Not a Tango, nothing to see here

April 11, 2013

Long time no post!

Filed under: 2A, guns, self-defense — antitango @ 11:55 am

Lots of busy. Lots of other bloggers covering stuff that’s already been covered 7 times over, so haven’t had a lot to post.

I just got an email from a fellow in Kalifornia in search of a concealed firearm permit from my wonderful state of Utah.  Thanks!  For those that are interested, I live in the Salt Lake City area and I am a Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor for the state of Utah.  Our permit is recognized in 32 other states because every single day our entire database of permit holders is ran against the FBI’s NICs check system for wants/warrants.

I charge $50 for the class if you are near to Utah or if it is taught in my home.

I charge $75 if you are more than 30 minutes away and I come to you.

I charge $80 if it’s “I have 4 hours TONIGHT RIGHT NOW and I want you to teach me, so be here ASAP.” and if you live within close proximity to myself or if it is taught in my home.

I charge $100 if you are outside of that radius and want it immediately.

If you schedule it ahead of time and are within an hour, I will gladly drive to your home for the class or teach the class in my home.  The charge is $50 or $75 depending on proximity to me (see above).

Please email me if you have any questions.

If you will be attending Boomershoot, email me and we can set something up there.

December 20, 2012

Make this their last Huzzah!

Filed under: 2A, guns, rights, self-defense — antitango @ 7:22 am

I had the below post submitted to a friend’s FB post where he’s very much in favor of limiting our 2A rights “for the children”.  I just thought it was worth reiterating here, after the break:



December 14, 2012

Protect Your Children

Filed under: 2A, family, guns, self-defense — antitango @ 2:53 pm

In this world, you have but one purpose.  Your sole job is to protect your progeny.  What happened today in Connecticut was a disgusting, vile act.  Lives were WINKED out of existence by a monster.

Obviously, the world wants to prevent this.  I think that’s a wonderful idea.

Let’s look at what happened.  Someone who appears to have had no criminal background went nuts.  I haven’t seen tales of mental history, yet so I’m going with the assumption that he had a clean bill of health upstairs.  It should be illegal to take a gun onto school grounds.  Oh, it is in most cases.  It should be illegal to kill people.  Check.

So, it’s illegal to do what he did, but it didn’t stop him.  Already the cries for more gun control are deafening.  The idea is that if you make it more illegaler, it can’t possibly happen.  I think that’s wonderful.  Let’s make meth illegal, then nobody can smoke it.

No.  You protect your children.  It’s what you do.  Step up to the damned plate and take some responsibility for your charge(s).  You will not prevent a tragedy by telling him he’s not allowed to use a specific implement.  You prevent a tragedy of this magnitude by TRUSTING your teachers.

Teachers already go through background checks.  In fact, it’s the same FBI background check that firearms purchasers go through.  Train them.  Teach them viable tactics.  If they so desire, ARM THEM!  Teach them to be teachers and not just people that repeat a text book.  Give them the freedom to raise your child.  Your child already spends over 6 hours a day with this person.  You are trusting your child’s life with them.  That’s a HUGE responsibility!  If you are going to trust them, TRUST THEM.

It may not have stopped this tragedy, but it sure as hell would not have hurt to put the odds against the gun man.

October 1, 2012

Still not good enough

Filed under: 2A, rights, self-defense — antitango @ 5:52 am

Brief rundown about my life…

Graduated HS, never tangled with the law.
Became a United States Marine where I served 7 years in Topographic Intelligence (I made fancy maps).
Held Top Secret/SCI clearance.
Worked retail jobs and went to Ohio State.
Boy Scout Leader
Cub Scout Leader (Webelos)
CPR Qualified on Adults
CPR Qualified on Infants
NRA Range Safety Officer Certified
NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor Certified
I make it my duty to practice with my guns whenever I possibly can.

This is just the start.  In two weeks, I am getting NRA Basic Rifle Shooting Instructor qualified.  Yet… no matter how much experience I have, no matter how many guns I shoot and work to better myself with…  I should absolutely not be able to carry my own personal handgun in public according to the Progressive Left.  Nobody has the training to have that right and those that DO get the training are obviously far too paranoid to be trusted with guns.

August 23, 2012

Harvard: Gun Control is counterproductive

Filed under: 2A, guns, rights, self-defense — antitango @ 12:28 pm

I think Linoge would approve!

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The PDF is linked below.  Most excellent read! (PDF warning)

A second misconception about the relationship between firearms and violence attributes Europe’s generally low homicide rates to stringent gun control. That attribution cannot be accurate since murder in Europe was at an all‐time low before the gun controls were introduced.13 For instance, virtually the only English gun control during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the practice that police patrolled without guns.  During this period gun control prevailed far less in England or Europe than in certain American states which nevertheless had—and continue to have—murder rates that were and are comparatively very high.

Oh, this is juicy.

H/T to Joe Huffman for pointing out that this is *NOT* a recent article, but was published on May 5, 2007.

June 5, 2012

The problem with Open Carry

Filed under: 2A, guns, rights, self-defense — antitango @ 11:38 am

I’ve noticed that the problem with open carry…  are the anti-open carry crowd.

What’s interesting, and rather quite telling, is that the only reason that open carry is in the media and being argued about…  is that the anti-open carry crowd are the ones bringing it up or trying to teach lessons to the OCers.

I think the latest boutstarted with a loudmouthed jackass bashing everybody who OCs with one huge blanket statement.  His beef was over the folks in Cali who OC’ed shotguns and then claimed that the only reason that Cali banned OC was because of them.  No, they just reminded Cali that it was legal.  Can’t have that.  If not them, then someone else.  You can’t fight the laws until you fall victim to them.

The ONLY public backlash that might arguably not have happened was the Michigan library incident with the fellow OCing a shotgun.  I say arguably because the guy OCing had no choice.  If he was going to carry an implement with which to defend himself, it was going to be a shotgun due to the guy’s age.  It was not legally permissible for him to carry a handgun to begin with.

I’ve only seen 1 story that told of a guy having his open carry gun stolen by a criminal.  The other stories were of pro-gun people teaching a lesson.

If you want to OC, then OC.  If you don’t, then don’t, but shut your suck instead of bashing those that do.  The benefits that the Open Carry movement have provided have been 100 fold over the few negative instances about Open Carry.

(Edited fer bad grammers)

May 28, 2012

Alton Brown carries a 1911!?

Filed under: 2A, guns, self-defense — Tags: , , — antitango @ 7:13 pm

One of my favorite TV personalities is sometimes called the “Bill Nye” of the Food Network.  If you watch the Food Network at all, you know who I am talking about.  He showed a side today that I never would have expected had I not seen it from his own virtual mouth!

I have lived my whole life on Bond films. I may crack before Skyfall releases. I mean…I’m carrying a PPK. #not kidding. by @altonbrown

@altonbrown .380 or 9mm? by @FallsJ

@FallsJ .32 ACP Actually. I think the frame’s just to bitey in .38. by @altonbrown

@altonbrown I hear ya. Better something in .32 that you’ll carry than something in .38 that you won’t. by @FallsJ and it’s a comment that I wholeheartedly agree with!

@guntruth @altonbrown Carries? Would not have guessed. by @novasbre

@novasbre not every day…but most days.  it’s a dangerous world. by @altonbrown

and seemingly answering back to the same fellow as though for clarification:

@novasbre at home we like to say the house is protected by mossberg, but the Mossberg is protected by H&K. by @altonbrown

He’s not shy about this, either.  Below is another branched conversati0n with another fellow from the initial PPK comment that started it all.  It seems to me that not only is he talking guns, he actually appears to know what he’s talking about and not just trying to flub his way through it!

@altonbrown which is your favorite? by @BigO2493

@BigO2493 for carry? Kimber ultra-carry 2. I like the 1911 frame best. by @altonbrown

And finally, one last bit of conversation with another person:

@altonbrown nice choice… firing pin safety and de-cocker. #responsible by @abumgardner

@abumgardner exactly by @altonbrown

Edit: One last conversation.  Not sure if the guy is trying to bait Alton or what…  (Edit: Lokidude from #gbc pointed out that this isn’t a jab, but a reference to a recent episode of “Next Food Network Star” where Alton is one of the team leads.  A high-five of sorts?)

@altonbrown If you can’t cook & talk at the same time, shut up.  Oh & Beretta 92FS all the way. by @DobbinPitch

@DobbinPitch nice choice by @altonbrown (It doesn’t look like Mr. Brown was going to take the bait.)

I never would have thought that he would carry and I’m really digging the fact that he is!  The more people that carry, the more our goblins won’t know which victims are safe targets!  Carry on, Mr. Brown.  Carry on!

Forever a fan.

April 6, 2012

How you deal with pirates

Filed under: self-defense — antitango @ 1:12 pm

And this is how you deal with pirates!  As montieth said in #gunblogger_conspiracy

14:06 <+montieth> Let em get close….
14:07 <+montieth> open up and the crash INTO the ship
14:08 <+montieth> Stable shooting platform vs small unstable shooting platform…

National “Take Your Daughter to the Range” Day

Filed under: 2A, family, rights, self-defense — antitango @ 8:56 am

Very awesome indeed!

Boys learn to shoot in Scouts, or with their Dads. Often the girls are left behind, because shooting isn’t ‘girly.’ Well, we can, and do, shoot, and well! Learning to shoot gives young women confidence, helps to build self-esteem, and introduces them to a sport they can participate in their whole lives.

This event will promote firearms safety and education, as well as family bonding through participation in an exciting and fun sport.

I can’t argue with that!  June 9th, 2012.  Marked on the Calendar.  I don’t have a daughter yet, but I’ll make it so perhaps a friend can take HIS to the range.

The selfishness of the Progressive mindset

Filed under: 2A, rights, self-defense — antitango @ 8:01 am

The term ‘progressive’ means moving forward.  When you use the term in an unpolitical manner, it’s synonymous with PROGRESS.  Progress towards what depends on the end goal.  When speaking politically, you are still talking similarly with ‘progress’.  Again, it depends on that end goal.

I have an idea what that end goal would be…

Think about it in terms of Socialism.  Helping out EVERYBODY* using the resources of EVERYBODY ELSE.  This is the Democratic (aka Progressive) mantra.  Help the little guy.  But at whose expense?  The medium to big guy.  Robin Hood.  Steal from the rich, give to the poor.  “But it’s not stealing!  It’s making sure you give your fair share!”  But it ALWAYS comes at an expense.  There’s no such thing as a free lunch, even if you’re not the one paying for it.

* Everybody means ‘those that are eligible.’

So now we’re talking about resources.  What happens when the Progressives help out the little guy?  Well, they just put CASH MONEY in the little guy’s pockets!  Sure, it was MY money and YOUR money, but THEY are the ones that put it there!  They did awesome work reallocating YOUR money, doggone it!  The Conservatives (and Libertarians) say “Hey, they should be working for their money, not getting it for free!”  How dare we advocate self-help.

And they get the credit for doing it.  They want ALL that credit…  We give the money, they get the credit.

Let’s move to something besides resources.  Efforts.  To be Progressive takes on a slightly different meaning, now.  Conservatives still advocate self-help.  We think that if someone is breaking into our house and decides to clean you out of your valuables…  and maybe take a little something extra special from the wife, we should have the right to defend ourselves through lethal means.  We also believe that extends outside of the home.  If we are walking home from a restaurant, we should be able to defend ourselves against some knife wielding punk after a purse and a wallet through any means the punk deems fit.

The Progressives don’t want that.  You see, there are people that fulfill that job.  The Police.  They’re trained.  The average Joe Schmoe is just a mall ninja with a grudge and a gun.  Besides, we just put everybody else in danger, unlike the Police.

This is where the title comes in.  This is selfish…  once again, they are advocating that you rely on the government.  The government…  that is them.  It creates a system of reliance.  They are again being the benefactors of justice through their actions.

They are selfish.  They want to enact laws because that’s what they do.  They want to legislate the masses into compliance.  Gun Control.  It’s what you do instead of something.  We offer the means with which the public can protect themselves.  They offer reliance on a stretched thin force that doesn’t even have to do the job they were created for.

“Well, *WE* need to find a way that makes it so *WE* can stop people from doing this.” They want to be able to take credit for keeping the populace safe. They want it to be THEIR efforts that save lives. What good are they if we no longer need them?  It’s selfish.  They want to curtail our efforts so their constituents won’t realize they hold as much power for protection as the police…  and again, they’ll get all the credit for ‘keeping us safe’.

If we’re fully reliant on the government, we won’t need to have the means to protect ourselves…

Older Posts »

Blog at