Gun Control and Terrorism, what do we do?

I had a discussion with my wife the other night about guns and terrorist.  She agreed that gun control is not the answer, but what is?

For this I want to delve into the conversation a little.  Most on the “pro-gun” side say that restricting liberties or gun rights will not solve this.  Also, the “gun-control” side says that we need to keep guns away from terrorists.  I agree to both arguments.  But what is feasible?  What works?

For the sake of argument, let’s look at the “gun-control” side first.  Restrict the sale of guns to terrorists.  It sounds great, just don’t sell guns to terrorists, but let the law-abiding still access to guns.  It’s how it’s done is the issue here.  So anyone on the terror watch list should be prohibited from legally purchasing guns.  The people on this list do not know they are on the list, unless they try to fly.  People on this list were never informed, never went before a judge, no due process to prove that they are in fact a threat to national security. The best example was the late Senator Ted Kennedy.  He was on the no-fly-list.  Why?  Good question.  He may have been a Democrat, but I really doubt that he was a terrorist.  Then there was a woman that spent over $2 million and 4 years to get her name off the no-fly-list.  So, this is what it would take to clear your name and restore your rights that were taken away without due process.  Sounds constitutional?  How about gun registration?  Connecticut and New York have it.  Only about 15% registered.  This again only affects the law abiding.  Confiscation? 300 million firearms in this country, with an estimated 9 million “Assault” rifles. Again the registration argument proves this will not work.

Now, the pro-gun side.  Just let the background checks and due process play out.  The last few terrorist acts, the “terrorist” were not criminals, they passed background checks.  Especially the Orlando terrorist, he was a Government contractor.  He passed even more thorough checks and was even investigated by the FBI.  They did not find anything to arrest him, so he was not a criminal.  He was not a prohibited person to buy guns.  Also, let’s say that they were flagged by the feds, Would this stop them from carrying out an attack?  Both the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Federal building in Oklahoma City, did not involve guns, but homemade explosives.

So what do we have?  We have seen that terrorists use guns to kill.  We have seen terrorists not use guns to kill.  We have seen that background checks not stop a mass shooting.  We have gun registration that does not get anywhere near actually registering firearms that are legal, not to mention the illegal ones.  We even had a terrorist that work for a government contractor commit mass murder that we have not seen since 9/11.  Almost, every incident occurred in a “gun free zone”.   Whether it be an airplane, a federal building, a movie theater.  Boston was not a gun free zone, but Massachusetts has pretty heavy gun control in place and they used pressure cookers and not guns.

Here is what we know.  Now there are liberals that will not admit to this.  Laws only restrict the law abiding.  If a terrorist wants to kill, laws will not stop them.  Murder is illegal remember.   What has been done has made targets of innocent people.   Again, what I am saying goes against the liberal (especially Progressive) mindset, that we all should rely on the government to keep us safe.  We have been proven that this does not work.  Innocent people have died because of this mindset.

Islamic radicalized terrorist want us to fear them and to die.  The terrorist know that we cannot stop all of the attempts, especially the ones carried out by a “lone wolf”.  Those “homegrown” radicalized terrorists are the ones we cannot see coming.  We are at a point now, that prevention is not enough.  It is coming down to how we prepare and react to a terror attack.  The Feds have been prepping for years.  Look how the police departments across the country now possess and train with military weapons.   But how is the ordinary citizen being prepared?  Most are not.  However there are a percentage that are looking at this and preparing.  Those are the ordinary citizens that are getting trained and obtaining conceal / carry permits.  These are the people that carry every day.  Those people have stopped mass shootings.  These people can react faster because they are already there.  So the answer very well may be not the government protecting us, but all of us protecting ourselves.

A gun guy that does not believe in the 2nd amendment?

Now I understand that most liberals are anti-gun, there are
still a good number that are hunters. Then there is Yihan Wong, the former CEO
of Reddit.


“I am a pro-gun-control liberal who does not believe in the
Second Amendment”


“I also possess five guns: three handguns and two rifles —
one which I built myself from parts. It was fairly easy and a lot of fun, as I
am an engineer by training.”


Wait, what?  Did he
just say that he does not believe in the second amendment and he owns multiple firearms?
 So he wants to be able to own and possess guns, but not have a right to do so.  Can we say hypocrite?

He does go on to make a few valid points about if you are
going to write legislation for gun control, you should know how firearms
work.  For the most part, he was fairly accurate.  But its hard to get past his anti-rights stance.


“Almost every gun control advocate I know hates guns and
wants nothing to do with them. They are vaguely (or very) afraid of them, and
believe that if they fire a gun or buy one, they will suddenly become a gun nut
or turn evil.”


Then there is this one..

“I also believe that guns at home are more likely to result
in injury than be used successfully for home defense, so I believe in storing
them at the local gun club or armory.”


He basically does miss the point that that firearms are primarily
purchased for self defense.  Safe to say,
there would be no resistance to anyone wanting to break into his home.


“Being a gun owner who doesn’t believe in the Second
Amendment is really lonely. My liberal friends react with a sort of politely
sanctimonious horror to learn that I own all these weapons. My gun friends
think it’s absurd and despicable that I can be into guns but not support the
Second Amendment.”

I have no doubt that his friends do not understand him.  To think he owns and enjoys guns but think
that no one has a right to do the same is absurd.  Frankly, I fail to understand his logic at
all. Now if we applied his logic to, lets say, to the first  amendment.  Would he say its ok for him to speak , but no
one has a right to speak?  So is this a
case of entitlement?  We have all seen
the celebrity or the liberal politicians that say that guns are evil all while hiding
behind their armed security, but this guy takes it to a whole new level.

Sample Link

Alien Gear Holsters


First off, a disclaimer.  I am not affiliated with nor paid by Alien Gear in any way.  I purchased Alien Gear holsters for my own, everyday use.

As many of you have probably seen ads for Alien Gear online, I will not go into the details of what they promise.  You can look that up at their website.  I will dive into what you get.  First off, I was looking for a cost effective holster to replace a IWB tuck-able holster I had for my S&W Shield.

As you all know, holsters are not cheap.  Not quality ones anyway.  A  Galco”King-Tuk” typically runs from $59 to $79 for a single holster.  A cheap IWB Tuck holster, like from BladeTech, are cheaper, but the quality is definitely cheaper too.

What I purchased from Alien Gear is what you see above.  It is a two holster package with an optional shell for a third pistol.  This is really a holster system.  It is the Alien Gear “Cloak Tuck 3.0” 2 Holster combo.  I added a third shell for an extra cost.  Speaking of cost, this whole package with the additional shell cost $79.76 plus shipping.  I basically have three holsters for about the same cost as a single King-Tuk.

Now for the nitty gritty.  I have used these holsters for about a week.  It took a few days to find how I wanted them positioned and adjusted.  When I did figure it out, they are rather comfortable.  In my opinion the most comfortable IWB holster I have tried.


Now, just so you know, I am not a skinny guy.  With that, there are times that an IWB holster would get uncomfortable.  (I prefer OWB “Pancake” holsters.)  Typically the rear site would dig into my side.  I do not have this problem with this holster as the backing sits tall enough to cover the rear site.  Also, depending on how my pants fit, a holster would “pinch” my leg.  Again, this holster does not do this.  The backing is not leather, it is a breathable cloth material that is also not slippery, so it stays in place.  Retention  has been excellent.  What is really nice is that the retention is fully adjustable.  With four screws, you can really fine tune the retention.


Besides the holster, you get spare parts.  Extra screws, grommets, and even the Allen wrench.  This all is fixed to a card to keep it all neat and together.  Also the plastic bag that it is shipped in is a resealable storage bag to keep everything together.


In my case, I ordered a third shell.  I have another pistol that used to be my old carry gun.  I do carry this one occasionally, so I opted for the additional shell.  It is really quick and easy to swap the shells.  It took me less than two minutes to swap.

Now, granted I have carried my shield for five days and my 1911 for 4 in these holsters.  So I can’t comment on the durability yet.  That is always the true test for a holster.

The only real issue that I have encountered was that I did find that the safety switched off on my 1911.  It has happen twice.  I believe the extended safety caught the backing when I was holstering.  Now that I am aware of it, I have been checking to make sure that the safety stays put when I re-holster.

Overall I am impressed with Alien Gear holsters.  Comfortable and work as promised.  Definitely a value. I will update my review after they get worn in.





Self Defense, do we have the right?

Self Defense, do we have the right?

Do you have the right to defend yourself from an attack? Do you have the right to defend others if they are attacked?
You are at the mall, a man walks up and starts punching your wife. What do you do? Do you intervene or stand there waiting for a police officer? You’re at the park with your daughter, and a man grabs her. What do you do? Fight the abductor or stand there waiting for police? You are walking down the street and see a thug attacking a woman you do not know. Do you go help her, or do you keep walking?
In the above examples, most would say fight. In some cases, you could be held accountable for not helping or intervening in the attack. But you see, I never mentioned any weapons or multiple attackers.

Now if the attacker is armed, either with a knife or firearm, what do you do? Could you effectively defend yourself or another person if the attacker is armed? Chances are slim that you would prevail and if you did, there would be serious injuries. This is the unfair fight that happens way too often. This is also what most liberals do not consider. The attacker is armed or much stronger than the victim.
A typical attacker preys on the weak. How often do you hear that a body builder was mugged by a little guy? You don’t. What you do hear about is women (sorry ladies, no offense) and the elderly. They are the easiest to attack, because the attackers want an easy to control target. They typically will not target someone that can put up a fight.

Now, if you were legally armed in the above scenarios, it changes things dramatically. In most cases, you may not even have to fire a shot, just the fact that you, the victim, are armed presents a problem for your attacker. You can fight. You are no longer the “easy target”. Now the argument that the liberal pinheads use is that the attacker will take your gun away and use it against you. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? I think not. Especially if you are trained to use that firearm. People every day are using their legal firearm, to defend themselves from attackers. Far more than what the media reports. In some cases, the attacker flees and it goes unreported. But the pinheads say this never happens, because being legally armed is a bad thing. Defending yourself with a firearm is the wrong thing, even though you may be expected to defend yourself if you’re unarmed.

Now I know that I am “preaching to the choir”. I have really been attempting to understand the liberal point of view when it comes to self-defense so I can pick it apart. But what I found is it seems to be part of the bigger narrative of the liberal political platform. While conservatives are more self-reliant, the liberals are wanting to rely on others. In other words, Liberals want care takers, Conservatives will take care of themselves.

So to bring this back to the self-defense discussion, here it is. Liberals want someone else to be responsible for their safety. Conservatives rely on themselves for their own safety.


When attacked.. Liberals are unarmed sitting ducks, and Conservatives shoot back.
*To be fair and to ward off the flame mail, there are some (small percentage) of liberals that are pro-2nd Amendment. There just are not very many.

Orlando, Terrorism, and Politics

My post for today was supposed to be a review on Aliengear holsters, but the events from early Sunday force me change things up.

Once again, a terrorist that has pledged allegiance to ISIS has struck the U.S. mainland and killed innocent people. And once again, the politicians are using the lost lives of our citizens to push their political agenda. Pushing for gun control that would have made no difference.

What the left wing political nutjobs have difficulty understanding is that gun control does not stop terrorists from killing. Think about Boston, or Oklahoma City. Neither of those were carried out with firearms. They used improvised explosive devices. After those events, you did not see the politicians trying to ban Rider rental trucks, or pressure cookers? The politicians did not blame the truck or the kitchen appliance. But as soon as a terrorist uses a firearm, they scream for gun control. They don’t lay the blame on the person that pledged allegiance to a Radical Muslim terror group that is hell bent on killing Americans.

So what we know is that the terrorist was employed as an armed guard with a company that is contracted with the U.S. government. Part of that employment required background checks with the FBI. Also, he had a carry permit, which requires a background check. Then there is the little issue that he was investigated by the FBI for suspected terror ties. Yet, he was still allowed to be working, armed, for a government contractor. Not to mention, he passed the background checks required for purchasing the very firearms that he used. This terrorist even called 911 to state his allegiance to ISIS during his attack.

So tell me what new laws would have prevented this attack? Would universal background checks or an “assault” weapons ban stopped this? No, it wouldn’t. The government could ban the sale of all firearms, and it would not stop the terrorists from trying to kill us. There are over 300 million firearms in the U.S. Even if the ban would force a confiscation, they would still not get them all. They would be lucky to even get close to half. Also, just remember what happened in Paris last year. They have stricter gun laws than here, but still carried out their attack.

Obama, Clinton, Sanders and most of the democrats, want to make Orlando about guns and not about the radical Islamist terrorists that want to kill Christians, gays, and the freedom loving people of our country.

Every religion has its extremists. But most do not order its followers to kill followers of other religions. The rape and murder of women, and the killing of homosexuals. The radicalized Islamists have declared war on the non-Muslims of the world. Our current president still refuses to recognize this. Until our government takes this war seriously and not try to politicize gun control, we will be in danger of even more attacks.

This is a dangerous time around the world, we must remain vigilant, prepared, and armed if you can legally do so. At this moment, we can not rely on the government to protect us. We must protect ourselves.

As I have said before, we are our own first responders, and our last line of defense.

Constitutional Carry verses Permit Required Carry

Over the last few years, there has been a push for Constitutional Carry or permit less carry. Currently there are 11 states including the latest, Missouri that are Constitutional Carry.

Constitutional Carry does not require you to have a Carry permit. As long as you are legally allowed to possess a firearm, you can carry a firearm in public. No training or additional background checks required.

Permit Carry, you are required to have a carry permit to carry in public. Training is required, the amount varies from state to state. Also an additional background check is done and sometimes you even have to submit fingerprints. Then there are a few states that you have to prove a need to carry as well.

Now, if you have read some of my previous posts, you will know I am a big fan and believe in the Constitution. I am a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment if that is not obvious from my name. I will admit, I am torn on this issue. While I believe that if you’re legal to possess a firearm you should be able to carry, I am a firm believer in the training for carry. So in part, I am in favor of a training requirement that Permit Carry requires, I am not in favor of the fees involved. Some states are rather cheap for the permit, others are almost prohibitively expensive. Also some states requirements for training are quite extensive. In some case days of training verses hours in others.

There is one other bonus of Permit Carry, the permit itself. When dealing with law enforcement, I have found that having that permit card can actually be helpful. That card says that you have passed a background check thorough enough for you to carry a firearm. It can say that you’re a bit more honest than the average person. That can set a positive tone with law enforcement. That’s not a guarantee, but it does happen. I have experienced it first-hand.

On the flip side, I firmly believe that everyone has a God given right to defend yourself and your family. Why should the government make it difficult or expensive to exercise a God given right?

Like I already stated, I am on the fence with this one. I agree with both sides to some degree and disagree as well.

Why do conceal carriers carry?

Why do people use seatbelts in cars? They can be very uncomfortable. Kind of a nuisance to always having to remember to put it on and take off. They can restrict your movement in the car. So why wear them? For some it’s because their state has a law saying that they must wear it. But for most people you ask, they say they wear it just in case they get in an accident. It’s true that wearing a seatbelt can reduce injuries and even save your life in an accident. So are people that wear seatbelts looking to get in an accident? No they are not. They wear them “just in case” they do get in an accident. It is being prepared for something that you hope will never happen.
So what does seatbelts have to do with carrying a legal firearm? Well, you could replace “firearm” for “seatbelt” in my previous analogy and that pretty much covers it for most firearm carriers.
Why do people carry a legal firearm? They can be very uncomfortable. Kind of a nuisance to always having to remember to put it on and take off. They can restrict your choice of clothing. So why carry them? But for most people you ask, they say they carry it just in case they get attacked. It’s true that carrying a firearm can reduce injuries and even save your life in an attack. So are people that carry firearms looking to get attacked? No they are not. They carry them “just in case” they do get attacked. It is being prepared for something that you hope will never happen.
As you can see, the same reasons that most people wear a seatbelt while riding in a car, are the same reasons that a person carries a firearm. You always wear seatbelts because you never know when or where you could be in an accident. Conceal carriers carry their firearm all the time because they never know when or where they will need to defend themselves or loved ones from an attacker. We carry all the time hoping that we will never need it, but carry it “just in case” we do.
Now I am not trying to convince non carriers to carry all the time. Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility and is not for everyone. It is a personal choice you have to make and commit to. It’s expensive for the training, permit fees, continued training, ammunition, all the holsters, and not to mention the firearm itself. But carrying that firearm and being trained how to use it, may ensure that you live to see your family again if the worst does happen.
Every day, people survive car accidents because they wore a seatbelt. Also, every day, people were able to stop an attack or defend themselves because they chose to carry a firearm.
Remember, you are your “first” first responder, and your last line of defense. So prepare accordingly.

Gun Toting Dad is back!!

After a long hiatus, Gun Toting Dad is back.

Due to some employment changes, I was only able to work with the Facebook page. There is a lot to get caught up on. From new firearms, new laws, politicians making some dumb remarks and not to mention the current state of the presidential race.

So lets start off with the elephant in the room, the shocking rise of Donald Trump. There are a lot people that are surprised by the following he has. He is no where near a true conservative. That honor more closely resembles Ted Cruz. Trump is definitely a left leaning “Republican”. But when compared to both Clinton (a progressive) and Sanders (socialist), Trump sounds down right conservative. The political spectrum has shifted left for the last fifty years. Trump would have been a true democrat back then.

How did this happen? How did a billionaire that used to hang out with democrats become the Republican nominee?
It comes down to this, people are pissed and he says what “we” are thinking. So in a sense, the people created this.

Trump it the only one left that at least says he is pro-gun rights. Its safe to say, that Clinton will try to limit or take our rights. Sanders Igor the most part out of the race. Just tonight, it has been announced that Clinton clinched the nomination.

So, we are left choosing either a business man that has filed for bankruptcy many times that says he is pro-rights, or a progressive criminal that thinks you can’t be trusted with the rights you currently have.

Whatever happens in November, our country will change.