I wrote this response to a letter to the editors this morning. Of course Jeffrey J. Weiss, director, Catholic Peace Ministry, Des Moines is more upset that the dream act died than he is concerned for veterans. He, like other use veterans to advance their own agenda and could care less about those of us with the balls to take the oath and stand a watch. Something I bet he didn't do.
The federal government keeps using up the veterans and spitting them out. It's time that they took a look at their spending habits and get their priorities straight. The Constitution states that the government is to protect our country. That means the military and the people in it. Abe Lincoln established the VA system after the civil war to care for those that fought and to provide for the widows and children of those that died. Currently, homeless veterans are left to fend for themselves while our government spends money on things that they have no business spending it on. The first item of business should be the defense of our country and the care of those that swore a oath to defend it. But instead we are thrown under the bus because they have to buy the votes of those that have their hand out. Want welfare? join the military. They will feed you 3 times a day and give you a place to live.
I do not understand why it is that we have to fight for the benefits we were promised when we took our oath. We didn't make the government wait or just give part time. After they are done with us we are just so much waste to them. There was a article in yesterday’s paper about a paralyzed veteran and the way his family is taking care of him. Good for his family and its good that the VA is helping too. But what about the millions of us disabled vets that are having to hire lawyers and fight for years for our benefits? I myself have been fighting the VA for over six years just to get what they promised me in 1973. If I had a choice, I would rather still be a productive worker. I liked the job I was doing and paid plenty each year in taxes. But now that I'm unable to work, they have no use for me. Unlike so many other veterans, I'm not homeless, but I could be. All because the VA has been ordered to reject every claim as many times as possible.
They keep this up in the hopes that the veteran will either give up or die. That's the way they save money. Money shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be the care of the people that gave what they had to their country instead of to a bunch of slackers that are too lazy to get off their a** and go to work. There are a lot of vets out there that gave a lot for their country. The wounded among us gave a lot and some, the ones that died, gave all they had. Maybe it's time to have a system where everyone serves. Two years in the military and the only out would be for religious reasons or medical. Let the kids of the rich and famous serve right beside the kid from the ghetto. Then they can go to college or join the workforce. And the ones that have objections should serve a couple years in the peace corps. A good round of service to your country will give you a better understanding of what the Constitution means. And a better understanding of what veterans go through.
Here's a idea for all of the illegal aliens that want to be citizens. Enlist in the military. That should be the only "path to citizenship" allowed. That will give them the incentive to assimilate into our culture. It's easy to cry and demand things when you don't have skin in the game. We should be working to maintain our status as the greatest nation on earth. We should have a strong military and we should be treating our veterans with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Everyone should be writing to your congress people and demanding that something be done. I don't mean the government should buy a house for every veteran. But every veteran should be getting everything promised. They promise you the moon to get you to sign and then treat you like s*** when they are done with you. And as long as the children of the rich, famous and politicians don't have to serve things will never change
2nd Amendment, Iowa carry laws and Veterans concerns. Also anything else we want to talk about.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
A Soldier's Christmas Poem
The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
my daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree, I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep
in perfect contentment, or so it would seem.
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.
The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eye when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
and I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
"What are you doing?" I asked without fear
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts,
to the window that danced with a warm fire's light
then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night"
"Its my duty to stand at the front of the line,
that separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December,"
then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red white and blue... an American flag.
"I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home,
I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat,
I can carry the weight of killing another
or lay down my life with my sisters and brothers
who stand at the front against any and all,
to insure for all time that this flag will not fall."
"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."
Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone.
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
to know you remember we fought and we bled
is payment enough, and with that we will trust.
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us.
By Michael Marks, Christmas 2000
Merry Christmas!
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
my daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree, I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep
in perfect contentment, or so it would seem.
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.
The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eye when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
and I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
"What are you doing?" I asked without fear
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts,
to the window that danced with a warm fire's light
then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night"
"Its my duty to stand at the front of the line,
that separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December,"
then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red white and blue... an American flag.
"I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home,
I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat,
I can carry the weight of killing another
or lay down my life with my sisters and brothers
who stand at the front against any and all,
to insure for all time that this flag will not fall."
"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."
Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone.
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
to know you remember we fought and we bled
is payment enough, and with that we will trust.
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us.
By Michael Marks, Christmas 2000
Merry Christmas!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Ray LaHood: Obama's Power-Mad Cell Phone Czar
Just when you think the lunacy of the Obama czars can't get any worse. Now we have LaHood trying to be the cell phone czar.
· Friday, November 19, 2010
America is in debt past its eyeballs. Unemployment remains stuck near double digits. Small and large businesses, unions and insurers are clamoring for Obamacare waivers in droves. Jihadists are making a mockery of homeland security. And border chaos reigns. So, what's one of the Obama administration's top domestic policy agenda items this month? Combating distracted drivers.
What? You missed the Million Anti-Distracted Drivers Protest March on Washington and the Great Grassroots Groundswell for federal intervention on our highways and byways? Don't worry. You weren't the only one.
Making the cable TV rounds to unveil a public service announcement campaign against "epidemic" cell phone use and texting on the road, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood revealed bizarre and alarming plans on Wednesday to install devices in cars that would block a driver's ability to communicate.
"There's a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones, and we're looking at that," he threatened. LaHood -- a liberal Republican and pork-addicted Chicago crony who embodies Obama "bipartisanship" -- envisions centralized government mechanisms to shut off commuters' BlackBerries and iPhones.
And that's just the start. "We need to do a lot more if we're going to save lives," LaHood vowed, while paying obligatory lip service to encouraging "personal responsibility." Will the cell phone banners ban radios, GPS devices, makeup and fast food in cars next? All are also listed as causes of distracted driver-induced accidents.
Any death due to such reckless behavior is tragic. But by "saving lives," what cell phone czar LaHood really means is "controlling lives." There are already 30 states with laws in place regulating drivers' cell phone and/or texting habits. The District of Columbia and Guam also passed bans. The safety benefits of such laws are in dispute.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety examined insurance claims and driving habits in Louisiana, Washington, Minnesota and California, which all passed texting bans two years ago. Its study found that when compared to neighboring states that had not yet banned texting while driving (Arkansas, Texas and Mississippi), the no-texting states actually reported higher accident rates among young drivers -- while the states with no bans maintained constant accident rates. Safety officials theorized that drivers in no-texting states may have adjusted their habits to hide their cell phone use from visual detection by police -- incentivizing even riskier behavior.
LaHood and his fellow social meddlers have lashed out at the study and any other evidence that state enforcement of these bans is futile. But there's a long history of government safety regulations backfiring on central planners. Back in the 1970s, the federal drive to require child safety-caps on aspirin bottles resulted in no reduction in child poisoning deaths. In fact, renowned risk analyst Kip Viscusi at Harvard Law School found that the regulations induced many parents to leave the caps off altogether because they were inconvenient and difficult to remove.
Moreover, the push for federal policing of our driving habits comes just as the federal government itself reports that the rate of teenage-related car accidents has fallen. Yes, fallen. Despite increased cell phone use, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that when the years 2004 through 2008 were compared, there was a 38 percent reduction in the number of car accidents involving 16 and 17 year olds.
So what's really driving LaHood? He's pursued an anti-car ideological zeal from Day One -- from entertaining proposals to impose mileage taxes on drivers and to track drivers' routes, to redistributing tax dollars to pie-in-the-sky high-rail projects that no private business will touch, to peddling a "livability initiative" that would discourage suburban growth and corral residents in high-density areas dependent on public transportation.
Like the rest of Obama's radicals, the Transportation Department's self-appointed cell phone czar is a power-hungry busybody hiding behind children to expand government's reach. If only federal agencies came equipped with anti-big government ignition breathalyzer locks.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
· Friday, November 19, 2010
America is in debt past its eyeballs. Unemployment remains stuck near double digits. Small and large businesses, unions and insurers are clamoring for Obamacare waivers in droves. Jihadists are making a mockery of homeland security. And border chaos reigns. So, what's one of the Obama administration's top domestic policy agenda items this month? Combating distracted drivers.
What? You missed the Million Anti-Distracted Drivers Protest March on Washington and the Great Grassroots Groundswell for federal intervention on our highways and byways? Don't worry. You weren't the only one.
Making the cable TV rounds to unveil a public service announcement campaign against "epidemic" cell phone use and texting on the road, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood revealed bizarre and alarming plans on Wednesday to install devices in cars that would block a driver's ability to communicate.
"There's a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones, and we're looking at that," he threatened. LaHood -- a liberal Republican and pork-addicted Chicago crony who embodies Obama "bipartisanship" -- envisions centralized government mechanisms to shut off commuters' BlackBerries and iPhones.
And that's just the start. "We need to do a lot more if we're going to save lives," LaHood vowed, while paying obligatory lip service to encouraging "personal responsibility." Will the cell phone banners ban radios, GPS devices, makeup and fast food in cars next? All are also listed as causes of distracted driver-induced accidents.
Any death due to such reckless behavior is tragic. But by "saving lives," what cell phone czar LaHood really means is "controlling lives." There are already 30 states with laws in place regulating drivers' cell phone and/or texting habits. The District of Columbia and Guam also passed bans. The safety benefits of such laws are in dispute.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety examined insurance claims and driving habits in Louisiana, Washington, Minnesota and California, which all passed texting bans two years ago. Its study found that when compared to neighboring states that had not yet banned texting while driving (Arkansas, Texas and Mississippi), the no-texting states actually reported higher accident rates among young drivers -- while the states with no bans maintained constant accident rates. Safety officials theorized that drivers in no-texting states may have adjusted their habits to hide their cell phone use from visual detection by police -- incentivizing even riskier behavior.
LaHood and his fellow social meddlers have lashed out at the study and any other evidence that state enforcement of these bans is futile. But there's a long history of government safety regulations backfiring on central planners. Back in the 1970s, the federal drive to require child safety-caps on aspirin bottles resulted in no reduction in child poisoning deaths. In fact, renowned risk analyst Kip Viscusi at Harvard Law School found that the regulations induced many parents to leave the caps off altogether because they were inconvenient and difficult to remove.
Moreover, the push for federal policing of our driving habits comes just as the federal government itself reports that the rate of teenage-related car accidents has fallen. Yes, fallen. Despite increased cell phone use, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that when the years 2004 through 2008 were compared, there was a 38 percent reduction in the number of car accidents involving 16 and 17 year olds.
So what's really driving LaHood? He's pursued an anti-car ideological zeal from Day One -- from entertaining proposals to impose mileage taxes on drivers and to track drivers' routes, to redistributing tax dollars to pie-in-the-sky high-rail projects that no private business will touch, to peddling a "livability initiative" that would discourage suburban growth and corral residents in high-density areas dependent on public transportation.
Like the rest of Obama's radicals, the Transportation Department's self-appointed cell phone czar is a power-hungry busybody hiding behind children to expand government's reach. If only federal agencies came equipped with anti-big government ignition breathalyzer locks.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Rabid anti-gunner to head ATF?
Obama could appoint Traver to head ATF without Senate approval
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/obama-could-appoint-traver-to-head-atf-without-senate-approvalPresident Obama could exploit his power to make temporary appointments during the end of year adjournment of Congress and bypass Senate approval of Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/atf-testimony-admits-many-unregistered-machine-guns-allowed-by-ruling
A bit of background: Traver (not "Taver") considers himself a “partner” with licensed firearms dealers and the National Shooting Sports Foundation evidently just eats that up. The fact that he made a name for himself enforcing citizen disarmament edicts after swearing an oath to the Constitution surely must count for something…as does the fact that he did it in Chi-Town.
David says it best;
Here and now is the time to let NRA and other gun groups know in no uncertain terms: A confirmation vote must be scored against any Senator who approves this nominee.
There damn well had better be a confirmation fight.
Traver nomination to lead BATFE sparks hot opposition
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/traver-nomination-to-lead-batfe-sparks-hot-oppositionThe President has announced his choice to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to be Chicago Special Agent in Charge Andrew Traver.
Traver is no stranger to gun prohibitionists. Indeed, he appears to be their good buddy, having worked as an advisor with several of them on the decidedly anti-gun “Gun Violence Reduction Project” back in 2007. That was a little joint cooperative effort by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation and the equally anti-gun International Association for Chiefs of Police.
Obama names anti-gun extremist as next BATFE head
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/obama-names-anti-gun-extremist-as-next-batfe-headWell, it's official (if misspelled, in the New York Times)--Andrew Traver is President Obama's choice to be the BATFE's next Supreme Leader:
In August, sources in the ATF said Andy Traver, a special agent in charge of the ATF in Chicago, was being considered for the job. Gun-lobby representatives immediately said they would oppose his nomination because they thought he was too close to gun-control activists.
Hmm . . . "too close to gun control activists" is one way to put it, but a more accurate way might be to say that he has been an activist for forcible citizen disarmament.
All of the nay-sayers keep telling us Obama doesn't want to take our guns. Yeah, right. His Attorney General and head of Homeland Security are both known anti-gunners. Now he's wanting this tool to head the ATF. The agency that is in complete control of every aspect of firearms in this country. The agency that murdered innocent women and children at Waco.
Before the anti's start with, but he signed the bill to allow concealed weapons in National Parks. Yeah he did. Only because it was attached to the credit card bill that he so desperately wanted. If the park carry bill would have been submitted alone, it would have been vetoed.
His two SCOTUS justices are both anti-gun. Sotomayor declared that Heller was settled law. Then when McDonald came up she said it wasn't settled law and went against the Constitution. Kagen will do the same thing if another similar case comes up.
The evidence is there for those that open their eyes and look. But the anti's will say, oh no, That can't be true. If it's not true, why does the Brady Bunch love this nominee? They have one purpose, the complete civilian disarmament of the U.S. Their idea of "reasonable" gun control is complete control.
Everyone that belives in the Constitution and the right to bear arms needs to contact their Senators and demand a hearing on Traver. He needs to be thrown out of the ATF altogether.This is one government agency that has entirely too much power.
Apply for a FFL and they will tell you that you just signed away your 4th Amendment rights. They can come in here any time and look at my records. They don't have to call ahead, they don't need a warrant. They have done this to me a couple times. They have even called me on the phone and had me research my records for them. And there is no saying no. They will show up in person and then I could lose my license.
Don't try and tell me how Obama is all for gun rights. I've done the research. I've seen where he has stood over the years. And it is NOT for the 2nd Amendment.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Leave my "junk" alone
This was just too good not to pass on. The Government is out of control. We the people need to put our foot down. Searching Granny and 3 year old blond blue eyed children has never uncovered a bomb.
Don't Touch My Junk
· Friday, November 19, 2010WASHINGTON -- Ah, the airport, where modern folk heroes are made. The airport, where that inspired flight attendant did what everyone who's ever been in the spam-in-a-can crush of a flying aluminum tube -- where we collectively pretend that a clutch of peanuts is a meal and a seat cushion is a "flotation device" -- has always dreamed of doing: pull the lever, blow the door, explode the chute, grab a beer, slide to the tarmac and walk through the gates to the sanity that lies beyond. Not since Rick and Louis disappeared into the Casablanca fog headed for the Free French garrison in Brazzaville has a stroll on the tarmac thrilled so many.
Who cares that the crazed steward got arrested, pleaded guilty to sundry charges, and probably was a rude, unpleasant SOB to begin with? Bonnie and Clyde were psychopaths, yet what child of the '60s did not fall in love with Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty?
And now three months later, the newest airport hero arrives. His genius was not innovation in getting out, but deconstructing the entire process of getting in. John Tyner, cleverly armed with an iPhone to give YouTube immortality to the encounter, took exception to the TSA guard about to give him the benefit of Homeland Security's newest brainstorm -- the upgraded, full-palm, up the groin, all-body pat-down. In a stroke, the young man ascended to myth, or at least the next edition of Bartlett's, warning the agent not to "touch my junk."
Not quite the 18th-century elegance of "Don't Tread on Me," but the age of Twitter has a different cadence from the age of the musket. What the modern battle cry lacks in archaic charm, it makes up for in full-body syllabic punch.
Don't touch my junk is the anthem of the modern man, the tea party patriot, the late-life libertarian, the midterm election voter. Don't touch my junk, Obamacare -- get out of my doctor's examining room, I'm wearing a paper-thin gown slit down the back. Don't touch my junk, Google -- Street View is cool, but get off my street. Don't touch my junk, you airport security goon -- my package belongs to no one but me, and do you really think I'm a Nigerian nut job preparing for my 72-virgin orgy by blowing my johnson to kingdom come?
In "Up in the Air," that ironic take on the cramped freneticism of airport life, George Clooney explains why he always follows Asians in the security line:
"They pack light, travel efficiently, and they got a thing for slip-on shoes, God love ‘em."
"That's racist!"
"I'm like my mother. I stereotype. It's faster."
That riff is a crowd-pleaser because everyone knows that the entire apparatus of the security line is a national homage to political correctness. Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Wizened seniors strain to untie their shoes; beltless salesmen struggle comically to hold up their pants; 3-year-olds scream while being searched insanely for explosives -- when everyone, everyone, knows that none of these people is a threat to anyone.
We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to assure the safety of air travel. Rubbish. This has nothing to do with safety -- 95 percent of these inspections, searches, shoe removals and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling -- when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches.
The junk man's revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy. Metal detector? Back-of-the-hand pat? OK. We will swallow hard and pretend airline attackers are randomly distributed in the population.
But now you insist on a full-body scan, a fairly accurate representation of my naked image to be viewed by a total stranger? Or alternatively, the full-body pat-down, which, as the junk man correctly noted, would be sexual assault if performed by anyone else?
This time you have gone too far, Big Bro'. The sleeping giant awakes. Take my shoes, remove my belt, waste my time and try my patience. But don't touch my junk.
(c) 2010, The Washington Post Writers Group
Monday, May 31, 2010
Unknown USMC
I received this today and thought it was very appropriate for Memorial Day. God bless all of our Service people past and present.
UNKNOWN USMC
The Chaplain wore no helmet
His head was bowed in prayer
His face was seamed with sorrow
But a trace of hope was there.
Our ranks were hushed and silent
And diminished by our loss
At our feet, the the rows of crosses
Told how much the battle cost.
Rows of neat white crosses
And Stars of David too
Marked the grave sites of our brothers
Whose fighting days were through.
Friends of mine were lying there
Ski and Ace and Slim
Bo and Jack, Bill and Joe
Dusty, Tex and Jim.
Each has his simple marker
But the closest one to me
Was a plain white, wooden headboard
Marked "Unknown USMC."
In this final camp of comrades
It was somehow strange and odd
That a man should lie among them
Known only to his God.
Who can he be, I wondered?
Was he white or black or red?
This man who shares a resting place
With our loved and honored dead.
He cannot be a stranger
But a friend whose lonely track
Has brought him here among us
I think I'll call him "Mac."
"Mac" is a name we've often used
and it's been used on me
It's better than the epitaph
"Unknown USMC."
So many times I've heard it
In the blackness of the night
Through the swirling mist of combat
With the battle at it's height.
"Hey Mac", a voice would call
We could use some help out here
I've got a man that's wounded
Can you help him to the rear?
"Hey Mac" I'm really burning up
The suns so blazing hot -
Can you spare a drop of water?
"Gee, thanks Mac, thanks a lot."
The day when I was wounded
Hurt and lying in the snow
A cigarette was offered me
By a man I didn't know.
He quickly stopped the bleeding
And rolled me on my back
Grinned and gripped his rifle
And said "Take it easy Mac."
A simple word, a simple name
But still it proves to me
That no man ever really is
"Unknown USMC."
The Chaplain's prayer is finished
Our colors gently dip
The rifle squad is ready
The bugler wets his lip.
With blurry eyes and saddened heart
I heard the rifles crack
Taps floated softly in the air
And I said goodbye to "Mac."
Author Unknown
Remembering my family members who served.
My Father, Robert, U.S. Navy 1942 to 1945. Died 1980.
Uncle Johnny Fowler U.U. Navy 1942 to 1945. Died 1976.
Uncle Ralph Weeks, USMC 1942 to 1945. Died, 2006.
Me, Robert Jr, USMC 1973 to 1977.
Step-son Matthew Strunk, USMC 2006 to 2010.
UNKNOWN USMC
The Chaplain wore no helmet
His head was bowed in prayer
His face was seamed with sorrow
But a trace of hope was there.
Our ranks were hushed and silent
And diminished by our loss
At our feet, the the rows of crosses
Told how much the battle cost.
Rows of neat white crosses
And Stars of David too
Marked the grave sites of our brothers
Whose fighting days were through.
Friends of mine were lying there
Ski and Ace and Slim
Bo and Jack, Bill and Joe
Dusty, Tex and Jim.
Each has his simple marker
But the closest one to me
Was a plain white, wooden headboard
Marked "Unknown USMC."
In this final camp of comrades
It was somehow strange and odd
That a man should lie among them
Known only to his God.
Who can he be, I wondered?
Was he white or black or red?
This man who shares a resting place
With our loved and honored dead.
He cannot be a stranger
But a friend whose lonely track
Has brought him here among us
I think I'll call him "Mac."
"Mac" is a name we've often used
and it's been used on me
It's better than the epitaph
"Unknown USMC."
So many times I've heard it
In the blackness of the night
Through the swirling mist of combat
With the battle at it's height.
"Hey Mac", a voice would call
We could use some help out here
I've got a man that's wounded
Can you help him to the rear?
"Hey Mac" I'm really burning up
The suns so blazing hot -
Can you spare a drop of water?
"Gee, thanks Mac, thanks a lot."
The day when I was wounded
Hurt and lying in the snow
A cigarette was offered me
By a man I didn't know.
He quickly stopped the bleeding
And rolled me on my back
Grinned and gripped his rifle
And said "Take it easy Mac."
A simple word, a simple name
But still it proves to me
That no man ever really is
"Unknown USMC."
The Chaplain's prayer is finished
Our colors gently dip
The rifle squad is ready
The bugler wets his lip.
With blurry eyes and saddened heart
I heard the rifles crack
Taps floated softly in the air
And I said goodbye to "Mac."
Author Unknown
Remembering my family members who served.
My Father, Robert, U.S. Navy 1942 to 1945. Died 1980.
Uncle Johnny Fowler U.U. Navy 1942 to 1945. Died 1976.
Uncle Ralph Weeks, USMC 1942 to 1945. Died, 2006.
Me, Robert Jr, USMC 1973 to 1977.
Step-son Matthew Strunk, USMC 2006 to 2010.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Marriott hates gun owners
Late Monday afternoon an ostensibly apologetic and congenial Keith Thomas, assistant to CEO J.W. Marriott, Jr., told a Grass Roots North Carolina board member that Marriott had “stepped on a hornet’s nest” and promised to remove signs prohibiting lawful firearms in hotels nationwide. Of the Charlotte Marriott City Center, where signs posted during the NRA convention made inadvertent criminals of conventioneers, Thomas promised signs had already been removed.
But on Tuesday, signs at Marriott properties – including the Charlotte hotel – remained in place while Marriott executives became “unavailable” for, according to office receptionists, a litany of conflicting reasons. Meanwhile, Charlotte Marriott Director of Loss Prevention Sammy Jones refused to comment on the status of signs.
Wednesday (5/26): 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM (Eastern Daily Time)
Thursday (5/27): 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM (Eastern Daily Time)
Friday (5/28): 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM (Eastern Daily Time)
Other articles in this series.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d18-Marriott-exposes-NRA-conventioneers-to-criminal-prosecution
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d20-Gun-rights-Marriott-boycott-spreads-nationwide
Gun rights Marriott boycott spreads nationwide
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d23-Does-Marriott-gun-posting-represent-Charlottes-hostility-toward-NRA
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d24-GRNC-campaign-leads-Marriott-to-say-signs-will-be-removed
But on Tuesday, signs at Marriott properties – including the Charlotte hotel – remained in place while Marriott executives became “unavailable” for, according to office receptionists, a litany of conflicting reasons. Meanwhile, Charlotte Marriott Director of Loss Prevention Sammy Jones refused to comment on the status of signs.
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
Since Marriott seems to think gun owners are easily fooled, it is time to redouble our efforts and deliver a clear message by taking the following actions:- Call all Marriott executives on the “Feedback Days” designated below. If they can make outgoing calls, you aren’t really trying. To avoid charges of “harassment” call each executive only once (presuming you manage to reach them) and maintain a civil tone. If you don’t get through to them, keep trying. If you can’t call during the designated hours, call whenever you can. Additional Feedback Days may be designated in the future.
- Counter Marriott’s disinformation campaign: Post the “Marriott lies to gun owners” message on every forum and blog you can find. Failure to do so will allow an anti-gun multi-national corporation to control the message.
FEEDBACK DAYS
Stay tuned for additional days as required.Wednesday (5/26): 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM (Eastern Daily Time)
Thursday (5/27): 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM (Eastern Daily Time)
Friday (5/28): 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM (Eastern Daily Time)
Other articles in this series.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d18-Marriott-exposes-NRA-conventioneers-to-criminal-prosecution
Marriott exposes NRA conventioneers to criminal prosecution
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d20-Gun-rights-Marriott-boycott-spreads-nationwide
Gun rights Marriott boycott spreads nationwide
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d23-Does-Marriott-gun-posting-represent-Charlottes-hostility-toward-NRA
Does Marriott gun posting represent Charlotte's hostility toward NRA?
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d24-GRNC-campaign-leads-Marriott-to-say-signs-will-be-removed
GRNC campaign leads Marriott to say signs will be removed
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Mexico's Calderon and U.S. gun grabbers playing a rigged numbers game against our rights
By David Codrea.
The percentage of American guns used by Mexican criminals keeps dropping, or at least the number used by those who don't want you to own semiautomatic firearms is coming down.
It wasn't that long ago Brady Board Member Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke were using their major media amplifiers to tell us, in no uncertain terms:
These lies have been debunked over and over. Most of the U.S. made arms being used by the cartels are U.S. made M16's that were sold to the Mexican government. Every time a soldier jumps to the other side he takes his government issue firearm with him. From the article,
"In recent years as many as 150,000 Mexican soldiers, 17,000 last year alone, defected to go work for the drug cartels -- bringing their American-made service-issued firearms with them. It has also been well documented that the drug cartels are illegally smuggling fully automatic firearms, grenades and other weapons into Mexico from South and Central America. Such items are not being purchased at retail firearms stores in the United States."
The claim that guns are being purchased and flowing across the border is another Brady lie. According to the ATF,the traced firearms have been in the system a average of 14 years. In that amount of time, a gun can have a lot of different owners. We are always selling and trading to get what we want for our collections.
Calderon needs to go back to Mexico and try and take care of his own problems instead of meddling where he doesn't belong.
The percentage of American guns used by Mexican criminals keeps dropping, or at least the number used by those who don't want you to own semiautomatic firearms is coming down.
It wasn't that long ago Brady Board Member Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke were using their major media amplifiers to tell us, in no uncertain terms:
American gun sellers supply the cartels with 95 to 100 percent of their guns, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
These lies have been debunked over and over. Most of the U.S. made arms being used by the cartels are U.S. made M16's that were sold to the Mexican government. Every time a soldier jumps to the other side he takes his government issue firearm with him. From the article,
"In recent years as many as 150,000 Mexican soldiers, 17,000 last year alone, defected to go work for the drug cartels -- bringing their American-made service-issued firearms with them. It has also been well documented that the drug cartels are illegally smuggling fully automatic firearms, grenades and other weapons into Mexico from South and Central America. Such items are not being purchased at retail firearms stores in the United States."
The claim that guns are being purchased and flowing across the border is another Brady lie. According to the ATF,the traced firearms have been in the system a average of 14 years. In that amount of time, a gun can have a lot of different owners. We are always selling and trading to get what we want for our collections.
Calderon needs to go back to Mexico and try and take care of his own problems instead of meddling where he doesn't belong.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
View from the Border
I thought that this was a interesting read. It's a whole different prospective when you live down there. My in-laws live in Yuma and they are afraid to go out after dark. It's a shame when American citizens are held prisoner in their own homes because our government refuses to secure our borders and enforce the laws that they passed.
Report from Cochise County, Arizona
By T.J. Woodard
Being an avid AT reader, and living on the Arizona border in Cochise County,
I thought I would provide those who wish to be informed some insight into
the truth about the state of the U.S.-Mexican border -- at least in this
part of the state.
I moved to Cochise County after retiring from the Army in 2008 to take a
position working at Fort Huachuca (pronounced "wa-choo-ka," an Apache word
meaning "place of thunder" and referring to the time after the summer
monsoon season). Having lived here in 1991 for eight months while attending
an Army school, I soon realized that the place had changed considerably in
the eighteen years of my absence.
The first thing I noticed was how many border patrol vehicles were on the
roads in the city of Sierra Vista. The Border Patrol has a large station
near here in the city of Naco. There are far more Border Patrol vehicles in
the area than SV police cars. They come in many forms -- trucks for off-road
work, trailers carrying all-terrain vehicles, pickups with capacity for
carrying large numbers of people once apprehended, and even a staff car for
the area chaplain. The Border Patrol presence has grown substantially, so
one would think the border area was nice and safe.
Not so. Within a short time after arriving in southern Arizona while on my
way to work, I noticed eight illegal immigrants on the side of the road.
Fortunately, they were in the custody of capable and attentive Border Patrol
agents. Unfortunately, they were less than a hundred feet from my daughter's
bus stop. She gets personal service to school now, as the school district
refuses to enter the gated community in which we live. There is a nice wash,
a valley into which the rainwater drains during the monsoons, which provides
a nice route for the illegals to follow into the city, and therefore into
their locations for pickup by the vehicles that will get them farther north.
Later, after I attended a movie on a Friday night, a car passed by me in the
next lane going nearly a hundred miles an hour. It took a few seconds before
I saw the police behind -- way behind -- with lights and sirens, trying to
catch up. Surprise, surprise -- the next morning's paper discussed a Mexican
drug runner being caught by County Sheriff's Deputies. On several occasions,
the Border Patrol's helicopter has flown low and slow over the neighborhood,
rattling windows and shining its spotlight in our backyard. When this
happens, I strap on my pistol, grab a flashlight, and look and listen.
Fortunately, I haven't found anybody within a hundred yards of the house --
yet.
Working on a U.S. Army fort, one would think we were fairly secure from
these threats. Just not true. Reading the Fort Huachuca newspaper one
morning, I noticed an interesting part of the "community" page. It asked for
volunteers to assist in cleaning up "dumps" on posts where the illegals
would drop their supplies used to cross the border and change clothing. They
do this in order to blend in and not look like they just spent a day or two
crossing the border in the dust and heat of southern Arizona. The most
frightening part of this is that Fort Huachuca is the U.S. Army Intelligence
Center, where the Army trains its intelligence soldiers -- analysts,
interrogators, radio intercept specialists, and counterintelligence
agents -- for operations overseas. If we can't secure the fort we use to
train our intelligence soldiers, how can we secure anything else?
Much has been discussed about the new law in Arizona making it unlawful to
be in Arizona in violation of federal immigration statutes. However, much
less has been discussed about the shooting of rancher Robert Krentz. Robert
was killed on his ranch on March 28, 2010. His ranch, on which the family
began grazing cattle in 1907 (Arizona became a state in 1912), is a large,
35,000-acre area in remote Cochise County. It is so remote that the original
Cochise, an Apache leader, used the mountainous terrain near it to hide from
the U.S. Cavalry in the early 1870s. But much less is being said about the
eight illegal immigrants and their load of 280 pounds of marijuana seized
the day before Krentz was killed.
So Arizona should be boycotted because its people would like to keep it
safe? Somebody please explain the logic of that for me. It doesn't take a
bullet from a drug runner's gun to make those of us down here near the
border understand that this is drug-related violence -- and Rob's death
proves it.
It also doesn't take much more reading to see that the drug dealers are a
huge problem with far-reaching capabilities. On April 27, 2010, a large drug
bust took place here in Cochise County. Among those arrested was Angelica
Marie Borquez, the secretary for the Drug Enforcement Division of the
Cochise County Attorney office. Allegedly, Ms. Borquez was tipping off the
drug runners to counter drug operations conducted by the county. She was so
bold that she used the phone in the County Attorney's office to make some of
her calls.
This isn't a blatant effort by drug cartels to obtain control here in
America?
Many have already called Arizona residents racists. They are concerned that
police will profile Hispanics and disproportionally harass them. But we
understand something others in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco don't seem
to remember -- we border Mexico. The fact is that most illegal immigrants
coming across the border here are, well, Mexicans. Those of us down here
facing the danger every day really don't care what some Hollywood actor has
to say about the issue. Nor do we care about what the Colombian government
or the Latino music community thinks of it. We just want to stay safe.
This is not about race; it's about facts. Use a few of these facts the next
time somebody wants to engage you in discussion about the border. Tell him
you learned these things from somebody who can see Mexico from his front
porch.
T.J. Woodard is a retired Army officer who lives less than ten miles from
the Mexican border. He carries a pistol even in his own house (my underline)
in order to be prepared to defend his family whenever necessary.
Report from Cochise County, Arizona
By T.J. Woodard
Being an avid AT reader, and living on the Arizona border in Cochise County,
I thought I would provide those who wish to be informed some insight into
the truth about the state of the U.S.-Mexican border -- at least in this
part of the state.
I moved to Cochise County after retiring from the Army in 2008 to take a
position working at Fort Huachuca (pronounced "wa-choo-ka," an Apache word
meaning "place of thunder" and referring to the time after the summer
monsoon season). Having lived here in 1991 for eight months while attending
an Army school, I soon realized that the place had changed considerably in
the eighteen years of my absence.
The first thing I noticed was how many border patrol vehicles were on the
roads in the city of Sierra Vista. The Border Patrol has a large station
near here in the city of Naco. There are far more Border Patrol vehicles in
the area than SV police cars. They come in many forms -- trucks for off-road
work, trailers carrying all-terrain vehicles, pickups with capacity for
carrying large numbers of people once apprehended, and even a staff car for
the area chaplain. The Border Patrol presence has grown substantially, so
one would think the border area was nice and safe.
Not so. Within a short time after arriving in southern Arizona while on my
way to work, I noticed eight illegal immigrants on the side of the road.
Fortunately, they were in the custody of capable and attentive Border Patrol
agents. Unfortunately, they were less than a hundred feet from my daughter's
bus stop. She gets personal service to school now, as the school district
refuses to enter the gated community in which we live. There is a nice wash,
a valley into which the rainwater drains during the monsoons, which provides
a nice route for the illegals to follow into the city, and therefore into
their locations for pickup by the vehicles that will get them farther north.
Later, after I attended a movie on a Friday night, a car passed by me in the
next lane going nearly a hundred miles an hour. It took a few seconds before
I saw the police behind -- way behind -- with lights and sirens, trying to
catch up. Surprise, surprise -- the next morning's paper discussed a Mexican
drug runner being caught by County Sheriff's Deputies. On several occasions,
the Border Patrol's helicopter has flown low and slow over the neighborhood,
rattling windows and shining its spotlight in our backyard. When this
happens, I strap on my pistol, grab a flashlight, and look and listen.
Fortunately, I haven't found anybody within a hundred yards of the house --
yet.
Working on a U.S. Army fort, one would think we were fairly secure from
these threats. Just not true. Reading the Fort Huachuca newspaper one
morning, I noticed an interesting part of the "community" page. It asked for
volunteers to assist in cleaning up "dumps" on posts where the illegals
would drop their supplies used to cross the border and change clothing. They
do this in order to blend in and not look like they just spent a day or two
crossing the border in the dust and heat of southern Arizona. The most
frightening part of this is that Fort Huachuca is the U.S. Army Intelligence
Center, where the Army trains its intelligence soldiers -- analysts,
interrogators, radio intercept specialists, and counterintelligence
agents -- for operations overseas. If we can't secure the fort we use to
train our intelligence soldiers, how can we secure anything else?
Much has been discussed about the new law in Arizona making it unlawful to
be in Arizona in violation of federal immigration statutes. However, much
less has been discussed about the shooting of rancher Robert Krentz. Robert
was killed on his ranch on March 28, 2010. His ranch, on which the family
began grazing cattle in 1907 (Arizona became a state in 1912), is a large,
35,000-acre area in remote Cochise County. It is so remote that the original
Cochise, an Apache leader, used the mountainous terrain near it to hide from
the U.S. Cavalry in the early 1870s. But much less is being said about the
eight illegal immigrants and their load of 280 pounds of marijuana seized
the day before Krentz was killed.
So Arizona should be boycotted because its people would like to keep it
safe? Somebody please explain the logic of that for me. It doesn't take a
bullet from a drug runner's gun to make those of us down here near the
border understand that this is drug-related violence -- and Rob's death
proves it.
It also doesn't take much more reading to see that the drug dealers are a
huge problem with far-reaching capabilities. On April 27, 2010, a large drug
bust took place here in Cochise County. Among those arrested was Angelica
Marie Borquez, the secretary for the Drug Enforcement Division of the
Cochise County Attorney office. Allegedly, Ms. Borquez was tipping off the
drug runners to counter drug operations conducted by the county. She was so
bold that she used the phone in the County Attorney's office to make some of
her calls.
This isn't a blatant effort by drug cartels to obtain control here in
America?
Many have already called Arizona residents racists. They are concerned that
police will profile Hispanics and disproportionally harass them. But we
understand something others in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco don't seem
to remember -- we border Mexico. The fact is that most illegal immigrants
coming across the border here are, well, Mexicans. Those of us down here
facing the danger every day really don't care what some Hollywood actor has
to say about the issue. Nor do we care about what the Colombian government
or the Latino music community thinks of it. We just want to stay safe.
This is not about race; it's about facts. Use a few of these facts the next
time somebody wants to engage you in discussion about the border. Tell him
you learned these things from somebody who can see Mexico from his front
porch.
T.J. Woodard is a retired Army officer who lives less than ten miles from
the Mexican border. He carries a pistol even in his own house (my underline)
in order to be prepared to defend his family whenever necessary.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'
Bill empowers attorney general to forbid firearms for those 'suspected dangerous'
Posted: May 09, 2009
12:10 am Eastern
By Drew Zahn
A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."
"[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"
Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.
"By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."
You should read the complete article. All of the nay sayers keep telling us that "no one is after your guns". Well, there are people out there who are. Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC has been trying to ban guns for years. Obama and his cohort Holder are both well know anti-gunners. They are just keeping a low profile for now. They have both stated publicly that they want to renew the "assault weapons" ban. Except true assault weapons are already controlled by the NFA34.
The best thing all law abiding people should do is demand that Napolitano be fired or resign. The "no fly" list needs to be made available to the people on it with a explanation of why they are on it. Being a veteran or a tea party member is no reason. Have these a**holes in DC forgotten about little things like the Bill of Rights? Or what about the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
All of these career politicians have amassed so much power that they think they can ignore the Constitution. We need to send a bunch of these conceited a**holes packing in November. And every two years vote out all of the incumbents in the Senate until we get rid of all of them, including Bahama Tommy. It's hard to believe that a Senator from Iowa could be such a hard line anti-gunner.
Get out and vote. It's your right as a citizen and your duty as a American. No incumbents.
Posted: May 09, 2009
12:10 am Eastern
By Drew Zahn
A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism."
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."
"[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"
Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.
"By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."
You should read the complete article. All of the nay sayers keep telling us that "no one is after your guns". Well, there are people out there who are. Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC has been trying to ban guns for years. Obama and his cohort Holder are both well know anti-gunners. They are just keeping a low profile for now. They have both stated publicly that they want to renew the "assault weapons" ban. Except true assault weapons are already controlled by the NFA34.
The best thing all law abiding people should do is demand that Napolitano be fired or resign. The "no fly" list needs to be made available to the people on it with a explanation of why they are on it. Being a veteran or a tea party member is no reason. Have these a**holes in DC forgotten about little things like the Bill of Rights? Or what about the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
All of these career politicians have amassed so much power that they think they can ignore the Constitution. We need to send a bunch of these conceited a**holes packing in November. And every two years vote out all of the incumbents in the Senate until we get rid of all of them, including Bahama Tommy. It's hard to believe that a Senator from Iowa could be such a hard line anti-gunner.
Get out and vote. It's your right as a citizen and your duty as a American. No incumbents.
Forgotten Hero
You're a 19 year old kid.
You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle somewhere in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam .
It's November 11, 1967.
LZ (landing zone) X-ray.
Your unit is outnumbered 8-1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 yards away, that your CO (commanding officer) has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in.
You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.
Your family is half way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again.
As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.
Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter.
You look up to see a Huey coming in. But ... It doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it.
Captain Ed Freeman is coming in for you.
He's not Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he heard the radio call and decided he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway.
Even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come.
He's coming anyway.
And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 3 of you at a time on board.
Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the doctors and nurses and safety.
And, he kept coming back!! 13 more times!! Until all the wounded were out. No one knew until the mission was over that the Captain had been hit 4 times in the legs and left arm.
He took 29 of you and your buddies out that day. Some would not have made it without the Captain and his Huey.
Medal of Honor Recipient, Captain Ed Freeman, United States Air Force, died last Wednesday at the age of 70, in Boise , Idaho .
May God Rest His Soul.
I bet you didn't hear about this hero's passing, but we've sure seen a whole bunch about Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods.
Medal of Honor Winner
Captain Ed Freeman
Shame on the American media !!!
You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle somewhere in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam .
It's November 11, 1967.
LZ (landing zone) X-ray.
Your unit is outnumbered 8-1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 yards away, that your CO (commanding officer) has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in.
You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.
Your family is half way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again.
As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.
Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter.
You look up to see a Huey coming in. But ... It doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it.
Captain Ed Freeman is coming in for you.
He's not Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he heard the radio call and decided he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway.
Even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come.
He's coming anyway.
And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 3 of you at a time on board.
Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the doctors and nurses and safety.
And, he kept coming back!! 13 more times!! Until all the wounded were out. No one knew until the mission was over that the Captain had been hit 4 times in the legs and left arm.
He took 29 of you and your buddies out that day. Some would not have made it without the Captain and his Huey.
Medal of Honor Recipient, Captain Ed Freeman, United States Air Force, died last Wednesday at the age of 70, in Boise , Idaho .
May God Rest His Soul.
I bet you didn't hear about this hero's passing, but we've sure seen a whole bunch about Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods.
Medal of Honor Winner
Captain Ed Freeman
Shame on the American media !!!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Gun is Civilization
This is well thought out reasoning for the carrying of arms. Of course, it will not make any sense at all to the gun grabbers, because they can not reason, understand, or possibly even think.
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Health care for seniors
After thinking about the upcoming Universal Health Care Program, I think I have found the solution.
I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you're a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care.
A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore..
You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc.. Let's take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.
So here is the solution.
So here is the solution.
When you turn 70, you get a gun and 3 bullets.
You are allowed to shoot one senator and 2 representatives.
Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need! New teeth, great! Need glasses, no problem! New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart?
Well bring it on.
And who will be paying for all of this?
The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care.
With all the seniors gathered there , it will be just like a nursing home-- only free.
And, since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The March for the Second Amendment
The march was a great time. The weather was perfect and the crowd, though small, was great too. And Rachel Maddow (rabid madcow) would have been disapointed. No one at the march was there to "honor" McVeigh. He was nothing but a terrorist punk. If I could have put the needle in his arm I would have. BTTF's characterization Of people that believe in the Constitution just show what a narrow mind he has. Just because we own guns doesn't mean we are out to kill someone.
We did have a great time. The speakers did a great job. Brenna Findley, candidate for Iowa Attorney General Gave a great speech on the Constitution and the duty of the AG to support and defend it. Just to listen to her speak about the things our present AG didn't support convinces you of the need for change. We had a great talk when we were away from the mic. She's a sharp young lady and I believe she would make a great AG. She's got my support.
Another speaker was Dave Funk. He is a candidate for Leonard Boswells seat in the 3rd district. A air force veteran and a commercial pilot, Dave is a firm believer in the Constitution. He believes that our representatives should be accountable to the people that elected them.
One big surprise was Rod Roberts, Candidate for Governor. It didn't take long listening to him to make me a believer. In my opinion, he's got Brandstad beat and I think Van Derplats is a whack job. Mr. Roberts believes in as small a government as possible. Something that sounds good to a lot of people.
Kim Pearson is a candidate for the Iowa house in district 42. She is a firm believer in smaller government and following the Constitution. She is definitely a supporter of the Second Amendment. She told me before the march that she was going to attend. Asking her to speak really made her day. She wants to get her message out and it's a great message.
We did have a great time. The speakers did a great job. Brenna Findley, candidate for Iowa Attorney General Gave a great speech on the Constitution and the duty of the AG to support and defend it. Just to listen to her speak about the things our present AG didn't support convinces you of the need for change. We had a great talk when we were away from the mic. She's a sharp young lady and I believe she would make a great AG. She's got my support.
Another speaker was Dave Funk. He is a candidate for Leonard Boswells seat in the 3rd district. A air force veteran and a commercial pilot, Dave is a firm believer in the Constitution. He believes that our representatives should be accountable to the people that elected them.
One big surprise was Rod Roberts, Candidate for Governor. It didn't take long listening to him to make me a believer. In my opinion, he's got Brandstad beat and I think Van Derplats is a whack job. Mr. Roberts believes in as small a government as possible. Something that sounds good to a lot of people.
Kim Pearson is a candidate for the Iowa house in district 42. She is a firm believer in smaller government and following the Constitution. She is definitely a supporter of the Second Amendment. She told me before the march that she was going to attend. Asking her to speak really made her day. She wants to get her message out and it's a great message.
Today is the day, The Second Amendment March
Well, it's finally here. After months of planning and trying to get the word out it's time for the Second Amendment March. We will gather on the west side of the capital at noon to celebrate the brave men that turned the British away at Lexington and Concord. Starting a revolution that was the birth of our great nation.
"What a glorious morning this is!" --Samuel Adams, to John Hancock at the Battle of Lexington, Massachusetts, 1775
And what a glorious morning it was. And what a glorious day it will be. The weather is going to be great as we congregate to celebrate the rights we have. Come on out at noon and help us celebrate the bravery of the farmers and shop keepers that took a stand 235 years ago and put the world's greatest super power on the run.
"What a glorious morning this is!" --Samuel Adams, to John Hancock at the Battle of Lexington, Massachusetts, 1775
And what a glorious morning it was. And what a glorious day it will be. The weather is going to be great as we congregate to celebrate the rights we have. Come on out at noon and help us celebrate the bravery of the farmers and shop keepers that took a stand 235 years ago and put the world's greatest super power on the run.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The 2nd Amendment rally is fast approching
When I call my friend Second Amendment March founder and author Skip Coryell about a totally unrelated subject, He convinced me to become the Iowa State coordinator for the march. I agreed, I didn't know what I was getting into. It's been one of the hardest jobs I don't get paid for. I met Skip years ago at a pheasant hunt sponsored by Iowa Carry. We had a great discussion over dinner and I have read most of his books. we have a lot in common, both being from Michigan and both having served in the Marines.
He is dedicated to the Second Amendment and our freedoms in general. His passion rubs off when you hear him speak. And, with anyone that is vocal about our freedoms, there are those that would paint him as a nut job or extremist.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/16/after-the-tea-party-more-extremism-as-gun-rights-activists-hit/
On April 19, an assortment of gun-rights groups will mount the Second Amendment March at the grounds of the Washington Monument. On the Web site for the march, its founder, Skip Coryell, calls it a "peaceful" event. But these folks, as the Violence Policy Center points out in a new report, are pushing a virulent strain of anti-government extremism that certainly could drive a body to take violent action.
More liberal crap. The violence policy center is nothing but a gun ban group. They are upset that more and more states are allowing their citizens more rights under the second amendment. They claim they want to stop gun violence, when everyone knows the truth. They want everyone to be defenseless against the criminals. That's all banning hand guns will do, criminals aren't going to pay attention, that's why they are called criminals.
Put this all together -- saber rattlng, militia fomenting, demonizing government -- and you have a brew of far-right paranoia mixed with guns. When have we seen this before? Oh yeah, Timothy McVeigh and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. And here's the kicker: This pro-gun march will happen on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing. This is not insensitivity; it's a message.
There it is, they always come back to McVeigh. He was a nut job that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are doing. I have yet to find anyone associated with the march that That thinks this is what we are celebrating. They don't mention that patriots day, April 19th is the 235th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord.
As the Violence Policy Center notes,
Mr Corn ends with this little jewel.
That's right. When people are blasting the federal government as tyrannical, suggesting that government-imposed concentration camps are around the corner, encouraging people to threaten the government with force, or comparing the president to the Nazis and accusing him of being a secret Kenyan-born Muslim imposing socialism on the United States, they are setting the stage for violence. The Tea Partiers are extreme in their hatred of the Obama administration, but these gun-rights radicals are downright dangerous. They talk of insurrection -- and they do have guns.
For one thing, the Tea Party is a separate group. I did go to the rally last Thursday. I couldn't stay long but does that make me a nut job just because I believe we need less government? Some of these liberals should get out and meet people more.
And the articles are out there all with the same message. The people participating in the 2nd Amendment March are all a bunch of nuts wanting to overthrow our government. I swear I would love to know where they come up with some of their ideas.
Here's a article that gives a little perspective.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m4d14-Vitriol-approaching-fever-pitch-as-2A-march-looms
He is dedicated to the Second Amendment and our freedoms in general. His passion rubs off when you hear him speak. And, with anyone that is vocal about our freedoms, there are those that would paint him as a nut job or extremist.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/16/after-the-tea-party-more-extremism-as-gun-rights-activists-hit/
Tea Party's After-Party: More Extremism as Gun Rights Activists Hit Washington
On April 19, an assortment of gun-rights groups will mount the Second Amendment March at the grounds of the Washington Monument. On the Web site for the march, its founder, Skip Coryell, calls it a "peaceful" event. But these folks, as the Violence Policy Center points out in a new report, are pushing a virulent strain of anti-government extremism that certainly could drive a body to take violent action.
More liberal crap. The violence policy center is nothing but a gun ban group. They are upset that more and more states are allowing their citizens more rights under the second amendment. They claim they want to stop gun violence, when everyone knows the truth. They want everyone to be defenseless against the criminals. That's all banning hand guns will do, criminals aren't going to pay attention, that's why they are called criminals.
Put this all together -- saber rattlng, militia fomenting, demonizing government -- and you have a brew of far-right paranoia mixed with guns. When have we seen this before? Oh yeah, Timothy McVeigh and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. And here's the kicker: This pro-gun march will happen on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing. This is not insensitivity; it's a message.
There it is, they always come back to McVeigh. He was a nut job that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are doing. I have yet to find anyone associated with the march that That thinks this is what we are celebrating. They don't mention that patriots day, April 19th is the 235th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord.
As the Violence Policy Center notes,
And just what are we supposed to do about some "lone wolf"? The sponsors and members of the march don't have any control over everyone that might attend a rally somewhere in the country. The VPC is a little over the top.The gun lobby is once again embracing -- and equally important, validating -- the anti-government rhetoric being offered by activists that range from Tea Party members, through pro-gun advocates, to members of the militia movement.
And as was the case with Timothy McVeigh, the risk lies not so much with the organized members of these groups, but with the "lone wolves" who not only embrace their rhetoric, but are willing to act on it with violence.
Mr Corn ends with this little jewel.
That's right. When people are blasting the federal government as tyrannical, suggesting that government-imposed concentration camps are around the corner, encouraging people to threaten the government with force, or comparing the president to the Nazis and accusing him of being a secret Kenyan-born Muslim imposing socialism on the United States, they are setting the stage for violence. The Tea Partiers are extreme in their hatred of the Obama administration, but these gun-rights radicals are downright dangerous. They talk of insurrection -- and they do have guns.
For one thing, the Tea Party is a separate group. I did go to the rally last Thursday. I couldn't stay long but does that make me a nut job just because I believe we need less government? Some of these liberals should get out and meet people more.
And the articles are out there all with the same message. The people participating in the 2nd Amendment March are all a bunch of nuts wanting to overthrow our government. I swear I would love to know where they come up with some of their ideas.
Here's a article that gives a little perspective.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m4d14-Vitriol-approaching-fever-pitch-as-2A-march-looms
Media bias is already evident. When Newsweek magazine mentioned the Second Amendment March, it was in the text of a story headlined “A Surge of Hate.” When Political Chili writer Dr. James Scaminaci III weighed in on the march, he discussed it in terms of a “culture of violence” that he lays at the feet of conservatives.
Even Newsweek is getting in on the act.But the feds and local authorities will be watching closely on April 19, when the Oath Keepers mark their first anniversary and join a Second Amendment March on Washington to celebrate the right to bear arms. The Oath Keepers say they are commemorating the first shots of the Revolutionary War fired at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, but April 19 is also the anniversary of the end of the FBI siege at Waco, Texas, in 1993, as well as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.--Newsweek
Friday, April 16, 2010
Tom Brokaw on the Tea Party movement
I found this ant thought it was a rather good read.
Former TV anchorman Tom Brokaw characterized the Tea Party movement this morning as 'prosperous people trying to hang on to what they have.'
Appearing on the MSNBC 'Morning Joe' show, Mr. Brokaw cited a New York Times poll which found Tea Party members:
• Held an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama--84%
• Disagree with the way Congress is doing its job--96%
• Rate the economy fairly bad or very bad--93%
• Rate their own household financial situation fairly bad or very bad--20%
"So you've got prosperous people trying to hang on to what they have," Brokaw concluded, "and they have learned to organize."
The article included the CBS/NYT poll.
Former TV anchorman Tom Brokaw characterized the Tea Party movement this morning as 'prosperous people trying to hang on to what they have.'
Appearing on the MSNBC 'Morning Joe' show, Mr. Brokaw cited a New York Times poll which found Tea Party members:
• Held an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama--84%
• Disagree with the way Congress is doing its job--96%
• Rate the economy fairly bad or very bad--93%
• Rate their own household financial situation fairly bad or very bad--20%
"So you've got prosperous people trying to hang on to what they have," Brokaw concluded, "and they have learned to organize."
The article included the CBS/NYT poll.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Second Amendment March is fast approching.
Next Monday, the 19th, The Second Amendment March will take place at the capital. We are going to start at noon and run till 3:00 pm.
Brenna Findley, candidate for State Attorney General will be a speaker, along with Dave Funk, Candidate for Leonard Boswells seat and Sean McClanahan, the President of Iowa Carry.
I would like to see a good crowd show up. This is more than a bunch of gun people. This is remembrance for the brave patriots that stood up to the British at Lexington/Concord on April 19th 1775. The British were sent packing and the patriots fired the shot heard "round the world. As a result, we have enjoyed 235 years of freedom.
The problem is, over the last 80 years, the government has tried to chip away at our rights a little at a time. We have fought back at them and we have won some and lost some. So we will celebrate the victories an worry about the losses some other time. Mostly we will remember a bunch of farmers and shop keepers that told the worlds greatest super power, "NO MORE".
The March in Washington DC will also be next Monday. I would liked to have been there with my Friend Skip Coryell. He has put this together over the last couple of years. There are people like me in a lot of states that have been collecting signatures and holding rally's since the first of the year.
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com
This is the link to the main page. And this is the link to the Iowa section
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/iowa
Come on out next Monday and we will celebrate the bave folks that gave us our freedoms.
It's going to be here faster that we realize.
Brenna Findley, candidate for State Attorney General will be a speaker, along with Dave Funk, Candidate for Leonard Boswells seat and Sean McClanahan, the President of Iowa Carry.
I would like to see a good crowd show up. This is more than a bunch of gun people. This is remembrance for the brave patriots that stood up to the British at Lexington/Concord on April 19th 1775. The British were sent packing and the patriots fired the shot heard "round the world. As a result, we have enjoyed 235 years of freedom.
The problem is, over the last 80 years, the government has tried to chip away at our rights a little at a time. We have fought back at them and we have won some and lost some. So we will celebrate the victories an worry about the losses some other time. Mostly we will remember a bunch of farmers and shop keepers that told the worlds greatest super power, "NO MORE".
The March in Washington DC will also be next Monday. I would liked to have been there with my Friend Skip Coryell. He has put this together over the last couple of years. There are people like me in a lot of states that have been collecting signatures and holding rally's since the first of the year.
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com
This is the link to the main page. And this is the link to the Iowa section
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/iowa
Come on out next Monday and we will celebrate the bave folks that gave us our freedoms.
It's going to be here faster that we realize.
Monday, April 12, 2010
One More Week
Next Monday, the 19th, The Second Amendment March will take place at the capital. We are going to start at noon and run till 3:00 pm.
Brenna Findley, candidate for State Attorney General will be a speaker, alon with Dave Funk, Candidate for leonard Boswells seat and Sean McClanahan, the President of Iowa Carry.
I would like to see a good crowd show up. This is more than a bunch of gun people. This is rememberance for the brave patriots that stood up to the British at Lexington/ concord on April 19th 1775. The British were sent packing and the patriots fired the shot heard "round the world. As a result, we have enjoyed 235 years of freedom.
The problem is, over the last 80 years, the government has tried to chip away at our rights a little at a time. We have fought back at them and we have won some and lost some. So we will celebrate the victories an worry about the losses some other time. Mostly we will remember a bunch of farmers and shop keepers that told the worlds greatest super power, "NO MORE".
The March in Washington DC will also be next Monday. I would liked to have been there with my Friend Skip Coryell. He has put this together over the last couple of years. There are people like me in a lot of states that have been collecting signatures and holding rallys since the first of the year.
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com
This is the link to the main page. And this is the link to the Iowa section
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/iowa
Come on out next Monday and we will celebrate the bave folks that gave us our freedoms.
Brenna Findley, candidate for State Attorney General will be a speaker, alon with Dave Funk, Candidate for leonard Boswells seat and Sean McClanahan, the President of Iowa Carry.
I would like to see a good crowd show up. This is more than a bunch of gun people. This is rememberance for the brave patriots that stood up to the British at Lexington/ concord on April 19th 1775. The British were sent packing and the patriots fired the shot heard "round the world. As a result, we have enjoyed 235 years of freedom.
The problem is, over the last 80 years, the government has tried to chip away at our rights a little at a time. We have fought back at them and we have won some and lost some. So we will celebrate the victories an worry about the losses some other time. Mostly we will remember a bunch of farmers and shop keepers that told the worlds greatest super power, "NO MORE".
The March in Washington DC will also be next Monday. I would liked to have been there with my Friend Skip Coryell. He has put this together over the last couple of years. There are people like me in a lot of states that have been collecting signatures and holding rallys since the first of the year.
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com
This is the link to the main page. And this is the link to the Iowa section
http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/iowa
Come on out next Monday and we will celebrate the bave folks that gave us our freedoms.
Amid cuts, Ohio judge tells citizens to carry guns
I'm afraid we are going to see more of this with the economy in the shape it's in.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSBOQdb_QcxbWXDYIGmOvAQ2gudAD9EVPQVO1
Judge Alfred Mackey of Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court advised residents Friday to be vigilant and arm themselves because the number of deputies has been cut about in half because of a tight budget. He also urged neighbors to organize anti-crime block watch groups.
"They have to be law-abiding, and if they are not familiar with firearms they need to take a safety course so they are not a threat to their family and friends and themselves," Mackey said Friday.
Mackey, whose comments were first broadcast Thursday by WKYC-TV in Cleveland, was expressing concerns with budget cuts that have trimmed the sheriff's department from 112 to 49 deputies in the county, which is Ohio's largest by land area.
Asked by WKYC how people should respond to the cuts and limited patrols, he said, "Arm themselves. Be very careful and just be vigilant because we're going to have to look after each other."
Andrew Pollis, who teaches law at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, saw the original TV clip of Mackey and said it was clear the judge wasn't advocating vigilantism.
Still, Pollis said, snippets of the comments could be misunderstood "as a license, if you will, to engage in conduct which we as a society collectively would not want."
In Akron, Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove, president-elect of the Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association, said she was surprised by Mackey's suggestion.
"That's scary to me," she said. "I don't know what the situation in Ashtabula County is. I personally would never — that's a personal choice in terms of carrying a weapon."
With deputies assigned to transport prisoners and serve warrants, only one radio car is assigned to patrol the county of 720 square miles, excluding municipalities with police departments. The sheriff's patrol area covers most of the county, the judge said Friday.
Mackey said the response to his comments has been positive in the mostly rural county between Cleveland and Erie, Pa.
"People in this county are hunters," said Mackey, who grew up on a farm with rifles and still owns firearms. "People have familiarity with firearms."
Messages seeking comment on the judge's remarks were left for Sheriff William Johnson and county commissioners.
Johnson has threatened to sue the commissioners to have some of his department's funding restored.
The jail in the county of about 100,000 people has held as many as 140 prisoners, but the number has dipped to about 30 because of reductions in the guard staff. About 700 people are on a waiting list to serve time in the jail.
Ohio has had a concealed handgun law for five years, and from October to December the Ashtabula County sheriff issued 54 licenses. Twenty-eight licenses were renewed.
Finally, a judge with some common sense. The SCOTUS has said many times that the police have no duty to protect anyone. Their duty is to the "public at large". The only one that can defend you is you.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSBOQdb_QcxbWXDYIGmOvAQ2gudAD9EVPQVO1
Amid cuts, Ohio judge tells citizens to carry guns
CLEVELAND — One judge's solution for citizens feeling less secure because of budget cuts in an Ohio county: Carry a gun.Judge Alfred Mackey of Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court advised residents Friday to be vigilant and arm themselves because the number of deputies has been cut about in half because of a tight budget. He also urged neighbors to organize anti-crime block watch groups.
"They have to be law-abiding, and if they are not familiar with firearms they need to take a safety course so they are not a threat to their family and friends and themselves," Mackey said Friday.
Mackey, whose comments were first broadcast Thursday by WKYC-TV in Cleveland, was expressing concerns with budget cuts that have trimmed the sheriff's department from 112 to 49 deputies in the county, which is Ohio's largest by land area.
Asked by WKYC how people should respond to the cuts and limited patrols, he said, "Arm themselves. Be very careful and just be vigilant because we're going to have to look after each other."
Andrew Pollis, who teaches law at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, saw the original TV clip of Mackey and said it was clear the judge wasn't advocating vigilantism.
Still, Pollis said, snippets of the comments could be misunderstood "as a license, if you will, to engage in conduct which we as a society collectively would not want."
In Akron, Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove, president-elect of the Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association, said she was surprised by Mackey's suggestion.
"That's scary to me," she said. "I don't know what the situation in Ashtabula County is. I personally would never — that's a personal choice in terms of carrying a weapon."
With deputies assigned to transport prisoners and serve warrants, only one radio car is assigned to patrol the county of 720 square miles, excluding municipalities with police departments. The sheriff's patrol area covers most of the county, the judge said Friday.
Mackey said the response to his comments has been positive in the mostly rural county between Cleveland and Erie, Pa.
"People in this county are hunters," said Mackey, who grew up on a farm with rifles and still owns firearms. "People have familiarity with firearms."
Messages seeking comment on the judge's remarks were left for Sheriff William Johnson and county commissioners.
Johnson has threatened to sue the commissioners to have some of his department's funding restored.
The jail in the county of about 100,000 people has held as many as 140 prisoners, but the number has dipped to about 30 because of reductions in the guard staff. About 700 people are on a waiting list to serve time in the jail.
Ohio has had a concealed handgun law for five years, and from October to December the Ashtabula County sheriff issued 54 licenses. Twenty-eight licenses were renewed.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
- Ohio official tells residents to 'arm themselves' amid police cuts
USA Today - 1 day ago - Judge: Residents should arm themselves in light of law enforcement layoffs
Ohioans for Concealed Carry - 1 day ago - Amid cuts, Ohio judge warns citizens to arm themselves
Youngstown Vindicator - 1 day ago - More coverage (1) »
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Obama citizenship to go to the SCOTUS
> VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT
>
> AP - WASHINGTON D.C. -
> In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
> This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just
> one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
>
> Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...
>
> LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T !
>
> Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
>
> While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
>
> So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
>
> And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
>
> The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
>
> Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
> A : Yes, by his own admission.
>
> Q: What passport did he travel under?
> A: There are only three possibilities.
> 1) He traveled with a U.S... Passport,
> 2) He traveled with a British passport, or
> 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
>
> Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
> A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S... State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.
>
> Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
>
> If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
>
> Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
>
> Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
>
> AP - WASHINGTON D.C. -
> In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
> This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just
> one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
>
> Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...
>
> LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T !
>
> Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
>
> While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
>
> So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
>
> And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
>
> The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
>
> Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
> A : Yes, by his own admission.
>
> Q: What passport did he travel under?
> A: There are only three possibilities.
> 1) He traveled with a U.S... Passport,
> 2) He traveled with a British passport, or
> 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
>
> Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
> A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S... State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.
>
> Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
>
> If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
>
> Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
>
> Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Fairgrounds Gun Show
Greetings everyone.
Today is the first day of the fairgrounds gun show for April. I will be out there at the Second Amendment March table. Eveyone should come on out and have a look. Stop by the table and we can visit for a while. Maybe I can get you to sign our petition.
When the show ends Sunday, we will be only 8 days away from the Second Amendment March. I'm being contacted by more and more people wanting details about the march.
The mission statement of the Second Amendment March;
The mission of the Second Amendment March is to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense.
The march in D.C. will take place on Monday, April 19, 2010 on the grounds of the Washington Monument. The march is from 10:00 am till 4:00 pm.
There is also a code of conduct;
2. If you do not intend to comply with item #1, do not attend.
3. It is each attendee's own personal responsibility to be familiar with the firearm laws in the areas in which he/she will be traveling.
4. Please be courteous to everyone you encounter, including D.C. police and National Park Service rangers.
5. Please be sure to dispose of all trash. Let's strive to leave the grounds in better condition than when we arrive.
6. If you have any concerns while at the event, please notify a volunteer or event organizer immediately.
You would think that in the Nations Capital, you could exercise your constitutional rights. The problem is the liberals in charge are afraid of the criminals that run rampant on the street. And the ones on the city council. Heaven forbid if a law abiding citizen defended his/her self from some democrat voter thug with a gun. Tourists are fair game in DC.
The March here in Des Moines will start at 12:00 noon on the west side of the capital. It will run till 3:00 pm. As far as carrying weapons, let your conscious be your guide. I have always subscribed to the idea that concealed is concealed. There will be volunteers around to help out if you need it.
I'm sure that knowing the type of people that carry weapons and support the 2nd Amendment, they will be a calm and receptive group. So you anti-gun folks can relax. There's not going to be any shootouts on the capital grounds. So come on down and see what we have to say. You never know, we might get you interested in a new hobby. I've seen quit a few people over the years that had never shot a gun before that really enjoyed it. We can make arrangements to get you some range time if you want to give it a try.
Everyone has a great weekend. It looks like the weather is going to be just wonderful. Be safe and if you get a chance, come by the fairgrounds and look us up.
Today is the first day of the fairgrounds gun show for April. I will be out there at the Second Amendment March table. Eveyone should come on out and have a look. Stop by the table and we can visit for a while. Maybe I can get you to sign our petition.
When the show ends Sunday, we will be only 8 days away from the Second Amendment March. I'm being contacted by more and more people wanting details about the march.
The mission statement of the Second Amendment March;
The mission of the Second Amendment March is to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense.
It is the one right that protects all others.
We will accomplish our mission by a peaceful march in Washington DC, the United States Capital, supported by satellite marches in cities all across America.The march in D.C. will take place on Monday, April 19, 2010 on the grounds of the Washington Monument. The march is from 10:00 am till 4:00 pm.
There is also a code of conduct;
D.C. Second Amendment March Rules and Code of Conduct
1. NO UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, ammunition (including empty cases), or magazines (including empty). There is no reciprocity with any states to speak of, no recognition of licenses issued by other states, no provision for non-residents to exercise their 2A right in D.C.2. If you do not intend to comply with item #1, do not attend.
3. It is each attendee's own personal responsibility to be familiar with the firearm laws in the areas in which he/she will be traveling.
4. Please be courteous to everyone you encounter, including D.C. police and National Park Service rangers.
5. Please be sure to dispose of all trash. Let's strive to leave the grounds in better condition than when we arrive.
6. If you have any concerns while at the event, please notify a volunteer or event organizer immediately.
You would think that in the Nations Capital, you could exercise your constitutional rights. The problem is the liberals in charge are afraid of the criminals that run rampant on the street. And the ones on the city council. Heaven forbid if a law abiding citizen defended his/her self from some democrat voter thug with a gun. Tourists are fair game in DC.
The March here in Des Moines will start at 12:00 noon on the west side of the capital. It will run till 3:00 pm. As far as carrying weapons, let your conscious be your guide. I have always subscribed to the idea that concealed is concealed. There will be volunteers around to help out if you need it.
I'm sure that knowing the type of people that carry weapons and support the 2nd Amendment, they will be a calm and receptive group. So you anti-gun folks can relax. There's not going to be any shootouts on the capital grounds. So come on down and see what we have to say. You never know, we might get you interested in a new hobby. I've seen quit a few people over the years that had never shot a gun before that really enjoyed it. We can make arrangements to get you some range time if you want to give it a try.
Everyone has a great weekend. It looks like the weather is going to be just wonderful. Be safe and if you get a chance, come by the fairgrounds and look us up.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
10 Things Everyone Should Know About Concealed Weapons Permit Holders
1. We don’t carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety. Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does. We don’t walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don’t get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don’t hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.
2. We don’t think we are cops, spies, or superheros. We aren’t hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don’t take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don’t believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren't here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We'll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extraordinary circumstances your business is your business, don't expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.
3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or “rage” incidents than the general public. We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don’t pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.
4. We are responsible gun owners. We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other security measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.
5. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable. Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply lying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to discharge on its own.
6. We do not believe in the concept of “accidental discharges”. There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun “going off” was the result of negligence on somebody’s part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.
7. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed. However, there are times with an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good judgment and clear thinking if they feel to need to take action. Please recognize that it’s very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private security. Please don’t generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like “there’s a guy running around in the store with a gun” or even simply “I saw a man with a gun in the store” could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the incident.
8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don't usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we think a location is.
9. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble. The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.
10. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens. Permit holders don’t believe that every person should necessarily be armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be unarmed victims.
Thanks to Iowajack.
2. We don’t think we are cops, spies, or superheros. We aren’t hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don’t take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don’t believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren't here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We'll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extraordinary circumstances your business is your business, don't expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.
3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or “rage” incidents than the general public. We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don’t pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.
4. We are responsible gun owners. We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other security measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.
5. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable. Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply lying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to discharge on its own.
6. We do not believe in the concept of “accidental discharges”. There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun “going off” was the result of negligence on somebody’s part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.
7. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed. However, there are times with an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good judgment and clear thinking if they feel to need to take action. Please recognize that it’s very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private security. Please don’t generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like “there’s a guy running around in the store with a gun” or even simply “I saw a man with a gun in the store” could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the incident.
8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don't usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we think a location is.
9. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble. The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.
10. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens. Permit holders don’t believe that every person should necessarily be armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe “gun free zones”. Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be unarmed victims.
Thanks to Iowajack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
