Gun-Control & The Nature of Things
( #guncontrol #TGDN #TCOT #RedNationRising )

All Positions, or Policies, that are built on a Fundamentally Flawed Premise, are Doomed to Failure.

All arguments are built on certain beliefs, or presuppositions. And, those beliefs must be consistent with the truth of the world around them. These beliefs must also be based on things that are predictable and repeatable. That is to say, we must base our beliefs on the rule, not the exceptions. Those predictable and repeatable aspects of the things, people and world around us, are called “The Nature of Things”.

For example, it is the Nature of Gravity to make things fall. Now many scientists will immediately clarify that it is actually drawing you to the center of a large mass, or that anti-gravity is theoretically possible. But the fact remains, that if we step off a cliff, unassisted, we will fall. We act in our lives as if this is the Nature of Gravity.

Many people may want to pretend or “wish” that something was different; but, this does not change the Nature of the thing.

The Policy that states that outlawing, or restricting, the ownership of certain types of weapons will reduce crime; is based on a fundamentally flawed premise that denies the Nature of Things. The Nature of Humans is that we are designed to be a Predator. From our bifocal vision to our reaction to stimuli, we are built to hunt. Only through “socially-acceptable norms”, do we control this inner beast. However, not all in our communities feel tied down by our “socially-acceptable norms”. They remain the predator.

In Rory Miller’s book, “Meditations of Violence” he eloquently states that the predator only sees two things; Odds and Meat. The gazelle does not deter the lion by outlawing teeth, or by having “Hunt Free Zones”. Expecting to change the behavior, through social rules, someone, who has rejected the idea of rules; is doomed from the beginning.

We will never protect ourselves from the predator by disarming his prey or passing laws that he will never follow. We must learn to face, and defeat, the predator.

Secession as a valuable tactic within a Cultural Cold War #secession #TGDN #RedNationRising

Stages of secession

Mental – commit to the concept of not allowing the other side to control what/how you Think about the issues

Emotional – commit to the concept of not allowing the other side to control what/how you Feel about the issues

Social – commit to the concept of building community only among those who hold the same core beliefs

Economic – commit to the concept of supporting only those within your Community

Physical – commit to the concept of peaceful separation with those who fundamentally agree.

Big Tent Lie

The conversations in my life seem to be dominated by a few large categories: Religion, Politics, Financial Security, and Personal Security. And, in each of these areas I find a disturbing “Truism” creeping in.

The Truism is that we need to “more inclusive” or “tolerant” of divergent views. This concept is sometimes referred to as the “Big Tent” approach.

However, the consequences of each of these conversations are so large; it is difficult and dangerous to assume that all points of view are equally valid.

The Big Tent approach is most commonly discussed in the realm of Politics, and is particularly intense right now among “Republicans”, still reeling from back-to-back loses for the White House. Predictably, the media, “strategists”, and other gurus of politics are blaming the GOP for not embracing this minority group or that special-interest group. And so, the answer, universally, seems to be “if you are more attractive to this group, they will vote for you”. In other words, “Compromise”.

“Include this view into the platform, and include that view into the platform. We need a Bigger Tent”. The GOP’s problem is not that they do not have a “Bigger Tent”. The GOP’s problem is that they do not have a “Brighter Tent”. A Bigger Tent is defined as including all points of view, no matter how divergent. A Brighter Tent is defined as having a message that draws people under it.

Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No One comes to the Father, But through ME.” (John 14:6). That is not a message that is inclusive of all divergent views. Jesus would not agree that, “We all believe in the same god.”

Spending more and more on your Credit Cards will not bring you prosperity, no matter what the commercials promise. Hard work and savings are the only true path to Financial Security.

Believing that the Human Predator currently attacking you or your family is simply a “misunderstood youth, who did not receive the same opportunities”; and so, you should reason or talk your way to safety; will get you Killed.

No all view points are Valid. No matter how passionately held or repeated. All views have consequences, and the results of those consequences are how we define true success.

If the any political party wants to have a future in this country, they need to reestablish the narrative that will attract supporters.

The DNC has found a message of government support and largess. The GOP is unsure whether to copy this view or try something different. The results of this view will end up in larger deficits; less freedom and lower standards of living.

I would suggest the messages of: Personal Liberty, for yourself and your neighbors; Lower Taxes, which allow families to decide how/where/when/if to spend their money; Charity, it is not charity if given from coerced taxes;

For years the GOP has been trying the concept of having a “Big Tent”. And they have been consistently losing more voters. (Fewer people voted for Mitt Romney, than voted for John McCain). They will continue to faded to the history books until they realize; “They do not need a Bigger Tent; They need one with Brighter Colors and Broader Stripes that rallies people to it.”


She Thinks I am a Nut…

Posted: September 26, 2012 in mindset, preparing, Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

She thinks I am a nut…
Getting your Wife on board with your preps

Before I get hate mail from our female readers/students, I am specifically using a husband prepper and a not-so wife because of two reasons. Because, this is a question that I most commonly get from men; and, because it is the only perspective, to which, I can personally attest.

Now, if one of our female readers/students would like to write or rewrite this article from a woman’s perspective; I would be happy to publish it. C’mon Ladies, let’s hear it.

Now my confession is that I have an amazing wife who not only tolerates my craziness; but, sometimes, encourages it. But, we still have a different view of preparation and their priorities. So, when we are discussing the what/how and most importantly when/why; we have to understand the reason that the other person may, or may not, want to pursue a particular prep.

So, for those of you who struggle with a disinterested, or even hostile, spouse when the topic of preps comes up. I suggest thinking, and speaking, about it from her perceptive.

Such as (these are examples, feel free to add your own in the comments):

Skill – Bugging Out
Husband – You want a backpack full of survival stuff, to go live in the woods if TSHTF.
Wife – She wants a backpack full of camping stuff, so that the family can spend time together on the weekends.

Skill – Food Storage
Husband – You want 3-6 months of food storage to survive the natural or man-made disaster if TSHTF
Wife – She wants to get a good deal on soup/water/juice/etc. when it goes on sale

Skill – Bulk food storage
Husband – You want bulk food stored up for when TSHTF
Wife – She wants to start cooking more meals at home to save money and eat healthier

Skill – Gardening
Husband – You want to be able to grow you own food when TSHTF
Wife – She is concerned about GMO food and wants to eat organic without having to pay Whole foods prices

Skill – Guns/Hunting
Husband – You want to be able to protect and feed your family when TSHTF
Wife – She thinks it is a good opportunity for you spend time with the kids.

Gear – Bikes
Husband – You need transportation when the EMP wipes out the cars or generally TSHTF
Wife – It is a good way for the family to spend time together and get exercise.

Gear – Bug Out Bag, Water filters, tents, stoves, etc..
Husband – Items that you need in your Bug out bag (see Bugging Out)
Wife – (see Bugging Out)

Gear – generator
Husband – You need your own source of electricity when the grid fails or TSHTF
Wife – We need to save the cold food in the freezer if the power goes out.

Follow us on Facebook @:

And on Twitter @: @TNTCombatives

We will start running group classes this fall (hopefully at our new private range). Remember, the drills and 1- on-1 are only as effective as you make them. Train like you fight; fight like you train.

Most of our training, both unarmed and armed, is done in “isolation”.

For example, we will spend a lot of time hitting or kicking a heavy bag. Or, we will spend a lot of time, at the range, shooting ever smaller groups. But rarely, do we work on moving from one technique to another.

While delivering a “knock-out punch” or a precise shot may ultimately end the fight. It is the actions that lead us to that opening, that ultimately decide whether we, or our opponent, take that “shot” first.

The “glory” is in making the shot, or delivering the punch. But, the “work” is in everything that precedes it. So, it is the “work” that should dominate our training.

Sucker punches, and drive-by shootings, prove that random techniques work. But, as warriors, we cannot depend on fate or random results.

“if you believe you can; or, you believe you can’t…you are probably right.”

It is an old saying that is directly applicable to the warrior’s life. I began thinking about this after watching a friend of mine teach a basic handgun course.

In his preamble, he talked about that; while he hoped that he would never have to use his gun, he was willing.

The question is: would he really?

I have heard other instructors say something very similar, including several that have already walked that path. And, every time I can’t help but wonder whether they really mean it, or is it just Politically Correct BS.

My thought was that we are too often concerned how others might perceive us, and so we add these type of “hedges” to our conversations. The problem is, these comments can begin to program our reactions.

So if you “say” that you “hope you don’t have to use your gun” only two possibilities exist: 1. You really believe it; or 2. You are lying because of what people might think.

If the first, then when you are faced with that critical moment, you will hesitate. You really believe that you do not want to shoot anyone, so you won’t.

If the second, then you run the risk of programming the wrong response. We are all familiar with the what/if scenarios that we play out in our heads throughout our day. Your attempt at being more “socially acceptable” can get you killed.

Instead of excusing your abilities and beliefs, learn to embrace and explain them. More on that later…

In order to survive an ambush, you must have already failed to detect/avoid it. Which means that no matter how attuned your situational awareness, or how fast your reactions, you are now behind in the OODA loop.

So, the question becomes, how do you survive long enough to respond?

Our answer is trained instinct. Take those things that you do naturally, and make them unconsciously work for you.

The two primary areas of focus are structure and momentum. Every child on a swing understands the nature of momentum. And when you put your arm out to break a fall, you understand structure.

A lot of Combatives instructors are starting to work with instinctual structure, or more commonly known as a flinch. Tony Blauer is probably the best well known and his S.P.E.A.R. System is the best developed. I would recommend studying his work to any serious student of Combatives. Like the bow of a ship, structure is that formation of your hands, body and equipment that allows you to survive the initial strike(s) by redirecting the force of the impact away or around you. It defuses or deflects the full force of the attack to a point that is survivable. Some students ask if this is the same thing as a traditional block. No. It may look like, or even be, a block. But the difference is that this is unconscious and instinctual. Most traditional martial art blocks presuppose that you saw the attack and are responding appropriately. That is the nature of a fight, not an ambush. So, the next time you are working with a partner, or two, put on your protective gear and have them attack you randomly. See what you do naturally. Then, with the help of Combatives instructors like Tony Blauer or our group, begin to build/rebuild your instinctual structure into something that works for you.

Secondly, momentum. A lot of martial arts, namely Aikido, Judo, Jiujitsu, etc., spend a lot of time working on using your momentum and your opponents. But, again, so often it depends on the conscious mind in order to correctly deliver the technique. Wrestlers, judoka, and other high level martial arts eventually develop a innate sense of the momentum of themselves and their opponents. But most of us do not have the time to develop that skill like they do.up

How do we develop our instinctual sense of momentum? Do we have one? Yes.

Do you know when you are about to fall? Can you tell if a stack of blocks is about to fall over?

Again, this is something that we know, but do we know how to make it work for us. When you are working with your training partner, or two, from the structure drill. Have them press you. This means have them drive into you like a NFL lineman, your job is to sense their weight and momentum, and step out of the way.

Surviving the ambush requires that you survive the initial attack and then counter-attack. Surviving the initial attack requires that you have trained your instinctual understanding of structure and momentum.

Is there a Biblical model for the Escalation of Force?

I believe a partial answer can be found in the life of the Apostle Paul.

While studying Acts Chapter 14, I was struck by the way Paul and Barnabas handled both implied and direct threats to their life.

Paul and Barnabas were preaching in Iconium under a General Threat or Danger.

Acts 14:1-2 “(1) Now it happened in Iconium that they went together to the synagogue of the Jews and spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and of the Greeks believed. (2) But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brethren.”

Their reaction to a unspecified danger or threat was to remain and press on with their mission.

Acts 14:3 “(3) Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.”

One of the primary reasons that they remained on task even in the midst of this danger, had to do with those new Christians they were leading. We must always stand in the gap when others are depending upon us. Notice that they remained in place “a long time”.

Now what happens when the environment changes from generally threatening, to a very specific, credible threat upon you?

Acts 14:5-6 “(5) And when a violent attempt was made by both the Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to abuse and stone them. (6) They became aware of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region.”

Once the threat had moved from general to specific, it made sense to react to the threat. In this case, flee, or retreat was the right decision. Too often, Christian believe that the willingness to be faithful unto death, martyrdom, requires that we wait for it. Martyrdom is not the same as fatalism. We must be willing to die for our faith, but we must not seek it out.

So what happens when you have been caught and are facing death? We are faithful. And if they do not kill us, then we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and carry on with the mission.

Acts 14:19-20 “(19) The Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. (20) However, when the disciples gathered around him, he rose up and went into the city. And the next day departed with Barnabas to Derbe.”

He picked himself up, walked back into the city and went to bed. He left the next day on his own. Brave!

Last, but not least, what happens when the mission is over? We rest. Paul and Barnabas, having completed their 1st missionary journey, traveled home.

Acts 14:28 “So they stayed there a long time with the disciples.”

The Lord has established the concept of Sabbath, or a period of rest.

So, our reaction to danger looks like this:

General Threat – Press on with the Mission
Specific Threat – React Appropriately
Caught – Be Faithful unto Death
Survive – Return to the Battle
Success – Rest and Refit for the next tasking

Soli Deo Gloria

Whether it is the US Militaries use of stealth fighters, or a sucker punch; all warriors understand that preemption, or throwing the first punch, is critical to winning a violent encounter.

The problem we have in “polite” society is the Hollywood notion of “fair play”. Also, we have the very real problem of proving the legal issues surrounding self-defense.

Too often we attend courses, such as martial arts or firearms, that work everything from the “block-counter” or “from the holster”. This may seem strange on a blog that specifically addresses the issues of the ambush. But, the best way to survive an ambush, is to avoid or detect it ahead of time.

Some schools solve this issue by focusing on “situational awareness”. I agree that situational awareness is the first step in avoiding, or detecting, an ambush. But, very few address the issue of what to do next. Usually, you are taught to observe the threat and then react.

Unfortunately, anyone who has studied human conflict, and specifically Col. Boyd’s OODA loop, knows that action is faster than reaction, and you do not want to be “behind the curve”.

So, how do we deal with a threat without having to wait until they make the first move?

Preemption. Strike First, Strike Hard.

Great, now I just hit, or shot, someone that everyone, and every video camera, will say that I hit him first. Do I just go to jail solaced by the knowledge that I was, “judged by 12 versus carried by 6”?


I was taught by my Training Officers that what I did was only less important than what I wrote. My report set the stage and explained my actions, regardless of what video or eyewitnesses thought they saw. My ability to articulate made the difference between going home, or going to jail.

We do not spend enough time writing about what just happened. It is one of the reasons I began this blog. I need to practice expressing my thoughts in writing.

The next time you see someone, in person or on video, that you would consider a threat, try writing a note to yourself, explaining why. Then ask a partner to read it and see if it makes sense to them. Once you master the skill of articulation, preemption becomes a real tool in your arsenal.