From the Heartland

This is my soap box, on these pages I publish my opinions on firearms and any other subject I feel like writing about.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Three days Late and a few dollars shorter

Off to Oklahoma

We should have left two days ago, but due to the events told in the previous post we were unable too. No neither the owner, driver or vehicle has been located yet (Friday afternoon).

We are heading out at zero dark thirty for the Chain Ranch for a few days of rest, relaxation and hunting. My brother got there Wednesday and has already bagged one nice hog.

Our time there this year has regrettably been shortened but we are still happy to be going as until last night we weren't sure we would be going at all.

Will post when we get back.

Here's hoping that you all have a very happy and prosperous New Year.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Merry Christmas

What a wonderful Christmas present.

While stopped at a traffic signal we received this lovely parting gift from a probable drunk driver with no insurance Christmas Eve morning. The driver did not hang around long enough for us to say thank you but we were able to get the license plate numbers and the owner of the car has been identified. It is has been more than 48 hours past and the local Gendarmes have yet to locate the other vehicle or driver.

Yes it was a hit and run

Information is sketchy at this point but it seems the owner of the car is pretty well known to the local Constabulary. Over and above that this is the third accident that the owner has been involved in in the past year.

And a Happy New year

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Lincoln, Nebraska to profit from Saterday night fights

Sometime in January the city council will be asked to legalize drunken brawls in the cities parks.

This would be funny if it didn't seriously piss me off

The Parks & Rec Dept wants the City Fathers (and Mothers) to enact an ordinance that allows the posession and consumption of alcoholic beverages at ampitheater events, fundraisers, family reunions, weddings and other catered affairs.

Follow the Money

Since the city of Lincoln is in the tank for nearly 10 million dollars or more because the pompous ass "I know what's better for you than you do" asses banned smoking at bars and restaurants it doesn't take much reading to figure out what the proposal is all about. Paragraph five out of fifteen to be exact;

Parks board members said allowing alcohol at certain events would help increase usage of the venues and bring in more revenue for the parks department.

The Benchmark for the proposal is the Golf Courses

“A lot of people worried it might turn into a drunken brawl golfing outing,” said the parks board’s chairwoman, Susan Larson-Rodenburg. “I think the parks department has proven itself with the golf courses.”

All it proves Suzy is that you haven't got the slightest idea what your talking about. But let me explain it to you anyway;

There is a real big difference between a couple of guys engaged in a sporting activity drinking a few beers and a bunch of people sitting around the picnic table at a family reunion or wedding imbibing for the sole purpose of getting drunk ...... DUHHHHHH

Well here is another no brainer

Then in 2004, the city began allowing alcohol to be served at fundraisers at the Children’s Museum; alcohol was already allowed at zoo fundraisers.

What does that say about the rich power elite in Lincoln?

It seems that they won't attend charitable functions unless they can "slosh in the sauce" while there. Of course the quickest way to get in someone wallet is to lower their inhibitions ... and a few snorts of Dom Perignon will certainly do that.

Sounds like Pavlov's dogs doesn't it?

Or maybe the power elite are the dogs and the alcohol is the porkchop hanging around the neck of what ever charity is in the balance that night.

As I have made clear in the past I do not smoke and I continue to oppose the smoking ban. I do not drink either and I likely wouldn't have a problem with alcohol in the parks either, but consider the following;

The only requirement to posess and consume alcohol in the parks is that one be at least 21 years of age,

  • There are no fingerprints or background checks required,
  • There is no training at cost borne by the drinker required,
  • There is no concealed six pack/bottle license required
  • Convicted felons or those with "Casady's pet misdemeanors" are not prohibitted from owning, posessing or consuming alcohol.

That is what pisses me off

The most law abiding people in Lincoln that go through all of the requirements to obtain a concealed carry license are fordibben from posessing a personal protection tool in the city parks.
Anyone 21 years of age and older no matter segment of the criminal or social element they come from will soon be able to get wasted and do all of the stupid things drunk people do when they get drunk.

So there you have it's okay to go to the Farmers Market and let your dog piss all over other peoples food and property. You will soon be able to go to a city park and get trashed.

You can't however, light up an after dinner cigarette in the smoking section of a restaurant and you are denied the means to protect yourself when you are forcibly accosted by a bunch of drunk felons in the park with broken booze bottles.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Another worthless piece of paper

Recently a local woman had a man whom she had an order of protection against show up at her new place of employment.

Later that evening when she drove through a secluded area on her way home the man following her used his car to bump hers several times in order to get her stopped. It didn't work and on her arrival home other family members notified the appropriate Law Enforcement Agency.

Mutual acquaintance's of both the man and the woman relate that the man has made statements that he wanted to kidnap her so that she can have his baby.

More recently this man again showed up at the womans place of employment. Fearing for her safety the Lincoln Police Department was notified and responded, removing him from inside her place of employment.

Initially the man was secured in a police vehicle while the Officer verified that the order of protection was valid.

It is in fact valid and will remain so until the middle of 2007.

The responding Lincoln Police Officer released the man at the scene.

Yes that is right freed him, let him go, gave him a get out of jail free card.

The reason?

It was her place of employment

The woman has a restraining order the general provisions of which prevent him from contacting her or being within a certain distance of her AND additionally forbids him from being at her place of employment (it specifically names the business at which she used to work).

In the pervue of the Lincoln Police Department since the order of protection does not specifically by name cite her current place of employment they did not arrest him for violating the order of protection.

There you have it, another fine job by Lincolns finest.

This is not a legal technicality and it ain't rocket science folks.

So what the order of protection does not name the current place of employment by name, the general no contact provisions of the order are enforceable at any location.
Just because the place of employment is not mentioned by name DOES NOT make it an "all ye all ye in free zone" for him to stalk and terrify the woman.

It goes beyond the Cop on the street

It is not entirely the responding officers fault. The officer spent considerable time on the cell phone while the man was in the backseat of the patrol car without being handcuffed.

It is likely that the officer was acting on advice and direction from a supervisor, city attorney and/or on call judge.

Ultimately should anything happen to the woman or members of her family before they can go back to court and modify the order of protection, whom ever it was that made the decision to allow this thug to walk will have the victims blood on their hands.

It is doubtful that this menace had the legal presence of mind to know he could not be arrested due to her change in employment, if anything happens to her they will bear some responsibility.

The consensus seems to be that during the nearly hour long presence of the Police Department at the scene our Public Officials went out of their way to concoct a reason however trivial to let the man walk rather than jailing him on an obvious charge of violating an order of protection.

If this doesn't open your eyes about orders of protection and the lack of seriousness given by Law Enforcement then nothing will.

The bottom line is that you can make all the phone calls you want to, when the subject of the order decides to violate it, you are on your own until or if help arrives.

Get this through your head

If you want to survive an encounter with your stalker you must be prepared to protect yourselves. The Police may/will not arrive in time to save you and if they do the chances are that the perpetrator will not be taken into custody anyway.

I am a man and as a woman I don't give two hoots in the forest whether you believe me or not. That is your choice.

If you won't believe me how about one of your own?

Can the Courts Protect You?

Another Restraining Order Fails

This is not the first time I have referred my readers to Zendo Deb the authoress of the Blog TFS Magnum.

Zendo Deb has in her entries compiled stories like this one from all over the United States. If you are not reading her Blog you should be.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

The Logan Act; Food for thought

Separation of Powers

For years there has been a faction of the population that has called for a separation between church and state. What the Justice Department really needs to enforce is the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to determine and implement foreign policy.

It is the duty of the Legislative Branch to ratify by advice and consent or not treaties negotiated by the Executive Branch. It is also the duty of the Legislature to fund or not the foreign policies set forth by the Executive Branch.

It is not within the pervue of individual elected Representatives or private citizens to travel to and engage foreign Governments in dialogue or negotiations.

Logan Act

Violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. #953, known as the Logan Act is punishable by fine or up to three years imprisonment or both.

One would think that a person, especially one with many years of seniority, who has been elected to represent and serve the people would be familiar with this law.

Apparently this is not the case.

Recently a number of the Legislative Branches Senior elected Representatives have taken it upon themselves to travel to foreign countries and engage the leadership of those countries in dialogue and/or negotiations.

Lead by Example

United States Citizens by and large should expect that their elected Representatives follow the same laws that their constituencies are subject to, and accept the same consequences when they do not.

There has never been a conviction for violation of the Logan Act.

This is likely due to the position in society of those that have in fact broken the law. Since it generally involves someone of a differing political party or belief, genuine fear of a massive adverse public reaction has probably tempered the enforcement of the Logan Act.

The United States of America is at war.

In order to prevail in this war it must be left to the Executive Branch to determine, implement and negotiate policy with those countries that support the factions that America is at war with.

To do otherwise conveys a potential sign of weakness in the resolve to prosecute that war. When the Executive Branch, of which ever party is undermined by members of the Legislative Branch engaging in separate communications with these governments it sends a mixed message of division to the enemies of the United States. In the past a division such as this has been used to prolong a conflict, thus causing the unnecessary casualties for American Soldiers.

In order to successfully prosecute this, or any war, the United States must speak with one foreign policy voice and only one voice. Constitutionally that voice belongs to the Executive Branch of Government. The Legislative Branch can and should debate the merits of that voice in legislative session.

To do otherwise will only prolong the conflict and/or cause the needless deaths of American Soldiers.

And that is my Food for Thought

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Roger Larson gets it wrong

Roger Larson provides commentary for local AM radio station 1400 KLIN. In a recent diatribe Larson disgorges an unusually large amount of bovine excrement even for him.

Hey Larson get your head out of your ass.

It is not the bill of needs.

What part of Right do you not understand?

One would think that at your age you would have a modicum of understanding concerning the Constitution and the Original ten amendments the "Bill of rights".

Roger let me educate you in some basic facts of history.

1. When the Constitution was penned there was no such thing as a "Sportsman" for the purpose of owning a firearm.

Sport hunting became a popular activity thanks primarily to the efforts of Conservationist and President Teddy Roosevelt in the late 1800's. Gee golly huck huck Roger that was 125 years after the Second Amendment was written wasn't it.

2. At that time every male of age (16 or older) was required to acquire at their own expense, maintain, become proficient with and report for duty with a firearm of suitable size and caliber.

Um ... ahhh ... Roger this may come as a shock to your delicate senses but "required to report with a firearm of suitable size and caliber acquired at ones own expense" would be an .... can you say ... assault weapon?

3. The only real organized "target shooting events" were held when the men were required to muster on the village green one Sunday afternoon a month.

4. Hunting was a necessity for survival, if a person didn't hunt his family didn't eat.

Roger put down the Kool-aid. Roger step away from the turd laden punch bowl.

Pay attention closely here Roger;

The Second Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with target shooting, hunting, or other sports type activities that require the use of firearms.

Taught in School

The purpose of the Second Amendment was not only for the people to serve their town, state and federal government in time of need, but to take up arms against that government should it deteriorate to a tyranny.

Roger do you understand that? I know they were teaching that when you went to school. They were still teaching that when I graduated from school more than 30 years ago.

Because they are

As for the "new" Firearms ownership Rights group you are touting there is a reason that the NRA is calling them a left-wing subversive group.

As for tying them to former President Clinton's attempt at banning some guns, well Roger you did that yourself when you pointed out that this new group makes the statement "No one needs an assault weapon."

The American Hunters and Shooters Association was exposed for the fraud that it is a long time ago Roger. Even a cursory check on the internet will inform even an "anti-gun keyboard kommando" of your ilk that the founders of this organization all come from anti-gun backgrounds.

I am not going to go into in-depth detail about the founders of this group and their backgrounds, that has adaquately been done in the past.

David Zincavage gives us the following admonition Don't be fooled.

American Hunters and Shooters Association head John E. Rosenthal founded the anti-gun group Stop Handgun Violence before he apparently "saw the light".

John Lott had the low down on this group well over a year ago. Before covering their tracks it was revealed that this group was started through the Democratic Leadership Council.

As a final note Larson ends his diatribes with "I'm Roger Larson, and that's the way I see it.

Well Roger I would suspect that if you instituted a cranial/rectal inversion, participated in a 12 step program for Kool-aid addiction and remember what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really means you might see it differently.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

The Miller Truth Revisited


In my previous post I noted that a commenter to a Lincoln Journal Star Editorial seemingly did not understand the true significance of U.S. v. Miller.

Miller has been used by the anti-gun panty-waists for decades to infer that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual Right and that it only applies to the National Guard.

Since I have read and studied the "Miller Decision" extensively I have always failed to see the merit to that claim. At the end of this treatise there is a link to all of the documents that emanated from that case.

After reading it completely I also fail to see how anyone of average intelligence can make the claim that the Court held the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is anything but an individual Right.

In the Beginning

In September 1938 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were re-indicted for transporting a "Sawed-off" shotgun from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas in violation of the National Firearms act of 1934.

Although Miller and Layton originally plead guilty, Federal Judge Heartsill Ragon on hearing the case suggested that they change their plea and appointed them representation.

Miller and Laytons attorney filed a demurrer to the indictment holding that the law under which they were charged was according to the Second Amendment unconstitutional. Judge Ragon agreed and so ruled.

The Governments Reacts

The prosecution in the personage of Clinton R. Barry et. al. appealed Judge Ragons decision to the United States Supreme Court. Barry's premise, was based on two parts;

  • 1. That the National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibiting possesses of certain weapons without an appropriate tax stamp was Constitutional and,
  • 2. That a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon only used by gangsters and desperadoes and had no legitimate use as a military/militia and/or weapon.

Barry also cited English Common laws dating back to the 1300's that forbade "riding or going about armed with dangerous or unusual weapons to the terror of the people" as proof that regulation of the "Right to Keep and Bear arms is permissible.

Authors Note: Barrys main assertion on English Common Law holds that "riding or going about armed with dangerous or unusual weapons to the terror of the people" assumes that people are/were terrified simply at the sight of such weapons. This was not the case "to the terror of the people" meant that the person possessing a dangerous or unusual weapon was threatening to use said weapon on or against specific individual/s. Possession is not a terroristic act, threatening to actually use it to the harm or death of an other was.

Barry incorrectly avers that pre-existence of the Rights retained by the people in the Second Amendment began only when those Rights were conferred to the people by English Royalty.

Barrys other assertion that the short-barreled shotgun was not a suitable weapon for military/militia use belies the fact that "Sawed-off" shotguns were used with much success by American forces in World-War I.

As was the original demurrer by Miller and Laytons attorney and Barrys subsequent appeal two in part so was the majority remand written by Justice James Clark McReynolds.

Authors Note: Miller and Layton were not represented during oral arguments before the Supreme Court, only the Government was present to make itself heard.

The Supreme Courts Speaks

In the first part as to whether the National Firearms Act of 1934 was Constitutional the Court issued the following statement;

...the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

Authors Note: In plain English they said the act was constitutional in that it did not effect powers reserved to the States.

Concerning part two of the matter before them the majority cited numerous references in early American law;

"Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs

....shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,

...provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . ."

...that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The Misunderstanding of Miller

Authors Note: This is where Miller has been so often misquoted and misunderstood. The Supreme Court clearly recognized that personal possession and acquisition of military/militia type firearms was not only protected by the Second Amendment, but laws stemming from it, enacted by the states actually required it.

The Court further stated that;

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Authors Note: The Court essentially said that you did not tell us that a short-barreled shotgun is or is not an instrument of the militia and we were not asked to determine such. The importance of that statement is the inference that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. They wrote they could not say the Second Amendment Guaranteed the Right to Keep and Bear that one specific firearm.

Since, as I noted earlier that the "Sawed-off shotgun", "Trench gun", "Ally Sweeper" was so successfully used during World War I it is clearly more than a tool used only by gangsters and deparados avered by Barry. This statement by the High Court implies that had information been provided that the firearm in question has a legitimate purpose as an instrument of the militia they would have "decided" in Millers favor.

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Authors Note: In their "decision" the Supreme Court did "decide" that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was not unconstitutional.

They DID NOT conclude that the Second Amendment was a Collective Right as many claim. They DID remand the case back to Judge Ragons Court to determine whether a "sawed-off shotgun" was a suitable instrument of the militia. Since Miller was not represented in oral argument before the court the Justice's in their opinion appear to have actually taken Millers side. Instead they remanded the case back to Ragon, a highly unusual move considering that Millers attorney was not present when the case was heard. They ordered Judge Ragon to rehear the case and determine whether the short barreled shotgun was an instrument of the militia.


The Supreme Court "decision" on Miller emanated from their October 1938 Term. In April of 1939 prior to the remanded further proceedings by the Supreme Court Miller was murdered.

With Millers death the case died as well and the re-hearing ordered by the Supreme Court never took place.

Authors Note: Had Judge Ragon reheard the case and determined that the firearm in question was in fact a legitimate instrument of the militia on any re-application to the Supreme Court Miller would not be the controversy it is today. This reasonable inference is made based on Judge Ragons actions at the very beginning, as a Judge he advised Miller and Layton to withdraw their guilty pleas and appointed them legal counsel. Judge Ragon did not find Miller or Layton guilty or not guilty, he only ruled on a demurrer that the law under which they were charged was unconstitutional. That left the door open for Clinton Barry to appeal. The Supreme Court simply ordered that, because the National Firearms Act of 1934 was Constitutional Miller and Layton be re-charged and taken to trial. Had Judge Ragon held a trial and issued a likely not guilty verdict in the original instance the double jeopardy requirements of the Constitution would have never allowed it to get to the Supreme Court in the first place.

The "determination" that the Supreme Court ordered never took place. In that regard for all intents and purposes Miller is still an open case and until some court specifically rules that a "short barreled shotgun IS or IS NOT a suitable instrument of the military/militia Miller will never have been "decided".

Final note: All bold text is the product of this author for emphasis. I would also like to thank Patrick L. Aultice for much of the information that I relied on for this narrative. Pat has compiled in one place the most complete work on Miller as may exist.

He has published all of the official court documents relating to U.S. v. Miller on the internet and they can be read by anyone in their entirety here.

Regurgitation of a non issue

News must be slow in the Capital city.

Recently the Lincoln Journal Star in an anonymous "editorial" stoked the fires of Concealed Carry again.

The Journal Star and countless others are acting as though Nebraska is the first State to enact such a law. They have their heads in the sand or are conveniently ignoring that this has been the norm in a majority of states for the last 20 to 100 years or more.

It begs the question

Since a majority of the 50 states have already been down this road and there has not ever been the shootouts over parking spaces or blood running in the streets the naysayers predicted, why is it the Journal Star Staff and others think Nebraska will be the exception?

They want my money but they consistently imply that because I own firearms I am, not to be trusted, irresponsible and a menace to society.

What is it that they seem to know about their fellow Cornhuskers that makes them think we are not as responsible and well meaning as the residents of the rest of the states that have had concealed carry laws for years? That is one reason I do not take a home subscription to the LJS.

A third choice

The LJS editorial points out two choices;

But suppose a gun-toter wants to shop in a store that sports the no-guns sign. If a crook can’t tell who’s packing, how can the shopkeeper tell if the citizen takes a gun in anyway? And if the citizen dutifully leaves his gun in his car, what a lucky break for a crook who has only to smash a window to add to his arsenal.

  • Choice one - Disobey the sign and carry anyway.
  • Choice two - Leave the firearm in the vehicle when entering a posted business.

What LJS fails to mention and should be considered by businesses worried about their bottom line is the third choice that a number of legal Concealed Carriers will opt for;

  • Choice three - Refusal to patronize any business that posts a sign.

Choice three is the one I will avail myself of. It is a businesses right to permit whom they wish in their premises and I will repsect that. Respect is a two way street, if a business does not respect my decision to maintain the lawful ability to protect myself and my family I will not spend my money there.

Personally I think that if someone leaves their firearm in a vehicle because a business is posted and that persons firearm is stolen while they are patronizing that business then the owners/managers of that business should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that firearm. In the least they should be able to be sued in civil court by the victims of crimes committed with a firearm that was stolen from their parking lot.

In its infinite wisdom the LJS points out;

The fact that most law-enforcement agencies have distanced themselves from the law should tell us something about its potential for danger.

Danger?? Show me the danger

Police administrations distance themselves from laws like this because it will effect their bottom line budget. Every year police administrations request additional funds to bolster their budgets under the pretense of protecting the public. For years police administrators have deluded the public into thinking they (the police department) are the sole responsibility for the citizens safety. The only danger is to their bottom line.

To many Sheeple in this country have been brainwashed into thinking that the Police are suppose to be at their beck and call for any little snit that they find themselves in.

News flash Sheeple;

Police agencies are under no legal obligation to protect you as an individual.

Police agencies exist to serve the public as a whole i.e. clearing traffic accidents, quelling riots or public disturbances, and investigating crimes.

Police Officers for the most part can not prevent crimes. Rarely are police officers at the scene of a crime before or as it is happening. For the most part they (through no fault of their own) show up after the fact.

Yes they will put out an all points for your SUV that was hijacked from your wife with your 18 month old baby in the back. Yes they will see that your daughter gets a rape kit and adequate medical attention when they find her bruised body in a back alley. Yes they will see that you get to the hospital when a couple of thugs rough you up and take your wallet because "you stayed at Tulley's Bar too long again".

The cold hard fact is when you need them most they won't be there. For those critical moments you are on your own, what you do may mean life or death.

Oh and if you can get a call through and they don't show up in your definition of a timely manner or your call slips through the cracks and they don't show at all?

Don't even think about suing them.

That has been tried before countless times in countless states and the result has always been the same;

Police Officers are under no legal obligation to protect citizens as individuals only society as a whole.

The only people the police are by law required to protect is those that they have a "special relationship" with. A 'special relationship" is generally held to be a person "in custody".

No an Order of Protection does not qualify as a "special relationship".

Try this;

Call the local police department and tell them a person you have an order against just called you and said they are on their way over to kill you.

The response will generally be something to the effect of;

"We're sorry Mr/Mrs Citizen but we can't do anything until the person actually shows up at your residence. Call us back when he/she gets there."

Want to know how many 911 recordings there are where the caller was assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered on tape while the police were "in route"?

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not one single Police Officer I know that won't put his or her life on the line to come to your aid. I know for a fact that they do it because it is in their heart and not their bank account. For what they do Peace Officers have an under paid and under appreciated lot in life.

The way it is

What the average citizen need to understand is that no matter how much police officers may want to be they can not be there when you are assaulted, robbed, raped or worse. They just have no way of knowing your in trouble until the incident is over and then all they can do is respond and help pick up the pieces. It is a fact of life, deal with it.

US v. Miller

One the commenter's to the "editorial" on-line referenced US v. Miller. Miller the most misunderstood actions ever taken by the US Supreme Court. It is touted as the "Miller Decision" and I can deduce that the commenter has never actually read it. In Miller the Supreme Court decided nothing. That's right zip, zilch, nada, nothing.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) remanded the case back to the lower court because it wasn't given notice that a "short-barreled shotgun was firearm in use by the Militia. By it's own writing if SCOTUS had been given notice that such a firearm was in use by the military they would have decided in Millers favor.

After it was remanded back to the lower court and before further action could be taken in his defense Miller died.

Those of you that so handily quote Miller in error should do yourselves the favor of reading it instead of relying on what somebody else tells them it means. Then at least you won't appear to be so ignorant when you open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Monday, November 27, 2006

This has been a strange weekend, really strange

I spent the weekend watching 6 or 7 Football games

Why is that strange?

To set the record straight I have not WATCHED a complete start to finish televised football ball game (Nebraska Bowl games excepted) since the 78-79 Super Bowl, (if I'm remembering the years right) when the Dallas Cowboys whumped the tar out of the Denver Broncos. In that time I have seen portions of games here and there, but I never had the urge to follow a team let alone watch a game.

Yes I was a Dallas Cowboy fan

About that time our little 5 person Sunday football click pretty much all received another overseas assignment different countries.

Bob was headed to Germany and got side tracked to Turkey, Tony went to Korea, I went to Alaska. It has been to long for me to remember where the rest ended up.

So much for the "whose turn is it to host the Dallas game this week rotation". It seemed that without some one to share the "thrill of victory and/or the agony of defeat' it just wasn't worth watching. By the way the wife and I watched that Dallas/Denver game alone after home roasting a few pounds of peanuts.

Go Big Red

Hell yes I root for the Nebraska Cornhuskers. We have only ever been to one game though (Neb. V. Ks. - kajillion to nothing Nebraska). I rarely watch them on TV unless its their bowl game. I do follow their season and hear portions of the games on the radio. No I do not even own any Husker apparel.

Who knows why I did it? (rhetorical)

Maybe it was because of all the instate rivalry games. Maybe it was just because I didn't feel like going hunting. Maybe I just wanted an excuse to stay in bed all weekend .... Yer damn right I did, got to get some time share use out of that big screen wall mount Mrs. Gun got for her Birthday too. (Yes she had to work this weekend) Maybe after a quarter century I was just jonesing for some football.

Notes on Nebraska v. Colorado

The most glaring thing that jumped out at me was how the two defenses differed. I was thinking at the time that Nebraska was playing pantywaist football. When the Cornhusker defense tackled a Buff they seemed to pull them down gently or they gave them a sissy type push out of bounds.

Conversely when a Buff took out a Nebraska player they hammered them. Watching the Huskers getting up after taking a Buff hit I could here the words of former President Clinton echoing in my head ... "Ah feel your pain".

Nebraska did open up on them late in the game and trounce them soundly.

Notre Dame v. USC

Was a good game to watch. There has been a lot of gnashing about who gets to face Ohio. Some say Michigan, but I think USC earned it.

NE Patriots v. "Da Bears"

For awhile I thought I was watching a tennis match.

Stereo typical example;

The Pats go 3 and out, Da Bears go two and fumble, the Pats go two and toss an interception, Da Bears go 3 and out, the Pats go 2 and fumble .. on and on back and forth.

The Patriots are my brothers favorite team so I am glad they pulled it out. That is about the only Pro game I paid any attention to but I find one thing interesting though;

Both teams seem to be playing the "pantywaist" type football I saw Nebraska playing.

Callahan was a Pro team coach and I can only speculate as to why it is probably a better way to play than the "hit them like a freight train" method. When you consistently hit somebody that hard you not only wear them down quickly, you wear yourself down just as fast. You also not only increase the likely hood of injury to the opposing player, but to yourself as well.

Keeping the troglodyte urge in check allows for more endurance down the stretch. And it was down the stretch that Nebraska opened up on Colorado.

Some final thoughts

I was in the Solich needed to go camp, I just did not like the way it was handled, especially the timing. I was also hoping that Bo Polini would get the job. Having said that I think that the Callahan decision was ultimately a good one. Very few college players get the chance to go Pro, but it would seem to me that with a winning record and 4 years of tutelage from a former Pro coach Nebraska Cornhuskers might have a leg up on a lot of other players when it comes to the draft.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

I have a lot to be thankful for

I started a post the other day about Thanksgiving and all that I have to be thankful for.

It was full of wishy washy sentimentalism and read like a script for a "Chick Flick" movie. So I decided to trash it and offer the following instead. I'll try to keep it simple and to the point.

I truly have a lot to be thankful for.

I am thankful to have acquaintances like Jim, Chris and Dan. I am a better person for knowing them.

I am truly blessed and thankful for 3 grown children that are educated and embarked on their own careers. Two of them have with God's grace given us 6 healthy grandchildren (and one on the way).

I am forever great full for the 30 plus years companionship of a loving wife, friend and Mother to our children.

As most of you know I am a disabled Veteran and I am thankful for the health that I still have. In the grand scheme of things I am still in pretty good shape. I have no complaints in that regard.

I volunteered.

I was as aware as a 17 year old could be about what I was getting into. I am thankful that I was born an American and had the opportunity to serve my Country. It is no more,, nor no less than thousands that came before me, or followed after me have done.

I am thankful to be an American.

I am also thankful to fellow Bloggers that think enough of my writing to link it on their websites.

I am thankful to all of you that read this Blog and leave comments whether you agree with me or not.

As we sit down to celebrate the holiday, I ask everyone that reads this to take a moment to reflect on what it is you have to be thankful for.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Jihad on the Infidel Whitetail

Sub Titled: Why I haven't been posting

In a recent post my buddy (real life) Vinnie who writes the Vince Aut Morire Blog issued a Fatwa for all members of the BWP (Brothers of the Woodland Pursuit) to don the holy raiments of the hunt, venture forth, and Jihad upon the infidel Whitetail and Mule deer.

Not being one to sit home and Blog when issued such a challenge I prepared to do battle with the wily Whitetail.

Full color high definition memories of past outings kaleidescope across the television of my mind as I carefully honed my cutlery and prepared my equipment in anticipation of a successful jihad. On the morning of 11-11 (Opening Day of Deer season) I rose early and adorned myself in the sacred garments of the hunt. (Real Tree Camo and Hunter Orange) I then laid hands on "Thor's Hammer" and went forth to do battle with the infidel Whitetail.

For over three days the battle of wits raged as the crafty Whitetail remaining unscathed.

On the 30 some degree morning of the fourth day the Moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars.

Snugged into the base of a large Cedar tree I was barely cognizant of the cold gusting Northwest wind as it buffeted the large lower branches that sheltered me. I was watching carefully when the unsuspecting but edgy and alert infidel Whitetail fatefully eased into the open of the small Glen I surveyed as my temporary domain.

Raising "Thor's Hammer" to my shoulder I settled the optical cross hairs behind the shoulder of my prey 80 yards distant. The deer paused as I recalled the axiom "Aim small, miss small". Pressuring the trigger I called down the thunder sending a Remington 3 inch copper solid 12 gauge slug on its way. Recovering from the recoil I watched as my quarry made a few short leaps into the hereafter.

(End of parody)


I am not what you would call a Trophy Hunter. I enjoy the table fare that venison provides and seek to do my part in bringing balance to the Whitetail deer population in Southeast Nebraska.

On most years unless I buy a Archery or Muzzle Loading tag I will be hunting with an antler less only license/s.

There has been a severe over population problem in Southeast Nebraska for many years. This has not only increased the number of deer/automobile confrontations it has threatened the health of the entire herd that must compete for a limited amount of food. The result is a population of under sized animals that are extremely suseptable to the vagaries of winter.

Vinnie the Great White Hunter

This not the first time brother Vinnie has called upon his fellow hunters to jihad upon legal game animals of the woodlands.

At the end of August, in response to a sad saga emanating from the UK Vinnie pledged to bagged no less than 29 rabbits this season. One for each year of age John Freeman had attained before succumbing to rabbit flu.

I figure this goal is a tad lofty, and as a BWP I pledged to do my part to help Vinnie realize his quest. At noon last Friday I bagged my first bunny of the year and hereby donate the tally of one to the 29.

Fret not there will be more.

I would also implore the effervescent Merri to peruse her extensive collection of Rachel Ray Cookbooks for bunny recipes.

Note; As I write this it seems that Vinnie himself has been less than successful in his own jihad on the infidel venison. Seems Merri's Pappa was successful though.... using Vinnie's blind.

Better luck this weekend Bro.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Shopping Cart Courtesy; A pet Peave

Rant Mode On

In a recent letter to the editor in the local Bird Cage Liner, Amanda Wright waxed eloquent on the inconsiderate low life scumbags that are apparently too lazy to return their shopping cart to the front of the store or any one of a number of cart corrals located in the parking lots.

Note; Amandas letter is the last on the page and by the tone of commenters there are plenty of people that feel the same way. Way to go Amanda!

This has been a sore spot for me for a long time. numerous times over the years I have encountered parking spaces blocked by carts. There have been untold numbers of times when it is obvious that someone left a cart against my vehicle while I shopped. I have also found carts bumped up against my car that had to have rolled into it from a distance with enough force to at least scratch the paint.

Those carts are provided by the merchant for our convenience. And no they do not do it for free. Yes the cost of purchasing the carts is reflected in the price of merchandise sold at that location. The payroll for Cart Wranglers and repair for broken or damaged carts is also included in the the cost of the products as well.

Many people do not realize that businesses spend thousands upon thousands of dollars every year to maintain that fleet of carts. When rude, inconsiderate and otherwise lowlife shoppers abuse the system it will always result in price increases.

What it boils down to is respect.

People that do not return a cart to the store or place it in a corral are demonstrating that they have no respect for someone else's property.

As a side note it would seem that these lowlifes as always, are thankfully in the minority. Yes the parking lots are strewn with the graffiti (re: shopping carts) of the rude and inconsiderate but there always seems to be far more carts in the corrals than are scattered around the parking lot. This would indicate that there are far more considerate shoppers than there are rude inconsiderate lowlife scumbags.

Yes I really do think that those who refuse to properly handled their carts are rude inconsiderate lowlife scumbags.

Over the years I have seen more than one "handicapped" person take their cart back to the store front or to a corral, so I know there is no excuse for any apparently healthy person not to do likewise.

And While I am in Rant Mode

Another thing that really ticks me off to no end is the use of profanity in public places.

Just recently Mrs. Gun and I were dining at one of our favorite spots when 3 young men (late teens/early 20's) came in and sat near us. It did not matter which of the 3 spoke, their conversation could be heard by everyone in the place and every third word started with "F" and ended with "ed" "er", "ing" and/or was prefaced with "mother".

There were several elder citizens present and many were clearly uncomfortable with the situation. This of course did not phase these stalwart young Lincolnites, either they didn't care or did not notice.

I have no objection to the language that one chooses to use except that one should be considerate of the audience where those words are uttered.

Yes I do

Yes I have and do on occasion vocalize any number of epithets. There is a difference between the "back row of a truck stop" and a family diner though.

As a measure I figure if it is not something I would say in front of my Grandmother it is not anything I want to say in public in front of anyone else's Grandmother either.

Again it is a sign of lack of Respect

People that chose to regale us with their limited and vulgar vocabulary demonstrate that they have no caring or compassion for those around them and are not deserving of the respect they think they are cultivating.

I also think it is indicative of little education.

No it is not only the young among us are not the only culprits either. Over the years I encountered any number of older men and women that orate with a vocabulary replete with obscenities.

What is really laughable about this is that these purveyors of profanity think they are impressing those around them with all of their creative uses of the "F" word. They fail to realize that a majority of people within ear shot of their foul mouth think just the opposite.

No people not only do most of us not want to hear how many times you can creatively use the word in the same sentence, you cease to have any credibility on anything you are discussing even if you have a PhD. on the subject.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Yes they do want to ban your "Bullets"


In the previous post I mentioned the renewal of the "Clinton Gun Ban". Most intelligent people know that the original law really didn't "ban" any firearms, well maybe with the notable exception of a Gawd awful ungangly and ugly short barreled shotgun.

What it really did was prohibit certain cosmetic features or combinations of features that some found objectionable; Pistol Grips, Flash Suppressors, Bayonets and limit magazine capacities to a maximum of 10 rounds.

There was no compelling reason for the number 10 as to magazine capacity, it was a number the gun grabbers thought they could get passed without much difficulty. It has also been rumored that the number 10 was the brain child of Bill Ruger, Head of Ruger Firearms.

As a side note the law seemed to be effective in one way,to my knowledge during the entire ten years it was in effect there was not one single drive-by bayoneting.

Bullets and Body Armor

Some time ago I penned a treatise on a proposed ban on a specific firearm; the Five-seveN.

In that article I pointed out that the fine print of the law would also ban any ammunition capable of being used in a handgun that would penetrate Body Armor.

To protect the Nation's law enforcement officers by banning the Five-seveN Pistol and 5.7 x 28mm SS190 and SS192 cartridges, testing handguns and ammunition for capability to penetrate body armor, and prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, or purchase of such handguns or ammunition by civilians.

The above language is the statement of intent as to the scope of the law. Note that the first part of that statement creates an outright ban on the Five-seveN. It is the second part that should have the hackles up on every single gun owner in the United States. It calls for testing of ALL handguns and ammunition. Any of those handguns and/or ammunition that are found to penetrate body armor will be banned from manufacture, sale and purchase by CIVILIANS.

That ban would have included just about every single rifle cartridge used by Big Game Hunters in the United States.

Section 3 Armor Piercing Ammunition, calls for an expansion of the definition of armor piercing ammunition to include;

(iii) a projectile that--

(I) may be used in a handgun; and

(II) the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor.'.

(b) Determination of Capability of Projectiles to Penetrate Body Armor- Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ............

Think not?

How many of the Thompson Center Contenders barrels have been chambered in rifle calibers? The Contender is considered a handgun and interchangeable barrels in calibers like the .223, 22-250, .243, 7mm08, 30-30, 45-70 to name just a few have been around for years.

According to that proposed law it doesn't even have to have ever been chambered in a handgun, only that it could.

Do you understand that? If the AG decides it can penetrate body armor you can't have it.

I defy anyone to show me a rifle caliber that has not already been used or could be determined by an anti-gun Attorney General as a "may be used in a handgun" cartridge.

Understand this, body armor worn by Police Officers and the Military for that matter was not designed to stop high power center fire rifle ammunition. Most of the armor worn by cops and soldiers will stop most handgun ammunition but it was never intended or designed to stop rifle rounds.

Ted Kennedy's Ammunition Ban

A few years ago in an action separate from the Five-seveN fiasco the esteemed Senator from Massachusetts Ted Kennedy tried to push a law through the Senate that would prohibit from sale and possession any caliber of ammunition that would penetrate the body armor worn by our Nations Police Community.

That prohibition would have and was intended to (and will when it is revived) include the most popular deer hunting cartridges on the market today, the 30-30, 308, 30-06, 270, 7mm mag, 300 Win Mag and all those fancy new Winchester Short Mags that a lot of you own and swear by.

Did I call out your favorite caliber there? No?

Don't worry even if I didn't don't think your safe. If it has the same power rating or higher of any of those that I did mention you may be able to keep your firearm, but you most certainly will not be able to buy any more ammo for it.

Okay now some of you will screw your empty little airheads a little deeper in the sand and tell everyone the Ole Gunscribe is off his rocker and crying wolf just because the Libs now have the majority in both houses.

Ask yourself this and answer it honestly;

These proposed laws are real and a matter of public record. The anti-gun grabbers wrote and tried to pass when they held the minority in both houses.

What in hell makes you think they will not resurrect these measures now that they have the majority?

The truth and every one of you that reads this knows it; is that the anti-gun grabbers will bring these proposals back and they will do their damnedest to make them law.

Unless all firearms owners en masse put and keep pressure on our Federally elected Officials some if not all of these proposals will become law.

He said he Would Sign It

subtitled: Pelosi's first one hundred hours

A few years ago when we were all waxing eloquent on the Clinton Gun Ban and the anticipated expiration there of one of the topics of heated discussion was the Presidents statement that he would sign if the re-authorization reached his desk.

If you have not yet acquired the firearms you wanted that were covered by the Clinton fiasco now would be a good time to do it.

The Clinton (Hillary)/Pelosi Gun Control act of 2007

I would imagine one of the first things our new Senate and House will try to do now that they have the votes is push through an even tougher version of the old law. I would even go so far as to predict there will be an even bigger push for inclusion of a National ban on 50 caliber firearms.

Take it for what it is worth but I am guessing that by April a "new and improved" ban will be placed on the Presidents desk.

Will he sign it??? He said he would didn't he??

Monday, November 06, 2006

Trick or Treat ......... it is Election Eve

I have not had much too say about politics during this years election campaign I linked to and let Street Sweeper over at Leavenworth Street do that and he has done a very good job of it as well.

It doesn't take much guess work to know which candidates that I support, but I want to mention one in particular that I think has done the job we hired him to do.

John Gale

John Gale is seeking re-election as Secretary of State. No one seems to pay much attention to that office until there are elections or controversial ballot measures, then the Office of Secretary of State is front and center.

With the Kate Whitek controversy and the gambling fiasco that office and its occupant John Gale have been front and center for several months now.

During that time Secretary Gale has had to make several very controversial decisions. To say the least and depending which side of the issue you are on they have not necessarily been popular ones.

That aside there can not be one person that can say that John has made these decisions lightly.

I had the pleasure of John Gales company this afternoon and we discussed some of the ballot issues he has had to deal with. I am convinced that Secretary Gale and his office fully researched the Constitution, State Statutes and Case Law in determining his decisions.

No they were not popular with everyone, there is no way they could have been but Secretary Gale issued decisions that were consistent with Nebraska State Law.

As far as I am concerned John Gale has done an outstanding job and tomorrow I intend to do my part in seeing that he is re-elected.

As most of my readers know I have not had the kindest words for Senator Chuck Hagel in the past but I was able to speak briefly with him this afternoon as well. There is some middle ground we can agree on though and this election some of that ground.

I have been torn all year as to who I would vote for;

Nelson or Ricketts.

As much as I respect the job that Ben Nelson has done as Senator there were things he did as Governor that I just can not lay to rest. Yes Ben Nelson has done a pretty fair job for Nebraska in the Senate, but he is still beholding to the Democratic Party. Ben Nelson is first and for most a Democrat and I do not want to see Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader.

This has not been an easy decision for me but Pete Ricketts will get my vote.

I also spent a few moments with John Brunig, whom I supported in his last election and after some discussion we agreed that we need to meet and discuss some of the firearms issues that are current event news in Nebraska.

As to most of the rest of the ballot;

Jeff Fortenberry - Representative District One - I have known Jeff for a number of years and think he has done a very good job.

Dave Heineman for Governor

Jim McClurg for NU Regent - I met Jim for the first time today but learned that we have some mutual acquaintances in common. Acquaintances that I respect enough that on that alone Jim would get my vote.

Mike Foley for State Auditor

Shane Osborne for State Treasurer

There are others of course but seeing these people attain or keep office would make my day.

As for the ballot initiatives I likely won't vote for;

1. 421 Video Keno Gambling - There just seems to be too much out of state pressure on this issue and I am not comfortable with that.

2. 423 State Spending Limit - Not that I think this is a bad idea, again I am not comfortable with all out of state pressure and interest.

As for Referendum Measure 422 I support the repeal of Legislative Bill 126 that forced many smaller schools to merge into larger districts.

Background - There were 26 students in my high school graduating class, in fact there were only 250 kids in the entire 7 through 12 grade school. As a product of one I truly understand the value of smaller school districts.

That wraps it up folks, as I mentioned earlier I have been relatively silent this year but being the eve of the election I felt compelled to speak my piece.

"There are 230,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats in the state of Nebraska, if we can not get our candidates elected then as a party we have failed them and we have failed ourselves" .... Chuck Hagel, Lincoln, Nebraska November 6th 2006

Saturday, November 04, 2006

With a Straight face too

In the last post I mentioned KLIN 1400AM Jane Monnichs report on Mayor Sengs demand that her constituents we lowly peons bow down bend over and kiss her ring ass for asking Fire Chief Spadt to resign.

The Journal Star finally got around to reporting it;

When asked during a Thursday news conference whether she bore any responsibility for the situation, Seng said, “No. I think I should be thanked quite a bit because I fired the fire chief.”

Politicians that aren't all swelled up with themselves are as rare as hens teeth, but "Gramma Sengs" egotistical self importance takes the cake.How she can face her constituents with a straight face and tell us that she has only been aware of the situation since January takes a lot of brass and audacity. (Kind of ironic that "Honest Abe" is looking over her shoulder isn't it?)

The only thing missing is the Royal purple robe and crown. She is short a court jester though. (She asked one of them to resign)

Madam Mayor what part of;

Dennis Klein and Vince Mejer TOLD YOU before the trucks were ever built that there were and would be problems


So the Her Royal Highness is a football fan. Yes Mayor when all else fails drop back forty yards and punt.

When asked whether she stood by her decision to take Mejer off the case, Seng said people can always look back and do Monday morning quarterbacking.

Monday morning quarterbacking consists of evaluating a variety of what ifs after the facts Mayor. Mejer had a job to do. Mejer had a reputation of doing that job very well. You chose to ignore his advice and experience by taking him out of the loop. There is no what ifs here even the Police Chief gets it.

Although Chief Casady in wrapping up his departments investigation did not directly disparage the Mayor one of the statements he did make is rather telling;

Casady said earlier this week that it was his opinion that if city purchasing agent Vince Mejer hadn’t been taken out of the process during the bidding process, “I don’t think we’d be here.”

To my mind that statement by the Chief cuts right to the heart of this whole thing. In case anyone needs help in deciphering what the Chief said, the way it reads to me is;

This is entirely the Mayors fault. If she had let Vince Mejer do his job in the first place we would not be hundreds of thousands of tax dollars deeper in the hole.

“If I’d known everything I know now, I probably would’ve fired the chief (sooner),” she said.

Madam Mayor you did know about it sooner, you knew about it from day one. Instead of trusting the competent and capable people whose job it was to handle these things you deferred to a "Department Head" that could hand you the union votes needed to get re-elected.

But then this action is typical of a Liberal Democrat Politician;

Pass the blame, it is always someone else's fault. I guess you have no concept of the axiom "The Buck Stops here" do you Mayor?

I could go on and on but two post in row on the same subject is enough.

The bottom line is that the Mayor did know all along and chose to do nothing about it until it became a public embarrassment for her. Then she sacrificed scape goat Spadt on the alter of "it wasn't my fault don't blame me". Yea Spadt needed to go so it was no great loss there Mayor, but owe you our gratitude we do not.

You owe us an apology Mayor, an apology that we would be happy to accept in the form of a letter of resignation.

Note photo courtesy of the Journal Star

Friday, November 03, 2006

Lincoln Mayor seeks Gratitude for firing Spadt


All day yesterday (Wednesday) I heard Jane Monnich reporting on 1400 KLIN words spoken by Mayor Coleen Seng to the effect that;

We should be thanking her for her decision to fire ask Fire Chief Spadt for his resignation.

Apology due

Well Pardon me all to City Hall Madam Mayor but I don't think it is us that should be thanking you. It should be you apologizing to the citizens of Lincoln for what could be considered your malfiesence in allowing it to ever happen in the first place.

You should be apologizing for the massive waste of Lincoln tax dollars expended because you chose to ignore the experience of Purchasing Agent Vince Mejer.

Seng can not deny she did not know

City officials were warned of possible problems by the fire department’s Deputy Chief of Maintenance, Dennis Klein, and the city’s purchasing agent, Vince Mejer, before the trucks were even built.

You were aware of the problems during the first round of the bidding process because Vince Mejer, whose job it was as Purchasing Agent made you aware of it.

But Seng took Mejer out of the process during the second round of bidding, in part because EDM officials felt Mejer was biased against their company.

By all accounts Vince Mejer is one, if not the most stalwart stewards of our tax dollars that serve the people of Lincoln;

Mejer is well aware of his reputation, but the way he sees it, he’s advocating for taxpayers.

“I’m very particular and I’m very in tune with doing things per the law,” he said. “There’s a lot of people that think they can do purchasing because they buy things for their home, but we have laws and regulations that we have to follow. And so I’m very picky on that.”

Police Chief Tom Casady speaks highly of Vince Mejer;

Mejer is the city’s most experienced purchasing employee with a “well-earned reputation as a stickler for specs and adherence to contracts,” Casady said.

Asked in an interview Monday whether he thought the firetruck purchase would have gone better if Mejer hadn’t been taken out of the loop, Casady said, “I don’t think we’d be here.”

“Obviously some of his concerns in the first bid process really did happen,” he said. “I think Vince was trying to look out for the best interest of the city.”

“Some people find Vince difficult to deal with,” Casady said. “I don’t personally.”

Doing the Job he was hired to do

From the very start of this as he always has Vince Mejer was doing the job he was hired to do. A job he has earned a reputation for doing very well. Mayor Coleen Seng purposely took him out of the loop in deference to a Chief Spadt;

Casady noted, however, that Seng was relying upon the advice and judgment of her department head, Spadt.

A "Department Head" that did not have the knowledge and experience of purchasing contracts and the associated law. A "Department Head" that did not have the reputation and knowledge of Vince Mejer.

No Mayor Seng we do not owe you one iota of gratitude.

Ok I'll try;

Madam Mayor,

Thank you so very much for ignoring the reputation and experience of Vince Mejer. Thank you for defering to Chief Spadt and EDM and removing Mejer from the process and allowing them to sell the city a "Bill of Goods". Thank you oh so very much for allowing hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to be wasted on a flawed process and inferior equipment. Thank you for all of the dollars that have been spent by the Police Department to investigate the situation.

As a side note Mayor there is probably a reason that EDM doesn't like Mejer and think that he is biased against their company.

In March, EDM President Jeff Mellen objected to Mejer being allowed in on a meeting, saying in an e-mail, “Vince has been disruptive and argumentative toward my company not only on this deal, but on every single fire truck and ambulance purchase in the 12-year period since 1994.”

If as Mayor a potential contractor told me that my best purchasing agent was baised against them I would suspect that they did not have the best interests of the people at heart. If Mejer was/is biased against EDM it is with apparent good cause.

Sincerely Yours,

What did Mayor Seng know and when did she know it?

What did the Mayor have to gain by not only discounting Vince Mejer's experience and reputation but removing him from the process entirely?

One possible explanation for the Mayors decision rests in the past.

Former Mayor Don Wesley allegedly appointed Spadt Fire chief as a reward for delivering the firefighters vote in his bid for Mayor. (Spadt was head of the firefighters union at the time.) Possibly Spadt was poised to "deliver that vote" to Seng should she have chosen to run again.

Another nagging question that needs to be answered and has not because Spadt invoked his rights under the fifth amendment and refused to be interviewed is;

What did he (Spadt) have to gain by allegedly working outside normal channels to allow Emergency Vehicle Dealership EDM to deliver substandard equipment at the expense of Lincoln tax payers?

Whether he committed a prosecutable act or not it seems apparent that for unknown reasons Chief Spadt conspired with a private contractor to provide the city with inferior firefighting equipment.

Now that he is unemployed one can only wonder if EDM will offer him a job, a job that could have been promised to him upon his retirement from the Department in the first place.

The persons we should be thanking are Vince Mejer for his commitment to the Citizens of Lincoln and City Coucilman Jon Camp for his persistence in making this fiasco public.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Firearms safety this hunting season

Archery Season has been open for over a month now and I am not participating this year. Chalk it up to being lazy or just not interested this season but I have not practiced at all this year.

That being said Waterfowl season is open and the firearms deer seasons are just around the corner. Yes, these are activities that I am already or will participate in.

Firearms Safety Primer

With that in mind it never hurts us to review or be reminded of our obligations as safe ethical hunters. One of the things that I have always imparted to my children is;

"Yea, when you get tired of the old man repeatedly telling you how to do this or do that you cop the "I know Dad I know attitude". I understand. When it comes to firearm safety however please don't ever get tired of hearing about it or cop an attitude. There is not one of us that could not benefit from an occasional reminder concerning safe firearms handling. When someone reminds you about something concerning firearms safety take it to heart and tell them thank you no matter how many times you have heard it."

If nothing else this has been one axiom that they have indulged the old Gunscribe in. In fact over the years they have prodded me with a reminder or two as well and yes I said thank you.

This may sound like "Old Hat" to many of us that handle firearms almost every day. Not all of us are that into firearms that we buy, sell, trade or compete with any regularity though. A large portion of us that own firearms keep them tucked away and only bring them out for the season.

I know any number of people that after cleaning their hunting guns they put them away for the year and don't take them out until it is time to "bust a few rounds of blue rock" or sight the "ole deer rifle" in a few days before the season opens.

Not that these people are any less safe, they just aren't in "the habit of safe firearms handling" that the rest of us believe ourselves to be.

Firearms accidents or incidents

We hear or read about firearm safety incidents or accidents but how many of us realize exactly what that means, besides the fact that someone or something got shot that wasn't suppose to?

Consider the people you hunt with; Dad, Mom, Grampa, Uncle Charlie, Aunt Betsy, Cousin Joe, your best friends. When we talk about that accident or incident those are the folks we are talking about getting hurt.

It is the people we love either as family or as friends. A firearms accident or incident is a truly a life shattering event for all of those involved. That is why we need to judiciously adhere to a few simple saftey rules.

Any of you prepared to explain to Mom why Dad won't be coming home ...ever again?

It ain't hard folks and it ain't rocket science. That new power drill, circular saw or belt sander came with a set of common sense operating instructions for the sake of safety. Firearms are no different than any other tool, they have their common sense rules too.

Muzzle Control

Always keep the muzzle of any firearm pointed in a safe direction. Then if there is a discharge no one or thing of value will be harmed.

What is a safe direction?

That will depend and where you are in relation to everything around you. It could be up, down, left, right, toward your front or behind you. That is why Hunter Education programs teach a variety of methods for carrying a firearm. It is essential that safe hunters are aware of them and know which ones to use at varying times in the field.

The bottom line is never point a firearm at anything that you do not wish to see damaged or destroyed.

The target and what is beyond

When taking a shot on game be acutely aware of your target and what is beyond it. Are you using a 30-06 that has a range of nearly 5 miles or a bird shot loaded shotgun that has a range of 100 yards or so? If you miss or the projectile passes completely through the intended target where will it end up?

Keeping ones finger off of the trigger

This may be second nature to a lot of us, but I see countless people every year that pick up a firearm and their finger automatically goes in the trigger guard.

This is a very bad habit that those so afflicted need to cure themselves of. The sooner the better.

Placing your finger on or near the trigger of a firearm that you have not personally checked the unloaded/loaded condition of or are not prepared to fire is a very dangerous practice. The rule of thumb here is not to put a finger on the trigger until you are prepared to take a shot with that firearm.

Know how it operates

All businesses that I know of have special training requirements for the equipment they use to manufacture their products. Most sporting equipment comes with a common sense set of rules or cautions for using that item. Safe handling of firearms is no different.

Understand this;

When you pick up a firearm you pick up all of the responsibility that goes along with it.

There are many different types of operating systems for firearms, break action, bolt pump, .. the list goes on. Do not accept a firearm from someone or pick one up if you are not familiar with its operation. Have someone with knowledge of that firearm show you how it works before you accept the responsibility of possessing it, even if that possession is only to examine it.

The old "I didn't know it was loaded" won't cut it.

Treat every firearm as if it is loaded, even if it isn't. In other words just because you THINK it is unloaded it is not okay to be pointing it at other people or things you do not want to see destroyed.

There are of course a few other rules I could mention, but being familiar with the firearm, maintaining muzzle control and being sure of your target and what is beyond it top the list.

Let each one of us take the time necessary to ensure we are familiar with the firearms we will be hunting with, watch where we are pointing the muzzle AT ALL TIMES and pass up any shots in which we are not sure where the projectile or shot will end up.

Here's wishing a safe, enjoyable and productive season for anyone that goes afield to hunt this year.

Friday, October 20, 2006

GRPC Discussion on Politics and the Two Party System

When I got back from the Gun Rights Policy Conference I noted that I would post on some of the topics discussed.

Two Party System

Whether the United States Government was ever designed to be to be a two or multiple party system is no longer the point. The two party system is so deeply entrenched in our Representative Republic form of Government that most people think it is unlikely that a third party will ever make a make an integrated difference.

The question posed to one of the panel of speakers;

Why hasn't the Libertarian Party made a better showing than candidates elected to a few local and state offices and what can be done to change that?

The answer;

Rightly or wrongly the United States Government is a very entrenched two party system and it is becoming obvious that will not change anytime soon.

The discussion continued with the following suggestion from one of the panels speakers;

Use the current system to get Libertarian candidates elected from within.

If Libertarians registered with the party that most closely represents their platform they will have the resources and clout to elect like minded candidates.

Think about that for a minute.

Does it really matter if there is an R, D or L after the name of the person as long as that representative votes the way you want them to?

There are enough people that consider themselves Libertarian that if they re registered into one of prevailing two parties they would be a force to be reckoned with. Working from the inside Libertarians would have the party resources to get candidates of their choice elected.

Just some thoughts for consideration that were expressed at the 2006 GRPC.

Now for my take;

As probably most have surmised I am a registered Republican. I can identify with a number of issues on the Libertarian Platform, but I regularly refer to myself as a Constitutionalist. The fore going advice makes a measure of sense to me. Consider that the Liberal faction of the Democratic Party is elated to have the Libertarian Party around. It truly can be argued that every vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote not cast for a Republican. Every vote not cast for a Republican increases the chances of a Liberal taking an office.

Yup I hold my nose and pull the lever for the lessor of two evils when necessary.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Feedback for On-line Auctions

Yes I sometimes shop the on-line auctions. Not Often, but when I do I am serious about what I am looking for and usually find it.

Something has changed since I first signed up for some of them (E-bay in particular) years ago.

Just take a look at the conditions set by a large number of sellers on their auction pages;

"Postive feedback will be left after buyer leaves positive feedback."

Or words to that exact effect.

So what the hell is that about ?????

eBay sellers get the crap out of your ears and listen up

If I "win" your auction you are obligated, let me type that again OBLIGATED to leave feedback as soon as my payment is received in your greedy little mitts. If it's late say so, If it is on time say so. Tell the truth. That is all that is required.

Sellers pay attention here;

I did my part. I paid for your product and your outrageous shipping and handling charges within the proscribe time. That is all I am required to do for positive feedback. I earned it. Leave it!!!

This is not how it has evolved. It seems there are a lot of sellers on the auctions that are so swelled up with their own pathetic egos that they hold positive feedback due me hostage until I figuratively bend over and lick their boots lauding lavish praise for their ability to eventually get my "win" to my mailbox.

This peeve has been ticking me off for quite a while and I am not the only one that has these same thoughts either.

Alphecca addressed this same thing awhile back. I won't link to the exact post as the feedback tirade was only a small part of a large article on multiple topics. I will excerpt some of what Jeff had to say though.

...... And here's the thing; they will not leave positive feedback until I do, until I receive the books and leave gushing feedback to them.

I've already done exactly what any buyer has to do. I bid and won on the books and within seconds of winning, I paid for the books.........

.......The customer is always wrong until he/she first proves worthy of the seller's praise! What the hell is that all about? .........

Exactly my point what the hell is that all about?

I have decided that in the future should I do any on-line auction shopping (as a buyer) I will not leave feedback for any seller that has not first left feedback for me. That is the way the system was set up to work.

And for those sellers that have the audacity to include in your conditions of sale "Seller will post feedback after buyer leaves positive feedback", unless yours is the only one of a kind and no one else is selling it and I just have to have it, know that I will not abide by that particular term of sale.

In other words hell will freeze over before I leave a seller feedback that hasn't first left it for me first.

Hypocritical ????? ...... well you can think that, but I am not the one holding someone else's reputation hostage. If my payment is late or I haven't met the terms as a buyer the seller should say it and say it first. To hold feedback from me after I have positively fulfilled my obligation to the seller, until I buy you a happy meal, a dozen roses and kiss your ass on main street at high noon is blatantly dishonest, disgusting and repugnant.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday Mrs. Gun, Happy Birthday to you!

I love you and wish for you a very happy Birthday.

And what you ask did I get my loving wife for her Birthday. It took me some time to come up with it, but having remembered that she had always wanted one as a child and had never gotten one. (In families of 5 children that happens sometimes) I scoured E-bay until I found just the right one.

Some of you will recognize it immediately, while others won' t even know what it is. For those of you that know yes the voice box still works.

Mrs. Gun enjoys collecting things like this so I am sure she will be extremely happy with it.

Okay for those of you that don't know it is Mrs. Beasley from the late 1960's television show "Family Affair" Starring Brian Keith as "Uncle Bill". Mrs. Beasley was the constant companion of his niece "Buffy".

"Family Affair" was not a show I saw much of but I do remember it and the Mrs. Beasley doll. My memories of the show lean more toward "Buffy's" older sister "Sissy".

Friday, October 13, 2006

Target Stands and a Shooting Bench

It has been awhile since I have posted on any really personally gun related topics, so here you go.

While I have access to any number of ranges that require membership, when I want to spend some serious time soaking up some recoil I like to get off away from everyone else. In order to do that one has to have their own portable target stands and a sturdy shooting bench.


I came up with this idea for a target stand a couple of years ago when I had a conference table that was no longer serviceable. I don't know whether this has been done before or not, but it works for us.

I made two of these target stand solely from stuff I had laying around. The frames are made from a piece of scrap plywood, 2x2's and is about 5 feet tall. As can be seen the base is one of the leg assemblies from a folding conference table. This really works well as the base can be folded back against the frame and stacked for easy transport.

Here is what it looks like 50 yards away -->

The frame cover that the targets are affixed to is a coregated plastic sign that you see mounted in most of your local Quick Stop Stores. (You know those two foot by four foot tobacco signs). they usually have the ad on one side and the other is plain white. When these plastic pieces get shot up they are easily replaced if you have a source for them.

A not as sturdy alternative is to simply use cut open brown paper bags over the frame.


We have our own custom deluxe shooting bench as well. Made from 1/2 inch hinged plywood it can be unfolded and stabilized in just a couple of minutes. Take down is just as easy. This bench is so portable that it will fit in the trunk of a car with plenty of room to spare.

It is a very stable setup with the top being cut for either right or left handed shooters. We generally use some sort of folding chair with it.

I am working on plans for a different style shooting bench and will do a post on it when I get it built and tested.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

New to the Blogroll

Politics Galore!

I haven't had much to say about the political races shaping up in Nebraska this year.

But Street Sweeper has, and pretty darn good too. I have been reading his site for some time and have been negligent in adding it to my Blogroll. An over cite that has now been rectified.

Check out his Leavenworth Street Blog