Today we launched Defender 300, an elite group of highly-experienced gun owners defending their communities from violent threat.
Defender 300s (D300s) are trained and commissioned representatives, certified to present Distributed Security, Inc. offerings within their local communities. Prior military service or law enforcement experience is desired. There is a rigorous application process and 20 hours of on-line training and testing required to become a D300. As a certified representative, the D300 is compensated via a sales commission for business that results from their representation.
Commission off the sale of DSI enterprise services.
33% discount off of DSI Combative Firearms (T4), Individual Tactics (T3),
Tactical Medical, and Tactical Communications training programs.
3. Access to all on-line Defense Academy content – manuals, videos, courses, training plans, etc.
4. Opportunity to qualify as a DSI certified instructor.
The D300 program requires dedication and commitment. We do not require any sort of an upfront payment from our D300 candidates or those who eventually certify.
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.
Thread by @corpseinarmor: “What we’re looking at now is probably the greatest domestic espionage ring since the Roosevelt-Truman era. This ti are probably five equal to an Alger Hiss. With deep penetration throughout DC establishment and natsec agenc […]”
It is about to get a lot more dangerous to be a cop in California. A new standard for using lethal force will be approved by the state legislature this week. The standard is:
“officers will only be able to use lethal force when it is necessary and if there are no other options.”
Now, wrap your brains around the fact that most DA’s in California are off-the-chart raving social justice idiots and consider all of the creative ways they can define “necessary” and “no other options”.
Like I said, it’s going to get a lot more dangerous to be a cop in California.
Under the agreement, officers will only be able to use lethal force when it is “necessary” and if there are no other options. That’s widely viewed as higher than the existing legal standard.
A week from today, Europeans may be able to gauge how high the tide of populism and nationalism has risen within their countries and on their continent.
For all the returns will be in from three days of elections in the 28 nations represented in the European Parliament.
Expectation: Nationalists and populists will turn in their strongest performance since the EU was established, and their parliamentary group — Europe of Nations and Freedom — could sweep a fourth of the seats in Strasbourg.
Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party is predicted to run first in the British elections, winning two to three times the votes of the ruling Tory Party of Prime Minister Theresa May.
In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is running even with the party of President Emmanuel Macron, who pleads for “more Europe.”
Matteo Salvini, interior minister and leader of the League, predicts his party will finish first in Italy and first in Europe.
At Salvini’s invitation, a dozen nationalist parties gathered in Milan this weekend. A week from now, they could be the third-largest bloc in the European Parliament. If so, their gains will come at the expense of the center-left and center-right parties that have dominated European politics since World War II.
Speaking before tens of thousands in front of Duomo Cathedral in Milan, Salvini threw back in the faces of his enemies the taunt that these new parties are rooted in the old ugly politics of the 1930s.
“In this piazza, there are no extremists. There are no racists. There are no fascists. … In Italy and in Europe, the difference is between … those who speak of the future instead of making trials of the past.”
Tomorrow versus yesterday, says Salvini.
While the European establishment draws parallels between the populist parties of the present and what happened in the 1930s, it fails to recognize its own indispensable role in generating the mass defections to the populist right that now imperil its political hegemony.
The populist-nationalist parties are energized and united by both what they detest and what the EU has produced.
And what is that?
They resent the inequities of the new economy, where the wages of the working and middle class, the core of the nation, have fallen far behind the managerial class and the corporate and financial elites.
People who work with their hands, tools and machines have seen their wages arrested and jobs disappear, as salaries have surged for those who move numbers on computers.
The disparities have grown too great, as has the distance between national capitals and national heartlands.
Then there is immigration. Native-born Europeans do not welcome the new ethnic groups that have come uninvited in considerable numbers in recent decades, failed to assimilate and created enclaves that replicate the Third World places whence they came.
If one could identify a cry common to populists, it might be: “We want our country back!”
Whatever may be said of populists and nationalists, they are people of the heart. They love their countries. They cherish the cultures in which they grew up. They want to retain their own unique national identities.
What is wrong with that?
Patriotism is central to nationalist and populist movements. Globalism is alien to them. They believe in De Gaulle’s Europe of nation-states “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” not in the abstract Europe of Jean Monnet, and surely not in the Brussels bureaucracy of today.
The nation, the patria, is the largest entity to which one can give loyalty and love. Who would march into no man’s land for the EU?
Europe’s nationalists are not all the same. The ruling Polish Law and Justice Party disagrees on Putin’s Russia with the ruling Fidesz Party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary.
While the EU Parliament does not possess great power, these elections are not without great meaning.
Consider Farage. Should his Brexit Party run first in Britain, how can the Tory Party not carry through on the 2016 vote to withdraw from the EU, without betraying its most loyal constituency on its most critical issue?
Nationalism in Europe is spreading, even deepening rifts between the premier powers in the NATO alliance.
Germany will not be reaching the promised 2 percent of GDP for defense President Donald Trump has demanded. And Berlin is going ahead with a second natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea to Germany from Russia, Nord Stream 2.
Turkey is taking possession of a Russian-built S-400 air defense system this summer, despite a U.S. warning that our sale of 100 F-35s will not go through if the Turks go forward with the Russian system.
Have the nationalists of Europe caught the wave of the future?
Or will the future see the revival of the idea of One Europe, a political and economic union that inspired the dreamers of yesteryear?
“See, the dirty little secret of civilization is that it’s designed to maintain order when 99.9% of folks are orderly. But, say, if just 2% of folks stop playing by the rules…uh oh. Say LA’s population was 15 million in 1992…that’s 300,000 bad guys. There were maybe 20,000 cops in all the area agencies then, plus 20,000 National Guard soldiers and airman, plus another 10,000 active soldiers and Marines the feds brought in. Law enforcement is based on the concept that most people will behave and that the crooks will be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of officers. But in the LA riots, law enforcement was massively outnumbered. Imposing order took time.”
Kurt Schlichter: We should all be ready to do our duty as
As I watched New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s first press conference after the mosque shooting, I was struck by how naive her comments were. She seemed to think that her country existed in a utopian world exempt from terrorism. Now, further demonstrating her naivete, she is proceeding with a hysterical, half-baked plan to confiscate the weapons her citizens need to defend against future attacks.
These are the facts for New Zealand. It will happen again. Law enforcement will not be there when it happens again, and via her gun confiscation scheme, she has eliminated the most effective measure her citizens have for defending themselves.
Exit question. Why is Jacinda taking weapons from lawful New Zealanders? The crime was committed by an Australian who purchased his weapons legally and held all of the proper permits.
Recently, a dozen sheriffs in Washington state announced that they would refuse to enforce the newly passed Initiative 1639, which raised the legal age of purchasing a firearm of any sort to 21, expanded background check requirements, increased the waiting period, and mandated weapon storage when not in active use. Predictably, political proponents immediately threatened these sheriffs, who were hired to enforce county, not state, laws, with legal action. Of course, when I say passed, what I really mean is that 14 of 39 counties in Washington decided the referendum was a good idea.
Sounds like somebody forgot the definition of “special”. I recall reading something in recent days from a jumped-up, over-educated, (un)experienced civilian playing war games, that future wars will be won by a greatly expanded special forces. Which begs the question “at what point does special cease being special and simply become better than average?” Is Army Maj. Gen. Kurt Sonntag lowering the bar to meet a quota? Or is there more to the story?
The Pentagon inspector general is investigating allegations that a two-star Army general is retaliating against Green Berets.
In the event of a violent threat, how do you defend your enterprise?
How do you move from defenseless to defended?
DSI is at the forefront of creating solutions and packages for enterprises anxious to move from defenseless to defended. Whether you’re a Brooklyn bodega, a Detroit manufacturer, a Chicago professional services firm or a suburban mixed-use development we have the resources you need to become the defended enterprise.
Jon Alexander has raised some serious challenges to the concept of “arming teachers” to strengthen security in our schools. Allow me to shift the debate somewhat by adjusting its fundamental assumptions.
Speculation isn’t necessary
In the U.S. today, at least fourteen states have laws on the books which allow school boards to authorize concealed carry of firearms by school staff, under various conditions, while ten more states do not restrict concealed carry to school staff members only, although most of them still require specific, individual permission of the governing school board. The number is growing every year: last year, Wyoming joined; this year bills are pending in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Meantime, in Ohio alone, over 1,000 trained school staff members are carrying concealed handguns in more than one-quarter of the school districts in that state. In South Dakota, Texas, Colorado and other states, significant and growing numbers of school staff members are already legally carrying concealed firearms – while Utah has allowed anyone with a state concealed carry permit to carry a firearm on school property for going on 19 years.
So, this is not a new idea; quite the contrary. We have a considerable amount of experience with it, and because of the decentralized approach, wherein state laws and school board policies differ, we have quite a variety of experiments underway.
How is it working out? Famously. While mass shooters have not been particularly deterred by the presence of uniformed School Resource Officers (Columbine High School and Parkland, Florida being particular examples), there is no evidence of a single school shooting taking place in any district across the country where trained, non-law enforcement school staff members are carrying concealed weapons. Correlation is not causation, but that fact cannot be easily dismissed.
There are also zero examples of injuries resulting from the kind of mishaps commonly predicted by the skeptics: no accidental shootings, no rowdy students shot by frustrated teachers, no gun take-aways by students. They’re just not happening.
Tom Woods hosts a debate (Ep. 1062 of the Tom Woods Show) between economist Bob Murphy (Ph.D., NYU – arguing for) and podcaster Todd Lewis (arguing against) who square off in the central debate of anarcho-capitalism: is government truly necessary for national defense, or could the free market (through Private Defense Agencies or “PDAs) provide this service?
Great points are made on both sides, however, we believe what is being argued here is only half the picture.
Much like personal defense, when one abdicates personal responsibility/security to a third party causes you to abdicate control, placing yourself behind in the decision-making process, limiting potential solutions to problems, increasing cost, and introducing moral hazards.
While PDAs are a necessary part of dealing with decentralized/asymmetric warfare (4th Generation Warfare), they are only a part of the answer.
What’s the other half of the picture and a better answer?
Where individuals and communities can come together and provide security solutions as needed, and disband when it’s not.
Think of the Swiss system on steroids with a greater free market twist (like PDAs) and you will see the underpinnings of the solution.