Dirt and Blood

When someone takes a “clinical” approach to something, they look at it coldly, objectively. It is a clean and academic look at a topic.

While my bias is fairly clear (if you haven’t figured it out: I support the rights of anyone not in prison), I have avoided getting graphic. The Debt update is a fine example of the Run’s ability to be clinical. Looking at politics, legal theory etc. is clean, academic, and can be done in a safe, air conditioned room.

But the bottom line is we deal with guns and self-defense here. We can discuss better gun laws, armed citizen news, and the Constitution all damn day. That’s the beauty of it. None of that involves any concept of violence. It can also be the subject of days-long conferences.

But combat isn’t clean and neither is human nature.

This week, we get out of the newsroom, and onto the street. Combatives, the myth of the “unarmed man,” police paying for not being aggressive enough, and more this week. We will be looking at Ferguson not as the race story people want it to be, but the complete breakdown of order it is.

Ferguson is proof that laws can be discussed for weeks, but destroyed in seconds.

When we’re done exploring the lethality of combat, we’ll return to the newsroom with some stories on what people are doing to prevent being a victim.

1.) Groundwork. This is not going to be a Midnight Run focused on de-escalation. De-escalating works assuming your opponent has any interest in it. While no sane person wants to kill or maim another, when one is attacked that isn’t always an option. For the majority of this Run, it is worth presuming that retreat is not an option. A determined attacker would merely chase a retreating individual, anyway.

We’re treating this like a street fight in modern America. Retreat is not an option, police are not nearby to help, and frankly most of the citizens would rather videotape the beating than stop it. (They need the YouTube views, you see.)

We will also not be holding any weapon above another. While gun control advocates love to claim that a gun is “more lethal” than a knife or fists, the truth is that lethality is binary. In other words, an object is either lethal or it isn’t. A man who was shot dead is no less dead than someone who was stabbed to death. In the right hands, anything can be a weapon…..including hands.

That being said, there is not much reason to discuss firearms in this Midnight Run. Their combat effectiveness is both understood and, frankly, beaten into the heads of any American that watches the news following a shooting. Instead, we will be focused primarily on that which does not go bang.

2.) Fists. Let’s start with the original deadly weapon. (The Bible is silent with how, exactly, Cain killed Abel.) If the Knockout Game weren’t enough evidence nothing will be, but it’s clear to anyone with a basic understanding of physics that fists can do serious if not lethal damage to another person. A story by Ross Elder expertly destroys the idea that unarmed is synonymous with incapable of lethal damage. His main example is Randy Couture, a legend in the Ultimate Fighting Championship known for his “ground-and-pound” approach.

Couture was able to generate over 2,000 pounds of force in his downward blows to an opponent’s head. That’s the equivalent of dropping a car on your face. Trained fighters seldom take the full force of those blows because they are moving and defending with their own arms and hands but what if the victim was not a trained fighter? Couture, and any other trained fighter, could kill you with just a couple of blows to the head.

While it is unlikely that an attacker will be on the level of a UFC fighter, it’s also not worth taking the risk that your opponent will be abysmal. Mr. Elder closes with this:

So, if your attacker is unarmed and gets you in a choke, is that it? You’re just going to let yourself die because you won’t use lethal force against an unarmed opponent? How about if you are on your back being hammered in the face and you are moments away from losing consciousness and eventual death? Just going to accept your fate? I seriously doubt that.

I’m not. If I’m armed, I’m going to kill you. Dead.

If a cop walks up to someone out of the blue, draws his pistol, and shoots them dead in the street, that’s one thing. But, shooting an unarmed assailant during a fight in the street is another. You do not know the intentions of the attacker and cannot allow yourself to be overpowered or knocked unconscious. You will only be another statistic.

You also have no idea if your attacker IS armed and they just haven’t used their weapon yet. You can’t wait until you are unable to defend yourself to find out. I suspect most of you reading this would not. So, why are we judging a police officer who makes the same decision you would make under the same circumstances?

An unarmed attacker is still an attacker. The response to “you don’t know his intentions” is “that’s a risk I can’t afford to take.” If you’re wrong, you’ll never know. If you’re right, you’ll never survive.

Let’s take a recent case study in the lethality of fists from the news. Back in May of this year, an ” unidentified thug” brutally beat a 68-year-old man to death in Alphabet City, Manhattan. It is also worth noting the attacker’s mentality, as he is reported to have calmly walked away from the victim, leaving him for dead.

3.) Knives. It wasn’t until around the 16th century that knives became domesticated for use at the dinner table. In medieval Europe, knives even became works of art in themselves, (and just about everyone had a knife of some kind). Prior to that, knives fashioned from animal horns, stone, and eventually bronze were used as hunting tools.

Put another way, they went from hunting tools, to preparing food, to the dinner table. Same tool, but different purposes throughout. The modern knives maintain all three of those purposes in modern society. That a certain object is “designed” to do something doesn’t mean it has no other uses. Put more bluntly, the knife was/is designed for cutting into things. What, exactly, it was used to cut is incidental.

Up on InSov’s Facebook, one of my colleagues found a photograph of a police officer who incorrectly guessed that he could take on a knife-wielding attacker. He survived, but not without a series of extremely deep (and rather wide) cuts to his back. The man who posted the photograph said it is a lesson in “how deadly” someone “only armed with a knife” can be.

While we’re still here, there is an article on Modern Combat and Survival about how a knife is more dangerous than a gun, especially at close range.

You read that right, an article detailing 5 ways a knife is worse than a gun.

Let’s move on.

4.) Law. Almost all responses to attacks, shootings, etc. today is to enact laws against whatever event caused the law to even be considered. Whether it’s the Federal gun control laws that were attempted in the wake of the Newtown school shooting, the recent stupidity involving a 9-year-old being given an Uzi, laws tend to be the go-to “solution” for everything now.

Trouble is, laws don’t impact those who don’t follow them, and laws only have an impact as long as a majority of people respect them. Take the action in Ferguson for example, or even post-Katrina New Orleans. That looting, assault, etc. were illegal didn’t stop any of it from happening in either scenario.

The truth is that law cannot prevent, it can only set up punishments. Attempts to “prevent” a crime by way of new laws imply that law is capable of physically changing the world around it.

What was one of the main prevention methods against looting? Armed shopkeepers. Not that looting was illegal, but that looting was potentially fatal.

ADDENDUM: DON’T. EVEN. START. This is not to say that we shouldn’t have laws, but rather that we should understand their limits. Learn the difference before you start foaming at the mouth about how I want anarchy, chaos in the streets, and blood everywhere because “you OBVIOUSLY don’t like laws.”

Back in Midnight Run: Debt it was about thinking deep enough to differentiate between supporting a felon’s rights vs. the insane idea of supporting his actions. Here it is about supporting laws while acknowledging their limits and not placing undying faith in their somehow limitless power.

Not supporting USELESS law is NOT the same as not supporting ANY law. Learn the difference, think deeper than “you just want anarchy because you don’t agree with me.”

With that, let’s head back to the newsroom and discuss solutions. Let’s switch gears from how an attacker can seriously injure/kill a person to how that person can “persuade” the attacker to pursue more diplomatic means.

5.) Stay informed. Back in early August, two Ohio grandmothers formed an organization called “Women Armed and Ready” or WAR. The organization is focused on training women in using firearms as self-defense. It is, realistically, a continuation of the surge we have been seeing in interest for firearms and firearms training. Recent sales figures prove that women especially are still the driving force behind this next generation of gun owners.

The uptick in firearms/training has led to a drop in crime in even some of the worst neighborhoods in the country. In mid-July, the head of the Detroit police gave credit to an armed citizenry for the city’s drop in crime rates.

6.) Stay alert. There are volumes of information about the finer points of self-defense. But one of the best ways to win a fight, is to avoid getting into the brawl to start with. This is done through what is called “situational awareness.” In other words, being very aware of your surroundings. In other words, as ITS Tactial notes, it means putting your damn phone away for two seconds. (ITS Tactical has more than a few great articles on the subject. Read them here, here, and here.)

In short, the best fight is generally one that was never fought in the first place. The discussion about weapons and attacks assumes that the attack came to you. The idea of avoiding a fight altogether (and following basic logic like “don’t be in bad neighborhoods at night”) is both a lot easier to win and a lot less stressful than the lightning-fast brutality we have discussed this week.

7.) Stay free. The point of all this is not to make anyone paranoid. It is not to assume that everyone is out to kill you, or that you are going to be attacked at some point. (I’m sure we’d all like to go through life not being attacked by some lunatic, frankly. Seems like a better way to go through life.) The goal of all this is to point out that anything can be a weapon, that focusing on one is both intellectually lazy and dishonest, and that there are limits to what is being discussed as a “solution” to violence. As discussed by Sinner Reformed yesterday, there is no perfect solution. Physical defense, however, is much more worthwhile and trustworthy than hoping that something’s illegality is going to be enough.

It is always best to avoid conflict. Indeed actively looking for a fight is the fastest way to nuke your self-defense case in court. The goal of this Run, and frankly the goal of every American, should be to be ready to deal with that event if, God forbid, it were to occur.

This week, we stepped back from news about gun rights, to focus on one of the reasons why we have gun rights: for the defense of our lives, and those we care about.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

Guest Post: The Solution to Gun Violence

Sinner Reformed is a blog about religion, as the name implies. Its writer also has an interest in firearms, which is in-line of course with the Midnight Run. Since it does not make sense to have a gun violence post on a religion blog, he asked me to post it here. I have made no edits to his work.

————————

What’s going on at Target and what happened at Jack in the Box and Chipotle after they made their gun-free declaration are evidence that the approach some take to the reduction of violent crime is coming from a place more based in feeling like we are doing something versus doing something provably effective. This may be because their rhetoric and their actions contradict each other. For instance, all the major shootings that have made the news in recent years, dating back to Virginia Tech if you want to be kind, Columbine if not, have taken place on what are known as “gun free zones”. In other words, there is a sign somewhere telling people that firearms are not allowed on these campuses. Someone could easily bring a concealed gun onto the premises and hurt or kill many people, but we have the sign telling them that would be wrong.

Ok, reply the gun control advocates, the problem then is that our gun laws are too lenient. However, when a shooting takes place in California, or another weekend bloodbath in Chicago makes the news again the gun control advocate can only ask for more gun laws.

As you may know, California has the toughest gun laws in the country, they have a 7 round magazine limit, a ban on publicly carrying handguns, and demand that guns be disassembled in the home and locked away. Chicago’s gun ban was found to be unconstitutional. Yet, in spite of this, the gun control advocate insists the solution rests in yet more legislation. In other words, it’s not that we’re doing the wrong thing, we just haven’t done enough of it yet.

There is a great hypocrisy here. Gun control advocates insist they support the 2nd Amendment and state in the next breath that the gun laws that either outright ban handguns or render owning a gun completely meaningless, that require separate state and federal background checks as well as the registration of both firearms and ammunition do not go far enough in their eyes. How can one say you support the 2nd amendment when the laws you support ignore the Amendment entirely.

While this is going on, the gun-control advocate insists that everyone who opposes his belief has blithely resigned himself to seeing a school shooting every three weeks when he’s feeling calm and insists that such people are personally responsible for the actions of a madman when he isn’t. He declares that only he has the solution to gun violence and it requires more laws. This only shows how little he has thought of the issue, and how little he cares about results.

You see, looking for a solution to “gun violence” is not the correct path to take. Any situation that could end in tragedy should be viewed with horror. To look merely at gun violence ignores the people who are killed by hand, with sharp and blunt force objects, fire and any other means one person can use to kill another. This is the only case in which the object is blamed for the actions of its operator. The counter to this of course is the indisputable fact that guns were designed to kill. But what something is designed to do is not as important as what it’s capable of.

The issue here is the facetiousness of gun controls basic premise. “We will pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals”. And yet what we see are not restrictions on the guns themselves, but merely bans on cosmetic elements. We hear of magazine capacity limits, the banning of certain attachments, a different way of ejecting the magazine, nothing that has anything to do with keeping guns out of anyone’s hands.

The other staple, universal background checks, are simultaneously unconstitutional and unenforceable and only serve to add another layer of uselessness to what should be a simple process.

A simple example: Say I sell a friend a weapon, and that we run this background check and everything else. This friend kills, whether as part of a plan he did not let on to or in the heat of anger, kills someone with what is now officially his gun. What good did this additional background check do other than tell them something that was already obvious? My friend had the weapon when he killed the individual.
Background checks that already exist do not stop madmen. The Santa Barbra and Virginia Tech shooters were diagnosed with mental handicaps and still went through all the legal loops to get their hands on guns and torrents of ammunition, the SB shooter managed to do so in California.

Realizing that the solutions to violence put forth by the gun control crowd are cosmetic on one end and banal on the other, one is left to consider what could work. Violence requires a solution with more thought (and more respect) than to simply say “We’ll pass a law, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll pass another one.”

The solution to violence, and the key to logical self defense requires something most would find unthinkable. To consider murder, and take the emotion out of it. See the killing of ten or twenty or thirty people the way a killer would; not as an abhorrent, brutal, morally reprehensible act, but as merely an end in itself. These people have long forgotten any moral objections to murder. So, how does one go about achieving an objective? By controlling a situation. Choose a location where the potential for on-site resistance, number of escape routes, and the likelihood of a prompt police arrival are low, and the potential for damage is high.

In other words, a gun free zone. Resistance is prohibited, escape routes don’t matter because all the killer needs to do is pick a place that suits his needs. A university, a town square, a mall, a post office; natural population centers (that are usually gun free) all the work is done for him.

Now, the only thing both sides have in common is when they come up with something you will hear, in a rather dismissive tone, “It’s not a perfect solution but it’s progress”. Apart from its cynical undertone, it misses one crucial point: There is no perfect solution to violence. Violence will exist so long as evil exists and evil will always be a fact of life on Earth. Because of this the bystander has two options; He can prepare for the off chance he has to act, or he can choose to sit idly and pray nothing happens.

The truth is that a good person with a gun is the only thing that can immediately and effectively respond to a threat. This is because an attacker is unfazed by anything that doesn’t attack him directly. In a gun free zone, there is nothing to stop the attacker. An alarm simply rings and the police are still on their way (and as Sandy Hook showed still wait several minutes before acting). Meanwhile the civilians are defenseless with only a locked door between them and the attacker. This is why all of the shootings you’ll ever hear about take place on these so-called gun free zones.

And what of the places where people are armed? What of the campuses where guns are allowed on campus (Idaho as of this year, Utah as of 2007 and a smattering of other states in between), the police stations and gun stores, or the homes where a man breaks in only to find an armed homeowner standing before him? These places have proven not to be perfectly safe, but far safer than their weapons free counterparts. Again, none of the major shootings over the last decade and a half (if any at all) have taken place on a gun free zone.

The reason for this contrast is simple, criminals of all stripes are nothing more than tacticians. They know where they will not be challenged and where they can achieve their objectives while only facing minimal resistance, if any at all. The solution then, is to increase the resistance a potential attacker might face.

It’s not a perfect solution, because there is no perfect solution. It is however a provably better solution than anything the gun control advocate has ever presented.

Unmasking

California passes “mental health” and ammo confiscation, Moms Demand Action supporters advocate for committing misdemeanor theft and felony SWATting of Kroger customers, and the implications of the November Elections. The real agenda is finally starting to become blatantly obvious. Keeping it brief this week while the planet watches Ferguson burn.

Thanks to my InSov Network colleagues Armed Novelist and Catty Conservative for their assistance in getting the Run together.

1.) California. Because California gun laws apparently weren’t tight enough, lawmakers in the state have passed two gun control measures relating to mental health and ammunition. The former, according to KCRA, “would require officers to search the state’s database of gun purchases when checking on whether someone may be a danger to themselves or others.”

The latter requires ammo vendors to be licensed and requires background checks for ammo purchases leaving aside the fact that background checks on guns don’t help to begin with.

The latter, by the way, was written by CA state Senator Kevin de Leon. The guy who talked about “ghost guns.”

CA lawmakers also passed a ban on the sale of Confederate flags.

2.) Theft and murder. When you are part of a dying movement, you tend to get desperate. Bearing Arms has a report out about anti-gun advocates calling for stealing from Kroger and “SWATting” legal gun owners. “SWATting” is the practice of calling a SWAT team on somebody has a means of harrassment.

The practice of anti-gunners SWATting somebody is also blamed for the death of someone carrying an airsoft gun.

So apparently when peaceful protests fail, steal from grocery stores and get people killed….and then somehow claim that you are anti-violence.

3.) VOTE. In the off chance you needed a reason to get off of your ass and vote this November, NBC News recently mulled that the November elections may be a referendum on the topic of gun control. NBC, of course, is still laying out how they will explain away a loss should one occur this November.

But even NBC can figure out that November might be yet another sign that the movement is coming to an end. It is no surprise the some of the people with a LOT invested in it have taken to illegal methods.

4.) Badass. Leaving the rest of us with no real excuses, a 27-year-old Iraq vet who lost his leg in an IED was offered a pro-wrestling contract. The vet, Sgt. Chris Melendez, defeated 2 fighters in an August 8th event at the Manhattan Center.

There really isn’t much else to say here except that he’s just a badass for doing that.

5.) Commonality. Finally tonight, a note from Philly.com. The headline should tip you off to the state of the gun debate: Increasingly, guns are common in public places.

There is, of course, this gem:

“I open my front door and walk in public spaces in Georgia,” said Kathryn Grant, cofounder of the Georgia Gun Sense Coalition. “Most people don’t think about the potential of violence erupting because it’s not a reference point, it’s not a part of their experience yet.”

For some, the acceptability of guns and the number of people who could potentially be carrying is terrifying.

“If I thought about the possibility of the increased number of guns now that are being carried in places, it would have a paralyzing effect, and I won’t let that happen,” Grant said.

Two ways to look at it.

Stay ignorant, stay afraid, stay unarmed
vs.
Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

Random Thoughts: Programming Notes

Since the release of the Midnight Run: Debt update regarding felons, misdemeanors and gun rights, (https://midnightrunnews.com/2014/06/14/special-edition-debt/ — This one.) I’ve had a few conversations about the topic that I wanted to highlight. On Twitter, @Browncoat_Atty is a constitutional lawyer in New York. He has provided more than enough feedback on the topic.

https://twitter.com/Browncoat_Atty/status/497142856373776384 — In regards to the idea of felons owning guns, he notes that we do not restrict the other Constitutional rights, yet oddly make a distinction for the right to bear arms.

https://twitter.com/Browncoat_Atty/status/499360752344768512 — It’s also worth noting that the Supreme Court has not actually ruled on the prohibition itself.

https://twitter.com/Browncoat_Atty/status/481819228232617984 — Also, he gave me what is probably the best response to anti-gun accusations that one “supports violent criminals.” “I would respond with, “No, I support civil rights, not Scarlet Letter legislation. ” ”

There is enough material for a second round of Midnight Run: Debt, especially with the advent of the REDEEM Act in the Senate. I’m just not sure when I’m going to get around to it right now. In all likelihood, it will be a series, focusing next on the punishments for various crimes, and finally on how to rehabilitate people (prison’s original purpose, ostensibly) and restore their rights as citizens upon release.

Also in the pipe is a look at how law enforcement perceives CCW. A project I’m calling “Blue Line.”

I’m at Twitter.com/KB3WTR

Additionally, Catty Conservative, Armed Novelist and I have decided to link our respective work together into what we are calling the Individual Sovereignty Network or InSov. The Twitter there is Twitter.com/insovnetwork.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.
– Jordan

Confiscation

Missouri Dems propose making people turn in some guns for cosmetic reasons, a Federal judge upholds Massachusetts’ strict gun laws, and “Responsible Body Armor” bill bans civilian ownership of body armor. (I guess we’re not “responsible” enough.) It’s a lot of news about a lot of people wanting to take a lot of guns and body armor. Plus, Milwaulkee Sheriff David Clarke survives a close primary race. We’ll also check in with frequent Midnight Run contributor Armed Novelist.

1.) Missouri. While many Republicans see it as dead in the water, a new bill in the Missouri legislature would give gun owners 90 days to turn in firearms based largely on the cosmetics of the gun. The characteristics that would apparently qualify for confiscation mandatory surrender include:

a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c. A folding or telescoping stock; or

d. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

2.) A Federal judge has upheld a series of firearms laws in Maryland. The crux of the judge’s argument appears to be that the AR-15 is “dangerous and unusual”. The AR (the most popular rifle in America) the AK, and similar semi-autos are, due to being “dangerous and unusual” not protected by the Second Amendment for some reason.

Guns Save Lives rightfully notes that, in the aftermath of Heller, the opinion seems fairly vulnerable to future action in the case.

3.) Body Armor. In what probably shows more about the goals of the anti-gun movement than many would like, US Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced the “Responsible Body Armor Possession Act.” The bill essentially bans the civilian ownership of “military-grade” body armor. (Note the use of the term “military.”
) As Examiner’s Kurt Hoffman notes, the language used in promotion of the bill is basically the exact same language used to demonize so-called “assault rifles.”

To make my point, consider a “Responsible Firearm Possession Act.”

4.) Rerun. The government’s “Rise of Rightwing Extremism” narrative is back. You know how this works. Let’s move on.

5.) Clarke. Milwaulkee County Sheriff David Clarke handed Michael Bloomberg yet another loss, winning his Democrat primary earlier this week. Sheriff Clarke told NRANews that the Second Amendment was the difference maker in the primary race.

6.) Armed Novelist. As stated before, Armed Novelist has updated his site with another entry. Slightly bouncing off of the recent action in Ferguson, Missouri (which is probably one of the best arguments for the right to self-defense in months), he takes a look at the anti-gun movement’s attempt to demonize and divide various groups of gun owners. (Collectors, hunters, gun rights people, etc.)

As Clarke’s victory, and countless others show, the attempts to divide people (and buy peoples’ votes) have backfired spectacularly.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

Grab Bag 2

Spare a thought for the portion of civilization that called law enforcement when Facebook shut down last week.

This is the world we live in, where Facebook outages require Law Enforcement, and tornado coverage is not as important as a soccer game.

Anyway, for those of you still with me (and able to see the absurdity in both), welcome and let’s get started. This week, we have a piece on why “smart guns” simply don’t have a market, a couple of grandmothers start a firearms training class after being robbed, and a “right to bear arms” amendment to Missouri’s Constitution is overwhelmingly approved by voters.

There is honestly no central theme to tonight’s Run, if my digression into Facebook wasn’t enough to give that away.

1.) Smart Guns. A failure-prone, $1,800 handgun that doesn’t work when held only in the off-hand. While that should be enough to make the point, there is an article on Bearing Arms about how there really is no market for smart guns. Law Enforcement doesn’t trust it, many average people can’t afford it, and those trained in self-defense know its litany of weaknesses (like being more likely to NOT shoot when held exclusively in your off-hand) to the point where the idea of having one is ludicrous.

Add to that the potential of hacking, jamming the radio frequencies used to unlock the gun, and the idea of the guns being linked into a central network and shutting them down altogether and it isn’t hard to see why most people have major problems with relying on the tech in life-or-death scenarios.

The only people supporting it…are the ones legislating to mandate it. In other words, the anti-gun movement is so desperate, they need to push something nobody wants….and make it the only type of firearm available.

Besides which, if Law Enforcement doesn’t trust it, why should we?

2.) Branding. Also from Bearing Arms is an article on the NRA’s slow-motion rebranding to appeal to a younger, more diverse demographic. Specifically, how NRANews’ incredibly diverse cast of commentators is punching holes (so to speak) in the far-left’s almost regular stereotype of the NRA consisting only of old, white men.

Considering that the stereotype is one of the few cards the anti-gun movement still has, it stands to reason that this sudden shift, and the apparent success it has been met with, has terrified those who rely on the stereotype in their “arguments.”

3.) Why I Carry: Baseline. I have always held the belief that, if you attack somebody, you deal with whatever your victim makes you deal with. (Even if “what they make you deal with” involves lethal force.) An attacker should look at a potential attack as a lethal gamble, not an easy target. (A friend on Twitter, Ken Soderstrom, put it much more bluntly, saying “I think more assaultees should kill assaulters. This solves the problem permanently.”)

This is not contradictory with anything said back in Debt. In fact, the restoration of gun rights for felons/misdemeanors (another topic that came up recently on Twitter) would be based both on whether the attacker survived to start with and that those released from prison would face an armed populace if they attempted a second round. The system would, in effect, become self-regulating.

If we’re honest, the Second Amendment does not exclude criminals, just as the First Amendment does not exclude racists.

4.) Why I Carry: Case Study. Here in Atlanta, there was woman severely beaten on a popular trail to the point of being almost unrecognizable. On the Facebook page of WAGA FOX5 here in Atlanta, many are seeing this as a reason to carry.

Which is why I’m bringing it up. Way back in the “Reality” update we discussed two stories from NOLATAC that had a similar theme. On a story of a disabled man beaten and robbed, NOLATAC wrote:

Watch it. This is the world we live in. These are the kinds of “people” who walk among us. Let it sink in. Watch it twice. Imagine the kind of person it takes to victimize someone like this. It literally turns my stomach. You can close your eyes and say “this is a shame” or “this doesn’t happen here”, but that does not change the reality that it in fact DOES happen everywhere to varying degrees. The world is constantly changing, and you either adapt to account for that change or you become a victim of that change. You cannot pick the moment when violence choses to make you a victim. All you can control is how prepared you are to deal with it.

The Silver Comet story is just another reminder of why people should carry a gun.

5.) Council of the Perpetually Outraged. A restaurant in North Carolina is taking heat after a receipt showing they gave a customer a discount for praying in public went viral.

Apparently it offended a few atheists with the Freedom From Religion Foundation who say “it is illegal for Mary’s Gourmet Diner to discriminate, or show favoritism, on the basis of religion.”

The locals (and everyone with a trace of logical thought) have been supportive of the restaurant.

Speaking as someone who is at best agnostic (I don’t believe in God, but will fight for the rights of those who do), I see this as a return to what some would call “old-school” America. Being rewarded for such actions is, to me, completely acceptable and should be encouraged.

6.) Missouri. Finally this week, an amendment to the Missouri Constitution reinforcing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was overwhelmingly approved by voters this week. The amendment, which states that the right is “unalienable” passed with over 64% of voters supporting the measure.

The group Moms Demand Action said it “could” undermine public safety….which is exactly what us Georgians heard when HB60 was signed. We’re still waiting on the sky to fall there, frankly.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

Shifting Battlelines

DC goes Constitutional Carry for all of two days, a look back at when Illinois went Shall Issue and Detroit’s crime issue, New York DHS wants people to rat out preppers, and Everytown’s domestic violence ad backfires spectacularly.

Thanks as always to Armed Novelist and Catty Conservative for their help in getting the Run together. Keeping it brief this week.

1.) DC. Following a Federal Court ruling that DC’s ban on carrying firearms was unconstitutional, the District followed a constitutional carry system….for all of two days.

Two days after the ruling, the DC Attorney General got a 90-day stay on the ruling, using mostly the “public safety” argument.

It’s likely this is the start of a long battle, but that Constitutional Carry is possible in the nation’s capital is very encouraging. It would give a major boost to the Constitutional Carry movement.

2.) History Lesson. Of course, the other two strong points are when Illinois became the last state to have some form of concealed carry law and when the chief of the Detroit police creditied the drop in crime to an armed citizenry. On the flipside, the promises of bloodshed and non-stop murder have yet to materialize.

It isn’t entirely relevant to DC, but it is worth going back to both as a demonstration of the effectiveness of an armed citizenry as an anti-crime tool AND in demonstrating that supposed anti-gun strongholds can and are becoming much less so. The wall is crumbling.

3.) Fear the Prepper. Preppers, people who prepare for disasters, are apparently a thorn in the government’s side. An article on Even Chronicle shows that the New York DHS has been releasing signs asking citizens to turn in other citizens who buy MREs, ammo, flashlights, match containers, and other “prepper” merch in bulk.

Word of advice: Never rat out the man you’re going to end up depending on in a disaster.

4.) Everytown Backfire. In its efforts to pass yet another “common sense” gun law, (this time involving permanent bans for people convicted of stalking and a few other crimes), Everytown Demands Action From Illegal Mayors released this dramatic ad depicting a woman on the phone with 911 while an abusive ex demands to be let into the home. While she’s on the phone with 911, the man breaks into the home and gets into an altercation with the woman. He backs up, produces a handgun, and the video cuts to black.

As I’m sure you’ve gathered, many who see the video are asking why the woman didn’t have a firearm. Even The View, widely regarded as a left-leaning program, ended up slamming the ad’s message, and arguing for women to own guns to defend themselves.

Unfortunately for Everytown, an incident a few days later demonstrated the video’s polar opposite, with a woman defending herself against an attacker.

It’s something we need to see a lot more of. Forget relying on the law to provide protection…..and instead provide your own.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.