In this community, the ongoing discourse revolves around gun control and the perceived encroachment of the government on our personal freedoms. However, I contend that the overarching concern is the assault on our inherent right to self-defense against potential aggressors. These inalienable rights, bestowed upon individuals by the Creator, should remain inviolable by any individual or government. It’s not solely about firearms; rather, it’s about preserving our capacity to defend against criminals and tyrants. There ought to be no laws dictating the mere possession or carry of weapons by citizens. Instead, emphasis should be placed on implementing fair and prompt penalties for misuse, potentially affecting future ownership.

While acknowledging the efficacy of firearms as the ultimate mechanical equalizer, I recognize that not everyone can afford them, and not all individuals inclined toward self-defense are comfortable relying solely on deadly force. One tool that bridges this gap like no other is the blackjack and sap. Despite being outlawed in various places primarily due to reputation rather than actual criminal use, these tools are often associated with law enforcement. Though they faded from police use in the 1990s, some officers still sport uniform pants with “sap pockets,” now carrying knives or flashlights instead.

Their decline in police work resulted from their effectiveness, a seemingly paradoxical situation. Originating from an era when patrolmen had to physically transport suspects to call boxes for assistance, these tools gave way to a more technologically reliant police force. However, as I emphasize that no technology can alter the fundamental truth that, sooner or later, the apprehension of a suspect involves handcuffs.

These tools generated excessive force complaints and substantial payouts. My stance on this matter remains unchanged—verbal commands should be heeded, or consequences will follow, even if the individual perceives innocence. Criticism may arise, accusing me of granting police carte blanche to use force. Yet, in my experience, citizens rarely encounter hostile interactions with law enforcement, let alone physical struggles.

The crux of the issue lies not in the tools police carry but, in the recruitment, and training of law enforcement officers. Increasingly, we enlist individuals unfamiliar with physical confrontation, who undergo liability-centric and checkbox-oriented training. Their firearms training lacks realism, and this deficiency extends to their combative/force-on-force training. They learn more about avoiding lawsuits than acquiring the skills to handle uncontrollable situations, leading to confusion, fear, and timidity on the streets.

Older generations of police were pragmatic, understanding the inherent violence in their profession and relying on judicious use of force for success and survival. This mindset is absent in contemporary policing, where officers are unintentional and often shackled by the perception that using force is inherently negative.

Blackjacks, saps, and comprehensive training can offer a legitimate force option, filling a crucial void. It’s imperative to acknowledge that pain compliance is ineffective; to deter misconduct, we must target the structural system for control and the central nervous system for deadly force. Citizens should question law enforcement officers about their views on pain compliance, revealing a lack of faith in its efficacy.

In advocating for gun rights, we should also strive to restore the right to carry all weapons. Blackjacks and saps possess a unique characteristic not found in other weapons—they empower individuals with minimal training to defend against larger attackers by concentrating force, while trained individuals can apply them with reduced force.