I was recently reminded that in 2015 Ivan Nikolov did an interview with me after one of my classes.  We covered some of the history of ordinary, law-abiding American citizens being able to carry loaded concealed handguns in public to protect themselves and their families.

Before we were done, we touched on some of the BS myths that promote so-called “gun control,” and at the end even got into some discussion of defensive shooting techniques.

Or you can find it here.

Ain’t much that’s changed since…


  1. Well, there is one thing that’s changed. We now have 21 no-license carry states, just as you predicted.

    I wrote a history of handgun carry, U.S. and Texas, that’s posted on the Texas Handgun Association site at txhga.org. I don’t know anyone who believed, back in 1985, that folks would be able to carry in 42 of the 50 states by now.

  2. The most important than for every American to understand is We the People don’t have constitutional rights We the People have natural inalienable birth rights that are above every man made law . Every single gun law, background check and permit is unconstitutional and illegal.

  3. Mas,
    Always a pleasure to hear your melodious voice.
    You reminded me of things that I knew but have temporarily forgotten that I can use to further the cause of Second Amendment freedom.
    Take care and tell the Evil Princess I said hello.

  4. One issue raised during this interview was the “Weaver vs. Isosceles” question. In addition to the points raised in the interview, I would add the following:

    Advantages/disadvantages of the Isosceles vs. Weaver stances:

    1) The “squared up” position of the isosceles allows the shooter to rapidly pivot to either the right or the left to engage targets to either side. In contrast, the Weaver stance is not so balanced. From the Weaver, one can rapidly engage targets to the weak side but it is more difficult to engage targets to the strong side. Generally, with the Weaver, one must use footwork to shift one’s position to quickly engage a target that is sharply on the strong side.

    2) The “squared up” position of the isosceles presents one’s breast directly to the target. This is an advantage if one is wearing body armor. Otherwise, it is a liability. The “bladed” position of the Weaver is superior, if one is not wearing body armor, since it reduces your target area and positions the arm and shoulder in between the target and the vital chest organs.

    3) The isosceles is fairly easy to teach to novice students who, otherwise, have little or no experience with firearms. The Weaver is basically a modification of the same stance used for firing a long gun. Therefore, someone who already has extensive experience firing rifles or shotguns may find the Weaver “more natural” and easier to learn.

    4) The isosceles generally allows adequate recoil control with semi-automatic pistols chambered for typical defensive cartridges (9mm, 357 Sig, 40 S&W, etc.). However, the Weaver, with its “push/pull action” is superior for recoil control of handguns that generate very heavy recoil (.357 Mag., .41 Mag, 10mm, .44 Mag., etc.).

    Considering the above advantages/disadvantages, one can say that the isosceles stance is generally superior for the following users:

    1) Law enforcement or military personnel who will likely be wearing some kind of body armor and who will need to be taught to shoot handguns quickly and efficiently.

    2) Competitive shooters who need every speed advantage possible as they engage multiple targets that may be to the front or either side during a shooting stage.

    3) Relatively novice shooters who are only interested in learning the basics of using a handgun, in a typical defensive caliber, and who will only receive limited training.

    While the Weaver would be generally superior for:

    1) Experienced shooters who already have extensive experience with firing long guns and who would seldom wear body armor.

    2) Shooters who use heavy recoiling handguns (like hunters) or who simply prefer to carry a powerful handgun for personnel defense.

    There really is no perfect stance. Like everything else about firearms and shooting, it depends upon what fits you and what goal you are trying to achieve.

    As for myself, I have decades of experience firing long-guns dating back to my first BB Gun which was given to me at the age of nine (9). Because of the “muscle memory” developed from long-gun shooting, the Weaver “feels natural” to me whereas the isosceles feels artificial. Also, I do not (as a general rule) wear body armor and I sometimes fire heavy recoiling handguns up to .44 magnum and .45 Colt. Therefore, the Weaver is my “go to” stance.

    Your mileage may vary! 🙂

    • Generally I prefer shooting from prone, and from covered defilade. The first thing the old soldier Scoutmaster taught us 10-year-olds and up in rifle training, and with the legs properly canted. If the ground is occupied by cactus, reptiles, scorpions, and spiders, as it often is in Arizona, I may be bobbing and weaving my way to taller defilade before engaging opponents. All depends on the totality of tactical circumstances. I am more likely to shoot on the move in daylight than in the dark. I don’t put a lot of faith in “suppressive fire” or giving my position away any more than necessary. I work outdoors in a potentially hostile area too often, and I spend a fair amount of time scouting as surreptitiously as possible..

      • My comment concerned handgun shooting stances. The positions used for rifle shooting, especially in a combat situation, is a different topic altogether.

      • No matter what kind of firearm you have in your hands in an armed confrontation, you are well advised to be in a position of unfair advantage, and actually shoot first, and better. The holds that I use for pistol and rifle are virtually identical (KISS), which may be why I have had good luck in surviving split-second emergencies. Think of your handguns as short rifles, I say. I am alarmed when I see, in a video, stationary police officers standing out in the open and jerking pistol triggers shakily in a wild blaze of bullets. Good that the perps have generally been poor shots, but I wouldn’t count on all of them being as inaccurate as the Indians in the old cowboy movies.

    • Shooters who are trained in martial arts do better with the Weaver stance as it’s more stable and allows faster movement, especially on uneven surfaces like stairs.

      • This is also a “muscle memory” issue. Most forms of martial arts use a bladed position, with one foot forward and another one back, as their basic fighting stance. As you note, a bladed position is more stable and allows for faster movement. Especially forwards and backwards.

        Any shooter with extensive training in one of the common forms of martial arts will be accustom to fighting from a bladed stance. Their martial arts practice will have built up “muscle memory” for this kind of stance. So, the Weaver stance will also “feel natural” to someone trained in a martial art just like it “feels natural” to someone with extensive long gun shooting experience.

        However, again, if one is a novice who lacks any experience in both martial arts or in long-gun shooting, then the isosceles stance will be quick to learn. Such a novice shooter will not have to “un-learn” all of his previous experience since there is nothing to “un-learn”.

        This goes back to my earlier point. The more experienced a shooter is with long-guns or martial arts, them the more the Weaver stance will appeal to them. However, if the student is “green as grass” when it comes to these matters, then the isosceles stance will have advantages. Especially if the “cherry” student is interested in a career in law-enforcement or the military and will routinely end up wearing body armor.

      • Speaking of tactical things, my vote for all-time general master of tactics is not Sun-Tzu, von Clausewicz, or General Giap, but the late basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian. The merits of zone versus man-to-man defense were long debated. Jerry transcended the quotidian with his revolutionary “Amoeba” defense, neither zone nor man, but a newly recognized level of thinking: devour the opponent. Whatever tactical methods contenders in any theater employ, such flexibility of thought “out of the box” will be the key to winning.

  5. The “bladed” position of the Weaver is superior, if one is not wearing body armor, since it reduces your target area and positions the arm and shoulder in between the target and the vital chest organs.

    Good news/Bad news:
    Straight on you are a wider target, but a bullet striking a bit off-center may only go through one lung. Bladed you are a narrower target, but a hit will likely go through both lungs and the circulatory system between.

    • “…but a hit will likely go through both lungs and the circulatory system between.”

      This is true if the round has enough penetration. After penetrating the arm, and maybe the bones of the arm, this level of penetration may be lacking. During the infamous 1986 Miami FBI shootout, one of the bad guys took a hit, from the side, with a 9mm Silvertip bullet. The bullet expanded but stopped short of the heart. The bad guy went on fighting and killed FBI agents after taking this hit.

      The FBI ignored all of their tactical mistakes and made this penetration failure a scapegoat for the negative outcomes of this shootout. The FBI then began its long search for better weapons and ammo.

      In a bladed position, a round that goes off-center may miss entirely, or else only produce a grazing hit.

      It is notable that the Old Time Pistol duelers always stood in a bladed stance to each other. They never “squared up” and faced their opponent directly. There is a lesson in that.

      • Your statements made me recall some of the old time stances taught police where the shooter’s weak hand forms a fist and is held in front of the chest in an attempt to block or at least slow down a bullet before it reaches a vital organ.

        In the Miami shootout, bad guy Michael Platt was not immediately disabled by the 9mm Winchester Silvertip bullet and used his Ruger Mini-14 to wipe out a couple of FBI agents before he was finally killed with 12 gauge buckshot. If Elmer Keith was still around at that time, he would have said his beloved .44 Magnum load with a 250 grain hard cast lead SWC projectile at 1200-1300 fps would have stopped Platt immediately, which is probably true.

Comments are closed.