The Survivalist’s Odds ‘n Sods:

SurvivalBlog presents another edition of The Survivalist’s Odds ‘n Sods— a collection of news bits and pieces that are relevant to the modern survivalist and prepper from “HJL”. An interesting article on A.I. Soldiers is profiled today.

Fallen Star

A former Army Green Beret has been charged with the murder of an Afghan terrorist. The heart of the issue is that the terrorist planted a bomb that killed numerous people including two U.S. Marines. He was captured and held, but had to be released because prosecutors could not find enough evidence to charge him with the crime. Major Mathes Golsteyn tracked the suspect down after his release from U.S. custody and shot him. As much as it pains me to say it, I believe the charges are appropriate given the evidence that I know. What sets us apart from savages is the adherance to the “rule of law”.

Had the suspect been killed during the initial capture, I think things would have been different, but to track him down and kill him after a lawful release, no matter how painful that release was, was wrong. War sometimes frustrates those in the military and in every war there are those who cross the lines of humanity and do the wrong thing. It is my personal believe that we must conduct ourselves as men of integrity even during the atrocities of war. My heart breaks for those who have reached the point where they have difficulty understanding that. Thanks to DSV for the link.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

In a nearly unbelievable fit of stupidity, a new New Jersey law proves the words of Forrest Gump to be true. New Jersey’s law limits all firearms magazines to no more than 10 rounds of capacity. The problem, other than the obvious one at face value, is that there is no exception for law enforcement. It would appear that all duty firearms of law enforcement officers in New Jersey contain more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In one fell swoop, idiot lawmakers have made it so that an off-duty police officer is denied the ability to carry his duty weapon without becoming a criminal.

They can’t even have those weapons at home unless they leave the high capacity standard capacity magazines at work. The law even applies to those officers that are “on-call” meaning that an officer must show up at his place of work to retrieve his magazines before responding to an incident.

Autopilot Government Spending

A reasonable person might think that government spending would be fairly easy to get under control. If you don’t have the money, just don’t authorize the spending bill. That is, after all, how our personal finances work. You can only load your credit card up with debt before they cut you off if your spending exceeds your income. But according to this article sent in by reader G.G., nearly 86% of all spending is basically on autopilot. Past spending bills have been written in such a way as to guarantee future spending levels without requiring a yearly authorization from Congress. That means that entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, medicaid and welfare are provided with permanent appropriations and spending levels are set automatically. Additional, there appear to be a myriad of other ways that agencies can spend money they don’t have without seeking Congressional approval.

AI Soldiers

Reader G.P. sent in this interesting article on the future of A.I. soldiers. The article suggests that A.I. could become so advanced that they could develop their own moral code to violently defy orders, according to one A.I. expert. There is obviously a level of drama that is being pushed her to make a point, but the danger appears to be real. I don’t think the heart of the issue is that A.I. will create a “moral code” as we understand it. I believe the danger is that there is no such thing as right or wrong to a computer algorithm. The obvious answer is to keep a human in the decision making loop, but the drawback there is the response time of the human.

A computer can make real-time battle decisions much faster than a human can. Do we really believe that a government who has pledged to keep a human in the loop at all times will adhere to that pledge when they are on the loosing end of a war? I think not.

Martyr Without a Cause

With the recent revelations about our youth preferring socialist/Marxist types of government it seems that all is lost at times. The constant influx of immigrants into the country that refuse to adopt to America and instead bring whatever nightmare they fled with them to this country doesn’t help the situation. Reader T.J. sent in this very good article on how that process has been working. The article gives a set of 13 principles that practically all patriots can agree on, yet with which nearly all socialist/Marxist types will not understand. As the article states: “Nations are made of these principles…Nations are disbanded for violations of these principles. The least we can do is preserve [them]”.

Fun Fashion

There is an article in The New York Times that profiles one of the latest trends in high fashion clothing. Bear in mind that this is a world that bears little resemblance to reality as you read this article. Even those who can afford the absurd clothing often worn at these runway events know that this isn’t something that you would wear in the real world. I think of it as cosplay for the rich. The trend this year theme is “Apocalypse”. Orange jumpsuits, face masks, tactical vests and more adorn these “war-core” fashions. After you’ve picked yourself off the floor (from laughing so hard), read the article to the end. James Wesley, Rawles is quoted there and his quote is in the correct context.

o o o

Please send your news tips to HJL. (Either via e-mail of via our Contact form.) These are often especially relevant, because they come from folks who watch news that is important to them. Due to their diligence and focus, we benefit from fresh “on target” news. We often “get the scoop” on news that is most likely ignored (or reported late) by mainstream American news outlets. Thanks!


  1. Your story ” fallen star” needs to be up dated. Per CID, once the agent was placed on witness stand he stated that it was a lie that the major had taken him home and shot him…This was based on a three year investigation.

  2. I don’t know all the particulars of the “fallen star” case, but my gut reaction is to get in the soldiers corner, especially in light of the fact that he was initially decorated for his actions, and then, TEN YEARS later some remf finds cause to charge him with murder????? Your statement that every war has acts that cross the lines of humanity borders on ludicrous. Acts of war are inhumane in the basest form, what Calley did in Viet Nam is inhumane and criminal! Killing an enemy combatant seems to be ok if it ordered by those in charge, ala Bin Laden, but woe to any underling that undertakes actions on their own! Soldiers are tasked with killing the enemy first and foremost, and if you’re an officer, you are responsible for the care and feeding of your troops. I believe If you are an enemy soldier, tasked with killing Americans, you are fair game, period. and for a third world kangaroo court to find one of their “homies” innocent does not, in my opinion, leave him blameless and fireproof! And once he returns to his “roots,” free to continue his murderous pursuits, he is again an enemy combatant and subject to the rules of war such as they are.

  3. “What sets us apart from savages is the adherance to the ‘rule of law’.”
    Post Obama/Hillary, the Constitution, and I could go on, what “rule of law”?

    Look into the James Fields show trial. Life plus 419 years is the recommendation, but he did not directly hit (or even intend to) Heather Heyer, AntiFa admitted to pointing an AR_15 at him and were hitting his car with sticks and projectiles. But somehow it is first degree murder. Meanwhile an AntiFa who bashed someone’s head in with a flashlight wasn’t charged and got tens of thousands of dollars on his Go-Fund-Me.

    If there was a rule of law, all violence, both anti-Fa and whomever on the right at Charlottesville would have been treated equally. It was not.

    No more than what we see with Comey, Hillary, etc.

    Or the Bundys and the Hammonds (who were pardoned). Or Flynn.

    Or the new red-flag gun laws.

    You will have your day in court, but it will be a show trial worthy of Joseph Stalin in many if not most cases. “rule of law” like most of Civilization is only for the civilized. We too often confuse low education or intelligence for savagery. Even with the examples of the Nazis and the USSR and communists from last century.

    If you don’t recognize your enemy is not playing by the rules, including the rule of law, you will lose. I think the US wants to negotiate with the Taliban so wants a show trial to make an example of someone. Maybe he is guilty or not but I doubt it matters any more than it did with Hillary or Flynn.

    The rule of law is a very nice thing, and this is why we can’t have nice things.

  4. Social Security is not an entitlement program. It is funded by taxes specifically collected for that purpose. Those of us who paid billions into the program resent the nomenclature.

    1. If you got out only what you paid in (with reasonable interest) then, yes, I agree it would not be an entitlement program. However, if you get more out then you put in …? If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck …

      1. Sorry, Outlier, but you’re math is in error. If you look at the average person’s Social Security payments over his lifetime, he gets back more than he paid in. Yet, that calculation does not take into consideration how much that same person would have accumulated if the same amount of money had been properly invested.

        Most of us would love to have the product of forty years or more of properly invested funds. (Of course, many of us, if given the choice, would not have invested the sums, would have spent them on other things, and have nothing today. Just look at how many people make a minimal or zero contribution to their 401k accounts at work.)

        It is very true that Social Security disability payments, which fall under a different program, are tossed out to the public like Mardi Gras beads, given the number of so many “disabled” people milking the system. I read years ago that 1 out of every 15 Americans qualify for being classified as “disabled.” (I do not know how many of these people actually pursue Social Security claims.)

        I personally know of cases where people who have lost their jobs have simply applied for SSI disability payments, rather than purse new employment opportunities, and then begun to receive lifelong payments. This whole system is a serious racket.

        1. Survirormann99, when I read your comment I really wanted to believe it was true and I hoped was wrong.

          We live in an amazing time where so much information is available with computers and the internet. And, if you can be persuaded by logic, a quick search on Google for “social security contributions vs. payout” will provide all the facts. When I searched the top three results were from,, and The article by Politifact was based on a study by the Urban Institute (UI) at (link to study in Politifact article). Both the Politifact and CNN articles state that on average “participants” in SS receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. It’s less now than it used to be but it’s still more. The AARP article sites the study by the UI and they agree with the numbers.

          In fact, the very first SS recipient, Ida May Fuller, paid in $22.45 and received almost $23,000. That information is posted on

          This doesn’t take into account all the people who deliberately abuse the system. Nor does it take into account brokerage fees and investing track records for people who say they would have done better if they had invested the money themselves.

          And if that wasn’t enough, the SSA itself projects the trust fund will be insolvent in approximately 20 years. That should not be possible if the benefits paid out were in fact less than those paid in.

          1. Outlier, one more thought. I would love to have had all of the Social Security taxes I paid over the years invested in a private account with a modest 4% per annum return. I expect that most people would.

        2. Survivormann99,

          In the second sentence of the article you linked
          ,, it states and I quote, “Many of those retiring will have paid more into the coveted ***entitlement program*** than they will get back.” [emphasis added]

          In the third paragraph it states, “This is the first time in the program’s history that taxes outweighed benefits for this group, a couple with average earnings.” That’s because it’s an entitlement program and they have been paying out more than they take in. But, like all ponzi schemes, eventually the game ends.

          Thank you for linking an article that proved my point. I’m glad we can agree on the facts.

      2. Not accurate. The system also collect tens of thousands of dollars from people who die before they are eligible to collect. THAT is part of the “insurance” aspect of the system and should also be computed as a fair return for those who survive age 65. In other words to claim that and “insurance”/retirement system ONLY needs to pay back what you put in plus a reasonable interest is dead wrong.

        Additionally our lawmakers have put millions of people on the SS retirement system who put $0 into it. Did you know that any illegal or legal immigrant who makes it to the U.S. and becomes a citizen that at age 65 they collect SS benefits even if they never worked a lick. Probably 20% of SS recipients never paid into the system thanks to lawmakers who are trying to turn it into a welfare system.

        Do not be fooled into becoming an advocate of destroying the SS system in some stupid belief that the government will reward you by no longer taking out their 7% out of your pay check. Rest assured that no matter what they do it will be worse and cost more than SS.

    2. I Agree with Mr. Foster, we have been paying into Social Security since our first job, mine began at age 11, (not a misprint). On the other hand welfare recipients have not paid into it at all, why are these 2 always placed side by side when discussing entitlements? How these funds are then distributed are another matter, just please stop comparing the 2.
      Another note, people on welfare can scam the system but on social security the only proof needed is in your age and not an excuse.
      Trust me the plethora of scams are out there, I have met many a person on welfare and have been told of all the ways to get in. Once in you are eligible for all other freebies allotted by all government agencies.

    3. According to the Social Security Administration, social security is considered a “Benefit”. I’ve heard other areas of the U.S. Government classify our benefits as annuities or awards, but the SSA only considers then as benefits..

    4. F.I.C.A.
      Federal Insurance Collections Act … its not a tax, it’s an “Insurance Premium” forced upon us because it was sold as a needed item to fix the economy that the Federal Reserve destroyed.

    5. It is an entitlement program. That is if you buy into the legal definition provided by the Social Security Administration. It’s described as an entitlement on their website. You may have a legal right to it and be eligible for benefits after submitting a qualified application, but yes, it IS an entitlement.

      Unfortunately that word also gets tossed around a lot for things equating to a taxpayer funded handout. Some of these programs are also defined as entitlements by the government.

      From there it’s not too hard for some people to lump every entitlement benefit together under the term “handout”, which is wrong.

      I’m ok with offering Social Security and Medicare benefits, but not okay with raising taxes on younger workers to fund it because the programs were mismanaged. Mark my words at some point benefits WILL be cut.

      And quite frankly yes, I would have a ton more money available to me after working and paying in for more than 40 years if it was my own account and I was directing the investments. Perhaps some people would even be more productive with their lives if they had this option.

    6. Kenneth, make that TRILLIONS!!!!

      I figured out my “break even point”. Somewhere around 13 years just to break even. Through in a 3% interest compounded monthly for the same 47 years I paid into the system, and the value of what I paid into the system roughly doubles. That stretches things out to roughly 26 years. Makes me 91, if I live.

      Don’t forget, we the people pay all taxes. We all pay BOTH halves of social security. I count both me and my wife into the mix, she worked too. Yeah I paid in, yeah, if I live I might make more than I actually paid in to the system, but a 3% return on investment (a government term, everything for them is an investment) is not unreasonable or out of line with what could be reasonably earned on my own investments over the same 47 years.

      The real problem, the reason SS is running out of money, is the government IOU’s, money fabricated out of thin air, that have no real value except in the feeble minds of the scumbag politicians we send to Congress and to the White House.

    7. Social Security money was stolen and wasted decades ago and the money is being taken from those who are working and not “invested”as is promised. The truest example of a Ponzi scheme.

  5. I truly wish that EVERYONE would quit referring to Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements”. We, as taxpayers , paid into these accounts and are now, or will, receive our money back, with interest. They are NOT “entitlements”.

    1. Yet so many Democrats want “Medicare for all.” Since almost half of all American taxpayers pay no federal income taxes, it would just be for “free ….” that people like Ocasio-Cortez want to hand out to their political base. It would cost them nothing.

    2. To my Mother’s dying day, she believed there was an actual account with hers and my Dad’s names on it. I tried to tell her it wasn’t true. My Dad tried to tell her it wasn’t true. But that was the fantasy that was sold to the American people by the FDR administration. Too many people today still believe there is a real trust account for each individual who paid into the system. Too bad it isn’t the truth. If it were, we could put all the politicians in freaking jail for their thievery.

    3. Yeah, keep telling yourself that you’ll get your money back.

      Meanwhile the government destroys the purchasing power of the money so that when you finally do get “your” money back it doesn’t buy as much as it would if they hadn’t destroyed its purchasing power in the first place.

      Social Security is another government scheme to separate the fool from his money.

      No thanks.

    4. Social security is a TAX not an account! You don’t pay into it your are TAXED that amount. Its not a 401k or an IRA its a TAX that the govt can and will do what they want with it.

      1. The government has its own unique definition of the word “entitlement.” It simply means, “If you meet the eligibility requirements, you get the money.” It has very little to do with what you paid in. In fact, the benefits formula allows for a proportionally LARGER payout to people who have paid in little, assuming they will need it more in retirement.

        The tax requiring people to pay in to the system is by law, totally separate and distinct from the payout. Otherwise, the “account” would be an asset upon the person’s death and could be passed on to their heirs. Not going to happen.

        Social Security is in fact a Ponzi scheme. Today’s receipts go to people who have already retired. This is the way it was set up from the very beginning. You had better hope that you have lots of grandchildren who all have good jobs. There is a “trust fund,” but it is a token only, proportionally amounting to no more than your change drawer in your desk at home.

  6. “New Jersey’s law limits all firearms magazines to no more than 10 rounds of capacity. The problem, other than the obvious one at face value, is that there is no exception for law enforcement.”

    Why is this a problem? The police should not be better armed than the population they are supposed to serve and protect. After all, if “high capacity” magazines are only good for mass murdering, why should the police have them?

    Others have argued that if there were no law enforcement exemptions from gun-owner control laws, there would be a lot fewer gun-owner control laws.


    I have sent my legislators the following legislation. All it does is restrict the police to using the same weapons that are legally available to the residents of their jurisdiction, and provides for (significant) penalties if they violate it. I’m serious about this. Read it, and if you think it’s a good idea, contact your Representative or Senators and tell them.

    To ensure that law enforcement agencies represent the standards of the communities that they serve, no agency whose representatives, agents, employees, or contractors carry weapons shall use, issue, or carry any weapon category, type, brand, model, caliber, or capacity, or any ammunition, accessories, or attachments for such weapons, that are not legal or available for the common citizens of that jurisdiction. State and local law enforcement agencies must comply with the restrictions applicable to the residents of their state or municipality, Federal agencies must comply with the relevant Federal laws. Officers of a State agency operating in a municipality with stricter availability laws will still only be restricted by the relevant State laws. Likewise Federal officers operating in a State or municipality with stricter availability laws shall only be restricted by any relevant Federal, nationwide, restrictions.

    This law shall apply to all government agencies excepting only the military branches (U.S. Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard).

    Any resident of an agency’s jurisdiction may bring suit against an agency which is in violation of this law. Each proven violation shall result in a fine of $1000 per resident of that jurisdiction levied on the agency, payable directly to each resident.


    Here’s one proposal: the Goose and Gander Amendment. Since it works as a supplement to the Second Amendment, we’ll make it Amendment Two-and-a-Half:

    1. No government agency, nor employee of any government agency, shall be allowed to possess firearms prohibited to the citizens of the state, county, or municipality in which they serve.

    2. No government agency, nor any employee of any government agency, shall be exempt from laws and regulations regarding the possession or use of firearms which affect the citizens of the state, county, or municipality in which they serve.

    3. All exemptions inconsistent with sections 1 and 2 shall be void beginning on the 30th day after the ratification of this amendment.

    4. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to exempt agencies and employees of the federal government from federal, state, or local laws and regulations related to firearms.

    5. Nothing in this amendment shall apply to the Department of Defense or states’ National Guards.

    This amendment does not in any way restrict existing powers of the federal, state, and local governments to pass gun-control laws. Rather, the gun laws would be strengthened by being of more general applicability. Removing government exemption would provide an incentive for politicians and regulators to pass only those gun-control laws which are truly reasonable.

    1. Notice how this posting is from a person who is so firmly entrenched in his beliefs, but who does not have the courage to even use a nom de plume beyond “anonymous.”

      I am an avid 2nd Amendment supporter, so let’s get this straight. I believe that magazine limits should be found unconstitutional.

      “Anonymous,” however, is a crackpot. I want the cops to have every advantage over the scumbags out there. “Me and mine” will be safer if they do. “Anonymous” seems to believe that law enforcement should be conducted under the Marquis of Queensberry rules” because, after all, “fair is fair.”

      Of course, from the safety of his mother’s basement, that probably seems like a great idea to him.

      1. Get off your high horse. There is a good reason people do not want to be identified on the internet and simply using anonymous or any nom de plume does not invalidate their post or their right to post. Deal with the content and stop trying to slime people.

        1. Look, pal, no one is sliming you because you use “anonymous.” Few people, including me, use their real name. The issue is that by using “anonymous” you are not allowing anyone to connect your comment today to perhaps a dozen others you have made about sundry topics in the past. By being able to connect your current comment to others it would give frequent readers a chance to determine how “fair and balanced” your opinions are.

          Perhaps avoiding this prospect is exactly what you have in mind.

          1. Oh, yeah, Anonymous. I don’t want a “fair fight” between the cops and the bad guys. That sort of BS in John Wayne Westerns should be left on the big screen. Whose side are you on?

            In a real world, whether it is Taliban or Bloods and Crips, the idea is to eliminate the threat by whatever technology, tactics, and strategy is available.

            What next? No drones for Taliban? After all, using them doesn’t make it a “fair fight.”

            But as I said, like you, I am still not happy about magazine capacity limitations for the public.

            Methinks, Anonymous, that you have had a serious issue with law enforcement in the past.

          2. Survivorman why should law enforcement have more of a right to use things than I would for my own protection???Are you saying that they need to protect you and yours more than what your responsibilities are…The law states clearly that law enforcement has duty to protect you whatsoever so why should they have more access to those things…Do you have any connections to law enforcement and that is why you feel the way you do…

          3. Lineman, I am not involved in law enforcement. I am, however, far more capable than most capable in defending “me and my own”–Quantico trained, rifle and pistol expert, and legally allowed to carry concealed.

            I want the cops capable of raining fire from the heavens on the scum of the world. Are you saying that you want the cops to be limited to 10-round magazines in a raid on the Bloods or Crips? How about limiting them to 10-round magazines when interdicting those working with the Mexican cartels shipping drugs into this country? You think that a “fair fight” with urban scum and the cartels is appropriate?

            Many (like me) say than when guns (or 10-round magazines) are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns (or 10-round magazines). And, yet, some commenters on this blog believe that it is a good idea to legally deprive law enforcement of standard capacity magazines. So now we’re requiring police officers to be more poorly armed than the Bloods, Crips, and cartels?

            I never realized that there were so many cop haters posting on this blog. I wonder which Antifa or Black Lives Matter rally they came from. I suspect that some commenters are trolls.

            The cops are not the ones who decided to take away your and my right to have standard capacity magazines. It was Democratic politicians. Why hamper the cops in protecting the public, and why blame them for enforcing the law that legislatures have passed and that courts have upheld? It sucks for you and me, but why limit the cops.

            Fight the politicians, not the cops, on the magazine limitation.

            And by the way, before anyone new posts their opinions on magazine bans, I would like to see them prove that they actually give a damn about the issue by telling everyone exactly which gun rights organization they are members of. I belong to two such organizations and I donate money beyond my regular dues. If the malcontents aren’t members of any gun rights organizations, they are just expelling so much hot air, and their opinions should be considered in that light. They simply talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk in the effort to protect the 2nd Amendment.

      2. Not to pee on people parades here but if the no more than 10 rounds law is unconstitutional, then how did we have that very same law nationwide in the 90’s?

      3. The ATF brought a car load of automatic weapons to Chicago and it was immediately stolen. If this was in force nothing would of been stolen because Chicago does everything to prevent citizen possesion of weapons.
        Also remember this would apply to all the military weapons and equiptment handed out to militarize police.

  7. Re: ‘Fallen Star’, I have read and heard a different series of events. As a veteran of Afghanistan, I can tell you that, yes, we as American soldiers have values and morals, but the end result(s) of any ‘Direct Action’ mission is “Kill The Enemy and Bring Your People Home Alive!” Killing and Murder are two different things and once a combatant is no longer in custody (a P.O.W.) he is once again, a combatant. If he wants to hide in a hole, a base of operation or a house, he is still an enemy combatant.
    One thing is for certain, that ‘combatant’ will not kill any more Americans or Allies.
    I proudly stand behind Maj. Golsteyn until I see factual evidence contrary to his innocence.

  8. Pains me to see what is going on in New Jersey yes the laws is idiotic. But I agree off-duty police officer‘s have no additional rights we are all the same equal protection under the law. These politicians have created too many loopholes in the laws for LE. They need to feel the same pain and discomfort that the regular people are much like the laws that Congress creates that exempt them,it’s ridiculous.

    1. Frank M., you wrote: ” But I agree off-duty police officer‘s have no additional rights we are all the same equal protection under the law.”

      News reports were that there were six off-duty police officers in the Borderline Bar and Grill, a college hangout, when the nutcase unloaded with his Glock 21 .45 caliber pistol in November.

      All of the off-duty officers inside the bar were unarmed. California law permits them to be armed, but different law enforcement agencies can set their own policies. Reports in the news said that officers used themselves as “human shields.” Look it up.

      I am reminded of a Dennis Farina movie in which he played a Chicago PD detective (Farina had actually been a Chicago PD detective in real life before becoming an actor.) He was sitting in a cop bar in one scene. Two guys walked in and announced that it was a holdup. In one second, 15 cops pulled their pistols and aimed them at the perps. Farina then says to them, “Which one of you guys is the brains of the outfit?”

      I want every cop, off-duty or not, to be able to defend “me and mine” 24/7. If any reader is uncomfortable with this approach and wants to tie the cops’ hands with regard to the firepower they are permitted to carry, either on or off-duty, perhaps they should let the Borderline victims’ families know how they feel.

      1. The cop that was killed the was shot by another cop. Rogue cops are the majority with entire departments willing to cover lie and be criminals to cover for each other. The courts are afraid their attack dogs will turn on them so they go along. Watch the videos of Robert Rialmo(CPD) as a prime example.

  9. Re. picture of an army of drone soldiers.

    Washington politicians are clever. When Americans cried out against politicians’ sons not getting drafted, they eliminated the draft. Pay Deplorables. Fixed!

    Washington politicians know that Americans will cry out against only Deplorables’ lives lost. Within 2 years they will fix that too.

    Evil men have create perpetual war and have no intention of stopping it.

  10. Re: Fallen Star.

    I am sitting here with two grandchildren here for Christmas. Two girls under ten. What would I do if I caught a child molester attacking them? Kill him of course, if I could. Who would disagree? This soldier caught a murderer, an enemy combatant murder who killed his fellow soldiers and he did the only thing that made sense. IMHO I wish this would happen a lot more often. If the law is an ass and fails us that is NOT the same thing as saying the individual who gets away with murder is “innocent” and deserves no punishment.

    1. OneGuy, I certainly won’t disagree with you, and I won’t criticize Maj. Golsteyn for killing the suspected bomber. Why he chose to reveal what he did on TV, however, has me scratching my head.

  11. I grew up in NJ and left just over 30 years ago for many reasons. One of them was when law enforcement threatened to confiscate my firearms. Took them out of state where they were stolen from a relatives home (including a Revolutionary war period rifle in outstanding condition). Never went back to NJ. Knew a bunch of police officers and not one of them stood up to protect our 2A rights as defined in the Constitution, and most won’t honor the 4th either. It doesn’t surprise me that the police are now limited to carrying restricted capacity magazines when off duty. I respect the job most police officers do but I have no problems with them being subject to the same restrictions ordinary citizens are required to obey. After all – we are the ones who have the ability to stop crime in its tracks as we witness it happening. Rarely is a police officer present to prevent a criminal from breaking the law. If we can’t have the tools necessary to defend ourselves, our families and our freedoms then why should they? This is why I moved away from NJ and will never go back for a job, and rarely go back for family visits. I don’t want any of my money going to a state government or even a local jurisdiction that consistently refuses to protect our rights guaranteed in our Constitution.

  12. Re: Fallen Star

    In my opinion, as a veteran with OEF and OIF deployments, herein lies the problem. We are soldiers, not vigilantes. We are bound to follow the lawful orders of the officers appointed over us. The soldier in question here failed to do so. During my military career, I received many orders that I disliked, and several I found infuriating and counterproductive. Several times I was proven to be correct in my disagreements, but that didn’t matter. We’re soldiers. We follow lawful orders. When we fail to do so, we subject ourselves to the consequences. This is an Army, not a mob.

    1. Fallen Star, many of the people posting comments here are armchair generals. They never served in uniform. They never will. They are clueless. They have opinions only, and we all know what they say about opinions.

      I sympathize with Golsteyn, but I wasn’t there. You are absolutely correct about an Army turning into a mob if a few thousand Golsteyns were free to make up the rules in a theater of combat.

      If cops started acting the same way, they would be referred to as “death squads.” And then, of course, you would have to wonder what the cops’ real motivations were. Were they really doing a “Death Wish” thing for the public good, or were they simply taking out people who crossed them?

      Taking this to its logical end, I expect that Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, and Andrew McCabe probably felt that they were doing the “right thing” regarding Trump. Others would strongly differ.

      For the life of me I cannot understand why Golsteyn would risk all hell coming down on him by letting the world know what he did while he was in front of a camera. Narcissism?

      I am also frustrated by crackpots who believe that the cops ought to refuse to enforce the law regarding firearms–another hot issue in the comments section today. Sure, a Washington State sheriff has taken that position with regard to new laws in Washington State, but an average patrolman would be toast if he started doing that.

      Of course, the crackpots would think that this is exactly what a man (or woman) with a badge ought to do i.e., sacrifice his career and ignore his family responsibilities over the difference between legally owning 10-round magazines and 15-round magazines. These crackpots sitting in their mother’s basements or in a 500 sq. ft. cabin on some mountaintop have the right to their opinion, but we all know what they say about opinions…

    2. I agree, Jason, but I don’t know all the facts of that specific case. As Americans – Conservative or Liberal – we have to hold ourselves to a standard that the rest of the world will respect. Nothing less than the future of our species is at stake. All of this constant warfare in every corner of the globe is not gong to civilize people into democracy. Humans learn from example, and if America doesn’t set the gold standard one nation at a time will descend into anarchy.

  13. RE; N.J.
    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. This state does not even allow citizens to pump their own gas!
    The lives of citizen’s are worth just as much as the lives of the police. The police choose to enter a job that subjects them to a higher than average degree of risk. Most citizens of N.J. are stuck there for a variety of reasons, they do not choose to be exposed to a state with a serious crime problem and a gov’t. which does not respect the Second Amendment which would give them a small chance of self-protection.

  14. You know I’ve read all the comments, especially those concerning the Second Amendment. I find some of the comments rather disturbing. The US Constitution actually covers the only authorities both the FedGov and the State governments a limited to reguarding the 2nd Amendment. Let’s take a look at what those rights actually are, starting with the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

    Part One:


    Who is the militia? The whole body of the people, except for a few public officials (George Mason). That would be every man, woman, and responsible child.


    What is the Free State this amendment refers to? It is NOT the FedGov. It IS the individual States. That is why the States control their militias except in time of war. The government if the united States is NOT a single State.


    The whole body of the people.


    To own and carry any arms necessary for defense of self and State.
    The wording in MIchigan’s Constitution of 1963 , Article 1 Section 6, Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Simple and to the point.


    By whom? By anybody. The FedGov has no right, that is plain. Do the States? NO!
    No man shall be debarred the use of arms. (Thomas Jefferson) Virtually everyone involved with the writing of our US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, plainly said even the States had no authority to deny the right to keep and bear arms. The only case where the States could invoke that restriction would be through due process of law. That specifically refers to a criminal proceeding. First there has to be a crime committed where there is tangible harm done to another human being. Then an investigation of that crime. Then an arrest for that crime, at this point the one arrested looses some of his rights. Then a charge levied, at preliminary hearing. A trial with a jury. Then if found guilty, a conviction. Finally, after all that, then a sentence can be imposed. That is due process.

    It does not refer to a bunch of politicians sitting around in the proverbial smoke filled room deciding for themselves what rights they deem appropriate for we the deplorables.

    Part Two:

    Lets now look at what the FedGov’s actual right is. From Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution Clauses 15 and 16:

    15) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    So the only rights the FedGov would have over the individual right to own and carry a firearm would be limited. They could, if one is a part of the official militia of a State, dictate a minimum standard of firearm that the militiaman must own. They can dictate a minimum capacity of magazine, they can dictate a minimum number of magazines, they could dictate the caliber or range of calibers to choose from for your minimum standard of firearm. They could even dictate how many rounds of ammunition the militiaman must have on hand and bring when called into action. It does not matter if it is a rifle or a pistol, these are the actual rights of the FedGov. Notice the rights of the FedGov only apply to MINIMUM standards, not maximum. What is that minimum? That which an infantryman might carry. Finally, they can set the training standard for the official State militias.

    In theory, the FedGov could set a lesser MINIMUM standard for the non-militia citizen, since every citizen is, in theory, a member of the unofficial militia of their respective States. I don’t think they could require firearms ownership, then they would have to supply the firearm. However if you choose to own a firearm, the FedGov could set a minimum standard for that arm.

    This is the Second Amendment of the framers of the Constitution. These are the rights the FedGov is limited to. The rest is up to YOU the individual. Remind your congress critters that beyond this point, HERE THERE BE DRAGONS!! We are the Dragons.

    1. Who are the Militia?
      [Constitutional Notes at bottom]

      TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

      § 311. Militia: composition and classes
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
      Naval Militia; and

      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
      who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      § 312. Militia duty: exemptions

      (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
      (1) The Vice President.
      (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several
      States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
      (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active
      (4) Customhouse clerks.
      (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
      (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the
      United States.
      (7) Pilots on navigable waters.
      (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United

      (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

      TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 3 > § 313
      § 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

      (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

      (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
      (1) be a citizen of the United States; and
      (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

  15. Lets try no guns for inmates in jails and prisons and there be no restrictions on anyone else. So long as I don’t use a gun to take from you, Why should it mater what gun I have?

      1. The problem is this: Who is going to decide if you measure up to those standards. Who should have the authority to decide that you are to be handicap in your equipment to defend your life? Do you trust a government bureaucrat who’s goal is to create job security by additional regulation? Do you trust a Doctor who went through almost countless years of liberal indoctrination? Should you be handicap because you live in New Jersey? I agree that you should have the character, personality and skills to be responsible in handling your guns. But as a minimum standard : A judge and a jury of your peers should decide if you have proven that you don’t by your behavior. And then only for as long as you incarcerated. If your crime is so bad that you can’t be trusted with a gun then you should still be in prison. If you have been rehabilitated, then you can be trusted to defend your life without having to bring a baseball bat to a gun fight.

        1. The Problem is not so unclear to me.

          Who chooses the Judge and the Jury?

          Should someone be in Prison, because he has a very short temper and not the self Control to be trusted to leave the gun in the Holster because of something he gets into a rage for no reason or should he not be allowed to own guns?

          Should somebody allowed to carry, who isn´t capable of making the judgement when the Situation Warrants it or if reason of Health make that a Risk?

          1. I don’t have all the answers ether. At least your defense attorney has a little say on the jury. I do know this : It is morally wrong for a government to take a person’s life, and by extension to take a person’s ability to defend that life. That said I am a realist. I know that if I break a law even one that is morally wrong I will end up in prison. So I make a habit of not breaking laws. If I lived in New Jersey I would move. I have a feeling that if I ever served on a jury I would be a prosecutors worst nightmare. I believe in the concept of jury nullification.

  16. MAJ Golsteyn made the mistake of talking about his premeditated murder of the bomber. A person shouldn’t tell the media something like that, or anyone else. That was silly.

  17. The Maj Golsteyn story seems more strange the more I look at it.

    If he really did murder that man and burn the body, why would he admit it to the CIA and then the whole world on national TV? If it did not really happen that way what did happen and why is he being railroaded?

    I would like to get personal information from people who worked with him. That could be telling. I had the opportunity to talk to some of the Seals who worked for Richard Marcinko of Red Cell fame years ago. They were not surprised that he was railroaded out of the service as he was. The Seals who worked for him tried to warn him that he was getting too arrogant but he would not listen and it was his down fall. You have to wonder if Golsteyn’s previous behavior would have been any indication of trouble coming and if his people warned him.

    I have a friend who’s father was SOG in Viet Nam and who was going to be a Seal but blew out his knee in training. He has maintained some Seal friends. They have expressed two concerns. One that the SF are getting to big and losing the “Special” element. Two that they are talking too much and behaving arrogantly. You have to wonder about both of these thoughts in this case.

    One thing I think can be said for certain. Think before you speak. I say this because in self examination, I feel I need much improvement in this area and maybe Goldsteyn is feeling the same way right now.

Comments are closed.