You may remember STRATFOR as the “global intelligence” service recently hacked by Anonymous. The electronic interlopers scarfed STRATFOR’s customer list and all its internal emails (the most damning of which appeared on wikileaks). As part of its recovery from that $1.75m debacle STRATFOR has been upping the number of posts advising Average Joes how to deal with active shooters, workplace killers and terrorist threats. It’s pretty standard stuff: amp-up the situational awareness; run, hide, fight; and never give up. The most recent version by Scott Stewart—When Things Go Bad—includes a brief discussion of MDACC (motion, distance, angle, cover and concealment). Which reminds me: why isn’t STATFOR recommending that Americans facing the threat of violence exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms by carrying a gun? The last thing STRATFOR’s clients need is advice from a toothless sheepdog. Just sayin’ . . .

10 Responses to What Does STRATFOR Have Against the Second Amendment?

  1. The people that advise everything but a gun would rather see a million dead sheep than one ram. The pathetic part is the numbers of people rushing to become sheep.

  2. I have never seen anything from Stratfor that suggests that they are in the least anti-2A, and the article posted doesn’t change that. Most of the people associated with the company are security analysts, spooks, and ex-military. Especially the latter two categories are hardly characterized as anti-gun, but I would suggest instead that many of their clients, such as diplomats and wealthy executives, are usually unarmed. They hire people to protect them instead.

    • STRATFOR, in my opinion, is a front organization for certain U.S. intelligence agencies.

      You know the names, if not the addresses.

  3. “why isn’t STATFOR recommending that Americans facing the threat of violence exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms by carrying a gun?”

    The USG wants a population of sheeple they can order around and use up as disposable pawns. The USG does not want a population of self-reliant and strong-willed citizens that have confidence and skills to independently take out threats to their lives, liberty, and happiness. Ask yourself who is more of a threat to your life, liberty, and happiness: some bearded turbaned guys hiding in caves in Pakistan or some clean cut suit and tie types working in Washington DC?

  4. I read a lot of Stratfor and I think most of their articles are based on personal security abroad. In these cases, the 2nd Amendment does not apply and wishing that it did does nothing to advance your goal of personal security.

    I’m in Mexico a couple of times a year (Monterrey last week) and Stratfor’s info on that city and the area are good. Of course I wished I had a pistol with me, or even a rifle, but being inconspicuous is the better way to roll when traversing a gang war zone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *