2nd amendment – chrishernandezauthor

Ben Carson’s Brutal and Uncomfortable Truth

chrishernandezauthor — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:00:00 +0000

This was published Tuesday on Breach Bang Clear

Since Dr. Ben Carson – who I DO NOT support for president, by the way – gave his eminently sensible and reasonable opinion on gun control, he’s been painted as a moron by the left. He said,“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.” This is such an obvious truth to anyone who understands history that opposition to it is unbelievable rather than simply ridiculous. Disagreeing with his statement makes about as much sense as insisting the earth is flat.

As a police officer, I know for a fact that an armed suspect is far more dangerous to take into custody than an unarmed suspect. As a combat veteran, I know for a fact that an armed population is far more difficult to control than an unarmed population. The insurgents in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan didn’t simply roll over and submit to our control. They took up weapons and fought back.

But many voices on the left, GQ and Funny Or Die prominent among them, now insist people are actually safer being unarmed when an armed murderer is trying to kill them. And the people who believe that nonsense, despite generally having zero understanding of weapons, lethal force encounters, combat or anything else remotely related to the subject, refuse to listen to cops, combat vets or others with actual experience. So I’m going to share an account of genocide that even the most ardent critic of Ben Carson shouldn’t be able to argue with.

The following is a passage from the book Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning. The story can be found on pages 93 and 94. It is an account of German Reserve Police Battalion 101 (not a military unit, but regular police), which was part of the “Final Solution”, and its operation to clear Jews from the Polish town of Miedzyrzec. It’s worth noting that this operation was witnessed by one police captain’s pregnant wife, who had come to visit her new husband.

The usual orders were given to shoot anyone trying to escape, as well as the sick, old, and frail who could not march to the train station just outside town.

While the men waited for [Captain] Wohlauf ‘s return, they encountered a Security Police officer already quite drunk, despite the early hour. It was soon apparent that the Hiwis [Lithuanian, Latvian and Ukrainian volunteers] were also drunk. They shot so often and so wildly that the policemen frequently had to take cover to avoid being hit. The policemen “saw the corpses of Jews who had been shot everywhere in the streets and houses.”

Driven by the Hiwis and policemen, thousands of Jews streamed into the marketplace. Here they had to sit or squat without moving or getting up. As the hours passed on this very hot August day of the late summer heat wave, many Jews fainted and collapsed. Moreover, beating and shooting continued in the marketplace. Having removed her military coat as the temperature rose, Frau Wohlauf [the captain’s pregnant wife] was clearly visible in her dress on the marketplace, watching the events at close range.

About 2:00 p. m. the outer guard was called to the marketplace, and one or two hours later the march to the train station began.

The entire force of Hiwis and policemen was employed to drive the thousands of Jews along the route. Once again, shooting was common. The “foot sick” who could go no farther were shot and left lying on the side of the road. Corpses lined the street to the train station.

Members of Police Battalion 101 with Jewish victims. Cover photo from the book Ordinary Men.

One final horror was reserved to the end, for the train cars now had to be loaded. While the Hiwis and Security Police packed 120 to 140 Jews into each car, the reserve policemen stood guard and observed. As one remembered:

When it didn’t go well, they made use of riding whips and guns. The loading was simply frightful. There was an unearthly cry from these poor people, because ten or twenty cars were being loaded simultaneously. The entire freight train was dreadfully long. One could not see all of it. It may have been fifty to sixty cars, if not more. After a car was loaded, the doors were closed and nailed shut.

Once all the cars were sealed, the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 quickly departed without waiting to see the train pull away.

The clearing of the Miedzyrzec ghetto was the largest deportation operation the battalion would carry out during its entire participation in the Final Solution. Only 1,000 Jews in Miedzyrzec had been given temporary work permits to remain in the ghetto until they could be replaced with Poles. Thus some 11,000 were targeted for deportation. The policemen knew that “many hundreds” of Jews were shot in the course of the operation, but of course they did not know exactly how many. The surviving Jews who collected and buried the bodies did know, however, and their count was 960.

Did you read any mention of resistance in that passage?

——————————————————

Read the rest at http://www.breachbangclear.com/ben-carsons-brutal-and-uncomfortable-truth/

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 [email protected] 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

Plain Truth About Mass Shootings

chrishernandezauthor — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 13:20:49 +0000

I’m well aware of how horrible and tragic school shootings are. I’ve studied school shootings, trained as a cop on how to respond to school shootings, and trained other cops on how to respond to school shootings. As a father of two elementary-age children, one high schooler and one college student, and as the husband of a former teacher, son of a retired teacher and brother to a current teacher, I’m extremely concerned about the safety of school students and staff. I’m well aware that easy availability of guns is a significant factor in the seemingly endless stream of school and mass shootings. I’m aware that a lunatic pounding on a computer keyboard in his mother’s basement is a simple nuisance, but a lunatic with a grudge against the world and a gun is a guaranteed tragedy.

But I oppose new gun control laws.

The anti-gun side needs to understand something. Pro-2nd Amendment people like me aren’t pro-mass murder. I have a hard time imagining a bigger piece of human excrement than a man who would intentionally murder even one innocent, terrified, defenseless child. One of the hardest things I’ve ever read was a survivor’s account of a little boy’s last words at Sandy Hook: “Help me! I don’t want to be here!”, to which the shooter responded, “Well, you’re here,” before killing him. I can’t even imagine how I’d feel if my child had been in that school.

Unlike many fellow 2A supporters, I don’t blame parents of murdered children for demanding stricter gun laws. They’ve just lost a child, in one of the most horrible ways possible. They’re going to lash out. They’re going to pick the easiest and most obvious target for their rage, frustration and grief. I understand why those parents feel the way they do, and why they say the things they say.

But I still oppose new gun control laws.

Here’s a sad, crappy fact: laws don’t do anything by themselves. Actual humans are required to take actual actions to make people follow laws. For example, any legally-declared “gun free zone” (GFZ) can only be made gun-free if access is controlled by people, usually people with guns, who ensure anyone entering doesn’t have a gun (an airport, for example). But if we declare a school a GFZ, then don’t establish airport-like security, we’re not keeping guns out. We’re simply wishing them away. And no child will be protected by a Gun Free Wish.

Likewise, any suggestion for regulating gun sales, possessions or transfers from this point forward won’t magically eliminate the hundreds of millions of guns already in existence. If a lunatic has a gun today, and a law banning lunatics from having guns is passed tomorrow, the lunatic will still have the gun the day after tomorrow. Legislation doesn’t change the laws of physics. It doesn’t alter reality.

This isn’t just my opinion. Even Vice President Joe Biden, gun control champion, admitted it during the push for new gun laws after the Sandy Hook shooting.

If we’re going to make a real effort to stop mass shootings, let’s at least acknowledge reality. A man intent on mass murder and suicide isn’t going to be deterred by jail time, or signs on walls, or even locked doors (the Sandy Hook murderer easily shot his way through a plate glass window). The only thing that can prevent a mass murderer from entering a school is heavy security and people with guns; if we’re not going to make every school half prison and half airport (and we’re not), then any aspiring murderer who wants to bring in a gun can bring in a gun. If that murderer gets in, and starts shooting, the ONLY sure way to make them stop is the immediate application of overwhelming force.

At Sandy Hook, the shooter shot through this window to bypass the locked door

Police who arrive five minutes after shots are fired can’t apply that force quickly enough. SWAT teams who arrive thirty minutes later can’t do it. Only the intended victims, the people who are eye to eye with the murderer, can react in seconds and put the murderer down.

Antoinette Tuff talked Michael Brandon Hill out of committing mass murder at an Atlanta school in 2013. She was a hero, and Michael Hill was a pathetic loser who wasn’t committed to murder. He had a murder fantasy, found out the reality of facing terrified teachers and being shot at by police wasn’t as much fun as he expected, and gave up. Plenty of wishful idealists rightfully praised Tuff, but wrongfully concluded “you don’t need a gun to stop a mass murderer with an AK-47.” Anyone who thinks we should make a policy of “let’s talk the killer out of killing us”, to put it mildly, is an amazingly dedicated idiot.

Sometimes unarmed people have stopped mass killers, like at the Gabby Giffords shooting in Arizona. Amazingly dedicated idiots at Slate, Mother Jones, Addicting Info and other sites have repeatedly pointed out incidents where unarmed people took down mass shooters, and concluded victims are better off unarmed against a mass shooter. But untrained and unequipped people sometimes put out fires too. Untrained and unequipped people save lives in medical emergencies. That’s not because it’s better to be untrained and unequipped. It’s because sometimes trained and equipped people aren’t there, so people with no training or equipment have to do something. None of those situations are made better by the lack of firefighters or doctors, and no mass shooter incident was made better by the lack of armed good guys willing and able to immediately fight back.

Hero Chris Mintz, who was unarmed and tried to block the Oregon college shooter from entering a room. Mintz was shot seven times. Bravery is not enough.

The bottom line is that the only sure way to quickly stop a mass shooter is for the intended victims to draw, take careful aim, and engage until the shooter is no longer capable of committing murder. That’s it. Laws can’t do it. Signs on walls pronouncing “Gun Free Zone” are about as effective as signs that say “Mass Murder Followed by Suicide is Not Allowed on These Premises”. Policemen like me who arrive long after the murders commence can eventually stop a mass shooting, but not before many innocent lives are lost. The only sure way to quickly stop lunatics with guns from committing mass murder – the ONLY sure way – is to allow and expect the innocent to defend themselves.

I have an honest, reasonable message for the anti-gun side: I get your point. I understand what you’re trying to do. I want to prevent murders just as much as you. It sucks that innocent people, especially our children, might be targeted by an armed lunatic. It sucks to think average, decent people in schools, malls, churches and elsewhere need to carry guns to defend themselves and others from the unthinkable. It sucks, and life shouldn’t be that way.

You know what sucks worse? What sucks worse is to look back at a long history of mass shootings, realize that laws and passive measures failed to prevent them, and then demand more laws and passive measures that we already know won’t prevent the next one.

If we’re serious about stopping the next mass shooter, let’s make sure he knows he won’t face a room full of defenseless victims. Let’s not give him total control during the long police response time. Let’s make him fear his intended victims, instead of allowing him to feel godlike power over them. Let’s make sure any pathetic, cowardly loser who thinks he’ll “be somebody” by committing mass murder has to factor in the likelihood of being shot down like a rabid dog within seconds of drawing his gun.

Let’s allow and expect the innocent to carry a gun and protect themselves from a murderer. That’s the only way we can prevent another massacre.

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

The Duty to Not Make S**t Worse

chrishernandezauthor — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:00:00 +0000

Doctors have a guiding principle: “First, do no harm.” Their most important job is to not cause more damage. “Given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good.” This is a good life principle. If I don’t know how to change a timing belt, I probably shouldn’t take my engine apart and just hope I can figure it out. If I don’t know electrical wiring, it’s probably a bad idea to rewire my house on my own. Because if I do those things, I’ll cause more harm than good.

Simple enough, right? Apparently not. Far too many of my fellow gun rights supporters don’t understand this principle. One particular type likes to dress in garish clothing, grab a weapon and run toward the nearest camera whenever they see an opportunity to “support gun rights”. These gun owners don’t help the situation; instead, they only manage to show the entire world they’re nothing more than poorly or completely untrained attention whores.

The gun rights version of “First, do no harm” is “Don’t make shit worse.” These particular gun rights supporters are making shit worse.

Recently several “Oath Keepers” decided to make shit worse in Ferguson, Missouri. Their arrival generated a flood of negative publicity, reinforced the widespread perception that we gun owners are unstable lunatics looking for a fight, and heightened already sky-high tensions between police and protestors. According to the Washington Post, the Oath Keepers said they were in Ferguson to “protect someone who worked for the Web site Infowars.com.” Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that adding heavily-armed conspiracy theorists into a volatile near-riot doesn’t exactly help.

These Oath Keepers are worried about the militarization of police. The rest of us are worried about the militarization of conspiracy theorist morons.

The Oath Keepers, fortunately, did nothing more than attract tons of negative media attention and anger protestors (although some of them apparently told protestors they were there to protect protestors from police). But their presence dramatically escalated the likelihood of violence, in a town already racked by it. The police didn’t want them there. The protestors didn’t want them there. They showed up anyway, and made shit worse.

After the Chattanooga terrorist attacks, dozens of armed citizens arrived at recruiting centers to stand guard. The desire to defend our military from attack is laudable. The way in which some of those armed citizens defended our military was laughable. Many armed citizens, especially those who seemed to want nothing more than attention, simply made shit worse.

Nothing says “I’m a highly trained gunfighter” like a tactical kilt or ‘Murica onesy.

At least one man claimed online that he parked outside a recruiting center with a weapon concealed in the vehicle, watched from a distance and didn’t make his presence known. That makes sense, and I admire him for doing that. I also believe some armed citizens who stood guard displayed proper weapon-handling skills and didn’t dress like Call of Duty characters. That’s admirable as well.

Unfortunately, there were many others who were not only inept, but dangerous. Their presence didn’t make our military safer. Those armed citizens saw a problem, grabbed their guns, headed to recruiting centers and made shit worse.

This sailor looks a bit apprehensive about having a rifle pointed at his head. He must hate the Constitution.

If you’re going to defend a recruiting center from terrorists, it’s imperative that you don’t put sights on your weapon or carry extra ammo. Because you want terrorists to have a sporting chance.

Nothing says “I’m a highly-trained gunfighter” like a flimsy, open top, non-retention, cross draw holster.

Don’t get me wrong; armed citizens can do great things. When a hurricane hit Texas several years ago, my neighborhood lost power for weeks. Local police were overwhelmed and couldn’t respond to many crimes. A neighbor handed out rifles to people he trusted, and they set a roadblock at the neighborhood’s only entrance to keep looters out. The entire time they operated the roadblock, they saw one police officer, one time; he drove up, said “looks like you guys got this under control”, and drove away. Those neighbors took up arms for the right reasons, and did the right things with those arms. They didn’t make shit worse.

The Oath Keepers in Ferguson made shit worse. Many of the armed citizens who stood in front of recruiting centers made shit worse. Ridiculous open carry activists who dress like fools and do stupid things designed to piss off the public make shit worse. Dumbasses who carry AR-15s into airports, just because they can, make shit worse. The lunatic who opened carried a shotgun into Wal-Mart, bought ammo and loaded the shotgun inside the store made shit worse.

The gun owners making shit worse aren’t fighting terror or tyranny, and they aren’t advancing the cause of gun rights. They’re just making themselves look stupid, and helping the anti-gun side paint us all as moronic extremists. The rest of us 2nd Amendment advocates are letting the crazies drive the gun rights bus. And we need to stop letting them represent us.

Airports are dens of crime and you need an AR-15 to defend yourself inside them. Which is why it totally makes sense that you’d drop off your teenage daughter at one of these highly dangerous places.

Gun rights extremists like those I just described will now scream, rant and have a seizure while invoking their holy mantra: “But I’m legally exercising my rights so you can’t criticize me!”

No, dumbass. There are lots of things you have the right to do, but if you do them you’re just stupid. You have the right to nail your penis to your bedroom wall. If you do it, you’re stupid. You have the right to cover your face in gang tattoos. If you do it, you’re stupid. You have the right to carry a confederate flag through Watts at 3 a.m. while yelling “Bring back slavery!” If you do it, you’re stupid. And you have a right to put on your best goth clothes or favorite gas mask, grab the nearest antique rifle and beg for attention… I mean, “rally for freedom” at a state capitol. But if you do it, you’re just stupid.

Engaging in the above actions doesn’t make you a patriotic hero of the Constitution. It just makes you non-criminally stupid.

I believe in the 2^nd Amendment. It is a necessary tool to prevent this nation from falling to the tyranny so common throughout human history. Our founding fathers understood human nature and knew governments always seek more power for themselves, at the expense of the governed. The architects of our Constitution forever granted us the power to prevent our government from stripping inalienable rights. But it’s safe to say they didn’t write the 2^nd Amendment because they wanted us to dress like clowns, inject ourselves into tense situations, display gross incompetence with our weapons, and make shit worse. If some fool had wrapped himself in the first U.S. flag and accidentally pointed his musket at Thomas Jefferson’s head during the Constitutional Convention, I’m sure even George Washington would have told him, “Please take leave of this hall, sir. For ye be worsening the defecation.”

This freedom-lover wanted to open carry two pistols into the St. Louis zoo, because zoo patrons are in constant danger of being massacred. Freedom-haters wouldn’t let him. You know who else didn’t allow dual open carry in zoos? Adolf Hitler, that’s who!

A critical incident of any type requires dedicated, trained, intelligent people to successfully resolve it. Medical emergencies are resolved by people who perform lifesaving tasks when required. Fires are brought under control by people who conduct necessary tasks to both fight the fire and prevent its spread. Resolution of a crisis relies upon people not just showing up, but doing the right thing when they show up.

But gun rights extremists keep showing up and doing the wrong thing. Oath Keepers in Ferguson injected themselves into a highly volatile situation that required only a spark to spiral out of control. Had they engaged in a shootout with cops, protestors or criminals, the glut of media and protestors surrounding them would have virtually ensured unintended casualties. Some armed citizens showed up at recruiting centers and put more people in danger because of their ridiculously poor weapon-handling skills. We’re lucky only one accidentally fired his weapon while showing it off. Open carry extremists keep doing stupid things like walking into buildings with weapons in combat-ready holds. They’ve gotten weapons banned from several places.

None of these actions help. They just make shit worse.

This is a totally non-threatening way for this gun rights supporter to carry a weapon into a public building. Just as non-threatening as carrying an axe over his head, ready to swing.

We on the pro-2^nd Amendment side have enough problems to deal with already. If you’re a gun rights supporter, and feel you must carry your weapon into the public eye, do it for the right reasons. Do it the right way. A firearm is a tremendously powerful tool and its use demands the utmost respect; don’t treat it as a theatrical prop. Show the world that there are good people with guns, who have proper training, and aren’t looking for opportunities to scare their fellow citizens.

But don’t do stupid things that make shit worse.

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

New holsters from a new company, KSG Armory

chrishernandezauthor — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:30:00 +0000

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

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

Tuckable holsters, $45

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

Tim McGraw is Part of the Sandy Hook Conspiracy!

chrishernandezauthor — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:00:00 +0000

So here’s an interesting development. Tim McGraw is putting on a concert to support an organization called Sandy Hook Promise. Sandy Hook Promise supports laws and efforts to protect children from gun violence (I realize this concert is somewhat controversial, but that’s not the point of this essay.) McGraw is doing this partly because his longtime fiddle player, Dean Brown, has a close friend named Mark Barden. Barden is also a musician, and lost a child in the Sandy Hook Massacre.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/timmcgraw.asp

Recap:

1) Mark Barden lost a child at Sandy Hook;
2) Mark Barden is a musician and good friend of Dean Brown;
3) Dean Brown is Tim McGraw’s fiddle player and has been for 22 years; so
4) Tim McGraw will perform at a concert to support a Sandy Hook-affiliated organization.

Why is this interesting? Because the Sandy Hook Massacre never happened! It was faked by the government! The school was closed years before the fake massacre! No children were killed! The “parents” were all actors! [Insert whatever other ridiculously moronic claim you feel is appropriate].

The inescapable conclusion is that Tim McGraw is part of the Sandy Hook conspiracy. Honest!

A fellow writer, Maya Bonhoff, pointed something out in a comment on another post yesterday: if there was no massacre and no children were killed, Dean Brown either doesn’t know his longtime friend Mark Barden is a government shill or Brown is part of the conspiracy. Likewise, McGraw either doesn’t know his fiddle player of two decades is a government shill, or McGraw is part of the conspiracy.

Maya explains this better than I can:

“How do the CHFF (Conspiracy/Hoax/False Flag) advocates propose that this connection has not resulted in the whole deal being blown? Does Dean Brown not realize that Mark Barden is 1) a crisis actor paid to pretend to have had a son, 2) a citizen of Newtown who never had a son, but has been hired by the government to pretend he did, 3) has a son who is still alive but in hiding somewhere, 4) had a son who was killed by the government, but is accepting money to pretend that Adam Lanza really did the deed?

If he does know one of these things, why has he not come forward? He’s just the sort of person CHFF advocates posit is in a position to blow the whistle on a CHFF of whatever nature.

Take your pick of the above or advance a new theory, then please respond. How does a conspiracy in an open environment (not hidden somewhere and where traffic from outside is not limited) account for all such connections of people to the world?

My point is that this connection between a Sandy Hook parent and a high profile friend, who is frequently in the limelight and who travels extensively, is just one out of thousands that would have to have been carefully researched and accounted for in the plan with contingency plans for every one of them.”

Maya is an accomplished author, and discusses the logical and logistical problems inherent to conspiracy theories from a writer’s perspective in this post: http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2014/05/14/truthers-vs-writers-time-freeze-frames-connections-and-back-story/

Maya very politely asks Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists to address this connection between Tim McGraw and a [fake] Sandy Hook parent. I’d also like them to address it, but my request is far less polite.

Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are a bunch of brain-dead morons. The kindest thing I can say about them is maybe they’re mentally ill or suffering from Alzheimer’s, rather than simply being window-licking stupid. Please, conspiracy theorists, explain why Tim McGraw is putting on this concert. Does McGraw know the massacre never happened? Is he part of the conspiracy? Is he innocent and being manipulated by his evil fiddle player Dean Brown, who actually is part of the conspiracy? Or are both McGraw and Brown being tricked by Mark Barden, who conned his longtime friend Brown into believing his son was murdered?

Please come up with some plausible explanation. I’ll hang out here until you do. In over two years you haven’t come up with even one actual piece of evidence to support your stupid “theory”, so I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to actually say something logical.

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

Open Carry, Part II: Confessions of a 2nd Amendment “Butter”

chrishernandezauthor — Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:28:21 +0000

mysanantonio.com

Recently I wrote an essay titled “Please, Open Carriers, Stop ‘Defending my Rights’” (https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/07/06/please-open-carriers-stop-defending-my-rights/comment-page-2/). In it I explained that I’m a 2nd Amendment supporter, and that I think it’s absolutely ridiculous for so-called “gun rights activists” to open carry AKs and ARs into private businesses, especially if they’re carrying at the combat ready (what I call “Stupid Carry”). I gave good reasons why OCing a rifle into Chipotle or Starbucks creates enemies of the 2nd Amendment, rather than gaining support.

It was the most successful essay I’ve ever written. 55,000 people read it in one day. It’s been shared on many gun forums, Facebook pages, and Twitter feeds. Numerous 2nd Amendment supporters agreed with me. Of course many others didn’t, and made sure I knew they didn’t.

You are a sellout, plain and simple. Just another spineless Repugnicunt. Please Sunshine Patriot. Fuck off.

the second amendment was put in place to fight off a tyrannical government and thats it, not hunting not sporting to protect people liberty the constitution its self when you dont have a means of doing that your dead already you no marine guy tell you combat buddys share your posts with your unit they would give you a blanket party every night your a disgrace to everyman and women whos ever wore that uniform.

2A is the right to bear arms, period. You butters who judge who, what, where, and how are playing right into the MDA’s hands. Legal carry is legal carry. Grow a set or STFU.

You people bashing your fellow gun owners are ignorant cowards. They are exercising their rights, either get behind them or stop talking like you support the 2nd amendment. The hypocrisy and PC bullshit from you supposed patriots is pathetic.

According to these guys, if you don’t support open carrying a rifle into Chipotle you’re a “butter”, which is a person who says “I support the 2nd Amendment but…”. I guess I’m one of the worst butters, since I’ve been so vocal about the blatant stupidity of walking into Chipotle with an AK. And I do say, “I support the 2nd Amendment, BUT I think you’re a moron if you walk into Chipotle with an AK at the combat ready.”

I find the whole “butter” thing pretty amusing. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the principle; we’ve heard many elected representatives say stupid things like “I support the 2nd Amendment for hunting. But I don’t see a reason to own an assault rifle.” Those people don’t understand what the 2A is for. It’s not about hunting, it’s about the citizens’ right to resist tyranny. In fact, since Newtown I’ve written several essays about the importance of the 2A.

These are about how armed citizens and armed teachers can deter and defeat active shooters.
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2012/12/17/cowards-mass-murders-and-the-american-public/
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/09/03/everything-thats-wrong-with-the-argument-against-protecting-schools-with-guns/
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/12/19/80-seconds-of-wisdom-about-school-shooters/
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2012/12/31/unarmed-teachers-and-our-addiction-to-failure/
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/08/27/an-unarmed-woman-stops-an-active-shooter-what-that-means-and-what-it-doesnt/

This one is about the importance of keeping military weapons in civilian hands as a means to resist tyranny.
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/02/12/weapons-of-war/

This essay is about an experience I had when I was a UN police officer in Kosovo, where I failed to stop other officers from stomping on people’s rights. This experience, probably more than any other, proved to me how important the 2nd Amendment is.
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/01/15/my-life-as-a-tyrant/

This one is about how ignorant of reality many gun control supporters are.
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/01/28/seven-rounds/

This is about the failure of gun control at its most fundamental level.
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2012/12/24/gun-control-making-a-statement-not-an-impact/

This essay is about how deadly force can be justified even against unarmed criminals.
https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/11/21/a-loudmouth-female-police-cadet-trayvon-martin-and-the-knockout-game/

In addition to writing about the importance of the 2nd Amendment for the last year and a half, I’ve been shooting and collecting weapons for thirty years. I’ve been a vocal gun rights supporter and opponent of gun control my entire adult life. As a cop I’ve strongly advocated citizens’ right to carry. As a soldier I’ve gone to war twice to defend our rights. But I think carrying an AR into a restaurant in a combat-ready hold is a stupid act that’s guaranteed to create enemies.

Since Newtown, the 2nd Amendment has been under incessant attack. When a grinning, shades-wearing OC activist poses like an immature child with his SKS ready to fire inside Chipotle, the anti-gun side screams “Look at this dangerous killer! This is why we need to ban guns!” And much of America agrees. Which leads to a greater likelihood of new gun restrictions. So this is probably nuts, but I kinda think we shouldn’t give more ammunition to the people who desperately want to disarm us.

But if I criticize Mr. Shades, I’m a “butter”. Well then, I guess I am. And I don’t care that the extremist, fringe, “If you disagree with me about anything you’re a traitor” crowd considers me a “butter”.

And anyway, I have my own opinions about the radical OC crowd. I think they’re living out a fantasy where they’re the righteous dragonslayers, bravely defending our rights while all other, lesser humans cower in terror. I suspect they surround themselves with likeminded friends who constantly reinforce their “us versus them” bunker mentality. And they’re pretty loose with who counts as “them”. They don’t only oppose the anti-gun side, they’ve even labeled many gun rights supporters enemies for not being sufficiently radical.

And some of them really think they’re at the forefront of a holy crusade. Some pretty interesting comments to my essay were from OC activists who compared their actions to the Civil Rights Movement.

…But if you want to defuse the argument further its really simple. All rights movements were ‘scary’ ‘offensive’ ‘stupid’ ‘wrong’ at the time, look at slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, and gay rights….And oh how scary and offensive it must have been when the blacks sat down in the white cafe!

How long have you supported Jim Crow laws, Mr. Hernandez?

Yes, because carrying an AK in Chipotle is no different than blacks risking being beaten and arrested for sitting at whites-only counters. Gosh, those open carriers are so courageous to risk nothing by carrying weapons into places where they’re not threatened.

But civil rights comparisons weren’t the best comments. One guy made a weird comparison between the OC movement and resistance to the Holocaust.

First they came for the long gun open carriers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a long gun open carrier.
Then they came for the pistol open carriers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a pistol open carrier.
Then they came for the concealed carriers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a concealed carrier.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

A longtime reader of my blog sent me an interesting essay which I think explains the psychology behind the extreme “I’m going to walk into Chili’s with an AK in a combat ready hold and if you think I’m wrong you’re a traitor!” group. Basically, they don’t care how their actions make them look. They don’t care that multiple, huge media outlets use their actions to smear the entire gun rights movement. They don’t care that many gun rights supporters are publicly saying “Please stop this, you’re hurting the gun rights movement!”

The writer of this essay, Lee Harris, was a Vietnam War protestor in the 60’s. His goal was to force a change to policy that would end the war, and he opposed anything that would create enemies of the anti-war movement. His friend, however, was going to participate in a massive, disruptive anti-war protest designed specifically to cause problems for the general public.

“My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.

What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.

…The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.”

http://denbeste.nu/external/Harris01.html

And the “I’m doing the lord’s work and you all are cowards” fantasy isn’t the only one these guys indulge in. Many of them cherish the fantastical belief that there is nothing threatening about carrying a rifle in public in a combat ready hold.

…the picture of the two standing in Chipotle “rifle at the ready” was taken by a customer wanting a cool picture, he had the safety knowledge to keep his finger off the trigger because realistically, that’s the only way the firearm will go off.

…[You’re] showing pictures of some guys with guns on their chest saying its threatening. I see nothing of the sort. Until I see a head down on the sight plane, gun in hands ready to engage, then I see no combat or combat ready posture.

So according to these guys, unless someone is actually pointing a weapon at you and pulling the trigger, there’s no threat. I find that humorous. Comparing that to pistol carry, I guess a guy walking around a restaurant with a pistol in a combat ready hold isn’t threatening either. If you saw me in Chili’s with my pistol in Sul, you’d have no reason to worry at all! I mean, my eyes aren’t on the sights, right?

What? You think there’s something threatening about me walking around a restaurant with my pistol in a combat ready hold? Hoplophobe! Anti-gunner! Butter!

Then again, since I can punch out and engage from this position in less than a second, maybe it is kinda threatening. Just like, oh, walking around Chipotle with my rifle combat ready is kinda threatening. I bet most OC activists would freak if a bunch of cops walked up to them with their pistols unholstered. But OC activists insist they’re not being threatening when they carry like that, and that only peoples’ irrational fear of guns would make them scared. Some of them like to accuse anyone who opposes stupid open carry of being scared of guns.

I guess that applies. I’m terrified of guns. Just hearing the word “gun” makes me wet my pants. Here’s proof that I’m scared of guns.

That’s me being scared of my M4 in Afghanistan.

That’s me being double scared in Iraq. Not only was an M4 up front, but a .50 was mounted above me.

That’s me screaming in terror as I fire my pistol from my back.

That’s me being horrified of my personal M4 at a training course. The instructor is using a stick to make my carbine malfunction because he’s terrified of guns too.

I got tired of only being scared of ARs, so I decided to be scared of AKs too.

Here’s me teaching a friend to be scared of guns.

Here I am firing a carbine with my eyes closed because I’m just so terrified.

This is right after I came home from Iraq. I missed being terrified of all the M4s in Iraq, so I bought one to be scared of at home.

In this one I’m firing a suppressed French sniper rifle. I needed the suppressor because I shrieked like a little girl every time the gun made a big loud bang.

In these I’m being scared of my M14. Oh, and of the numerous AK-47s the Taliban were shooting at me at the time.

So, sure, I just oppose Stupid Carry because I’m scared of guns. Right. There’s no other possible explanation.

Or maybe seeing a bunch of yahoos walking around a restaurant carrying military weapons which are specifically designed to kill people quickly and efficiently is kinda scary to Joe Regular Guy. Maybe it’s scary because said yahoos carry them ready to engage. Should I blame Joe for getting nervous when Shades walks into Chipotle posing with his SKS? Call me crazy, but I just don’t see Joe as unreasonable for wanting to eat dinner with his family without complete strangers wandering around showing off weapons designed to kill people real fast.

And before you OCers start screaming “Hoplophobe! You’re scared of an inanimate object!”, calm down and answer this questions: why do YOU want military rifles? Is it because they’re completely non-threatening? Or is it because they’re powerful tools that give you the means to resist tyrannical force? I’d guess that you want them for the same reason I do, because it gives me means to resist. Doesn’t “means to resist” equal “power to kill”?

And who cares if it’s inanimate? An axe is inanimate, but if some joker walks into Chipotle with an axe over his head, yeah, I’d get nervous. If some clown walks in with an inanimate samurai sword in a special two-handed decapitating hold, yup, I’m going to prepare for a shooting. And if some “gun rights activist” hits the salad bar with an inanimate AK-47 in a combat hold, yes I’m going to keep one eye on that guy and one hand on my pistol.

Now, go right ahead and tell each other “That Chris Hernandez guy is a coward. He’s afraid of guns.” Prop each other up. Stroke each others’ egos. Cause you’re right, I’m oh-so-scared, while you’re so brave. I’ve only carried my weapons into foreign lands where thousands of people wanted to kill me. I’ve been shot at. I came damn close to being hit. Other around me did get hit.

Which means nothing, of course. I oppose Stupid Carry, so I’m a coward. You, on the other hand, have carried your weapons into Chipotle, where dozens of regular, unarmed people posed no threat to you at all.

How brave of you.

You want to do something that’s actually brave? Take responsibility for your actions. Admit that your desperate quest for attention gave the anti-gun side the equivalent of a neverending ammo belt to use against us. Stop blaming Moms Demand Action and Bloomberg for using your pictures as “propaganda”. You posed for those pictures yourself. All MDA did was use your own stupid actions against you. Stop blaming “gun snobs” for looking down on you. Other gun owners are looking down on you because you’re doing stupid crap that hurts the 2nd Amendment, not because they’re snobs. Stop hypocritically saying “It’s wrong to criticize the way someone exercises their 2nd Amendment rights” while simultaneously screaming “How dare you use your 1st Amendment rights to criticize me!” Stop contradicting yourselves by saying “carrying a rifle into Chili’s makes perfect sense!” and then saying “we’re only carrying rifles into Chili’s to show how ridiculous it is that we can open carry rifles but not pistols.”

Tell you what, if open carrying a rifle makes so much sense, do it when you’re by yourself. Don’t only do it when you’ve got 50 other guys with rifles to back you up. Walk into Chipotle by yourself, with your rifle in a combat ready hold. See what happens. Let us know how it works out for you.

Someday, if you guys ever grow up, you might realize you don’t own the 2nd Amendment. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church doesn’t get to decide who “real” Christians are, you don’t determine who real 2A supporters are. I don’t have to prove my loyalty to you. No matter how many guns you carry into Target, you’re not the scariest people I’ve ever dealt with. You won’t frighten me into agreeing with you.

Liberals tell me I have to be a democrat because I’m Hispanic. Bullshit. Conservatives tell me I should be republican because I’m a veteran. Bullshit. Now you “gun rights activists” have created your own “you either support my right to stupidly pose with my SKS in Chipotle or you’re a butter” litmus test. You think you can intimidate all of us into falling in line with your extremism. You think I’m supposed to fall to me knees and beg you, “No, please don’t call me a butter! I’ll carry my M4 into Chipotle, I promise!”

Bullshit.

In my very pro-2A world, extremists don’t speak for the rest of us. We didn’t give radicals keys to drive the pro-2A bus. The clowns giving ammo to MDA, Bloomberg, Jon Stewart and a host of liberal media outlets don’t represent me. In the country I fought for, nobody has the standing to tell me “You must think the same way I do.”

I can determine for myself what the 2A means. And I think I understand it much better than the guys wandering around Chipotle with AKs.

http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0FJFCDRKEX3JMWKS1NKM

Please, Open Carriers, Stop “Defending My Rights”

chrishernandezauthor — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 18:26:08 +0000

I’m not sure what’s going on with the gun rights movement lately. We faced a serious threat after Newtown, but at the grass roots level, America showed that it does not want more gun control. Most major gun control efforts failed miserably. Gun sales have soared. More and more good, decent citizens are getting concealed carry permits. The public is slowly learning that despite the incessant media focus on guns, actual gun crimes have plummeted. A few prominent liberals like Anthony Bourdain have tried to convince other liberals to stop demonizing gun owners. By most measures, we on the pro-2nd Amendment side have won.

But then open carriers go and screw things up.

Photo credit thetruthaboutguns.com

At last count several large corporations including Starbucks, Sonic, Chipotle and now Target have at least asked OCers to stop open carrying at their businesses. I’d guess they did this because OCers were driving customers away. The businesses’ request, of course, drove some pro-2A people nuts. These businesses have all been accused of being “anti-gun”. In reality, they just want to sell stuff. On their private property. You know, in accordance with their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They aren’t required to take sides in a fight they never wanted to be involved in. They should be left out of this.

But instead of leaving the uninterested out of the debate, open carriers have apparently adopted a policy of forcing people to take sides. They do this by flaunting their right to open carry, carrying specifically to provoke a reaction, carrying for no logical reason in really stupid places, and basically making asses of themselves. Then they take pictures of themselves proudly “defending our gun rights”.

Really, who wouldn’t feel comfortable walking into Chipotle’s with this gaggle of freedom-lovers hanging around outside? It’s not like any of them are CARRYING THEIR F’KIN’ WEAPON AT PORT ARMS, which has been taught as a combat-ready position for decades. And just look! None of them, NONE, have their weapon slung in front, which is where we soldiers carry our carbines on patrol so WE CAN QUICKLY RAISE THEM TO SHOOT PEOPLE IN THE FACE.

This has been explained by other writers already, but it’s worth repeating: if someone is carrying a weapon at port arms or low ready, it’s no different than walking around with a pistol out of the holster in a combat grip. Professionals carry their long guns in front when they’re prepared for imminent contact. When I was overseas and outside the wire, my weapon was either in my hands or hanging on my chest. You know, the way OCers carry their weapons inside coffee shops.

Statesman.com

Now, I’m going to do a little compare and contrast. Take another look at the totally non-threatening latte buyer above. Note how his weapon hangs by the sling on his chest. If I ever have a chance to ask him, I’m sure he’ll say nothing in the manner of his open carry suggests he’s a threat.

Now, check out this guy:

US Army photo

Notice that he’s carrying his weapon in pretty much the same manner as the latte buyer. But he is, in fact, one hell of a threat. Because the soldier, probably unlike the coffee shop customer, has been trained how to quickly raise his weapon and engage. The soldier carries his weapon up front specifically so he can shoot people with it. The fact that the open carrier apparently doesn’t know that he’s carrying his weapon in a combat-ready manner kinda suggests he shouldn’t be carrying it in a coffee shop.

And then there are guys like these flaming morons, wandering the streets with AR-15s that they can probably barely operate. And intentionally walking past a police station. While talking like rappers. And bragging about their right to open carry. Just to get attention.

But you know what’s even sadder than that? When you realize that those ridiculous open carry bozos were actually safer and less threatening than the coffee shop guy.

Now, let’s say I’m in Home Depot. I carry a concealed pistol every day. I’m with my wife and kids looking at appliances. We turn the corner to another aisle. And I see this guy, carrying an AK with his hand on the grip and finger just outside the trigger guard.

Photo credit nationalmemo.com

I now have a decision to make. Is this an open carrier demonstrating in support of a right, that we already have, by walking around Home Depot completely oblivious to the fact that he’s carrying his weapon ready for action? Or is it an aspiring active shooter who just ditched his trenchcoat to expose his weapon? Might I be forgiven for not realizing that he (supposedly) doesn’t intend to appear threatening, and that he’s just clueless?

Many of us pro-2A people carry a gun just in case we run into some murderous nutcase wandering around a business with an AK ready to open fire. Then we encounter “gun rights activists” wandering around businesses carrying AKs ready to open fire. But the gun rights activists are supposedly on our side. And we’re supposed to be able to quickly tell the difference between the two. At least one open carrier in Georgia couldn’t tell the difference, and drew on another open carrier recently (http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/todays-top-stories/x1736693358/First-day-of-new-gun-law-leads-to-arrest).

Here’s another example. How do these guys, especially the woman carrying with both hands on her weapon, not know they’re carrying in a threatening manner?

——–
EDIT: I had to remove this image because I inadvertently attributed it to the wrong source. The picture is originally from the Detroit News (who charges for its use), and can be seen here: http://www.colorsmagazine.com/stories/magazine/88/story/us-gun-owners-want-the-right-to-order-caramel-frappuccinos-while-fully-arme
——

Could it be… gosh… maybe they’re not the highly trained master gunfighters some of them imagine themselves to be?

Call me crazy, but I feel one of my responsibilities as a gun rights advocate is to show people that gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who aren’t a threat to the innocent. If I were to, say, walk into Chipotle carrying an AK at the combat ready, I’m pretty sure I’d accomplish the exact opposite. And I really couldn’t blame regular Joe for being afraid of me. Think about it, guys. If a cop walks into Chipotle with a rifle, people will get scared. If a soldier walks into Chipotle with a rifle, people will get scared. If some unknown guy walks into Chipotle with a rifle, especially if he’s carrying it at the combat ready, people are going to get scared. In America, carrying a rifle into a restaurant isn’t a normal act. Right or wrong, it scares people. And you won’t make people less scared of guns by intentionally scaring them with guns.

At this point, I’m sure open carriers will call me “Hoplophobe! Anti-gunner!” or whatever else helps their “You’re either one of us or one of the enemy” mindset. My response is, “Sure, whatever.” I’m 100% pro-2nd Amendment. In fact, I actually support the legal right to open carry in private businesses. I support it the same way I support the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest at soldiers’ funerals. I consider both acts to be the height of stupidity. I think the WBC and open carriers are only harming their own cause. Both acts are moronic. But this is America, and people have a right to be morons.

Peaceful open carry rallies where gun owners safely carry long guns slung across their backs on public land? I’m down with that. Blatantly ridiculous, orchestrated confrontations where open carriers walk into private businesses with rifles at the combat ready, just to piss people off, knowing that all they’ll do is create more enemies? No thanks.

So please, open carriers, stop “defending my rights”. Just stop. You’re not helping. You’re not creating friends. You’re not “proving how important it is to exercise our rights.” You also have a right to wander the streets dressed in drag; do you exercise that right? And you’re not “getting people used to open carry.” For years, the Westboro Baptist Church has angered people by protesting at funerals. America hasn’t gotten used to it. We grudgingly tolerate it because it’s legal, but pretty much everybody hopes the WBC picks the wrong funeral and gets beaten senseless. America will never say, “The Westboro Baptist Church? What a great group of guys!” And you open carriers will never NOT provoke a reaction by carrying an AR-15 inside Chipotle.

But maybe, if you keep doing this stupid crap, you’ll turn more gun-neutral people into anti-gun people. Once you create enough enemies, you’ll finally hit the critical mass that gets new gun control laws passed. When that happens, I won’t just blame those anti-gun people. I’ll blame YOU.

ADDED 7/9/2014: I just ran across this video. I don’t know anything about this guy’s background, but he makes a lot of good points.

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, 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 [email protected] or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

Stop Wishing for a Revolution

chrishernandezauthor — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:32:39 +0000

In case you haven’t noticed, the revolution has begun.

This past Sunday, June 8th, two… uh… “patriots” started the revolution that so many long for. These two highly-trained, brave, dedicated defenders of freedom chose to spark this revolution by ambushing two police officers who were tyrannically oppressing slices of pizza at CiCi’s. Our heroic resistance fighters also managed to kill an American citizen who was evilly exercising his 2nd Amendment right to carry a concealed pistol. The revolutionaries then built an impregnable bunker out of Walt-Mart merchandise, because that’s what highly-trained revolutionaries do. And they bravely fought police who were unreasonably trying to restrict their freedom to murder people. By “bravely fought” I mean they shot wildly, missed their targets, then tried and failed to carry out a suicide pact. The male revolutionary was shot by his wife but died from police gunfire. The wife, in an act of cowardice sure to please the founding fathers, shot herself in the head.

Hurray. Viva la Revolution.

Since I started writing about the importance of the 2nd Amendment, I’ve done a lot of reading on pro-2A web sites and blogs. Most of what I’ve seen has been reasonable. Some of it hasn’t. Too often, I’ve seen either veiled hints or threats of revolution, or claims that America desperately needs one.

Photo credit opednews.com

“Revolutionary” posters, shirts and bumper stickers now seem to be more popular than ever before. Likewise with novels and nonfiction books about the coming “Second American Revolution”. It would seem that a growing number of people actually do want another revolution. And once that number becomes big enough (as it apparently has), the statistical likelihood of someone carrying out an act to further this revolution increases.

Photo credit cafepress.com

To a degree, I understand where some of this feeling comes from. I get the belief that the federal government has overstepped its authority. I believe the current administration has shown, especially with the Benghazi and Bowe Bergdahl incidents, that it’s badly disconnected from the public it’s sworn to serve.

I get being upset at the government. But I don’t get this:

Many people across the political aisle from me think the very possibility of a revolution is ridiculous. They write snarky, snide comments about wannabe revolutionaries. They ask rhetorical questions like, “You think you can fight the government? Then you better have tanks and fighter planes, because you can’t fight a real army with just those stupid assault rifles.” But those snarky, snide commenters are wrong. Unfortunately, a real revolution could happen, and could happen today. I’ve written about how and why American civilians could fight the government with weapons we have now (https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/02/12/weapons-of-war/). As a cop and combat veteran, I know what a well-trained fighter with a rifle can do.

I disagree with the revolutionary rhetoric. But I don’t disagree because I think a revolution isn’t possible. I disagree because I know a revolution is possible. And I know it would suck.

This might be a surprise for the revolutionary crowd, but sometimes war isn’t fun. Especially if it’s happening around your homes and families. I doubt the Iraqis enjoyed having air strikes hit their neighborhoods. I know the Afghans didn’t have a good time cowering in their homes while we fought Taliban just outside.

So, “revolutionaries”, if this wonderful Second American Revolution starts, do you think your homes and families will somehow be exempt from the chaos? Maybe you guys haven’t really thought this through.

A lot of so-called revolutionaries seem to be just about as capable, brave and well-trained as the two morons (I refuse to name them) who launched the pathetically stupid attack in Vegas Sunday. My guess is that those who loudly proclaim “revolution!” are the least capable of actually fighting one. In a real revolution, most of the 400 pound keyboard commandos who think they’re unstoppable anti-government warriors because they take their AR-15 to the range once a year would either die immediately or flee after the first fight. Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan, they’d be the dumb ones who were killed off first.

Yes, I know there are actual fighters out there. I personally know many trained, experienced, brave men who aren’t running their mouths about starting a war, but who would take up arms if they felt there was no choice. They aren’t plotting to shoot random cops or concealed carriers. They don’t plan on committing suicide behind a makeshift barrier of Walt-Mart toilet paper and candy bars. They’re actually not planning anything; they’re living peaceful lives, staying fit and proficient, not presenting a threat to anyone. But if the government crossed the line they’d resist, and resist well. They’d be the real fighters, the guys who would still be there after the aforementioned dumb ones died off.

Those potential real fighters aren’t reason for concern. They’re simply on guard. Every American citizen should be on guard against government overreach. The people to worry about are the stupid fools who think they’re somehow “doing something” by murdering random people. The people to worry about are the ones who desperately wish for a revolution, without knowing or caring about the suffering it would cause the country they claim to love.

I love my country. I love the freedom it stands for. I’ve gone to war twice to defend that freedom. I understand that, if things get far worse than they are now, it may be necessary to fight against our own government. I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point. And I don’t want us to ever get there.

Want to know why?

In Afghanistan I watched an old lady desperately herding children toward a house so they’d be safe from the firefight she knew was about to start. A Taliban fighter shot past her, at me, and missed badly. Snipers in the mountains behind us shot over our heads and hit two Taliban. The old woman’s body language betrayed her terror; she frantically struggled to push the children forward, out of the crossfire, before both sides pulled triggers on scores of weapons. Later, when the fight really did start, helicopters fired machine guns and missiles into woods right behind an Afghan home. Taliban fighters opened fire on a young boy who walked onto the roof (they must have thought he was one of us) and forced him to flee in panic back into the house. A firefight erupted around the house while the family hid inside. In another fight, I watched French soldiers firing anti-tank missiles over a village to hit enemy positions on a mountainside. One missile malfunctioned, went off course and slammed straight into a house. An innocent woman was killed. Later two young girls were killed by indirect fire.

Pardon me if I don’t want that to be my 70-year-old mother, trying desperately to get my children to safety. Pardon me if I don’t want that to be my son, being shot at for no reason. Pardon me for not wanting my backyard to become a battlezone or impact area for an air strike.

And by the way, the houses over there are built to stop bullets. Our houses aren’t.

Every war, no matter when or where, kills civilians. Every revolution leaves innocents caught between opposing forces. And revolutionaries tend to be very casual about the lives of people who they think aren’t revolutionary enough. Throughout history, rebels and revolutionaries have killed their own people for daring to not support the cause. Call me crazy, but I really don’t want to see our civilians trapped in a crossfire and killed by errant bullets, missiles, mortars, or air strikes. I don’t want people who are just trying to survive to be murdered for their neutrality. I don’t care whether those civilians are liberal, conservative, or neither. They’re Americans. They’re the people I’m sworn to defend.

So maybe our aspiring revolutionaries should quit wishing for our people to suffer horrible tragedies. Maybe they should stop imagining themselves as warriors, if in reality they can barely operate a weapon, are so out of shape they can’t run 100 yards, and get all their “training” from YouTube videos. Maybe they should stop seeing themselves like this:

Photo credit americanspecialops.com

if they actually look more like this:

Photo credit thetruthaboutguns.com

If this wonderful “revolution” will be started, led or fought by the kind of raging, car-stealing, murderous clowns who attacked Vegas last weekend, then screw the revolution and anyone who supports it. Nobody should waste time fantasizing about a civil war where only the bad guys die (no war has ever been that simple or easy). Instead we should just keep working together to achieve peaceful solutions. Because if someone actually loves this country, they shouldn’t want to see it torn apart by war.

Officers Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck, and brave armed citizen Joseph Wilcox, rest in peace.

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 has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at [email protected] or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

A (Mostly Tactical, Partly Ideological) Argument against Open Carry

chrishernandezauthor — Fri, 02 May 2014 15:03:59 +0000

Photo credit news.yahoo.com

I’m not a fan of openly carrying a pistol.

Before you accuse me of being an “anti-gunner” or liberal activist, you should know I’m about as pro-2nd Amendment as they come. I’m a 20 year cop, 25 year Marine and Soldier who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and am 100% supportive of armed citizens. I’ve written extensively on the importance and need for the 2nd Amendment, and effectiveness of armed citizens against a variety of threats.

Having said that, I think open carry is a bad idea.

No, I’m not saying everyone who open carries is a bad guy. Nor am I saying there’s never a good time and place for open carry. Several people have told me success stories about open carry, and I believe them. But hear me out on this. As a cop I’ve carried a gun on and off duty for decades, and have a pretty good grasp on the factors involved with being armed in public. So I’m going to lay out my reasons why people shouldn’t, generally speaking, open carry a pistol.

1) OPEN CARRY MAKES WEAPON RETENTION HARDER

I started as a cop in 1994, not long after police went through a collective “holy cow” realization about how many officers were killed with either their own or their partner’s gun. For decades cops were more concerned with a fast draw than a secure holster, and as a consequence lots of cops were disarmed and killed. Around the early 90’s equipment companies started pushing security holsters, and police academies started training harder on weapon retention techniques. The number of officers killed with their own weapons fell sharply. In my first years on the street, I was in a couple of chaotic fights where the suspect apparently unsnapped my holster without me realizing it, but couldn’t get my weapon.

Fast forward a few years to 2001. I was a UN police officer in Kosovo, working with officers from 54 countries plus the local cops. In my unit we had officers from America, the UK, Greece, Germany and a few other places. I bought my own security holster, but our Greek cop carried his pistol in a really slick, not very secure quick-draw holster. He sold those holsters to several local officers, over my objections.

One afternoon we were in the office before shift. One of the locals had his Glock in the Greek speed holster. As the local officer conversed with coworkers, I walked up behind him, slapped the holster snap with my left hand and yanked his pistol out with my right. He spun around in shock. I handed his pistol back and told him, “that’s why you shouldn’t use those piece-of-crap holsters.”

Then I felt a tug on my weapon. I turned around. The Greek officer had seen me disarm his customer, got angry, and tried to do the same thing to me. But he didn’t know the sequence of movements necessary to remove my weapon. My gun was still secure in the holster.

So what does this have to do with open carry?

The average non-LE belt holster has, at best, a single snap. Many holsters rely on only friction and a tight fit to keep the weapon in place. For a concealed weapon, that’s generally regarded as an acceptable risk; it’s hard for someone to go for my gun when they have no idea it’s there. But if you’re walking around with an exposed weapon in a typical holster, especially in a crowd, you’re at risk of being quickly disarmed.

Photo credit breitbart.com

If you’re willing to spend the extra money on a security holster (they’re not cheap), and willing to put up with the extra bulk (they’re not small), then I’m a little more with you on open carry. But if you think, “I’m going to be so alert all the time, nobody could possibly disarm me,” you’re wrong. Nobody is switched on 24/7. We all get tired sometimes, we all get lazy, we all get complacent. We can all be overpowered by someone bigger and stronger. If you’re open carrying with a regular holster, you can be disarmed, period.

EDITED TO ADD: A reader shared this video in the comments.

This wasn’t a holster issue, but it illustrates an important fact. Not every criminal is afraid of a gun. If you open carry, you may just make yourself a target.

2) IT’S BETTER TO BE THE AMBUSHER THAN THE AMBUSHED

When I’m in public, I don’t advertise that I’m armed. I don’t wear anything that says police, I rarely wear anything related to the military. One of my goals is to be the “grey man”, the guy nobody notices. Cops or military guys may pick up on clues and ping me as one of their own, but almost nobody else will. And that’s a good thing.

If I’m ever unfortunate enough to find myself in the middle of a crime in progress, I doubt the criminal will immediately ID me as the guy who needs to be shot first. I won’t wear tactical pants (anymore), or t-shirts with huge Glock or Colt symbols, or anything else that screams “I’m probably armed”. Instead, I’ll be just another face in the gas station, bank, mall or theater. In most cases, this gives me a distinct advantage.

Criminals get tunnel vision just like everyone else. Watch videos of convenience store robberies; you rarely see a robber watching his back, or securing customers. Most robbers quickly scan their surroundings for cops or other immediate threats, go to the counter, produce the gun, get what they want and run. If I’m regular Joe in the background, I can draw and make my move when I have the element of surprise.

If I don’t think the robber is going to hurt anyone and I don’t want to risk opening fire around innocent bystanders, my “move” may be to be a good witness. But if the robber is threatening enough or starts shooting at the clerk, I can engage him from an advantageous position, like right behind him. There’s nothing immoral about shooting a bad guy in the back.

If the worst ever happens, and I wind up in the middle of a robbery while my wife and kids are with me and I have no choice but to fire, I’d much rather be involved in a “shooting” than a “shootout”. Ideally, the robber will figure out I’m armed right after he yells “Ow, something bit me!” like Forrest Gump and falls to the floor with multiple gunshot wounds. That’s a much better outcome than having the robber walk in, see me openly carrying, and shoot at me first.

EDITED TO ADD: These two videos give examples of what I mean.

If you’re in a place targeted by a criminal, carrying concealed could give you an extremely important advantage.

3) OPEN CARRY ATTRACTS A LOT OF ATTENTION

This is one of the more contentious points about open carry. The anti-gun side thinks anyone who open carries wants to scare and intimidate people. Even if the open carrier is doing nothing threatening, doesn’t say anything and behaves in a totally benign manner, people around might still freak out. Earlier this week I wrote about the recent incident in Forsyth County, Georgia, where a man was legally open carrying at a park. This generated twenty-two 911 calls, sparked hysterical reactions from local media, and was the subject of really stupid reporting from the Daily Kos (https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/04/28/open-carry-the-daily-kos-and-mass-hysteria-in-georgia/).

Photo credit 11alive.com

People at the park got so scared of this man, they herded their children into a baseball dugout and stood guard in front of it. One woman broke down crying for the camera, saying her son asked, “Did that man want to kill me?” This incident has received national attention, been blown way out of proportion, and is being used by the anti-gun side as yet more proof that pro-gun people are insanely violent (“That crazy man was carrying a gun in a park! Around children!”).

So what did the open carrier accomplish?

If his goal was self-defense, I guess it worked. No criminals attacked him while he walked through the park, probably because they were too distracted by the stampede of terrified parents rushing their children to the dugout. And criminals definitely weren’t going to try to rob the guy as police screeched into the park in response to the twenty-two 911 calls. So he achieved safety, at the cost of being the center of tons of unwanted attention from the local public, police, and eventually much of the country. Keep in mind, this was in gun-friendly Georgia, not some liberal paradise like California.

And some open carriers deliberately try to inflame the public and provoke a police response. This goes back to what I wrote earlier this week: I support open carry as a political statement. I don’t support it as a tactic. If your goal is to rile everyone up and force them to accept your right to carry, fine. Walk around with an AR-15 across your back and a Colt 1911 on your hip, and have your friends follow with cameras. You will get the public’s attention. You will provoke a police response. In an open carry state you should be simply questioned (not detained) and allowed to go about your business, which apparently is to make as big a scene as possible. And maybe to put a video on YouTube, showing how you were hassled by freedom-hating cops for no reason.

Is that why we want to be armed? To force people to react to us?

Carrying to provoke a reaction and then complaining about that reaction is pretty dumb. It’s right on par with a woman walking around topless in New York City because it’s legal there, then complaining “people were staring at my boobs”. Many gun-rights advocates loudly claim they want the government to leave them alone, then some of them take actions calculated to get police officers all up in their grill. Human nature is human nature. Guys will stare at any exposed boobs that happen by, and people uncomfortable with guns will freak when someone openly carries a gun around them. Open carriers and topless women can be as legal as the day is long, but they’ll still have to deal with the unreasonable and unwanted attention their actions bring.

Some of you will undoubtedly say, “I don’t have to change my behavior because of other people’s stupid reactions.” I agree, in principle. But we should also be free to walk in the woods without being eaten by bears. Unfortunately, bears attack and eat people because, well, they’re bears. Liberals and the media overreact, distort, inflame and try to spread panic about armed citizens because, well, they’re liberals and the media. My reason for carrying a weapon isn’t to prove anything, it’s to defend myself, my family and innocent people around me. I can do that better if I don’t have a crowd of panicked liberals calling 911 on me, police questioning me and TV cameras following me to report the Manufactured Outrage of the Week.

Again, as a political statement, I get it. This is America, please speak out about what you believe. But if you’re trying to provoke a response, don’t act like your goal is to be just a regular guy, no different from everyone else except that you happen to be armed. You can exercise your 2nd Amendment rights without making a scene, which in my opinion works out better for all of us on the pro-gun side.

4) WE GET BETTER RESULTS BY ENGAGING ANTI-GUN PEOPLE IN CONVERSATION THAN BY BEING CONFRONTATIONAL

This is going to be another contentious point, because not all open carriers are trying to be confrontational. I’d guess most of them aren’t. But many have been, and I think that confrontational stance works against us.

As a writer, I travel in some pretty liberal circles. The modern writing culture is basically overrun with extremely left-leaning people. As a conservative soldier and cop, I’m the fringe element. And because of this, I’ve had quite a few conversations about guns and gun control with liberal friends.

We on the pro-gun side often justifiably feel that debating the other side is pointless. We want to tell people preaching “reasonable” gun control to shut up, slap them with a copy of the Bill of Rights, show them our openly carried pistols and walk away. Unfortunately, while slapping them and walking away might be satisfying, it doesn’t help. And actually does more harm to our side.

I had a conversation recently with a very intelligent, very reasonable liberal friend. This guy is knowledgeable as hell on many subjects, and discusses everything rationally. Except guns. On that subject, he checks every irrational, emotion-driven box there is.

When we had the gun control conversation, he broke out the usual arguments (“the kind of people who want to carry guns are the ones I’m afraid of”, “if someone drops their gun it’ll go off”, “guys with guns will get mad and shoot it out over minor arguments”, “if everyone’s carrying guns how can the cops tell who the bad guys are”, etc). We had this conversation at a coffee shop, and he thought I wasn’t armed. When I told him, “You’ve never seen me without a gun”, he was taken aback. He seemed to think guys who carry guns can’t be trusted, have no self-control, and will spray and pray at the drop of a hat. When he found out I’m always armed, he had to reconsider.

My friend and I have been attending writers’ group meetings for over a year, we’ve hung out at bars and restaurants, and he’s never seen me do anything stupid. Being armed doesn’t make me cocky and impulsive like he thought it would; on the contrary, because I’m armed I’m much more likely to avoid confrontations. After the conversation, my friend had a new perspective. Chances are, next time he’s around his liberal friends and the topic of gun control comes up, he’ll totally screw up their mojo by saying, “I was convinced that only wackos carry guns. But then I found out this totally normal friend of mine always carries a gun. He calmly explained why he thinks I’m wrong about gun control, and he made a lot of sense.”

Photo credit whitewolftactical.com

Call me crazy, but I think that kind of interaction is worth a lot more than the shock tactic of, say, walking into Starbucks with an AR-15. Had I been openly carrying, our very productive conversation would probably have never happened because my friend would have been scared to talk to me (since, you know, I might have gotten angry and opened fire). Even if my friend doesn’t change his stance on gun control, he still learned that armed citizens aren’t the racist, redneck, Tea Party insurrectionists and child-eating NRA members some liberals think we are.

I know the anti-gun side’s tricks. I know many of them engage in irrational, overtly emotional attacks on us. I get sick of it too. But there are intelligent, reasonable people on their side who will listen to us if we make the effort, and some of them do change their views. We gain a lot more traction when self-described “New England liberal” author Justin Cronin writes an essay titled “Confessions of a liberal gun owner” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/confessions-of-a-liberal-gun-owner.html?_r=0) or Anthony Bourdain tries to convince his liberal friends to stop demonizing us (http://anthonybourdain.tumblr.com/post/62424540749/guns-and-green-chile) than we do by telling everyone who disagrees with us to fornicate themselves. Or by openly carrying a pistol, just to piss off the people we know are scared of guns.

Again, guys, I’m not saying open carry is flat-out wrong and nobody should ever do it. If you’re in a place where open carry is normal and accepted, and you think it’s worth the risk of being disarmed or spotted by criminals, do what you think is best. There undoubtedly are places where open carry doesn’t raise an eyebrow and criminals know better than to cause problems, just like there are places women can walk around topless without being ogled (or so I hear, but my wife won’t let me confirm that).

But in a whole lot of America, legal or not, open carry is going to cause problems, and it’s going to put you at more risk. Which is why I think it’s a bad call. Not that it’s evil, not that it’s immoral, not that it should be illegal. In most cases, it’s just a bad call.

http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1398105777&sr=1-1&keywords=proof+of+our+resolve

Killing the “All Soldiers are Always Armed” Myth

chrishernandezauthor — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:58:20 +0000

I need to address a persistent myth. I’ve seen this myth written in editorials and heard a well-known news commentator repeat it. I’ve had friends repeat it to me during polite conversations.

This myth is blatantly ridiculous. Numerous news articles about the debate surrounding this myth have been published in the last few days. These articles show that this myth is…wait for it…a myth. Yet many people still cling to it. So I’m going to try to kill this myth. It’s not going to work, but I’m going to try it anyway.

Myth: soldiers on military bases in America carry loaded weapons all the time.

Reality: SOLDIERS ON MILITARY BASES IN AMERICA DO NOT WALK AROUND EVERYWHERE WITH LOADED WEAPONS.

This myth leads some people to an objectively wrong conclusion. They believe that despite all those armed soldiers everywhere on Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan and Ivan Lopez couldn’t be stopped. Gosh darn it, they were just so powerful and terrifying, resistance was futile. They consider the Fort Hood shootings proof that not even highly trained and armed soldiers, much less armed citizens, can stop an active shooter.

Thursday an LA Times editorialist wrote, “Oh sure, Fort Hood may beef up security. Maybe even adhere to the National Rifle Assn.’s mantra, which is that if everyone is armed, everyone is safer. Though it seems to me that that is already the case on a military base, much as it was at the Washington Navy Yard in September, when crazed gunman Aaron Alexis fatally shot 12 people. So maybe arming all the people all the time isn’t the answer?”

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-ft-hood-shooting-ivan-lopez-gun-violence-20140403,0,7203981.story#ixzz2xybwPdcT

Last year during a debate between Piers Morgan and Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt, Morgan said, referring to the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, “Even when you have a mass of well-trained people and a mass of firearms, you can still have a massacre.” (The relevant part of the discussion begins around 3:30.)

Thursday night I had a long conversation about gun control with a very intelligent, well-educated, liberal friend of mine. The discussion turned to Fort Hood. My friend, who is not an unreasonable man, thought soldiers “keep their issued weapons in their desks or something”.

Friday the LA Times editorialist posted a halfhearted retraction, wherein he admitted he was wrong (but then claimed his point was that Fort Hood was heavily guarded but the shooting still happened, so there’s still no point in trying to defend yourself). Morgan was fired, although we don’t know if he ever learned how wrong he was about military bases. My friend’s incorrect belief was quickly corrected.

But what about the rest of the country? Not all of it, but the part that says, “Having a gun doesn’t help. All those soldiers had guns, but they couldn’t protect themselves. They had to wait for the police to save them.” They’re wrong, but they don’t know it. They don’t want to know it. So I’m writing this for them. Please spread the word.

Soldiers can’t carry weapons everywhere on post. Their issue weapons are only removed from the arms room for training. If the soldiers are going to fire those weapons, the ammunition is taken directly from the ammo storage facility to the range, and whatever isn’t fired is taken back to storage. Soldiers don’t carry issued weapons and ammo everywhere on post.

And soldiers can’t carry personally owned weapons on post either. They have to be registered and secured. If a soldier has a concealed carry permit and legally carries off post, he still can’t carry on post.

The only people authorized to carry weapons on post are Military Police and Department of Defense Police. MPs have to turn in their weapons at the end of their shift. They don’t take their weapons home like civilian police do.

Do you get it yet? Military bases are “Gun Free Zones” (which don’t really exist, since the only way to enforce a Gun Free Zone is to have guys with guns search everyone). The strange, twisted ideas you have about masses of highly trained, experienced and ARMED soldiers being totally defenseless against a murderous psychiatrist or mentally unstable truck driver are fantasies.

And they’re not just fantasies. They’re convenient fantasies. They’re blatantly untrue and can be dispelled with the most basic research. But they reinforce your belief that carrying a gun for self-defense is pointless. They “prove” to you that being armed does no good anyway (“Look at what happened at Fort Hood! All those soldiers with guns couldn’t protect themselves!”).

You’re wrong. You’re blatantly, embarrassingly wrong. If you have other, reasonable arguments against armed self-defense, fine. Use those. But stop citing the Fort Hood shootings to support your stance. Those shootings don’t prove armed self-defense is pointless. But they do expose the ridiculous stupidity of requiring otherwise-capable citizens to be helpless victims of violent criminals.