Do you care what the Court Jesters Say?

To Rosie O’Donnell, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Robert DeNiro and the other idiots that think we care.

Recently with the continuing coverage of the incompetent Democrats trying to impeach President Trump, and after he was sworn in after being elected, there seems to be no end of people in Hollywood and the entertainment industry that think they need to use their platforms for telling all of the rest of us what they think we should feel and do. Award shows are less about the shows, music and award than they are about the 30 second spot that a winner or presenter gets to be able to talk about how much is wrong with the US and its system, and how much they hate the President.

What I do not understand is what makes these overpaid snowflakes think that we, the general public, care one bit that they do not like our current President or his executive orders, or for that matter have promised repeatedly to “move out of the country” if President Trump was elected. I am still waiting for them to keep their word on that one. But the thing that I think about is how in the world did someone that used to be called a “Court Jester” and was the laughing stock of the courts and residences around
Europe evolve into what they think they are today? We place them on a high pedestal and they think they are above and better than the rest. Money is one of the things that they have that makes them feel like it gives them the right or need to share their political views with those of us that actually work for a living. Now of course there are exceptions to every rule, and few of them realize they are no more important than the guy delivering newspapers early I the morning, but that is a rarity.

So as Court Jesters of old, our Actors, Singers and others that entertain us get paid to entertain, not politicize or trying to advocate. They are paid to make believe they are someone else. So when they are on some stage somewhere waxing about what they thing our newest President is or is not doing correctly, what makes them think we give it any more credence then the Court Jesters of old?

So to all of the Court Jesters out there (Entertainers, actors, musicians and the like) we really don’t care what you think politically, and all you are doing is make it less likely that people like myself will be spending our hard earned money to watch or listen to you. What do you think would happen is the same people that voted for the new President decided to no longer buy movie tickets, or listen to your music? You would no longer be in the position you are, so knock it off and get back to being the Court Jester you are supposed to be. We do not care what you think, only that you make us laugh, cry and have fun escaping reality, not listening to you spout it.

Terror Attack in England Highlights Lack of Ability for Self Defense.

OK with knife attacks in England and the Hauge there are people that try to point out that if the attacker had had a gun then the death tolls would have been a lot higher. No kidding. Then they go on to try and say that is proof that removing guns works. That’s where they lose all credibility. They say we need gun control like England. We need to only let the cops have guns and so on. Maybe they should actually research a bit before making themselves look so uneducated on the subject.

First, let’s address crime overall in England. This is from a recent BBC article: “Violent crime recorded by police in England and Wales has risen by 19% in a year, latest Home Office figures show. The number of homicides – including murder and manslaughter – rose from 649 to 739, an increase of 14%, in the 12 months to the end of September 2018. It is the the highest total for such crimes since 2007. Robbery went up by 17%, as did recorded sexual offenses, according to the data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Overall crimes recorded by police went up by 7% with a total of 5,723,182 offences recorded.”

Now lets look at crime in the US: “FBI data released Monday suggests that the violent crime rate in the U.S. remains on a decades-long downward trend, falling by 3.9 percent in 2018. Overall, the violent crime rate has plunged by more than 50 percent since the highwater mark of the early 1990s.The drops came across categories of violent offenses, including murder, non-negligent manslaughter and robbery, and property crimes like burglary, larceny and vehicle thefts, while aggravated assault numbers remained about flat. The rate for rape bucked this trend, however, up slightly for 2018, and in each of the last six years.”

So when people say they want us to follow England’s gun control, tell them they are idiots and don’t know what they are talking about. In England, they are now calling for knife control. They tried to get rid of the guns (which are still used in crimes) and saw a huge increase in knife crimes, now they want those too. In the US Americans bought more firearms than ever and guess what, crime went down, some by more than 50% over the last decade! While you cannot link guns to the drop in crime specifically, one would have to be foolish to not count it in reasons for the decrease. Fear of being dead is a great deterrent to crime.

Take a good look at the photos from the attack. Especially the one of the guy who was reduced to using narwhal horn to try and defend against the terrorist.

My everyday carry, Block 41, .45 caliber.

Florida Legislators let the law abiding citizens down again. And we keep electing them.

Well I guess firearms were not a very popular topic in the Florida Legislature this year (or any year for that matter). While some of these were very negative and dangerous bills for firearms owners some were positive. It saddens me greatly that the House and Senate and Gov. are all one party and they can’t get anything done. Kind like our Federal Govt. Was before this last election. Remember this come next election cycle. Those who did nothing to protect or restore your rights. 
But hey at least Felons get to vote!

SB 500 (2019) Gun Safety
SENATE – Died in Criminal Justice

CS/SB 598 (2019) Firearms
SENATE – Died in Criminal Justice

SB 108 (2019) Regulation of Concealed Weapons Licenses
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 170 (2019) Federal Immigration Enforcement
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 364 (2019) Prohibited Places for Weapons and Firearms
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

HB 403, 1st Eng. (2019) Safety of Religious Institutions
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 466 (2019) Assault Weapons and Large-capacity Magazines
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 468 (2019) Firearms
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 654 (2019) Transfers of Firearms
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 752 (2019) Concealed Weapons and Firearms
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 764 (2019) Home Safety
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 922 (2019) Discharging Firearms in Public or on Residential Property
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 956 (2019) Three-dimensional Printed Firearms
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 996 (2019) Possession of Firearms on School Property
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 1532 (2019) Local Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

SB 1718 (2019) Sale and Delivery of Firearms
SENATE – Died in Judiciary

So what is anything positive pass? Nope… time for new tactics I think by the people that support the Constitution and the rights of citizens as protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. Maybe time to use the right to peacefully assemble and maybe also to exercise our rights as much as can be done under the current system. Not sure yet, but will think about it and get back to you all. 😉 The least we can do IS VOTE OUT EVERY legislator that could not get things passed with both the HOUSE and SENATE and Governorship in one party! Is there more going on? Of course.

An open letter to all the #guncontrolnow and #gunsense people crying the sky is falling over 3D printed guns.

Stop all the lies or complete ignorance. Like anything else to do with firearms if you only knew about a 10th of what you need to you would know how silly your articles and postings are.

OK, I am going to probably give you a heart attack by what I am about to say if your anti-firearm and worried about these 3D printed guns, but here goes. We have been making un-serialized and homemade guns for decades. Do you need CPR now? Yes, that’s right it has been completely legal to manufacture your own guns at home and use them for many years. In fact, a whole industry has been born out of this. If you would research a bit about the 3D printing of guns, you would realize that they are not printing the entire gun, only parts. And no they are not able to pass through metal detectors undetected, what utter hogwash. You are being lied to and misled by those very people that want to make you helpless and remove your rights.

A 3D printed gun must have certain parts made from metal. In addition, the ammunition is standard ammunition and that alone is made from lots of metal and detectable by metal detectors. Oh, and maybe one of the most important parts, it can only hold and fire 1 round at a time. All of your anti-firearms crying about “high capacity magazines” should be pushing for these guns to become the standard used by everyone! But that is not the most egregious part of all your crying about 3D printed guns.

For many years we have been making our own, workable, well-functioning, “un-serialized” guns from metal without a 3D printer! Yes, that’s right, it’s called making a gun from an 80% lower. Google it. There are many of us out here that like working with our hands, we like firearms for fun, sport, and self-protection. And we like to combine our hobbies, so we create our own firearms. They are perfectly legal, have no serial numbers, and yes, they are untraceable by the government, but what does that matter? You are not allowed to sell them. Once you make it, you must keep it, unless you put a serial number on it and register it with the Feds, but what fun is that?

So, you folks wailing and gnashing your teeth about 3D printed guns are just laughed at by 99% of the gun owning population or anyone that knows anything about them. Why because we realize that only a silly person, with way too much money on their hands, would by a 3D printer, print that huge ugly 3D printed gun, and then try and use it in a crime as a single shot firearm. Not when real guns are cheaper and easier to come by. No, they can’t sneak them on a plane (remember it has metal in it and requires regular ammunition which is made of metal), no people will not be churning them out by the thousands. Why do that when you can buy a nice, commercially available 80% lower and build your own gun for far less than the cost of the 3D printed firearm?

Oh, and to really get the anti-firearms folks going, the 3D printed firearm issue was not a case about the 2nd Amendment. I know you probably have been told otherwise, but the court case was being argued on a First Amendment rights issue. I guess now that you #gunsense and #guncontrolnow people know that you will be against the first amendment also? Please if you do nothing else after reading this, do a google search and learn a little about the topic you are trying to speak on, you’re making your movements look foolish with your sky is falling cry. The sky isn’t falling, intelligence is it seems.

Can an “unarmed” attacker be a threat to your life? What is “disparity of force”?

With the recent shooting in Clearwater Florida of an “unarmed” assailant by a concealed firearms license holder many are questioning why was an unarmed man shot, all he did was violently shove the man to the ground? And even looking further, some saying that you are a coward or not a “real man” if you have to resort to firearms if the attacker is unarmed. To those people, as a 35-year veteran LEO (and LEO Instructor) and U.S. Army veteran I say you’re talking about a subject you have no knowledge of or are being purposefully stupid.

There is an adage that I like to use when younger police recruits talk about the physical part of the job, the fights, the “defensive tactics” we teach in the police academy and other things related to defending yourself. I tell them, “at my age, I don’t fight fair I fight to win”. And go on to elaborate that what I mean is I will use whatever I need to end the fight quickly and without as much injury as I can sustain. If that means throat punching someone, gouging an eye, or otherwise fighting “dirty” then I will do it if I am in fear for my life and cannot get to my self-defense firearm. I am older and have had several medical related issues over the years, I am not able to take as much punishment as when I was 20. So enters the concept of what constitutes a serious bodily injury and what is “disparity of force”?

We teach this in the police academy and teach law enforcement officers all over the nation about it because it can be what they come across on the job, but it applies as much to the everyday citizen as it does law enforcement. What is “serious bodily injury”? It is recognized in court cases and case law as that force which is likely to cause severe pain and injury that will require protracted recovery or permanent scarring is considered serious bodily harm. When it comes to the law of self-defense, you have to look at potential injury from the victim’s point of view, not the attackers or their intent. A blow to the throat, eyes or other soft areas of the body. Hitting someone with a closed fist to the side of the head, or base of the skull can be seriously crippling or even deadly. Throwing or pushing someone down hard onto concrete or asphalt, all can cause serious bodily injury or even death.

That is not even adding in the “disparity of force” factors. If the victim is old or physically disabled in any way, their ability to defend themselves may require the use of a weapon or firearm. A large attacker, even if unarmed, attacking a smaller weaker victim causes the danger of serious bodily harm or death to rise. And in the victims mind (remember that the fear spoken of in law is that of the victim, not the witness or the attackers), a small framed, weaker victim being attacked by a larger more powerful attacker may form in their mind a well-founded fear that they are going to be seriously injured or killed.

Let us use an example to explain this. You are an older person who has some issues with mobility. Nothing that requires a cane or wheelchair but you can’t get around as well as you used to. You are walking down the street when out of nowhere you are hit in the chest with a blow hard enough to send you flying backward several feet and land on your butt. Your dazed and your breathing is hard and painful. Your chest hurts as well as your back and legs from the fall to the ground. You realize you were just physically attacked by a much younger and larger attacker. And the attacker is there just a few feet away. You look up and think to yourself that the attacker is going to attack you again and that this time you may not be so lucky as to not be seriously injured or worse, maybe even killed (remember the law does not say only fear of death, but serious injury also, and rightfully so). Do you have the legal right to draw your self-defense firearm to defend yourself from further attack? Do you have the legal right to fire at the attacker to stop him from attacking you again if that is what you think he is going to do? The answer is of course yes. No one should have to just sit there and be seriously injured (or worse). No one should have to wait to be hit several times and just before losing consciousness be able to fight back. No one should be attacked physically or have to be seriously injured in the first place.

This ladies and gentlemen is what happened in Clearwater, Fl.
Would all people react the same way? Probably not. I doubt that I would have reacted the same way as the victim on the ground in this case. But what people seem to be forgetting is that you don’t get to make that decision based on what you would have done and what you are capable of, you have to look at it from the point of view of the person who used force to defend themselves. A disparity of force is what happens when you have factors that make the victim in a self-defense case more fearful of the attacker and the attackers ability to cause them harm. Size, age, physical ability, number of attackers, weapons, all of those things (and more) need to be taken into account when looking at the attacker verse victim issues in any use of self-defense.

So back to the original question. Can an unarmed attacker seriously injure or kill you? Of course, they can. Can you use force including deadly force to prevent an attack or stop an attack if you (the victim) feel that you are in fear of great bodily harm or death? Of course you can that is the way it should be. Did you look at and consider the possibility of things like the disparity of force in this case? Maybe you should.

Imagine if people had to try and run away or flee before they could defend themselves from criminal attacks. Imagine what the criminals would think and do. Self-defense is a right that we have had long before the Constitution and laws. The laws are there to try and explain it to those who are too stupid to understand that if you do not attack anyone else you have no fear of being shot by someone defending themselves then. Pretty simple when you think of it.

And don’t be foolish and try and bring up other cases that have caused media attention to focus. Especially those that have gone through the court system and been justifiable. That’s why we have a court system.

A simple solution to these supposed problems with the self-defense law is to present the case to the Grand Jury and let them decide if charges should be filed. If they do, the person using force still has the court to present their case, if not it has been reviewed by more than your standard Jury and has been put to rest.

It Happened Again in Santa Fe, Texas, and We Could Have Done Something!

With today’s shooting in Santa Fe Texas, it brings to the forefront once again that the people of the United States are not looking at these issues with logic and experience in how we can help lessen these types of incidents or at least minimize the damage done when they do happen.

Wake up America. Criminals, as the name applies, commit crimes. They violate the laws already on the book and any others that may be thought of. What then can be done to stop these types of attacks? We should look at what has worked other places and in other types of places.

The military has a specialty called “physical security”. It is used to provide security for anything the military considers important. Things like nuclear weapons, specialty equipment, and locations that need protection are “hardened”. Rings of various levels of security measures are put in place to make things secure and safe.

My specialty in the U.S. Army for half my time in the military was as the training coordinator for the security forces in charge of the physical security of several hundred nuclear weapons in what was at the time, West Germany.  We, of course, had fences, alarms, and various other physical barriers, but also had armed security on the sites. These were trained and equipped soldiers that took the security of these special weapons very seriously. We could be up and out into the fray in 30 seconds or less on these sites. We trained daily for it.

While I am not recommending that we place military units in our schools, I am recommending we take some of the lessons learned by the military and by other countries that have school security (Israel comes to mind) and look at what has worked and what could be implemented to protect our schools. It is simple really. As long as have no or little physical security measures in our schools, they will remain a target for depraved minds and those wanting to cause mass casualties. Armed response to an armed attack is also another thing that must be thought about. Why do you think you call the police when something like this happens? Because they are bringing guns to confront the armed suspect. Again I call it common sense.

I train law enforcement for a living. I teach law enforcement firearms and have for over 2 decades. I will be the first to tell you that police for the most part (not including specialty units like SWAT Teams) are not any better at using firearms than many civilian firearms owners and carriers. Putting law enforcement officers in the schools, called school resource officers can and has been effective at stopping mass school shootings. Just this same week in Illinois a school resource officer, Ofc. Mark Dallas, confronted a 19-year-old who was armed and started shooting at Dixon High School in Dixon, Il and was able to stop the shooter, by confronting him with an armed immediate response. Yet that, of course, did not make much in the way of news, because the only casualty was the criminal himself.

So let’s stop panicking and becoming emotional and trying to pass laws that only affect law-abiding citizens, and takes away the rights of regular citizens to be able to protect themselves, and we need to make some changes to the physical security in our schools, and allow or place armed security in the schools. For heaven’s sake, we require fire extinguishers in schools. fire alarms,  and fire education. Yet we do not require bullet resistant glass in the doors, or entry control points with armed security or officers or other easy things that can absolutely reduce or mitigate the damage for these types of things.

America, stop listening to the media, stop listening to the right or left, stop getting emotional about things like this and let those with the knowledge and ability of those that know about these types of things help make “common sense” changes to our schools and the security that they have.

There are many things that we can do in the short term to help secure the schools until physical changes are made to help also. Police Officers placed it he schools is not a negative thing, it’s positive. An armed immediate response is what is needed to stop these types of criminals.

Until America realizes that you don’t stop these things with just laws and emotion and demonstrations, we are doomed to continue to repeat it over and over. They say that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. So America, let’s stop the insanity, and give our schools the armed security they need and realize you fight fire with fire, in this case, it is you fight an armed attacker with an immediate and armed response.

Get over it America, stop arguing over “common sense gun safety” and focus on the real things that will make a difference. Making changes to our schools and the security we provide them.

What Type of Person Wants to Give up Their Own Rights?

After seeing the groups of people marching around different parts of the country, and watching some of the videos of just how uninformed they are on the real facts and issues surrounding firearms, mass murders and violent crime in general, it brought to my mind a question that I just figured out the answer to.

What kind of person wants to have their own Constitutional Rights taken away? I thought about that for a very long time and could not come up with an answer. Being uninformed on the topic does not excuse it, being misled cannot excuse it. Someone telling you that it is for your own good definitely should not excuse it. Being completely ignorant of the Constitution and what it stands for should not even excuse it.

So what kind of person would rather give up inalienable rights, that we have had for over 240 years, to make absolutely no difference? What kind of person cannot see that regardless of what laws you pass, what kinds of guns you ban, the criminals will still get the guns, or turn to bombs, or turn to trucks to cause their carnage?

The school shooting in Parkland was a tragedy, for everyone, but what we are not addressing is the failures of the system already in place to address these types of people. Instead, we are focusing on the tool used and not one the person pulling the trigger, even though we had plenty of warnings that were not followed up on. Then just a month after Parkland a school shooting in Maryland was stopped by a good guy with a firearm. So which is it, they cannot stop them or they can? Well, obviously firearms can stop mass murderers, and have.

So back to my original question. Why would a person or group of people want the Government to take away their rights? When taking away that right will do nothing to change the outcomes they want to be changed?  Our rights, including the 2nd Amendment, have stood the test of time for more than 240 years and in that time there have been many things this country has gone through. Wars, recessions, many ups, and downs. Men and Women have gone and died in wars to prevent the take over of our world by people who wanted to do just the thing these people are wanting, the removal of your rights.

Despots like Hitler, Stalin, and others did the very thing that these people are asking of their own Governing body, the removal of the ability of the people to defend themselves. The removal of firearms, of the right to own and possess firearms, was one of the first actions taken by these dictators, just before the mass executions began. Why could they get away with it? Because the ability of the people to defend themselves was removed and a defenseless people are nothing more than slaves.

What makes this whole topic insane is that the numbers just do not support the reactions we are seeing. Many more things kill far more people than firearms do every year. Yet we do not see marches in the streets to make cars safer (although the technology is there), we do not see marches to end the drug epidemics, we do not see the marches to end medical malpractice. All of those things kill far more people than firearms. Yet firearms seems to become a lightning rod for anger and hostility from those opposed to ownership and those who want the right to own them. Why? What is it about the firearm that drives what should a be a sane and normal person into a frenzy that they will not listen to rational talk and common sense? Fear of the unknown? Fear of being helpless?

I think it is a lack of the basic understanding of just what our rights are designed to do and why you need them. Violent crime is way down in the U.S., that is a proven fact. Murder is way down, firearms victimization is way down (more than murder!). So why would this equate to people being willing to give away freedom they need to protect themselves? Because they have never had to use it, so they see it as not being needed. You see the U.S. has become soft. Violent crime is so rare people have become used to being safe that when we do have an act of violence like parkland, with the media and instant 24 news cycle we feel like its something out of the ordinary. Even though school shootings are way down since 1990.

So unless you have been the victim of a violent crime, or had to use a firearm to defend yourself, or carried one as part of your profession, I think your perspective is that of a person outside the experience and knowledge base needed to appreciate the need and even necessity for having firearms for personal protection and the ability to defend your rights from those that may wish to remove them.

So I get it, your scared because the news and others tell you that you should be afraid. You should fear those big bad assault rifles. You should fear those who want to keep their rights and be able to defend themselves. Why? Because someone told you that you should or you researched, made up your own mind because of the facts you uncovered? If you are fearful it is not because you should be, it is because you have chosen to not take your own safety into your own hands. You have chosen to be fearful, you have chosen to give your rights away, BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to give mine or anyone else’s away.

If you don’t want to own a firearm, that’s fine, don’t buy one. You don’t want to own an assault rifle? Fine don’t, but you have no right to tell me I can’t. That’s the great thing about rights they apply to the individual, not the group. That is why they are called individual rights, not group rights. But most of all, you have no right to give away my rights.