Well, I can see such as ‘another club in the bag’ so to speak

What We Really Need for Effective Self-Defense: Reliable Non-Lethal Incapacitation.

Recently, Shooting News Weekly shared a quote from Open Source Defense. In short, they called for technological improvements in guns to make them easier to shoot, have higher capacities, and otherwise be more useful for the average human. I agree with the idea that weapons should continue to improve as technology advances.

On the other hand, humans have a tendency to get stuck in a paradigm that keeps us from moving on to better technologies. For example, there’s the famous quote from Henry Ford: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” The automobile was a radical departure from using animal power to get around, and is better for nearly all use cases. But few had imagined that at the time.

To avoid that trap, I propose the industry should set goals and then determine what technologies need to be further developed or created from scratch to meet those goals. This kind of leadership by objective isn’t perfect, but it can help us avoid seeking “faster horses” in the gun world.

One of the biggest things anti-gunners misunderstand is the alleged desire among gun owners to kill people. While there are always a few nutters who fantasize about having an excuse to kill another human being (we can call them the “I wish an MF’er would” crowd), the vast, vast majority of gun owners only want to be able to stop a threat to their lives and those of people they care about.

If it were possible to stop the threat consistently and reliably without the attendant tragedy of ending another human life, that’s what virtually all of us would choose. We have some tools designed for non-lethal incapacitation, but sadly, They’re not reliable enough for life-and-death situations. TASER darts don’t always stick and things like OC spray can be affected by wind, sunglasses, the influence of drugs, etc. That’s why such weapons aren’t good answers to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm. We just can’t take a chance on them not working.

Still, we try to find ways to avoid needing to kill someone. Non-violent dispute resolution tactics like Verbal Judo are widely taught in the firearms community. Farnam’s “Rule of Stupids” (avoid doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places) has long been taught to people who want to carry a gun for self-defense. Avoiding situations where you might need to use a gun entirely is the key here.

In the long run, it’s my hope that the industry takes this to heart as it seeks to improve weapon designs and invent new tools for self-defense. Instead of a faster horse — a gun that’s easier to shoot and throws more pieces of metal around — what we really need is something like Star Trek phasers. On one setting, people in that fictional world can reliably knock most threats out when it’s appropriate. The option to kill, however, is still available when it’s absolutely necessary. Kirk’s phaser was also good as a powerful cutting tool, a signal, a source of heat, and many other uses.

We’re probably nowhere near such a weapon yet, but it’s a good north star to guide the industry. Reliable incapacitation might not come from an energy weapon like we see in science fiction, but whatever the path it is that leads in that direction, we should focus on finding it.

CCL holder kills gunman in Harvey mass shooting; 2nd deadly shooting could be connected: officials

HARVEY, Ill. (WLS) — A Concealed-Carry License holder fatally shot one of two gunmen who injured a young child and four others in south suburban Harvey on Saturday night, officials said.

Officials believe another deadly shooting, which happened on Sunday morning, may be connected to Saturday night’s mass shooting.

On Sunday, crime tape and evidence markers are the only signs left of Saturday night’s shooting, which happened around 8 p.m. during a house party on the corner of 145th and Des Plaines. Neighbors described the scene to ABC7.

“It was chaotic. A lot of police. A lot of ambulances. A lot of people laying on the ground. It was a shame to have to see something like that,” said neighbor Terrence Simpkins. “It was a sad moment for this community here. And more work needs to be done.”

Two armed men opened fire at the gathering, injuring five of the guests. But it did not end there. A CCL holder who was present returned fire, killing one of the suspects and injuring the other.

A 4-year-old boy suffered non-life-threatening injuries and is listed in stable condition.

Four other party attendees also suffered gunshot wounds. They were taken to local hospitals in stable condition.

The suspect killed was pronounced dead on the scene.

The injured suspect was taken to a hospital in stable condition, and is now in police custody.

While police initially believed Saturday’s shooting to be an isolated incident, saying there was no further threat to the community, they are now investigating an early Sunday morning shooting, which happened in the 200-block of Calumet Boulevard, as a possible act of retaliation.

An unidentified man was found dead inside a minivan. One neighbor, who did not want to show her face, spoke with ABC7.

“I woke up, and it sounded like bullets were hitting the garbage cans… I heard, at least 40, 38, I don’t know, a lot of rounds,” she said. “I ran downstairs and grabbed, just everyone away from windows, just threw them to the floor.”

While the search for the gunman in Sunday morning’s fatal shooting continues, a spokesperson for the Harvey Police Department said investigators are actively following leads and witnesses are cooperating.

Further information was not immediately available.

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution… The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.’
— MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

Right to bear arms also a responsibility

A violent attack in Traverse City, Michigan, would not have been prevented by any of the myriad proposals for more intrusive “gun control” — the attack, in which 11 people were viciously stabbed, was carried out with a folding knife.

Instead the first gun at the scene of the attack, which authorities are seeking to define as terrorism, was carried by a law-abiding citizen, who helped defuse the situation and coax the alleged perpetrator into surrendering.

The citizen, a retired Marine bearing arms in concordance with the Second Amendment rights we frequently defend in our editorials, acknowledged in an interview with the Detroit Free Press that the Second Amendment is as much a responsibility as a right.

“The only that separated me from the other gentlemen that had stepped in as well was what was I was carrying in my hands,” Derrick Perry said. “I think I would have ran out there or walked out there and helped either way. … It was just a moment of ‘I got a duty to protect.’”

We are not saying that everyone needs to bear this responsibility, or that everyone is well-suited to bear it. We recognize that a society that allows people to pursue their opportunities and exercise their liberties will depend on everybody taking on different responsibilities — the responsibilities they are best equipped to fulfill.

But we believe that the men, women and children of Traverse City should appreciate that Derrick Perry understands that he not only has a right to own and carry a firearm, but as someone willing to train and educate himself on the use of firearms, he has an opportunity to shoulder the responsibility of helping to keep his community safe.

While we are far from the scene of this crime in northern Michigan, we appreciate Perry’s willingness, as a retired Marine, to serve his country and his willingness, as displayed by his bravery that day, to continue to serve his fellow Americans by being prepared to defend their lives and liberties.

We hope people across our nation can learn both to respect the necessity of a sense of responsibility in each of us, and the necessity of respect for the freedoms and liberties that allow us to bear those responsibilities.

The right to defend against unjust force underpins virtually all other human endeavors, and a no statute, norm, paradigm, or custom can deprive a human being of this most basic of rights.
-Toshiro Grendel

Lord Rothschild: Trump Is Threatening To Destroy The New World Order

Lord Rothschild has warned that President Donald Trump threatens to destroy the New World Order and “must be stopped at all costs.”

Rothschild family-owned magazine, The Economist, branded Trump a “present danger” to the “New World Order” and admitted that the globalist elitists that formed it are “spinning in their graves.”

“Perhaps the greatest danger at present is the incumbency of an American president who despises international norms, who disparages free trade and who continually flirts with abandoning America’s essential role in maintaining the global legal order,” writes The Economist.

Infowars.com reports:  Despite listing off legitimate threats like jihadism and terrorism, Communist Chinese expansion, and North Korean hostility, an article published by The Economist names Trump as the biggest threat to the “liberal” New World Order.

Supreme Court’s Failure: Path to Tyranny ~ & Why Armed Americans Must Care

The recent inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the people’s right to keep and bear arms isn’t just disappointing—it invites tyranny. When the Court refuses to protect a right so explicitly anchored in the Constitution, it risks turning once‑free people into subjects. And as the founding generation understood, tyranny compels rebellion.

Background: What This Means For You

If you’re new to this issue: the Second Amendment guarantees a natural, individual right of self‑defense. Landmark cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that Americans have the right to own functional firearms, especially handguns, for lawful purposes in their homes.

Two years later McDonald v. Chicago made clear that this right applies at the state level as well.

Since then, lower courts have been left to navigate whether gun regulations are allowed under an “in‑common‑use” and historical tradition approach, not interest balancing. Yet, gun‑rights advocates have seen many victories blocked, and equally many restrictions upheld under vague standards.

The Court’s Recent Defeat: Antonyuk and Beyond

In its latest term, the Court chose not to review Antonyuk vs. James, a critical Second Amendment case from New York’s courts. That means the lower court’s decision—and the State’s restrictive Concealed Carry Improvement Act—remains in place.

Despite calls from Justices Thomas and Alito for clarity, the Court laid down no reasoning. That silence undermines not just precedent, but the credibility of the constitutional right itself.

Without Court guidance, states pushing severe carry limits and licensing regimes can continue to chip away at our right to armed self‑defense—state power overriding individual liberty, even where founding principles say otherwise.

Why This Matters to Armed Americans

Our in-depth article over at Arbalest, “The Failure Of The U.S. Supreme Court To Ensure The Sanctity Of The RKBA”, spells it out: the failure of the Court to act is not neutrality—it is bowing to tyranny. Masked under slogans like “strong gun laws reduce violence,” the real outcome is disarming law‑abiding citizens, while leaving government unchecked.

A citizenry that cannot defend itself is at the mercy of government power. If free people allow erosion of the right to bear arms, they lose the final safeguard against arbitrary state authority. The author warns: this is not philosophical—they mean actual disarmament, or worse.

Last Words

The failure of the high Court has weakened the natural law right. Its refusal to grant certiorari in key Second Amendment cases refuses to protect the sanctity of those rights. It allows anti‑gun states to continue trampling self‑defense protections under the guise of regulation. This is not legal evolution—it’s legal surrender.

If you’re ready to dig into the full arguments, precise citations, and rhetorical power of the original, I encourage you to visit our article and read it in full. It lays out, step‑by‑step, how judicial inaction signals tyranny—and why now is the time for armed citizens to pay attention.