Wilderness Ankle Holster

We have a theater here in Auburn that supposedly has a ban on bringing firearms in. Of course, no one actually pays any attention to it, and the theater does not enforce it, because to do so would be economic suicide in this environment. But, at least theoretically, you could be asked to leave the theater if you were carrying.

One solution I thought of was using an ankle rig to conceal under jeans. I consider the likelihood of another theater shooter slim, and the likelihood of that occurring in Auburn to be somewhere close to the odds that Vanderbilt will win the National Football Championship (ever). But, you plan for the possibility, not the probability, and so I went looking for an ankle rig.

One of the video sources I follow on YouTube is Active Self Protection, and John Correa has some praise from time to time for Wilderness Tactical in Phoenix (www.thewilderness.com). So I found their Wilderness Renegade, plunked down the $80 for the holster, and waited.

Renegade Holster

The holster was thoughtfully designed with some sheepskin to pad the area near the ankle bone so as not to be uncomfortable. Sadly, the padding is inadequate (at least for me) and this is the least comfortable holster I own. I bought it for my Glock 26 and the holster fits the gun, but just barely. It fit around my ankle just fine. I had to wear crew socks, however, to get some additional padding, and this is not a “wear it all day” holster. I took it off the moment we got back from the movies.

My experience leads me to believe that an ankle holster is somewhere behind the belly band holster in usefulness, particularly if you’re like me, over 60, and you don’t like bending down that much. It is not a workable solution for me. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work for you. The company is a good company and they shipped promptly. Sadly, their product did not work for me.

Concealment Express

So, last year I bought a Sig P320 RX with the Romeo Express. I was delighted with the pistol but found trying to get a holster for it maddening. The problem was that the optics prevented a standard P320 holster from working. I was able to remedy the problem through Concealment Express. They have a holster that actually fits the P320RX.

Concealment Express holster for Sig P320RX

The holster is marvelous, but the problem with the RX pistol is that it is very difficult to conceal with that hulking Romeo sight on there.

The sight works reasonably well and was zeroed from the factory. However, after several months of carrying it, and several range sessions I found that the sight had drifted left and had to be brought back to the right. Fortunately the adjustments on the sight are very easy.

It’s hard to see, but the red dot is not right on the iron sights.

After a great deal of thought I’ve decided not to carry the Sig. For quite a while I reverted back to the M&P because it was a great pistol and served me needs quite well. But the trigger on the M&P was not as crisp as I like.

So, earlier this month I purchased a Sig P320 X-carry from the Armories in Orlando, FL. This will be the subject of a future post.

The Sticky Holster

Every now and again something comes around that appears to be too good to be true.  Okay, you known darn well you shouldn’t buy it, because you know the darn thing is not going to live up to the hype, but, you cast caution to the wind and pull the trigger (figuratively speaking).  So it went with the Sticky Holster for me.

The Sticky Holster

On the video the demonstrator put the holster in place in a pair of jogging shorts and then jumped up and down and ran and then drew flawlessly from the holster.  The holster, on the video, stayed put.

“Sure it did,” you’re saying.  Well, videos don’t lie.  So I bought it.

So, here’s the theory of operation of the Sticky Holster.  It has some sticky foam on the outside (like those things that hold your iPhone in the car) and it’s supposed to hold it up next to your body and your pants at belt level.  As long as something like stiff elastic or a belt goes around your midsection, the Sticky is supposed to work.

Color me skeptical. But I ordered the holsters.

So, I got the holsters (1 for my Glock 19 and one for my S&W M&P 9) and loaded both weapons and put them in the holsters.  I tried the M&P first.  I used a standard gun belt at 3 o’clock, and bent over, jogged, twisted, turned, kicked my legs, you name it, I could not get that holster to displace.  Every time I drew from it, it worked flawlessly.

The Sticky Holster with a Glock 22

I did the same thing with the Glock 19.  It worked flawlessly for staying in place and drawing.  And it is absolutely the most comfortable concealed carry holster on the market, especially when seated or riding in a car.

“So, what’s the downside?”

You knew there was going to be a downside, didn’t you?

The downside is that it is almost impossible to re-holster without using both hands.  Thus, training with the holster in a class is probably out. You are not going to be able to do it. That’s especially true when you’re concealing in a pair of running shorts or jogging pants where the holster is held in place using the drawstring.  The drawstring collapses the holster at the top making reholstering an Olympic Challenge event.

But ignoring, for the moment, the fact that it is difficult to reholster, I am absolutely amazed at how good the holster really is.  And it gets better.

The Sticky Holster is available on Amazon for $26.95.  You read that right.  Here’s a link: https://www.amazon.com/Sticky-Holster-LG-6S-Semi-Auto-Handguns/dp/B007MQC6O8/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1548357592&sr=8-6&keywords=sticky+holster+lg-6

Try it; you’re sure to like it.

A New Range

Can life get any sweeter?  Auburn Alabama has a new firing range with programmable targets.  You can do charging drills, shoot-no-shoot drills, and a bunch of other stuff.  I hope to upload something to YouTube in the near future, but for now let me just say that the Firing Pin Shooting Sports range is awesome!

Anti Semites and Twitter

The censorship on Twitter has become more about suppressing conservative thought and has little if anything to do about protecting people’s Twitter experience.  Olberman, Rosie, Alyssa Milano, Michael Moore and a host of others hurl invective and profanity around like there was no tomorrow.  These cretins never get their account features limited. Their racism, sexism and anti-semitism is an acceptable form of free expression to Twitter.  Yay First Amendment!  Go get ’em Rosie!

But let someone say something ugly about the Poor Palestinians (yeah, you know, the ones firing rockets into kindergartens in Israel) and suddenly the gloves come off.  We can’t have you spreading the truth about the Poor Palestinians.  They are so oppressed! Break out the crying towel, or the prayer rug, or something.

On June 2nd I posted a tweet where I expressed the view that the IDF should simply give the Hamas rioters what they wanted, martyrdom.  Not only does that thin the herd in the immediate time frame, but it also reduces the gene pool of extremists going forward.  Think of it as anti-social Darwinism if you want.  That’s my view.  If you’re trying to kill Israelis (and that’s what they were doing) then you should absolutely be fair game for someone to kill you.  Israelis have a right of self defense.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  Here’s Your Darwin Award!

Twitter must not agree, because my account privileges were limited for a period of either 12 hours or 1 hour and 57 minutes depending upon whom you believe.  The original message said 12 hours, but when I deleted the message it said it would restore me in one hour and 57 minutes.  I don’t know who to believe, and I really don’t care. I am pretty sure I can find something to do with myself for the remainder of the evening.  But, come on, a tweet on June 2 gets pinged on June 7?

Here’s what happened. Some Palestinian Snowflake who believes every bit of fecal matter spewed by that festering pot of anti-semitism that is Hamas saw my response to Bernie Sanders. He posted a video from the Poor Palestinians about how maligned they were, and how we shouldn’t believe anything Israel says.  They don’t have food.  They don’t have water.  They don’t have medicine.

Oh bullshit!  Cry me a river dude.  Maybe if you weren’t rioting 24/7 and setting fields on fire with kamikaze kites, maybe, just maybe, you’d be able to find a way to live in peace with the Israelis.  Maybe they’d let trucks with medicine in if you weren’t also hauling in rockets, rifles and ammo.  I’m just saying… its a thought, huh?

But, of course, that’s not what they want.  They have only the intention of destroying Israel.  That’s what they want to do.  That’s what they mean to do.  And they think they should have catered meals and spa nails courtesy of the Israelis in the meantime.

So, maybe my tweet was in bad taste.  Check out any tweet from Rosie and see if mine was worse.  Not gonna happen.

No, the bottom line is that Twitter is letting the tail wag the dog.  The Snowflakes rule.  The time has probably come for me to get on Gab and stay on Gab so that I don’t have to deal with rebukes from people whose IQ can be measured in negative numbers, and who hate Jews for the sole reason that they are Jewish.

And, by the way…I’m not Jewish.  I’m just a guy who understands fairness.

Disproportionate, Hell!

We’ve all had that annoying little brother or sister that just couldn’t leave us alone.  They’d poke at us, kick us under the table, pinch us, even bite us, and as the older brother we were expected not to retaliate. But there’s only so much crap a person can take, and so when they pushed it too far, we’d smack ‘em.  No bruises, no broken bones, just a not-so-polite smack upside the head to let them know they’d crossed the line.

And what happened?

“MOM!  HE HIT ME!”

Mom, who of course was not paying attention because The Young and the Stupid was on television (and Kate was busy explaining to Jim how she was forced into the affair with Fred, because Fred knew she was previously a left-handed lesbian, and that was why it was alright for Jim to have sex with Miranda).  Mom sees the human ambulance siren wailing and immediately assumes we’re in the wrong.  We try to explain, but we always heard “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

No, but they do make a point.  And the next time the little bugger decided to stir up some shit, we raised that smacking hand and sure enough, they slunk away, not wanting to receive their just desserts.  This because they knew that even with Mom sending us to our room “to think about your bad behavior” we were still more than capable of dishing it out again.  And as we’d subtly remind them, “you have to sleep sometime….”

Okay, so I was a terrible big brother, but the point is just this.  Sometimes you actually have to resort to violence to stop violence.  And the new game in town is for antagonists to claim that a response was “disproportionate” to the violence they dished out.  It isn’t, and that’s the point.

Let’s take what happened in Ferguson, Missouri for example.  You have a big thug, one with a history of gang activity, strong-arm robbing a grocery store, and then trying to disarm a police officer.  In that attempt he made the bad decision to charge a cop that he outweighed by 100 pounds, and as a result he was shot and killed.

Then there were riots. And the big bowl of jello that was the Missouri Governor (who thankfully did not become Missouri’s senator) sent in the Highway Patrol with handcuffs…for the police.  They allowed a bunch of radicals to burn down a large chunk of a city.

Now you tell me. Whose response was disproportionate there?

It may be that racism played a role in the shooting. I don’t pretend to know.  I know that if a white guy that size tried to take my gun away and then charged me, he’d be dead too. It may be that blacks in Ferguson were treated unfairly for years.  I am sure the latter is probably true based on statistics and the way the Municipal Court system worked.  But you change those through political action, not violence. But violence is easier, requires less thought, and apparently is more fun.  So we had an entire summer and half the next year, until the Criminal in the Pantsuit was defeated, with leftists of every stripe telling anyone who would listen that all white people were racist.

Then what happened? Heard of Black Lives Matter recently? Of course not: there is no election to be swayed through racism just yet.  Look for additional agitation near August/September and for more attempts to obtain a disproportionate response.  Because, that’s what the game is.  Create martyrs.

All of the foregoing, however, is meant to convey a message.  You cannot agitate, wage violence, and then expect to get a slap on the wrist and your popsicle taken away.  Yet amazingly, in spite of terrorists armed with small arms, bombs, Molotov cocktails, fire-dropping kites, and rocks the size of tea kettles being thrown at Israelis, we expect the Israelis to say “bad dog, no biscuit,” instead of actually taking care of the problem.  But Israel isn’t so stupid.

Here is the Israeli security situation borrowed from the website at the bottom of the graphic:

Screen Shot 2018-05-15 at 10.08.54 AM

As you can see, nearly every region in Israel is under rocket attack threat, and if you look at Jerusalem, Israel’s capital is ringed in on three sides by hostile forces.  The security fence where the shootings occurred are very close to population centers, and Facebook allowed Palestinians to post messages urging each other to invade and kill Israelis.  Here is one drawing showing the fence and its location vis a vis population centers:Screen Shot 2018-05-15 at 10.12.00 AM

The IDF can read. They warned the Palestinians that if they took that terror tactic, they’d be killed.  So when someone came across that line, or moved to assault an IDF soldier, plant a bomb, or engage in other violence, they were killed.  58 were dead at last count, which is an amazingly small number given the violence they tried to inflict.

Yet the international media blames Israel and Trump.

It should place the burden on Hamas to explain why its “mostly peaceful protesters” were carrying small arms, bombs, firebombs, etc.

You see, protesters carry signs, chant slogans, and generally make a pest of themselves, but they do not engage in violence.  If you engage in violence, you deserve to receive violence returned to you.  That’s how you stop violence!

Given that there were more than 100,000 protesters out there, and that hundreds if not thousands tried to come through the wire, 58 dead demonstrates remarkable restraint. Because if those “mostly peaceful protesters” had overrun the wire, and gotten into the populated areas of Israel, the body count would have been much higher.  Only it would have been innocent Israelis, not devil-worshipping terrorists that would be bleeding out in the streets.

So, I commend Israeli marksmanship.  Way to go fellas!

The Compromise Deception

You are Being Deceived

As gun owners we are told we need to compromise.  Compromise is not always a bad word.  Suppose Lawmaker A wants to raise your taxes by 10% to pay for needed infrastructure improvement. Lawmaker B wants to lower your taxes by 5% and pay for infrastructure improvements by cutting the budget in areas where there is rampant waste and abuse.  Let’s suppose that the infrastructure improvements are actually needed and not a give-away to some political pal.  Let’s further assume that there is waste in government (hardly a stretch!) and that a 5% tax cut would be a welcome idea.  Is there room for compromise?

As a lawyer, I see this kind of negotiation six or seven times a year with cases.  The Defendant knows or suspects he will lose at trial, and doesn’t want to pay the $350,000 that the Plaintiff is demanding.  So he pokes as many holes in the case as possible and goes to mediation crowing about the plaintiff (a 65 year old grandmother) being “a lying snake.”  The plaintiff knows that even with the best jury they could lose, and that there is little likelihood that they will get $350K.  So the start exchanging offers and responses and the case settles for $200,000.  Both sides buy their peace.

In the legislative example, both sides try to build coalitions and the final bill comes out with a 2% tax increase and budget cuts in other areas.  If we look at these situations graphically what we have is tension between two competing goals (infrastructure improvement and fiscal responsibility) and the tension is resolved through “compromise.” Slide1

That’s because both positions are reasonable and supportable, and neither position violates the Constitution or any higher laws.  Compromise is not only possible here, it’s a great way to make sure that the greatest good gets done for the greatest number.  But it also assumes that everyone on both sides is acting in good faith, without a hidden agenda.  In the gun debate, that is not the case.

There is a popular metaphor about the frog in the water.  If you put the frog in a pot of boiling water it jumps out.  If you put it in room temperature water and heat it slowly, the frog boils to death eventually.  For the moment, accept the metaphor’s basis (even though there is no scientific basis for the metaphor: the frog jumps out).  The metaphor illustrates that incremental changes over time produce the same end result as sudden changes implemented immediately, just with less public outcry.  Except, of course, for the canaries in the coal mines: the parties actually aware of the hidden agendas.

This is the problem with the gun control debate.  The public assumes that there is a valid argument for limiting ownership of certain types of weapons, and that same public likely has never read the Second Amendment.  So, when they hear “we need to ban assault weapons,” there are a series of thoughts that go through their heads:

  • Assault sounds really ugly.
  • Weapons are used to hurt people; not like hunting rifles.
  • Lots of people have been killed, we need to do something.

What the public does not do, however, is actually think critically about what they’re being told. Common sporting rifles like the AR-15 and the AK-47 are not assault weapons.  Assault weapons are weapons capable of automatic fire: bullets keep firing until you release the trigger.  Sporting rifles fire one bullet per trigger pull.  Unfortunately, and in spite of nearly every gun advocate screaming about it, the media keeps using the term “automatic” instead of semi-automatic. The distinction is critical.  An “automatic weapon” is automatic because both the loading and firing of the weapon are automated. A “semi-automatic” automates only the loading of the next round. The lazy media use the word “automatic” relentlessly either out of stupidity or malevolence: take your pick.

If the public thought critically they might wonder when when they go into the sporting goods store there is not a sign that advertises “assault weapons.”  That’s because to get one, you need a tax stamp from the ATF, and you have to have some reason for a weapon that is effectively a weapon of war. But they see a scary black rifle and they automatically think “the only purpose that has is to kill people.”

And, of course, that’s wrong.  They’re fun to shoot, cheaper to shoot than other rifles, and useful in hog hunting, deer hunting, and varmint hunting.  Equipped with an EOTech sight, they are an excellent tool for getting rid of everything from snakes to coyotes.  Yet, the media tries very hard not to tell anyone that, because that goes against the “scary assault weapon” narrative.  The fact that the weapon is underpowered when considered next to a .308, 30-30, or even a 45-70, matters not to the people who are paid to deceive.

The same people are paid to offer up this “compromise” narrative.  The narrative goes something like this:

  • We want to have a “conversation.”
  • We are willing to “compromise” on reasonable regulations.
  • Why won’t the NRA members compromise with us?

And the reason is clear. The Second Amendment is hard-wired into the Constitution because our forefathers saw the need to arm citizens against the power of government.  There is absolutely no competing, reasonable principle on the other side.  All competing principles are in fact antagonistic to the Constitution. This can be represented graphically as follows:Slide2

Our forefathers were brilliant and wise.  They knew that power corrupted, and that absolute power corrupted absolutely.  So they armed every citizen.  Over the years, we’ve lost sight of the fact that guns help ensure that no one person, or group of persons, can thwart the will of the people.  Missouri, in fact, has as its motto “Let the will of the people be the supreme law of the land.”  A great motto, and an appropriate sentiment in this discussion.

Here is the problem with the left’s “compromise” narrative.  It has a ratcheting effect, sort of like a boa constrictor.  Every time we breathe out, they tighten up.

Background checks are needed, we have to have them, compromise with us!

            We did.  And what did it get us.  It got us a system that doesn’t work, and doesn’t stop people like Nicholas Cruz.  So, what’s the Left’s response:

Background checks on new guns won’t do enough, we need “universal” background checks!

            Uh, no.  You haven’t shown us that any of these shootings were done with weapons acquired outside the current system.  And we want national conceal carry reciprocity.

 YOU WON’T COMPROMISE WITH US! YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS.  YOU’RE EVIL!!

See the deception?  They only want to compromise when we give up something.

In essence, we give up our rights, and all they do is take more rights.  Like most every other gun owner other than the ones deceived by the leftist rhetoric, I am tired of having my rights stripped.  I am tired of seeing rights taken with no analysis of whether the rights-depriving measures actually work.  I am tired of when those measures do not work, and do not stop the carnage, that the next “solution” is more draconian regulation aimed not at the evildoer, but the common citizen.  It’s almost like the left recognizes that criminals don’t obey the law, and that their goal is not “reasonable regulation” but rather, outright confiscation.

To the left, it is reasonable to ban AR-15s because they look scary, not because they are the most powerful rifle.  To the left, it is reasonable to require all gun sales, even between father and son, uncle and nephew, etc., to be background checked.  But the real goal of these “universal background checks” is a national firearms registry.  The left knows that criminals don’t go through the system, they steal them, or buy them from other criminals.  And it’s worth noting that when New York passed its draconian law outlawing weapons with more than 5 rounds in the magazine, New York used its gun registration lists to go after the owners and confiscate the weapons.

No more.  We have our backs to the wall, and you can’t push us any further.  Do not fall for the “we need to compromise” deception. It will not stop with that compromise.  It will not stop until you are disarmed, and no longer a citizen, but a subject.