I don’t play one on television, or the Internet.
Nor does Peter (Bayou Renaissance Man)
He has something of importance to pass on to us. Most of us know all or parts of this, but we really need to internalize it.
Lest we make a fatal mistake.
Never let a knife-wielding attacker get within range! In general, if you have to use violence to defend yourself, you may have to justify that in court. If you use potentially or actually lethal force, the chances of having to justify it in court go up exponentially. One of your primary defenses will be how you were trained, what you learned during your education process, and how your defensive mindset was formed. As part of that, it helps to document your training through class notes (taking them yourself if necessary), video clips of the instructor (often found on YouTube), recordings, etc. You can also introduce as evidence material from others that reinforces and supports your defensive mindset. I’d like to show you one such piece of material this morning, particularly because Antifa, the progressive far-left-wing movement behind much of the anti-Trump and anti-conservative unrest of recent months, was advertising credit-card-sized concealed knives on its Web site. These things may be tiny, relatively speaking, but they can do an awful lot of damage – potentially disabling damage, if not inflicting permanent injury such as the loss of an eye or a severed nerve – in the hands of someone who knows how to use one. The odds are increasing that people like us may run into one of these demonstrations – so it behooves us to be prepared to counter such violence, in defense of ourselves and our loved ones. Here’s what even a very small knife can do to a human being. I recommend watching the video in full-screen mode.
Remember that video. Bookmark it and/or save a copy for future reference. Remember Antifa’s attempts to sell knives of similar size to its members, and their open discussion about the need to arm and train themselves. Remember it if you run into them while about your lawful business . . . and keep them out of knife range, by whatever means may be necessary (and, of course, legal – that goes without saying). If you ever have to justify that decision and/or your actions, play back that video in court, point out Antifa’s discussions and its efforts to sell knives to its members, and make it clear that you considered yourself in imminent danger of suffering similar injuries unless you stopped them. It’s a compelling argument.
AMEN, Peter, amen…
REMEMBER your Tueller Drill people!
via Theo Spark
My first thought was of Frank Frazetta, but this isn’t art, and there was no half-nude woman.
Yes, Mr. Trump has a permit.
Yes, he supports the RKBA agenda (at least now where he sees his bread is buttered!)
BUT, a National Carry Permit?
Alan Korwin (the uninvited ombudsman, author of Page Nine and many gun law books) presents the argument:
The last thing you ever want is to have the federal government issuing national — or any — firearm carry permits.
The feds do not have this power. The feds should never have this power.
Your right to have a firearm anywhere in America should never depend on getting “papers” from any government, much less the federal powers in Washington, D.C.
If you have a gun — constitutionally protected private property — and you aren’t doing anything inherently wrong, that should never be a crime. There is no victim. No one is harmed. No actual crime is committed. The idea that you need a wallet card to be somewhere you have a legal right to be is preposterous.
Too many gun owners, including some leaders of the gun-rights movement, sincere but totally misinformed and misdirected, are salivating for our permit-carrying president elect to issue some sort of national carry plan. It cannot, must not, better not be a national permit in any way shape or form.
Over 20% of these United States have enacted ‘Constitutional Carry’, that is law-abiding citizens may carry firearms without the need for permitage.
Is there blood running in the streets in these States? No, in fact crime is down.
Let’s cut to the chase, instead of pushing for more federal control and bureaucracy, let’s make The United States ALL Constitutional Carry!
Simplicity. And less federal intrusion. What a concept!
Berlin (CNSNews.com) – The Czech Republic has resisted calls by the European Union’s executive Commission to tighten gun controls in response to terror attacks, forcing the E.C. to alter its proposals, allowing for the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons.
The Czech interior ministry now wants to loosen its own laws a step further, proposing a constitutional amendment on Monday that would allow its citizens to bear legally-held firearms against the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, such as those in Nice or Berlin, the Czech news agency ctk reported.
The government says that putting weapons into the hands of citizens is the best defense against terror.
The move comes despite the European Commission’s ongoing advocacy for stricter gun control laws in Europe.
The Czech parliament blocked the E.C.’s earlier attempt to introduce tighter European gun laws, after the attack in Nice.
While the E.U. Firearms Directive and Czech laws already prohibited private ownership of fully automatic weapons, the commission’s initial campaign aimed to further narrow the E.U. regulations to rule out semi-automatic and self-loading weapons – which make up about half of firearm ownership in the Czech Republic – and limit magazine sizes to ten rounds.
The Czech parliament rejected the proposal, arguing that such tougher gun laws would not be the solution as terror attackers only use illegally-held weapons. The government derided the E.C.’s plans as “legally ambiguous and in some cases excessive.”
The E.C. was last month finally able to reach agreement by all member states, including the Czechs, after allowing exceptions for hunters and gun collectors and only banning a select few semi-automatic weapons.
“Mass shootings and terrorist attacks in Europe have highlighted the dangers posed by certain firearms circulating across the E.U.,” it said in a statement, but also expressed regret at the concessions it had to make, such as not banning all semi-automatic weapons or limiting magazines to ten rounds.
Despite the E.U.’s concerns, the latest Czech proposal argues that armed citizens would be the best defense against terror attacks.
In a statement on Monday, Interior Minister Milan Chovanec said that amending the constitution would reduce the chances of attacks by enabling “active and rapid defense.”
Citizens should be given the right to use firearms to defend their “life, health and property” and contribute to “ensuring the internal order, security and territorial integrity” of the country, he said.
As December’s truck attack in Berlin demonstrated, security forces have not been able to guarantee the full prevention of attacks. In light of the threat, the Czech ministry argued that the proposed amendment would help to prevent the loss of lives by allowing civilians to contribute to “internal order and security.”
The proposal is scheduled to be considered in March. To pass, it must be agreed upon by at least three-fifths of all deputies and three-fifths of all senators present.
The exact details of the interior ministry’s proposal are still to be worked out, and for now simply indicates that it is subject to “terms and details prescribed by law.”
However, it appears likely to expand the range of “genuine reasons” for possession of a firearm to include those of “national security” – and thus, theoretically, allow anyone to own a gun.
Gun ownership is currently legal in the Czech Republic. As per E.U. regulations, firearms are required to be registered, and Czech law also requires a license and a genuine reason to possess a firearm, such as for hunting or personal protection.
Gun holders are also required to pass a background check which considers factors such as mental health and criminal history.
Unlike gun ownership, there are no laws explicitly covering civilian use of a firearm in self-defense, nor in regards to terror attacks specifically. Such an incident would fall under general criminal provisions regarding self-defense, which may allow the use of a gun, but only in cases of absolute necessity (including the threat of “imminent” attack).
Self-defense case law in the Czech Republic has applied only to violent assaults such as rape and robberies, and not to terrorism. It is not clear yet how the constitutional amendment would, if at all, build on or deviate from this established law.
The country was shaken by a mass shooting in 2015, when 63-year-old Zdenk Ková fired on a group of 20 people, killing 8. Ková, had a gun holder’s license despite a history of misdemeanors and concerns over his mental state.
The incident prompted calls for a re-examination of Czech gun laws, but they are still considered among the most lax in the E.U., partly due to the fact semi-automatic weapon possession is allowed.
According to data collated by Gunpolicy.org, a firearm injury prevention NGO, an estimated 7.6 percent of Czech’s 10 million residents legally hold weapons, with 810,046 registered privately owned firearms in the country.
Perhaps the Czechs have a longer memory than most Europeans?. Nazis? Communists? Other forms of terror?
Of course, the French and most of the E.U. just doubled-down on restrictions for their
citizenry subjects. Wanna bet the next European attack will be in another ‘gun-free’ zone?
I remember (way back in the 1970s – when I got into gun stuff as an adult) fantasizing that I lived in a State that had concealed weapon permits! How cool would THAT have been? Being able to be armed – discreetly!
One of the reasons I wanted to become a cop was that very reason. It seemed sad that few States had permittage, and most of them were may issue. Usually meaning unless you were one of the special few (or perhaps funds changed hands) you either did nor carry concealed, or did not carry concealed legally!
Now, here we are in the new century, and the tide has turned. A significant number of States how have concealed weapon laws and some even passed Constitutional Carry – no permit needed!
Specifically, with the addition of Missouri, 11 States (22% of the 50!) no permit required!
41 States, and Guam(!) now have some provision for shall issue permits! (Wikipedia)
Of course, we still have States like California (and New York), with their difficult to get may issue permits, and checkerboard of convoluted and restrictive gun laws.
And with the ever-present nonsense by the Statists equating gun ownership with terrorism. (Hillary?)
BUT, things have definitely improved since the 1940’s, and in spite of warnings to the contrary regarding every CCW (carry concealed weapon) and Constitutional Carry law being passed, there has been no blood in the streets!
(It seems every time such legislation is suggested, the ANTI-RIGHTS folks trot out the same, tired meme.)
It’s been said that the American Revolution was started and maintained by just 3% of the population. In spite of the ubiquitous onslaught of the anti rights control folks, we seem to be winning!
Hooray for the responsible, law-abiding citizens, going about their private business invoking their right to possible self-defense!
Now, if we could just reverse the rampant surveillance and searching without warrant! I know, one Amendment at a time…
Pull your respective heads from the sand (or wherever) and listen up!
We saw three terrorist incidents yesterday (Saturday):
- A bomb in a trash can in New Jersey; (now multiple bombs)
- A bomb in a dumpster in New York City, plus a second device that didn’t explode;
- And a knife attack in Minnesota. (and another attack in Canada)If anyone thinks that the USA is still a safe, secure environment, he’s living in cloud cuckoo land. Welcome to reality. Terrorism can strike anywhere, and will increasingly do so. Those living in our larger cities, particularly those with large minority and ‘refugee’ populations, are most at risk. (from Bayou Renaissance Man, in part, linked)
and THIS, regarding one of the suspects:
(name excised), whom police nabbed and shot after a day-long dragnet in connection with a series of terror attacks in and around New York was a bad father who disliked America, hated gays and took long trips to his homeland of Afghanistan, the mother of his young daughter exclusively tells FoxNews.com.
Maybe it’s Dopers to the left of me, Gunnies to the right…?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week decided it was ‘ok’ to deny the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, who happened to possess State-issued medical marijuana cards!
I’m guessing, because BATFE Rules stipulate if one is ‘addicted’ to the maryjane, one is a prohibited possessor. Because while many States have medical mj in place, and some have legalized or decriminalized it’s possession, it’s still against Federal law.
I’ve met some folks who might have medical mj cards. And might own firearms. Who are generally responsible citizens.
As a side note, the same day the Administration reported they are NOT removing mj from the rolls as a Schedule 1 substance, was the same day the President’s daughter was reported smoking a joint.
And, of course, the President himself has been pictured in his youth doing mj and admitted using cocaine. What’s good for the goose is not good for his daughter? Isn’t he in close proximity of many firearms?
I remain a libertarian (small L). As such, I condemn drug laws for adults. As the Left is fond of intoning it’s YOUR body! If you want to eat, shoot, snort (rub-into-your-belly or whatever – G. Carlin) something, it’s your choice!
And just because someone tokes once-in-a-while, should that prohibit them from possessing a firearm? Even if they are doing so LEGALLY in their State?
How many gun folks do you know who drink more than the legally-approved quantity of alcohol and carry? I would guess more than one…
A Right is a Right is a Right. What you put in your body or what you use to protect it should not be up to government bureaucrats!
In case you’ve not been paying attention…
There are regions of the city so infested by religious gang activity that non-Muslims are advised to NOT go there. And police response time is abysmal.
(Remembering the Right to Bear Arms and even Self-Defense are severely restricted in Britain!)
The new mayor of London is MUSLIM.
One of his first acts was to ban advertising with scantily-clad females. He said it was because of a lack of respect.
(Not to mention, a mayor having the right to censor private advertising…)
(Not that all Muslims are terrorists, or have a hidden agenda…)
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #18 of 22)
Or, at least, a sniveling 14%!
PoliceOne, a private organization with 450,000 members (380,000 full-time active law enforcement and 70,000 retired), polled its members in 2013 shortly after the Newtown, Conn., massacre. Eighty percent of respondents said allowing legally armed citizens to carry guns in places such as Newtown and Aurora would have reduced the number of casualties. Another 6 percent thought the presence of legally armed civilians would “likely” have prevented the innocent casualties altogether.
According to police and prosecutors, there have been dozens of cases of permit holders clearly stopping what would have been mass public shootings. It’s understandable these killers avoid places where they can’t kill a large number of people.
Because so-called ‘gun free’ zones work so well…
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #16 of 22)
copied stolen from Bayou Renaissance Man)
One can only salute the courage and determination of this victim of terrorism.
An Israeli man who was stabbed multiple times Tuesday afternoon in a terror attack in Petah Tikva managed to remove the knife from his neck and use it to stab and neutralize his attacker, aided by the store owner, police said.
The attacker, a Palestinian, died a few minutes later, police said.
The victim, later named as Yonatan Azarihab, an ultra-Orthodox man of about 40 who suffered multiple stab wounds to his upper body, was hospitalized in moderate condition.
The store owner was not injured.
There’s more at the link.
The obvious way to eradicate crime is to eradicate criminals, but neither the lawgivers nor the constabulary seem inclined to do this. The man who elects to prey upon society deserves no consideration from society. If he survives his act of violence, he rates a fair trial—but only to be sure that there has been no mistake about his identity. If he is killed in the act, there can be little doubt about whose act it was.
He was a terrorist – a criminal by any other name. Thanks to a courageous, determined – and, yes, probably very angry – victim of his terrorism, he ended up paying the price for his crime right then and there. Congratulations to Mr. Azarihab. I hope and pray he makes a speedy and full recovery from his wounds. I don’t know whether Orthodox Judaism condones the drinking of beer, but if it does, I’ll gladly buy him one (or any suitable beverage of his choice) anytime I get the chance.
Reminiscent of the tales of late regarding Ghurka warriors, in another part of the Old World, dispatching bad guys with aplomb! Not one-on-one, but one-on-many!
But here we get told engagement is a no-no, it might make the attacker (more) angry.
Obviously, one needs to know oneself and one’s abilities (and limitations), but we need to stand up to any bastards who confront us with potential immediate harm and stop them!
And yes, I know I’m stating the obvious and preaching to the choir.