Shooter aka Point of Impact
Having read or listened to all of Stephen Hunters books about "Bob Lee Swagger" and his dad "Earl" I was anticipating the release of the movie "Shooter".
Shooter is supposed to be based on Hunters book "Point of Impact". What I was hoping to see is a period based movie on the book as written.
What I saw was a modernized version. In the print version "Bob Lee" began his military start and end in the 1960's jungles of Southeast Asia. In the movie "Bob's" military career ended in present day Africa.
No it was not the movie I was hoping they would make but I feel like it is a good movie none the less.
The basic premise is still the same;
A retired Marine Corp sniper after losing his spotter to enemy fire retires, along with his dog to a hermits life in the mountains. A few years later his is recruited by a supposed Government agency to prevent an alleged plot to assasinate the President.
As the plot turns the President was not the intended target and "Bob Lee" is framed for the assassination.
When I heard that the movie had been made in the present tense I was determined to see it anyway and cop an attitude about how badly Hollywood had screwed up another good book.
Much to my chagrin I liked what they did. The basic plot and suprise ending remained and for the most part there was no over the top violence simply for the sake of violence.
There were a few verbal snipes about the current state of politics, but over all I think they did a good job of morphing the "Bob Lee" of the 1970's to a believable first decade of the 2000's "Bob Lee".
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Plame Game and the 8 canned Justice Leaguers
G.W. 6
U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire and hire them when ever he wants, it is a function of the Executive Branch of Government. That 6 years into his Presidency He elected to fire a few of them should be a non event.
But like rabid dogs the left is all over it snarling, barking and chomping on about how disgraceful it is that eight Attorneys were told to join the unemployment line.
Slick Willie 92
Where were these same bastions of protocol when Slick Willie back in 1992 moments after taking the Oath of Office fired every damn one of them.
I didn't hear Leahy, Schumer, Biden or any of the other Democrats calling for Janet Reno's head. Hell she hadn't even been confirmed yet, Bill did that one all by his lonesome.
Hillarys Hypocracy
What I find amusing is that even Hillary is calling for Gonzales to go. In other words it's okay for her lying cheating husband to axe them all on his first day in office, but George Bush needs to can Gonzales for firing 8 after 6 years in office.
Some Rinos side with Dems
The part that really disgusts me is there seems to be a few Republicans that are calling for the Attorney Generals head as well.
Let the House and Senate hold their investigations
Let them subpoena Rove, Miers and who ever else they want to. Get it out in the public arena, shine the light on how hypocritical the platform of the left is.
President Bush offered them the opportunity to save face by having his people talk to the Libs off the record to explain Public Employee personnel issues in private, as it should be.
Now not only will the 8 Attorneys have lost their job they will be forced to endure the public humiliation as to why they lost them in the first place.
They will lose this like they lost the Plame Game
Last week Valerie in all her smugness testified under oath that she was a covert agent for CIA. Moments after she got done the person responsible for the creation of the Covert Agent Act testified.
Since she wrote the criteria she should know whether Plame is covered by the act or not and she testified under oath that the vim and vivacious Val was not and is not a covert agent with CIA.
Of course this is something that most of us including Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald have know for the last few years anyway.
After all of his investigating, posturing and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars "Fitz" never indicted anyone for leaking Val to the press. He knew she wasn't covert from the beginning of his witch hunt.
Which begs the question; Why did he need to investigate a crime that never happened?
Considering all of that it took brass boobs for Plame to take an oath to tell the truth and then state for the record that she was a covert agent for CIA. Covert Agents do not enter the front entrance of CIA headquarters in plain sight day in and day out for years on end.
It seems that everyone but her, her husband (the one that likely outed her in the first place) and a few Radical left wing leaders knew she was not protected by Covert Status.
When, if ever will she be prosecuted for lying under oath?
The Libs will lose the Justice League 8 debacle just like they lost the Plame Game. The shear audacity to make eight firings after six years an issue when their poster boy canned 92 on day one is incredulous.
Score: Whitehouse 2 - Leftwing Libs 0
U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire and hire them when ever he wants, it is a function of the Executive Branch of Government. That 6 years into his Presidency He elected to fire a few of them should be a non event.
But like rabid dogs the left is all over it snarling, barking and chomping on about how disgraceful it is that eight Attorneys were told to join the unemployment line.
Slick Willie 92
Where were these same bastions of protocol when Slick Willie back in 1992 moments after taking the Oath of Office fired every damn one of them.
I didn't hear Leahy, Schumer, Biden or any of the other Democrats calling for Janet Reno's head. Hell she hadn't even been confirmed yet, Bill did that one all by his lonesome.
Hillarys Hypocracy
What I find amusing is that even Hillary is calling for Gonzales to go. In other words it's okay for her lying cheating husband to axe them all on his first day in office, but George Bush needs to can Gonzales for firing 8 after 6 years in office.
Some Rinos side with Dems
The part that really disgusts me is there seems to be a few Republicans that are calling for the Attorney Generals head as well.
Let the House and Senate hold their investigations
Let them subpoena Rove, Miers and who ever else they want to. Get it out in the public arena, shine the light on how hypocritical the platform of the left is.
President Bush offered them the opportunity to save face by having his people talk to the Libs off the record to explain Public Employee personnel issues in private, as it should be.
Now not only will the 8 Attorneys have lost their job they will be forced to endure the public humiliation as to why they lost them in the first place.
They will lose this like they lost the Plame Game
Last week Valerie in all her smugness testified under oath that she was a covert agent for CIA. Moments after she got done the person responsible for the creation of the Covert Agent Act testified.
Since she wrote the criteria she should know whether Plame is covered by the act or not and she testified under oath that the vim and vivacious Val was not and is not a covert agent with CIA.
Of course this is something that most of us including Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald have know for the last few years anyway.
After all of his investigating, posturing and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars "Fitz" never indicted anyone for leaking Val to the press. He knew she wasn't covert from the beginning of his witch hunt.
Which begs the question; Why did he need to investigate a crime that never happened?
Considering all of that it took brass boobs for Plame to take an oath to tell the truth and then state for the record that she was a covert agent for CIA. Covert Agents do not enter the front entrance of CIA headquarters in plain sight day in and day out for years on end.
It seems that everyone but her, her husband (the one that likely outed her in the first place) and a few Radical left wing leaders knew she was not protected by Covert Status.
When, if ever will she be prosecuted for lying under oath?
The Libs will lose the Justice League 8 debacle just like they lost the Plame Game. The shear audacity to make eight firings after six years an issue when their poster boy canned 92 on day one is incredulous.
Score: Whitehouse 2 - Leftwing Libs 0
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
No good deed goes unpunished
State Employee suspended for helping heart patient
State snowplow driver Chuck Odom has been suspended for having initiative and a heart. Apparently Tim Weander does not feel these are qualities that a Public Servant in the state of Nebraska should have. It seems that Weander and those above him in state government would rather have one of the people they are paid to serve die than see one of their rules broken. Sort of sounds like the Gestapo to me.
“There are exceptions,” Weander said, “but that is the policy.”
So what exactly does that mean Timmy?
That you would rather see Mr. Howard dead than have your precious policy violated? It would appear that you place brownshirt lockstep adherence to your rules above the lives of the very citizens that you are paid to serve.
If that is the case then it is my opinion that you Mr. Weander and any one above you that feels Chuck Odom did wrong is a disgrace to the people of Nebraska.
Tax payers needed assistance
Chuck responded to the calls from the wife of a man with a heart condition. Bob Howard was having chest pains and his wife Alice was unable to get friends or private snowplow contractors to clear their quarter mile drive way so that they could get to a scheduled heart appointment.
Chuck Odom used state equipment to clear the Howard drive so that the Mrs. Howard could get her ailing husband to the Doctor.
Apparently the Howards felt that Bob's condition at that time did not warrant a call to 911. Since Mr. Howard did have a heart condition and was having chest pains that could have changed in an instant.
“Bob had begun to feel some angina the night before, and it was getting worse with his frustration that we might not be able to keep his doctor’s appointment,” she said.
Mr Howards condition was getting worse, in all likelihood if Mr. Odom had not acted it is likely that Bob's condition would have worsened to the point a 911 call was necessary.
Chuck Odom should be lauded as a Hero for saving a life instead of being punished for countermanding Field Marshal Weanders policies.
Tim Weander Department District engineer for the Omaha area said that 'with exceptions" it is forbidden to use department equipment on private property.
Well gee Ebenezer .... er ah I mean Tim if this doesn't qualify as an emergency I don't know what is. Why is this even an issue? Chuck Odom is exactly the type of Public Servant that Nebraska should have.
Judging from the majority of comments made at the end of the LJS article I am glad to see that I am not the only one to feel this way.
Cold hearted lowlife Scumbag idiocy
There are some that would rather see Mr. Howard dead than for a Public Servant to do a good deed for a member of the public he serves.
One of the commenter's suggested that the Howards should have called 911 as it is the responsibility of the First Responders to trudge through a quarter mile of deep, blowing and drifting snow with all of the necessary equipment including a gurney to get to the Howard residence.
This idiot also insinuated that it is the job of the Responders to push, pull and haul the gurney loaded with Mr. Howard all the while assisting a worried Mrs. Howard back to their rescue vehicle through the same deep blowing and drifting snow. After all that is what they get paid for. Right?
My guess is that this dumbass can't think his/her way through a fast food order off of a drive through menu board.
How in the hell can any sane person suggest that Paramedics should they have been called to transport a heart patient on a gurney for a quarter of a mile under those conditions. If the patient were not in serious condition when they started the trek he would be by the time they got him to the ambulance. Or worse ... dead.
The fact that more than one person responded in a negative manner speaks volumes about what Nebraska is becoming;
These cold hearted lowlife scumbags would rather see Mr Howard dead than for a Public Servant to be commended for service above and beyond his job description.
What would have happened if the Howards had to call 911 for a medical emergency. The First responders would have assessed the situation and called upon government snow removal equipment for the drive to be cleared wasting valuable time that could have been spent tending to a heart patient.
A credit to Nebraska
Mr Odom recognized the situation for what it was and knew if the Howards needed 911 assistance that he or other snowplow drivers would be called to clear the drive so that emergency vehicles could get to the patient.
That 911 assistance was not needed is of no consequence, the fact that Mr Howard had a heart condition and was having chest pains is reason enough for Mr. Odom to do what he did. Should the Hwards had to call 911 the actions of Mr. Odom would have likely saved Mr. Howard.
But then those lowlife cold hearted scumbags that condemn Chuck Odom for what he did would sleep better at night knowing that Mr. Howard died while the First Responders sat one quarter of a mile away unable to assist until Chuck showed up with his plow.
What I take away from all of the comments that chastise Mr Odom is this;
I don't give two owl hoots in the forest whether Mr Howard died or not as long as the policies of this state were not broken by some lowly public servant. How dare he be so uppity as to save some ones life while he is on the States time clock.
Letter of Appreciation for outstanding service to the citizens of Nebraska
To Chuck Odom,
On behalf of no one but myself I congratulate you on a job well done Mr. Odom. You are a credit to Nebraska and the people of this state. If only there were more like you in service to the people.
As a taxpayer I thank you Mr Odom for serving on my behalf and going above and beyond your call to duty.
You Sir have my sincerest respect and it would be my pleasure to some day shake your hand.
Gunscribe
State snowplow driver Chuck Odom has been suspended for having initiative and a heart. Apparently Tim Weander does not feel these are qualities that a Public Servant in the state of Nebraska should have. It seems that Weander and those above him in state government would rather have one of the people they are paid to serve die than see one of their rules broken. Sort of sounds like the Gestapo to me.
“There are exceptions,” Weander said, “but that is the policy.”
So what exactly does that mean Timmy?
That you would rather see Mr. Howard dead than have your precious policy violated? It would appear that you place brownshirt lockstep adherence to your rules above the lives of the very citizens that you are paid to serve.
If that is the case then it is my opinion that you Mr. Weander and any one above you that feels Chuck Odom did wrong is a disgrace to the people of Nebraska.
Tax payers needed assistance
Chuck responded to the calls from the wife of a man with a heart condition. Bob Howard was having chest pains and his wife Alice was unable to get friends or private snowplow contractors to clear their quarter mile drive way so that they could get to a scheduled heart appointment.
Chuck Odom used state equipment to clear the Howard drive so that the Mrs. Howard could get her ailing husband to the Doctor.
Apparently the Howards felt that Bob's condition at that time did not warrant a call to 911. Since Mr. Howard did have a heart condition and was having chest pains that could have changed in an instant.
“Bob had begun to feel some angina the night before, and it was getting worse with his frustration that we might not be able to keep his doctor’s appointment,” she said.
Mr Howards condition was getting worse, in all likelihood if Mr. Odom had not acted it is likely that Bob's condition would have worsened to the point a 911 call was necessary.
Chuck Odom should be lauded as a Hero for saving a life instead of being punished for countermanding Field Marshal Weanders policies.
Tim Weander Department District engineer for the Omaha area said that 'with exceptions" it is forbidden to use department equipment on private property.
Well gee Ebenezer .... er ah I mean Tim if this doesn't qualify as an emergency I don't know what is. Why is this even an issue? Chuck Odom is exactly the type of Public Servant that Nebraska should have.
Judging from the majority of comments made at the end of the LJS article I am glad to see that I am not the only one to feel this way.
Cold hearted lowlife Scumbag idiocy
There are some that would rather see Mr. Howard dead than for a Public Servant to do a good deed for a member of the public he serves.
One of the commenter's suggested that the Howards should have called 911 as it is the responsibility of the First Responders to trudge through a quarter mile of deep, blowing and drifting snow with all of the necessary equipment including a gurney to get to the Howard residence.
This idiot also insinuated that it is the job of the Responders to push, pull and haul the gurney loaded with Mr. Howard all the while assisting a worried Mrs. Howard back to their rescue vehicle through the same deep blowing and drifting snow. After all that is what they get paid for. Right?
My guess is that this dumbass can't think his/her way through a fast food order off of a drive through menu board.
How in the hell can any sane person suggest that Paramedics should they have been called to transport a heart patient on a gurney for a quarter of a mile under those conditions. If the patient were not in serious condition when they started the trek he would be by the time they got him to the ambulance. Or worse ... dead.
The fact that more than one person responded in a negative manner speaks volumes about what Nebraska is becoming;
These cold hearted lowlife scumbags would rather see Mr Howard dead than for a Public Servant to be commended for service above and beyond his job description.
What would have happened if the Howards had to call 911 for a medical emergency. The First responders would have assessed the situation and called upon government snow removal equipment for the drive to be cleared wasting valuable time that could have been spent tending to a heart patient.
A credit to Nebraska
Mr Odom recognized the situation for what it was and knew if the Howards needed 911 assistance that he or other snowplow drivers would be called to clear the drive so that emergency vehicles could get to the patient.
That 911 assistance was not needed is of no consequence, the fact that Mr Howard had a heart condition and was having chest pains is reason enough for Mr. Odom to do what he did. Should the Hwards had to call 911 the actions of Mr. Odom would have likely saved Mr. Howard.
But then those lowlife cold hearted scumbags that condemn Chuck Odom for what he did would sleep better at night knowing that Mr. Howard died while the First Responders sat one quarter of a mile away unable to assist until Chuck showed up with his plow.
What I take away from all of the comments that chastise Mr Odom is this;
I don't give two owl hoots in the forest whether Mr Howard died or not as long as the policies of this state were not broken by some lowly public servant. How dare he be so uppity as to save some ones life while he is on the States time clock.
Letter of Appreciation for outstanding service to the citizens of Nebraska
To Chuck Odom,
On behalf of no one but myself I congratulate you on a job well done Mr. Odom. You are a credit to Nebraska and the people of this state. If only there were more like you in service to the people.
As a taxpayer I thank you Mr Odom for serving on my behalf and going above and beyond your call to duty.
You Sir have my sincerest respect and it would be my pleasure to some day shake your hand.
Gunscribe
Rock your Glock Schedule for 2007
History
Nebraska has not had a sanctioned Glock Shooting Sports Foundation event. Anyone wanting to compete in these venues must travel to Colorado, Missouri or Minnesota.
Several years ago Chris Zeeb a local certified Glock armorer and competition shooter approached GSSF about sponsoring an event in the Cornhusker state. GSSF was not interested.
Undaunted by this rejection Chris started up the event we know as Rock Your Glock. This will be the third year that Chris and a myriad of volunteers will host the matches at the Lincoln Izaak Walton League shooting range.
Unlike the GSSF matches the Rock Your Glock competition a competitor is not required to shoot a Glock. As I have mentioned in previous posts Sig's, Hi-powers, 1911's and a host of other firearms are welcome.
This Year
In fact last year Chris modified the rules so that single stack magazine sidearms no longer have to compete against the normal capacity semi-automatics. Going a step further Chris even created a class for revolvers.
The Rock Your Glock events are a fun way to spend a weekend morning. They normally run from 7:30 AM to about Noon. In fact you do not even have to be there at 7:30 AM to sign up. You can show up anytime prior to the noon hour sign in, shoot the courses and leave. The scores will be posted on the Rock Your Glock website that evening.
In the past two years all of the events have been on Saturday mornings. That changes this year as two of the events will be on Sunday.
If your interested in Rocking your Glock (or other make of sidearm) Check out the Rock Your Glock website and come out and safely enjoy your firearms.
The schedule this year is as follows;
Saturday - May 12th, 2007
Sunday - June 10th, 2007
Sunday - August 12th, 2007
Saturday - September 8th, 2007
Safety
Please be reminded that with all shooting sports there are rules that need to be adhered to for the safety of all participants. It is the responsibility of all competitors to be familiar with them.
Besides a safe firearm a shooter will be required to have appropriate eye and ear protection.
Equipment
It takes 100 rounds of ammunition to complete the three courses of fire. Having more than that is beneficial should a stage/s need to be re-shot should the timing equipment malfunction.
It is also helpful, but not necessary for semi-automatic shooters to have 3-4 magazines that hold at least ten rounds for their firearm. Revolver shooters should consider having 3-4 speed loaders, but again it is not a necessity.
Directions to the Lincoln Ikes can be found on the Rock Your Glock website. Hope to see you all out there.
Nebraska has not had a sanctioned Glock Shooting Sports Foundation event. Anyone wanting to compete in these venues must travel to Colorado, Missouri or Minnesota.
Several years ago Chris Zeeb a local certified Glock armorer and competition shooter approached GSSF about sponsoring an event in the Cornhusker state. GSSF was not interested.
Undaunted by this rejection Chris started up the event we know as Rock Your Glock. This will be the third year that Chris and a myriad of volunteers will host the matches at the Lincoln Izaak Walton League shooting range.
Unlike the GSSF matches the Rock Your Glock competition a competitor is not required to shoot a Glock. As I have mentioned in previous posts Sig's, Hi-powers, 1911's and a host of other firearms are welcome.
This Year
In fact last year Chris modified the rules so that single stack magazine sidearms no longer have to compete against the normal capacity semi-automatics. Going a step further Chris even created a class for revolvers.
The Rock Your Glock events are a fun way to spend a weekend morning. They normally run from 7:30 AM to about Noon. In fact you do not even have to be there at 7:30 AM to sign up. You can show up anytime prior to the noon hour sign in, shoot the courses and leave. The scores will be posted on the Rock Your Glock website that evening.
In the past two years all of the events have been on Saturday mornings. That changes this year as two of the events will be on Sunday.
If your interested in Rocking your Glock (or other make of sidearm) Check out the Rock Your Glock website and come out and safely enjoy your firearms.
The schedule this year is as follows;
Saturday - May 12th, 2007
Sunday - June 10th, 2007
Sunday - August 12th, 2007
Saturday - September 8th, 2007
Safety
Please be reminded that with all shooting sports there are rules that need to be adhered to for the safety of all participants. It is the responsibility of all competitors to be familiar with them.
Besides a safe firearm a shooter will be required to have appropriate eye and ear protection.
Equipment
It takes 100 rounds of ammunition to complete the three courses of fire. Having more than that is beneficial should a stage/s need to be re-shot should the timing equipment malfunction.
It is also helpful, but not necessary for semi-automatic shooters to have 3-4 magazines that hold at least ten rounds for their firearm. Revolver shooters should consider having 3-4 speed loaders, but again it is not a necessity.
Directions to the Lincoln Ikes can be found on the Rock Your Glock website. Hope to see you all out there.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Shaking up Local Politics
Patte you will be missed
I was distressed to hear that Patte Newman has decided not to seek re-election to the City Council. I have enjoyed working with her on a number of issues. In fact Patte is the only Council Person that holds monthly meetings in her district that feature guest speakers from many of the cities Governmental Departments. These will be sorely missed if her replacement does not keep the tradition.
John Spatz for City Council
In the Northwest District John Spatz, (pronounced "spots") a Republican is seeking to unseat Annette McRoy for a seat on the council. In the brief half hour that I spent talking with him Johns seems to be on the same page as I am concerning most of the issues. If he is true to his word, and I think he is, he will make a good addition to the council.
If you live in the Northwest District 4 as I do and are as frustrated by the lack of representation by Annette McRoy as I am check out his website and consider donating or volunteering some time to his campaign. Even putting up a yard sign will help get the word out. The Northwest needs representation on the City Council that we have not had in a very long time.
I didn't even know McRoy was running
It appears that our current council person is taking her re-election for granted as the election is but a few short weeks away and I have not heard one word from her either from mailings, phone calls or a knock on the door.
That in and of itself is why we need a change. If Council Person McRoy can't even be bothered to associate herself with her constituency at election time it is a direct reflection on her lack of service to those that elected her in the first place.
Excerpt from a conversation I had with Annette last year;
Me: You do understand that any ordinance you pass must not contravene the State Constitution don't you.
Annette: The city has the power to pass our own laws irregardless of the State, we do it all the time.
Annette suffers from the same dementia that too many in local government do; They do not understand that any ordinance they enact must be in accordance with only those powers they have been granted by the legislature. If they (the city council) have not been given a power to regulate something then they specifically cannot do it.
There have been far too many ordinances, in the last few years, voted into law by the Lincoln City Council that cannot not pass Constitutional muster. City Council persons are bound by oath to obey the State Constitution and for too long they have been derelict in that duty.
I was distressed to hear that Patte Newman has decided not to seek re-election to the City Council. I have enjoyed working with her on a number of issues. In fact Patte is the only Council Person that holds monthly meetings in her district that feature guest speakers from many of the cities Governmental Departments. These will be sorely missed if her replacement does not keep the tradition.
John Spatz for City Council
In the Northwest District John Spatz, (pronounced "spots") a Republican is seeking to unseat Annette McRoy for a seat on the council. In the brief half hour that I spent talking with him Johns seems to be on the same page as I am concerning most of the issues. If he is true to his word, and I think he is, he will make a good addition to the council.
If you live in the Northwest District 4 as I do and are as frustrated by the lack of representation by Annette McRoy as I am check out his website and consider donating or volunteering some time to his campaign. Even putting up a yard sign will help get the word out. The Northwest needs representation on the City Council that we have not had in a very long time.
I didn't even know McRoy was running
It appears that our current council person is taking her re-election for granted as the election is but a few short weeks away and I have not heard one word from her either from mailings, phone calls or a knock on the door.
That in and of itself is why we need a change. If Council Person McRoy can't even be bothered to associate herself with her constituency at election time it is a direct reflection on her lack of service to those that elected her in the first place.
Excerpt from a conversation I had with Annette last year;
Me: You do understand that any ordinance you pass must not contravene the State Constitution don't you.
Annette: The city has the power to pass our own laws irregardless of the State, we do it all the time.
Annette suffers from the same dementia that too many in local government do; They do not understand that any ordinance they enact must be in accordance with only those powers they have been granted by the legislature. If they (the city council) have not been given a power to regulate something then they specifically cannot do it.
There have been far too many ordinances, in the last few years, voted into law by the Lincoln City Council that cannot not pass Constitutional muster. City Council persons are bound by oath to obey the State Constitution and for too long they have been derelict in that duty.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Been Awhile
For all of my regular readers (all 3 of you) I am still around. The much shortened trip to Oklahoma was a success and I will have a post about it sometime soon.
Personal Updates
It seems that the local Gendarmes have yet to locate the Hit & Run Driver or the motorcar.
I recently turned the big 50.
The War
I often wonder how many of the deaths suffered by our Military can be laid at the laptops of the American News Media and how many more will have to die at their hands.
This is a war. Wars are not Sunday church socials. Send the Media home on the next transport and let the Military do what it has been trained to do ....... Kill people and break things. I believe we would be a whole lot farther along and a lot less American Soldiers would be dead or wounded if it were not for the Media.
Cry Havoc and let loose the dogs of war.
What part of WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON US do some people not understand? We have no choice but to fight. Is that so hard to understand? If we were not fighting them over THERE, we would have to fight them HERE.
The Mayor
Coleen Seng had been insistent on appointing a new Fire Chief before her term ends in a few short days. I am sure she saw this as part of her legacy. Thankfully there was enough pressure exerted from all sides of the political spectrum demanding that she hold off and let the new Mayor make that choice. Grudgingly I am sure she agreed not to appoint a new chief.
Obama
If you thought Jimmy Carter was bad watch what happens if this guy gets the office.
Hilary
Has she ever had to answer a tough question about who she is and what she stands for?
Biden
Can he keep his foot out of his mouth long enough to give a State of the Union Speach?
Tancrado
A longshot with the right idea on border security.
Hagel
Well I have had plenty to say about him in the past.
Gengrich
Would be a good president but has a lot of baggage I think.
Well enough for now
Personal Updates
It seems that the local Gendarmes have yet to locate the Hit & Run Driver or the motorcar.
I recently turned the big 50.
The War
I often wonder how many of the deaths suffered by our Military can be laid at the laptops of the American News Media and how many more will have to die at their hands.
This is a war. Wars are not Sunday church socials. Send the Media home on the next transport and let the Military do what it has been trained to do ....... Kill people and break things. I believe we would be a whole lot farther along and a lot less American Soldiers would be dead or wounded if it were not for the Media.
Cry Havoc and let loose the dogs of war.
What part of WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON US do some people not understand? We have no choice but to fight. Is that so hard to understand? If we were not fighting them over THERE, we would have to fight them HERE.
The Mayor
Coleen Seng had been insistent on appointing a new Fire Chief before her term ends in a few short days. I am sure she saw this as part of her legacy. Thankfully there was enough pressure exerted from all sides of the political spectrum demanding that she hold off and let the new Mayor make that choice. Grudgingly I am sure she agreed not to appoint a new chief.
Obama
If you thought Jimmy Carter was bad watch what happens if this guy gets the office.
Hilary
Has she ever had to answer a tough question about who she is and what she stands for?
Biden
Can he keep his foot out of his mouth long enough to give a State of the Union Speach?
Tancrado
A longshot with the right idea on border security.
Hagel
Well I have had plenty to say about him in the past.
Gengrich
Would be a good president but has a lot of baggage I think.
Well enough for now
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.
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
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,
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Forward
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;
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.
Conclusion
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.
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.
Conclusion
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.
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 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.
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 .....to 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.
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 .....to 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.
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)
Success
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.
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)
SuccessI 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.
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"
Background
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.
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??
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??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)