E-Mail 'The Survivalist's Odds 'n Sods:' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'The Survivalist's Odds 'n Sods:' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

15 Comments

  1. There is no shortage of saline for iv. The government has lowered the reimbursement price to the point where no one will bother to make it. The idiots win again.

    1. Excellent factoid about the federales interfering with saline prices and market forces.

      Under every pile of manure, there’s a government pony waiting to be found.

  2. Makes you wonder if getting a DNA sample from a transient and sending that in to 23andMe wouldn’t be such a bad idea for yourself…

    Were you in the military from 1996 onwards? So sorry, the Clinton Administration started DNA typing military members in that time-frame. If you had “the swab”, then your DNA profile has been searched against countless crimes. Without your knowledge or consent.

  3. With due respect to those trying to push this, I have a question. What makes you think that the same people who ignore the Constitution for the United States of America on a daily basis will comply with an amendment to that document? More importantly, an amendment would also have the effect of saying that we gave control of education to the government in the Constitution.
    No control was delegated under the Constitution.

  5. Re: Slaugterbots: Do we really want Artificial Intelligence making a life or death decision for humans? – It’s already started happening with self-driving cars, and even some of the advanced ‘safety’ features on some current cars. Imagine you were driving your car down a city street and saw a terrorist pull out a rifle and start shooting into a crowd. You immediately turn your car towards him and accelerate to take him out, but at the last minute the car ‘senses’ a ‘pedestrian’ and applies the brakes. That’s an extreme example, but you can probably think of many others.

  7. I believe that the Slaughterbots are a very real threat. Far cheaper than almost any other tactical weapon and easier than most tactical weapons to create and deploy. My fear is this could catch us off guard and our ability to defend against it would be like when the Polish Army showed up on horseback to fight against the German tanks. I hope our government is actively looking into these both as a potential weapon and how we can defend against it.

    1. Oh so very, very scary! Imagine grenades that can fly like flocks of birds with swarm technology. Then deploy with thermal sensing to connect to masses running around 98.6 degrees. It scares the cr-p out of me. Nothing very complicated and the technology already is on the shelf.

  9. Unless there is language within the proposed amendment that specifically blocks the supreme court from reinterpreting the original intent of the amendment, and that also blocks the states courts from doing the same thing, don’t waste your time. It would be better to propose amendments to the constitutions of the several states with language that blocks the state supreme courts from reinterpreting the original intent of those amendments.

    There is always going to be some scumbag politician or some scumbag lawyer, prosecutor, or judge that will do everything in their power to seize parenting rights from parents and turn them over the government.

    I’m with Donald Greene: “A rather sad statement of America when a constitutional amendment is proposed so that parents can parent…”

  10. On saline, use large animal veterinary supplies. Gallon bags of saline.

    On slaughterbots, the military has been working on cluster munitions with guiding sensors for quite some time. Not quite AI, but close enough.

  11. Constitutional Ammendment – People seem to forget, or never knew in the first place, that the neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights BESTOWS a right on anyone. The language in them specifically states that our existing rights shall not be infringed upon.

    Although I agree with the sentiment on several issues, it is a dangerous thing to start putting amendments in that define marriage or specify certain rights. If those amendments are repealed, then the “right” goes away. It also sets the precedent that the government has authority in a area that it doesn’t (or isn’t supposed to, anyway).

    Of course, as a commenter said above, when the Constitution is blatantly ignored and defied without any repercussions, what difference does adding another amendment to it make anyway?

Comments are closed.