Veterans this is our election to make a difference

History
I'm not sure why but for the past few days I have mulling over this years Presidential election and The Battle of Athens, Tennessee that took place in 1946.

I don't think it has anything to do with any anticipated violence. Even in Athens it was not the veterans or the friends and families that supported them, that started the violence. It was the corrupt Democratic politicians and their minions that threw the first punch and fired the first shot.

What's in your heart and mind?
I guess it has more to do with the hearts and minds of the Veterans themselves. They had just fought a great war that they supported, with a belief that was rooted in the principals handed down by our founding fathers.

These World War Two Veterans returned home to a corrupt local government that did not represent the ideals and beliefs that they had fought for. The 3000 returned Veterans of McMinn County were immediately able to challenge the local politicians at the next election.

The violence that ensued was by the hand of and started by the County corrupt elite, that happened to be Democrats.

Those Veterans did not want violence then, nor do we need it now. It was set upon them by the criminally corrupt leaders of that county, that would do anything to maintain their strangle hold on the population they had taken an oath to represent.

A long time coming
There have been seven Presidential elections since we returned home. (Eight if you count Nixon's re-election). During these last thiry years, a lot of things have been said and done, concerning that Police Action and those that participated in it, volunterely or otherwise.

I am not going to re-hash that. It has been done quite extensively and often during the last three decades.

Some Commonalities
The parrallel I see between what happened in 1946 Athens and todays election is that we, the Veterans finally get a chance to be heard. We finally get a chance to make a differance. We finally get to vote our feelings for or against someone that took exception to our service.

The Swift Boat Veterans are speaking out with facts and clarity on what John Kerry was really like as a young Navy Lieutenant in the late 60's. Others are speaking out, reminding us of what John Kerry said and did during his testimony before the Senate in the early 1970's.

John Kerry has never been any kind of friend to the Military.
Yes he served in combat, short a time as that may be. Did he do it with honor and bravery? That is for his fellow soldiers to say and for the rest of America to decide based on his documented service record. (If he ever chooses to make it available.)

For the past thirty years many of us have suffered in silence, not because we were ashamed of our service, but cautious as to who we told we served. Most of the time is has been easier to remain silent than to chance what the re-action would be for speaking out.

Veterans this is our election
This time things are different, John Kerry has made his service the center piece of his campaign, and we should in some small way be greatful for that, for now we can be heard as well.

Yes Veterans this is our election. All of the things we have not felt comfortable saying and/or have kept to ourselves for thirty years or more can now be spoken of in the light of day. No longer do we need be proud in private.

John Kerry opened this discussion, this is our opportunity to speak up. This is our Athens, we have that power.

All we need to do is vote
John Kerry, combat Vet that he is, represents every person that ever despised us and our service. John Kerry is one of the very reasons we have found it better to suffer in silence than to clear the misconceptions held by those that believed John Kerry and Jane Fonda thirty years ago.

In the time since that Police Action and his testimony John Kerry has been a member of the United States Senate. John Kerry has voted against every major project that has helped modernize the way our soldiers fight. Every one of them.

He turned his back on us
John Kerry, combat Veteran turned his back on us thirty years ago and he has never to this day turned around to face us or offered any explaination why he visited those undocumented atrocities on those of us that served. Now he is using his service, and us, to seek the highest office we can bestow upon one person. He believes that we will blindly support another combat vet all the way to the White House.

How many of us have Kids in the Military now?
John Kerry was wrong about us in 1971 and he is wrong about us now. Many of us that are Veterans from that era have children in the military, children that would have been denied the necessary equipment to perform their service more safely, if John Kerry had his way.

Children that will most certainly be denied the Leadership, direction and equipment to succeed more safely if John Kerry is elected President.

We can and will make a difference
In McMinn county in 1946, 3000 Veterans and their families made a difference at the ballot box.

In 2004 how much difference can 30,000, or 300,000 Veterans and their familes make at the ballot box?

Veterans, November 2nd 2004, is our Athens, Tennessee. Without the violence that marred that McMinn county, we can make a differenc, we can be heard, we can speak with our vote and we can walk away from that polling station with our heads held high.

Hold John Kerry accountable for his actions on November 2nd then hold your head up.

Fortenberry, "I don't have to run from my party AND my National leadership."

Jeff Fortenberry and Matt Connealy squared off in debate today at the State Fairgrounds in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Who's your man for the White House Matt?
Under the foramt the cadidates were able to ask each other questions. Democrat Conneally chose not to answer, when Fortenberry challenged him to state who his Presidential vote would be for in November.

Well maybe Connealy does support Goerge Bush for President after all. I doubt it. Matt Connealy knows that the National Democratic Party and the Kerry camp are way to city liberal for folks in Rural Nebraska. He has got his wagon hitched to the Kerry train, he's just to embarrassed to show the conductor his ticket.

Healthcare
It is obvious that Connealy lacks the knowledge necessary to intellegently discuss the health care issue.

In another point of obvious disagreement, Fortenberry argued for tort reform that would limit the ability of patients to sue doctors. "In some places in the country, it's easier to sue a doctor than to see a doctor," he said.

Connealy said such lawsuits are not an important factor in the health-care debate. "The main reason health costs are out of whack is because of the underlying cost driving them," he said.

Wake up Matt your dreaming
Hello Matt, those lawsuits are the reason there is a critical shortage of Doctors in some parts of the country, especially rural areas, (like NEBRASKA Matt) and why there is a growing shortage of Doctors in certain specialties.

There have been news stories "ad infinitem" over the last several years with quotes from Doctors about why they won't practice in certain areas and/or certain specialties (like NEBRASKA Matt).

Matt, Doctors don't come to rural areas because they don't get enough patients to cover the cost of the required malpratice insurance (like NEBRASKA Matt).
Matt one of the underlying cost is the high price of malpractice insurance.

Tax cuts permanant?
Fortenberry said make them permanant. Connealy said he wanted a bigger share of the cuts directed at the middle class.

I guess Connealy doesn't want to see them made permanant since he wouldn't say it.

Matt what is wrong with the same percentage of tax cut for everyone?
If the tax cut is 10 percent, Matt, why can't everyone have the same 10 percent? Why does the guy/gal that makes 100,000 only get a, lets say 2 percent break or none at all and the middle class guy/gal at 40,000 a year gets the whole ten?

Oh wait I know, it is the typical Democratic strategy, take from the rich and use it to buy votes ....errr ahhhh I mean fund welfare.

Did I tell you I was a farmer?
Matt Connealy is using his history as a farmer in the same manner as John Kerry is using his Swift Boat experience. "I'm the only one here that is qualified to be Representitive, I know agriculture, did I tell you I was a farmer? Want to see my 4H ribbons? I got three blue ones you know."

Or is that "I'm the only one here qualified to be President, I was in combat, did i tell you I was in Viet Nam? Want to see my ribbons? I got three purple ones you know."

Matt it isn't what you did on the Swift boats ... err sorry.... I meant on the farm (keep getting the two of them mixed up), it is what you did in the legislature that we are judging you on.

You know like that bill you introduced that would allow illegal aliens to attend the University at the same rate as residents pay. Matt the University budget is in a crunch and you want to make a law that lets people here illegally pay a cheaper rate of tuition than somebody from Iowa?

What's up with that Matt?.

Matt is to ashamed to admit he supports John Kerry. (Ed ... I know he's not supporting Bush) Matt is uninformed on healthcare (Ed... He can't see the impact of the law suits on the cost of insurance) and apparently Matt wants to raise your taxes. (Ed.... He won't commit to making the tax cuts permanant)

But in Matts own words he is qualified for the House seat because he knows how to grow corn, just ask him I'll bet he'll show you his 4H ribbons.

Disclaimer: This is not a slam at the 4H, do not construe it to be so. I happen to work with the wonderful kids that participate in 4H every year. It is a very worth while program, and it is something I gladly DONATE time to every year.

Campaigns and firearms two of my favorite issues.

There is two things that scare me about this election

"It's time for us to have a president of the United States who can look you in the eye and when he does, you know you're being told the truth." --John Kerry (referring to self)

1) That John Kerry can say that with a straight face.

2) and that there are actually people that believe him when he say it.

This maybe be what we need, want or desire, but I wouldn't expect it anytime soon, from either party.

Thanks to David Limbaugh's blog Check out this Reuters Headline for this one.

And We shouldn't worry about registration?
So, not all gun owners are under suspicion, just the ones who own the specific model and caliber. Great. That makes me feel so much better, Lt. Rude. And the Sherriff's department's reluctance to say how they identified the specific gunowners is pretty much blown away later in the article.

This is happening in California, but did you know that Lincoln, Nebraska Police Chief Tom Casady has a list of all the handguns purchased in Lincoln and who purchased them?

From The Heartless Libertarian All gun owners are suspects

Homeland Defense Firearms and Normal capacity magazines

Never heard that nomenclature before?
Get used to it, it is growing in use and more accurately portrays the firearms formaly know as "assault weapons".

As i have stated in the past "assault" is a human action, you can not ascribe a human action to an inanimate object.

Anything can be an Assault weapon
Any object a peron used to injure another would be an "assault object". Assault hammer! Assault automobile! Assault screwdriver! Assault ink pen! I bet if you asked your puppy he will tell you it is an assault newspaper or broom too.

How a useless law ends
In a few days the AWB (assault weapons ban) is set to expire. It was enacted for a ten year time period so that if it didn't work it would just go away, without any congressional action required.

It has not worked, and it really never was intended to work. The people that worked to enact this law knew it wouldn't work. To them it was a stepping stone to a total gun ban in America, it was also a vehicle they could use to build on when they pointed to it and say, "It is not working as we expected we need to make it stronger, we need to include more firearms. (Just as they are doing now) The types of firearms supposedly covered by the "ban have NEVER been used in more than two percent of crimes involving firearms anyway. That's right less than two percent.

Why didn't it work? Just ask your grandparents, they'll tell you about prohibition and why that didn't work either.

The reasons are the same and there are two of them.
First a few high minded do gooders, with too much time on their hands, thought they knew what was best for everyone. These people honestly believe that they know more about how your life should be run than you do. They spend their days creating new ways of controlling the things you do. The AWB and Prohibition are two of them. They create a mountain out of a mole hill and then rally people and politicians to their cause.

The second reason it the politicians and people that have been rallied to the cause. The people have been genuinely convinced there is a problem and are urged to press for reform. (Usefull idiots) Some of the politicians may buy into the hype, but others won't. Even if they support something like the AWB, they recognize that is a hollow solution to a non-existant problem.

Symbolism over Substance
That is all the AWB has been. It was incepted by people, who created a crisis out of thin air, convincing other people that something must be done about a non-existant problem. Politicians seeking to pacify the voters enacted the law that did nothing.

How it did nothing
A semi-automatic centerfire rifle fires one round with one stroke of the trigger. As the bullet passes down the barrel it passes by a tiny hole. Some of the pressurized gas behind the bullet is vented into this hole and through a tube. This vented gas is what cycles the bolt, ejecting the spent round and chambering a new one.

That is how an "assault weapon" functions, that is how virtually every centerfire rifle, that any deer hunter in the world would use, functions. The AWB did not change a single thing about how these firearms function, it banned certain cosmetic features that a firearm could have.

For instance, if you wanted a pistol grip you couldn't have a bayonet lug. It you couldn't find one with a plastic stock there were and are ones still being made with wood stocks.

Still need some convincing?
Consider the Remington model 7400 hunting rifle. This firearm comes in calibers that are far more powerful and has a longer range than either the dreaded AR-15 or the evil AK-47.

How about the Ruger Mini-14/30? It operates exactly like the AR-15 and the Ak-47 and comes in the same calibers. It has only gained in popularity in the last ten years. As has the AR and the AK

All three of these firearms operate in exactly the same manner. They are all gas-operated semi-automatics with detachable magazines. The only difference is that two of them are cosmetically challenged. They look ugly, and they have disgusting features, but other than that IT IS THE SAME GUN.

Normal Capacity Magazines

As far as the 10 round restriction, why not 12 or why not 8? 9? 11? Because 10 is a nice round number and it was literally pulled from a hat. There is, nor has there ever been any evidence that magazine capacity has anything to do with how much carnage one can cause. If you need 60 rounds, instead of three twenty round magazines, you will have six 10 round magazines. This does absolutely nothing for the safety of the public either, a person can unleash 60 rounds from six magazines just about as fast as a person can from three 20 round magazines. Those being shot at are not going to notice or care about the miniscule difference.

As I have said in a previous post the AWB is akin to banning fast cars by making a law that bans hood scoops and rear deck spoilers. Now do you see how stupid this law is and how it didn't do a thing.

The last ten years
Since these types of hard to conceal firearms have traditionally been used in less than two percent of firearms crime anyway, the law has done nothing to change that. Studies by the CDC and the NIJ have both concluded that it has not changed a thing.

In fact a "Secret study" concerning the city of Philidelphia last year found that of nearly 5000 firearms confiscated or turned in to the police, there was apparently not one "assault weapon" in the lot. This does not mean that the law is working, it means that criminals don't use them. The study confirmed that criminals prefer smaller easily concealable firearms in 9 millimetre and 38 cailber.

Any number of politicians knew it would not work when they voted for it, they simply wanted to be able to tell their constituency they did something without really doing anything. Those are the things they do that keep getting them re-elected.

There are also any number of politicians that do not want private ownership of firearms in America and laws like this are rungs on the ladder that climbs that goal.

Now do you get it?

In Texas we call it walking .......

A good ole' Texas knife fight
If the speeches made by the two Presidential Candidates had been a knife fight, John Kerry would have been cut four ways. Long. Wide. Deep. and Repeatedly.

I watched both speeches
What I heard from John Kerry was "when it comes to this I have a plan do it better", "When it comes to that I have a plan do it different" and "You'll just have to wait until I get in the White House to see how I plan to do it." Oh and by the way I want to raise your taxes while I'm at it. With all these plans he has you would have thought he could have shared just one with us during that speech.

What I heard from George Bush was "THIS is what I have accomplished", "THESE are the results" and if you give me four more years THIS is what what I will continue to do."

Specifics, Specifics, Specifics !!
Dubya is running on his record as President, a record anyone is old enough to vote has lived through. John Kerry is hiding behind the four months of Military combat service he did long before a lot of voters were even born.
Why would he want or have to do this? The answer is simple, his twenty years in the Senate are just too liberal, even for members of his own party. People like Zell Miller, and others, who remember a strong pro-American Democratic Party.

What Senator Kerry doesn't get
Senator Kerry knows what the point is. The point it is not what he did or didn't do in Southeast Asia 35 yrs ago, nor is it what George Bush did, or didn't do in Alabama 30 years ago.
The point is about what George Bush has done as President in the last four years and it is about what John Kerry has tried to do in the Senate for the last twenty years.

John Kerry can't run on his record in the senate, if he did it would expose the things he has done to the detrement of this country. Things that Zell Miller quite abley pointed out. And what was the Kerry camp response? Miller is mean spirited and angry. Your damn right he is and so are a lot of people, because they know the truth about John Kerry.

I have not heard one person refute the things Miller said. They won't, because they can't. They will take the typical liberal tact and shoot the messenger rather than debate the issues.

John Kerry thought he would be safe hiding out on his Swift Boat. His typical liberal way of thinking had him believing that time heals all wounds. He never took into account that those people he so agregiously injured with his Senate testimony 30 years were still amoung the walking wounded. Are the Swift Boat Vets telling the truth? Well in any court of law in this land when you have 240 people testify against one, odds are, you will get a conviction every time.

What part of "Do not have the power" don't they understand?

This is a third in what is turning out to be a series on the concealed/open carry situation in the state of Nebraska.
In the two previous installements I have pointed out that not only has the legislature violated the State Constitution and their oaths of office, they have illegaly empowered the political subdivisions to do so as well.

Previous entries

The truth about concealed carry in Nebraska

A follow up and a challenge

What is even more unsettling is the apathetic attitude of the citizens of Nebraska for gross misconduct of their elected officials.

In 1991 the Unicameral enacted, under the heading Personal Property, LB 355, creating statutes 69-2401 - 69-2425.
The statutes created by LB 355 mandate that anyone pruchasing a handgun after the effective date of the law, must have in their posession a "Handgun Purchasers Certificate".
In reading 69-2401 one only needs to be familiar with Initiative Measure no. 403, and CI-26, to see that legislature did not have the power vested by the people to enact this law.

69-2401 Legislative findings and declarations.
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the state has a valid interest in the regulation of the purchase, lease, rental, and transfer of handguns and that requiring a certificate prior to the purchase, lease, rental, or transfer of a handgun serves a valid public purpose.
Source: Laws 1991, LB 355, § 1.

This a mere three years after the people of Nebraska TOLD their goverment, to keep their grabbing grubby mitts off firearms legislation.

Doctrine of police power
From the findings and declarations statement it is obvious that the Unicameral was envoking the "Doctrine of Police Power" as a basis for their authority to enact this unconstitutional legislation.

What part of case law does the esteemed Unicameral not understand??
In Plain English case law states that the legislature CANNOT, I'll repeat that word, CANNOT invoke the "doctine of police power" to exercise powers NOT granted it by and inconsistant with provisions of the state Constitution.

How hard is that to understand.
The Unicameral had no Constitutional authority to delegate firearms regulation to is political subdivisions under the "Home rule authority". If they don't have the power themselves, they cannot delegate it.

The Unicameral had no Constitutional authority to enact Statute 28-1202 restricting concealed carry. They had not been giving the power to do so by they people they represent.

Three years after a MAJORITY vote of the people specifically told the legislature to keep their grubby gun grabbing wits away from our firearms, the Unicameral certainly did not, even under the color of "Police Power" have the authority to enact Statutes 69-2401 -69-2425.

The State Constitution
The state Constitution is the law that the people we elect have to follow. In that Document we have told them what they can and can not do as servants of us, the people. We have given them powers to do certain things and to act in certain ways. In that document we have also told them that there are areas and things that they can not act on. CI-26 expressly tells them that any powers not herein delegated to them remain with us the people.

What kind of example are they setting?
Leaders should lead by example. When our legislative leaders try to circumvent the Constitution with legalease and imaginary powers they do not have they are not only violating their oath of office, they are violating the trust of the people they represent. They expect us to obey the laws they enact to control us, all the while violating the laws WE ENACTED TO CONTROL THEM.

I call that hypocracy

Connealy supporters out in "Force".... Literally

Minding our own Business
While the wife, son and I were out running errands we had, from what I hear a not so isolated experience with an apparent Kerry/Edwards/Connealy Supporter.

From out of nowhere
While travelling south on a major city street, a young man in a pickup truck roared up behind us almost rear ending my wifes car (I was driving, she lets me sometimes). The driver then laid on the horn and pulled up beside us with his window down yelling obsenities, while several times slighty swerving his truck toward the passenger side of our car, and he was waving his arm out of the truck giving us the finger.

After several seconds of this rude behavior the driver accellerated and sharply cut in front of us, causing me to hit the brakes to keep from running into the back of his truck.

At the light
At the next light we ended up stopped next to each other where he continued his fingering and berating.

I rolled down the window, and asked him what it was I had done to upset him. He replied that we were just ignorant and stupid (or words to that effect).

When I indicated with a shrug of my shoulders that I still did not understand his behavior, he pointed to the rear of my wifes car and flipped us off again. At this point, the light turned green, he was pulled straight away and we completed our left turn.

It finally dawns on us
It was then that it occurred to us that he was re-acting to the Bush/Cheney and Jeff Fortenberry for U.S. Representitive bumper stickers that my wife had so lovingly put on her car last month.

Democracy in action
There you have it three citizens of the United States of America going about their business are verbally assaulted, physically intimidated and harrassed simply because they chose to express support for a specific candidate/s.

This is one of your supporters Connealy
Way to go Connealy, your supporters are out in "force" on your behalf complete with their foul mouths and rude gestures. They also seem willing to endanger the lives and safety of anyone that doesn't agree with you Matt, and or Kerry/Edwards for that matter.

Update 9/12/2004 - What I couldn't say when I wrote this entry.

CCCW or how to bestow on a segment of society something, without really giving them anything.

H.R. 218 or The Cops Carry Country Wide (CCCW) Bill

Update; Link fixed

What this is not about
Ok let's get this up front I don't hate Cops, I know cops, I work with cops and I was a cop.

This criticism is about H.R. 218 NOT the people it was intending to help.
There has been a lot written about the passage of this bill some of which is, 1) now that the cops got what they want they don't have to support the rest of us anymore, 2) it will help with homeland security efforts having all those cops out there carrying, 3) it will restore dignity to cops. There have been many other statements about 218 and I will leave all that to those that want to make them.

What it does
Essentially H.R. 218 allows (as defined by CCCW) qualified peace officers, either currently employed or retired to carry a firearm off duty anywhere in the country. The bill is essentially two parts and can be read in about three minutes.

What the two sections have in common
CCCW does not exempt Peace Officers from state laws in fact CCCW Cops must abide by the laws of the state they are in much the same as any citizen with a CCW. It does not allow out-of-state Peace officers to violate private property rights when there are no firearms signs posted. If a any state or subdivision bans firearms in certain public areas such as parks or establishments that serve alcohol, then-out-of state Peace officers are banned from carrying there as well. In essence the law apparently holds out-of-state Officers to the same standards as those written for the citizens concealed carry, in those states that have it.

Currently employed
Section one goes on to establish what a currently employed peace officer is and the identification requirements to be legal carrying in an other state.

Retired officers
The second section specifically addresses the definition of and the indentification of "Retired Police Officers". Essentially a "retired officer" must have left the department under honorable conditions after a fixed number of years. Exceptions are granted for officers forcibly retired for injuries in the line of duty. It also excempts any officer that was released from duty and/or subsequently found to be mentally unstable from eligibility under this law.

It requires "Retired Police Officers to be yearly current, (at their own expense) in the state of residency requirements for standards of training or qualification to carry a firearm and they are not prohibited by Federal law from owning a firearm.

Ready on the right? Ready on the left? Ready on the blogging line? CO-mence blogging
To my mind the biggest trap in this whole thing (CCCW) is that it requires officers to pay for yearly certification out of their own pocket. This would not be so bad if the now fixed income just had to shell out, say forty or fifty bucks to punch holes in some paper Saturday afternoon.

The Devil is in the details, as they say.
The Devil in all of this can be found in 926C section (c) paragraph (5) that reads; during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training or qualification to carry firearms.

Yearly qualification in most if not all departments is not limited to sending 50 or a 100 rounds down range once or twice a year. There is a lot of classroom use of force training written into the yearly qualification for some states.

It has been rumored that one state is in the thought process of complying with H.R. 218 and what they have determined so far is that it will require 80 hours of training billed to the retirees at a rate of 40 dollars per hour. That is 3200 dollars a year folks.

Whether those numbers are true or not is moot, the point is if a state wants to opt out all they have to do is make it so financially prohibitive that no retired Peace Officer could afford it.

Still the cheapest way
Officers in states that have CCW laws now are eligable for a state issued concealed carry license when they retire. In those states that don't have it, or do not now permit retired officers the right to carry (Nebraska), officers avail themselves of "non-resident" licenses from other states when they travel. For under 500 bucks ANY qualified individual can aquire carry licenses from two or three states that are recognized in more than 50 % of the states.

These licenses are gernerally good for four to five years and with the exception of being able to carry in NY, NJ, Cal, and Hawaii, they are far cheaper than 3200 dollars a year or 500 dollars a year for that matter.

On the face of it H.R. 218 sounds like a good law, but it truely rings hollow for those that it was suppose to really benefit; The valiant men and woman who laid it on the line day in and day out for 20 or more years, and survived to reap the retirement they earned.

H.R. 218 is just another governmental pat on the back with one hand while the other is in their back pocket trying to grab back some of that retirement check they so justly earned.

Show me the "Assault Weapons" ...... what??? you mean there wasn't any???

The secret ATF report found that the 9mm semiautomatic pistol remained the weapon of choice for criminals here.

Oh really I thought it was those evil "assault weapons" that Sarah and the Million Commie Mommies are always talking about.

Gorenstein gives us two numbers 4,852 firearms siezed, 2,909 of them were traced.
He then proceeds to regale us with percentages without telling us which number he is referring too.

Ok I pick the big Number
Only 175 guns, or 3.6% were taken from people 17 and under? Wow, I thought ... didn't Sarah say that there was and epidemic of kids with guns?

1,051 were taken from people 18-24, whom at least in age, are legaly able to posess a handgun in most localities. So what does this statistic have to do with anything? Well for people with common sense nothing? It is only important when you realize that the horrible "children killed every year by guns death statistics" produced by the Brady Bunch and the Million Commie Mommies include children up to the age of 24.

Guns moved pretty quick from a legal purchase to a life of crime? Time-to-crime average range is 3 to 6.7 years!!! Why not just say 4.85 years? That is almost 5 years, most people don't keep a new car that long before they sell it off to a friend, family member or trade it in.

According to the report Nearly 1500 of the guns had no crime code or catagory, and all they can say is SOME of that number could have been found or turned in.

60% of the nearly 5000 guns were bought right there in Pennsylvania, but we just have to be told that less than 100 (388 total) guns came from each of the states of Georgia, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina. Not suprising since our society is much more mobile than previous generations, and people just don't leave all their posessions at the "old house" and start over again at the "new house". (Or if the author used 2,909 it would only be 58 (233 total) from each of the four other states listed.)

I have read this article over repeatedly and I have to ask WHERE ARE THE DREADED ASSAULT WEAPONS?
For the countless last years the Brady Bunch, the Million Commie Mommies and a multitude of other anti-gun groups have subjected us to a daily barrage about how mean evil and nasty those assault weapons are and how they need to be totally banned because they are the primary tool of the criminal element.

Now we have a story about 4,852 guns siezed in Philidephia last year and not one, single mention of any assault weapon seized.

What's up with that?
Somebody wouldn't be lying to us would they?

Finally someone who was on a boat with Kerry Speaks

Until now I have stayed away from the Kerry war record controversy, not because I haven't been interested, but because it generally doesn't fit the Nebraska niche I am trying to carve out for myself here.

My two previous posts specifically concerning John Kerry are;

Energizing his Base

I did not have swift boat relations with those veterans, Ms. Lewinsky.

I happened across a reletively new blog written by David Limbaugh, brother of either you love him or you hate syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh. David has a link to retired Navy Admiral Schachte and his comments concerning John Kerry.

Admiral Schachte, who had been ducking the press for months, broke his silence on the subject of John Kerry.

Schachte was on the boat and in command of it the night Kerry claims to have earned a Purple Heart. In his own words he discounts Kerrys version of events and should the matter to rest.

Senator Schimek denys her constituancy the means to be safe

This is the text of an e-mail that was forwarded to me. It was sent to that person by Senator Schimek. He should feel lucky, she will not respond to my e-mail.

Dear Mr. XXXX:
Thank you for sharing with me your insights on the Nebraska Concealed
Handgun Permit Act. I appreciate hearing from you.
My position on this issue has not changed; I continue to see more
potential harm than benefit from allowing the concealed weapon
permits in Nebraska. I have always believed there are better ways to
reduce violence.
Please don't hesitate to contact my office if you have further
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
DiAnna R. Schimek

Senator Schimek, what potential more harm can there be if law-abiding peaceable citizens are carrying firearms?

Please tell us Senator. There is something like 46 out of our 50 states that recognize the citizens right to protect themselves. In the states that have enacted such laws crime has gone down.

Can we assume that you are referring to the criminals? They are the only ones who who need fear a citizen with a firearm.

Senator what better ways do you believe there is to reduce violence?

Station a policeman at the home of every single female in the state? Have the University hire enough officers to escort every female student to and from class and the dorm?

Police officers are rarely in the right place, at the right time to prevent or stop crimes against the person. Sadly in the majority of assault and rape cases all the police can do is take the report and investigate the crime, after the fact.

These crimes are devastating, on the victim, friends and family, and the effects are forever. A conviction can not un-rape or unassault one of your constituants Senator. Better the intended victim stop the crime than allow it to continue.

Senator your beliefs do a disservice to the women you represent. By denying them their God given right to defend themselves you are forcing them to be victims of crimes they could prevent themselves.

I have said it before and I will say it again here now:

People that believe in gun-control would rather see a woman raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose in a dark alley, than to have her explain why she had no choice but to shoot her attacker.

Not a very nice message to send to your Mothers, wives, girlfriends, daughters or constituants is it DiAnna?

Stop trying to molly coddle the criminals by making their job safer Senator, instead empower the women you were elected to serve to make their lives safer for themselves.

Twice in one week ... Gee Chief could it be your fault?

KSDK News Channel 5 Reports on an early morning shootout involving Police Officers.

History
After the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Concealed Carry Law was constitutional, officers of several large city departments reportedly approached businesses in their jurisdictions telling them they were required to put up NO GUN ALLOWED signs.

The visits were apparently at the behest of the various Chiefs of Police and the intent was to inform businesses that the law required them to put these NO GUN Allowed signs in their windows.

It is also rumored that the officers delivered the appropriate signs themselves and that they were printed at tax payers expense.

Present day
Twice in the last week police have been shot at because they were chasing stolen vehicles that had firearms left in them.

I know I am not the only one that can see a cause and effect here.
Chief Mokwa, when you provide, at taxpayer expense, NO GUNS ALLOWED signs and tell people they are required to post them, this means law abiding citizens with a valid concealed carry permit, must leave their firearms in their vehicles if they choose to do business there.

It should come as no suprise to you, of all people, how dangerous that situation could be.
I don't know if those firearms were left in those vehicles because a permit holder was obeying the law. Only you and your department know that. But this clearly illustrates the folly that your anti-gun paranoia can and does cause.

Your side lost when the Supreme Court made it's decision and now your pigheaded vindictiveness, could be costing your officers their safety and maybe their very lives.

Well it looks like I have been knocked down a peg or two....Not

Well it looks like I have told and right goodly and in a redneck sorta way too.

Over on packing.org today a person asked about open carry in the state of Nebraska.

Rather than wax eloquant in a post there I referred him to my blog where I have discussed the issue at length, inviting him to leave comments if he needed any follow up information.

The truth about Concealed Carry in Nebraska

A follow up and a challenge

Those posts are replete with links to the actual State Constitution and all applicable statutes.

It seems though that an individual that goes by the screen name "hayduke Lives" took exception to the fact that I said open carry is legal, generally trashed my blog and had some very impressive things to say about my style of writing: Gunscribe... Your Blog is by far the most unorganized piece of drivel that I have seen thus far concerning firearms. Did you get you literary skills from the Anti crowd?

UPDATE Since I posted this reply to hayduke Lives criticism of me on packing, his post has been removed by the moderator. I knew it would be, even though I had e-mailed the moderator to please leave it up.

Hayduke then goes on to say that: To answer the original posters question....No you may not open carry in Nebraska, Just as the packing.org database states. You will be arrested. You may not even carry in your vehicle. Locked and in the trunk, ammo separate is the only way to legally get a firearm through Nebraska

Just for your information hayduke Lives, a concealed carry law has not passed BECAUSE there are some members of the legislature that insist we don't need it because OPEN CARRY IS LEGAL.

Hayduke then asks us to TRUST HIM because he has travelled through Nebraska before: Trust me. I have traveled 42 of our 48 contiguous states and have been in contact with law enforcement from every state that I traveled through.(For my own protection)

Forgive me for laughing here hayduke, but I live here, I am familiar with the law and I am in contact with members of the Law Enforcement Community everyday. I even train with them at different times of the year. I know for a fact that OPEN CARRY is acceptable in the state of Nebraska with the exceptions I have previously noted for the cities of Omaha and Lincoln.

I may not be the next John Grisham or Tom Clancy, hayduke but I know the facts before I put them to paper (or Blog), that is something I cannot say for you.

Let me restate that just so you, a person that doesn not live here, can understand it OPEN CARRY IS LEGAL IN THE STATE OF NEBRASKA.

Open carry is professed to by every member of our State Government and its political subdivisions that I know.

Again, hayduke, as I said to you on my post at packing; Thank you for the compliments, I really do appreciate them.

My challenge still stands provide credible Constitutional directive, statute or case law that it is legal.

Movies you won't see in a theater near you .....Well maybe one of them you will

Ok break time!! I have been doing some pretty serious writing lately and so i thought I would get away from that for a little Humor.

If this idea turns out to be fairly popular I may turn it into a regular monthly item.

Here are some Movies that you won't see at your local box office anytime soon:

Billboy - Rated - XXX
A Cinematic adaptation of Bill Clintons political career. Billboy, the cigar smoking, party-hearty horny super hero of the liberal left, delights in escaping the restrictions of public service. Much to the delight of the audiance, and to the dismay of his political handlers, Billboy routinely escapes the trappings of political life and embarks on crusades of debauchery and womanizing.

McKerry's Navy - Rated - PG
Thirty Six years in the making, this comedy relief grossly exagerates the extrordinary accomplishments of Navy Lieutenant Junior Grade John Kerry's and his pet dog VC. The battlefield graphics are such that the viewer almost feels the sting of the rice grains when Kerry single handedly manned the twin fifty caliber machine gun, an M-79 grenade launcher and the helm of his Swift boat all at the same time. Filmed with entirely his own home video camera this comedy chronicles the entire 4 month tour in South East Asia.

The Runamuck Jury - PG
A big screen production about John Edwards rise from middle income obscurity, his years at law school and some of his more famous lawsuits. Sparing nothing about Edwards meteoric rise to the top of the creme de la creme of society this movie is filled with heart stopping ambulances chases and gut wrenching backroom deals. Ending with Edwards Democratic nomination for Vice President this film is sure to spawn a sequal.

Even the Federal Government admits it didn't work

In a previous post I wrote that both the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the NIJ (National Institue of Justice)had concluded in separate studies that the so-called Assault Weapons Ban was not responsible for any measureable drop in crime.

Recently the Washington Times, hardly a paper that supports the second amendmant, reported on the findings of the NIJ.

Thanks to The Smallest Minority for the heads up on this one.

The Federal Governments own research agency
Excerpt: NIJ is the Justice Department's research, development and evaluation agency -- assigned the job of providing objective, independent, evidence-based information to the department through independent studies and other data collection activities.

What some of us knew the results would be all along
Excerpt: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence," said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Parts of "the ban" have been with us for 15 years and it still hasn't worked
Excerpt:It banned 18 models and variations by name, as well as revolving-cylinder shotguns, and prohibited flash hiders, folding rifle stocks and threaded barrels for attaching silencers. A number of the banned weapons were foreign semiautomatic rifles that have been barred from importation into the United States since 1989. The ban also prohibited most ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

How many states enacted concealed carry laws during that time?
Excerpt: According to recent surveys by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), firearms-related crime has declined to record levels. The violent crime rate has fallen 54 percent since 1993, and there were more than 980,000 fewer violent crimes in 2002 than in 2000.

Bush has done something Clinton did not do; enforce laws already on the books
Excerpt: But in the past three years, according to the BJS, federal gun prosecutions have increased by 68 percent, with the number of persons charged with federal firearms offenses rising by more than 22 percent in fiscal 2003, the largest single-year increase ever recorded.

It didn't work because criminals by and large don't use them anyway
Excerpt: The 102-page NIJ report .... the bill targeted a "relatively small number of weapons" based on features that had little to do with the weapons' operation. In 1994, when the ban was approved by Congress, 1.5 million privately owned assault weapons were thought to be in the United States. The report said assault weapons were used in 2 percent of gun crimes reported nationwide before enactment of the 1994 ban.

These firearms are like airplane crashes, they rarely occurr but when they do it makes news
Excerpt: It also said assault weapons and other guns equipped with large-capacity magazines accounted for a higher share of the guns used to kill police officers and in mass public shootings, although such incidents were "very rare."

They are not cheap and are very hard to hide.
Excerpt: The report said the relatively rare use of assault weapons in crimes was attributable to a number of factors: Most assault weapons are rifles, which are used much less often than handguns, a number of the weapons were barred from importation before the ban was enacted, and the weapons are expensive and difficult to conceal.

The shocking but true conclusions
The conclusions seem to be evident, the law did not accomplish what it was suppose to. Reason enough to let it die. It is also clear that the passage of concealed carry laws in numorous states had more of an effect than the so-called ban did on reducing crime. Coupled with the fact that the Bush adminstration has been enforcing some of the already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Something Clinton and Reno would not do.

Why Din't Clinton enforce those laws?
Some people believe that he wanted a certain level of gun crime to justify passage of even more restrictive laws culminating in an out right ban on firearms ownership.

Other Countries failures

Any modicum amount of research will reveal the total and complete failure that that measure (gun-banning) has had on the Countries of Great Britain and Australia. But that is fodder for another blog post.

I know a girl that's done more for your gun rights than you have

Who is she?
Where the Personal becomes the Political at our whim... is the motto of The Bitch Girls blog.

I can tell you these girls are strictly progun and proud of it. In her Tuesday Blog entry Bitter, doesn't pull any punches, when she writes about the attendance at a much advertised progun event that she attended.

Sponsored by a progun group designed to meet and greet candidates, fewer than 10 people showed up at at least five of those were the politicians.

Bitter rightiously chastises her fellow gun owners; If gun owners can't come to 1 local free event to send a message for change, have we officially given up the fight? Why should the activists in the group keep fighting for the other lazy asses out there?

In My own experience, around Nebraska, I alway hear the phrase; " They'll never take take our guns away, the people won't let them."

What People?
NewsFlash: You are one of the people. What three things have you done to ensure your continued right to keep and bear arms?

Matt Connealy wants to start a gun collection ...Yours

As I have previously written Matt Connealy is no friend to gun owners, even if he has hunted on the family farm.

I am not going to mince words on this at all.
Nebraska hunters, Matt Connealy wants your gun and if you send him to Washington you are helping him take it.

Connealy own responses
In 1998 The Gun Owners of America asked Connealy if he would oppose legislation banning the manufacture, sale or possession of semi-automatic firearms.

Matt Connealy in 1998 told his constituancy that he did if fact oppose such legislation.

When asked that same question in 2002 Matt Connealy had changed his mind. As of two years ago Connealy is on record supporting legislation that would make semi-automatic firearms illegal.

What this means to Nebraska Hunters
The question did not ask about a particular type of semi-automatic firearm it just said semi-automatic, meaning ALL OF THEM.

Nebraska hunters pay attention here: That includes that Browning Sweet Sixteen passed down to you from Granddad. That includes the Remington Model 1100 that Pop still uses every year in the family duck blind. It also means that new Benneli 10 gauge you bought last year, for a thousand dollars, will have to be turned in and melted down.

Or how about that Remington Model 742 in 30-06 that has been in the family for a few years. Yup that too. Wait a minute does that include the Colt 1911 wall hanger that Gramps brought home from WW II or that German Luger he liberated from that Nazi Officer? Yes, especially those.

Oh and that Ruger 10/22 that you bought the kid last Christmas, box it up and carry it down to the police station now. Best break the kids heart now and get it over with.

Maybe some of you think I am being a touch facitious here. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Wanna send Matt Connealy to Washington and find out?

Mr. Connealy goes to Washington

OK so you send Connealy to D.C. and he doesn't ban your semi-automatic firearms, pay close attention to this next one.

In 1998 Connealy was asked Do you oppose laws that would require that the police give permission prior to a person buying a firearm.

Connealy responded that he supported the idea that people would have to get permission from the police before they could buy a firearm.

Ok so your right, and I'm wrong, he doesn't ban Elmer Fudds favorite gun, if he gets his way on the police required permission legislation, he doesn't have to.

Since you would, if Connealy gets his way, have to go ask your local police chief or high sheriff for permission to buy a gun everytime you want one, how many do you think you'll get permission to purchase and what kind will they be?

Your just going to have to forget that slick little Remington Model 11-48 in 28 gauge you got your eye on, that is a semi-automatic firearm and you know how the top cop in your town feels about them.

But hey that old Stevens single barrel in 410, on that rack over there, is still a good gun... isn't it? And didn't the chief give Abe permission to aquire one of those in 20 gauge last week? Should be a rubberstamp on that one aye?

No, Hunters of Nebraska, I am not being facitious, I am stone cold serious. There are organizations and people in this country that want to take away our guns, every last one of them. Including that flintlock that has hung on your family mantle since your Great Great Granddad homesteaded the Nebraska prairies.

They want your duck gun, they want your pheasant gun and they want your deer rilfe and they are in a continuing process of getting them.

But who are THEY?
Are they Republicans? Yes, some of them, at least on outward appearances Chuck Hagel, and Doug Bereuter are among them.

Are they Democrats? Yes, by and large it is members of and/or people that support the Democratic party that want to, either outright ban private ownership of firearms, or create so much government red tape that it would be impractical or impossible to own a firearm in America..

The real Matt Connealy
Matt Connealy may shake your hand and tell you he is the salt of the earth, from an old Nebraska farm family, but by his own admission he doesn't want you to own guns for hunting, recreational shooting and especially not for personal protection or for the defense of your family.

In January of 2002 Matt Connealy voted with Ernie Chambers to deny you the right to carry a concealed firearm.

Consider that before you pull the lever for Matt Connealy in November.

A follow up and a challenge

I recently posted a dissertation that supports the contention held by a lot of Nebraskans that concealed carry is and always has been legal in the Cornhusker state.

I have a challenge for anybody that thinks they are up to it.

The background

Most elected and/or appointed Public Servants including Judges, Prosecutors, Chiefs of Police and High Sheriffs will to a man/woman declare, while citing Statute 28-1202, that concealed carry is illegal in the state of Nebraska. Very few, if any, will also admit that there is any situation where, as outlined in 28-1202, an "affirmative defense by a prudent person" would be acceptable to them. That is what 911 is for. Leave it to the professionals.

Definitions

"Affirmative defense" means your guilty until you can prove your innocence. It is the same thing as Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady locking up the bride after the wedding until she can prove, to a judge or jury, that she is not a bigamist. Or the High Sheriff locking up a voter at the polls until he can prove, to the same judge or jury, he hasn't voted twice in that election. That is what "affirmative defense" is all about. You have been deemed guilty and you have to go to court to prove that you are innocent.

A "prudent person" is a myth of law, a legal ghost if you will. Although we would all like to believe that we are prudent people, it is not for us to decide. Concerning Statute 28-1202, it is up to the court to determine whether you were acting as a "prudent person" would under the same circumstances. In a courtroom the defense can produce as many people that say they would do something, as the prosecutor can produce saying that they wouldn't. What it amounts to is the ambiguity of the judge or jury that day.

If the judge is anti-gun then there will NEVER be an acceptable case of an "affirmative defense" in that courtroom and the only "prudent people" are the ones that do not carry a gun and dial 911. In this case you have absolutely no recourse, no matter how good you believed your reason to be. See the big picture here?

Open Carry is Legal

Any number of Public Servants in the state of Nebraska readily claim that the state has no need for concealed carry, because open carry is and always has been legal. If someone feels the need to wear a sideaarm they are free to strap it on and go about their business. That is their mantra.

Principal v. Practice

This may be well and good except that the city of Omaha (since the 1988 Innitiative) has illegaly passed an ordinance that requires training and a government issued permission slip, to be purchased, in order to legaly carry a firearm openly within the city limits.

Several Officers in the Lincoln area including Lancaster County Deputy Sheriffs have stated that persons they find openly carrying a sidearm will be cited for "Disturbing the Peace". So it seems that open carry is legal in principal, but not in practice.

(Aside; I have been told that there does not even have to be a complaint. If you are openly carrying a sidearm, that is prima facia eveidence that you are disturbing someones peace and you will be cited and/or booked into jail and have your firearm confiscated.)

Can you say OHIO?

Is there a pattern here? Concealed carry is illegal! Affirmative Defense! Prudent Person! Open carry legal but punished! Let's say it all together now 1.. 2.. 3.. OHIO.

Facts in law

In order for something to be legal, or illegal for that matter, there must be a basis of fact in the law. Since the Constitution of the state of Nebraska was silent on the subject of firearms untl Initiative Measure No. 403 was enacted "by the people" in 1988, where is the basis in law for the Public Servants to proclaim that open carry is legal?

Until Statute 28-1202 was passed (1943 approx) even the State Statutes were silent on the issue of firearms. What Statute, prior to 1988 is the basis of fact in law for Public Servants to proclaim that open carry is legal?

The Challenge

Produce verifiable evidence in the form of Consitutional statement, Statute or case law where there is a basis of fact in law in the state of Nebraska proving that open carry is legal and that concealed carry is not.

They are "Normal Capcity" magazines

While my mind is on the subject, but then when isn't it, I feel compelled to comment on another aspect of the Klinton Gun "symbolism over substance" Law of 1994.

The Whining goes on

The is much wailing and knashing of the teeth over at the enclaves of the Brady Bunch and the Million Commie Mommies over the return of .... ahhhh dare I say it.... "High Capacity Magazines" on the 14th of September.

The truth

Here's the deal. The only "high capacity magazines" I know of are those that were specifically made to hold more rounds than the firearm was originally designed to hold.

Before 1994 most all of the Glocks, Smith & Wessons and other hand held semi-automatic firearms came from the factory WITH magazines that held more than 10 rounds. That is the NORMAL capacity for those firearms. "High Capacity Magazine" is a catch phrase coined by the firearms-challenged crowd to instill fear and coercion to their point of view.

The truth is that the Klinton enspired Do-gooders arbitrarily, yes you read that correctly, arbitrarily decided that 10 rounds was the safe maximum that the citizens of America could be trusted with. Actually I think it was the lowest number they felt they could get away with and still get their worthless, ineffective gun grabbing measure passed. Additionally they agreed to a "sunset" provision that would have the cease to exist, if it was not renewed.

The reality

Many of those firearms are (pre-1994) are still made today, but Federal requirements dictate that they be sold with the REDUCED CAPACITY MAGAZINES.

It has not been proven anywhere that such a law has stopped or even reduced crime. In fact studies by the CDC and NIJ refute that claim and have concluded that the restriction on magazine capacity has not helped in anyway to reduce crime. Obviously there are some people in the government, by refusing to let it come up for a renewal vote, that get it. They see it as the waste of taxpayers money it has been and seeing to it that it dies a quick death, if not quiet.

10 round magazines for any firearm are as readily available today as the normal capacity magazines were a decade ago.

Food for thought

Consider someone that is contemplating shooting up their workplace or commiting some other henious crime. If that individual has determined that he/she needs 60 rounds of ammunition to accoplish their dirty deed then they will have in their posession six 10 round reduced capacity magazines, instead of four normal capacity magazines.

The thought that a person would carry less rounds because of the magazine restriction, thus less people would be injured or killed is bogus on the very face of it. A person bent on destruction WILL carry as many rounds in as many magazines as they deem necessary to accoplish their goal. Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dianne Fienstien and Barbara Boxer don't get that. Maybe you do.

That a criminal envading his/her work space with more magazines, thus preventing more tragedy, because the shooter wouldn't carry as much ammunition or has to reload more, allowing the "victims" to subdue or apprehend the the shooter between reloads is assine. Any normal person can reload a new magazine in a few seconds or so.

If a shooting such as describe happens in a state where the people are illegaly denied by their Government or employers from owning and/or carrying firearms for self defense (Nebraska), a shooter with a single shot firearm will still create all the carnage he/she can. Ernie Chambers, Dianne Schimek, Tom Casady and Matt Conealy don't get that. Maybe you do.

Couple that with the fact that very few unarmed citizens will attempt to tackle anyone shooting a gun in their direction and you can see the assinine idiocy of the "symbolic feel good we tried to do something even if it didn't have substance anyway" magazine restriction in the first place. So many people just don't get it. Maybe you do.

I did not have swift boat relations with those Veterans, Ms. Lewinsky.

As in everything else in his life John F. Kerry is trying to have it both ways on the controvercy over his Southeast Asain service and the congressional tesimony he gave under oath upon his return "from the land of bad things".

Taking the tact that his critics at Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were not actually on "his boat", they didn't serve with him and cannot be a credible source for verification of his repeated gallantries. Kerry and/or his handlers, discount the fact that the boats usually operated in "packs" of three to six and that these people, "that didn't serve with him" were never more than yards away at any given time. Several other people recieved medals for heroism during the same incident based on "after action" reports written by John Kerry. Obviously they weren't there, before they were there.

Democratic spinmiesters and sympathetic political hacks are now claiming that Kerry did not specifically mean the people, that he claims didn't serve with him in the Swift Boats when he refered to the atrocities he witnessed, by himself and the people he served with.

Well tell us Senator Kerry who were you referring to? When Kerry said; "I participated in and/or witnessed these horrible events", who else could he possibly be referring to?

He can only mean the people in the Swift boat unit that, in his infinate wisdom, our rich uncle assigned LtJG Kerry to. There is no record of Kerry being assigned to any other unit during his "quarter tour", his fellow Swifties are the only people he could be talking about.

I didn't serve with them, before I served with them = "They can't comfirm my heroic exploits, because they didn't serve with me on my boat. They were serving with me when we committed atrocities as a unit when we did serve together on separate boats."

I served with them before I didn't serve with them = "I witnessed and participated in those atrocites when we served together, but they weren't there to verify my heroism, because they did not serve with me on my boat."

Either Kerry served with them or he didn't.

This whole thing is reminds me of an Al Gore comment; "I didn't know it was wrong and I deny doing it, and I promise I won't do it again, and besides there was no controlling legal authority when I did do it." (parphrased by me)