• ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-17-2021, 03:37 PM
    Constitution Day is a dual observance: It celebrates both the day that the United States Constitution was adopted, as well as honors naturalized citizens of our country. Prior to 2004, the day was known as Citizenship Day. Its name was changed due to an amendment attached to a spending bill by Sen. Robert Byrd. While there was an archaic form of the holiday first celebrated in Iowa schools in 1911, a movement to adopt the day was advanced by the Sons of the American Revolution. This organization appointed a committee to lobby for the day that included figures such as then-Vice President Calvin Coolidge, John D. Rockefeller, and newly minted World War I hero General John J. Pershing. However, the origins of the day actually lie in the late 1930s. “I Am An American Day” Becomes “Constitution Day" It’s quite an American story. For the 1939 New York World’s Fair, the organizers were promoting a song called “I Am An American.” The songwriters attracted the attention of Arthur Pine, the head of a self-named PR firm. One of his clients was Gray Gordon, the bandleader who would be performing the song at the World’s Fair. To publicize the song, he worked together with a local newspaper to celebrate the first “I Am An American Day.” During the same year, William Randolph Hearst used his newspapers to advocate for the creation of an American Citizenship Day. It was the nexus of these two phenomena that prompted Congress to make the third Sunday in May “I Am An American Day.” The first one of these was celebrated in 1940. In 1944, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service began promoting this day.
    1 replies | 142 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-16-2021, 02:07 PM
    On this episode of The Resistance Library Podcast, Sam and Dave discuss the Star-Spangled Banner. It might be impossible to sing, but everyone knows the words to the national anthem of the United States – “The Star-Spangled Banner.” It’s a staple at everything from sporting events to patriotic rallies. But while everyone knows the song, very few Americans know the story behind it, both the story of the lyrics and the story of how this ode to our nation’s flag was adopted as our national anthem. Its roots lie in the War of 1812, the same war during which widespread celebrations of Independence Day began. Composer Francis Scott Key was a 35-year-old lawyer when he wrote the lyrics to the song on September 14, 1814. He called the poem “Defence of Fort M'Henry.” His inspiration was seeing the 15-star American flag of Fort McHenry lit up and triumphantly waving during the British bombardment in the Battle of Baltimore. Key was there as part of a team trying to secure the release of prisoners. In fact, Key was there to help secure the release of his good friend Dr. William Beanes, who had been captured by the British. It was a bit of an accident that Key was even there to witness the events he wrote about in his poem. He was held temporarily captive, because during the discharge of his duties, he heard plans for the impending Battle of Baltimore. Thus, the British could not safely release him until the battle was over. After the poem was written, it was quickly published in newspapers throughout the country. “The Star-Spangled Banner” tune was largely inspired by an old drinking song called “To Anacreon in Heaven,” though it’s hard to imagine anyone singing the song correctly while drinking. This is all thanks to Key’s brother-in-law, Joseph H. Nicholson, who read the poem and immediately thought of the song.
    0 replies | 53 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-15-2021, 12:39 PM
    Those are certainly what the government, its lapdog media and "society" stand for. But I refuse to let the country I love be defined by its worst elements. The American people can still be good however evil their enemies are.
    3 replies | 222 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-14-2021, 03:30 PM
    It might be impossible to sing, but everyone knows the words to the national anthem of the United States – “The Star-Spangled Banner.” It’s a staple at everything from sporting events to patriotic rallies. But while everyone knows the song, very few Americans know the story behind it, both the story of the lyrics and the story of how this ode to our nation’s flag was adopted as our national anthem. Its roots lie in the War of 1812, the same war during which widespread celebrations of Independence Day began. Composer Francis Scott Key was a 35-year-old lawyer when he wrote the lyrics to the song on September 14, 1814. He called the poem “Defence of Fort M'Henry.” His inspiration was seeing the 15-star American flag of Fort McHenry lit up and triumphantly waving during the British bombardment in the Battle of Baltimore. Key was there as part of a team trying to secure the release of prisoners. In fact, Key was there to help secure the release of his good friend Dr. William Beanes, who had been captured by the British. It was a bit of an accident that Key was even there to witness the events he wrote about in his poem. He was held temporarily captive, because during the discharge of his duties, he heard plans for the impending Battle of Baltimore. Thus, the British could not safely release him until the battle was over. After the poem was written, it was quickly published in newspapers throughout the country. “The Star-Spangled Banner” tune was largely inspired by an old drinking song called “To Anacreon in Heaven,” though it’s hard to imagine anyone singing the song correctly while drinking. This is all thanks to Key’s brother-in-law, Joseph H. Nicholson, who read the poem and immediately thought of the song.
    3 replies | 222 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-11-2021, 12:00 PM
    On this episode of The Resistance Library Podcast, Sam and Dave discuss the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda, and the domestic fall-out from America’s secret war. With American military personnel now entering service who were not even alive on 9/11, this seems an appropriate time to reexamine the events of September 11, 2001 – the opaque motives for the attacks, the equally opaque motives for the counter-offensive by the United States and its allies known as the Global War on Terror, and the domestic fall-out for Americans concerned about the erosion of their civil liberties on the homefront. Before venturing further, it’s worth noting that our appraisal is not among the most common explanations. Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants at Al-Qaeda, and the men who carried out the attack against the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon are not “crazy,” unhinged psychopaths launching an attack against the United States without what they consider to be good reason. Nor do we consider then-President George W. Bush to be either a simpleton, a willing conspirator, an oil profiteer, or a Machivellian puppet whose cabinet were all too happy to take advantage of a crisis. The American press tends to portray its leaders as fools and knaves, and America’s enemies as psychopathic. Because the propaganda machine hammered away so heavily on the simple “cowardly men who hate our freedom” line, there was not much in the way of careful consideration of the actual political motives of the hijackers, the Petro-Islam that funded them, the ancient, antagonistic split between Sunni and Shi’a, the fall-out from the 1979 Iranian revolution or the 1970s energy crisis, the historical context of covert American involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War and the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, nor the perceived “imperialist humanitarianism” of American military adventures of the 1990s in Muslim nations like Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia and Kosovo. Alone, none of these factors were deadly. Combined, they provided a lethal combination. It is our considered opinion that the events of 9/11 and those that followed in direct response to the attacks – including the invasion of Iraq – were carried out by good faith rational actors who believed they were acting in the best interests of their religion or their nation. There are no conspiracy theories here; sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
    0 replies | 63 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-10-2021, 05:33 PM
    With American military personnel now entering service who were not even alive on 9/11, this seems an appropriate time to reexamine the events of September 11, 2001 – the opaque motives for the attacks, the equally opaque motives for the counter-offensive by the United States and its allies known as the Global War on Terror, and the domestic fall-out for Americans concerned about the erosion of their civil liberties on the homefront. Before venturing further, it’s worth noting that our appraisal is not among the most common explanations. Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants at Al-Qaeda, and the men who carried out the attack against the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon are not “crazy,” unhinged psychopaths launching an attack against the United States without what they consider to be good reason. Nor do we consider then-President George W. Bush to be either a simpleton, a willing conspirator, an oil profiteer, or a Machivellian puppet whose cabinet were all too happy to take advantage of a crisis. The American press tends to portray its leaders as fools and knaves, and America’s enemies as psychopathic. Because the propaganda machine hammered away so heavily on the simple “cowardly men who hate our freedom” line, there was not much in the way of careful consideration of the actual political motives of the hijackers, the Petro-Islam that funded them, the ancient, antagonistic split between Sunni and Shi’a, the fall-out from the 1979 Iranian revolution or the 1970s energy crisis, the historical context of covert American involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War and the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, nor the perceived “imperialist humanitarianism” of American military adventures of the 1990s in Muslim nations like Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia and Kosovo. Alone, none of these factors were deadly. Combined, they provided a lethal combination. It is our considered opinion that the events of 9/11 and those that followed in direct response to the attacks – including the invasion of Iraq – were carried out by good faith rational actors who believed they were acting in the best interests of their religion or their nation. There are no conspiracy theories here; sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
    0 replies | 117 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-08-2021, 10:10 PM
    On this episode of The Resistance Library Podcast, Sam Jacobs interviews Brian Nichols. Brian Nichols is the host of The Brian Nichols Show and an Associate Editor at The Libertarian Republic. We had Brian on to discuss the small-L libertarian response to a handful of issues that many Americans, even limited-government conservatives, demand "something must be done." What follows is a spirited discussion of the role of the state in creating problems.
    0 replies | 77 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-06-2021, 11:51 PM
    The terms “nationalism” and “patriotism” are often used interchangeably. This is understandable, as they have somewhat overlapping meanings, both of which suffer from a certain amount of vagueness. However, there are a number of key differences between the two that are worth shedding light on. In the final analysis, we believe that the term “nationalism,” while not denoting anything totalitarian by its nature, is not an accurate term for the sentiment that exists in the United States. Nationalism, it would seem, is more suited to Europe or Asia, places with historic nations, united by common language and ethnicity that are necessarily tied with a certain area of land. There’s a lot to unpack here and the differences are extremely subtle. And to give a bit of a spoiler, we’re not going to be taking the position, as is often the case, that patriotism is fine but nationalism is simply a metastatic and malignant form of patriotism. First Things First: How Do Both Differ From Libertarianism and Conservatism Before going any further, it’s worth taking a few minutes to distinguish both patriotism and nationalism from libertarianism and conservatism. We can do this without parsing out the difference between patriotism and nationalism – and for that matter, libertarianism and conservatism. Libertarianism and conservatism operate from a similar set of principles. These principles are abstract and platonic in as much as they are about divining the truest form of an ideal ideology from a stated goal. Libertarianism has a clear philosophical principle: more liberty is always good. American conservatism is a diffuse and often contradictory philosophy, but for the purposes of extrapolating the difference between conservatism and other ideologies, we will say that the defining characteristic of American conservatism (as opposed to European conservatism, which has a much greater overlap with nationalism), is that of limited government. We can conflate both of these ideals into the somewhat more vague notion that “freedom is always good.” The point here isn’t to oversimplify and make a strawman. It’s simply to come up with a uniting ethos to illustrate how nationalism and patriotism as ideologies differ from currents that have been more mainstream on the American right for a longer period of time.
    19 replies | 356 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    09-01-2021, 12:40 PM
    Might be a different story if the government didn't so heavily regulate and influence what private companies are able to do.
    200 replies | 7366 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    08-28-2021, 03:22 PM
    Thanks so much for listening! I think it comes together pretty good for a guy sitting in his truck talking to another guy sitting in a closet.
    2 replies | 150 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    08-27-2021, 09:09 AM
    On this episode of the Resistance Library Podcast, Sam and Dave discuss the subtle differences between “freedom” vs. “liberty.” The terms "freedom" and "liberty" have become clichés in modern political parlance. Because these words are invoked so much by politicians and their ilk, their meanings are almost synonymous and used interchangeably. That's confusing – and can be dangerous – because their definitions are actually quite different. "Freedom" is predominantly an internal construct. Viktor Frankl, the legendary Holocaust survivor who wrote Man's Search For Meaning, said it well: “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way (in how he approaches his circumstances).” In other words, to be free is to take ownership of what goes on between your ears, to be autonomous in thoughts first and actions second. Your freedom to act a certain way can be taken away from you – but your attitude about your circumstances cannot – making one's freedom predominantly an internal construct. On the other hand, "liberty" is predominantly an external construct. It's the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. The ancient Stoics knew this (more on that in a minute). So did the Founding Fathers, who wisely noted the distinction between negative and positive liberties, and codified that difference in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The distinction between negative and positive liberties is particularly important, because an understanding of each helps us understand these seminal American documents (plus it explains why so many other countries have copied them). The Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties – it says what the state cannot do to you. However, it does not say what the state must do on your behalf. This would be a positive liberty, an obligation imposed upon you by the state.
    2 replies | 150 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    08-25-2021, 10:43 AM
    On this episode of The Resistance Library Podcast, Sam and Dave discuss Davy Crocket and the forgotten history of the King of the Wild Frontier and the Battle of Alamo. David Hawkins Stern Crockett, fondly remembered as Davy Crockett, was born in eastern Tennessee to pioneer parents on August 17, 1786. Like many settlers of the time, the Crockett family continually pushed West, blazing into new territory (a trend Davy would continue to do with his own family) and by the time Davy was 12, the family had moved three times and was living in western Tennessee. Known as an honest and hardworking boy with a good sense of humor, Davy learned to shoot with his father around age eight and enjoyed joining his older brother on hunting trips. The boy who would become known as "King of the Wild Frontier" ran away from home at the age of 13, after getting in a fight at school almost immediately after he was enrolled. Not wanting to face the wrath of his father, or retaliation from the class bully he fought, Davy went on his own, taking up odd jobs including working as a farmer, cattle-driver, and hatter. At 15, Davy returned home and indentured himself, more than once, to pay off his father's debts. Unbeknownst to the country boy, young Davy's humble beginnings were leading him down roads that would twist through politics, battlefields, and America's heart – turning him into a folk hero of mythical proportions. You can read the full article Davy Crockett: The Forgotten History of the King of the Wild Frontier & the Battle of the Alamo at Ammo.com.
    0 replies | 72 view(s)
  • ammodotcom's Avatar
    20 replies | 901 view(s)
No More Results
About ammodotcom

Basic Information

About ammodotcom
Biography:
Ammo.com believes arming our fellow Americans – both physically and philosophically – helps them fulfill our Founding Fathers' intent with the Second Amendment: To serve as a check on state power.
Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Displayed state:
Louisiana
Displayed country:
USA
Political / Activist Bio:
We believe in free speech, privacy and personal sovereignty. And that – like with gun control – unchecked expansion of state power in any of these areas deserves resistance. But while most people believe the problem is right vs. left, we believe it’s liberty vs. authoritarian.

Every round of ammo sold on our site goes to support these beliefs, which is why we voluntarily donate 1% of Ammo.com purchases to a pro-freedom organization of your choice.
Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1

Signature


"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” - Thomas Jefferson

Forum Friends get $20 off your $200 order - save money on bulk ammo as we donate to your favorite pro-freedom group.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
281
Posts Per Day
0.42
General Information
Last Activity
09-17-2021 03:37 PM
Join Date
11-14-2019
Referrals
0
Home Page
https://ammo.com/

01-01-2021


No results to display...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

09-15-2021


09-01-2021


08-25-2021


06-29-2021


06-23-2021


05-18-2021


05-05-2021


04-29-2021


04-24-2021


03-30-2021


02-24-2021


02-17-2021


02-02-2021


12-25-2020


12-16-2020


12-02-2020


11-13-2020


10-28-2020


10-24-2020



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast