Why carrying a knife can be as useful as carrying a gun

Kerodin at IIIpercent to Bonnie Gadsden to Straight Forward in a Crooked World, a chain of posts that takes you to the article "Dark Arts for Good Guys: the Right to Knife" Part 1 and Part 2. Direct and real, even ugly in places, but excellent information that could save your life.

The only life or death confrontations I have experienced have been while on duty as a peace officer, and involved guns, and few of those, thankfully. But I carry a knife everywhere, all of the time. A good strong folder that can be used defensively, like my Emerson CQC-7B Wave. I had envisioned the possibility of using it as a stand-off deterrent, to ward off someone trying to grapple with me (remember, I am not trained in the use of a knife, so perhaps that isn't a good idea, though it sounded good). I imagined I could use it to fight someone else also armed with a knife, but feared getting fatally cut myself in the process, so I had hoped to be able to respond with my carry firearm instead in such a case.

The author at Straight Forward explained that a knife could be useful in broader circumstances, and that it could be possible to win without getting cut to ribbons. His descriptions of possible techniques and modes of attack are sometimes on the gruesome side for someone who has not stopped to really imagine what it would be like to stab or cut another person, but again, as I have posted elsewhere recently, we are talking about responding to someone trying to kill you, or someone you love.

This two-part article is something you should read if you are serious about winning against someone when armed only with a knife. Even if you have no plans to practice or train with a knife, alone or with a partner, just reading these articles may provide you with knowledge that will come back to you and save your butt should you find yourself in a fight for your life and only have a blade of some kind with which to work.

Great article by "Burned Out LEO"

Just read this at Roberts Gun Shop, where he reposted an article from Burned Out Leo, called "What They Don't Teach in Weapons Carry Classes". Actually, some instructors _do_ teach this kind of thing, at least one of the instructors I trained with some years back. It was much better firearms training than I received in the San Diego Police Academy. I was impressed by how much I learned at this class in 2004 that wasn't taught back in '79 when I attended SDPD's academy.

However, this article provides a number of ideas and concepts that will serve you in good stead for staying safe on the streets as a civilian. The author has BTDT, and his suggestions are not the BS you hear from gun store "commandoes", they are excellent techniques for staying safe and staying alive.

For those who visit here who are uncomfortable with violence, or with the thought of harming another human being, allow me to remind you that your life - and certainly the lives of your wife and/or children - are just as valuable as anyone else's. When a person decides it is acceptable to hurt or kill you simply to get what they want - your money, possessions, to rape your wife or abduct your child - the value of their life become worthless. At that point, they have made the decision to relinquish any claim they have to being treated with fairness, decency or compassion. Now, I know some of you may believe that taking another's life is not worth the money or possessions you could simply hand over in a robbery, but unfortunately, today that often is not enough for those who commit armed robberies. Some get a thrill from the ultimate control over another person - over their life or death - and some simply are unwilling to risk going to, or returning to, prison. These people will kill you, even though you have given them what they have asked for, even when a woman has submitted to rape (or G-d forbid, a child has been abducted and used for whatever gratification the sick bastard had intended).

As the author of the article wrote:

"Once a man starts armed robbing he has crossed a line most won't. Don't forget that when you are looking these bastards in the eye. Their decision to kill you is already made. Your life means nothing to him. Only his does. His sole motivation for not killing you is he doesn't want a murder case. He has already accepted he may pick one up though. "

He also goes on to write, "But be advised no matter where you are a hold-up man is going to be about the same. Whether he is a home boy or a guy who just exited the interstate into your town and needs some quick money. He is going to have a vicious streak and no regard for your life. Treat him like he treats you." So, don't believe you are safe simply because you live in the middle of Amish farm country, or because you live in a gated community. The bad guys have wheels, and they go places where they aren't expected.

I once worked for a particularly dumb Sgt. at a small police department in Northern California (Yreka), and he was unhappy that I carried a pistol off-duty. (Hard to believe, isn't it?) He whined about our little town not having that much crime, and most of it being non-violent, saying he saw no need for me to carry concealed. I reminded him that our little berg was bisected by Interstate 5, and that there was lots of drug traffic right past us on its way to Seattle and Yakima. This hypocrite carried a .38 snubbie in his golf bag wen he went golfing with his cronies, but in his case it was only for show, to impress his civilian friends.

For you ladies reading this: I know many of you feel you could never shoot at someone, never take the life of another. A while back I read an article about a married couple that took a handgun training course together. The wife just couldn't hit the target, and showed no inclination to improve. She was obviously just going through the motions. The instructor took her aside, and after she explained her problem he asked her to consider a scenario. He asked her to imagine she had stopped at a service station to fill up her car, with her three year old belted into her car seat in back. As she was returning to the car after paying for her gas, she saw a man taking her daughter out of her car seat and carrying the screaming child to his van.

The instructor asked what she would do - call 911? She told him no, she would kill the SOB with her bare hands. She realized that there was at least one situation in which she would be comfortable taking the life of another. She ended up being one of the best shots in that class.

So, please read the article linked above. Read Jeff Cooper's books concerning personal defense, paying attention to his "color codes". And stay safe.

BTW, a little bit of trivia, for those of you who have read American Handgunner magazine: One of the editors, Roy Huntington, was in my class at SDPD. He was the best shot with a handgun I had ever seen at that time, easily the best in our class and probably in the whole department. He helped several in our class who were having trouble qualifying at the range. Believe it or not, Roy had been a professional flower arranger for a large commercial florist before becoming a police officer! I never worked with Roy after the academy, but from what I heard he was an excellent officer, an exceptional guy throughout his career there at San Diego PD. I can tell you for a fact that he was a hell of a nice guy, and I'm sure he still is.

Thoughts to ponder and keep you safe

I am currently reading a book called Survivors, by John Wesley, Rawles, also the author of Patriots, A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. He is a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and has been a survivalist for many years. I realize to some who read this, including some of the Left-leaning members of my family, the word "survivalist" conjures some negative images, holds some negative connotations. Also, the notion of a "collapse" is often considered a bit of paranoia "clung" to by those of us who mistrust our government and the way the economy is being mishandled.

Being prepared for emergencies is the duty of any parent, any man responsible for a wife and/or children, elderly parents, or other responsibilities. If a man prepares for a tornado, a hurricane, or a forest fire where those are prevalent, as out West, he is considered thoughtful and wise. If he buys life insurance to protect his family should he die, or disability insurance should he be injured and unable to work, he is considered a smart and responsible individual.

Those of us who prepare - now being labeled "preppers", almost as derogatorily as we used to be called "survivalists" - are not considered wise or smart to create our own insurance should the system break down more significantly. Having been raised where hurricanes and blizzards were a part of life, it was not unusual to find yourself without power for a week or two after a very bad storm, or with the roads so badly blocked by snow that you couldn't get to a store to buy food, and it wouldn't be open even if you could get there. In the Northeast, at least, it was common to keep a large pantry where at least a week's worth of staples (and usually more) was available to keep the family fed.

Many years ago, having had a friend who became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints, I was introduced to the idea of storing a year's worth of food. This was a requirement for LDS members (probably better known as "Mormons", although I think there may be a bit of an insult involved in calling them that) back then, although I understand that at one point it was upped to two years. Living in the country as I prefer to do, this sounded like a sensible idea to me. From what I understand, the LDS folks are required to do this in case there is some sort of economic collapse or societal upheaval, but in many, many instances it has kept a family well fed when the bread-winner has been injured and unable to work, or laid-off and unable to find work immediately. Can you imagine the relief many families living today would feel, where the husband has lost his job due to our terrible economy, knowing they could at least feed themselves? To not have to beg for food or listen to your children cry, going to bed hungry?

So, I decided this was a sound idea, one that couldn't hurt, and could easily help. Storing other necessities beyond food seemed like a reasonable extension of this notion. Have you ever run out of toilet paper, perhaps discovering there wasn't even a box of Kleenex in the house? If you haven't, does that sound like something you'd like to experience? (Sears isn't putting out the big catalogs they used to make available ;-) It is an easy step from there to stocking a bit of everything you might need. When it is used, you simply replace it with more from the nearest Walmart, Costco, or supermarket.

The argument you get from those with more "liberal", collectivist tendencies is that being a survivalist (now "prepper") is "all about guns". While that certainly is untrue - you can't eat a gun, or purify water with one, or dig a garden, fillet a fish with one, or wipe your bottom with one, they are still useful, especially for us who live in the country. In Montana and Wyoming - even in far Northern California where I used to own a little 40 acre ranch - bears can be a problem, one that can't always be avoided. Sometimes they seek out your pets or your livestock for food, as do coyotes and mountain lions. We had all three in Northern California, when I lived just outside of Yreka, up near the border with Oregon.

As society becomes more violent, with more rapes and assaults and robberies and home invasions happening, especially in the urban areas, being able to defend yourself calls for more than a cellphone and some pepper spray. It is easy to say, "Oh, I live in a safe area. I don't have to worry about that", but allow me to tell you that you are wrong. Having worked in law enforcement on and off for over seventeen years, I will remind you that the bad guys have cars and trucks, and don't merely prey upon their own socio-economic class. A Nike-wearing CEO who jogs down quiet neighborhood streets in Portland, Oregon is as easily assaulted and raped - and even murdered - as a poor Hispanic lady forced to carry her groceries on foot from the local bodega to her basement apartment in the nasty part of town.

Guns are tools. They are not inherently evil, cannot operate themselves, and most of them are incapable of going off on their own even if dropped onto hard ground. Like all tools, they can be misused. A hammer can drive a nail or smash a skull. A knife can cut some rope or slit a throat. And for those who claim that they only purpose for a gun is to kill, I call "bullshit". The primary purpose for a gun other than providing meat for the table via hunting is for the stopping of violence. For the purpose of preventing harm caused by someone intent on doing that harm. Sometimes the only way to stop someone who wants to hurt or rape or kill you is by actually firing the gun at that person, but in many, many more instances, the mere threat of being shot is enough to cause a bad person to turn and run away. There are millions of defensive uses of guns every year in this country, compared to the mere thousands of times they are actually fired, or the few thousand times they actually kill someone. Far more people die from improper treatment by doctors and hospitals ("medical misadventure" is the euphemism), or by car accidents, than die from firearms in this country.

So. The bottom line, one which the folks on the Left do not want you to understand, is that the gun is insurance. Just like afire extinguisher which you hope you never have to use, or that jack and spare tire in your trunk. Or the life preserver (PFD - personal floatation device) you had better be wearing anytime you go out in a boat or kayak. Those of us who carry handguns or other firearms do so not because we want to use them to kill, but because we want to use them to keep from being killed ourselves. Or to protect those we love.

If you and your wife, or you and your husband, are accosted by three or four men who have decided to rape someone, they certainly will be done with both of you long before a police officer could respond, even if you have the opportunity to dial 911. As a former police officer, I know this for a fact. Often, those who rape have already developed criminal records and don't wish to return to jail or prison, so they are not interested in leaving witnesses behind. Some of the scum who inhabit our world even enjoy the feeling of power they get from the taking of human life.

Possessing a firearm and the training to use it effectively can save your life. Often merely displaying a weapon will stop the action, but you must understand that this can only be done when your life, or the life of another, is in danger of serious bodily injury or death. That can mean one attacker if you are frail, female, disabled, or elderly. It can mean someone smaller than you, if they have you down and are trying to seriously injure you, or if they are armed with a club or a knife or gun.

We can never know when violence will present to us, anymore than we know when a forest fire or a tornado will threaten us. Being armed is simply a means of insuring that you have a better chance of going home alive if you or a loved one is attacked. It is a good feeling to know that you are prepared to deal with the possibility of violence should it occur. And I promise you that the gun will never leap into your hands to wantonly take the life of someone innocent. With a little training, a little information, and some common sense, it will never threaten your children or family, friends or neighbors, either. It can be as safe a tool as any other in your toolbox, workshop, or kitchen.

And remember that violence used in the defense of those you love and wish to protect is neither evil nor wrong.

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue- and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, The Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms”.

Robert A. Heinlein, from Starship Troopers

.Gov violates the Bill of Rights - repeatedly

This is a MUST SEE video message from Bill Whittle at Afterburner. It deals with the fact - yes, it is an indisputable fact - that our government has chosen to ignore our natural, God-given rights, to actually deny them and run roughshod over them.

The Bill of Rights is not, has never been, a list of rights granted to us by government, nor by the Founders, nor even the ratified Constitution itself. The Bill of Rights is a document that details how our government may not ever violate those natural rights that we possess.

But our government has been violating those strictures, those limits upon its actions, for many, many years. Recently, however, it has gotten even worse. Bill explains just how and why that is.

Constitutional crisis, redux

I have been reminded by Kerodin at III percent.com that the idea that the Supreme Court can decide the Constitutionality of a law is wrong, a myth that originated with the SCOTUS decision in Marbury vs Madison.

To clarify this - if I am indeed understanding this correctly - it is rather a matter that the Supreme Court is the last court of appeal in deciding if an individual (or entity, as in the case of a corporation) has indeed violated a law. If they determine, in the opinion of the court, that a law is an illegal one which violates our Constitution, or violates our natural rights as delineated in the Bill of Rights - or that the individual never actually violated that law to begin with - then that person is allowed to be released from whatever penalty - including incarceration - that an Executive office (local, state, or Federal) placed upon them via a lower court.

This is not the same as ruling upon the Constitutionality of said law, beyond determining that the individual ran afoul of a law that did not meet the criteria for a valid law under the terms of our Constitution. A precedent may be set, such that it would prevent another individual from being arrested and tried, or at least found guilty, for the same violation, but it does not strike down the law per se. That is beyond their power. Congress itself may vote to rescind a law that they passed in a proper and legal fashion which the Executive office then signed into law, but SCOTUS may not legitimately deem a law to be unConstitutional, per se, with the expectation that it be struck down, instanter.

This is fortunate, as otherwise one Justice, one man or woman (as in the case of the numerous 5-4 decisions the Court has arrived at) would then have the power to determine what laws Congress might write that citizens would then be responsible for complying with or ignoring. Or so I understand it at this moment. Indeed, at this point in time it appears that most of us in this country have been misled to think this is indeed a power owned by SCOTUS, which would mean that nine people in black robes - or even one such person, in a 5-4 decision - may decide our fate, the amount of control our government may exert upon us in spite of our natural rights.

I still have not come completely to grips with the notion of the separation of powers within the Federal government. The only protection I am certain of - although pretty much every court in the land denies it in its instructions to the jury (as a threat to their power to rule us) - is the power of jury nullification. The states may offer some protection via the 10th Amendment, and the right of the states - and the people - to possess the powers not _specifically_ given to the Federal government, but the only protection then from the power of the states to make law, as well as the power of Congress to make law - is jury nullification.

As I have written about before, jury nullification is the right - and DUTY - of every juror to judge just not the facts of the case in question, but the LAW in question. If the defendant did in fact violate a law, but the law is an unjust law, or if the punishment for that violation is deemed to be excessive or unjust, then that juror may legally - and has a moral duty to do so - find him not guilty. (You may read about the John Peter Zenger trial back before we actually became a nation at FIJA.org.)

So, strictly speaking, SCOTUS does not possess the power to deem Obamacare unConstitutional, even though we might wish it so. I do believe, until I am corrected on this, that they may find that the individual or entity that has brought this case forward may be relieved of suffering any penalty from not following the mandates placed within this law, though. If their decision is that the any part of, or entire law, is unConstitutional, it does not remove the law from the books, does not strike it down as such, but would establish precedent such that no one should suffer any penalty for non-compliance.

Should they fail to find it violates our rights through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then it would be up to us to either nullify it in court when someone is arrested and tried for non-compliance. Failing that, or even in addition, it would be up to us to force our representatives to rescind the law. If they fail to do so, we would be left with the sole remedy of rejecting the government we have and forming a new one.

Constitutional crisis?

Tom Baugh, the author of Starving the Monkeys has written an article titled The Supreme Militia. In it, he speaks to the fact that Obama has spoken of the Supreme Court in disparaging terms, calling them "unelected" (as if that diminishes their authority) and saying that they should not overturn legislation which has been passed by "a strong majority" (a utter lie that anyone who watched the process that Pelosi and Reid used to force the Affordable Patient Care Act through Congress is well aware is a lie). He basically has ordered them to find it Constitutional, this legislation that was passed without a single Republican vote, that required promising billions of dollars of earmarks to various Congressional members, and of lying repeatedly about both the cost of the bill and its effect on the citizens of this country and the health care to which they would have access.

Mr. Baugh speaks of the fact that it is entirely possible that Barry Soetero, aka Barack Hussein Obama, may refuse to accept the decision of the Supreme Court, and seek to implement this legislation - legislation that over 70% of America does not approve of - in spite of their decision pertaining to its Constitutionality.

As I have mentioned before, the Supreme Court is the final court of law in deciding whether or not a law is Constitutional. They are not the actual final arbiter - that is the citizenry of the United States of America, via jury nullification - but they are indeed the final court. What happens when they make a determination, and the Executive branch of our government decides to ignore that decision? What happens if an elected President is impeached, but decides to ignore said impeachment, refusing to leave office? What happens if this President decides to ignore the required election process, and simply declares that he has no intention of leaving office, despite whatever took place during the election process?

William Lafferty, retired as a staff attorney from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has written a series of novels which deals with some of these issues. In his seventh book, "They Came For Our Guns, They Came For Our Freedom" he postulates a President who refuses to leave office and who must be forced out. In the novel, elements of the government work with members of the military to effect his removal, finally accomplishing that task. Lafferty talks directly about President Obama in an essay on his page describing his eighth book, , making some excellent points, some of which are quite familiar to readers here.

This present situation with Obama expressing his unwillingness to accept a decision from the Supreme Court of which he does not approve, could indeed trigger a Constitutional crisis. If he resists it, refuses to stop the implementation of Obamacare/APCA, there will certainly be some serious consequences. One can only hope that impeachment is one of them. It would be nice to be rid of this craven individual who - in the opinion of many of us - was never legally eligible to be elected as our President in the first place. The fact that it is a fait accompli does not make it taste any better. If he is impeached, but refuses to relinquish his office, it could get nasty.

However, given the cowardice of the current representatives in both houses of Congress, I am afraid that impeachment isn't in the cards. If Harry Reid can subvert the function of the Senate to the extent that it has not submitted a budget in the three years that Obama has been president, I have little faith that he would permit a vote for impeachment. Or would declare a "voice vote", and pretend that the majority of the Senators had voted not to impeach.

America is certainly facing some "interesting" times ahead. Let us hope that we can survive them as a country, and as a nation that at least resembles what we once were.

It's coming. Can you hear it?

"Americans have thus far been unable to deal with the reality of our desperate circumstances. They remind me of people who see the ocean recede from the shoreline and curiously venture out where the sea had flowed to pick up trinkets and pretty shells with no sense of what is truly happening. The deadly 20 foot high tsunami headed their way will be a complete shock when they are swept away in a torrent of bad debt and worthless currencies. " Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform, via Zero Hedge.

This quote is taken from a post entitled, "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet - Part One" by Jim Quinn, the Administrator at the Burning Platform.

Although it is the role of the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitutionality of any law written by Congress, as the final appellate court for all of the lower courts, our current President has decided to warn the Supreme Court that they must determine the Affordable Patient Care Act ("Obamacare") to be Constitutional. He has indicated that he will not accept any other determination. So, obviously this noted "Constitutional Scholar" (by his own words) has concluded that the Separation of Powers as listed in the Constitution is null and void. He is arrogant enough to publicly declare that he is the one who determines if a law is Constitutional or not.

Does this bother anyone? It bothers me. The tsunami is coming. The waters that have receded will return, and they will damage not just those who have not paid attention to the trouble our economy is in, nor just those who haven't paid attention to the dictatorial powers the President has granted unto himself, but it will damage those of us who are aware, who have been aware of the danger our country is in thanks to this craven marxist who believes only he is wise enough to determine what is right for America and all of the citizens of America.

Being a collectivist, he isn't concerned with how this affects individual people. As long as his actions support his vision of what is right for the group, the collective, he is satisfied. If he is permitted to continue, especially for another four years, when he would have more "flexibility", those of us who value our freedom, our liberty, will suffer the most.

Our country was founded upon the idea that the rights of the individual are as important, as deserving of protection, as the rights of society at large. Obama and his Marxist friends and supporters want the needs of the many given more weight than the rights of the few, the individual being the smallest possible "few", the smallest minority.

Please. Let us vote - if voting is still permitted by this egomaniac in November - to remove this craven politician from office. None of the other choices are actually worth voting for, but any of them would be better than what we are presently suffering under. Go to the polls and un-elect this monster.