Dallas attacks is used to attack open carry, most guns used in crime weren’t acquired legally, and resistance to an attempted gun ban in Massachusetts.
Not much to cover of significance, honestly. (Is it really worth getting detailed on the DNC being anti-gun? No. You already know they are.)

1.) Open Carry. Despite having nothing to do with the attacks themselves, some are using the Dallas attacks to justify going after open carry. (Of course, the person who was open carrying during the attacks is now fearing for his life from people outraged enough to be angry, but not enough to follow the story.)

It’s worth noting that the “suspect” who was exonerated was open carrying a long gun, which has been legal in Texas for decades.

2.) Criminals. Of course, any new gun law wouldn’t do much as crimnals would still go around the law. Now, we have yet more proof of this thanks to a peer-reviewed study. The study, titled “Gaps continue in firearm surveillance: Evidence from a large U.S. City Bureau of Police,” shows that almost 80% of all guns used by criminals aren’t legally theirs.

If you follow firearms news and crime statistics, this is nothing new.

Once again, however, we must point out the obvious. Not supporting useless laws is not the same as opposing all laws. It’s a cute, but intellectually and fundamentally dishonest distraction that simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

There is a difference between having undying faith in law’s ability to prevent, and acknowledging that some laws simply serve no realistic purpose.

3.) Massachusetts. The Attorney General of Massachusetts is running into a bit of resistance for her unilateral ban on “assault weapons.” A Democratic State Rep, Harold P. Naughton Jr., along with about 58 other people in the Legislature, called the action something that “unfairly infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

The NRA says it is looking at any avenue to overturn the AG’s action.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.


After three weeks of specifics, time to get back to the news. This week, the NRA at the RNC, plus Massachusetts’ AG sets off a staggering spike in gun sales, and “ghost guns” are back from the dead.

1.) The RNC. The NRA’s Chris Cox spoke at this week’s GOP Convention. Cox highlighted, among other things the vehemently anti-gun record of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The NRA also redoubled its efforts to spread the “Freedom’s Safest Place” campaign this week. The new push includes television spots which aired during the Convention and a website soliciting donations to keep the extremely strong ads on the air throughout this cycle.

In other convention news, it’s worth noting that despite fears of bloodshed and calls for the governor to suspend open carry (but not concealed for some bizarre reason) in Ohio, there were no massive reports of violence outside of the convention.

2.) Ghost gun. Remember those? The term practically invented (fittingly enough) out of thin air by Sen. Kevin de Leon is back and the law banning such things was signed into law this week.

So we have a bill signed into law based on terminology that isn’t real. Only in California.

3.) Massachusetts. The AG of Massachusetts unilaterally decided to implement an Assault Weapons Ban. As is typical with these sorts of things, the law set off a new surge of gun sales.

We know now just how many. Guns.com has a report out suggesting that just over 2,500 rifles were sold.

As is normal for these things, bans lead to abundance. Eventually, that lesson will be learned by the anti-gun crowd.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

Lethal Ignorance

In the final special for the month of July, I’m going to kick off with a question.

It’s not something political, like “do you know your own Senator’s name.” (Although polls show most don’t.)

It’s not something statistical, like are you aware gun homicides have dropped since 1993.” (although again, most don’t.)

It’s very simple.
Can you swim?

Yes, “can you swim” is a question surveys show over half of Americans can’t answer affirmatively.

Consider the implications of being unable to know how to swim well enough to not drown…..and therefore not well enough to save someone else.

Additionally, a 2013 study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency found that just over half of Americans are aware of alert and warning systems (Emergency Broadcast Systems, tornado sirens, etc.) and fewer still are aware of what their local hazards are. That same study found that just over one-third of Americans have attended CPR training, fewer still First Aid training.

In other words, Americans are woefully unprepared for emergencies on a micro scale like when someone suffers a stroke in front of them, let alone natural disasters.

We talk about how dangerous this world is, and do nothing to attempt to be ready for the dangers we speak of.

This week, we look at all the angles of survival. We look at First Aid, CPR, AEDs, and how all three work together. We look at surviving disasters and environmental hazards ranging from extreme cold and avalanches, to extreme heat and the dangers of heat stroke. We will also look at ways to stay ahead of storms, not all of which need cell towers (or expensive phones for that matter). We will also look at Good Samaritan laws, including how you can lose protection under those laws in an instant.

1.) Disclaimer: It should go without saying that one Midnight Run neither constitutes medical advice nor First Aid or CPR training. This week is about pointing this audience in the direction of certified trainers, and how they can arm themselves with the information they need and the tools to help in emergencies. I cannot and will not pretend to know your skill level, medical experience, or frankly your ability to perform any of the actions we will discuss tonight.

I’m not a medical professional. In all cases of severe injury, 911 is your first best friend. The second is a medical professional.

2.) First Aid. First aid is defined as administering medical care to an injured/choking/unresponsive person before advanced medical care can arrive. It is the first line of defense because nobody can respond to an emergency faster than the people already there. The fastest response to a fire will come from the person closest to the fire extinguisher. Likewise, the fastest response to a cut will be the person closest to the dressing/bandages.

There are two major organizations that teach First Aid nationwide to just about everyone, the American Red Cross and the American Heart Association. Both classes allow a person to be certified in First Aid, CPR, and the use of AEDs.

2a.) You’re the Patient. As an aside, if, God forbid, you should ever be the one in need of assistance, there is a relatively recent development in smartphones you should take advantage of. The most recent version of iOS allows for the user to input vital information about himself, such as emergency contacts, blood type, and any allergies to medicine you have through the Health app. The Health app also has a feature that places the Medical ID you create on the lock screen, making it easily accessible for anyone looking to render aid.

If you have an iPhone, use this feature.

3.) CPR CPR is a well-known (in theory) method of essentially taking over for a person’s heart when the organ has either become weak or an artery blocked. It is designed to keep blood flowing for long enough for EMTs to arrive and take over. Because CPR involves forcefully compressing the person’s chest, many are concerned about liability for doing so should the person survive whatever it is that caused CPR to be used in the first place.

4.) Good Samaritan laws. This is where the so-called “Good Samaritan Laws” kick in. All 50 states have one, and although they may vary from state-to-state, the main principle is that a person acting in good faith to administer aid to someone cannot be held liable for whatever damage he/she does in the process. For example, if in the course of CPR you manage to break a rib, you cannot be held liable. The reasoning behind this is that something like a cracked rib is an unfortunate, but incalculably better outcome than if the CPR had not been done and the person died right then and there.

But one area where it gets tricky is as follows. In many states (Georgia, for instance), the protection of the Good Samaritan Law is predicated on not accepting compensation of any kind. The rationale behind that should be obvious; you did what you did to save someone’s life, not because there might be a reward on the other end.

5.) AEDs. In the 1990s, the use of AEDs or Automatic External Defibrillators was approved by the FDA for use by civilians. In 2004, the FDA approved AEDs to be sold in stores. AEDs are portable, easy-to-use defibrilators that serve to either jump-start a person’s heart or try to reset it to a normal rhythm. They are able to analyze the person’s heart rate, and many of them come with instructions and voice prompts to guide someone through the process of using the AED. (Although, yes, training is the best way to learn how to do so.)

Automatic External Defibrillators are used in concert with CPR, and AEDs prompt the user when to begin CPR and when to allow the system to determine if another shock is warranted.

Put bluntly, AEDs are tools used to make it more likely for a person to survive. Many businesses now have at least one such device.

6.) Drowning. Now that we’ve covered the basics, let me briefly jump back to the intro. As we discussed, many Americans quite literally cannot swim to save their lives. The logical extension of this is that they can’t save anybody else’s lives either.

So how big a problem is this, really?
According to the CDC, around 3,536 people died from unintentional drowning annually between 2005-2014.

It doesn’t take too much to figure out how a lot of those can very easily be prevented. Not by banning something or other, but by simply learning a handful of skills.

7.) Weather. Up to this point, just about everything we have discussed has been small-scale stuff. Choking, drowning, etc. all happen on an individual level.

Let us wrap by discussing hazards on a much larger scale. Namely, weather and natural disasters.

While it is well beyond the scope of this Run to clearly define all natural hazards, there are a few I would like to highlight, and how to get around them. Severe weather, and avalanches.

The former is best handled through one of the foremost authorities on preparing for severe weather; which is of course the National Weather Service.  The NWS has been (at least trying) to get the word out about how to prepare for severe weather for decades now, and chief among those efforts is the widely-available but little-known “voice of the National Weather Service” known as NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards. NOAA Weather Radio is a network of local broadcasts from NWS Weather Forecast Offices around the country on seven frequencies specifically reserved for the service. There are radios specially designed to both receive the broadcasts, and play an alert tone when one is released for an area (this is particularly useful at night in tornado-prone areas).

The network covers virtually all of the United States, and radios are available for prices ranging from $25 to $100. There’s really no excuse not to have one, especially if you are in an area prone to severe weather.

Outside of the alerts that NOAA Weather Radio provides, there are very powerful apps you can use to stay ahead of storms. My personal favorite on iOS an Android is RadarScope. RadarScope basically allows you to look at a ton of information from the National Weather Service’s NEXRAD radar network. It does not provide a national mosaic, but instead focuses on providing raw data from the radar. Watches and warnings are also shown.

8.) Avalanches. There is one more event I want to focus on briefly; And that is the avalanche. Avalanches are when a large amount of snow, ice and rocks barrel down a mountain. Interestingly, there is a great series on avalanche survival from apparel manufacturer The North Face in association with the American Avalanche Association.

9.) Bottom line. Americans are woefully under-prepared for emergencies on a micro level, let alone disasters on a city- or state-wide level. This problem can be easily fixed through education and use of abundantly available technology. Self-reliance has become a strangely little-known trait in America, despite the fact that it is one of the traits that defined our country not too long ago.

Self-reliance is not simply being able to defend yourself against criminals. It is being able to assist yourself and others in all kinds of emergencies. Being able to both defend yourself against criminal threats and to assist yourself in an emergency is the very definition of self-reliance. Additionally, one who is able to swim well enough to save his own life can be easily trained to swim to save others.

The foundation that comes from that is borderline unshakable. When a community is able to rely on each other for assistance, and augments the abilities of emergency personnel instead of relying on them, virtually everyone benefits.

And it is not impossible. The way the community of West, Texas banded together after the 2013 fertilizer plant explosion is basically a legend that surprised everybody but the people who lived there.

The point is this. We are our own first response team. The people who are at a scene where an emergency takes place are the best first responders because they would have been there regardless. (You have to describe where you are to a 911 dispatcher. You don’t have to do that to yourself.) The training needed to administer what could be lifesaving care to someone is easily accessible, and the tools needed to stay ahead of severe weather are both inexpensive and extremely easy-to-use.

Put bluntly, get trained, get a radio, and get ready for whatever comes your way.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay alive.


In this era of emojis and “text speak” it should come as no surprise that misunderstanding English is incredibly common and easy. In fact, in some circles, it’s even profitable. One such circle is the anti-gun movement, which has done everything it can to obfuscate the meaning of the Second Amendment despite the fact that the words could not possibly be more specific.

It’s a modern wonder how much effort is being put into intentionally misunderstanding plain English that has lasted for centuries. This week, we break down the Second Amendment. It’s origins, the thought process behind it, and how the two “halves” of the sentence compliment each other rather than cancelling each other out.

By the way, a lot of this also comes from Stephen Hallbrook’s brilliant book, The Founders’ Second Amendment. You owe it to yourself to read that book.

1.) Origins. It isn’t difficult to determine why the Founders saw the need for firearm ownership. After an incredibly difficult fight for independence, very few saw why they wouldn’t need a firearm. Additionally, many did not see the need for a Bill of Rights at all. To many Whigs, the rights of freedom of speech, press, bearing arms etc. were assumed as fundamental and not worth writing down. Gun ownership was so fundamental, that the Georgia delegation to the 1778 Continental Congress “sought to deny citizenship rights to those who refused to pick up a gun in defense of the revolution.” (Halbrook 2008, 149-150)

Chapter 7 of Hallbrook’s book opens with this passage:

IN AMERICA, declared Dr. Richard Price in 1779, “every inhabitant has in his house (as a part of his furniture) a book on law and government to enable him to understand his civil rights; a musket to enable him to defend these rights; and a Bible to enable him to understand and practice his religion.

(Halbrook 2008, 148)

This is a crucial part to understand. The argument is that “well-regulated militia” represents something along the lines of the National Guard or a State Defense Force. Yet, here, we see both that firearms were so crucial to the Revolution that some believed you shouldn’t be allowed citizenship without one and that it allowed for the individual to defend his/her rights. It is impossible, in that context, to argue that the Founders sought to limit the Second Amendment to a centralized government.

2.) Well-regulated militia. So what was the militia? Put simply, at the time, it was anybody who was able to fight. Regulated, Halbrook shows us, meant “adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.” This has been something that anti-gunners have seized upon, attempting to wipe out the second half of the Amendment’s text altogether. In this case, “regulated” meant virtually all “able-bodied” men with training regulated by rules. (Hallbrook 2008, 330)

George Mason, one of the Virginia delegates to the 1778 Continental Congress, made it clear that the militia meant “ the whole people, except a few public officers.” Indeed, in one of his many statements at the Congress, Mason was worried that future governments would try to push entire classes of people out of the militia.

Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.

In short, the milita was seen as essential to the Republic’s security. A well-trained, well-equipped group of men capable of fighting at a moment’s notice. The purpose of the Second Amendment was clear and obvious to all.

One thing that made being ready in an instant easy? Everybody was armed.

3.) Right of the People. The Bill of Rights does not create rights, but rather acknowledges and guarantees them. Indeed, the language of the Amendments shows that the authors of the Constitution already acknowledged those rights. (Recall that some didn’t even believe writing them down was worthwhile.)

For example, consider the language of the First Amendment:

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.

At what point does the Amendment grant a those rights? It doesn’t. It says that Congress shall not create a law that infringes on a right that the people are presumed to already have.

In every Amendment, the individual is protected, and the Constitution lays out what can and cannot be done to the individual. The Fourth Amendment kicks off by saying “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Once again, the Constitution does not grant a right, but rather acknowledges and protects it.

So why, exactly, in a document built on protecting the citizen from harm and protecting the citizen’s rights, would the Founders reserve the ownership of firearms to the government. In other words, why would the Founders put in place a legal system to protect a citizen’s rights, while giving the government a monopoly on force?

Put bluntly, the first portion is the purpose clause. It lays out the rationale for the Amendment, but does not limit the right of the people. There is nothing suggesting that the Founders sought for the national government to have a monopoly on force.

4.) Bottom line. While there were people at the Continental Congress who sought to give the federal government a large amount of power, the Amendments that were added to the Constitution were clearly intended to protect the individual. While the Second Amendment is the only one to kick off with a purpose clause, the purpose is not used to negate the right. Further, it makes no logical sense that a document built on protecting the individual would subject that individual to an authority with a monopoly on force.

The Second Amendment, indeed the Constitution as a whole, is a product of Revolution Era thinking; of the purest expression of individual liberty and the means by which that liberty is defended. To them, the gun represented a way to defend one’s livelihood and, yes, one’s nation if need be.

While the army was meant to be the first line of defense, the militia (that is, the citizenry) was meant to be the last. The Founders set up a system with which to ensure the militia had exactly what it needed to be that last line of defense and to protect the liberty of the individual citizen.

As Patrick Henry noted in one of his many fiery speeches:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

Halbrook, Stephen P. The Founders’ Second Amendment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008.

Blowback: Strength

There is something to be said for at least examining the flag’s original meaning, given its history and what it symbolizes. This week, we start to get back to basics on the Midnight Run. This week we’ll have a brief history on the flag, how it was adopted, and what it was intended for. We’ll discuss how it has changed over the years, and how to display it properly. We will also (albeit briefly) shift into the controversial topic of flag burning as a matter of protest.

Blowback is looking at the flag for multiple reasons this year. Firstly, it brings the series back to the Revolutionary Era, which allows us to examine the ideals that founded the nation. Second, it allows us to focus in on a portion of the nation’s history (that of the flag) that doesn’t get too much exposure today. Third, it is to highlight what the flag represents, and why that is particularly meaningful today.

1,) Baseline. The flag’s original design was adopted by the Continental Congress of 1777 with the first Flag Act. The resolution was adopted on June 14, 1777, what is now known as Flag Day.

The text of the first Flag Act, typical of bills of the time (like the Constitution), was remarkably simple:

Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.

The flag’s design was loosely based on the Grand Union, with the upper left being not the stars representing the states, but rather the symbol of the British Union.

It is worth noting that, at the time, the colors of the flag were not said to have represented anything, but the Secretary of the Continental Congress, did ascribe meanings to the colors of the Seal of the United States.

“The colors of the pales (the vertical stripes) are those used in the flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valour, and Blue, the color of the Chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice.”

As the nation expanded, Congress updated the Flag Act with subsequent resolutions to provide for the flag to be changed to reflect new states being admitted to the country. The current flag maintains the 13 stripes representing the original colonies, with 50 stars in the union in the upper-left.

2.) Display. In 1947, Congress adopted a series of guidelines on how to display the flag properly. The US Flag Code lays out everything from how the flag is to be displayed, to its position when placed with flags from other countries, to the proper disposal of a flag. It is said to be merely a guide, as a lot of the guidelines in the Code, were they to be enforced, would never pass Constitutional scrutiny as law.

This leads to the somewhat awkward position where an item (say, a T-shirt designed with the US flag) is against a part of Federal law that isn’t enforced because it would be destroyed in court if it were. (The American Legion, for the record, has said that the mitigating factor is if it isn’t made from an actual flag.

The US Flag Code is easily accessible, and a fairly simple read as well.

3.) Burning. There is a customary way to respectfully dispose of a flag that has become tattered, discolored, or otherwise not fit for display. There is also the concept of burning the flag in protest.

This has been a controversial topic for decades. The debate centering around whether it is a disrespectful and hateful act or whether it is simply free speech. This came to a head in the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson, in which the Court ruled 5-4 that desecrating the flag in protest was indeed free speech.

Justice Anthony Kennedy put it like this:

The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result,” Kennedy said. “And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.

Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.

Interestingly, despite that case, there have still been people who were charged with desecrating the flag in some states.

Of course, particularly in the veteran community, even with that ruling, that doesn’t mean desecrating the flag will be taken lightly by everybody.

4.) Conclusion. The US flag is a simple, yet effective symbol of our country. The design both a recognition of our history and how we are today. Beyond that, it has come to represent the strength of the nation. (This is perhaps best shown in Thomas Franklin’s Raising the Flag At Ground Zero.)

In short, it represents things that seem to be in fairly short supply today. The flag is a representation of the country as a whole; representing all of the citizenry, regardless of political beliefs, race, religion, or any other differences. It is a representation of our rich history, and of the ideals this nation was founded on (namely, the ideals of a belief in the rule of law, individual liberty). It is a representation, also, of our strength as a nation (predicated on the strength of the individual citizen). The image from Ground Zero is iconic not just from a technical standpoint, but because it represented a nation emerging from what was a terrible situation. (The flag is, of course, covered in dust. But it is not tattered or torn in any way.)

As mentioned last week, Blowback serves two purposes this year. The first is to call back to our history, and one of the defining symbols of our nation. The second is to set the stage for a look at the ideals this country was founded on: individual liberty, self-reliance, and yes, the ability to defend oneself and if needed one’s nation.

We’re going to spend the first half of July looking at what made the country what it is, and how all of it can be used to strengthen the country in the years to come.

Happy Independence Day.

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

Random Thoughts: Foundations

HB60 turns two this week. Two years after “alcohol and guns,” “guns everywhere,” and the requesite other images of doom and apocalypse. An apocalypse that, alongside the promised end of days after the Brexit, never happened. (The Big Three indexes closed the week with their best weekly gain this year.)

As I look back on the files, the lies, the promises of doom, and the subsequent utter lack of any blood-in-the-streets/Wild West scenario, multiple question comes to mind: Why do we continue to listen to proven liars, and what made self-defense political?

We have seen, time and again, where promises of laws making people safe have done nothing of the kind. From the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban (during which Columbine happened), to gun-free military bases, to the recent events in Orlando; restrictions on a person’s right to defend themselves have only proven to make the attacker’s job easier. In addition, with the rise of gun sales, CCW permits, and CCW classes, we have not seen a rise in crime rates. Here in Georgia, we were told that bars and churches would become areas where the drunk or emotional opened fire on impulse. Now, two years later, the people who were protesting outside of the Capitol can’t be seen anywhere. No apologies, no explanations, just moving on to annoy gun rights activists in Texas as they launch Open Carry with the exact same playbook they tried here.

And yet, an argument that has been discredited for over a two decades (since Florida went shall issue) is still treated as worth taking seriously, while the provably stronger argument is ignored. A man shoots up a church in South Carolina, and the networks cover it for days. A man stops a shooting at a nightclub in South Carolina, and it takes the networks days to get around to it. Interestingly, this comes from a group that claims to understand the issue, but is either completely unable to define their own terms or is bruised and frightened by the recoil of a semi-automatic rifle shooters as young as 12 have used at gun ranges.

Politics has no place in a discussion on the right of an individual to defend themselves. You either support a person’s right to defend their lives and livelihoods or you don’t. A person who supports an individual’s right to self-defense acknowledges this, and proposes way to expand self-defense law to match. A person who doesn’t, regardless of whatever reason he may claim, adjusts the law to make self-defense either too expensive or too arduous of a process to even bother with. The law does have limits for what is justified force and what is flat-out murder, of course. But these are to punish instances where, for example, one provokes a response with the intent of killing another. These are not limits to make the right to defend oneself harder to obtain. These are limits to prevent the right of self-defense from being abused.

It should be noted that this constant drumbeat of world-ending doom is finally starting to be directly challenged. Aside from the aforementioned surges in CCW classes/permits and guns, we have seen thousands respond to mass shootings not with fear or calls for gun control, but rather by arming up themselves. Shortly after Orlando, many in the LGBT community started looking to defend themselves, gun sales in and around the Orlando area jumped as people began to look at taking their own security seriously. The emotional argument is running into fields it cannot hope to compete in. It has no place as an anti-terror argument or even as an anti-crime argument.

This pattern will continue, and anti-self defense types will get more desperate and prone to theatrics (as we saw with the “sit-in”).

But the bottom line is this: you are either for self-defense, or you aren’t. It is not only tactically unsound to prevent someone from having the right to defend themselves. It is immoral to do so.

HB60 is two years old. The right to self-defense is expanding as we prepare to celebrate the birth of our nation, which was itself founded on the ideas of individual liberty. And, in truth, that is why the self-defense argument will win. The expansion of the right of self-defense is part of a re-awakening in the nation as a whole. Next week, we will begin a look at the fundamentals of that movement. We will begin with a look at the flag, and its place in society, what it represents then, and what it (and other flags of the era) represent now. The Revolutionary Era, and the ideals from that time, are still as effective now as they were then. It is only a matter of re-learning them, and using them to drive our nation in a considerably better, freer direction.

Next week, will take a break from the news on self-defense, to look at what makes the argument for self-defense indestructible.

Stat informed. Stay Alert. Stay free.