My Crazy Teaching Philosophy

Well, it happened, I got my first bad review on social media.  I was called "crazy" for how I teach people to shoot.

Fair enough.  It is true that I do not teach what other people teach on a handgun range, or teach the same way that most firearms instructors teach.  People who have taken more traditional handgun classes might think mine is a bit extreme.  My philosophy is different than most competitive shooting organizations or advocacy groups that train gun familiarity, how cartridges are put together, and how to get killed in a pistol fight by compromising your position and reducing your accuracy as you back away from a threat.  It is true that I don't teach that. 

I teach people to Attack.  I believe firefights are won by what the military calls "violence of action."  In the self-defense world that translates into individual aggression.  If somebody is trying to kill, maim or rape you, being some calm, Jedi-like Buddhist monk is not going to save you.  Pacifists do not win wars.  So, in my philosophy, you have to build a switch inside of you that can be thrown that instantly changes your personality from a well-socialized, stand-up citizen and productive member of society, into a violent, aggressive, skull-stomping, throat-biting killer.  In other words, you have to be a werewolf.  Seriously, when you start with the mindset, then the tool is irrelevant.  My dad used to say he'd rather fight alongside the one guy that could kill somebody with a spoon rather than the hundred guys who needed rifles, tanks and helicopters.  The hundred guys need weapons.  The guy with the spoon IS the weapon.

So, what I try to teach people with a handgun is the same thing I try to teach them with a knife or what I learned in unarmed hand-to-hand combat training: the most aggressive person wins.  The problem is that term "wins."  Most people think in terms of sports when we talk about winning and losing.  Even "self-defense experts" train their students to win in a competition sense of the word.  But that's not really a life or death struggle.  In real self-defense, losing is dying.  So, you can't ever afford to be the loser in a self-defense situation, because it's not a bar-fight where you get your ass kicked, broken ribs or teeth knocked out.  That is NOT, despite what all the commercials and movies tell you, the same as self-defense.  Self-Defense is the legal determination after the fact that the force you the defender applied was justified, up to and including lethal force.

What I try to train is not how to use a handgun as a weapon.  I try to train people to use their mind as a weapon, to unlock their predatory instincts that are buried under thousands of years of socialization, while holding a handgun.  The handgun is just a tool that makes the violence easier.  But the violence comes from the mind, the real weapon.  Once you understand that, it doesn't matter what tool you have in your hand, you can use a rifle, a pistol or a knife.  Or, with no tools, you can improvise a defensive tool or with some training, use your body as the self-defense tool.  But, the goal is the same in combat regardless of whether armed or unarmed: neutralizing the threat.

If you are unwilling to do that, then you should not carry a gun or a knife; they will get taken away from you and used on you in a violent encounter.  If you don't have the WILL to use deadly force to protect yourself, you are just a victim-in-waiting, no matter how much training you take, or how big of a gun you carry.  Despite what victims-in-waiting believe (or say on social media), just carrying a gun does not dramatically improve your probability of surviving a violent crime.  Nor does receiving basic firearms familiarity training with a handgun, rifle, shotgun or carbine increase your chances of victory in a self-defense encounter.  Programming the mentality into yourself that you will never be a victim is what increases your chances of winning (i.e. living) in a violent encounter.  With that mentality, I can teach you to shoot a pistol accurately enough and fast enough to defeat most violent criminals.  Without that mentality, you can be armed with a .50 cal machine gun, and your'e still going to be a victim if violence finds you.

Does that make me crazy?  Yep.  I fully admit that I see the world through different eyes than almost all of the people I teach.  I see it through the lens of a combat veteran who has seen real violence, experienced real violence and perpetrated real--LETHAL--defense.  Once you get RPGs flying past your Humvee window the first time, you take your blinders off to the dangers of the real world.  You take your head out of the sand and stop pretending that you are safe.  Some would argue that having those blinders removed does indeed constitute a mental illness.  But is it?  The truth is, you don't unsee war, and I would not want to.  Combat opened my eyes to just how fragile life really is, and it taught me to appreciate life more, and seeing that fragility, I became smarter about my personal protection.  Am I a paranoid, hyper-vigilant gun-nut vet?  Am I a coward?  Am I a crazy, hyper-aggressive werewolf waiting for a full moon to snap?  Maybe all of those, maybe none.  What I am is a survivor of three tours of combat in Iraq and about a dozen firefights, two of which involved me using a handgun. 

I think that means I have something to teach people who are serious about self-defense.  If you're serious about self-defense, then you too are crazy.  You are paranoid.  You are hyper-vigilant.  You may have already been a victim, or are just afraid that one day you might be.  The alternative to my kind of crazy is delusion about the effects of violence.  As I wrote recently, the violent crime rate to a victim is 100%.  That means, the probability of you being a victim of violent crime is irrelevant.  But, the "sane" people of the world think a 1% chance of being murdered is not worth preparing for.  Those people are the crazy ones, to me.  The outcome of a 1% murder rate is still death; some innocent person is killed because they were unprepared when violence found them.  You can gamble that you will always be in the other 99%, but everybody in the 1% was betting on the same thing.  Or you can get a little insurance from a crazy person.

Now, one day at a shooting range can't prepare anybody for war, but if I can give my students some tips and tricks that I learned in 31 months in combat, then maybe I can help them program that switch inside their brains to be better prepared for that black swan event.  Odds are, violence will never find you.  Odds are, it will never find me again either.  But, do you want to bet your life on those odds?  Or, do you want to take off the blinders, program the switch and be prepared to be a little "crazy" if you have to let out the wolf someday?  Without the right mentality, no amount of firepower will win the fight by itself.  As importantly, without the right mindset for what is justifiable self-defense, even if you do "win" the fight, you may be haunted by it for ever.  So, be the right kind of crazy:

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
--General James "Mad Dog" Mattis

Like (or hate) and Share (or curse),
Soule

Choose to Be Safe Everywhere or Nowhere

Life is a binary state, not a statistical proportion.  There is no such thing as being 83% alive or 66.67% dead, despite what Miracle Max may say.  As Americans, we are programmed to trust statistics from our childhoods in math classes through adulthood in our voting behavior.  Public policy is based on numbers in a democracy.  The majority wins.  The policy that does the most good for the most people is generally preferred.  But, that is not an accurate interpretation of the binary state of life and death, and our preference for “data-driven” evidence in our society causes disastrous miscalculations when confronted with violence.  Violence is the binary switch that goes from light to dark: life to death.

The miscalculation lies in the belief that you are safe, just because you are in a statistically “safe” area.  A statistically “safe” area is one that has a lower violent crime rate than a statistically “dangerous” area that has a higher violent crime rate.  We consume that statistical data, and then make the inference that as a result of being in an area with less violent crime, we are personally safer.  But this is the wrong inference to draw from these statistics, because those crime statistics are not saying how likely you are to survive a violent encounter, just how likely you are to be in one.  But our safety is not based on the likelihood of the encounter, it’s based on the outcome of the encounter.  Put another way, humans are just as vulnerable biologically in Beverly Hills as they are in Compton.  A knife blade in the side of the neck works just as well in either location.  The correct inference to make from being in a low violent crime area is that a violent encounter is less likely to occur.  This is a fair assessment, though paradoxically feeling secure—reducing our posture of situational awareness—may mean we are actually more prone to victimhood in so-called “safer” areas.  But, whether we are more or less likely to have a violent encounter in a “safe” neighborhood does not determined what the outcome will be of any particular violent encounter.  Simply stated, violent crime statistics confuse the likelihood of violence with the consequences of violence; such confirmation bias in low-likelihood of an event then programs—especially affluent—people to believe in the insignificance of the consequence.  Put another way: regardless of how statistically improbably violence may be in any given location, when it does happen, the crime rate is 100% to the victim.

So, since life is a binary—not proportional—state of being, and since our perception of safety is an inherently flawed conflation of geography and the probability of an event occurring, rather than the consequences of that event occurring, where are we ever really safe?  “Nowhere,” is the sadder of the two answers to this question.  Geography cannot make the human body more impervious to damage.  Letting your guard down in “safer” places can actually make you more vulnerable to violence due to diminished situational awareness.  But, the other answer to the question is this: “Everywhere.”  Because geography is not what makes us safe, we can actually be just as safe in Baghdad as we are in Beverly Hills.  But first, we have to understand what “safety” actually is, rather than what we’ve been programmed to believe it is by geographic crime statistics.  Real safety is the ability to affect the outcome of a violent situation, regardless of its probability.  The first step in this is being aware that violence can find us in any country, in any city and in any neighborhood on earth.  To be safe Everywhere instead of Nowhere, we can’t allow ourselves to be lulled into a reduced readiness posture; we have to be vigilant.  We have to be prudent; we have to learn to trust our sixth sense when it is trying to warn us of danger.  We have to be prepared with the right tools to handle a violent situation if it pops up; this means never being unarmed.  Do not ever let yourself be described in the paper the day after your death as an “unarmed victim.”  Lastly, we have to be skilled.  We have to get trained in how to protect ourselves.  At a minimum, you should be able to use a rifle, a pistol, a knife, an impact weapon and your bare hands effectively to survive a violent situation and escape.  That means you should get training in each of those disciplines.  To be safe Everywhere instead of Nowhere, all you have to be is the most dangerous person there. 

Predators, whether quadrupeds or of the criminal bipedal variety, understand this natural law.  Lions don’t hunt tigers, they hunt the weak.  I am not talking about appearing to be the most dangerous person on the block, to be clear; intimidation is a foolish strategy.  Being capable of defending yourself in any situation is not the same thing as being intimidating.  This capability comes from training, but the first step in the training is to debunk these false beliefs about safety, geography and statistics.  Recognize that you are vulnerable to violence, no matter where you live, how much money you have or how secure you think you are.  Also, recognize that statistical data about violence is totally irrelevant when it comes to an individual act of violence; remember, the crime rate for a victim of a violent crime is 100%.  Then, accepting the vulnerability, you can take the steps necessary to overcome the vulnerability through training, equipping and preparing for violence if it finds you.  If it does find you, remember WIDTH6:

Find a WEAPON: almost anything.
Seize INITIATIVE: attack, don’t defend.
Cause DAMAGE: not pain.
Use TORQUE: body weight plus circular motion.
Attack the HEAD: shut down the computer.
And watch your 6!

Soule
www.Easy6Training.com

The Argument

The difference between conservatives and liberals is this: liberals care about everybody, conservatives care about anybody.  Economically, liberals want to make everybody’s life equally prosperous.  Conservatives recognize that in capitalism there will always be winners and losers, and thus it is impossible to make everybody a winner, but it is possible to make anybody the winner.  According to conservatives, somebody is going to be a loser in the capitalist system, but it doesn’t have to be you.  Any person can work harder or smarter than their competition and become the billionaire.  This opportunity for ANYBODY rather than opportunity for EVERYBODY mentality is based on the premise that the most intelligent and/or diligent persons will succeed.

Self-Defense.  What does any of that economic theorizing have to do with self-defense?  Well, it’s defense of the SELF, the individual, ME!  This is the same concept, but applied to personal protection instead of personal wealth.  Liberals want cops and soldiers and firefighters to protect everybody, so that they don’t have to do it individually.  Conservatives recognize limited resources and they realize that government probably can protect anybody it wanted to, but not everybody.  They do a fairly good job protecting the President (since 1963), but they can’t protect everybody the same way.  Liberalism extends from the universal healthcare and equality of outcome economics into the realm of personal protection with the same idea: government should protect EVERYBODY. 

They’re right, of course.  When I was in the military, I felt deeply ashamed for what happened on September 11^th, 2001; the national security apparatus of the United States failed to protect Every American as it was supposed to.  They’re right that the government should be able to protect everybody, but it can’t.  This means, mathematically, that some bodies are going to be left unprotected by the government some of the time—realistically most of the time.  Just as equality of outcomes is not possible for economics, it is also not possible for government protection.  This is a fact liberals do not want to admit.  They do not want to accept personal responsibility for their own safety, because they (not unreasonably) believe that the government SHOULD protect them.  They should not have to be responsible for their own protection, because protection is the basic function of government.  To them, it is an entitlement just like education or universal health care; it’s protection of the public from dangerous actors.

Despite what conservatives like me say about liberals, this position is not bleeding-heart or emotion-driven political rhetoric.  It is—in fact—very conservative from one perspective: what are we paying the cops and soldiers and firefighters for if they cannot protect us?  That’s a pretty logical libertarian argument, actually.  Classical libertarians would argue that the only legitimate purpose of the government was in fact protection.  So the belief is neither bleeding-heart emotionality, nor political unreasonableness.  The government’s fundamental job is indeed to protect its citizenry.

But, while logical, reasonable and rational, the belief that government should protect everybody equally, is nonetheless naïve, because it, like Marx, Engle and Bernie Sanders, are detached from reality.  Yes, the government should be able to protect EVERYBODY.  But, even if you believe it can (which is both legally and mathematically impossible), the fact is government doesn’t.  A wise psychologist once said: Don’t “should” all over yourself.  If the world worked the way it SHOULD, then no innocent people would ever be victimized by predators.  But every year about 1.2 million innocent Americans are the victims of violent crime perpetrated by predators the local, state and federal governments were unable to stop.  That is reality.

The difference between what the governments should do and what they actually do is about 16,000 murders, about 130,000 rapes, over 300,000 robberies, and over 800,000 aggravated assaults every year in America.  Between 1.1 and 1.3 million violent crimes occur in the United States every year, even though the government should protect us.  Now, that’s only about .38% of the population facing violent crime in any given year; so an argument could be made that the government is doing fairly well at protecting the other 99.6% of the Every Bodies.  Some other liberals make that argument.  But, again, as a conservative, I don’t look at everybody; I look at the ANYBODY.  I don’t even look at the 1.2 million victims.  I look at the one victim.  SELF­-Defense is about the one victim, who can be ANYONE protecting himself from becoming one of the 1.2 million.

"Why do you need a gun?"  Statistically, I probably don’t.  The probabilities are in my favor that I will never again have to pull the trigger on another human being: less than .4% of the population of the United States is a victim of violent crime every year.  So, the odds are with me, with you, with EVERYBODY that he or she will not be a victim.  Liberals look at the 325 million of everybody.  As a conservative, I look at the individuals; I look at the ANYbodies, whether that is in economics, education, health care policy OR personal protection.  Not everybody can be protected, which is okay, because not everybody is going to be a victim.  In fact, only a tiny percentage of everybody is going to be a victim of violent crime this year, so the odds are against any particular person being a victim.  This is the insanity of liberalism, Marxism and ends justifying the means slaughter of millions, by the way.  To hell with the individual being raped, murdered or assaulted; "statistically, the crime rate is really actually pretty low."  Some leftists don't care about the individuals that make up the society, they just care about the "society as a whole," aka the EVERYBODY.  The problem with that statistical thinking is that an individual SOMEBODY is going to be a victim.  In fact, 1.1-1.3 million SOMEBODIES are going to be victims of violent crime this year.  Each one is SOMEBODY else’s child, parent, sibling, spouse or loved-one.  For them, the violent crime rate is not .38 percent, it is 100 percent.

As a conservative, I am an individualist.  As an individualist, that is how I look at violent crime, from the perspective of the individual victim or potential victim.  The FBI says we have a violent crime rate of about 382.9 per 100,000 people.  But the 382.9 PEOPLE do not care about the rest of the 100,000.  To the victim of violent crime, the violent crime rate is 100% because violence is interpersonal, not statistical.  Liberals ask, “With a .38% violent crime rate, why do you need a gun?”  I carry a gun because that .38% represents 1.2 million INDIVIDUALS who are victimized by predators every year in this country, despite the best efforts of local, state and federal governments to protect each one of them.  I recognize Reality; the government is unable to protect everybody, and therefore ANYBODY can be the victim of violent crime—if they rely on the government to protect them.  I no longer expect the government to protect me.  I do it myself.  Even if statistically, and demographically, the odds of me having to defend myself from violent crime are incredibly remote, I still am prepared to protect myself because the government isn’t there, won’t be there and Constitutionally couldn’t prevent violent crime from happening even if they were there.

Thanks,

Soule

Easy6Training

PS: Besides which, I don’t have to explain why I need a gun.  Our second guaranteed freedom—immediately after the right to think, speak, write, pray, and express ourselves however the hell we want to—is the right to defend all the other freedoms if somebody tries to take them away.  Exercising this freedom requires no further justification than does attending a particular church, mosque or synagogue, protesting a politician, or writing this blog.  I do all of those however the hell I want to, because the Bill of Rights says I can, and that second freedom prevents anybody from stopping me;)

The Absence of Law and Order is Called WHAT?

This is, by any definition, the absence of order.  When the law enforcement community is castrated by political correctness and unable to prevent harassment and minor assaults on themselves, what hope do you have that they will help you?

What I think should happen: NYPD should go on strike until Mayor Bill de Blasio resigns or is recalled and a new administration and police commissioner are in place that will restore law and order in NYC.

What will actually happen:  good cops will continue to quit, because who would put up with this crap?  So instead of good cops, you have a hot head cop, who is going to shoot one of these morons.  That will start the first round of riots.  Pointing a super-soaker at a cop is not a good idea, you dumb asses, especially in times of limited visibility.  So, we're going to see dead kids with toy water guns in their hands, and people are going to scream, "Police Brutality!  They killed my poor little baby Thuggy McPunkerson, and he never did nuthin' to nobody!"  (Except point that toy gun at a cop about twilight).  Which is just another example of great parenting.  Oh, wait, I forgot where this is happening, what parenting?  The hot head cop will then be accused of using excessive force, he will be fired, but he probably won't be prosecuted because the D.A. knows he won't get a conviction if he's honest, or simply because he needs cops to be on his side in his job of prosecuting actual criminals, so the cop will go free but have to find another career.  This will start the second round of protests of people screaming "institutional racism" that protects cops who kill innocent kids with nothing but toy guns; those protests will rapidly devolve into total riots and the inevitable burning down of a neighborhood drug store for some reason.  The cops will get blamed for that too.  So more of them will quit.  Now response times have tripled or quadrupled in areas that are already under-policed.

Conclusion #1: If you're a cop, you should quit, because this is total crap.  This will escalate to beyond water to gasoline or other chemicals.  These water runs are just rehearsals.  And when you defend yourself from Thuggy McPunkerson with a bucket of gas, you will be the bad guy.  Quit.  Let these social justice warriors have exactly what they want.

Conclusion #2 If you are a law abiding citizen, expect even fewer cops to be around when you need one in the coming days, weeks, months and years.  You better learn to get dangerous, folks, because the boys in blue ain't coming!  Even if they were coming, they're not allowed or willing to do anything for you, because as soon as they shoot the bastard trying to stab you, some crying crackhead's mother will be on the news screaming "racism," costing the cops their livelihoods, careers and pensions.  Why would they risk that to stop somebody with a knife a whole 21 feet away?  If your sense of personal safety and security before the Obama years was based on the belief in law enforcement being there to protect you, that was probably pretty naive.  If your sense of personal safety and security is based on that belief today, you are simply batshit crazy delusional!

The absence of law and/or order is anarchy.  Mass migration away from the law enforcement profession by good officers is leading to anarchy.  Castrating law enforcement officers who stay on the force, by not allowing them to do their jobs and allowing blatant disorder to rule the streets, is also leading to anarchy.  Having seen actual anarchy a few times, I can tell ya, things get real sporty for the sheep when there ain't no sheepdogs anymore.  The only sheep that survive in those situations are the ones with horns.  "If you're gonna be a sheep, you better be a bighorn sheep!"  One scary fact to close with is this: the United States has about 23,000 fewer law enforcement officers today than it did in 2012.  It's like SGM Plumley said:  "Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves!"

Like and share!Soulewww.easy6training.com

Cowards

My frustration with naïve idiots is at an all-time high.  Their desperate desire to wish away violence is understandable for children, but for adults who live in the imperfect world of mortal humans, such desire, laudable as it may be, is basically mental illness.  It is a delusion to believe that mortal beings, subject to the vicissitudes of life and death, can ever truly achieve a pacifist Utopia.  As long as we are mortal creatures, and are vulnerable to death, evil people can prey upon that mortality or the fear of that mortality for evil purposes.  If we were invulnerable immortal creatures, violence would be rather unproductive for predators.  But we are mortal, we are vulnerable, we can be killed, maimed and harmed, so living in a fantasy world where that is not the case is literally lunacy.  Such beliefs about the nature of the world would be considered schizophrenic if it wasn’t for the fact that such a HUGE number of young people all suffer from this shared psychosis.

I long for the days of dropped gauntlets.  Not just because I think many true indignities would be solved rather promptly—and many illusory indignities of mock victimhood would not seem quite so important to the affected snowflake—but also because it would be a way to demonstrate conclusively to every whining coward afraid of death just how the world really works.  See, every time I hear one of these lunatics on the news, inevitably supported by the majority of journalist cowards as the obvious opinion, I want desperately to slap them across the face with a glove and explain the simple truth of life.  “You are allowed to live in this shared delusion of a ‘safe space’ called a civilization because of the largess of men like me.  Violent men keep you safe, because violent men are constantly trying to do you harm.  You don’t see it, you don’t believe it, but I assure you it is true.  And all that would be necessary to shatter your shared delusion is for men like me to either, 1) stop, or (far worse for you), 2) switch sides.”  At this point I often wonder what they would do when I put a knife to their throats, purely for demonstration purposes.

Fundamentally, though it has become a trite way to sell t-shirts, there really are only three kinds of people in the world: prey, predators and protectors.  The prey cannot exist without the protectors.  The predators cannot exist without the prey.  The protectors could exist rather more comfortably without either.  And they often fail.  The victim of every violent crime is a victim because they relied on a protector to stop the predator instead of being self-reliant.  This week, in a move that the cops I work with find concerning, but I find an amazing statement of hope for a civilized society, a protector was charged with eleven crimes because, fundamentally, he was a coward.  He took a job, swore an oath and collected a paycheck to serve as a protector of children in Parkland, Florida.  He defrauded his community.  Thus, we can’t even rely on the protectors when they are right there.  The Virginia Beach Police Station was right across the street from the office building that nut job shot up last week; twelve victims-in-waiting died because they believed a protector was right across the street ready to save them.  The shared delusion of a ‘safe space’ in which you are invulnerable to violence is madness.  It will get you raped, maimed or killed.  You have to be your own protector.

The real world, outside your bubble of false-security, is indeed a scary place.  But, once you take responsibility for your own safety, and you confront that fear by popping the bubble, you start liberating yourself from the terrors that lurk in the shadows.  Once you learn how to defend yourself, protect yourself, fight for yourself, you accept the presence of the fear, and you learn the skills you need to overcome the danger, instead of running away from the fear.  If you’re gonna be a sheep, be a bighorn!

Soule
Easy 6
www.easy6training.com

Ode to "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man"

Fear.  I’ve noticed an interesting paradox in America since 9/11: we are a society full of rampant fear, and the fervent belief that it shouldn’t exist.  There is a deeply held sense—not really a belief put into thoughts or words, but a feeling or an intuition—in today’s America that we are entitled to a life without fear.  Maybe we are; I don’t know, maybe that’s the right way to live.  I grew up at the end of the Cold War next to first a Strategic Bomber base, then next to an ICBM silo a quarter mile up the road, and then a Naval Air Station, now I live at the bottom of NORAD.  I’ve lived at Ground Zero my whole life.  Generation X was the last generation to grow-up in that situation.  The Baby Boomers stared down oblivion as kids during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The Greatest Generation and the Civil Generation before fought two world wars and in between suffered the worst economic disaster to occur in the Industrial Age, plus famine, a pandemic and the Dust Bowl.  Fear was a constant in their lives.  I believe every generation prior to the twentieth century had even greater fears to accompany them in daily life.  For some reason, in the twenty-first century, we believe we should be immune to a life of fear.

Where did we get this impression that it is unfair for us to be afraid?  It’s a belief that “danger shouldn’t exist.”  But when has that ever been the case?  I have a suspicion that after 9/11, two things happened: first, our political leaders told us “refuse to be terrified,” which did not make people brave, it made them, secondly, delusional.  They constructed the “bubble” I often write about, an illusionary safe space of denial about the nature of the world.  It is a willful refusal to accept the truth about the dangers in the world.  Further, it is an adamant belief that they are safe, because they are entitled to be safe.  We should be safe!

They’re right; we should be entitled to be safe.  But our prisons are full of evil people who did not adhere to our perceptions of how the world “should” operate.  Our emergency rooms and morgues are full of innocent people who were victimized by these evil people, because they were powerless to stop them.  They were powerless to stop them because they were unprepared.  They were unprepared because—often—they refused to admit the world is a dangerous place, they refused to admit their vulnerability, they refused to accept personal responsibility for their own safety, they foolishly expected somebody else to protect them, and they refused to pop their own bubble, so somebody else did, and blood spilled out of it.

The solution to fear is not the denial of danger or the delusional perception of constant safety.  The solution to terror is not ignoring it, its sources or its methods.  The solution to evil is not appeasement.  The solution to all of these problems is the same thing: courage.  You should be entitled to safety, but you aren’t.  Every victim of violent crime wonders how it could happen to them, or why it happened in a world where it shouldn’t.  There is an answer to those questions, but it’s irrelevant.  Because, it did happen, it does happen, it is happening somewhere in our society right now.  Pretending it isn’t true does not stop it.  Making new laws does not deter violent criminals, because they are criminals.  Words on a page do not stop an evil person from being evil towards an innocent victim.  So, maybe we should live in a world without fear.  Maybe that’s how the universe, or a higher power, intended for humans to live; but as long as we are mortal, there will be evil people willing to pray upon that mortality to extract power, wealth, privilege or twisted gratification from victims.  So, it doesn’t matter how the world should operate; it only matters how it does operate.  And in the real world, outside the illusionary bubble, evil people do evil things to innocent people.  The only things that effectively stop them are bullets.  Stop denying the fear; be afraid, and use the fear as motivation in your preparation to never be a victim.  Whether life should be fearless or not, it isn’t, so instead you have to be courageous!  Courage is not the absence of fear; it is doing what’s necessary despite the fear.  Maybe you win, maybe you lose, but you are NOT a helpless victim.

“It’s better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool!” –Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man

Be Brave!
Soule
Easy 6 Training

Also, that First Amendment (Rated R for Language and Poetry)

An interesting thing happened this week: some snowflakes got offended by the fact that some people I know and I have been discussing various aspects of firearms in the bar we frequently occasion or occasionally frequent.  These people I know got very concerned about that.  We were referred to as “the gun guys in the back” by some of these snowflakes.  For some reason that really bothered the people I hang-out with at this bar.  I’m not sure, but I think it has to do with a privacy issue for them.  I suspect it is the same reason they will carry a handgun concealed, but never openly carry one.  I suppose that is a fair perspective, though different from mine.

Here’s the problem: I’m not giving up my First Amendment Rights any sooner than I’m giving up my Second Amendment Rights.  The snowflakes are offended by the very existence of firearms, and they abhor us brutish rednecks who own, shoot and—God forbid—talk about guns.  To which I respond: melt the snowflakes!  Nobody has a right to not be offended, and I have a God-given right to be offensive.  If my topic of conversation offends you…leave.  But, just like you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands, you will shut me up when you put a bullet in my throat.  But, if you’re going to try, you better be better than me.  The only scumbags I hate worse than the gun grabbers trying to destroy the Second Amendment, are the Politically Correct Thought Police trying to destroy the First Amendment.  I will not be silenced, censored or shut-up for having opinions that pansy-ass snowflakes find too offensive to tolerate in their safe-space little bubbles.  For their bubbles I have just one solution: “Pop!”

The Left wants to shut us up.  The coastal snowflakes cannot handle dissent.  By worrying about whether or not you offend some weak-willed, half-developed, pansy-assed, safe-space dweller, you buy-in to their bullshit.  You buy-in to their concept that they have some right to not be offended by your words.  Here’s my words: fuck them; I have lots of guns, I like shooting them, I like learning about them, I like sharing knowledge about shooting them with other people who like shooting guns and learning about them…and I’m not going to stop exercising my Freedom of Speech about them…BECAUSE I have the Right to Bear Arms!  You want to shut me up?  You better not be a snowflake living in a safe-space, My Little Pony!  You want to shut me up, you better come prepared to do it by force.  And I know no snowflake with the capacity, capability, caliber, courage, commitment, spirit or stones to stand-up, step-up and shut me up by shooting—not shouting—me down.  But if I am mistaken, then I do humbly invite so valiant a courtier to, by pistols, try, at dawn, or rapiers by dusk, or gallantly adding to lore, as in days of yore, by moonlight past twilight with hammers of war!  Your choice, good sir!

            For defending the Freedom of Speech with a sword, the French Poet-cum-English Philosopher Voltaire was banished from France.  He famously founded the freedom of expression thusly: “Though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Our First Amendment is based on Voltaire’s conviction that the free expression and free exchange of ideas, uncensored by the state or by popular opinion, is the cornerstone to a free society.  Our Second Amendment was designed to guarantee it.  As Wyatt said, “Which one of you brave men is gonna take it from me?”

With Humble Deference to Voltaire,

Sincerely,

Soule

www.easy6training.com