They Don't Get It

Had a conversation with a friend recently. This person is a firearms instructor, current LEO, and former military - and yes, all of these things are important. He had created a YouTube video in which he articulated his opinions on what kind of weapons should and should not be banned from civilian ownership. He drew the line at weapons that required more than one person to operate - crew served weapons, missiles, nukes, etc. He asked my opinion. 

This is where the fun begins. 

I complimented his video. Good videography, B-roll footage, presentation, music, sound, etc. Of course, I disagreed with his imaginary cutoff, but I'm a big boy and am fine with that. He asked why and that's when it became more interesting. As to why, let me give you my main two points:

The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on Government, not people. We have a God-given right to any means to defend ourselves. He drew a line at "when that weapon could be used to enact tyranny." (his words, not mine) I would argue that a simple knife or handgun *could* be used to enact tyranny. 

My second point is this: if a weapon - any weapon - is too dangerous for an individual to possess, then it is FAR too dangerous for any government to possess. He argued the checks and balances with multiple people having to be in agreement to use that weapon. I argued that in the history of the world, every injustice and every tyranny enacted was done by men who were "just doing their jobs." The "check and balance" rationale simply does not float. 

As the discussion progressed, we came to impasse at the concept of how many law enforcement are corrupt. I suggest 30% or so, with another 60% that are either too weak of will or too stupid to do anything but follow the 30%. He was naturally offended at my suggestion that 90% are or might be tyrannical. He suggested 10% were corrupt. He refused my argument that we agree on everything except the proportion. 

Here is where it gets interesting. He asked what I would do to reform the system. We both agreed it may be too far gone to reform - that remains to be seen. My simple, yet admittedly incomplete list was:

1. End qualified Immunity now. 
2. Install 3rd Party oversight boards for allegations of police misconduct. No more "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing."
3. End Civil asset forfeiture. 
4. Reduce police forces by about 75% on average (that number may be somewhat flexible).
5. Eliminate quotas. 

This is where he went off the rails. His acted as if civil asset forfeiture and criminal asset forfeiture are the same. He opines that quotas are illegal in Tennessee and do not happen (despite overwhelming consistent evidence to the contrary). He is of the opinion that qualified immunity is not rooted in an action being legal for one person to do, yet illegal for another. And he stated he did not know what  3rd party oversight board would do. 

Of course, his claims came with allegations that I was being indoctrinated by leftwing sites and blogs. The irony (which is thicker than Kim Kardashian) is that the only consistent sources I know of that provide indoctrination are police and military. 

So let's revert to simple definitions to see who is right:

Qualified Immunity: 

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law.

According to the article linked, SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas has this criticism:

Thomas argued that the court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence “represent[s] precisely the sort of ‘free-wheeling policy choice[s]’” that are not within the providence of courts’ authority.

A civilian is held personally and legally liable for every action that is a constitutional violation. 

Civil Asset Forfeiture:

Civil asset forfeiture laws allow police to seize property, money, or assets if police merely believe it is connected to criminal activity. Police do not have to file charges or even establish guilt in these cases before seizing and keeping property and there is no limit to what police can seize.

Criminal asset forfeiture, on the other hand, requires a conviction of a criminal nature for the assets to remain seized. 

People, regardless of whom, that try to conflate criminal asset forfeiture with civil asset forfeiture, especially after being shown the difference, fall into only one of two categories:

1. Those not intelligent enough to understand the problem (a distinct possibility with a LEO)

2. Those who do not wish for you to understand - often because they have a "dog in the fight." You might say this category is the person with nefarious intent - and you'd likely be right!

Of course, a LEO might well be both - the only profession where there is a maximum IQ and they are trained specifically to lie. 

So, what did I do?

After the above interaction, I ended the conversation and wished him well. This person is either nefarious or too stupid to understand the error of his ways. And a wise reader would take this into consideration prior to claiming that "most of the LEO in my area aren't going to enforce gun confiscation."

Sniper Basics Review

In April, I ventured for a third time to Tactical Response. The purpose of this trip was to take Sniper Basics. Unlike Fighting Pistol, the class had no handout, so I shall follow the instructions from Fighting Pistol on making a review.

Who -
Who attended? I attended, no friends with me this time. There were four other shooters.
Who taught? Instructors were Jay and Louis.
Who could take this and benefit from it? Someone who has dabbled with marksmanship and owns a precision rifle.
Who did I like and who did I want to punch? I liked all of the instructors and participants.
Of note on this topic - the rear tire of my car went flat on Day 2 - while I was in class. Louis, the instructor, patched the tire for me. I dare you to get this at any other firearms school. 


What -
What class? Sniper Basics
What did I do? All of the drills as guided by the instructors.
What did I learn that I expected? Marksmanship and holdovers and wind holds.
What did I see? A very well thought out curriculum designed to get a person with decent listening skills on target out to mid range.
What did I hear? Very good and clear instructions.
What gear did I use? A MK12 Mod 0 Clone with a Trijicon Credo scope. 20 round mags were more than adequate. 
What gear did everyone else use? One other shooter had an accurized, home-built AR15. The other three used tactical precision bolt actions - all in .308. The bolt guns all experienced several malfunctions. For the record, we fired a bit over 200 rounds in 2 days - not extreme by any measure. The Precision semi-autos were definitely the better choice. 
What was I good at and what did I work on? As expected, I was the best marksman on the line. This allowed me to work on adding material and presentation concepts for my classes. A couple of the modules had things that will be modified slightly and worked into my classes. 
What class will I take next? Unknown at this time. Have already taken 4 classes this year. 
What did I learn from other students? Quite a bit. There were two younger shooters, and two older. There were two lighter students and two heavier. On many drills, I gladly performed first so as to break the ice. 
What did I learn at dinner with the instructors? Jay was kind enough to entertain my questions. Many of which about the industry of firearms instruction. Louis chimed in. Tim and Brian were teaching Fighting Pistol the same weekend, and they joined us. Brian also answered some of those questions. 
What did I learn from the lectures? There were no real lectures.


Where -
Where did you come from and where did you attend? I came from Mt. Juliet, and attended at Camden.
Where did you hear about Tactical Response? Internet, years ago. I own several of their DVDs.
Where will you train next? Not sure. I have my eye on a few certifications. Those may come next.


When -
When did you hear about the class? Last year, browsing through their course offerings.
When did you decide it was right for you? Last fall, right after making a bit of money. 
When did you attend? April 9 & 10.
When did you know you made the right choice (defining moment)? When doing the drill where we ran back to grab a single round, then back to our gun, loaded it, and fired on the target. That was fun. 


Why -
Why do you train? Because I like to train. Because it is needed. Because I want to train others more effectively. Because I wish to increase my martial abilities.
Why did you choose Tactical Response? In short - because some people said do not go there. And I've been there. And they boil the topics down to "stupid-simple."


Additional Thoughts
Most of the drills were performed at 100-200 yards. Over 99% of police and military sniper engagements are from under 200 yards. Make no mistake, we went out to nearly 500 yards. 


Run this class with a clean, lubricated, precision AR15. 


The assistant instructors I have helping me are the best around.

Fighting Rifle Review

In March, I again went to Tactical Response. This time, the purpose was to take Fighting Rifle. Unlike Fighting Pistol, the class had no handout, so I shall follow the instructions from Fighting Pistol on making a review.


Who -
Who attended? I attended, along with my friend, "Butler."
Who taught? Instructors were Bryan and Jay.
Who could take this and benefit from it? Most people. Have a little experience with your rifle, first. 
Who did I like and who did I want to punch? I liked all of the instructors and participants.  One non-participant observer was just a tad annoying, and only a couple of times. Jay shut him down before he could make too much of an idiot of himself. 


What -
What class? Fighting Rifle
What did I do? All of the drills as guided by the instructors.
What did I learn that I expected? Virtually all aspects of fighting with a rifle in relatively close quarters.
What did I see? A very well put-together syllabus executed for students of most skill levels.
What did I hear? This is the fun part. The instruction was good. The correction was, occasionally, misplaced. On occasion, the primary instructor would issue a correction when that "issue" was not being performed incorrectly. Example: on many exercises, the primary instructor would say "keep your head up... while the participant had his head *up*.
What gear did I use? A home-built M4A1 SOPMOD Block II - ish clone with an Aimpoint. My pistol was a S&W M&P 2.0 C. 
What gear did everyone else use? Mostly AR15's - one or two AK47's. 
What was I good at and what did I work on? As expected, I was among the best marksmen on the line, as was Butler. This allowed me to work on adding material and presentation concepts for my classes.
What class will I take next? Sniper Basics from Tactical Response.
What did I learn from other students? I could fill a novel with this as I had the luxury of not having massive amounts of pressure to reload, nor having to take notes on any new material. I learned most how the students absorbed the material, and reacted to the cold, incorrect suggestions (see above), and getting tired.
What did I learn at dinner with the instructors? Jay has lots of "war stories" - actual war, as well as instructor funny stories. 
What did I learn from the lectures? There were no real lectures. 


Where -
Where did you come from and where did you attend? I came from Mt. Juliet, and attended at Camden. 
Where did you hear about Tactical Response? Internet, years ago. I own several of their DVDs.
Where will you train next? Not sure. Perhaps back to Valor Ridge with my wife. I also have my eye on a few certifications. Those may come next. 


When -
When did you hear about the class? Years ago.
When did you decide it was right for you? Right after Fighting Pistol.
When did you attend? March 19 & 20.
When did you know you made the right choice (defining moment)? When doing the drill to "race" to mag empty. I had a full mag. Was the first empty. That was cool.


Why -
Why do you train? Because I like to train. Because it is needed. Because I want to train others more effectively.
Why did you choose Tactical Response? In short - because some people said do not go there. And I've been there. And they boil the topics down to "stupid-simple."


Additional Thoughts
We started with the pistol draw. quickly did FAST, and transitions from rifle to pistol. Day 1 was about individual skills. Day 2 was a dive into teamwork. I figured out a lot when doing things their way, and they have been incorporated into my Urban Rifleman class. 

Run this class with a clean, lubricated, AR15 using a red dot. Magpul PMAGs are the way to go. Zero your rifle ahead of time. 

We shot out to *maybe* 75 yards. There was an emphasis on marksmanship, but like Fighting Pistol, a "combat effective" marksmanship was stressed. 

AKs fail more often than good AR15s. 

I'm really not a fan of jacking a round onto the ground during reloads. My class structure will resemble that doctrine. 

The assistant instructors I have helping me are the best around. 

Field Suturing

Some time ago, at a church I previously attended, the decision was made to order medical gear for the safety / security team.  Before I could meet with the administrator who would actually do the ordering, someone on the team (whom I had not put on the team - read into that what you will) got to the administrator and made a list of items. 

What we got was a disorganized mis-mash of items that had varying degrees of applicability.  Band aids, ointment, a strip or two of gauze, bug bite medicine, sutures, etc. Not one tourniquet. Not one hemostatic or wound packing gauze.  Not one proper pressure dressing. Not one chest seal. 

I worked with the administrator on what items to keep for a good first aid kit, what items to return, and what items to order for proper emergency trauma bags. 

When the items came and I put together the bags, the Safety Team memeber whom I had not selected complained that the suture kit was not there.  I explained that the circumstances under which one of our team members would do suturing simply did not exist.  I added that EMTs and Paramedics almost never suture, they control the bleeding first. Later, a doctor decides what repair and reconstruction is needed.  

Of course, this caused that individual to become unhappy.  They said "you don't know what I've done." (Meaning what skills or training they had prior to meeting me). Naturally, I asked them to tell me. 

Silence. 

In a chat group recently, a friend who is a critical care Paramedic shared  this YouTube video from the "Gray Bearded Green Beret." You should really watch the video!

In the video, among the plethora of wisdom shared, Joshua Enyart (the "Gray Bearded Green Beret") states -
"Suturing is not a bleeding control technique."

Ah, if only I had been that eloquent in the situation mentioned above.