Cruel Hand Luke

Coming up in 2 weeks.......

No one is saying it is DEPENDANT on training or ever was DEPENDANT on training . I am saying when the document was written it was written not with gun collecting and recreational shooting and hunting in mind it was written to reinforce to the government that the right of the people to own military arms to be used to prevent insurrection, despotism and invasion because the best way to insure freedom was to have an armed and trained ("well regulated") populace not under direct control of a central government. And in the 150 years prior to the revolution the colonies were so small population wise that out of necessity pretty much EVERY able bodied male had compulsory militia duty. Philadelphia was the largest city in North America in 1760 and it ONLY had about 19,000 people. That is the size of Tullahoma TN now...... The Indian populations OUTNUMBERED the Europeans by a LARGE margin and because of that people got trained for militia duty whether they liked it or not. THAT was the reality of life leading up to the Revolution. That was the world the framers of our Constitution grew up in. It was not written as a right being dependent on training but in those days all able bodied males received some form of militia training. If you don't like it that the Constitution of the state of Tennessee allows the legislature "to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" then talk to your legislators and get a constitutional convention started to remove that from the Constitution . But as it stands that is the law of the land no matter how much we might want it to not be. So we can either pine for a time that really never existed the way people think it did or we can learn to function in the reality of now ...or you can start a revolution.

No one in their right mind thinks training prevents ALL accidents (or prevents all negligence). Just like sex Education , or Health Education or whatever they are calling it now does not prevent all pregnancy nor does police training prevent all mistaken ID shootings nor does all military training prevent death in combat. So I guess by that logic we stop training drivers, stop training police , stop training the military and stop telling kids where babies come from because people still wreck their cars?????

More people drive than even OWN guns much less CARRY guns. So there is far more opportunity for traffic accidents to happen. The "Industry standard" numbers we have is that ABOUT 10% of people have a permit and about 10% of those people with permits actually carry on a regular basis. About 1% of people take another class after the initial permit class . There is no way of knowing how many people carry in constitutional carry states and there is no way of knowing how many people carry illegally. But even with those numbers factored in it is still not anywhere near the number of people who own and drive cars.

I'm not sure you are understanding exactly what I'm saying with regards to language. Gay is used now to mean something different than it meant 100 years before. At the time of the constitution the word REGULATED was used to mean well equipped and trained and disciplined. Now it is used as "controlled". The original intent is NOT what the anti gunners want it to mean. BUT it also was not exactly what some pro gun people want it to mean either. As to the tactics used, yes Washington used snipers and small units to harass the enemy. But you cannot have anarchy and chaos in the ranks and melding it all (volunteer "regulars" and the militia units) into a cohesive disciplined fighting force on par with a professional European military took a lot of work about which Washington complained often. Building an army from scratch is difficult . Washington had served with the British regulars in the French and Indian war and knew what level of discipline his men would need to face them. And finally the "I just don't accept trainers that have a vested interest saying that their service should be a prerequisite to exercise a right to protect yourself or your family on the pretense of public safety. " simply does not apply to me. I don't teach HCP classes regularly any more so I'm not saying any of this because of any kind of profit motive. I'm not "gatekeeping" preventing anyone from exercising a right . I'm educating people who choose to come to me to learn higher level skills , mindset, and how to fight with a gun which is a completely different skillset than plinking at the range. I'm not teaching permit classes so your assumption about my motivation is not at all valid. And even if there were constitutional carry and the state offered free training that I did not profit from at all I'd STILL recommend people take the training because remaining willfully ignorant of the law and of safe gun handling practices and marksmanship fundamentals is just irresponsible. If you are responsible enough to exercise your rights you should be responsible enough to be responsible and learn safe gun handling. My vested interest is that I've seen truly dangerous and horrendous gun handling by untrained people simply because they are ignorant of safety protocols and I would greatly prefer that good people not be victims of accidents and prefer that they dominate lethal force encounters they may find themselves in instead of just barely surviving...or worse.

And that's kind of the point. In the past a large section of the population grew up hunting and shooting and had been taught early on about safe gun handling. But as the country became more urbanized it becomes less the case. Since they are not learning it at home then they need to learn it somewhere especially if they are going to be carrying guns in public. As to "range nazi" safety instructors...there are some people that simply do not have the education , personality or temperament to be good at teaching other people. Some of those folks apparently look at being an instructor as simply an opportunity to exert power over others instead of as an opportunity to help someone . On the other hand some of us actually care about teaching others to safely and conscientiously handle their firearms, to help them improve their shooting skills and to prevail against criminal assault should that arise. And we do it without belittling or criticizing the students. And there are several members here on TGO that I know for a fact that are excellent instructors that I would send friends or family to train with knowing they would get excellent education with no attitude. But as you say that is not always the case especially with some lower level "safety instructors". But as with all things there are varying levels of competency.

The word "Gay" in 1895 had a very different meaning than it did by 1995. And the people in 1895 viewed the word and the connotations differently than someone in 1995 because over time the meaning changed in popular culture. The people in 1895 had a completely different understanding of the word, its meaning and the nuance of it. Just like the culture of America has changed since 1787. Things change and we lose the original meaning and nuance of words because no one is still around from then and all we have is the written word left behind by folks in letters and documents. The subordinate clause of the amendment IS them mentioning trained and well armed citizens (not a standing army) being the best way to maintain the security and freedom of the state . They didn’t have a brain fart....they wrote it into the amendment but we don’t use the word “regulated” they way now as they did then and it does not have the same connotation it did back then. Militias who fought Indians in the woods of western Pennsylvania were not at all well suited to fighting using European battlefield tactics. It wasn't that they were not necessarily functional as fighting units it is that you don't fight the British on Bunker Hill like you fight the Cherokee in western North Carolina. Your western NC militia attached to Washington’s regulars needed to know how to work WITH the regular troops and know how to maintain formations and maneuver. My 5th greatgrandfather was one of the Watauga settlers and fought under John Sevier at Kings Mountain . And they didn’t fight anything like Washington’s regulars did . So the militia units that Washington complained about had to be retrained to fight the way Washington needed them to fight in European style engagements. Jackson was shot by soldiers who had just been shooting enemy soldiers that day and were on the lookout for more enemy soldiers to shoot. They were expecting enemy soldiers to come from that direction. Even with the riots we are not yet to the point we are manning checkpoints waiting to shoot folks. So that's a bit of a stretch to compare the intentional but mistaken identity shooting of Jackson to any kind of CCW or even at home gun ownership negative outcome. Look I'm not arguing that you should be compelled by anyone to do anything. Do what you want. In a perfect world I would just prefer that people know how to safely handle guns before they be carrying them on their person in public when I and my family might be down range from them. And do people who have had training occasionally make bad decisions? Some times. But I see far more unsafe gun handling and negligent discharges happen at public ranges among untrained folks than I do among folks who have been exposed to some education in safe gun handling. So I think it is a bit fallacious to argue that because in SOME instances trained people have made mistakes that it somehow negates the benefits of training altogether. I'm merely giving historical context to an argument that we make now, that would have been foreign to the people who lived back then. I’m not saying they didn’t see it as an individual right either. The militia is made up of individual citizens using their personally owned MILITARY GRADE firearms in order to come together and fight enemies of the state both foreign and domestic. It absolutely is an Individual right. I'm not in any way arguing against the 2A. I personally believe that you should be able to own ANY firearm (machine guns, SBR , SBS, etc. ) you can afford and shoot it on your own property. Just like you can buy any car you can afford and drive it on your own property without having to even have a tag or registration. But if you are going to carry it on the street (or drive it on the street) then you need to know how to safely operate the car or the gun. And don't even throw up the tired old "driving is a privilege not a right " argument. I'm saying that we all agree it is a good idea to teach people how to drive before they get on the interstate and cause potentially fatal wrecks because it is the smart thing to do . But then we say they should be able to buy a gun and carry it while remaining willfully ignorant of best gun safety practices and marksmanship training ? Does that even make sense? And before anyone tries to question my bona fides as far as 2A support I am a long time NRA member, have carried a gun on my person essentially every day for over 25 years. I have voted for pro 2A candidates in every election since I turned 18. I bought my first machinegun before I bought my first car. I have worked in the shooting industry for over 20 years and have been a professional firearms instructor for 20 years. I have attended and been a presenter at national level training conferences and have been a world championship level competitor in IDPA. I have used a gun to defend myself. I'm pretty well educated in history and politics of the 2A but I also see the difference in theory and reality. So I'm not someone who is late to the party. Again I'm not arguing against the 2A or arguing to limit freedom.....I'm merely clarifying that what a lot of people think they know about the 2A is not always exactly correct when put in its correct historical context.

The relevance is that some people want to argue that the Constitution was written to guarantee people being able to own and carry a gun devoid of any training or responsibility to society at large. "It is my right and no one should not be able to MAKE me do anything I don't wanna do" is how they look at it now. But that was NOT a thing back then when it was written. Able bodied military aged males (which is who made up the Militias) not only got compulsory (which means they HAD to) military training, but they also had to meet and drill regularly.....because they were constantly in a state of war or under threat of war. And that was the case in the British/American colonies in North America from the mid 1600s all the way through 1787 when the Constitution was written. The British colonies were not "safe" by any means and there was constantly the threat of not only Indians but also other European powers (France and Spain). And pretty much everyone that owned a gun (and some that didn't) were FORCED to train and drill. So the argument that the right was written devoid of any responsibility is not historically accurate and would have been as foreign a concept to them as the internet or supersonic flight. And carrying pistols concealed was not common. Hell, for that matter PISTOLS were not common in the colonies and you probably didn't have one unless you were a cavalry man , an officer , a sailor or were very well to do. The last 200 years though have left us with a standing army, professional police forces and relative peace for most people (at least east of the Mississippi ) since the 1870s and a gun culture more centered around leisure and entertainment than around sustenance and defending your settlements from attack. It is a different world from when the document was written. We no longer have to meet for militia duty every month so since that is not a thing for us we forget that it is a different world than when the document was written. Some folks don't like it but there is the ..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," part and that was part of the rationale for the amendment. A well trained and armed (that's what the word regulated meant back then) Militia was needed for the security a free state (both form external and internal enemies) and the people needed to be able to provide their own weapons in order for it to not be controlled by the government. And the government could not come and take them like they had during the English civil war (1642-1651). Back then if the army of the king came through your town they could confiscate any weapons they wanted from you. The 2A was also intended to protect against that. And Stonewall Jackson was shot INTENTIONALLY (mistakenly but intentionally) by his own troops DURING A WAR while returning to his lines in the dark from scouting out ahead of his lines during the battle of Chancellorsville....not in downtown Chattanooga on a summer evening stroll at the park by someone carelessly handling a gun. There is a huge and obvious difference .

True...but factually and historically at the time that the Constitution was written all able bodied males actually DID train with their arms for militia duty. The militias actually drilled and trained. The garbage that most people were taught in history class is that the militias of the British colonies were a bunch of bumbling hayseed hicks that couldn't line up and march down the road without falling off into a ditch. That is part of the "Myth of the Revolution" that a bunch of untrained farmers, on their own, armed with rifles, beat the mightiest military in the world. Nice story to tell the kids but it is not exactly true. In fact the "militia system" in the colonies was well established and had been around for about 150 years when the Revolution happened and those state militias had a fair amount of actual combat experience fighting Indians and the French and Spanish. Who here is familiar with King William's War? King Phillip's War? Queen Anne's War? War of Jenkin's Ear? Yamassee War? Tuscarora War? Anglo Cherokee War? Seven Years War ? Lord Dunmore's War? Anyone? ALL of those took place East of the Mississippi between about 1650 and 1775. Also add in an innumerable number of Indian raids. There was A LOT of fighting that the state and town militias engaged in before the Revolution . And they actually trained. Now their training was not as often or as intense as the British regulars and they were not held to the same fanatical level of discipline (and the British regulars held the militias in disdain due to that) but make no mistake about the fact that from the 1600s through when the Constitution was written able bodied males of military age did receive training with their firearm and got follow on training and drilling as part of their militia duty. The concept of gun ownership devoid of any and all responsibility to society was a foreign concept to people at that time.

ONE spot left....

Reminder this is coming up THIS WEEKEND!

Reminder ! These are coming up in just under a month!!!!!!

The spare gun is honestly a commitment most people neither want to make nor really need to make in their everyday lives. I strongly recommend it for people who are in a position where they are providing security or are doing something where they don’t have an option to just run away. Think police and church security. If your gun gets damaged then you are now a spectator not a participant. There was a shooting at a Chicago hospital (Mercy Hospital IIRC) a few years ago where one of the police officers’ gun was struck by a bullet and rendered inoperable. If you are the only armed person responsible for protecting the flock and your gun gets damaged then you can no longer efficiently perform that function. A spare mag won’t fix a broken gun. A spare gun at least gives you the option to continue. As for most “non sworn officer “ folks going about their normal boring daily lives it is far less likely to ever be needed. In fact most civilian robbery shootings are over (one way or the other) before you’d even have time to access the 2nd gun . The only problem is if you find yourself in that unlikely situation where it is needed then it is likely the only thing that will solve the problem at hand and may be the last thing you’ll ever need.

AJ I think the readers might need some context for the “sign up for fun comment” to make any sense to them. I was on a cruise about 4 years ago and my wife took a selfie of us on the ship. I was wearing a polo shirt with a Tuff Writer Click Pen clipped in the placket of the shirt. She posted the pic on her Facebook page and our neighbor asked why I had a pen clipped in my shirt. I told my wife to tell him “in case someone wants an autograph “ . One of my wife’s coworkers responded to the post with “so he can sign up for fun at any time”. That was pretty funny especially if you know me at all. A good metal bodied pen ( whether it is a Tuff Writer or just a Zebra) that does not look like a “tactical pen” or does not look like some weapon out of Game of Thrones is something you can carry ANYWHERE and if it is clipped to your shirt it is faster to get to than any knife or other impact weapon you might be carrying concealed. Is it as effective as a fixed blade knife or a sap or blackjack? Not really but no one likes getting stabbed in the face with a pen and I can carry a pen in all the places I can’t carry a knife , sap or blackjack.

I’m back from vacation and with recent events I thought it might be useful for us to do a team tactics day sooner rather than later. And with the current ammo situation this one will be very low on round count and very high on tactics. And since this is very short notice Im pricing this a lot lower than what fair market value for this kind of class would be . And please feel free to contact me if u want to attend but are a little short on cash right now. I’d rather have u in class and pay me a little later if you have to , than have you miss class just because you are a little short on cash right now . If you have not figured it out yet I’m more interested in developing your skills and helping keep you safe than getting rich quickly. We will look at safely moving and communicating and dealing with some common tactical problems like clearing corners and doorways, moving through an unsecured or contested area, and getting out of a vehicle and using it for cover and concealment. Think you and your homie , family member, etc being forced to bail out and get from a dangerous point A to a safer point B . Ammo count will be approximately 60 rifle (or PIstol Caliber Carbine) and 75 pistol rounds. You can certainly bring more (and shoot more ) but mag dumps are not really the idea here. Think in terms of how much you will really likely carry with you and how much ammo you will use. Rifle rounds tend to be pretty efficient if you hit what you aim at. Kyle Rittenhouse killed 2 convicted felons and wounded a third with less than 10 rounds. And the typical battle load in WWII for the Garand armed soldier was only 80 rounds. So the pertinent info is as follows..... Subject: Civilian Team Tactics for Modern Times Date : September 19th 2020 Location: Hiawassi Land Company Lake Rocky Face GA. Please contact me if you need directions. Time : 9AM- 3PM Eastern Time Price : $100 cash or check at class. You can also pay by PayPal ( cruelhandluke2000@yahoo.com) What to bring: Rifle (or PCC ) and at least 2 mags and 60 rounds for it , pistol and at least 2 mags and 75 rounds for it. Bring as many mags as you want and as much gear and ammo as you want to carry. If you want to run this class with chest rig and armor then that is fine. If you want to run it in CCW street clothes and just a rifle with spare mag in your pocket that is fine too. Up to you. This material is not gear dependent. Bring something to write with and note taking material. You may want to draw diagrams. Hope to see you in TWO weeks !