Gun Culture and the Warrior Mindset

 

Years ago, when I first began martial arts training, I read a book called Living the Martial Way, by Forrest Morgan. Even though the martial arts featured in the book were not of my liking and have lost considerable popularity in today’s mixed martial arts world, Morgan still laid the foundation for the way I approach my own practice. On how to develop that warrior mindset if you will. It differentiated between those who view martial arts as just another hobby they do on Tuesday, while perhaps Monday and Wednesday might be bowling nights, and those who devote their lives to the warrior lifestyle. The larger point of the book was that every day should be devoted to some type of training that hones and sharpens your skills and mindset.

As time went on, I gradually came to realize that any serious dedication to self-defense training would have to involve firearms, so I pursued that as well. This opened the door to the realities of fighting more than anything else. For years I lived in the false security of practicing pretty flow drills and compliance techniques. I trained Jeet Kune Do and Filipino Kali with vigor and it was not until I explored weapon retention from the concealed carry perspective that I realized the training methods I was using would not save my life. I had spent years practicing knife and stick disarming and trapping techniques, all in the context of flow drills that are practiced to “develop skill in real-time movement.” All it took was a skilled grappler to demonstrate how flawed my thinking was. I am not saying there is not any usefulness in Filipino Kali or Jeet Kune Do techniques, I have just learned to apply them to more realistic training methods. Grappling for control of a weapon will certainly change your perspective on things.

Where am I going with this? America is experiencing a surge, to the delight of many no less, in first-time gun owners. In response to COVID-19 and the out-of-control riots, concerned Americans are exercising their constitutional freedoms and buying guns in droves for the first time. This is great news on one hand, and a little concerning on the other. Don’t get me wrong, all Americans have the unalienable right to self-defense. How many of them realize the realities of fighting with a weapon? How many of them are taking the time to get training?

In an article entitled The sociology of U.S. gun culture, David Yamane notes the differences between our current gun culture and the one of fifty years ago. Firearms training was once sought after primarily in hunter’s safety classes, and leisure gun activities involved target practice and skeet shooting. There was not a culture of concealed carry that revolved around the idea of training strictly for the purpose of stopping an attacker. That is the primary mindset of those engaged in gun culture today, the use of firearms in self-defense situations. This makes some people nervous and leads some to believe there should be licensing requirements to prove you have received an adequate amount of training. I will never be one to advocate that the government require permitting, I will however say that if you are not willing to live the warrior lifestyle you should reconsider your choice to carry a firearm.

Carrying a gun is more a responsibility than a right, in my opinion. As noted earlier, all Americans have the unalienable right to the defense of their life. And once they make the decision to exercise that right, they have the responsibility to ensure they are proficient in handling their firearm. Proficiency requires constant training, not just a basic pistol 101 class. Living the “martial way” in our current climate requires that developing your skills becomes like a second job. Physical fitness, the ability to shoot under pressure, situational awareness, ethical wherewithal about different situations, and the proper use of force are all important considerations when carrying a gun. I am not suggesting that everyone has the responsibility to devote precious time to martial arts training ̶ ̶ but if you are carrying a gun, you should at least seek out instruction on how to retain it in close combat. Retention is also an implied responsibility of carrying.

Consider the attack that took place in a Wal-Mart the other day. There was nothing out of the ordinary. Wal-Mart is a comfortable, familiar place where everyone generally feels safe. A young, mentally distraught boy picked up a butcher knife that was on display and murdered someone in cold blood. Nothing could have prevented this. The most trained among us would have been taken by surprise in such a situation if not paying attention. We can all convince ourselves that we would have reacted properly to such an attack by what iffing it to death, but we do not know. I will say that after twenty years of training knife, this is a scenario I hope I never have to face. This is where we as warriors, must admit the flaws in our thinking and ask if we are really prepared for such a thing. Is standing in an air-conditioned, indoor range shooting at a target ten feet away really preparing you for the psychological vigors of fighting? Are you one of those people who have simply taken an Intro to Handgun course and figured you’re good because you have a gun?

To develop the warrior mindset, to truly live the “martial way,” training must become a lifestyle. Even if it is only for ten to twenty minutes a day. Some of us, including yours truly, can not afford to shoot live ammo every day. Once a week, combined with physical fitness, and dry fire training is good. I devote two days to fitness, four days a week to martial arts training and every Sunday I work on my conceal carry tactics at the range. Throughout the week, after my workouts, I practice drawing and dry fire. If you are at the level where you are comfortable shooting on your own, get that heart rate up by doing pushups or sprints before each round of live fire and look at the difference in your shot groups.

Carrying a gun is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Once you make that decision, other people’s lives are potentially in your hands. Therefore, living “The Martial Way,” the lifestyle of the modern warrior, in my opinion, is a must.

 

 

 

Employer Mandated Vaccines Coming?

 

An irrational fear is still gripping the American public. Cities across the country increasingly continue to enforce mask mandates despite the admitted low fatality rate of .26%. City governments are not the only enforcers of these unconstitutional dictates. Local businesses, as well as national chain stores are also requiring people mask up before patronizing their establishments. A good example is the Oklahoma grocery chain, Reasors. Shortly after Tulsa and Oklahoma City imposed their mask policy, Reasors announced statewide, their stores would do the same.  Sadly, this is a reality across the country as major retailers like Walmart, Lowe’s, Kohl’s, and Target are also buying into the hype. Most people, even if they realize the ridiculousness of mask mandates, willingly comply because they need to get on with everyday life. There are, however, larger implications to this that many are blissfully unaware of.

In my last article I discussed the 2014 mask compliance study which determined how easily people could be persuaded  into wearing masks based on The Health Belief Model. Looking at this from the perspective that we are constantly being studied, it is important to understand that there is always a larger agenda and, a purpose for everything. Many people, for example, believe that the masks are merely a means to an end, and that they are being used to condition the public for mandatory vaccinations. This is true but it goes much deeper than that. The reason major businesses have been co-opted into complying with this nonsense is because they are one of the possible routes of ensuring everyone complies with vaccination policies. This to some, will seem like a no-brainer. The idea of having to prove you are immune to Covid-19 through vaccinations has been discussed since the beginning. It is very much becoming a situation where you will not be able to buy or sell without proof of vaccination. The question is, what is the best method of enforcing compliance?

The New England Journal of Medicine, the same journal where Dr. Fauci admitted that Covid-19 has an extremely low fatality rate back in March, has some interesting insight on this. In an article entitled Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, they discuss some of the possible ways of ensuring vaccine compliance. The authors acknowledge the “constitutional” difficulties of legally pushing vaccine requirements and makes suggestions on how to achieve the best results. They say that the imposition of fines and other legal penalties face too much risk of being challenged on due process grounds; therefore, other methods should be used.

Neither fines nor criminal penalties should be used, however; fines disadvantage the poor, and criminal penalties invite legal challenges on procedural due-process grounds. Both are bad public health policy for a Covid-19 vaccine because they may stoke distrust without improving uptake. (New England Journal of Medicine)

One of these methods is through employer directives. Employers, for example, could suspend employees who refuse vaccinations, and ultimately, even fire them. Another method would be state directed stay at home orders or forced quarantines of those in so-called ̶ ̶ high-risk groups who refuse vaccinations. You have not been vaccinated; therefore, you pose a danger to society. Of course, the question here is why would one pose a danger if everyone else is vaccinated? In any case, these are the things that are literally being discussed. This is not some conspiracy theory.  

Although state vaccination mandates are usually tied to school and day care entry, that approach is not appropriate for SARS-CoV-2 because children won’t be a high priority group. In addition, state mandates should not be structured as compulsory vaccination (absolute requirements); instead, noncompliance should incur a penalty. Nevertheless, because of the infectiousness and dangerousness of the virus, relatively substantive penalties could be justified, including employment suspension or stay-at-home orders for persons in designated high-priority groups who refuse vaccination. (New England Journal of Medicine)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the New England Journal of Medicine is in on some grand conspiracy to force vaccines. There are, however, some other correlations that deserve some attention. For instance, there are several criteria which the journal suggests need to be met before even recommending mandatory vaccines. There is a total of six, but two are of interest. One, the virus must present an ongoing threat. It must be proven reasonable that forcing vaccines is a necessary step. Has this been proven? As mentioned earlier, the CDC, and even Dr. Fauci both admitted that Covid-19 has a miniscule fatality rate and, over ninety-eight percent of the people infected, survive. Throughout the past six months there have been some interesting developments where the CDC admitted that case numbers were inflated due to hospitals receiving funding from the government. Furthermore, there have been many stories concerning the inaccuracy of the tests being used to diagnose Covid-19. This is because, according to Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, the FDA dropped the standards in developing the test.

Data sheets (e.g. Roche, 2020) rushed out from the test manufacturers and fast-tracked for clinical use by the US Federal Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorization have dropped the requisite caveats that such tests MUST be confirmed by comparison with purified infectious virus – and not just from bits of RNA, the so-called ‘RNAaemia’ of Huang et al (2020 p499) assumed to come from a ‘novel Coronavirus’ based only on molecular/genetic similarity. (Kevin P. Corbett, MSc PhD)

What Dr. Corbett is arguing is that the test fast tracked for approval by the FDA is not testing for an isolated virus, but RNA particles that suggests a similarity to the virus. In other words, any coronavirus could potentially be mistaken for Covid-19. Given this information, is the criteria for an ongoing threat being met? Not even close. So according to the Journal of New England Medicine there is no need to mandate vaccines at all.

Another interesting criterion suggests that mechanisms be put in place in the event of mandatory vaccines, that enable those injured from the vaccines to collect just compensation. The authors cite the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a potential example. This is interesting because it acknowledges the potential danger of vaccines while also bringing into question who is responsible for paying out the compensation. The smallpox compensation program was administered by the federal government, meaning the American taxpayer flipped the bill. Vaccine companies, by law, are protected from prosecution due to the injuries their vaccines cause.

 No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22)

  Americans must decide how much more of this they are willing to put up with. It is no secret that they are working on a vaccine and if they could, would mandate it for everyone. They are keenly watching how people are willingly complying with mask mandates and are not anticipating any major resistance to the vaccine at all. This will be especially true if major employers require the vaccine to stay gainfully employed. This is a possible route as it has been determined that requiring school children to receive mandatory vaccines for entry into public schools has been effective. If there is going to be any resistance to mandatory vaccination it needs to start against the unnecessary mask mandates right now.

About the author

David Risselada earned a bachelor’s degree in social work from Northeastern State University in Oklahoma and is currently a student in Liberty University’s Master of Professional Writing Program.

The Facemask Study and The Health Belief Model: Understanding How Science Views Us

 

Can people freely choose their behavior? Or, are we controlled by environmental circumstances which can be traced to our so called, evolutionary past? This is the debate that seems to be dominating society, whether we realize it or not. God vs. science if you will. Certainly, human behavior can be influenced by many factors, including the environment around us. When presented with extenuating circumstances people can be forced to make certain decisions. Some of us will make more informed choices based on past experiences, while others, will make more erratic ones. Behaviorist’s attempt to whittle this reality down to an exact science claiming that our choices are nothing more than ingrained evolutionary responses to environmental factors, honed by thousands of years of instinct. The unfortunate reality is that science views man as little more than a stimulus response mechanism. Animals who have no control over our behavior, only able to react to whatever stimulus we are receiving.

“The human brain is not simply a switchboard by means of which one environmental event is connected to another environmental event.” (William T. Powers)

Understanding the concept of stimulus response mechanisms, also known as cause and effect psychology, is important because it is the lens from which science studies our behavior. It is in fact, the very basis of behavioral psychology (Powers). Behaviorists like B.F. Skinner have stated, and this writer has noted this several times, that any study of our behavior should be done from an evolutionary perspective. This means that the study of human behavior should always be done from the perspective that man has no control over his own choices, and that it is only the environment that motivates our responses.

 In what we may call the pre-scientific view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person's behavior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. (B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity)

B.F. Skinner was a behavioral psychologist known for doing experiments on his own daughter. He took the view that man is just another animal. He narrowed down the study of behaviorism to either the scientific or pre-scientific views. Pre-scientific means a time where it was believed men could freely choose their behavior and were, to some extent, in control of their decision-making processes. The scientific view takes the position that our behavior is determined. This is essentially the battle between free will and evolution. As he stated, “neither can be proven but in the nature of scientific inquiry, the evidence should shift in favor of the second.” This means that when your behavior is being studied, it is from the belief that you are an animal who has no control over your behavior. As Powers said, it is the basis of behavioral psychology.  

Interestingly, Powers refutes this thesis to some degree by saying that behavior cannot always be determined simply by the stimulus response mechanisms being influenced by environmental factors, because the right models are not always being used. Come again? To be more specific, he says the models being used are not always appropriate to behavior. Furthermore, he states that a controlled environment that determines what parameters the study will be conducted from will largely determine the results.

The apparent usefulness of variations of behavioral acts can be accepted as fact in the framework of a control system model of behavior. A control system, properly organized for its environment will produce whatever output is required in order to achieve a constant sensed result, even in the presence of unpredictable disturbances. (Powers)

Why does any of this matter? What difference does it make? As this writer noted in his article Operant conditioning and the face mask pandemic, there was a study conducted in 2014 that was done to determine the public’s susceptibility to being forced to wear facemasks. The study concluded that people could essentially be motivated to cover their face based on the perceived vulnerability of being afflicted with life threatening diseases and, the perceived benefits of wearing a mask. The study also noted that perceived perceptions of embarrassment could inhibit the desire to wear a mask. Finally, the study found that a blitz in media efforts, supported by government, to promote public health was a huge factor in encouraging people to wear masks. This study, as noted above, was done in 2014.

As all studies are, this one was conducted based on a particular model of behavior called the Health Belief Model. What is the Health Belief Model? Interesting you should ask. It is a behavioral change model developed to predict or explain behaviors related to health and health related services. It is also one of the most common models of behavior used to conduct health related studies today. All studies have independent and dependent variables, factors for which they establish controls. The Health Belief Model did not account for the following ̶ ̶

• It does not account for a person's attitudes, beliefs, or other individual determinants that dictate a person's acceptance of a health behavior.
• It does not take into account behaviors that are habitual and thus may inform the decision-making process to accept a recommended action (e.g., smoking).
• It does not take into account behaviors that are performed for non-health related reasons such as social acceptability.
• It does not account for environmental or economic factors that may prohibit or promote the recommended action.

Interesting, it does not account for persons attitudes, beliefs, or other determinants that dictate a person’s acceptance of a health behavior.  Like the ability to freely choose on their own which behavior they will engage in? This is a perfect example of B.F. Skinners assertion that all studies be done from a scientific opposed to pre-scientific viewpoint. In other words, the propaganda you are being fed about wearing masks is based on a behavioral study where an individual’s ability to freely engage, in or disregard the behavior, is completely left out. Furthermore, The Health Belief Model makes a few preconceived assumptions as well, that the facemask study surely considered.  It assumes that cues to action are widely prevalent in encouraging people to act and that "health" actions are the main goal in the decision-making process. What is a cue to action? As described in the model itself, a cue to action is the stimulus needed to trigger an individual into engaging in the desired behavior. According to The Health Belief Model a cue to action can be perceived susceptibility to illness, or a news paper article.

The study found that a blitz in media efforts, supported by government, to promote public health was a huge factor in encouraging people to wear masks.

There is an ongoing debate between those that believe humans have free will and those that believe in, for a lack of a better term, evolutionary science. B.F. Skinner said that scientific inquiry into human behavior should be conducted from the latter viewpoint even though neither can be proven. Is that the way we really want to go? As demonstrated above, the study revolving around a major issue we are facing today, the forced wearing of masks, was conducted without accounting for individual differences in the way we all perceive what is going on. The study denied us our individuality. Furthermore, the study also assumed, based on Skinners theories no less, that most of us would just accept what we are being told because of the perceived authority of media and government. This is something that the American people need to understand if they are going to live in a free country. We are governed by those who view us as nothing more than stimulus response animals. When we respond to a given stimulus, they study that response and learn from it. Over the past five months they have come to believe that we are a very compliant population. In many ways, we have been. They will continue to push until we assert ourselves in the name of our free will to choose our own lives. To do that however, we must first understand the lens from which we are viewed. This writer believes the facemask study and the Health Belief Model provided a good base from which to show an example we can all relate to.

 

 

The one question that must be answered

I had awoken this morning from a dream so strange.

I had dreamt the world was different, it somehow had changed.

Just how glorious can this beautiful world be?

To find out you must become, the change you wish to see.

This morning, as I was heading towards the river to do some striper fishing, I decided to listen to Michael Savage. Friday’s podcast was of course, focused exclusively on the upcoming presidential election. Savage was instrumental in rallying the conservative base to get out and vote for Donald Trump in 2016. He is expressing some doubt as of late, whether those same people can be counted on to prevent Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick from becoming president.

The Republican party is more split now than I can ever remember. There are those who absolutely love Trump and those who do not. We must accept that he has not, despite the hype, lived up to his promises. We have no wall, Obamacare is mostly intact, the second amendment has been weakened, there have been no mass deportations and we are an additional eight trillion dollars in debt. Trump spends money as well as any Democrat, only faster. Still, people believe that this election is the most important of our lifetime. Donald Trump is once again being presented as our last hope for freedom. Wasn’t he supposed to save us from the left in the last election?

The question is, what can Donald Trump do in a second term to reverse, or stop, what has occurred over the past four years? The reality that must be faced right now is of two possibilities. One, Donald Trump is not the strong leader people thought he was. Or, he is controlled opposition. The truth is, he can do nothing that he has not already been able to do. A Trump victory in November will not stop the tide of communism that is engulfing our nation, because he is enabling it, whether he knows it or not.

This is the truth that people refuse to see. A truth that has been self-evident since the beginning of Trump’s presidency. The first bill he signed was the omnibus spending bill, which was the concoction of Pelosi and Schumer. The Republicans controlled the house and senate at the time and were completely excluded from any negotiations. Trump and Schumer have been long time friends and Trump donated large sums of money to both his and Pelosi’s campaigns during the Obama years. After signing this bill, he stood in front of God and country and promised to never do it again. Since that time, he has signed every spending bill, every piece of legislation that increases the power of the state and zero bills that secured the blessings of liberty. This is not to say he has not done anything worthwhile, but it does seem like he is advancing the Democrat agenda. 

The biggest question I have is what is the difference? Everything that has brought this country to the brink in the past few years has occurred under Trump. Of course, Obama played a major role, but Trump was supposed to stop it all. Am I supposed to believe that voting for him again is our last hope for freedom? That was the story last time, as I said earlier. What is the difference between Trump signing a bill to spend trillions we do not have, and Biden doing it? I know one thing, if it were Biden doing it, the republican base would not tolerate it. They also would not have tolerated the bump stock ban, which gave the ATF the unconstitutional authority to alter existing law by changing definitions within it, or ̶ ̶ would they tolerate any support for red flag laws. When President trump sat next to gun grabber extraordinaire, Feinstein, and said “take the guns first, go for due process later,” it was over for me. To be honest, I do not believe that half of what Trump does would be tolerated by Republicans if it were done by Democrats.

Savage made an interesting comment that caught my attention. He said that people are rallying around a strong leader to save the nation. Isn’t that the problem? America is a nation that has prided itself on its Christian heritage and yet, we are looking to men to solve our problems? Is Trump a strong leader? Savage suggests that his advisers are leading him astray and that it is their fault his poll numbers are dwindling. He suggests that some of them could possibly be saboteurs. They could very well be, I will give him that. Blaming Trump’s failures on his advisors, however, does not speak to strong leader characteristics. It suggests that he cannot think for himself while stripping him of any personal responsibility for his actions. Strong leaders face their failures and do not allow others to decide who or who is not, to blame.

Over the past four years I have been extremely critical of Trump. I have been one to believe that he is controlled opposition. The typical reaction I get is being asked if I would rather have a democrat in office. The answer to that is of course, no. Those that ask that however, are missing the bigger question. In my opinion, this question is the one that must be answered if we ever expect to fix our country. How did we get to the point where we accept the notion, that we must vote for the lesser of two evils? Only when we answer this question can we get a real understanding of what we must change. The real problem is one of the human heart and our nations disconnect with God.