After conceal carrying for 5 years, what did I learn?

I just finished the class for renewing my carry permit.  Here in Minnesota, we have to renew every five years, and part of that renewal is going through the class again and submitting the application.  I was thinking about how I have changed and how the world has changed since I started carrying.

On the personal side, I started carrying at first because I could legally carry.  I had one carry gun and one holster.  As with most carriers, this did not last long.  Soon I was looking for better holsters.  I also changed the way I dressed.  I was shopping for clothing with holsters in mind.  Also, I was educating my family about firearms a lot differently than before.  They soon got used to the idea of me carrying a gun.  My wife got really good at letting me know if my wardrobe was not appropriate for the holster, and if I was “printing”.  Before work, I would get dressed and do the fashion spin for my wife and ask her for a “Print Check”.

Soon I learned that having a single carry gun was not ideal.  My M&P got supplemented by its little brother the M&P Shield.  The more I carried, the more I learned about the gun laws, both local and federal.  I got involved with gun rights organizations. I started researching and following the news with self defense and conceal carriers in mind.

Also during this time, I was a victim of a road rage incident.  Had a rather ugly guy threaten me and even my wife (who was not even there).  I called the cops, never drew my pistol.  This was my first time dealing with law enforcement while being legally armed.  I showed the officer my permit, and he was very courteous. He never even asked to see my gun.  This officer even commended me for the restraint I showed in this situation.  If that ugly dude had only known that the man he was threatening was armed.  He was only one mistake away from getting drawn on and possibly shot.

When I started carrying, I was so worried that I would be “made”.  Now, I have gotten so comfortable, and attitudes have changed toward carriers here, that I have open carried on occasion.  I should clarify that “I” am more comfortable, my wife is not comfortable with me open carrying yet.

Now what I have shared would probably be considered “normal” for a typical legal carrier.  Nothing flashy, nor exciting with exception of the road rage incident.  So what have I really learned?  About society? About gun rights politics? About firearms and gear?  I would say a lot.  I have learned that most people are accepting of permit holders carrying.  I would also say politics have gotten more important.  A politicians view of the 2nd Amendment is the first thing I look for.  I have learned that the politicians that are “anti-gun” are really out for more control over society.  Guns are just the beginning.

How have I changed?  I am more aware of my surroundings.  I am more aware of dangers that surround us.  I am more aware of the anti-freedom forces that exist here.  I am more aware of our rights being so fragile, so close to being on the brink of being lost.  I have an appreciation of our freedoms that I did not have 5 years ago.

What has not changed?  I am still a father, a husband, a son, a friend, a neighbor, an employee, and a gun owner.  I am still a Gun Toting Dad.

Advertisements

Is the 1st Amendment more dangerous than the 2nd? Media Vs. Guns

“Now that I have your attention, I will now trick you and deceive you into thinking the way I want to further my agenda that my cooperate friends are pushing.”

Now if every news report would start with a disclaimer like that, at least it would have at least a little honesty about the report.  Its no secret that news organizations have agendas that seem to lean a little (or a lot) to the left.  There used to be a saying “If it Bleeds, it Leads”.  Back then, it was a little more honest straight forward journalism.  They would report the facts that they new.  It was the Tabloids that would stretch the truth to sell.  Now it seems that the “Main Stream Media” has turned into the tabloids of old.  In some cases even worse.

There was a story a number of years ago by NBC News Dateline, that was an investigative report about “Exploding” Chevy trucks.  These were the old ’73-’87 pickup trucks that had their gas tanks mounted outside the frame rails.  There were some reports that if they were hit in the side, they would burst into flames so bad that the driver would be killed.  So Dateline took it upon themselves to test this.  Now, I would use the word “test” loosely.  Because, when they conducted their test, the trucks tank would leak, but they would not “burst” into flames as they reported.  So, NBC decided to “help” get the desired results.  They added a feature to their test trucks, that all the other trucks didn’t have.  An igniter to the fuel tank.  This way, they could make the video to “prove” that these trucks were deadly.  So, in fact they cheated.  Now, so how much damage did this story cause?  It forced General Motors to offer to “buy back” these trucks.  All because a news program doctored a test to fit their agenda to make a car manufacturer look bad.

Now what is interesting about this story, is that NBC did get caught.  But, by then it was too late.  The damage had been done.  Now you ask, what does this have to do with the 2 Amendment?  How often do you hear about a person was shot and killed?  Or a police officer shot someone (often noting the race of the officer and the deceased). The media is now automatically painting the shooting as race motivated and that the officer is at fault.  You rarely hear about the justifiable self defense shooting by both police and legal gun owners.

In Ferguson Missouri an officer was forced to defend himself.  The media reported before all the facts were known that the officer killed an unarmed man, that happened to be of a different  race.  Saying that it was racially motivated.  This started riots.  Death threats against the police.  The media is who fueled this.  Media is reporting before they know all the facts.  Even the politicians are guilty of this.  Obama’s “Travon Martin could have been my son” and the Minnesota Governor saying that the officer involved shooting in Falcon Heights MN was because of race.  Governor Dayton said that if the driver was white, he would still be alive.  By the way, this shooting is still being investigated.  Just this past weekend, there was an officer involved shooting in Milwaukee.  They rioted for 2 straight days, burning business’.  The media again tried to spin this as “poor minorities are being target by the racist police”.  In fact, both the felon and the cop were both black.  And by the way, the felon was armed with a gun at the time.  But to the media, this does not matter.

The media is fueling the race tensions, fueling the distrust and hatred of the police.  The media is fueling the violence.  All the while the media says that there is no such thing as a defensive gun use by the legal, law abiding gun owners.  That guns are evil, and if there were no guns, then all this violence would magically disappear.

The media lies to make money.  Plain and simple.  Who every gets the biggest story, gets the biggest ratings, gets the biggest paycheck.  Truth does not matter anymore to them, as long as they get paid.  The media uses the 1st Amendment as their defense of their reporting while saying that we should gut the 2nd Amendment to “save lives”.

So I ask again.. Which is more dangerous, the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment?

Preparing for a President Clinton

In my previous post,( Link) I talked about what could happen if Hillary wins the presidency.  Now lets talk about what can we do to prepare.  If Hillary wins, all is not lost.  We can still fight for our rights that are recognized in the Constitution. You probably want to see how.  The best example is to look at the what has happened during the Obama administration.  For the most part, gun rights expanded.  (It was not for a lack of trying by Obama.)  Not so much at the federal level, but at the state level.  Now its at the state level that we feel the impacts the most.  It is also at the state level that you and me can do the most to fight for these rights.  This is how all 50 states and D.C. has carry laws. Not all are great, but they do have carry laws.  New York and California, being the liberal strongholds they are, being the exceptions to expanding gun rights.  We have also seen Obama use every tactic open to him to try to push for more restrictions, including Executive Orders, that for the most part failed to do anything.

So what do we need to do?  We need to keep fighting at the local level, the state level.  Even if Hillary does win, we must keep electing “Pro-rights” legislators to office.  We must work with the state level rights groups.  The NRA is the big kid on the playground at the national level.  But its the state level groups that are lobbying at the state level that is doing the most to keep your rights and also expand on those rights.  I have mentioned in previous posts about working, and volunteering with these state groups.   You can see that post here (Link)  In Minnesota, GOCRA is one such group that is making a big difference.

Now, there is something else you will need to prepare for.  Ammo Shortage.  The last two elections, after Obama won, there was a run on ammo like we have never seen before.  People will be “Panic Buying” causing a shortage.  During his second term win, there were months that it was difficult to find the common calibers like 9mm and .223.  If you have been paying attention, and learning from the past, you probably have been stocking up over the last year while ammo has been easier to find.  I really hope you have been doing this.  Semi-Auto rifles are another area where we may see a shortage happen again.  If there are any hints that Hillary would push another “Assault Weapons” ban, people will be buying up the AR15s and the AK-47 variants.  This also happened four years ago.  Now I am not suggesting to go out and buy a few AR15s, but my big suggestion is make sure you have spare parts.  This is an area that the democrats may target and in fact Obama is NOW targeting.  He is going after the gun smiths with Executive Order.

Gun owners make up one of the largest groups in this country.  We cross gender and race boundaries.  We also cross sexual-orientation and age boundaries.  Working together, with groups like GOCRA, we can make a stand.

What if Hillary Clinton wins, what then?

With the recent polls and what appears to be miss-steps by Trump, Hillary may win.  What then?  She has repeatedly stated that Gun control is a priority for her.  So lets speculate what we may be facing.
How will the country react to a President Hillary Clinton?  What will she truly pursue after election?  Will Congress be able to contain her?  So I am going to play a little “What if”.
If Clinton holds true to her word (something she does not do well) she will push for Gun Control.  She has stated that the Heller decision by the Supreme Court was wrong.  She favors “Assault weapons ban” and even says she would like to see an “Australian Style” gun buyback / gun ban.  I believe that all of these are possible under her administration.  Especially that she will be responsible for at least 1 Supreme Court appointment.
What if Heller were to be reversed?   This would effectively reverse all the “pro-gun” changes to the state of Illinois and D.C.  They could again have a carry ban.  I see that other states like California, Washington and New York push for more restrictions.
What if the Supreme Court reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment?  With a liberal leaning Supreme Court, we may see challenges to the 2nd Amendment.  They could interpret that “Militia” actually means solders of the Armed Forces.  Effectively making civilian gun ownership illegal, let alone carry laws.
 What if congress pushes for more gun control?  Congress could be turned more liberal after this election.  New gun control legislation would be a certainty.  This is where the “Australian Style” gun ban / confiscation would occur.   Also they could make an Amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
That last two is worse case scenario.  No legal civilian gun ownership.  How would Americas estimated 150 million legal gun owners(who own over 300 million guns) react now being asked to turn in their guns?  We can look at the “Assault weapon” registration attempt of New York and Connecticut for a clue.  Less than 10% complied with registering their rifles.  So knowing this would fail to get the “dangerous” illegal guns off the street, they would have to literally come and take them.  Forcibly.
So I ask, how do you think 150 million gun owners would react to having their guns forcibly taken from them?  Personally, I believe that this would be bloody if they attempted this.  Also, don’t forget that a good percentage of that 150 million gun owners are our police and deputies.  I really do not see local law enforcement going door to door taking your guns.  Most Sheriffs are pro-gun rights.
So being the realistic guy that I am, lets look at what is “likely” to happen with a President Clinton.  A liberal Supreme Court would happen. No doubt there.  I think that Heller would be challenged and reversed.  There could be a challenge to define “Militia”.  This I see as possible, but less likely.  I do see congress reintroduce gun control legislation. Background check changes are likely. Realistically, I do not see a new ban unless the democrats win seats in a land slide.  Repealing the 2nd Amendment has little to no chance of passing.  Too many in congress are aware of the repercussions to go there.  As for the “Australian Style” confiscation, has a little chance, better than repealing the 2nd Amendment, but unlikely.  Again, I believe that any forced confiscation would lead ultimately to civil war.
Something else that is a safe bet.  Gun sales will be through the roof for the next 6-12 months.  We could see another run on ammunition as gun owners stock up.  Some of these owners will be preparing for the worst.  They may have the best chance to survive a worst case scenario.
Heed my words folks, a President Clinton would start where Obama left off.  All of our rights recognized by the constitution are in jeopardy with president this progressive in office.

The Liberal reasoning for gun control and not supporting Police?

The Democratic Gun control / security platform has me a little curious.

  1.  They have openly stated they would like an Australian style gun control.  i.e. Gun buyback and very restrictive civilian gun ownership.
  2.  Not backing of local law enforcement.  Parading around with the families of the thugs that attacked police and lost their lives while not doing the same for the families of the officers that thugs have killed.
  3. Not taking a serious stand against the Radical Islamist terrorists.  They have been calling it “Gun Violence” instead of the radical religion trying to kill us.

So on the surface, it appears that they want civilians not to be able to protect themselves, the police to be less effective at protecting the innocent.  So in theory, the thugs and terrorists are more protected than the legal civilians.  We all know that the thugs and terrorists would still be armed as only the law abiding would ever turn over their guns because the law said so.

OK, so this leads me to this question.  Why?  What is the end game?  This is where we will have to start theorizing a bit.  If you disarm the public, make Police less effective, what’s left?  The federal Government.  They would still be fully armed.  In fact, they have been arming up for the last few years.  Remember the stories about the IRS and EPA buying huge amounts of ammo?  This could be a push for a federal-only police force.  Imagine not seeing police, but Homeland Security instead.

Now for the “tin foil” hat crowd, let’s take this a step further.

Now for more speculation.  A few years ago, there was an executive action that would allow the president and select executive branch officials to take total control of the government in the event of martial law.  This would even suspend the constitution and the bill of rights.

https://www.mrconservative.com/2014/02/34029-obama-signs-executive-order-permanently-implementing-martial-law/

So now to put it all together.

  • Australian style gun control means no armed resistance to a federal power grab.
  • No local law enforcement means no resistance to a federal power grab.
  • Implementation of martial law means no more constitutional protected freedoms.

Now the federal government has total control of our economy and its workforce.  So basically total control of the citizens.  Welcome to Communism i.e. Hell.

Backing up the Blue

Our law enforcement is under attack.  Groups are using the recent shootings of civilians, which are still being investigated, as an excuse to disrespect and even brutally attack officers and deputies across the country.  Some media are saying that there is no war against the police.  I do believe that this is the beginning of that war.  Not all of the attacks are with deadly force.  Some are restaurants refusing service to police officers.  Others are the taunting and being disrespectful towards them. These officers have done nothing to deserve this abuse.  They are being targeted for just wearing the uniform and driving the police car.  Now I am not going to go into the debate about if the Police use of force was justified or excessive.  But punishing all of law enforcement for the actions of the few is excessive and just plain evil.

In larger cities, officers are paired up while on duty.  They have their partner to watch their back.  But in the smaller cities and most Sheriff’s departments, they do not have that partner to help them when they need it.  They ride alone.  Their backup is often miles away.  You may have seen some ordinary people, offering to keep an eye out to assist the deputies and officers.  Like when they are getting gas, or eating their lunch.  We all need to do this.

“Backing up the Blue”

Here is what I am asking.  That we offer to assist officers and deputies that are working alone.  I am not talking about pretending to be cop.  What I am saying is that if you see an officer walking into a gas station, offer to keep an eye their car.  When they are getting gas, watch their back for them.  If you see a deputy eating lunch, offer to sit with them.  You can see what’s going on behind them while engaging in conversation.  Be that extra pair of eyes.  If you see something, you say something.  Follow their directions.  If they ask for help, help them.  If they are struggling with a suspect, watch the area.  That “suspect” may have a friend.  Again, be that extra pair of eyes and assist if you are asked to.  Above all, be a good witness.

The consequences of jumping to conclusions.

Jumping to conclusions.  Seems way to many are making judgement before all the facts are in.  Before the investigations are concluded, media, politicians and a lot of ordinary people are making judgment.

The most recent shooting of a black man, people are already saying that he was shot after being pulled over for a broken taillight.  That he did nothing wrong, and that he had a legal permit to carry a pistol.  Even the Minnesota Governor is saying that the man would be alive still if he were white.  How does the governor know this?  The investigation had just barely begun, but yet Governor Dayton knows that race was the issue and nothing else.

Within 12 hours of Governor Dayton, making those remarks, during a protest in Dallas, 12 police officers were shot.  5 died from their injuries.  A man, a black man, stating that he hated whites, attacked the police during  protest.

So by using Governor Dayton’s logic,  Governor Dayton’s words caused the attack on those officers.  Is it true?  Most likely no.  Just like saying that the motivation of that St. Anthony PD officer was race.  We don’t know do we?

What do we know?  A black man was pulled over by an Asian cop.  For reason unknown to the public at this time, the cop shot the man.  The woman in the car recorded the aftermath of the shooting.  Stated that he had a permit to carry.  In Minnesota, the carry permit information is not public.  We do not know nor has it been released to the public by the state if he did have a permit to carry.

So lets let the the investigators investigate.  Let them do what they are trained to do.  If this cop messed up, prove it.  He would be tried and convicted.  If he did not, the evidence will show he was justified.  Police officers, deputies and other law enforcement are human.  They are not perfect.   Some have made mistakes.  However, most cops are the good guys and we should respect them for it.  Lets not punish all cops for the possible mistake of another cop.  Lets not punish all blacks for the possible mistake of another.

 

Tragedy at the gun range and the media is heartless

This past weekend a fun and educational day at the gun range turned to tragedy.  While shooting at an indoor range, hot brass ejected from a fathers .22 pistol, bounced off the partition next to him and down his collar.  In the chaos of the brass casing burning him, he flailed, with gun in hand, pulled  the trigger.  The round ricocheted off the ceiling, and struck his own son.  Killing him.

Now, I could go into the fact that he should have dropped his gun.  This is true. But what I really want to talk about is his reaction, and the Internets reaction to those tragic events.  First, a lot of people involved with negligent discharges, always blame either the gun or someone other than themselves.  This man, the boys father, stated that he is to blame for the death of his son.  Not the gun, nor the gun range. He blames himself for not dropping the gun.  Some say that he was not being safe.  It is true that he should have dropped the gun when he got burned.  This is not a case of someone carrying in their pocket without a proper holster when the gun “went off”.  We are not talking about someone using Tannerite unsafely.  This was a bad reaction to a not so uncommon circumstance.

What I am really appalled of is the reaction in the media, and online.  There are authors that are calling this father stupid, careless and unsafe.  They are demonizing him for a mistake.  A mistake that he will have to live with for the rest of his life.  He has to live with the fact that his mistake killed his own son.  There are others saying that by him taking responsibility for his actions, and not blaming the gun, that he is saying that his guns are more important than his son.  What a crock of crap.  For once a man takes responsibility for his actions.  The same website also was picking on his faith, for saying that his son is now in a better place, on a beautiful lake with his ancestors.  So I will call out the website for their trash it is.  http://www.wonkette.com.  A quick look around and you will learn fast that this is a liberal trash site.

For the authors of Wonkette, I say you are trash for picking on this grieving father and trying to make a joke of his faith. You really show how ignorant, biased and heartless you really are.

P.S.  Wonkette, you can kiss my Conservative, gun carrying ass.

As for the rest of us, keep this father and his family in your prayers.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yishan-wong/you-cannot-regulate-guns-unless-you-know-how-_b_10613794.html

 

“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