Click here to subscribe to the O2DA Defense Academy. The most comprehensive online firearms academy worldwide. For individuals, businesses, schools, churches and communities. Sign-up

Monthly Archives: July 2015

Who Wants To Talk About Hunting Ethics And Fair Chase?

Good article with good questions, and in the context of “sportsman,” I attend to agree.

I think it’s a conversation that should be had and settled amongst sportsman, and as long as we aren’t talking about enacting laws and enforcing our “democratic” ideals on others via the credible threat of force then we should be “good to go” with simply ostracize those who don’t follow a more ‘gentlemanly’ and sportsman-like code. A little like the fly-fishing/spin-casting debate… human blood really shouldn’t be shed here.

I also perceive that it is ‘much ado about nothing.’ or as Eunice Vhunise (of Harare – a resident of the area) said “…I don’t understand the whole fuss (about Palmer’s shooting of the lion), there are so many pressing issues in Zimbabwe – we have water shortages, no electricity and no jobs- yet people are making noise about a lion…) – The Dispatch, qconline.com

In the bigger picture, most of us eat plenty of meat where “fair chase” and “sporting” means nothing, so keep that in mind before you attempt to empower bureaucrats anywhere in the world with the ‘authority’ to enforce your morals/ethics on others.

“It is not a field sport like baseball or football where the participants agree to the rules of engagement beforehand. In hunting, the prey has not agreed to anything, nor does it have an equal chance in most cases to kill the human hunter. For most species, escape is the only option. Therefore, the meaning of fair chase is based on the definition of ‘fair’ that relates to legitimate, honorable, genuine, or appropriate in the circumstances. To complicate matters further, fair chase is associated with the notion of ‘sport hunting’ in the minds of many hunters even though it does not resemble any sport played on a field or court. The term ‘sport,’ in hunting, means only a sporting approach. That approach recognizes the advantage of human capabilities, including technologies, and represents a desire to constrain so as to give the animals pursued a legitimate chance to escape. It also recognizes that humans are the alpha predator and there is a need to limit our advantage, which is one of the underpinnings of sustainable use conservation.”

(Via.) Ammoland.com

Breathtakingly ignorant FEC head suggests fixing agency by firing everyone except her…

Over 90 percent of super PACs are funded by white males, and they generally have been found to contribute to white males,” Ravel said, in comments first reported by The Washington Examiner. She claimed few women and minorities without access to money “will have a chance to even be nominated, much less elected to public office.”

Source: FEC head suggests fixing agency by firing everyone except her | Fox News

Detroit teachers livid as they go unpaid, shortchanged…

DETROIT – While some teachers might complain about the size of their paycheck, Detroit Public School teachers are hardly surprised when they don’t get a check at all.“We need something that will effectively, regularly pay the teachers what they’re owed. They do the work. They need the pay. They need it on-time, with bills to pay.

Source: Detroit teachers livid as they go unpaid, shortchanged – EAGnews.org

Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”It’s not exactly a traditional argument, but it’s certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

Source: Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.

Did He Really Just Say We Need to “Bring Back Internment Camps”?

“These statements and others like them most likely reflect the frustration felt in Washington over a 15 year war on terror where there has been no victory and where we actually seem worse off than when we started. The real problem is they will argue and bicker over changing tactics but their interventionist strategy remains the same.

Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, who was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, told al-Jazeera this week that US drones create more terrorists than they kill. He said: ‘The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just … fuels the conflict.

Still Washington pursues the same strategy while expecting different results.”

(Via.) – Ron Paul (TH) <—read more here

Details of Lafayette theater shooter John Houser surface: Alcohol, denied weapons permits, depressed…

Understanding that often preliminary reports can be wrong, this is what we believe we are learning so far: 

The Russell County Sheriff told reporters that his office denied Houser (the alleged shooter) a pistol permit in 2006 (this isn’t the first time a killer has been denied firearms licensing). Lesson – gun control can’t stop a decentralized threat. People will kill people, with or without firearms, prisons prove this.

Houser was of sound enough mind not to attack a gunshop, shooting range, or LE office. Again confirming something that everyone who pays any attention already know: Bad guys like to attack soft targets (your typical “gun free zones,” like us military bases, recruiting offices, schools, churches, businesses, post offices, etc.). Bad things like mass-murdrs and active shooter scenarios tend to happen just about anywhere innocent people are likely to be at a disadvantage by being disarmed. This in turn takes away a innocent persons ability to more safely import keltic force at a distance, and more quickly than he could possibly address threats without a firearm.

Read More

Militia: if you can’t do it right, don’t do it at all

In the aftermath of the jihadist terror attacks on a recruiting office and reserve center in Chattanooga, patriotic Americans have stepped up to provide armed security at similar locations around the country, citing the military proscription on uniformed soldiers being armed for their own self-protection.

Some of these protectors have acted independently and spontaneously, but many have done so in response to a “National Call to Action” (http://www.ammoland.com/2015/07/oath-keepers-operation-protect-the-protectors/#axzz3ge10qKMf) by the Oath Keepers, an organization originally founded to encourage loyalty to the oaths taken by military personnel, public servants and others to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, in the event of a conflict between those oaths and unlawful orders.

That original, laudable focus has been weakened by the organization’s tendency toward direct action, which has led to high-profile involvement in the Cliven Bundy ranch confrontation in Nevada, the civil unrest in Ferguson, and now the terrorist threat to military personnel in-country. In these instances, Oath Keepers have acted in the guise of a citizen’s militia. Without entering into a debate on the merits of any of these particular causes, let’s consider what might go wrong, and how thoughtful patriots might approach such issues.

When civilians arm themselves within the law and interpose themselves into situations beyond legitimate self-defense – a fair description of all three situations cited above – they invite miscalculation and tragedy.  Let us count the ways.

  1. American history blends with myth in the imagination of many patriots. The militiamen who stood on Lexington Green and at the Concord Bridge in 1775 were not spontaneous gatherings of outraged, doughty farmers. The Massachusetts militia was a large, articulated, organized force, with a clear hierarchy of rank, chain of command, alert and mobilization procedures and protocols, and (contrary to popular legend) significant training in the military tactics of the day. On April 19, 1775, there were 47 regiments, and 14,000 men, in the Massachusetts militia. Their constituent companies were organized, led, and trained by commissioned and noncommissioned officers resident in their local communities. The structure, cohesion, and effectiveness of the militia dated back to the earliest days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This is what the founders meant by “a well regulated militia” in the language of the Second Amendment: they had fifteen years’ recent experience to teach them the difference between a well-regulated militia and an undisciplined, ineffective rabble in arms. What Oath Keeper chapter, or other self-styled militia organization today has comparable organization, cohesion, training – and above all, a comparable sanction from their local communities and governments?
  2. The British expedition on April 19, 1775 that provoked the mobilization of the Massachusetts militia was not unprecedented. Indeed, the colonists embodied the nearly contemporary advice of Edmund Burke that “It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know how much of an evil ought to be tolerated,” and “I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes.” Their resort to arms was preceded by years of political engagement with the British authorities, and by several other militia call-outs in the face of British military expeditions into the countryside, none of which had resulted in shots fired. It is perhaps instructive that the chain of command – from the colonial government down to company officers – worked to ensure restraint and avoid outright rebellion against governmental authority until the British Crown closed down all other avenues of redress. Where is that chain of command, where is that link to local and state governance, and that assurance of wisdom and restraint, in today’s self-styled ‘militias’?
  3. The Oath Keepers’ call to action to protect military recruiting offices includes a wise and necessary admonition: “Be sure that those on the armed teams belong there. Are they cool, collected, trained, experienced, competent and safe with [their] firearms?”  But in a voluntary association without enforceable rank structure, command control and military discipline, and without a formal program of training, qualification, and certification, who is to be the judge of their fellows, as to what constitutes an acceptable demeanor, or competence and safety with arms? And what happens when an individual judged – by one of his peers – to be lacking in one of these areas is asked to excuse himself – and declines?
  4. Tactics. There are many tactical considerations in the sort of security operation that citizens are trying to conduct around recruiting offices, but judging superficially from the photos in the media, these operations may at best provide some degree of deterrence by their visible presence – but no defense at all. Standing with rifles slung at the ready, in combat gear and some identifying hat or armband, in front of the plate glass windows, or sitting on the tailgate of a pickup next to the cooler, simply invites the initial volley from any determined attacker. Double the body count, and for what? This sort of visible presence makes for great publicity shots, but is not the way to win a fight.  Or let’s consider what happens in the average urban or suburban setting even if the defenders are better situated, or sufficiently alert and reactive to a threat, and are able to initiate or return fire. We are not talking about an overseas war zone, but a domestic peacetime environment, where as any trained shooter knows, “you own the final resting place of every round you fire.” How many of those 5.56mm rounds, fired by well-meaning patriots of inconsistent and unknowable proficiency, will miss their intended target and travel with lethal energy a mile or two – or until they stop in the car, home, business, church, school, or body of an innocent? One of the well-known “Four General Firearms Safety Rules” is to “Be sure of your target and what’s behind it,” but what I see in most of these locations is 180 degrees or more where potential threats might appear, and where the background is simply the local community these volunteers mean to protect.
  5. Lawfulness and liaison. The Oath Keeper guidance also stipulates that: “It is best that you also notify the local police and coordinate with them, if possible… if the local police are not supportive, or even hostile, deal with and work around it to be sure the recruiters are protected.”  Indeed, in many jurisdictions, armed citizens’ contributions have been acknowledged and accepted by the authorities, but let’s think about the situations where, inevitably, this will not be the case. High profile armed citizens post themselves in public settings to protect persons other than themselves, and property that is not their own, without the knowledge or blessing of local law enforcement. What could possibly go wrong here? What will their mere presence, or in the worst case an actual firefight at that location, do to improve relationships between the police and citizen groups like Oath Keepers? Acting as an armed group, not under color of law, and without the sanction or support of local law enforcement, is an invitation to fratricide, to arrest and prosecution on pretext if not on substance, and to a worsening state of relations among the formal and informal protectors of public safety; might as well just form a circular firing squad and have done with it.  Perhaps if the local police are not supportive, a means should be found to change that paradigm before posting armed sentries in public settings, in defiance of them.

Those of us who, unlike our federal government, acknowledge that Islamic jihadists are waging war against us anticipate further incidents like what just happened in Chattanooga. Just as civil aviation has not been successfully targeted since 9/11, we may not see another attack on a military recruiting office. But soft targets abound, in a society enamored of “gun-free zones.” If the next ISIS-inspired attack is on a school, where under federal law no one can be armed except, perhaps, the lone school resource officer, the outcome will be far more horrific than what we saw in Chattanooga. In the aftermath – it’s almost too much to hope that Americans will anticipate this threat and act to deter or defeat it before it is executed – the need for citizen involvement will be even more acute.

This is why it is important that Oath Keepers, and other concerned, responsible citizens get this right. If private citizens stepping up to this security challenge cannot act safely and responsibly; if they overreact or misjudge a potential threat, and cause or contribute to the loss of innocent lives; if they make themselves a radical armed fringe group acting without the endorsement of their communities and local governments – then the concept of armed citizens contributing to public safety will be discredited, perhaps fatally. Those who sound alarms now at the government’s identification of ‘militia’ groups as potential terrorists or enemies of civil order “ain’t seen nothing yet,” compared to the reaction that will inevitably follow a botched extra-legal operation that sees citizens hurt or killed, and the armed citizens led away in handcuffs.

In at least one state, the Oath Keepers chapter is getting it right: they are quietly coordinating with recruiting offices, and planning to maintain a low-profile armed presence in the vicinity, of citizens with concealed carry permits, carrying concealed handguns only, and within their rights and the strictures of state and local statutes.  They will wear or carry pre-arranged identifiers to assist themselves, the recruiters, and first responders in telling good guys from bad guys, and they will coordinate closely with local law enforcement to allay police concerns and further ensure no misidentification and “blue-on-blue” engagements. We hope that the vetting process represented by state concealed-carry permit laws will be strengthened by an internal review of volunteers’ state of training – and state of mind.

Full disclosure: I am a principal at Pulse Firearms Training, Inc., where we have been wrestling for some time with these issues, and have created a training program that goes well beyond individual firearms training to address the thorny problems of creating private security networks to defend businesses, churches, schools, neighborhoods, and communities when the social contract with the state proves inadequate – when police response is delayed or inadequate because of budget, manning, or politics (consider Detroit for the emerging pattern). We certainly have no monopoly on good ideas, but this is what we urge, for the Oath Keepers and for any citizens facing today’s metastasizing threats:

  • Get training. Real training. Yes, we have a vested interest in training. It’s why we created our business. Anyone who thinks guns, ammo and training, and the skills and discretion to apply them safely, legally, and effectively can be had for free – will get what they pay for. And the rest of us will pay the ultimate price with our own freedom and security.
  • Organize, plan, vet your people, coordinate with lawful authority, and act within the law.
  • Identify the threat. Read the Edmund Burke quotes above, and think long and hard about treating government – at any level – as the threat. Just as our Founding Fathers did, we can conceive of that terrible possibility, and honor our oaths to prevent it, but it is not here, and it is not now. There are many people across the sea, across the southern border, and among us – who regularly demonstrate their desire to put your severed head on a pike, and they are not your fellow Americans, in or out of government. “Aim small, miss small.”
  • For this reason, we refuse to endorse or sanction “operations,” “missions,” or “calls to action” that go beyond defending your own life and property, or those of your closest family, friends, and associates by means firmly within the law. Going beyond that is a very risky proposition and must be approached with great caution and discretion – if at all.
  • Indeed, far more likely – and imminent – than the possibility of government becoming a danger to your liberty that cannot be addressed through civil, political process, is what we already see beginning to happen. Government’s ability to ensure your safety may simply degrade to the point where nobody is there to enforce the laws when you need them – at the point of contact. At that point, when self-reliance emerges as a necessity rather than an indulgence or an ideology, successful precedents may lead the authorities to see the wisdom of our building self-reliant networks, and to remove legal impediments to our doing so.

Good heart is not enough; American patriots have that in great measure. It is vital that armed citizens establish those precedents – earn the confidence of society and the authorities – by acting in a disciplined and judicious manner.

How to Speak to the Brainwashed

“Let’s start by removing the divide: You and I have made the same mistakes these people are making. We may be a few steps ahead of them in leaving the swamp, but we started in the same swamp with them.

In all of human history, there may be no greater conditioning system than our modern government schools (including all the private schools that follow the same pattern). From infancy to adulthood, it affects most human minds in the West. And I dare guess that 98% of my readers bear its scars.

So, you must start by understanding that these “brainwashed” people have spent a huge portion of their lives inside a massive mind-warp. Don’t be too quick to toss them aside. Learn patience. Breaking out of their mold is scary, and it takes time.”

(Via.) How to Speak to the Brainwashed

Sandra Bland’s Arrest Wasn’t Racism; It Was Something Even Worse

“Ultimately, we have to look at what we are asking police officers to do and how we are training them to do it. Encinia may have treated Bland differently because she was black. We can’t read his mind. But it’s much more likely he treated her the way he did because she didn’t exhibit blind obedience to his every whim, something he was trained not to tolerate and Americans of all political persuasions seem to have acquiesced to without question.”

(Via.) Tom Mullen

UA-56674165-1