction to the mass-shooting in Las Vegas. Evil (but legal) “bump-stocks” were being added to semi-auto rifles (legally) so as to use the gun’s mechanical recoil to “increase the rate of fire” (legally).
But here’s the bad news for Rep. Curbelo. You can cause a semi-auto rifle, pistol or shotgun to “bump-stock” with a:
And just for fun, here’s a guy that’s near “bump-fire” fast – and far more accurate – while pulling the trigger each time manually:
So unless Rep. Curbelo and his co-sponsors plan to ban sticks, cloth loops or fingers, his bill is stupid.
Or maybe it’s evil. Because leaving the actual interpretation of this vague and open-ended law to the bureaucrats to interpret and enforce means practically anything (including whole classes of firearms) could be considered illegal.
Rep. Curbelo and his fellow-travelers should be ashamed of themselves. But they won’t be. If they’re dumb, they won’t understand why; and if they’re evil, they won’t care.
Lots of people still argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, so let me reprint my more modern translation:
A well-equipped and armed populace is imperative in keeping any government from becoming a police state. Therefore, the God-given right of every American to own and carry tools of self-defense comparable to those issued to agents of the state must remain outside of governmental control.
And that’s one of the reasons we prep.
I’m going to take the rest of this week’s column to take issue with a post from last week by fellow WND columnist Chuck Norris, whose piece was titled: “Chuck Norris wonders if rural living is unhealthy”
Now my admiration of Mr. Norris as a Christian, a patriot, and a moral example is second to none. In fact, Mr. Norris and I share a number of things in common. We’re both devilishly handsome, and many times in my life people have noted Mr. Norris bears a striking resemblance to me. We both are blessed with beautiful and intelligent wives and attractive, decent children. Mr. Norris and I are both veterans and we are equally wealthy, since we are both unconditionally loved by the Lord and share the same financial stake in the sun, the moon and the stars. We also both have the same amount of land that we can comfortably afford. Chuck Norris is a famous and beloved actor in numerous movies and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and I once was voted “Best actor of the year” at my 400-student country high school. (Got a plaque for it too. Just sayin’.)
It’s kind of amazing that we’ve never met, but … busy lives and all that. He’s making movies and kicking the cumulative rear-ends of numerous ninjas, and I’m shoveling out stalls; but we remain close. And I’m sure he reads my column every week.
But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the fact that Chuck Norris is a city boy. Sure, he was born in a small town in Oklahoma, but by the age of ten his family moved to Southern California. Today he owns a lovely mansion in the hills above Dallas and a gentleman’s ranch outside of Navasota, Texas; but for most of his professional life he’s been an urbanite. Nothing wrong with that. We can’t all be so fortunately rural.
But some of the “detriments” of country living that Mr. Norris cites in his column come from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and are notably incorrect, misleading, and ignorant of rural attitudes.
In his column, Mr. Norris says: “.. .people in remote areas often feel overlooked and forgotten.”
Mr. Norris, I can assure you that being overlooked and forgotten by the government is not considered a negative out here in the hinterlands. Point of fact, my country cousins and I don’t feel nearly as overlooked as we’d like.
Is prepping the right thing for to do for Christians? Or should we just be trusting in the Lord? Learn about that balance in “Be Thou Prepared” by Carl Gallups – “Equipping the Church for Persecution and Times of Trouble.”
Other statements from the Chuck Norris column: “… residents of rural areas in the United States tend to be older and sicker than city folks. … They have higher rates of poverty, less access to healthcare and are less likely to have health insurance.”
The census graphic shown above is a little hard to see (full-sized version can be found here), but you’ll note country folk have lower poverty rates than urbanites. True, the median age is higher (in my neck of the woods, that’s because city retirees are flooding into the area, finally able to escape the rat-race), but the number of those living in the sticks who are under the age of 18 is well within a statistical-margin-of-error equality when compared to city dwellers.
Mr. Norris adds: “It is also noted that specific environmental hazards such as long travel distances to specialty and emergency care facilities put rural residents at higher risk of death. Car crashes are a leading cause of death nationwide. While collisions are more common on urban roads, it was found that fatalities occur more often in rural regions.”
Actually, it’s also a long travel distance to get a haircut (that’s why I cut mine at home, increasing the danger of razor-burn), to go to the store, to the mail box, to school, to friends’ homes, etc. That’s one of the reasons we live here: we enjoy the space. There are statistically less fatal car crashes in New York City because 60 percent of New Yorkers don’t own a vehicle. And we country folks own a lot of vehicles: cars, trucks, tractors, ATVs, and the odd MRAP.
Let’s highlight a few of the census findings from above. Country folk are:
- More likely to be married
- Less likely to be living alone
- Children are more likely to live in a married household
- More likely to be home owners
- We also have lower crime rates, less riots, and less Antifa fat-heads … less liberals all around, to be accurate.
(Heck, maybe we should take a closer look at the horrible conditions in urban areas. What do you say, Chuck?)
Norris says: “Americans living in rural areas are much more likely to die by suicide than those living in urban areas.”
Now that’s kind of problematic for a couple of reasons. Consider the following from a recent CDC report on suicide:
- Suicide rates for Black non-Hispanics in rural areas were consistently lower than suicide rates for Black non-Hispanics in urban areas
- White non-Hispanics have the highest suicide rates in metropolitan counties, while American Indian/Alaska Native non-Hispanics have the highest rates in rural counties
So let’s see: Country-living Americans of African ancestry are less likely to kill themselves and white guys like me are more likely to kill themselves in metropolitan areas. And rural Indians have the highest suicide rates. Since there are roughly 2.6 million Indians living rurally, I wonder how much their suicide rates are skewing the stats.
Look, suicide is a pity and a shame (I lost my one of best friends to suicide). But it’s not a pandemic and it’s used too often as a “We have to do something! Anything!” statistic. According to the CDC, you’re more likely to die from inflammation of the kidneys than suicide. The county I live in has a population of around 9000, and in the last five years we’ve averaged about two suicides a year (most of those occurring on the local tribal reservation).
Check out some options in the WND Superstore preparedness department. New products of all kinds being added regularly for all your prepper needs – from informational books, movies to shovels, water purifiers, and food from soup to nuts!
There’s a lot more stuff in Mr. Norris’s column that needs correction or amplification, but I’m way over my word count, so I’ll leave you with his last line: “It is hoped that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention findings will signal a movement toward better understanding of the health threats that face rural Americans and the urgent need to address this national issue.”
Mr. Norris, the CDC is a liberal government-funded think-tank and busybody. Its headquarters is in Atlanta, and it has satellite offices located in metroplexes across the U.S. Its normality-bias is urban.
We county folks appreciate your concern, but we’re doing just fine. Really. Please don’t urge the government to help us more. One look at the Native American reservation system (or the VA, for that matter) should make you reconsider just how helpful the government can be.
We’re here in the sticks because we believe in “Live free or Die” not “Live free on the Dole.”