Category Archives: 016 Rifles

I’ll Decide what I “Need”. Not, Uncle Joe.

US President Joe Biden delivers remarks on Russia at the East Room of White House in Washington, DC on April 15, 2021. - The United States announced sanctions and the expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats Thursday in retaliation for what Washington says is the Kremlin's US election interference, a massive …

In the last couple days, the JoeBama mis-administration has trotted out the old, Marxist trope about “needs”. Specifically, “Who, in God’s name, needs a weapon that can hold 100 rounds, or 40 rounds, or 20 rounds?”

Sound familiar? Maybe because it’s derived, at least ideologically, from: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Same thinking. Same non sequitur. Same Marxist depravity.

Nowhere, in the US government’s purview is it to determine what I need or do not need. That is for me, alone, to decide. And, it is certainly outside the jurisdiction of “government” to attempt to frame my rights in terms of some political/bureaucratic arbitrary assessment of my needs. I won’t be having that. We won’t be having that conversation. And, if that’s your start point, then we have reached an impasse.

Let’s examine this philosophical non-starter through the lens of any other right. If the government can determine your need to keep and bear a weapon loaded with 20 rounds, what else do they get to control via the “needs argument”?

  • Does your family really need two cars?
  • Do you really need to earn more than minimum wage?
  • Do you need air conditioning in the summer?
  • Do you really need to eat 3 meals a day?
  • Do you really need to exercise all your rights or can you give a few up for the “common good”?

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit (formerly Estate/Property) do not limit your exercise of rights on the basis of need. Nor, does the Bill of Rights contain any measure of limit on the free exercise of any of the rights outlined therein. If we assume – as we rightly should – that the aforementioned rights are Natural Rights (not granted by government) then, it follows that government may not revoke or limit them. The only moral limiting factor on my rights is if my exercise thereof infringes on another’s similar rights. And… my keeping and bearing a gun with x-round capacity infringes on no one’s rights.

If would-be, Tin Pot Joe, feels that he doesn’t need 20 rounds… that’s his business. And, I’m fine with that. But, I will not be drawn into a goofy debate about my rights starting from a Marxist assumption. And, neither should anyone else.

While the mis-administration wrestles with and loses to that fundamentally American bit of orthodoxy, I’ll leave you with this:

More Than A Dozen States Are Trying To Nullify Federal Gun Control

Originally published by John Osterhoudt at Reason

With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

“Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it’s also the right thing to do,” says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. “It’s silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional,” he tells Reason. “It’s time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left.”

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.

Conservative activists are employing the same strategy. While Arizona is the only state where such a bill has become law, elected officials have introduced similar bills in more than a dozen statehouses. Montana‘s legislature has approved a bill that is now awaiting signature or veto from the governor; the Arkansas Senate and the MissouriSouth Carolina, and West Virginia houses have each passed such bills; committees in TexasAlabama, and New Hampshire have bills that are moving forward in their state legislatures; and similar bills have been introduced in FloridaNorth CarolinaGeorgiaMinnesotaOhioNebraskaIowa, and Louisiana.

“We know this stuff has been working and the right can continue to complain about the things that the left is successful at, or they can look at it, learn from it, and replicate it,” Michael Boldin, the founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, tells Reason.

Sabatini is cosponsoring a bill in Florida called the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” that would prohibit any employee of the state of Florida from enforcing, or attempting to enforce “any federal act, law, executive order, administrative order, court order, rule, regulation, statute, or ordinance infringing on the right to keep and bear arms ensured by the Second Amendment.” The bill says that any state employee who assists in enforcing federal gun control laws would be terminated and never again be allowed to work for the state of Florida.

Defying federal law is something that a majority of states already do in one way or another, by becoming immigration sanctuaries or through the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs that federal law still deems illegal.

“In terms of the method it’s identical,” says Sabatini. In sanctuary cities, “they stopped reporting to or dealing with I.C.E., and that’s basically what we’re doing.”

Boldin says that if states refuse to cooperate with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), then federal gun control becomes difficult to enforce.

“The ATF only has about 5,500 employees for the whole country. About a third of them are in administration, and that means they don’t have the manpower or resources to enforce federal gun control on their own,” he says. “Their maximum capacity, year in and year out, is between 8,000 to 10,000 closed cases. So if you get a combination of more than 10,000 people violating a federal act, and then on top of it, you have states and local communities refusing to participate in enforcement. You’ve then opened the door to actually nullify that federal act in practice and effect.”

Boldin says that the legal case for nullification doesn’t depend on the constitutionality of the law a state wants to nullify thanks to a legal doctrine known as anti-commandeering, which has been upheld in five Supreme Court cases from 1842 to 2018. It holds that the federal government can’t require states and localities to participate in the enforcement of federal laws.

“Talking about constitutionality actually does kind of get in the way of anti-commandeering,” Boldin notes. “A lot of people like that as a line in the sand. And I think that’s a good approach, but I don’t think they should be helping enforce federal gun control. Even if a federal court says this federal gun measure is ‘constitutional.'”

In March 2018, when the Trump administration was fighting with local officials over the enforcement of federal immigration laws, John Bolton, who would be appointed by then–President Donald Trump as national security adviser the following month, challenged the concept of nullification in an interview with Breitbart News Daily.

“The idea that law enforcement at lower levels shouldn’t be required to cooperate with the feds is just unthinkable,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “That was also proposed by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun before the Civil War, to say that South Carolina and other slave states would not enforce federal law regarding slavery.”

Boldin says that argument is ahistorical. Anti-commandeering originated in the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which upheld the state’s right not to participate in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. “The bottom line is nullification, as a tool banning participation in federal enforcement was actually a tool of the anti-slavery abolitionist North,” Boldin argues. “And when South Carolina seceded…they issued a document to explain their rationale. And they specifically cited Northern nullification of the federal Fugitive Slave Act.”

Sabatini says his bill is popular among Florida voters, but that doesn’t mean it’s likely to pass. In other states, law enforcement groups like the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association have worked to prevent gun control nullification bills from passing or to change their language, rendering them toothless.

Boldin says police departments want to continue enforcing federal law because it’s lucrative. “They get all kinds of funding from the joint task forces, through things like the Department of Homeland security grant, the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant…They get civil asset forfeiture…I don’t think they’ll admit that they’re getting a bunch of loot to do this federal enforcement, but they certainly are.”

Boldin says that for the nullification movement to succeed against gun control laws and beyond, more Americans will have to recognize that the most effective way to oppose federal policies that violate their rights is at the local level.

“The whole idea of federalism is so important because it’s the only way you can have a country with a few hundred million people living together with a wide range of social, economic, political viewpoints together in peace. What’s right for people in California is probably not right for people in South Carolina and vice versa. And when we see things that come down from a one-size-fits-all centralized solution, I don’t think anyone really ever gets what they want.”

Because 36 states have nullified federal marijuana prohibition, Boldin argues, there’s mounting pressure for the federal government to follow suit. “I think we can replicate that on other issues and learn that localism is really the way forward for liberty.”

Remarks on First-Time Gun Owners From Biden’s Gun Czar Nominee Is a Window into the Fight Ahead

Originally published by Matt Vespa at Townhall

Remarks on First-Time Gun Owners From Biden's Gun Czar Nominee Is a Window into the Fight Ahead
Source: Katie Pavlich

Well, I wouldn’t expect anything less from Biden’s gun czar nominee. Joe decided to tap David Chipman to become the next director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It’s part of his slew of executive orders to combat gun violence after the heinous mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado, which left 10 people dead, including a police officer. It has now been forgotten by the liberal media since it doesn’t fit their narrative. The shooter isn’t white. He’s a Syrian refugee named Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa. He’s 21-years-old. Yet, never let a crisis go to waste, right?

Last year, Chipman mocked first-time gun owners, saying they were worried by zombies, and compared them to Joe Exotic of Netflix’s Tiger King. He was commenting on the massive 2020 spike in gun sales. Katie already covered how Chipman is a die-hard gun control advocate. He also spewed some big whoppers about the Waco siege too, suggesting a couple of helicopters were shot down by .50 caliber machine gunfire. That never happened. The Daily Caller has more on this nonsense (via Daily Caller):

President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives mocked first-time gun owners who purchased firearms during the coronavirus pandemic, saying in an interview last year that they were “putting themselves and their families in danger.”

Chipman said in the interview that he understood the pandemic-induced anxiety that led to a spike in gun sales. But he worried that purchasers were making “rash decisions” that could put them at risk.

“Most of the new buyers who went out to the gun store and bought a gun have no training whatsoever,” Chipman said in an interview with Cheddar that aired on April 3, 2020.

“In their mind they might be competent, they might think they’re die-hard and ready to go, but unfortunately they’re more like Tiger King. They’re putting themselves and their families in danger.”

[…]

He currently serves as a senior adviser to the gun control group founded by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Chipman said in an online chat forum last year that he supports a total ban on the manufacture and sale of so-called assault rifles.

Yeah, that’s a nice window into the mindset of who we’re up against. It’s a person who hates gun-owning Americans, hates they have the right to own firearms, and thinks that only government employees should have guns, the same government agents who misplace their service weapons or shoot themselves while speaking to kids. How about accidentally shooting a man while doing a backflip at a bar? See, I can play this game too, Davey. 

Yeah, that’s a nice window into the mindset of who we’re up against. It’s a person who hates gun-owning Americans, hates they have the right to own firearms, and thinks that only government employees should have guns, the same government agents who misplace their service weapons or shoot themselves while speaking to kids. How about accidentally shooting a man while doing a backflip at a bar? See, I can play this game too, Davey. 

Joe Biden Said The Bill of Rights is NOT “Absolute”

Originally published by Sundance at the Last Refuge

Earlier today Joe Biden raised some eyebrows when he said “no amendment to the constitution is absolute.”   The first ten amendments to the constitution are commonly known as “The Bill of Rights.”

The occupant of the oval office, and head of the executive branch, saying the Bill of Rights is not absolute, should be challenged immediately to qualify that statement.


As a reminder:

♦ Amendment 1
– Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

♦ Amendment 2
– The Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

♦ Amendment 3
– The Housing of Soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

♦ Amendment 4
– Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

♦ Amendment 5
– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

♦ Amendment 6
– Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

♦ Amendment 7
– Rights in Civil Cases

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

♦ Amendment 8
– Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

♦ Amendment 9
– Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

♦ Amendment 10
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

.

Elections have Consequences

“Elections have Consequences.”

This particular Obama-ism makes my skin crawl and my blood boil. While it is apparently true, it is also a tacit admission that, when in power, politicians have absolutely no intention of actually representing their constituents. Their agenda is prime, and everyone who differs in opinion can pound the proverbial sand. I’m pretty sure there’s a line in the Declaration condemning a lack of representation…

As a case in point, the alleged, “great unifier”, Joe Biden, has made the case that his gun control proposals have bipartisan support and are overwhelmingly popular. However, while watching the Rose Garden roll-out of said proposals on YouTube (the official broadcast of the WH) the ratio of likes to dislikes tells a different tale.

In the screenshot below, the YT feed identifies 4700 people viewing (indicative of the Administration’s popularity all by itself) and about 400 “likes” as compared to greater than 3000 “dislikes”.

Now… I’m no statistician… and allowing for the fact that maybe many more people watched the feed on a different “channel… shouldn’t any representative sampling generally mirror the same statistical sentiment on a given issue? Are we to believe that just anti-Biden, pro2A folks tuned into the official WH feed?

And, assuming that the various representative samples would conform, generally, to the same statistical sentiment… Why do we allow the Powers that Be to continue to lie to us to further their agenda?

“Elections have Consequences”, translated: “You little people sit down and shut-up. We won and we’ll do what ever we please. And, there’s not a damned thing you can or will do about it.”

Biden Administration Outlines Six Executive Actions They Will Initiate for Unilateral Gun Control Efforts Without Legislative Branch

Originally published by Sundance at The Last Refuge

The White House has released some details of the six executive actions the JoeBama team has put together for Joe Biden to sign.

(1)  The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.” We are experiencing a growing problem: criminals are buying kits containing nearly all of the components and directions for finishing a firearm within as little as 30 minutes and using these firearms to commit crimes. When these firearms turn up at crime scenes, they often cannot be traced by law enforcement due to the lack of a serial number. The Justice Department will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of these firearms.

(2) The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act. The alleged shooter in the Boulder tragedy last month appears to have used a pistol with an arm brace, which can make a firearm more stable and accurate while still being concealable.

(3) The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states. Red flag laws allow family members or law enforcement to petition for a court order temporarily barring people in crisis from accessing firearms if they present a danger to themselves or others. The President urges Congress to pass an appropriate national “red flag” law, as well as legislation incentivizing states to pass “red flag” laws of their own. In the interim, the Justice Department’s published model legislation will make it easier for states that want to adopt red flag laws to do so.

(4) The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions. Community violence interventions are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities through tools other than incarceration. Because cities across the country are experiencing a historic spike in homicides, the Biden-Harris Administration is taking a number of steps to prioritize investment in community violence interventions.

  • The American Jobs Plan proposes a $5 billion investment over eight years to support community violence intervention programs. A key part of community violence intervention strategies is to help connect individuals to job training and job opportunities.
  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is organizing a webinar and toolkit to educate states on how they can use Medicaid to reimburse certain community violence intervention programs, like Hospital-Based Violence Interventions.
  • Five federal agencies are making changes to 26 different programs to direct vital support to community violence intervention programs as quickly as possible. These changes mean we can start increasing investments in community violence interventions as we wait on Congress to appropriate additional funds. Read more about these agency actions here.

(5) The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking. In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) issued a report summarizing information regarding its investigations into firearms trafficking, which is one way firearms are diverted into the illegal market where they can easily end up in the hands of dangerous individuals. Since the report’s publication, states, local, and federal policymakers have relied on its data to better thwart the common channels of firearms trafficking. But there is good reason to believe that firearms trafficking channels have changed since 2000, for example due to the emergence of online sales and proliferation of “ghost guns.” The Justice Department will issue a new, comprehensive report on firearms trafficking and annual updates necessary to give policymakers the information they need to help address firearms trafficking today.

(6) The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. ATF is the key agency enforcing our gun laws, and it needs a confirmed director in order to do the job to the best of its ability. But ATF has not had a confirmed director since 2015. Chipman served at ATF for 25 years and now works to advance commonsense gun safety laws.  (White House Link)

Yes, She is coming for your guns.

President Harris – because of course that is what she would be, in short order – would be the stuff of nightmares, if you care about your freedoms.

The USAToday story here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/08/14/kamala-harris-pitches-a-red-flag-law-targeting-white-nationalists/2009237001/?fbclid=IwAR1N4vwCt0FnLadvk4fDWjauPcflAikW43A8bd_Hw4SFxD_3Fi8UkrR2VmY tells the story, briefly, in case you’ve been out of the solar system for the last year.

Bad enough that Harris panders to the antigun movement – no surprise there – but the egregious inaccuracies in this story illustrate that her prejudice, and theirs, is supported by “News Light” aka “McPaper”:

1) It is untrue that “online gun sales” are completed without background checks. No firearm can be shipped directly to an online buyer: all must be shipped from a federally licensed firearms dealer, to a federally licensed firearms dealer in the buyer’s state, who completes the transfer to the buyer just as he would if he were selling the firearm himself – that includes the background check.

2) State “red flag laws” do not result in orders “typically issued for two or three weeks”, nor are they “temporary” by any sane definition, as claimed  several times in this story. They are enforceable immediately following a hearing in front of a judge where the accused has no right to speak for himself or through counsel; and their usual duration is at least a year, and in almost every case, the accused has to request termination of the order through another court hearing, at his own expense, where the burden of proof is on him.  Hardly due process.  Hardly “innocent until proven guilty.” Shall we treat all Constitutional rights this way?

3) Harris and her fellow travelers speak repeatedly about using a federal “red flag law” to remove weapons from “suspected” (!) “domestic terrorists” (!!) and “white nationalists” (!!!) while the closest thing to a reasonable commentator in this story is the former NCTC Director who cautions that such action could not be taken on the basis of someone’s exercise of First Amendment rights. But there is no statute, and no crime, titled “domestic terrorism” or “white nationalism,” so labeling someone as such is nothing but a chilling threat against free expression. To whom would you grant authority to determine which citizens fell into either category, and deserved to be stripped of a Constitutional right? I’m sure Kamala Harris has an answer, and most Americans won’t like it.

And those who do like the idea, because after all who cares about “domestic terrorists” or “white nationalists,” should remember Martin Niemoller, the German Lutheran minister who said of the Nazis:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Of Tribes, Transitions, Voids, and Resurrection

See the source image

I’m a veteran. More specifically, I am a US Army, Light Infantry veteran.

As a grunt, I was surrounded by like-minded individuals who were working as a team toward a goal with a “higher purpose”. Now, in retrospect, I have some doubts about the means, methods, and righteousness of that goal, but I cannot ever doubt the commitment and cohesion of my peers or the merits of service to something bigger than myself.

My various units and the relationships within them were indescribably tribal. We were much more than “co-workers”. We were family. Moreover, we were family who understood that we may have to die for one another on a foreign battlefield, in a fight we didn’t start, at the direction of faceless bureaucrats, in service to a country we all loved. That is a bond that is not replicate-able outside an infantry environment.

When I decided to leave the Army, I had lots of good reasons to do so. And, those reasons still stand today. However, what I could not have predicted was the void left by not having my tribe at my shoulder, going forward. And, it was unrecognizable for a good long time. In fact, I have only very recently identified it for what it was and is.

That void is tangible. It acts on each of us in different ways I imagine, but it’s there for each of us. I suspect that it is what drives the veteran suicide statistics. I suspect that, if one were to be diagnosed, it would be identified psychologically as a sort of depression. It doesn’t render any of us dysfunctional, but it renders us less than whole. And in a way that is impossible to adequately describe to those who haven’t experienced it.

My own personal journey has been marked by any number of attempts to fill that unnamed void. From immersing myself in family, to attending college, to working in various fields that held some interest for me, to pursuing high level management positions and business ownership in order to recreate some meaning in my life. The end result has been that, I have professionally, wandered aimlessly for 20 years. And, again, until very recently, I couldn’t identify the feeling or where it was coming from.

There is a deep satisfaction in being involved with a tribe that has a mission bigger than the individual and the team. There is a deep satisfaction in fighting the “good fight” against all odds. There is something empowering about a situation where it is just you and your tribe against the world. And, my experience to date is that, it is very difficult to achieve that state of satisfaction away from your tribe and in the civilian/corporate world.

The problem is, I think, that for fighters, warriors, soldiers, etc, the civilian world is a shallow and superficial place. It is completely alien to our programming and wiring. The psychology is different, the goals are different, and the outcomes are not vital. Winning and losing boils down to getting paid and cashing the check every other week.

Contemporary civilian life exists in a world of paychecks, balance sheets, sitcoms, and politics. That’s where it seems to begin and end. There is no higher purpose to be found there. No brotherhood. At the end of the day, no matter if it was a good day or a bad day, everyone goes home. At the end of the day, there are no life or death consequences to being good or bad at your job. There is no need to survive. Civility is the realm of the soft and corrupt. And, for the former soldier, there is no place that feels like home.

This is why the idea of “transition” from the military is a myth. It does not exist.

Now, I say that with no malice. It isn’t anybody’s fault. But, it is the reality. Former service members, particularly triggerpullers, are aliens in the civilian world. They are left missionless, alone, and burdened with rules that have no merit.

When you are “transitioning” from the military, it is commonplace for the resume writers to try to highlight “leadership experience”. Which is great… and appropriate, but one’s military leadership experience is irrelevant on the other side of the wire. I have been asked more times than I can count to institute and apply “military-style leadership principles” in companies I have worked for. And, each and every time was a dismal failure. Because, those who need to be led are incapable of it and company ownership has no idea what they’re asking for. Moreover, in a feelings-based, emotion driven, civilian economy, that ownership has no tolerance for the waves that “military leadership” creates.

And, so, veterans are left aimless to wander the civilian wilderness. Strangers in a strange land. By the time they find out how separation from their tribe will affect them, it’s too late. Our purpose has been stripped of us and the search for new purpose is lengthy and difficult… and for some, an impossible quest.

So, what to do? The “yearbook” answer is, “use your GI Bill, go to college”. Been there. Talk about agonizing. If you want to feel alienated, just attend college as a veteran. I could go on, but I won’t. I’ll simply tell you that, for me, college was an exercise in absurdity.

Working for others doesn’t typically mesh because, in order to be happy doing that, you have to respect your employer. And, frankly, most employers don’t have the prerequisite experience necessary to inspire respect from a veteran who’s spent any time downrange. Additionally, the employer has to respect the veteran. And, they can’t because they lack the frame of reference to do so.

So… the option is to work for yourself. Right? Maybe. That’s a minefield all it’s own. Because, the reality is that the economy is set up to reward one of three things; creation, sales, or labor. Creating a product or service OR assembling or selling someone else’s product or service. Without getting into the relative merits of creation and sales, the reality is that there is little inspiring or “higher calling” about either of those endeavors for warriors. And, that inspiration to a higher calling is what the veteran seeks. The only inspiration and satisfaction that I have found is finding that thing that meshes with what I enjoy, am good at, and where I deal with little interference from ‘higher’..

So, what is it that former triggerpullers are good at? Well… shooting and teaching others to shoot. All that being true, it’s important to approach that vocation and marketplace with eyes wide open.

It’s become a reality that the “tactical” market is somewhat saturated. And, it’s more saturated with know-nothing clowns than it is with real-deal, former action guys. So, if that’s the path you want to go down, and you recognize that the market is saturated… how does the prospective entrepreneur set themselves apart in that marketplace?

You have to start with a plan. Not a gimmick-y, hyped plan. A real plan, with a real foundation, based in real knowledge and skills. If you want to build a solid business that will serve you and your market for a long time, it is not enough to simply hang your veteran credentials on a shingle and open shop. You’re going to need a curriculum, a business plan, marketing materials, teaching chops, and the desire and ability to talk to people. And, that is where I think I can assist.

In my own personal search, I finally found Distributed Security, Inc (DSI). A company of former military personnel, contractors, and businessmen with a desire to improve their communities and country with Combative Firearms training offerings for individuals, enterprises, faith-based organizations, educational institutions, and healthcare facilities.

The business model satisfied my higher-calling needs, the proof-of-concept has been established in recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was an established curriculum that had more merit than I have seen elsewhere in the firearms training community, and I could work for myself and with guys who had a common background and understood where I was coming from. Jackpot.

As a part of my involvement with DSI, we have introduced the Defender 300 Program (D300). Through which, a veteran who wanted to embark on the path of self-employment in the firearms training industry could carve out his place. Along with the benefits of commission based sales of DSI products and reduced personal training costs, that veteran can (and is encouraged to) certify as a Combative Firearms Instructor. After which, he may become an independent instructor or prospective DSI franchisee.

Based on my particular perspective, and head full of questionable wiring, this is a no-brainer kind of choice. If you are a vet, enjoy shooting and training, and are looking for a higher-calling career that taps into your skillset, I think you owe it to yourself to check out the D300.

Join the Tribe. Be a Warrior Capitalist. Fill the Void. Recreate yourself.

Get in touch. I can help.

Marc Benioff And Salesforce.com Are Booting AR-15 And Handgun Sellers From Their Platforms.

Marc Benioff’s ban includes “any semiautomatic firearms that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine” which basically bans all handgun sellers too. I’m actually ok with Benioff doing this. First, it further exposes him as a hypocritical twinkie (hey Marc, going to ban your security detail from carrying AR’s and Glocks?), and, second, this is a huge opening for real Americans to develop competing platforms. Get to work America!

Business-software giant Salesforce instituted a new policy barring its retail customers from selling semiautomatic weapons and some other firearms.

Source: Tech giant brings software to a gun fight

The Gun Control Campaign Against The AR-15 Is Full Of Lies

“Moreover, the nice thing about having our individual rights codified in the Constitution is that Americans, unlike most others, don’t (or shouldn’t) have to explain ourselves to government officials. Though many Americans use ARs to hunt, I’m certain nothing in the Second Amendment (or the debates surrounding the Constitution) mention “hunting,” because the right to self-defense—both as an individual concern and a buttress against tyranny—had nothing to do with bagging deer. It was about the state taking away firearms.”

 

 

Political efforts to ban the AR-15 are part of an incremental movement by gun controllers to ban all semi-automatic guns.

Source: The Gun Control Campaign Against The AR-15 Is Full Of Lies

Less than 24 hours after mass shooting at mosques, New Zealand vows to ban semi-automatic rifles. Idiocracy at its best.

Less than 24 hours after mass shooting at mosques, New Zealand vows to ban semi-automatic rifles

This is idiotic. And counterproductive. Instead, Jacinda Ardern should pass an emergency declaration authorizing funding to subsidize the cost of semi-automatic rifles and training for all houses of worship in New Zealand.

Why?

Because her ban won’t stop the next attack.

Because profiling won’t identify the next risk.

Because cops won’t be there in time.

Because worshipers are the best defenders of their place of worship.

Because properly vetted and selected worshipers can quickly learn how to be safe and effective defenders of their house of worship.

That’s why.

This is security theater in it’s most absurd version.

Source: Less than 24 hours after mass shooting at mosques, New Zealand vows to ban semi-automatic rifles

Hybrid-80 polymer 80% AR-15 lower build and review – Will it hold up to heavy use?

Lets go ahead and list the pros and the cons and why I suggest this as your next AR build! Pros follow. Lightweight, it weighs on average about half what an aluminum standard lower will weigh. Remember, ounces are pounds and so on. I like having an AR that is capable of 200- 300 yard shooting that weighs 5-6lbs loaded. Its NICE! Strong, I was unable to break it with standard drop testing and even some minor use of it as a hammer with the butt stock as the handle.

Source: thesurvivalistblog.net

The Best Thing for Concealed Carry

While I understand why people make up lists for the “x” best “armaments or equipment,” it is important to always remember that the single best thing you can get is training.

“The best gun to win a gunfight with is the one in your hands” is what Evan Marshall says.

After a lifetime of shooting weapons, Evan understands that “any gun will do if you will do.”

The reality is that you can fight like a champ with what you have as long as you have the training required to use it well.

Give an operator a Hi-Point or the darling of this week’s gun magazine and the problem will be solved just as quickly.

They may curse you for the former and bless you for the latter, but make no mistake, it’s not the gun or equipment doing the work, it’s the training they received and the dedication they put into mastering any new tool or equipment they are issued.

Having said that, please, do go out and experiment with different firearms and equipment to your heart’s content.

Please do support the industry with your time and money, it will spur further innovations we all can all use.f you are lucky, you will find a tool or equipment that is worthy of joining or replacing something in your carry kit.

If you are lucky, you will find a tool or equipment that is worthy of joining or replacing something in your carry kit.

But while you do, just remember that it’s your training that will put you over the top and make you better, it’s not the tools and accessories themselves.

 

What is the Strategy for Winning a Gunfight?

The strategy for winning a defensive gunfight is converting disadvantage to advantage.

Let’s clarify what we mean by defensive combative firearms training.

Because you are not the one instigating the confrontation, you will initially be at a disadvantage and in a reactionary and defensive state because you are behind in what John Boyd called the decision making process or the “OODA Loop”.

Conversely, because your adversary is selecting the time, palace, conditions, and weaponry for the confrontation – he will initially start with the initiative as the causal factor in your situation because he has already completed may OODA Loops before you ever even knew of him or his intent.

While starting in a reactive state is an initial disadvantage; proper training can teach you how to convert this initial reactive and disadvantageous situation to your advantage and to the disadvantage of your adversary.

Solid training programs can teach you how to react in a manner that will cause your adversary to react to your actions, and exploiting this initial success can allow you to then wrestle the initiative away from your adversary and then keep him in a reactive state so you can end the with a more favorable outcome for yourself.

The key here is for you to become the causal factor to your adversaries plan for you, and thereby placing him in a disadvantageous reactive state, and the more solid your skills are, the easier it will be for you.

Obviously, converting the initial disadvantage to advantage is key, and this key does have a price, and that price is effort in training.

Read More

Coming After Your (replica) Guns?

Toy gun

Of the 86 fatal shootings involving imitation firearms since 2015, the most common theme was mental illness: 38 of those killed had a history of it, according to their families and police reports. Fourteen of the calls were domestic disturbances. Ten others began as robberies. The remaining circumstances range from patrolling neighborhoods to serving arrest warrants to making traffic stops.

Are more laws needed to make a fake gun look fake to protect the person wielding it inappropriately?

Is the problem fake guns that look too real (whatever that means), or could other factors be at play?

Since people under a life or death situation (such as those described in the article) naturally achieve a sympathetic nervous system or (SNS) response which includes the loss of color vision; what modifications will be demanded when simply coloring guns differently doesn’t fix the problem?

It seems to me that the real problem is that some people choose to intimidate, coerce, or otherwise threaten other innocent people, and then other people react with appropriate levels of counterviolence when faced with someone acting in a manner that suggests that they or others are in immediate jeopardy of loss of life and limb.

As my friends in law enforcement say “You do stupid thing, you win stupid prizes.”

Read More

Krebs Custom Interchangeable Muzzle System (IMS)

Just in case you missed it, our friend Zeke of Zeke Shoots had an opportunity to test these out and chat with Mark Krebs during the 2016 Bullpup Shoot hosted by Manticore Arms up at The Site.

If you are a fan of the AK platform you will want to get to know Zeke and his work (website, youtube, facebook).

TFB story below.

Krebs Custom Interchangeable Muzzle System (IMS) for AK rifles is now available through their website at $90. It allows to have 16.25″ barrel length and still be able to attach different muzzle devices without significantly increasing the overall length (except when used with suppressors)…

Source: The Firearm Blog

Steiner’s new 6X40 Intelligent Combat Sight or “ICS”

We love technology, and it’s only getting better.

At the push of a button, an eye-safe laser instantly provides distance to the target, and calculates an illuminated, trajectory-compensated aiming point based on ammunition ballistics, measured distance, and angle to your target out to 800 meters. As a true electro-optical aiming device, it combines combat-optimized technology, operating simplicity in the field, and the targeting effectiveness to give small-caliber weapons oversized clout.

Source: Intelligent Combat Sight (ICS) 6×40 | Steiner Optics

UA-56674165-2