Platinum Edge

My Platform

My platform is simple. I am pro-defense and pro-Second Amendment. For me, the two issues are synonymous. I won’t apologize for my support of either.

20 Responses to “My Platform”

  1. Ayres says:

    Hooah! I won’t apologize for My willingness to protect those who can’t or won’t protect themselves and I won’t step down in the defense of the weak against evil! And may god have mercy on their souls because I will not.

  2. BradKAK308 says:

    Never would have guessed 🙂 No need to explain.
    It always surprised me to meet people in Cbt Arms who weren’t gun people, but they were occasionally there just a small minority, very small. You expect it more in other trades/arms. Maybe set up a 2A blog?

  3. Jason H. says:

    Right On.

  4. bravebutstupid says:

    Noted journalist Tom Ricks is pro-defense and anti-second amendment, as demonstrated here.
    If you think that is inconsistent, give him a shout out so he knows how the service members he’s chosen to patronize feel about it.

    • jose says:

      As are so many of today’s Generals.

    • majrod says:

      I hope folks visit the site and comment. Ricks does great research and then comes up with the wrong answer because of his deeply skewed view on the world. Don’t waste your money on “The Generals” until you can get a second hand paperback and tell him so.

      FTR, I’m not against firing generals for being incompetent (we have too many anyway) but I don’t hold generals responsible for poor decision making/goal setting by elected officials. There’s also 2nd & 3rd order effects to liberal firing policies. Folks don’t take risks or pressure subordinates for results no matter the cost in blood or integrity. That isn’t good for a military organization.

      BTW, Ricks felt I didn’t get it. 20 years as an Infantry officer and a masters in leadership development was trumped by his academic experience I guess. (Just an FYI so you know who you’re dealing with)

  5. Jose says:

    With their consent, allow me to share a couple of pieces that two of my friends wrote:
    “Why AR15s are off the table

    In our modern world complex issues are reduced to simple activist sound bites and slogans. As a result few explore the depths of an issue or develop any sort of perspective. Perspective is really very important. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. In this essay I will try to explain as simply as possible why AR15s are off the table in the present debate over gun control in this post Sandy Hook period.

    The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights and several SCOTUS decisions say so. There are 4 reasons why the right to keep and bear arms exists as the 2nd most important right as the rights were laid out by the founders:

    1. To prevent our own government from becoming tyrannical.
    2. To recognize the natural right of self defense
    3. To prepare citizens for service in the military
    4. So people could hunt.

    Note the priority there. Hunting has the lowest priority on the list yet it is the one the left focuses on, i.e. “You don’t need an AR15 to hunt”, as if that were all there is to this issue. The first 3 are very, very important. Let’s take each one in turn.

    #1 To guard against tyranny. The founders considered of utmost importance the ability of the people to prevent their own government from becoming tyrannical. Patrick Henry’s famous Liberty or Death speech captures the fervor of this issue:

    “They tell us that… we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when will we be stronger?… Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard is stationed in every house? Three Million People armed in the holy cause of liberty…are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.” The emphasis is Henry’s. Revolutionary movements ever since have shown that an armed citizenry is much more often than not successful against a conventional military force.

    During the debates over the necessity of adopting a Bill of Rights [the value of which is now readily apparent to anyone looking at this very issue] showed total agreement by both sides of the issue [the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists] that the people must have the right to arms in order to preserve Liberty against a tyrannical government. THAT WAS UNQUESTIONED!

    Perhaps the most influential Anti-Federalist was Richard Henry Lee [Light Horse Harry Lee of Revolutionary War fame]; many of his Anti-Federalist ideas were later adopted word for word into the Bill of Rights. This reality gives his words gravitas. He strenuously opposed the creation of a select militia [what he would recognize as our National Guard and even SWAT teams of today]. He wrote tellingly:

    “To these corps [he means the select militia], not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia [he means the whole population]; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and prosperity, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenseless; whereas to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

    Lee’s words are representative of the words used by the men who so carefully crafted our form of government and who wrote voluminously on this topic. They always wrote in favor of an armed people. Two more quick examples should suffice:

    Tench Coxe writing for the Pennsylvania Convention:

    “The power of the sword, say the minority in Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY…Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” [Emphasis by Coxe]

    James Madison wrote “the ultimate authority resides… in the people alone.” And he foresaw that encroachments by the federal government would provoke “plans of resistance” and “an appeal to a trial of force.”

    We should note two things here:
    1. The founders were men of action who had just fought and won a revolution against the most powerful force on the planet at the time. They were obviously men of stout hearts and conviction as well as wisdom; indeed many, like Washington were real Warrior thinkers – not mere intellectual fops.
    2. Some will argue that for us to resist tyranny by our own government is unthinkable because our government can never become tyrannical. Un Huh. How many Tsars has President Obama appointed who are only responsible to him? How many Presidential Executive orders has President Obama issued that are unalterable by the people through their elected representatives?

    There are learned men today who are writing that we are well down the road of despotism, bureaucratic despotism. Perhaps it is a benevolent bureaucratic despotism but it need not always be benevolent. Or rather, so what? Despotism is still despotism, slavery is still slavery.

    President Reagan recognized this when he famously stated Government isn’t the solution, government is the problem.

    The Supreme Court has upheld the intent of the framers of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In Miller 1939, the SCOTUS determined that a sawed off shotgun was illegal because it wasn’t a standard military arm – not because it had a short barrel and was easily concealable.

    Let that sink in for a moment.

    Uh, that means the Supreme Court found that the people were allowed to legally possess the standard military arm.

    To conclude #1, remember two sentences from the Declaration of Independence:

    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The emphasis on the second sentence is mine; everyone at the time easily recognized that in order to this – to throw off a despotic government, the people needed to be armed.

    As inconceivable as this idea is to many today – to resist one’s own government – remember we have just concluded the most violent century in the human experience. How many governments changed for the worse and subsequently murdered tens of millions of people? By what stupendous leap of logic do you assume that it can never happen here? I challenge you to Google “The Battle of Athens Tennessee 1947” and read about how citizens took up arms to resist tyranny right here in the United States and return their community to its proper balance.

    We are the preservers of our Liberty.

    #2 I address the natural right of self-defense next. Who needs an AR15 for personal defense? Well my wife does for one. While I am away in the service of our country she is home – alone. That means in the country, 2.5 miles up a dirt road on our ranch, 30 miles from the nearest town. In an area where there have been several incidences of mobile meth labs, attacks on citizens and murder – as well as attacks by mountain lions on our livestock both while she was in the house and down feeding the horses.

    Police response to our ranch is a minimum of an hour away.

    My wife has as much right to be secure at our home as a child has to be secure at school. Yet the police cannot protect her there.

    Does she have an AR15? Absolutely! A purpose built one that is light enough for her to effectively use, and she practices with it.

    SCOTUS has again spoken clearly on this point. The Court has found not once but twice that the police have no responsibility to protect you as an individual citizen rather their responsibility is to protect society as a whole [Castle Rock vs. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County]. That means my wife is on her own until the police arrive – if they do. See why she needs an AR15?

    Citizen use of arms to defend themselves and their immediate society from law breakers has a pretty good track record:
    • The citizens of Northfield MN shot the James-Younger gang to rag dolls
    • The citizens of Coffeyville KS shot the Dalton gang to rag dolls
    • The citizens of Austin TX, once they realized what Whitman was doing suppressed him with their own rifle fire until the entry team [consisting of 3 policemen and 1 civilian] closed with him and shot him down
    • In the recent Oregon mall shooting a concealed carry permit holder [Mr. Nick Meli] drew and aimed his pistol at the active shooter. Exercising remarkable restrain, Mr. Meli did not fire for fear of hitting innocents beyond the active shooter. However, seeing Mr. Meli’s pistol aimed at him, the active shooter’s next act was to shoot himself to death thereby greatly limiting the death toll.

    To read an outstanding analysis of the relationship between mass shootings and the right to arms for your defense go to this link:

    #3 To prepare citizens for service in the military. What you say? ‘”No way! The military will train those who need to know how to use rifles and pistols all they need to know!” Anyone who believes that hasn’t been in the military:
    • A Marine General Officer publicly stated that if you want your son to have the best chance to survive a war, get a rifle and teach him to shoot before he goes in the service. This from a very senior officer in The Service that places more emphasis on being good with a gun than any of the others.
    • The only people in the services who get mastery training in how to use rifles and pistols are the Special Operations folks – SEALS, Delta, Special Forces, Rangers, Force Recon. Proof? In the Somalia debacle, the Rangers were more afraid of the “regular Army Smoes” [quoting from Black Hawk Down] and their wild firing than the Rangers were afraid of the “Skinnies”.
    • More proof? Between 1 October 2009 and 30 September 2011, I was personally responsible for the small arms training of 7,860 Soldiers deploying to either Iraq or Afghanistan. For rifle training I was authorized 58 rounds per deploying Soldier; 18 rounds to zero their weapon, and 40 rounds to qualify. If they hit 23 out of 40 targets on the qualification course they qualified and went to war. Let that sink in for a moment. Your son or your daughter going off to war after having fired only 58 rounds of ammunition. With the pistol it was 40 rounds, only 40 rounds. The guys who protect the President fire 500 rounds in practice each week. How’s that for fair? You want your son or daughter to have the best chance of coming home from a war? Get a military style firearm and get ‘em good training. [And by the way we scrounged ammo and provided a lot better training than what was mandated.]

    Congress recognizes this problem. That’s why the Civilian Marksmanship Program exists. There are CMP matches all over the country and the National Matches are held at Camp Perry every August. This is all designed to encourage marksmanship among the civilian population so we have a base of trained personnel for war time.

    This is why you can get a 1903 Springfield rifle or an M1 Garand rifle from the CMP for a very reasonable cost. But guess what rifle is used the most at the National Matches? You got it, the AR15! Why? It is the civilian version of the standard military arm.

    To conclude #3, a quote from Teddy Roosevelt and his last address to Congress:

    “The great body of our citizens shoot less as time goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!”

    #4 So people could hunt. This was way down on the list of the founders as to why we have a Second Amendment. Yes they acknowledged it but if hunting were the reason they would have mentioned it in the Amendment. They didn’t. I will try to keep it “minimalist”.

    The AR15 is an ergonomically designed rifle. It is easy to use and that makes it a great hunting rifle – provided the caliber of the rifle is suitable for the game being pursued.

    There is certainly a large segment of the population who think hunting is uncivilized and unnecessary, a bloody hold over from our barbaric past. Yet the majority of these people eat chicken, beef, pork, lamb, fish and turkey. Where do they think this meat comes from? The difference between it being raised in a pen for slaughter and someone going out and hunting for it is what? Man is a predator and a meat eater. We have all those nerves on the bottom of our feet so we can stalk up on our prey. We have canine teeth for the ripping and tearing of meat.

    Hunting has been in the past an excellent way to train for war, it is today an excellent way to train for war and in the future it will be an excellent way to train for war. It teaches tactics, stealth, practical marksmanship and the use of the ground. I learned far more about tactics while hunting ground hogs on farms in Virginia than ever the Marine Corps taught me.

    You don’t think training for war is important for us in our society? You must be one of the 99% who didn’t serve in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Here’s a tip. Man has been unable to live with himself in peace for 5,500 years of recorded history. With more people on the planet and more competition for natural resources than ever before, the chance of war is higher than it has ever been. Deal with it or die.

    Peace is a noble goal, a worthy thing to strive for but we must also be realists. Man as a species has enjoyed very little peace. Point out to me a great leader who never said the best way to have peace is to be prepared for war. The founders knew this and knew that men who hunted were better at war than those who did hunt.

    Hunting is a great way to teach and share your values with your children. Hmm, am I better off taking my son hunting or letting him play “Call of Duty, Black Ops”? Exercise and fresh air, being a part of the natural process and seeing the real effects of a firearm used to a purpose [self-reliance and meat on the table] or slaughtering countless human enemies with no negative consequences and even the awarding of points for more success in the game? Which is more responsible? I refer you to LTC Dave Grossman’s seminal work On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. He discusses the evils of violent video games far more eloquently than can I.

    Conclusion. Our founding fathers foresaw the situations we are in right now. Did they have to deal with mass criminality? Yes. The slaughter of 96 Moravian Christian Indians [Mingos] in Ohio in 1782 – 39 of whom were children is one example. By the way there were no AR15s present. All of those poor souls were killed by tomahawk, scalping knife or coopers mallet.

    Evil exists in the world and we are not going to stop it. We can minimize its effects and one of the very best ways of doing so is to allow the people to be able to defend themselves. The founders knew this. The police arrive after the event in 90+% of the events. Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country – if not the toughest. Yet the only people who don’t have arms are the innocent civilians who are being gunned down by the criminals who for some strange reason ignore the laws that already prohibit their having the guns with which they kill the innocents.

    The 20th century was the first century when men did not openly carry self-defense arms as a matter of course. Governments had become large enough and powerful enough to prohibit that practice in most of the world. Yet the 20th century has gone down as the most violent century in human history.

    That is just about everywhere in the world except in the United States where we have the individual right to bear arms – and not just any arms but arms akin to the standard military arm of the day. I wonder if there is any cause and effect relationship there?

    That was written by Captain (retired) Jeffery Sutton Wall. Jeff was recently hired by CorBon to revive their trianing division. Jeff is a good hand.

    Captain Adam Young, a man I worked for a short time ago penned this note that I wanted to share with friend and foe alike. I did a little bit of editing,

    Here goes: “I’ve heard a lot of talk from folks who haven’t had to rely on personal proficiency in a little black gun to protect their life; I have. My most trusted friends and associates have.

    Over the past few years I have been responsible for ensuring others have marksmanship/gun fighting skills before they go to war. I worked with everyone from the incompetent beginner to the best marksmen on the planet. I can honestly say most of these men and women, who stand better than a random chance of survival on a two way [range, AKA a] gun fight, invest a lot of time and private funds in their own skills. Most do this with privately owned weapons, namely the AR15 or some other semi-auto.

    I attended many marksmanship competitions where untold numbers of off duty Service Members hone their skills on their own time, dime, and equipment. I have been in charge of a number of training events where 50-60 year old subject matter experts bestow lifesaving skills on 18-20 year old Soldiers who have hardly handled a weapon. The knowledge these experts gained over the years makes them true national treasures. These experts primarily develop their tactics and techniques with privately owned weapons, namely the M1A, AR15, or semi auto pistols.

    I have heard testimonies by combat veterans who directly credit their survival to the training they received when not in uniform. When they speak you can hear the emotion in their voice as they recall the life or death situation and you know it’s not bull. It was not a video game; it was them or the bad guy. Confidence in your ability to defend yourself and fellow Soldiers is priceless. True confidence doesn’t come from firing your annual allocation of 40 rounds in a weapons qualification.

    Many a Service Member’s future has been directly or indirectly ensured by organizations and associations like NRA and CMP. In fact they have been doing it for generations, mostly with privately owned military style weapons and all while working with the military to develop its most effective marksmanship programs. They are key to our national defense. Most Soldiers don’t even know it, but their lives rest on the past, present, and future efforts of these organizations.

    Bottom line, none of the good trainers or marksmen I respect became truly good without doing a lot of off duty training with privately owned weapons. Their absence would be the “Atlas Shrugged” of marksmanship for our military.

    So if you’re a random person that thanks me or another for their service, but then says there’s no reason for a private citizen to own a military type weapon, just know that you truly don’t know what you are implying. I won’t get mad and respond rudely because I’ll understand the cause of your emotion and ignorance. I will simply smile and thank you for your opinion, which privately owned military type weapons have thus far guaranteed you the freedom to express.”

    CPT Young served at the National Guard Marksmanship Training Center overseeing the U.S. Army Sniper School (NG), Squad Designated Marksman Course and Small Arms Master Gunner Course, as well as conducting several Winston P. Wilson NG Small Arms Championship Matches. It was an absolute pleasure to work for him.


    • majrod says:

      Something SSD should consider printing?

      • albi says:


        • Stretch says:

          How many Britsh, Australian and NZ Soldiers are shithouse weapons users because daddy didn’t teach them to shoot? More importantly, how may of the SF members needed to have pre employment. weapons training as an adult or child. In fact lessons learned from AUSTSF is filtering down to all users in current weapons handling and marksmanship, based on current conflicts.

          If the success of your military depends on primary school weapons training before enlistment, that is a failing of the military, not the justification for adherence to an archaic law. The notion that to supplement the lack of hardware, ordnance and time, every one needs private military weapon or similar ownership is filthy as a concept.

          You also need to get out more if you believe that just because a soldier wears the uniform they are somehow pro gun.

          The Second Amendment has become a twisted beast, justifiable by slick lawyers. No one should be dying in their own country from the use of firearms of private citizens.

          In the end, it’s about lives being unnecessarily lost. Professional soldiers are about saving lives as much as taking them. Instead of having a sook about losing your rights, discussions should favour protecting the lives of innocents like those kids and ANY life lost unnecessarily including this weeks firefighters.

          I can just see the NRA lead posse’ storming the White House to end the tyranny…….

  6. Will S says:

    Jose, that was the best written 2nd Amendment stance I’ve read to date. Thank you for that.

    • Jose says:

      You’re welcome Will. But I can’t take credit for Jeff’s hard work.

      ALCON: Jeffrey S. Wall wrote that, and he works at CorBon. He’ll be at shot this year in the booth.

      • J Beauregard says:

        I was going to say the same thing. Best article to date. I don’t agree with everything but at least someone took the time to put a cogent argument together that actually makes sense. thanks for sharing that.

  7. Lawrence says:

    Without the Second Amendment the rest of the Bill of Rights wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on.

  8. Badjujuu says:

    That need to be on a bumper sticker… I’ll take two please..

  9. Jim says:

    Could SSD repost Jose’s post on it’s own? I’d like to have it as a Facebook share file.

  10. Jeffrey S Wall is spot on

    Well said

  11. AKo says:

    That was incredibly well written, succinct and phrased. It will also helps me better put into context the topic which I often have discourse about with anti-2A people (which we all know can be a frustrating conversation to have). Thank you for sharing that!

  12. Jen says:

    I like this site. Care to help a fellow blogger and allow me to post my link? I think you will enjoy it. I am pro gun, pro liberty and pro America