I published this on Breach Bang Clear last week. It could use a little updating, since we’ve now learned that two service members apparently did fight back. But the story I tell about “Cris” is probably still relevant to the debate about armed service members.

——————————

So let’s discuss a purely fictional situation…

Let’s say there was this guy once. He was a soldier, combat vet, and like many National Guardsmen was a cop in civilian life. He was temporarily on active duty, working on a totally fictional military base.

We’ll call our fictional soldier/cop… “Cris”.

Cris worked on a state-owned base, not a federal base. As a cop, Cris was allowed by law to carry a gun on this base. Of course, Cris always carried his gun. Cris had a lot of training, including training on how to respond to active shooters. When the base decided to make an active shooter response plan, Cris advised the soldiers who wrote it and even addressed a large group of soldiers on the realities of active shooter incidents. Cris was also a senior NCO with two combat deployments. It seemed to make nothing but sense to allow Cris to carry a concealed weapon on base.

Cris had checked the base’s policies and saw that they specifically allowed police officers to carry on base. But Cris kept his weapon hidden and secret from anyone he didn’t know, just as he always did when wearing civilian clothes. In many months working on the base, Cris never had any issues carrying his weapon.

Then one day Cris screwed up. He was in the parking lot loading something into his trunk, inadvertently lifted his uniform top and exposed his weapon to someone. No words were exchanged, and Cris didn’t even know his weapon had been seen. But the other person reported Cris by name and rank to the base command post. And that’s where this totally fictional situation got really stupid.

abandoned_again002

Soldiers at the command post knew who Cris was. Rather than say, “He’s a cop and he’s within the law and base policy,” they reported Cris to the base’s threat assessment center. Soldiers at the threat assessment center knew Cris too; they interacted with him on a regular basis. Instead of saying, “He’s a cop and he’s within the law and base policy,” they contacted Cris’ major command. Word filtered down, and Cris was called into a Sergeant Major’s office.

The Sergeant Major was new and didn’t know Cris. He informed Cris about the report. Cris responded, “Sergeant Major, I’m a cop.” The Sergeant Major had a brain and immediately responded, “Oh hell, what’s the big deal then?” But he explained he was still required to address the situation with higher. Cris said, “No worries, Sergeant Major,” and waited for the official “carry on” order to come down the chain.

A short time later, Cris was officially advised that even though the law permitted him to carry a weapon, and base policy permitted him to carry, and he had extensive and necessary skills that would be critical in an active shooter incident, the base’s commander didn’t want him to carry. Because allowing soldiers to carry weapons on base isn’t safe. The senior leadership’s plan for defending the base from attack was “disarm anyone willing and able to resist.”

i-see-the-shooter-but-im-unarmed-in-a-gun-free-zone

Some might say that barring Cris from carrying on post was stupid. Some might say it was irrational. Some might say, in the event of an active shooter event, it made tragedy more rather than less likely. But none of that mattered. All that mattered was, it made the base leadership feel safer.

This situation – totally fictional, bearing zero resemblance or connection to anyone within writing distance of this computer – taught Cris a very important lesson. Despite the fact that Cris was a longtime cop, was known as a skilled and experienced pistol shooter, had never done anything to suggest he would be a threat to other soldiers, had provided badly-needed perspective and experience to the base’s active shooter plan, had a decades-long history of honorable service and had even been recognized for his actions in combat, he was viewed as a threat simply because he was armed.

That’s not leadership. That’s a sign proclaiming, “It doesn’t matter whether our troops are 18-year old E-1 cooks or 40-year old combat arms officers. We don’t trust them.”

Days ago our military experienced a horrific attack in Tennessee. American troops who braved overseas combat were shot down like defenseless cattle in a slaughterhouse, on our own soil. They died without weapons in their hands. I’m sure they didn’t die unarmed because they chose to be unarmed.

They died because their leaders abandoned them.

———————————-

Read the rest at http://www.breachbangclear.com/chattanooga-weve-been-abandoned-again/

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

LITV
http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=09XSSHABSWPC3FM8K6P4

Proof-of-Our-Resolve
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0S6AGHBTJZ6JH99D56X7


This was published Friday on Breach Bang Clear. I’m pretty sure I’m going to get shanked for it.

————————————

Signs, Of Veteran Entitlement

I won’t go into too much detail, since I’m sure most of you have heard of this already. But apparently some veterans are so traumatized by their wartime service they’re asking people to “be courteous with fireworks” around their homes on July 4th. Because fireworks “trigger” their PTSD.

vets-1

These signs are being popularized by an organization called “Military with PTSD”, which according to CNN has sent the signs to 2500 veterans and has 3000 more on a waiting list. According to the organization’s founder, the signs aren’t intended to make people stop using fireworks, they’re just asking people to be “courteous”. “No veteran that served the United States wants to take a freedom away from people, especially fireworks, which represent freedom,” she said. “They don’t want them to stop. What they’re asking for is for people to give them a heads up.”

IT’S THE FOURTH OF JULY. Isn’t that heads up enough? Are these signs about “helping vets with PTSD”, or catering to some veterans’ sense of entitlement?

As a combat vet myself, I’ve had – to say the least – a strong reaction to these signs. My gut feeling was something along the lines of, “This is ridiculous. These signs don’t have anything to do with treating PTSD, they’re just a way for some veterans to beg for attention and be special snowflakes.” But I try to be fair, and realize my experiences have given me significant biases. So I tried to rationally analyze the pros and cons of putting those signs in veterans’ yards.

And after careful consideration, I can only conclude that these signs are pathetic, self-defeating crap.

John Adams wrote in 1776 that the Declaration of Independence ought to be celebrated with fireworks. I haven’t found a record of fireworks being used to celebrate in 1776; however, we’ve celebrated with fireworks since literally the first Independence Day commemoration in 1777. We did it while we were at war for our very existence, yet the men who survived massed musket fire and bayonet charges managed to endure fireworks displays without putting “pleafe be ye courteouf with ye olde firework” signs in their front yards.

It goes without saying, or at least it should, that past generations of American warriors experienced combat far worse than that of the typical Iraq or Afghanistan veteran. Yes, today’s warriors have fought some hard fights (Fallujah, Najaf and Sangin come to mind). But in terms of scale, casualties and intensity our wars have been different than many before. We haven’t endured three or four thousand KIAs in a single day like at Normandy and Antietam, or two thousand in 76 hours as at Tarawa. Yet the men who crossed sabers on Civil War battlefields or waded through surf, blood and dead comrades to a beach swept with machinegun bullets and shellfire somehow endured fireworks displays without putting signs in their yards.

What makes veterans of today’s wars different?

We’re not draftees. We’re volunteers. Anyone who enlisted or reenlisted after 9/11 volunteered for military service while our nation was at war. We went to war because of the choices we made, and many of us went back to war because of those same choices. Some veterans consider that wartime service an honor and privilege; the more intense the combat, the greater the honor and privilege.

And we see a growing divide not just between veterans and civilians, but between distinct groups of veterans. Some feel our service made us stronger and more resilient; others see themselves as damaged, and want everyone to know they’re damaged. At least 5500 of them want to advertise their problems to their neighbors, and some of those posted their photos on the internet to share their problems with the world. The cognitive dissonance displayed in some of those photos is astounding; maybe it’s just me, but I see a slight contradiction between someone saying they’re a hardened combat vet yet are uncomfortable with fireworks.

PTSD-e1435896970357

The next photo is almost perfect. What’s better than advertising “I’m a combat vet with PTSD, I’m armed and I might react irrationally to fireworks”? The only way to improve it is to add a bottle of whiskey, to achieve the “drunken vet with PTSD and a gun” trifecta.

10438527_883680041679483_8233086934101108459_n

I have to ask, what do these “combat veterans” expect to actually accomplish with these signs? At best, their close neighbors might see the signs and refrain from using fireworks. But what about the neighbors one street over? What about the people who live ten houses down, never drive past the combat vet’s house and have no idea he’s sensitive to fireworks? Some fireworks can be seen and heard from literally miles away; is the sign going to somehow protect the veteran from fireworks in other neighborhoods?

——————————–

Read the rest at http://www.breachbangclear.com/signs-of-veteran-entitlement/

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=09XSSHABSWPC3FM8K6P4
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0S6AGHBTJZ6JH99D56X7


Carrying a pistol, in addition to being a life-altering decision, can be complicated. The perfect pistol for a fight is usually the hardest to carry, and the easiest pistols to carry aren’t very good in a fight. Most of us who choose to be armed in public go through a near-lifelong struggle to balance all the critical factors involved with carrying concealed: pistol size, caliber, magazine or cylinder capacity, carry location, carry method, whether to carry a spare magazine or speedloader, how and where to carry a spare magazine or speedloader, how to dress when armed, how our body type dictates what and how we carry, and what to do when circumstances hinder our preferred method of carry. And that’s not even a complete list of considerations.

I’ve been carrying a pistol on and off duty as a cop for over twenty years. During those years I’ve experimented with different pistols and ways to carry them. For concealed carry, I’ve been from the extreme of carrying a Glock 22 with two spare mags to the other extreme of a Kel-Tec .32 with one spare (because I was riding a motorcycle and my Glock printed badly through my close-fitting leather jacket). I’ve tried different guns, and like every concealed carrier I’ve got about 750 discarded holsters in my closet because none of them worked exactly as I’d hoped.

For years I carried a Glock 27 with a spare G23 mag. Then two things happened: I got older, and my G27 started feeling like a brick. Along with age came a slight change in my body, and I went from being skinny to fighting off a beer belly. My 40’s also brought a peace of sorts. After seventeen years of night shift in the hood and/or going to war, I was done with street police work and didn’t expect to ever deploy again. I was, in the parlance, a FAG (former action guy). At 41 I became a grandfather. My focus was no longer on looking for a fight to the death; instead, I was mostly interested in being prepared for the fight I knew would probably never happen.

I finally ditched the cumbersome G27 for a slim, concealable Beretta Nano. That pistol was ergonomic, accurate, comfortable, and basically perfect as long as you don’t mind dying in a gunfight with a double-fed gun in your hand. I ditched the Nano and went back to the 27, only to jump on a Glock 42 as soon as I could. The G42 is only a .380, and knowing the round’s limitations I decided not to carry one without plenty of spare mags.

So the question became, “how do I comfortably carry a G42 and three spare magazines?”

I went through the usual experimentation: I bought minimalist holsters, looked at an inside waistband that was gigantic for so small a pistol, tried a soft cloth pocket holster (and accidentally touched the trigger inside the holster during a draw, so I’m never using one of those again), tried a pocket clip holster, semi-regularly used a generic Kydex pocket holster, and eventually decided I’d just never find the right one.

Then the light of heaven, in the form of a fellow Texan named Gabe New, shone on my Glock from above.

Gabe runs a cottage gear shop called KSG Armory (Knowledge-Skills-Gear). He’s not a superhuman SF SWAT SEAL Recon operator, he’s a regular Joe who just loves to shoot and carries a gun daily. He’s also fortunate to have a creative bent and some business sense.

http://knowledgeskillgear.com/store/index.php?route=common/home

Like me, Gabe has been searching for the perfect carry method. Unlike me, Gabe has Kydex-bending skills (he likes to call himself a Plastic Surgeon). He started experimenting with Kydex holsters, made a few accessories to go along with them, and opened a small business selling them. At some point Gabe found my blog, and reached out to ask my opinion on his holsters. I wound up with the really cool opportunity to test some of his established models, plus try out a couple prototypes. Gabe was eager for feedback, and quickly made changes when I pointed out a problem. Not a preference, but a problem.

Gabe makes three types of holsters: a slimline OWB (Outside Waistband) belt slide holster, AIWB (Appendix Inside Waistband) holsters, and pocket carry holsters. I haven’t tried his OWB yet, but plan on getting my hands on one for winter when I can more easily conceal a belt holster. I did have plenty of opportunity to test his AIWB and pocket holsters though, and I’m pretty damn happy with them.

OWB 2.0, $55

OWB 2.0, $55

Gabe makes three types of AIWB holsters: one “tuckable”, one not, and one with wings.

Tuckable holsters, by special request

Tuckable holsters, $45

Note the adjustable cant

The “Tucker”, another tuckable with wider clip. Note the adjustable cant

While both carry your pistol snugly and securely, I’m a much bigger fan of the nontuckable version. The tuckable has a space between the holster body and belt loop to accommodate a shirt tail, which adds width. If I have to tuck in my shirt I use a pocket holster, so a tuckable IWB just isn’t for me (which isn’t to say it won’t work for someone else). But the nontuckable works great; the Glock 42 and 43 versions don’t jam into my thigh or crotch, and the grip doesn’t ride too high or lean away from my stomach.

IWB 1.1, $45

IWB 1.1, $45

Here’s a video of me demonstrating one of Gabe’s AIWB holsters.

As I was writing this article I received one of Gabe’s new inventions: an AIWB holster called the “Minuteman” with a “wing” that somehow manages to make the pistol stand straighter (so it’s less likely to print) and feel more comfortable. I don’t get why the wing works, but it does. The Minuteman can even conceal a Glock 19 with a weapon-mounted light under a thin t-shirt. I haven’t tried that myself, but Gabe has, and some armed professionals are testing this design right now.

Minuteman, $55

Minuteman, $55

g19minuteman2-500x500

KSG’s pocket carry holsters are also pretty dang good. Pocket carry definitely isn’t the optimum method, but sometimes it works when other methods don’t. I’ve pocket carried quite a bit, and Gabe’s holster is the smallest and lowest profile I’ve personally seen. Later I’ll write a more extensive article specifically about pocket carry.

The T.R. Jr, $30

The T.R. Jr, $30

Gabe also makes mag pouches. Anyone who carries a weapon should carry at least one reload; magazines fail, people accidentally hit the mag release under stress (watch the Oregon State Patrol shootout video below), or shooters empty a magazine in a second and find themselves holding an unloaded pistol.

The suspect inadvertently drops his magazine at :33.

My life was probably saved one night by an officer who dumped eight rounds in about a second at a suspect who was pointing a gun at me; the officer thought he had fired no more than three rounds. I’ve had a lot of pistol training and like to think I’d uphold the “one shot one kill” standard, but I have a brain so I know that’s unrealistic. Real shootings don’t follow a script, and unless you’re the world’s best gunfighter you should know your first round will likely miss, and even if it hits it may have no effect. Even multiple rounds may have no effect. So carry spare ammo. When I carry my Glock 42 or 43, I carry multiple spare mags.

Gabe makes a single mag pouch and a double mag pouch. They can be used together. The single pouch is an IWB, while the double pouch is a belt slide.

Mag carrier 2.0, $28

Mag carrier 2.0, $28

The double pouch is fantastic; slim, close fitting, and doesn’t print even with a close-fitting shirt. The only problem I’ve had with the double pouch is that it makes pulling my wallet a bit difficult, but that doesn’t deter me from using the pouch at all.

Double carrier, $45

Double carrier, $45

Thus far, Gabe and KSG Armory makes holsters and mag pouches for the following weapons:

Full-sized railed 1911
Glock 20/21
Glock 17/22/31
Glock 19/23/26/27
Glock 42/43
M&P 9/.40
M&Pc
Springfield XDS 3.3″
Springfield XDS 3.8″
S&W Shield
Bersa Thunder
Beretta PX4 Storm
Beretta Nano
Ruger LCP
Kel-Tec P3AT
H&K VP9
Sig P238
Hi-Point .45… just kidding. :)

If your pistol isn’t on the list, contact Gabe and ask if he can produce a holster for that weapon. If he has access to one, he’ll make it happen.

JUST TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: Gabe and I are not in business together. I don’t make any money from his holster sales. He just sent me gear to test, I was impressed, and I’m telling the world about it because I’d like to see his business succeed. I’ve also never met Gabe in person. Since I don’t know him, it’s possible he carries the severed heads of prostitutes in his trunk, or karaokes Justin Bieber’s greatest hits, or campaigns for Hillary Clinton (actually, I could give him a pass on severed heads or Justin Bieber but if I thought he was a Clinton supporter I’d have nothing to do with him). But all indications are he’s a good dude with common sense. I have no reason to believe he’s anything but a solid citizen and 2nd Amendment supporter.

If you visit my Facebook page (linked below) you might get some free KSG stuff in a gear giveaway we’re hosting. So check out Gabe’s gear, help a Texan small businessman out, keep training and keep carrying!

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1435717310

http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0944AN4XHWJAD0K2F3GZ


america-__continues-to-be-a-racist-country__-in-wake-of-sc-shooting-__-political-scientist.si

Almost before the sound of gunshots finished echoing from the walls of a South Carolina church, President Obama said America suffers more mass shootings than other advanced nations. And almost before President Obama finished his statement, gun rights supporters accused him of being wrong.

“This kind of violence doesn’t happen in the rest of the world,” President Obama allegedly said, to much scoffing and derisive laughter.

I’m extremely interested in this case, for many reasons. I’m a passionate 2nd Amendment advocate who understands why the founding fathers believed an armed citizenry is crucial to freedom. I’m a longtime police officer who trained on the mechanics of responding to mass shooting attacks, studied the dynamics of mass shootings, and spent years helping train other officers on active shooter response. As a combat veteran, I’ve faced private citizens armed with rifles who successfully resisted a large, organized military force. As a political independent who’s not a fan of President Obama’s policies, I’m always on watch for evidence he doesn’t understand the realities I’ve faced and trained for.

Like many other gun rights supporters, I read reports of President Obama’s “this doesn’t happen elsewhere” quote with a mixture of revulsion and amazement. But I was also skeptical; passionate conservatives are just as willing to lie and distort as passionate liberals, and before I believed someone else’s version of President Obama’s words I decided to look into it myself. So I read several articles, and watched video of his statement.

The conservative website The Federalist, which I have contributed an article to in the past, quoted him as saying, “Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. … We as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” The Federalist then provided a laundry list of mass shootings in other countries, showing that of COURSE this kind of violence happens in the rest of the world. The Federalist‘s conclusion seemed to be that if President Obama said massacres don’t happen in other countries, he can’t be taken seriously.

The problem is, that’s not what he said. And it’s obvious that’s not what he said. Or, I should say, that’s not all he said.

Here’s the actual quote:

“Now is the time for mourning and healing, but let’s be clear. At some point we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this type of frequency.”

Watch the video to hear it for yourself. The relevant part begins at 3:10.

Now that we’ve heard the President’s actual words, and before we debate them, let’s set some foundations.

First: mature, intelligent, rational discussion requires us to respond to what our ideological opponents actually say, rather than what we want them to say, or expect them to say, or what a likeminded echo chamber tells us they said.

Second: we should judge the merits of our opponents’ (or allies’) arguments rather than their tone or our perception of their overall message.

Third: if we ignore crucial points in a statement (i.e. It doesn’t happen in other places with this type of frequency) and instead focus on a snippet of what was said because it suits our purposes (i.e. this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries), we’re not being honest.

Fourth: a dishonest argument is inherently weak.

Fair enough?

President Obama didn’t say mass shootings never happen in other advanced countries, he said they don’t happen with the same frequency as they do here. That’s the objective reality about his claim. The furor from my fellow gun rights supporters, sparked by narrow focus on a small part of the President’s statement – “This type of mass violence doesn’t happen in other advanced countries” – is unfair, dishonest and only manages to make our side look weak. Intentionally trying to mislead the public about the President’s claim doesn’t help further gun rights.

 This meme is a deliberate misrepresentation of the President's statement.


This meme is a deliberate misrepresentation of the President’s statement.

Unfortunately for my fellow gun rights supporters who are knee-jerk reactionaries, President Obama didn’t say what they claim he said. He did say we have more mass shootings than other countries. Is that true?

Yes, it is.

In response to the President’s statement, the website IJReview published an article about mass killings in the US compared to other countries. They cited a chart from another, no longer functioning site listing mass shootings which occurred between 2009 and 2013 in several advanced nations.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/

Screenshot-6_18_2015-9_43_12-PM

The chart clearly shows America in the lead on mass shootings, with 38 during the reporting period. No other nation on the chart had more than two. This certainly suggests the US experiences more mass shootings than the other countries listed. IJReview, however, reached a different conclusion.

“The bottom line: The United States falls from number one due to its frequency of 38 mass shootings from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013 (which would be number one without correcting for population) to number seven.” IJR seems to be referring to per capita mass shootings deaths rather than total incidents. While our per-capita mass shooting deaths may be lower, President Obama didn’t claim we had the highest number of mass shooting deaths. He said we had more mass shootings.

Of course the next objection is “You can’t compare a country with a huge population like America against countries with tiny populations like Slovakia.” Fair enough. So let’s add all the other countries’ populations together, and compare the total to the US population.

Population of Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Canada and France combined: approximately 304 million.

Population of America: 314 million.

Since those populations are so close in number, they should have a similar number of mass shootings, right?

Total number of mass shootings in Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Canada and France combined between 2009 and 2013: 17.

Total number of mass shootings in America 2009-2013: 38.

With a roughly 4% population difference between America and all eleven other countries combined, we had more than 50% more mass shootings.

No, not all our massacres have been as horrible as their massacres. The nine dead in South Carolina “aren’t as bad” as the 77 murdered during Norway’s Utoya Island massacre and the associated bombing in Oslo. But again, President Obama didn’t claim we had the worst massacres. He didn’t claim the mass shooting results are worse here than elsewhere. He simply – and clearly – stated “this type of violence” occurs more frequently here than in other advanced nations. And he was right.

Now, what does that mean?

President Obama made a reference to the availability of guns and the difficulty of enacting gun control legislation: “The politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now…At some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.” His belief, expressed verbally and through his attempts to pass new gun control measures, is that restricting access to guns will help stop mass shootings.

President Obama is wrong.

His statement about America having more mass shootings than other advanced nations is correct. His conclusion that further restricting guns is the solution isn’t. As we’ve seen over and over for decades, banning guns from private hands doesn’t actually remove them from private hands. Legislation doesn’t change the laws of physics, or human nature. Legislation isn’t a physical barrier that prevents criminals or the criminally insane from obtaining guns, and it’s not a physical barrier to the bullets they fire at innocent people. Legislation without a means of enforcement is simply a wish; if a law alone was enough to stop crime, murders would never happen to begin with. To actually stop mass shootings, a law would have to 1) physically stop criminals from obtaining weapons, and 2) physically stop them once they try to murder innocent people.

The United States has a culture of private gun ownership that’s centuries old, with an estimated 310 million privately-owned weapons throughout the country in 2009 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf). Without question, that number rose significantly during the post-Sandy Hook gun-buying craze; I highly doubt the hundreds of thousands who rushed to buy AR-15s in anticipation of a ban wanted to be the first in line to turn them back in. Those hundreds of millions of weapons are out there, and even if police confiscated a million guns a year, a total confiscation plan would take centuries to implement.

Police in Boston, a major city, confiscated only 500 illegal or illegally possessed guns in 2012 (http://patch.com/massachusetts/northend/police-confiscated-500-illegal-guns-from-boston-streee26dd834bb). Even if an aggressive campaign were launched to remove all guns, even if Boston managed to find 50,000 illegal guns a year, even if police nationwide managed to find an astounding and unbelievable five million guns per year, total confiscation would still take over sixty years. And it still wouldn’t work, because we’d never find them all, and we’d never stop new ones coming in to replace confiscated ones.

I’ve been a cop for over twenty years, and military for longer than that. One thing I’m sure of: there’s no way, ever, that police could find and confiscate all the guns in America. Most cops I know wouldn’t even try it. My point 1 above, that a gun law would have to physically stop criminals from obtaining guns, isn’t possible in this country.

And all gun laws become useless and ineffective once someone reaches the point of committing a mass murder. When a dedicated murderer pulls his pistol in a church and aims in on innocent people, all that matters is who and what can physically stop him from pulling the trigger. Police, even police a block away, won’t stop him from shooting. “Gun Free Zone” signs are pathetically worthless; if they had any effect at all, we’d simply place “No Mass Murder” signs at all public venues. And someone who wants to slaughter innocent people and die or go to prison afterward won’t worry too much about breaking a relatively minor gun law.

On point 2 above, even Vice President Joe Biden agrees: new laws won’t stop mass shootings.

The ONLY way to stop mass shootings is to give the intended victims the means to effectively resist. In South Carolina a 21 year old coward was able to murder defenseless people at will, but not because he was such a highly-trained gunfighter. He wasn’t a fighter at all. Like almost every mass shooter, he was great at murdering unarmed people but had no desire to face anyone who could actually fight back. His “bravery” was limited to shooting defenseless people (mostly women). Just one armed person, trained and willing to resist, would likely have ended the South Carolina church massacre long before it became a massacre. That one armed person likely couldn’t have saved everyone, but he could have saved most.

Maybe I’m the only one who feels this way, but I would have preferred for police officers to arrive at the church and find one or two dead innocent victims, and a brave armed parishioner standing with a smoking weapon over a dead racist coward. Instead we had allowed, once again, a pathetic, pitiful loser to take complete control of a killing field he chose, to mow down human beings far more valuable than he, with total impunity. How many more times will we let this happen before we finally realize that only armed citizens – not police and not empty, unenforceable laws – will stop violent cowards from murdering the defenseless?

President Obama didn’t claim mass shootings never happen in other countries, he claimed they happen more often in America. He was right. As gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters, we should argue facts and logic rather than appealing to untruths and hysteria. President Obama thinks new gun laws will stop mass shootings. He’s wrong. Facts and logic tell us new gun laws do nothing but harm those who willingly follow those laws.

Please, fellow gun owners. Don’t twist the President’s words to make him look worse and us look better. Deliberate distortions work against us. Just tell the truth. It really is on our side.

RIP to the victims in South Carolina, strength to their loved ones, and swift retribution to the murderer.

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1434904408
http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0VE4FEPMPPFPE8H1FVTM


This was published last week on Breach Bang Clear.

************************************

635652154599692276-Still0421-00000

I confess. I’m an out-of-control, criminal cop. I once did something so horrible, I belong in prison. I want to lay my soul bare and beg for forgiveness. Here’s the story of my terrible crime. Brace yourself.

Late one night several years back, my partner and I were on patrol in a high-crime area. We wanted a drink, so we pulled into a gas station across the street from one of the worst apartment complexes in the city. We were distracted by a conversation about some inane topic, but I noticed a young black male walking away from the door of the gas station. That wasn’t unusual. The gas station had a steady flow of customers all night every night, so I didn’t pay much attention.

Then the man saw us.

He immediately sprinted across the street toward the apartment complex. We were in a high-crime area, the man immediately fled when we pulled in, and my first thought was that he had robbed the gas station. In an instant, I decided we had Reasonable Suspicion. My partner and I “switched on”; we quit jabbering, locked in on the runner and sped out of the parking lot. Our car bounced over the curb and reached the apartment gate just as the man ran through it. We bailed out and charged after him, yelling commands to stop.

The man kept going. I was a pretty good sprinter and my partner was a former college athlete, but our suspect, not burdened with fifteen pounds of gear like we were, was getting away from us. He was well ahead when he cut between two apartment buildings, and my partner split from me to head him off. It worked; the suspect saw my partner at the next corner and turned back, then ran into me. I caught him.

The first thing he did was try to flip me. I managed to stay on my feet and tackled him against a car bumper. As we struggled, my partner showed up and immediately nailed me in the forearm with his flashlight (he still denies that). After another minute or so of struggling, we got the suspect cuffed. His initial arrest was for evading detention. When we searched him incident to arrest we found an ice pick, a crack pipe with cocaine residue, plus a baggie of fake crack. The warrant system was down that night, so we couldn’t check him for warrants. We just charged him with the cocaine residue.

freddy_gray_arresting_officers02

That’s right. I confess to chasing a criminal, catching him, fighting him and putting him in jail. I did it. I did it all.

Some of you might say, “I don’t get it. You’re a cop. You’re supposed to chase and arrest criminals.” And sure, that sounds reasonable. But I must have committed a crime. I mean, I did almost exactly what three cops in Baltimore did, and they just got indicted.

The Baltimore PD officers who arrested Freddie Gray are facing a combination of Assault, Reckless Endangerment, Manslaughter and Misconduct in Office charges (they were initially charged with slightly different crimes, including false imprisonment, but the charges were amended). They were on patrol in a high-crime area, Gray saw them and ran. The officers chased him, arrested him for possession of a switchblade knife and called for a paddy wagon to transport him. Something happened during transport, Gray was fatally injured and died a week later.

bpd

The officers who arrested Gray didn’t injure him. Nobody is claiming they beat or abused Gray. The arresting officers don’t appear to have done anything wrong. But according to the Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, the knife Gray had didn’t fit the legal definition of a switchblade. Ergo, the officers had no reason to stop or Probable Cause to arrest Gray, so they committed a crime by arresting him. Makes sense, right?

Hell no it doesn’t.

Remember, we’re not talking about the officers who transported Gray. Obviously, something bad happened in the back of the paddy wagon. It may have been malicious and intentional, like a deliberate assault on Gray while he was handcuffed. Or it could have been simply negligent, like failure to put Gray in a seat belt which led to him falling and hitting the back of his head on a bolt. I don’t know, you probably don’t know either, and the best thing to do is wait for more evidence.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the transporting officers should be charged. But why charge the arresting officers?

First, let’s talk about Probable Cause to Arrest, Reasonable Suspicion to Stop, and what exactly those terms mean.

Many people who commented on Gray’s arrest pointed out that “just running when you see police doesn’t create Probable Cause to arrest”. And they’re right. But cops don’t need PC to stop a suspect. We need PC to actually make a custodial arrest, but to stop someone and investigate we just need Reasonable Suspicion (RS) that a suspect committed or is about to commit a crime.

Here’s an example of RS: one hot summer night I was patrolling through a strip center in an extremely high-crime area. As my partner and I passed several parked cars we saw a man in the parking lot. That’s not illegal. He was dressed in dark clothing. That’s not illegal. He was kneeling between two cars. That’s suspicious as hell, but not illegal. And one final, minor, also not illegal detail: he was pulling a ski mask down over his face.

Even though he wasn’t doing anything illegal, we had RS to stop because the man appeared to be either committing a crime or preparing to. We didn’t have PC to arrest. If I had detained him and discovered there was some innocent reason he was kneeling between cars in dark clothing while putting on a ski mask late at night, like maybe he was pulling a prank on a friend, no arrest. But we had every right and reason to stop and investigate him.

So did the Baltimore officers have RS to stop Freddie Gray for simply being in a high-crime area and running from police?

********************************************

Read the rest at http://www.breachbangclear.com/in-defense-of-the-officers-who-arrested-freddie-gray/

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=09XSSHABSWPC3FM8K6P4
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0S6AGHBTJZ6JH99D56X7


bikers-1024x576

So this Waco thing has caught my interest, mostly because of all the dumb things being said about it. I’m no expert and have no direct connection to the Waco Biker shootout, nor do I have access to anything more than media reports. However, based on my experience as a patrolman, assistant active shooter instructor and soldier I’ve made a few observations and educated guesses about what happened.

1) I predict we’ll soon learn most or all of the dead bikers were shot by police officers

I base this on a couple things, but the biggest one is a comment the Waco PD spokesman included in the official statement: “Our officers treated it as an active shooter scene.” An active shooter’s goal is to kill as many people as possible rather than steal money, take hostages or escape. A police officer who encounters an active shooter has one mission: stop the killing. The best way to stop that killing is by quickly engaging the active shooter with accurate gunfire. The Waco shooting took place in a crowded restaurant within a crowded shopping center with several businesses and restaurants full of innocent civilians. Police officers outside Twin Peaks could be expected to treat bikers firing shots in the parking lot as active shooters.

The affiliations of the bikers would obviously play a part in how the officers perceived the threat they presented. At least some of the bikers involved in the Waco shootout were “1%ers” or “outlaw bikers”. That’s what they call themselves, not just what police call them. Many wear 1% patches on their vests, in reference to the “99% of motorcycle riders are law-abiding citizens” comment made after the first riotous motorcycle rally in 1947; a 1% patch means they’re not law abiders. It’s a public proclamation of their dedication to a criminal lifestyle.

Outlaw biker gangs have a long history of violence, and more importantly, are known to engage in gang warfare around uninvolved civilians. In 2002, Hell’s Angels and Mongols had a gunfight inside a Laughlin casino that killed three bikers and wounded many more. Hell’s Angels and Vagos were involved in a shootout inside a Nevada casino in 2011 that left one biker dead and two wounded. In November 2013 a Bandido allegedly stabbed two Cossack bike gang members in Abilene. Waco’s shooting is thought to be directly related to that incident.

The Waco shooting was reportedly sparked by a Cossack gang member wearing a Texas patch on his vest. This deserves a little more attention. Bandidos are a big Texas motorcycle gang, Cossacks are also Texan but aren’t as big as the Bandidos. The three patches worn by Bandidos are a “Bandidos” banner, the gang logo, and a Texas banner. The Bandidos banned the Cossacks from wearing a Texas banner (because it meant Cossacks were trying to take over Bandido territory), but apparently Cossacks dared to not follow this edict. So Bandidos just had to attack the Cossacks. Because honor and respect. Or something.

untitled

The fight escalated to clubs and knives, then spilled into the parking lot and escalated to gunfire. No police are reported to have been inside the restaurant, although of course conspiracy theorists are already suggesting undercover officers were inside acting as “agitators” (hint: it would be pretty damn stupid for cops to instigate a fight that would put them in the impact area of other cops’ rifle fire). But when the fight got outside, twenty-two cops in marked units already in the parking lot took action.

The officers would likely have seen dozens or hundreds of bikers flooding out of the restaurant swinging, stabbing and shooting. They would have seen the fight before receiving a call, because the incident unfolded too quickly for a caller to dial 911, explain the situation to a dispatcher, then have the information relayed by radio or computer. The officers probably took cover behind vehicles and searched for sources of gunfire. When they saw an armed suspect, they probably wouldn’t have been able to discern his target because of their distance and the general chaos. The officers would consider the shooters’ gang affiliation, consider the danger to uninvolved citizens, and make the decision whether or not to engage.

As of this writing, initial reports suggest at least four of the nine biker fatalities were killed by police. I’m willing to bet police killed more or even all of them. I’m already seeing online accusations that police fired indiscriminately into the crowd; I doubt that was the case (especially considering how many uninvolved civilians were present) and I expect to learn that the bikers killed by police were hit from a distance with one or two well-aimed rifle rounds.

A reasonable question has been raised: in the chaos, is it possible that a biker with a Concealed Handgun License legally drew his weapon to defend himself against a threat, legally shot at a criminal who was attacking him, and was then shot by a police officer who didn’t know the CHL holder was engaged in justifiable self-defense? The answer is, “of course it’s possible.” Hell, it may even be likely. If we find out that happened at least once, does that mean the officers committed murder and deserve to be prosecuted?

No. The law doesn’t require perfection from anyone, whether they’re a cop or private citizen. People just have to be reasonable.

Contrary to popular myth, cops don’t get a free pass for killing people and private citizens aren’t immediately charged with murder if they kill someone in self-defense even if they were wrong. In one Texas incident, late one night a woman killed a man she thought was kicking her door in; the man turned out to be her drunken firefighter neighbor who went to the wrong house after coming home from a bar. The woman wasn’t arrested or charged because police and the grand jury correctly decided the woman acted reasonably. She was home alone, it was late at night, someone tried to force open her door, she got a weapon and warned the person to leave, he kept trying to get in, so she fired through the door and killed him. She thought her life was in danger and even though she was objectively wrong, her perception was still reasonable. (http://abc13.com/archive/9470222/)

So if a police officer sees a person who appears to be a member of a biker gang shooting at an unknown person or people while engaged in a massive fight with other gang members, while numerous innocent civilians are present, is it reasonable for the officer to decide the biker is a threat and shoot him? I say yes. Biker gangs are gangs, no different than bloods or crips except in their mode of transportation. If a fight between bloods and crips breaks out at a movie theater and they start shooting at each other inside the theater while surrounded by innocent civilians, I can understand if a police officer sees any gang member firing a weapon as a threat to innocent people. Others will disagree. Whatever our personal opinions are, ultimately the law only requires that officers and armed citizens act reasonably, not that they’re perfect or even right.

And if we do learn all the dead were killed by cops, that doesn’t equal “This whole thing was the cops’ fault!” (as some are already claiming). It could mean officers used too much force in response to a minor fight. But it could also mean officers did exactly what they’re trained and expected to do: use appropriate force against criminals they reasonably judged to be an imminent threat to the public. It’s even possible some officers were totally justified in shooting and others weren’t. Time and evidence will tell.

2) We’ll soon learn that most of the wounded bikers were wounded by other bikers, not cops.

According to latest reports, 318 weapons were recovered from the Twin Peaks shooting scene. The weapons ranged from chains to an AK-47. I haven’t heard how many were pistols. Despite what one might see on Game of Thrones, chains, clubs and knives are dangerous but are actually hard to kill people with (when you stab someone in the stomach or cut their throat, shockingly enough they don’t immediately drop dead). Pistols, of course, can easily kill. However, as we see in almost every officer-involved shooting, under stress most people’s accuracy goes to crap. Shooters who hit ten out of ten bullseyes on a static range at ten yards hit one out of ten or worse on an entire human target in an actual gunfight. This is because in real gunfights the target is usually moving, at an unknown range, partially concealed behind cover or other people, and shooting back.

So I expect most of the bikers in the hospital were beaten, stabbed, or shot with pistols by other bikers who were distracted by hundreds of possible threats around them. In the melee, their effectiveness with any weapon would likely have been compromised. The police, however, weren’t in the middle of the fight, weren’t facing threats from 360 degrees and didn’t have nearly as many factors degrading their effectiveness.

So less serious injuries were inflicted by bikers, more serious by cops. Just my guess.

3) Most of the charges will be dropped

As far as I know, most of the bikers were charged with criminal conspiracy because they belonged to biker gangs. Absent evidence that each of them committed a specific crime, I don’t think that’s enough to make a charge stick. If they were convicted felons in possession of guns, they’re toast. If an officer can testify that specific bikers committed specific crimes, they’re toast. The bikers who were caught armed and coming from out of town to back up their gang after the fight are toast. But Joe Regular Guy who just bought a Harley in an over-forty fit and went to the outlaw biker gathering because he thinks Sons of Anarchy is cool will probably make it out without a conviction.

4) Two very different groups will blame the police for the shooting even though their arguments make no sense

The “hands up don’t shoot” crowd is already spreading really stupid memes like this:

11017664_950946018259031_8620348833418721643_n (2)

These memes prove – PROVE! – that cops treat black people worse than whites.

I won’t waste much time on this, because it’s so friggin’ stupid, but I can offer this rebuttal: Hey dumbasses, cops shot a bunch of white bikers and may have killed nine of them. But cops didn’t shoot any rioters in Ferguson or Baltimore, even though rioters shot at cops in Ferguson. More white bikers were arrested in one afternoon in Waco than blacks were arrested in two days of rioting in Ferguson and a day of rioting in Baltimore. Judges put 1 million dollar bail on the bikers. Cops killing whites and throwing them in jail doesn’t prove that cops treat white people better than blacks. So shut up.

The second group accusing cops of murder is the “cops are evil jack-booted thugs” crowd. That crowd is sharing an article from a site called “aging rebel” about the “Waco Police Massacre”. According to Mr. Rebel, “The shove in the bathroom became a scuffle in the restaurant. When about 30 Bandidos, Cossacks, Scimitars and other bikers spilled into the parking between the Twin peaks and the Don Carlos Mexican restaurant next door, the police were waiting for them. The scuffle became a knife fight and several men were stabbed. When one of the combatants produced a gun the Swat team opened fire with automatic weapons. Multiple sources have told The Aging Rebel that all of the dead were killed by police.”

Right now, before any autopsy results are released, I don’t see how the hell anyone can possibly claim with certainty that all the dead were killed by police. I highly doubt any one person could have seen every single shooting and knows exactly who fired. But let’s set aside logic a moment. Assuming these multiple (anonymous) sources are telling the truth, well, their statement partially matches what police have said: a fistfight turned into a gang fight with knives and clubs which then turned into a shooting in the parking lot.

I guess that proves the police are evil, tyrannical, and at fault for the Waco shootout. I mean, this is America! You’re telling me armed bikers can’t even have a massive gang fight around hundreds of civilians without getting shot by cops? What happened to freedom?

You know who else tyrannically oppressed biker gangs? Hitler, that’s who!

5) Video and witness statements are going to come out, and will put some of the anti-cop claims to rest

I doubt any of the bikers involved in the fight pulled out cell phones and started videotaping, but plenty of uninvolved civilians did. I’ve seen brief snippets of video on TV, not full videos. But they’re out there, and eventually we’ll see them. If bikers had videos of cops spraying gunfire indiscriminately into the crowd we probably would have seen it already; any biker who had it and wasn’t arrested would have immediately put it on the internet to help his biker buddies out, and if the biker was detained or arrested he probably still would have had time to upload it or send it to a friend before he was cuffed and transported (see the picture above, where a detained biker was still able to use his phone). So although we’ll hear numerous lurid tales of out-of-control cops hell bent on massacring innocent bikers with full-auto fire, we won’t see evidence of it. But we will see video of cops taking cover behind cars and firing deliberate, aimed shots. That’s just my guess.

My gut feeling is that the incident unfolded exactly how we’ve heard it did: outlaw bikers were spoiling for a fight and started one over something stupid. The fight went lethal real quick. Cops who were there in case the outlaw bikers acted like outlaw bikers saw the fight and heard shooting. The cops engaged and killed any biker they thought was a threat to innocent civilians. The cops will be cleared of any wrongdoing because their actions were reasonable, most of the 170 bikers arrested will have charges dropped.

And the outlaw biker gangs involved will find somewhere else for their next fight.

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=09XSSHABSWPC3FM8K6P4
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0S6AGHBTJZ6JH99D56X7


This was published yesterday on Breach Bang Clear.

*******************

Curses! Our sinister plot has been discovered!

Somehow Jade Helm, our “training exercise” [wink wink], has been revealed as a plan to wage war on Texas. We tried to trick the public into believing it was just training, but the sheeple didn’t buy it! Astute internet investigators, none of whom usually have a clue what they’re talking about, nailed this one!

Jade Helm is a ruse, a way for the military to invade Texas. Which sounds weird, since Texas is in America and already has tons of military bases full of military personnel. So, like, if the military wanted to invade and stuff, they could just book a vacation to Dallas or something. But nevermind all that! We were going to invade Texas!

And we would have gotten away with it too, if not for those meddling truthers!

Henceforth a tinfoil hat will be called "Jade Helmet".

Henceforth a tinfoil hat will be called “Jade Helmet”.

How could our plan have been leaked? Our operatives followed every top-secret, MK-Ultra protocol! They put a news release on the internet, notified local officials and private citizens in the “training” area, published a Jade Helm PowerPoint presentation, and held a public press conference. But despite all that secrecy, people somehow found out about it!

Alex Jones and his buddies must have seen through our charade. And we were so close! All our TFTDOF (Tools For The Destruction Of Freedom) were in place. We closed Wal-Marts and turned them into FEMA death camps, dug tunnels interconnecting them so we could move Texas patriots to the gas chambers without arousing suspicion, and prepared our Special Forces to confiscate everyone’s guns. It’s all true.

Screenshot-54

Anyone with a brain might wonder how we managed to dig all the tunnels connecting our closed Wal-Mart FEMA death camps without attracting attention. You’d think a gigantic tunneling project which would require hundreds of vehicles, thousands of workers and the movement of thousands of tons of dirt over a period of months, would have been noticed by someone. But nobody did. Know how we pulled that off? I have no idea! But we must have done it, or multiple morons wouldn’t believe it! Right?

BN-IH758_Texas_G_20150507175708

Sure, reasonable people might think Jade Helm really is just training and therefore no big deal. They might believe it’s conceptually the same as the Special Forces Robin Sage exercise that’s been held on public land in North Carolina for decades. They might notice North Carolina somehow isn’t under martial law. They could also point out that our military conducts permissive environment training in public on a regular basis. People with at least two brain cells to rub together might look at these facts and conclude Jade Helm fear is hysterical stupidity.

But they’d be wrong! Unlike Robin Sage, Jade Helm isn’t in North Carolina! The Posse Comitatus Act clearly states, “Any military training held off post that’s not in North Carolina constitutes an illegal invasion of America.” At least, that’s what I think it says. I’ve never actually, you know, read it or anything. But I’m sure Jade Helm violates Posse Comitatus!

If Jade Helm wasn’t really a secret plot to invade Texas – and IT IS – one might say it’s pretty damn stupid for so-called “patriots”, like the ones at the Jade Helm public meeting near Bastrop, Texas, to accuse our military of preparing to commit treason. Especially since that military has been fighting, bleeding and dying to defend America for the last fourteen years. But they’d be wrong again! The brave patriots in Bastrop were absolutely right to cheer a Special Forces spokesman’s military service while simultaneously accusing the military of plotting to invade Texas.

*************************

Read the rest at http://www.breachbangclear.com/operation-jade-helm/#comment-126873

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at chris_hernandez_author@yahoo.com or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

LITV
http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=09XSSHABSWPC3FM8K6P4

Proof-of-Our-Resolve
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0S6AGHBTJZ6JH99D56X7




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,766 other followers