What is Wrong with society

Seen on a notice board:

FYI - On XXXDay, [Date], the library parking lot is closed in support of the MMA Cage Fight.

Ok then, I'm glad we've got our priorities straight.

USARAK Concealed Carry Ban for Soldiers revoked

I apologize for missing this right when it occurred. However, I wanted to report on it. As has been previously discussed here, US Army Alaska had a policy which forbade soldiers off duty from carrying concealed weapons off post.

Exactly one year ago, the commander of USARAK revoked the policy due to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. Of course, such revocation was done hesitantly and with feet being dragged:

"I remain convinced that the carrying of concealed firearms represents a significant risk to the health and welfare of soldiers under this command. I am concerned that by revoking the concealed carry policy memorandum Soldiers may be unaware of their legal limitations and responsibilities concerning carrying concealed weapons."

I fail to understand how the previous memorandum helped inform soldiers of their legal limitations or responsibilities when carrying concealed weapons. The previous policy absolutely forbade concealed carry, even if the soldier was a judge advocate general specializing in firearms law. There was no educational component whatsoever.

Furthermore, how can the soldiers under his command be expected to comprehend and follow the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement when deployed to Afghanistan if they cannot handle the relatively simple Alaska firearms laws?

The new memorandum is being copied down the chain of command, with subordinate USARAK commanders basically slapping their signature blocks onto the memo with identical text. This is pretty common in many large organizations though.

Interestingly, the USARAK regulations have not been updated. They still state that it is against regs for soldiers to conceal weapons off post. I have a feeling the new policy memo is not prominently posted...

Still, despite the "strong suggestion" to not CCW, soldiers in Alaska now have another option instead of open carry if they choose to bear arms off post at home station.

How about throwing a 180 grain paperweight at 1015 FPS?

"The third survival tactic is the most difficult but none-the-less necessary. A shooter enters the classroom and starts shooting at people. Remember, there is nowhere to run or hide.

The strategy begins with the first person who notices the shooter and yells “GUN!” Everyone in the room then throws whatever is available, as hard as they can, at the shooter’s face causing him to flinch, and preventing him from taking aim. Then what’s known as the “throw and go” tactic is implemented."

- How to Survive a School Shooting, Larry Banaszak

If only human ingenuity had developed a small device that could fit in your pocket which could be used by any responsible adult that was capable of stopping a violent, deadly force assault. Such a device should probably be considered to be a piece of mandatory safety equipment for schools, like fire extinguishers and or football helmets.

Winning

Positive press about how hard it is for law abiding citizens to exercise specific enumerated constitutional rights in DC and Chicago even in the wake of SCOTUS decisions.

Small Business

65 days to open a lemonade stand, according to John Stossel.

Sounds about right. Alaska, thankfully, is actually generally pretty friendly to small business. Some of the smaller towns have sales taxes and such that are a pain to collect but it generally is ok. Heather did some self-employment in Anchorage and it was easy enough -- the federal taxes are a pain to file but it isn't awful.

We looked at some small business/self employment side job type gigs in our new location and it is awful. I worked it out and to run a small side gig that is NOT on the more highly regulated/restricted professions list and which doesn't include heath service inspections (like for food prep), it would still take about a full work week (40 hours plus) of time to comply with various regulations. It would also cost a few hundred bucks up front each year for fees. Then, you'd have to pay taxes including income, property, and use taxes.

Frankly, for a small business that has zero employees and which grosses less than $5K per year, the hassle is just not worth it. The financial expenses and taxes cut the gross take by over a quarter--and that is only because I am very careful about tracking deductible expenses to reduce the federal tax burden. The time burden is significant too; if you value your time at $10/hour then 40 hours to deal with local bull$&*# plus the 20+ hours spent annually on federal tax compliance wipes out any remaining profit.

I can't imagine running, say, a midsize business. I'm thinking of the sort of business which is essential for your family's well being but not so big that you can hire a large staff. Something like an independent contractor who maybe has one or two part time employees and grosses $20K-40K per year. That's not enough to hire a good tax pro or accountant, but it is enough to get hammered by a ton of regulatory requirements. As soon as you hire your first employee the time investment to comply with all the federal, state, and local requirements vastly increases.

I am forced to conclude that the vast majority of small business owners do not bother to comply with this regulatory burden and simply evade taxes. It is simply not viable to run a business and comply with the costs of compliance. I fear that as states and localities run out of money they will squeeze self-employed folks.

We have been fortunate in that I've had steady employment, and we're and conservative in our spending and thus don't need the money; these days we just generally volunteer or do things as hobbies instead of for side cash, but if we were really strapped I'd be even more peeved. Many people don't have the choice to pass up a bit of income in this economy. From a philosophical level it is also really offensive because many of these laws have racist roots intended to prevent minorities from entering the marketplace.

When did running a small, productive enterprise become a privilege?

Geography Fail?

Wyoming house advances doomsday bill.

Key quote:  "House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier."


What on earth is Wyoming going to do with an aircraft carrier?

WaPo Quote of the Day: Women who travel alone are asking for it

Back to the bus stop example, which comes from a D.C. police crime report on Feb. 14: A woman was sitting at a bus stop on 11th Street NW about 1:30 a.m. when she was robbed of a laptop, cellphone, books, cash and credit cards.

Was the woman at fault for being out that late, carrying so many valuable items? Can she really expect to sit at a bus stop at any hour and not be targeted by criminals?

Courtland Milloy, Washington Post Columnist

Clearly, Mr. Milloy disapproves of female students, businesspeople, or other professionals traveling alone at any time of day. I'd wager that a plurality if not majority of college students of both genders at Georgetown probably carry a smart phone, netbook/laptop, bookbag, and wallet on a regular basis. I assume that Mr. Milloy also thinks that women who don't wear burkas, dare to travel alone after dark, and who are raped in DC were asking for it, right?

Obviously there are some places that it isn't wise to go at certain times. One shouldn't go out of their way to look for trouble. But suggesting that women can't travel alone on the DC Metro subway system at any time of day with normal items carried by the majority of middle class individuals isn't something that I think most rational people would sign on to. I certainly think that Mr. Milloy's comments are offensive. I'd hope that many of his readers do too.

Mr. Milloy can be emailed at milloyc@washpost.com. Be polite, but you may want to remind him that this is not the 1950s nor is it Saudi Arabia, and that in most parts of America, we don't blame female victims for daring to participate in public, professional life.

Employed Again

So, I find myself employed again.  On one hand this is awesome, on the other hand it's going to make these next few months way more hectic than we'd planned on.  Hopefully we can still do the Kodiak trip - I've cleared it with one boss but not the other yet.  I am going to be very busy until I get some routines hammered out.

Logic Fail

Recently, I've been reading some posts at a blogging community for skeptics.  I'm not linking for a bunch of reasons.  Anyway, what brought me over there had nothing to do with guns.  Some of the things being discussed really got me thinking.  I appreciate logical thinking, of course, so I was intrigued.  I read further.  Very rapidly, it became apparent to me that the actual skepticism is only present on certain topics.  For example, when certain libertarian views were brought up, the immediate response was something along the lines of "libertarianism is logical fail!"  When asked for justification, they said well "XX" is the core tenet of libertarians and it doesn't make sense!"  Well, yes, "XX" didn't make any sense - but it was also nothing I'd ever heard of any libertarian believing, or, at best, was being completely misrepresented.  When that was pointed out, the author retreated into "not really knowing all that much about libertarianism, but it was still bad, mmkay?"  Right.

So that little bit made me go searching for what this community had to say about guns.  It was about what I expected, given the libertarian exchange.  The absolutely hilarious part was, in the first few gun posts I read, the these skeptics, who believe in logic and questioning facts, supported their arguments by linking to none other than Japete (and occasionally MB and Baldr).  Seriously.  Someone who claims to believe in logic and skepticism is using Japete as a source??  I sat there and laughed for several minutes.

Aw Crap, I'm Screwed!

Woman hires a hit... on someone wearing fur.  Kindly, she specified that the victim must be at least 12 years old.

Yes, that's right, she's perfectly fine with having children killed for wearing fur.  Just not the super small children.

I'm probably screwed, seeing as I not only wear fur hats and mittens, I make furs into hats and mittens.  Heck, I even make animals into furs.  Ooops.

via SayUncle

Fast and Furious Hits Law and Order SVU

Law & Order SVU is not a gun-friendly show. The characters regularly make light of violating 2A rights, harassing individuals who follow NYC's draconian gun laws. "OMG they own a gun! They must be the perp!" In addition, you see the officers do things that us plebs could never do, like carry into a bar and get trashed and then draw down on the feds with no adverse consequences.

Even this antigun TV show had a Fast and Furious episode. The most recent, number 288, "Child's Welfare," included a murderer who was given his gun by an ATF agent as part of a program to arm Mexican drug cartels. The main characters even condemned the operation! And cited Brian Terry! Shocking! Seriously, when you've lost the liberal TV cops of Law & Order, I think you've lost the PR battle on a firearms related issue.

Of course, in TV land, the Evil ATF agent ended up being arrested and then killed in the "holding tank" by the child of a woman murdered by a perp with the ATF-provided gun. The arrest, awesome; murder by a tween, while perhaps satisfying in a work of art as an act of vengeance, obviously not so good (or legal). In real life, of course, the leaders at ATF and justice department covered up the crimes committed by their agency, there is no justice for the victims of hundreds of victims of ATF-facilitated violent crime, and the administration and gun control hacks still support "Fast and Furious" as a legitimate operation which we apparently need more of. Because what could go wrong by shipping guns by the thousands to felonious drug cartels?

Of course, one of the main characters (Elliot) takes out the tween girl as she moves in for the finishing shot. Of course, the tween shooting one handed manages to hit every single good cop in the room but can't finish off the bad guy. I have a feeling that the character will now have such emotional trauma that he removes himself from the series (also, his contract wasn't renewed).

New Jersey Cops Must Hang Out with Felons

At least this one:

In many states wearing body armor is illegal, so this will also lead to unnecessary confrontations between police and patrons of this garbage wearing it in public.

Um, really? I'm actually not aware of any states were it is illegal for a law abiding citizen to own or wear body armor. In Connecticut, you have to do the sales face to face (except LEOs or military). Under federal law it is illegal for felons to have body armor. In many states, committing a crime while wearing body armor leads to sentencing enhancement. Heck, even in New Jersey it is legal for the little people citizens to wear body armor.

NJLawman (the author of the above linked blog) either hangs out with a lot of felons or doesn't know the law he's apparently in charge of enforcing.

I'll agree that wearing concealable body armor vests out in the open like a fashion statement is retarded looking, but it isn't criminal, nor would I think it would be probable cause.

Favorite Workout

Ryan from TSLRF talks a lot about personal fitness and I generally agree. I am not a workout junkie and he goes a lot further than I do in the gym, but there are definitely benefits to being in shape. After six months of rotten work hours, lots of microwave meals, and few/no opportunities to work out I am getting back into the swing of things.

The best workout routine I've ever found, for me, at least, is pretty simple. Warm up, stretch, run three miles then do some strength training and core work. If you run three miles then do another 20 minutes of pushups, weights, crunches, etc then you will lose weight and get in better shape. Wrap up with a quarter of a mile jog or walk to prevent stiffening up and then stretch out at the end for bonus points.

Running a mile or two is not enough. You need to be doing 20+ minutes of good cardio to get your heart rate up high enough that it will stay high during your strength/core workout. Additionally, I think just about anyone can gut through a mile. I am consistently surprised at the number of people that have trouble with three. I think a lot of that is mental, and regularly running three miles helps build some mental and emotional discipline which is a good thing.

As a variation sometimes I do 10 minutes of more intense cardio -- like sprints or something -- then 5-10 mins of core/strength, then repeat three times. That is also pretty effective at keeping my heart rate up.

My personal fitness goals are pretty minor; I just want to stay at a healthy weight, be able to do the activities I enjoy (backpacking or hunting, for example), and get the mental/emotional benefits from working out a bit and being happy. I find the above workout is efficient -- it takes less than an hour. It is also something I can actually do a few times a week. If you want to be a super body builder then maybe something more elaborate is in order but for me it is hard to beat the combination of two parts cardio plus one part strength plus one part core, in my opinion.

Carry While Jogging. Srsly.

Today is a perfect example of why I am getting a rig to carry my gun while jogging.  I don't have it yet, but we all know how awesome Dennis is and it will be here soon.

Anyway, today I went for my usual three mile run in the morning.  I've done this three days a week since we moved in without any trouble.  Today, though, I had THREE encounters with loose dogs.  THREE.  Now, while I have gotten over the fear of dogs I used to have from two unfortunate encounters as a small child, I have never forgotten them.  I like dogs, we're getting a puppy very soon, but I also know exactly what dogs are capable of.

Now, as it turns out, none of my encounters today were dangerous.  But they very easily could have been, particularly the first one.

The second and third dogs had clearly escaped from someone's control.  They both had collars and leashes.  I stopped to try to catch them up and return them to their owner, but they were having none of that.  I couldn't just start running again, because they were watching me very closely, so I had to walk a fair distance until I was out of their line of sight.

The first dog was even less acceptable.  As I'm jogging along, I see a man in the front yard with dog and kid. Okay, I think, no problem.  I keep an eye on it though.  As I get closer, dog tries to go for a run with me.  Man calls dog back.  Okay, great.  I keep going.  Moments later, there are dog paws tromping on my heels and a jerk on my shirt.  I stop and wheel around and... I can't even remember this clearly, but it ended up with me getting the dog on its back while keeping all of my stuff out of its mouth.  This dog didn't even have a collar on - if the owner hadn't been right there I have absolutely no idea what I would have done with it!  He was right there, though, and I held the dog while he got the collar on, and then continued on my way.

Please, people.  Control your dogs.

Oh, and I only lost five seconds off of my total run time.  If it hadn't been for those dogs, I could have broken my own record!

Unpossible: Shootout at Work

Employee shoots supervisor in workplace dispute.

Except it happened in California, which is supposed to be safer.

And the incident occurred in a Gun Free Zone.

And they were both law enforcement officers.

Still, I imagine we'll hear about how it is the fault of law abiding CCW permit holders, who are more abiding than the general population by several orders of magnitude, certainly more law abiding than gun control advocates, and possibly less likely to be questioned even than cops (it is hard to find statistics on LEO malfeasance, and in any event, the pool is relatively small so I imagine the statistics would swing wildly), and that more CCW permits equals more workplace violence.

Self Defense =/= Condoning Violence

I don't know how common they are in other places, but in Anchorage there are a large number of coffee stands sprinkled along roads.  Basically, they are little trailer-type, drive through coffee shops.  No one has to get out of their car in the cold, all good!  Of course, these coffee stands are usually run by one or two pretty girls - some of them wearing bikini tops to sell more coffee.

Two weeks ago, 18 year old Samantha Koenig was kidnapped from her job at one of these coffee stands.  She remains missing, and we hope that she will be found alive and safe very soon.

The kidnapping has raised conversation about the idea of women working at these types of locations - remote and alone.  Given that this is Alaska we are talking out, one of the more popular cries (alongside "ban the coffee stands") is "arm the baristas."  Julia O'Malley, who writes for the ADN, is of the opinion that Arming the Baristas Won't Fix Alaska's Problem with Violence Against Women.  Of particular interest is her final sentence:

"Women may quit their coffee jobs, or take jujitsu or make trips to the gun range, but that won’t make the change we need. Of course women can reduce their vulnerability, but first shouldn’t we ask why we expect men to hurt them?"

This sentence really, really bothers me because it implies that if I carry a gun, I do so because I expect a man to hurt me.  This could not be further from the truth, Julia.  If I expected anyone to hurt me when I went to work, I would stay home and call the police.  Additionally, she seems to think that by suggesting women learn to defend themselves, we are tacitly approving of men trying to hurt them in the first place, which just boggles my mind.

Now, let's talk about what the end result we are working towards is.  I think the end result is "people not getting hurt by anyone."  Julia seems to think that the end result is "men don't hurt women."  

Even if you ignore the gender thing, which is a whole issue in and of itself that I do not wish to get into, the problem with Julia's line of thinking is that it assumes that the way to address the issue is by controlling other people's actions: make the men stop hurting the women.  However, as we all know, controlling someone else's actions is never reliable and often results in wide-spread impacts on those not even involved (gun control, anyone?).  There is no realistic way to achieve that end.  Now, this is not to say that it should be entirely ignored - but it should hardly be the focus of the discussion because it is ineffective.  While you sit there trying to convince the kind of person who thinks it's okay to kidnap/rape/murder a person not to, how many other people are getting hurt?

On the other hand, empowering the targets of violence is something that can be done.  I cannot control whether someone chooses to attack me, but I certainly can control my reaction.  This applies to all forms of violence, man, woman, whatever.  The fact of life is that there will always be insane, crazy, and evil people out there.  But what other people might do to you doesn't not control what your response to them can be.

So, Julia.  Go ahead and have your discussion on why men hurt women and keep trying to change the world into the fluffy-unicorn-rainbow-sprinkle world you dream of - I'm going out to the range and bringing others with me.

Read more here: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/159791#storylink=cpy"

Blogroll Addition

I'd like to note that I just added a blog titled Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest to the blogroll.

I've been reading TSLRF for awhile but was hesitant to add it. First, this blog is non-partisan, so the inclusion of a political party in the blog title was a bit off-putting. Next, while I favor citizen preparedness for reasonable disasters and emergencies as suggested by authorities like FEMA and the Alaska Department of Homeland Security, I don't consider myself to be a survivalist by any means.

However, I think you'll find that the primary author, Ryan, is a really standup guy. He is an Army veteran returning from a deployment to Afghanistan, definitely not some fringe whacko militia survivalist type. He and I see eye to eye on financial issues and life choices. I learn a lot from many of his discussions, especially personal fitness and kit.

Please cruise over to TSLRF. It is worth a read.

Can I pay it in singles?

New federal budget proposes upping the fee paid by passengers for air travel security screening.

I might be ok with it if I could pay it by tucking singles into the belts of TSA employees. Although, really, they should be tucking singles into my belt, right?

Food Storage

As part of getting our preparations for an emergency squared away we looked at ways to stock our pantry. Our stash of camping food is good for a 72 hour type scenario. However, if a scenario lasts longer -- or even if we just want to have enough calories to feed neighbors, family, etc in a shorter emergency -- it is nice to have more food on hand.

It is also nice to cook with what you use.

With that in mind, we figured we'd try a cheap, easy way to stockpile some calories.

The best option we found was to order food from the Church of Latter Day Saints. I'm not Mormon, but they let anyone order. They have a starter kit which has approximately a month worth of calories (2000 calorie diet, one person -- about 60K calories total) for $31, delivered to your door. The food comes packaged in #10 cans with silica gel dessicants inside. I feel confident that it would last for years on the pantry. The #10 cans are a nice size because you can crack one open, transfer it to some glass mason jars in the pantry, and not have an obscene amount of food like you would if you were buying 20 pound sacks of rice or 5 gallon buckets full of wheat. They also provide a nice variety of foods in the starter kit. I don't really need six cans of wheat; I'd prefer to have a mix of wheat, beans, rice, and oats.

We also got a hand grinder from Amazon (link below). It seems to work great thus far. It is easy to just grind up a few cups of whole wheat as needed. I do it while I'm on the phone or watching TV or whatever. We are thinking about an attachment for the kitchen-aid if we need larger quantities but the hand mill works fine for now.

We are pretty optimistic about this setup. Heather already bakes her own bread and pasta from scratch so she can use the flour no problem. We also make a lot of use of basic staples like rice in weekly recipes. The key to food storage is to use what you store and store what you use so this solution works for us.

The calories are cheap and it is convenient to have them delivered to the door. The LDS food is about 2000 calories per dollar spent. In comparison, a 5 lb bag of flour (20 cups) is about 2000 calories and costs about three to five bucks (as well as my time and gas for the trip) at the local Wally World -- that's several times the price per calorie.



If you're wanting to get into storing food that will keep in quantity, you could do a lot worse than this route. For around a hundred bucks you can get the hand grinder as well as two cases of Mormon Starter Pack. That's 2-person-months of calories. Plus, if you use the staple food items on a regular basis you can cut your grocery bill and probably eat healthier because you're cooking from scratch instead of using processed food.

Zombies and Unicorns, oh my!

Wonder what Joan would think of this:  The OMG-AR15 Unicorn zombie gun

QOTD: Bill Murray is not Funny (and neither are zombies)

Regarding paper targets that look like Zombies, a spoof on preparing for the rise of the undead:

I don't find it funny. Most normal people don't... If you can't admit that this is really weird and stupid then we can't have a reasonable discussion.

- Joan Peterson

Clearly Joan has not heard of pop culture movies like Zombieland. Zombieland starred Bill Murray (who is apparently not funny, as he dresses up like a zombie in the movie), got a 90% score of approval on RottenTomatoes, and grossed over a hundred million dollars at the box office (before counting DVD sales and so on). So is Joan saying that she can't have a reasonable discussion with anyone that likes Mill Murray classics like Ghost Busters, dresses up at Halloween, or uses zombies as a funny attention grabber?

As a note, I only found this quote as Sebastian linked to it. I've stopped reading Joan Peterson's word salad. It isn't worth the brain bytes.

Front Sight Practical Rifle

It has been awhile since my last post on Front Sight and I wanted to follow up with more substantive information.

The first morning went pretty slowly. There was an emphasis on range commands, safety, and basic weapon manipulation. For example, they had us sling and unsling multiple times. They also gave instruction on how to load and make ready as well as how to dry fire.

At lunch time, they bring everyone back in to the main lecture hall for academics of some sort. The instructors claim that the lectures are mandatory for new students or people who haven't been to FS for awhile, but there's nobody taking attendance. Regardless, DW and I attended all of the lectures. Day 1 was use of deadly force. It was a decent lecture. I think I got better information from the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, and I'm pretty well informed on the topic based on some of my reading, but none of the Front Sight info was wrong or bad.

In the afternoon we did a little bit of shooting and an emphasis on malfunction clearance and after action drills. It was a bit dry but not bad. They also introduce the "three secrets:" Sight alignment, sight picture, and trigger control. There may be other things also important for good shooting but I can't argue with their fundamentals. The range day ended with a review of dry fire safety practice.

There were further academics in the evening.

Day 2 we worked on zeroing, with an attendant focus on the fundamentals. The approach was to use extreme sight adjusts to initially overcorrect then dial in. For example, if the first group was 5" right, then they'd have you adjust 6-9" left then adjust a bit back to the right. I actually found it to be an efficient way to dial in sights quickly. I also learned about "natural point of aim," which is probably the #1 thing that has improved my rifle shooting out of the course.

The end of Day 2 also featured "M16 Canyon," a simulation walk through. The idea here was to ensure that the folks taking two day rifle courses could do the simulation course, which seemed good to me. I wrote about it earlier, but in a nutshell, there was a course with shoot/no-shoot targets scattered about. While they rotated folks through the course, the remainder worked on fundamentals on the line as well as shooting positions and malfunctions.

On Day 3, two new skills were introduced: Hostage Rescue and Shooting from Retention. Hostage rescue introduced the idea of compensated head shots at close range. Shooting from retention was used for close-contact type drills. These were done "by the numbers," slow, to maximize safety.

Lunch time's lecture was basic tactics. The lesson learned was Do Not Clear Your House unless you really, really have to. They did present some basic techniques for working corners and opening doors. You then get to practice going through a door with a rubber ducky gun. I did not get the impression that they were encouraging you to clear houses. On the contrary, I got the idea that clearing houses is really hard and that it should only be done in extremis. I think that is a reasonable approach; give people the basic survival skills but don't give them over confidence.

The lunch lecture was about weapons that work and don't work at Front Sight. There were really no surprises. The instructor didn't push the guns that Front Sight seems to have arrangements with (such as XDs). It was basically the "Chicken or Beef" suggestion (Mossberg or Remington for shotties; Polymer or 1911 for pistol; AR or AK or 30-30 lever for practical rifle). They emphasized training over equipment fixes. I couldn't really disagree with any of the info.

Day 4 was primarily practice for the skills test and executing the skills test. The test itself is pretty hard. It includes timed shooting from up close out to 200 yards. I found that there was enough time for a flash sight picture and shot at 25, a deliberate off-hand shot at 50, a nice lengthy off-hand shot or quick drop to kneeling/squatting at 75, time enough for sitting at 150, and time enough for prone at 200 (I may be off on one of the ranges, but that's the gist. Only one person in our class -- someone who had attended multiple times -- scored DG, a handgun were Grads, and the rest of us finished. I came within one shot of "graduating" but missed the mark -- still, I was happy with my performance.

Next review I'll look at some wrap up and final thoughts. I may have been off on some of the details here, as its been awhile since the course, but this was the general flow. I'm definitely happy to answer questions.

Open Carry

The only media outlet that has been carrying word of the laughably ineffective upcoming 14 Feb Starbucks Boycott got some of the basic data wrong.

“Open Carry” policies in 49 states permit citizens to carry guns in holsters where they are visible to the public, while “concealed carry” policies also permit citizens to arm themselves in public, but only if the weapon is not visible to others.

Um, really? Because just off the top of my cranium, I can think of four states that ban open carry: Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and now, California.

These people don't even understand the laws they hope to change and/or toughen. I have no idea how anyone takes them seriously. Apparently even a passing understanding of the issue gained from a quick trip to OpenCarry.org was too much to ask.