BushCo LLC - Cheap As Can Be

Hero Gets Fired for Using a Gun to Stop Robbery

2011-05-27T16:25:00.003-05:00

If you think Walgreens was wrong to fire this individual, regardless of store policy, for protecting customers and the corporation's goods, call the Walgreens HQ. It's this author's opinion that a thank you and a warning would have sufficed:

Walgreens
200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
847-914-2500

http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2011/05/25/hero-gets-fired-for-using-a-gun-to-stop-robbery/

Jeff L. Bush
Owner
BushCo LLC
CheapAsCanBe.com
GySgt/USMC (Ret.)

Okla. jury convicts pharmacist once hailed as hero

2011-05-27T11:04:00.004-05:00

This story is a good reminder or lesson for everyone who needs to use their firearm in self-defense. The reminder or lesson is that once the threat has been eliminated, our use of deadly force must end. While Mr. Ersland was correct to initially fire on the robber, he went too far after he again fired on the down, unconscious, and unarmed robber.

I write this not in sympathy for the robber, but as a courtesy for handgun owners so they too don't end up in prison for life over a scumbag who got what he deserved. Instead, we must operate within the confines of man's law, and leave the judgement to the Lord.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pharmacy_shooting

Jeff L. Bush
Owner
BushCo LLC
CheapAsCanBe.com
GySgt/USMC (Ret.)

Obama: We're Working on Gun Control 'Under the Radar'

2011-05-26T08:21:00.003-05:00

This should come as no surprise and may put the NRA in a compromising position, because the NRA supported Harry Reid, who will undoubtedly support the President in any endeavour. It will be interesting to see the NRA's response to this news.

NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures

2008-10-08T17:50:00.002-05:00

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 43 minutes ago

NEW ORLEANS - City officials have agreed to return hundreds of firearms that police officers confiscated in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, part of a deal to resolve a lawsuit filed by gun lobbying groups.

The settlement agreement filed Tuesday in federal court calls for the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation to drop their case if the city follows a plan for returning guns to owners who had them seized by police after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.

Both sides also are asking U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to sign off on the pact and issue a permanent injunction barring the city from seizing lawfully possessed firearms. Barbier didn't immediately rule on the agreement, which doesn't involve a monetary award.

Police department spokesman Bob Young said it has stored 552 guns that were confiscated after Katrina, through Dec. 31, 2005. Police have said that most of the confiscated firearms had been stolen or found in abandoned homes, but the NRA claims police disarmed some people who were trying to flee the city.

City attorney Nolan Lambert denied that police unlawfully seized firearms.

"We were acting at all times in conformity with the law," he said.

The agreement calls for the city to post a notice on its Web site that explains how gun owners can claim their firearms.

Gun owners must sign an affidavit claiming ownership of a gun but don't need to present written proof, such as a sales receipt or serial number. A background check also is required to certify that someone claiming a gun can legally possess a firearm.

The city won't be liable if a dispute arises over the ownership of a returned gun. Authorities can dispose of any guns that go unclaimed after two years.

"This is all we've wanted all along: a practical return program," said NRA lawyer Stephen Halbrook, who estimated that the department should have 1,200 guns available for owners to claim.

"I think it satisfies all our concerns," said Dave Workman, a spokesman for the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation. "The city for way too long has been dragging its feet on this. We're glad it's over and we can move on to other issues."

Young said the department "will do everything possible to notify people that their guns are available for pickup."

In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number. Halbrook, however, said few people could present proof of ownership after Katrina, which flooded 80 percent of the city.

Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley were defendants in the case, which was scheduled to be tried next month.

In their lawsuit, the gun lobbying groups accused the city of violating gun owners' constitutional right to bear arms and leaving them "at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina.

In response, the city argued that federal law doesn't apply to the plaintiffs' claims against city officials "because the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as a fundamental individual right."

Un-Interrupted Trigger Control Is No Control At All

2008-05-05T12:51:00.017-05:00

I’m constantly amazed at how many shooters don’t understand the proper technique for trigger control, also known as trigger squeeze. Regardless of the firearm, the fundamentals are the same. If you don’t control your trigger, you won't hit your target.

What is trigger control? Trigger control is the ability of a shooter to properly manipulate, or pull, the trigger through the entire trigger cycle, while not distorting sight-alignment, or sight-picture. Now, how many out there were taught, or believe, that a constant, never stopping until the weapon fires, pull on the trigger is the correct method? Would the person sitting next to those who raised their hands slap those individuals in the back of the head! Sorry, it’s what Marines do when someone just said or did something that makes no sense at all. But, it’s what I was taught you say? Well, allow me to teach you the correct way to control your trigger and improve your downrange accuracy, while avoiding those slaps to the head.

There are two types of trigger control; interrupted and un-interrupted. Right? Well, only if you want to miss your intended target. Ask yourself this question. Why would you continue to pull the trigger if your sights have wondered off your intended aiming point? You wouldn’t, right? Can you hold perfectly still? Of course you can’t! No one can! Therefore, why is un-interrupted trigger control, the never stopping of the trigger pull until the gun fires, even if your sights are not on your intended aiming-point, taught at all? Beats me! So here’s what I recommend.

Interrupted trigger control; the intentional stopping of the trigger-pull when the sights of the weapon have left the intended aiming-point. Imagine that! You actually stop pulling the trigger when your sights are not on your intended aiming-point. But here’s the trick. Not only do you stop pulling the trigger when your sights leave the intended aiming-point, but you also hold the trigger where you stopped pulling it during the trigger cycle. That’s right. Stop pulling and hold the trigger where it was when your sights left the intended aiming-point. Why? This shortens the trigger pull for the next time your sights are back on your aiming-point. Now, bring your sights back onto your intended aiming-point and again begin squeezing the trigger. If your sights leave their intended aiming-point again, and they will, again hold the trigger where it was when your sights left your intended aiming-point and stop pulling, and then again start your trigger squeeze when you are once again back onto your aiming-point. See the pattern? Squeeze, hold, squeeze, hold, squeeze, BANG! If you properly apply this method until the weapon fires, the weapon cannot, and will not, fire unless your sights are on their intended aiming-point. This is called interrupted trigger control.

Now, you need to understand that this technique takes discipline and practice. The first few times you try this technique you may find yourself firing-off a shot when you should have been holding the trigger in place until you are back in your aiming-area. This is not a big deal. Just keep practicing this technique and you will see a drastic improvement in your trigger control, and the accuracy of your shots.

Here’s your assignment: During your next shooting excursion I want you to concentrate on your trigger control and the interrupted technique. I also want you to pay particular attention to the muscles you use to squeeze the trigger. Concentrate on only using those muscles that make your trigger finger work. Most people tend to squeeze the entire hand like they are making a fist, instead of only moving the trigger finger.

Speed comes after first practicing accuracy, and accuracy begins at the trigger. So, slow down and concentrate on your trigger technique first, because after all the fastest guns in the West didn’t survive because they were fast alone, the survived because they were first accurate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The author is a U.S. Marine Gunnery Sergeant with 17 years of service. He was trained by the Marines as both a Small Arms Weapons Instructor, and as a Primary Marksmanship Instructor. Are you interested in learning how to shoot like the Marines? If so, contact us at 417-887-8131, or firerarms@cheapascanbe.com

Retired Green Beret Shoots Intruder, Gets Court Martial

2008-01-29T13:21:00.000-06:00

A friend forwarded me the below article, so in order to add a little humor to the blog I'm posting it. However, while it may be humorous to the experienced, a novice may be misled. First, read the article to see where I’m going with this, and then read my comments at the end.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retired Green Beret Shoots Intruder, Gets Court MartialRetired Green Beret shoots intruder, gets court martial BREVARD, NC Jan. 19, 2008 Retired Army Green Beret James T. (Smokey) Taylor got his court martial this weekend and came away feeling pretty good about it.

Taylor, at age 79, is one of the oldest members of Chapter XXXIII (The Larry Thorne Chapter) of the Special Forces Association. He was placed on trial by fellow Chapter XXXIII members under the charge of "failing to use a weapon of sufficient caliber" in the shooting of an intruder at his home in Knoxville, TN, in November.

The court martial, of course, was very much tongue in cheek. The event itself was deadly serious.

Taylor had been awakened in the early morning hours of November 5, 2007, when an intruder broke into his home. He investigated the noises with one of his many weapons in hand.

"It was just after Halloween, on Monday morning at 4:30," Taylor said. I heard this commotion at the door and grabbed my fishing gun, a little.22 revolver, to see what was going on. I got to the front door and this fellow had ripped my security door out of its frame. He said, 'you're going to have to kill me. I'm coming in."

When a warning to leave went unheeded, Taylor brought his .22 caliber pistol to bear and shot him right between the eyes.

"I was about four feet away from him when I shot," Taylor said. "Looking back now, I'm glad he didn't die, but that boy had the hardest head I've ever seen. The bullet bounced right off."

The impact knocked the would-be thief down momentarily. He crawled out of the house then got up and ran down the street. Taylor dialed 911 and Knoxville police apprehended the wounded man about 200 yards away, hiding in a hedgerow.

Complicating the case, as well as the court martial, the offender was released on bail but failed to appear for his court date. Knoxville police said the man was homeless. They did not know his whereabouts or why he had been given bail. The charges brought against Taylor by his fellow Green Berets were considered to be serious. He is a retired Special Forces Weapons Sergeant with extensive combat experience during the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

"Charges were brought against him under the premise that he should have saved the county and taxpayers the expense of a trial," said Chapter XXXIII President Bill Long of Asheville, NC.

The trial was held at the Hampton Inn in Brevard, part of the group's regularly scheduled quarterly meeting. Long appointed a judge, Bert Bates, a defense counsel, Jim Hash, and a prosecutor, Charlie Ponds. All are retired Special Forces non-commissioned officers with extensive combat and weapons experience.

Ponds outlined the case against Taylor, emphasizing that the citizens of Knox County were going to be burdened with significant costs to again apprehend, and then prosecute and defend the would-be burglar.

"Proper choice of a larger caliber gun would have spared the citizens this financial burden," Ponds said, "while removing one bad guy from the streets for good. He could have used a .45 or .38. The .22 just wasn't big enough to get the job done.

Hash disagreed. He said Taylor had done the right thing in choosing to arm himself with a 22.

"If he'd used a .45 or something like that the round would have gone right through the perp, the wall, the neighbor's wall and possibly injured some innocent child asleep in its bed. I believe the evidence shows that Smokey Taylor exercised excellent judgment in his choice of weapons. He clearly remains to this day an excellent weapons man."

Hash then floated a theory as to why the bullet bounced off the perp's forehead. "He was victimized by old ammunition," he said, "just as he was in Korea and again in Vietnam, when his units were issued ammo left over from World War II."

Taylor said nothing in his own defense, choosing instead to allow his peers to debate the matter.

The jury, consisting of all the members of the Chapter, discussed the merits of choosing a larger caliber weapon as well as the obvious benefits to society of permanently deleting the intruder so he would never again threaten any private citizen.

The other side of the coin, that of accidentally causing injury to a completely innocent citizen if a more powerful gun had been used, also gained considerable support.

Following testimony from both sides, Judge Bates determined the charges should be dismissed.

The decision was met with a round of applause. In fact, there was strong sentiment expressed that Taylor should receive an award for not only choosing wisely in picking up the 22, but for the accuracy of his aim under difficult and dangerous conditions.

After the trial Taylor said the ammunition was indeed old and added the new information that the perp had soiled his pants as he crawled out the door. "I would have had an even worse mess to clean up if it had gone through his forehead," Taylor said. "It was good for both of us that it didn't."

Meanwhile, back in Knox County, the word is out: Don't go messing with Smokey Taylor. He just bought a whole bunch of fresh ammo.

Tribune Editor Bill Fishburne is a member of the LarryThorne Chapter XXXIII of the Special Forces Association.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, humorous right? Of course it was, but can this article mislead a beginner who is new to pistol calibers and their potential to stop an intruder? I believe it can. I won’t go into ballistics since this post is geared towards the beginner, so I’ll make it as simple as possible. Beginners listen up; it may just save your life!

First, let’s talk for a moment about aiming points. Imagine for a moment that your life depended on you hitting your target. You can shoot at target (A), a six (6) inch target, or you can shoot at target (B), an eighteen (18) inch target. Which would you choose? You would choose target (B) right? Of course you would, especially if your life, or the life of your family, depended on it!

Here’s my point, the head is approximately six (6) inches by six (6) inches, but the torso is approximately eighteen (18) inches by (18) inches; three times as big. And there is another factor to consider. The torso is the part of the body that moves the least, making it a more stationary target.

So, why did Mr. Taylor shoot the intruder in the head, the six (6) inch target? One, according to the article he is a highly experienced shooter. Two, he was within 4 feet of the intruder. Three, according to the article he is a highly experienced shooter. Get it?

Second, let’s take a quick look at the .22 LR (Long Rifle) cartridge. The .22 LR is undoubtedly the most popular cartridge ever produced. It has been produced, for both rifles and pistols, by almost every manufacturer known. It was primarily designed as a small game (squirrels, rabbits, etc.) hunting round, light security against snakes and such while camping, and for recreational shooting. It’s cheap, plentiful, has little recoil, and little noise. But are any of the above reasons worth betting your life on?

The .22 caliber has very little power in terms of “stopping power”. My definition of stopping power is defined as incapacitation that prevents an intruder from being ABLE to continue to do you bodily harm. Notice in the above article, the intruder chose not to continue, because he was not incapacitated. After all, the bullet bounced off the intruders head instead of penetrating it. Do you need more proof then that to see that the .22 LR was not designed for protection? Had the intruder chose to continue the assault, he could have because he was not incapacitated. He was merely deterred. And if Mr. Taylor’s pistol had jammed after the first shot and the assailant chose to continue, things may have been different!

So, what would I recommend? I would recommend the highest caliber a person can stand to shoot. But, under no circumstance would I recommend any caliber below a .38 special for personal protection. I know, many people carry 9mm’s and even .380’s for personal protection, but often do so because of their smaller size, cheaper price, and cheaper ammo, not because of their superior stopping power. Again, none of which is worth betting your life on.

The bottom line is this, the bigger the caliber, the more stopping power. Thus, I recommend the biggest caliber a person can comfortably and accurately shoot from .38 special and above, coupled with the best personal protection ammo available. If a person can’t stand to shoot these higher calibers, then I recommend you use the highest caliber you can you shoot, coupled with the best personal protection ammo available. See the pattern?

But wait! What about the point made in the article about the bullet possibly going through the walls and into another room, or into the neighbor’s house? If I use a bigger caliber, won’t this increase the odds of this happening? Sure it will, but the odds are very low that the round won’t strike something first. Besides, the .22 caliber cartridge could do the same thing if you completely missed your target. One way to eliminate this danger to others is to be aware of the direction you will be shooting in, and by simply taking a quick side-step to the left or right, will in most cases eliminate the danger to others.

I would never recommend, even for highly experienced shooters, to try a head shot on an intruder due to the small target area, or use such a small caliber for protection due to its lack of stopping power. While an experienced shooter may be able to pull this off, most will not because even the most experienced shooters will be under stress during the fight. Heart rates will be up, hands may be shaking, and focus will be diminished. Therefore, use a caliber that is a man stopper (.45 ACP is my choice), and aim for the largest, least moving, portion of the body to increase your odds of hitting your target. Oh, and don’t fire once and then look to see their reaction. Keep shooting until you see the intruder go down, or they run away. And even then, be prepared to fire again!

I hope this helps a beginner better understand the humor in the above article. And I also hope this helps the beginner better understand the importance of using the right caliber of firearm for the job. Mr. Taylor lived to tell the story, but things could have ended much differently. Therefore, leave the small calibers to hunting squirrels and camping, regardless if you think you’re experienced. Your life is too important to risk it on a small caliber that was never designed for self-protection, and your first shot may be your last, so use a caliber that was designed to incapacitate!

Jeff Bush GySgt/USMC, Pres/CEO, BushCo LLC, Cheap As Can Be
The author is a U.S. Marine Gunnery Sergeant with 17 years of service. He was trained by the Marines as both a Small Arms Weapons Instructor, and as a Primary Marksmanship Instructor.

Visit http://www.cheapascanbe.com/ to learn more.

Hunting and Camping – Overlooking Topography

2008-01-20T13:34:00.000-06:00

Being a U.S. Marine, I often find myself in unfamiliar parts of the country during hunting or camping season, and therefore, I’m forced to think of alternate methods to quickly learn the lay of the land. I could spent countless hours scouting my perspective areas and disrupting possible deer patterns just a few days before season, or I could use free programs like Google Earth to find that perfect spot, while not disturbing any future hunting or camping areas prior to my arrival. But how does one go about scouting if not on foot? Simple, let Google Earth do the walking!

Have you ever scouted a perspective hunting or camping area on foot, only to realize that you didn’t really see or discover those hilltop pastures, clearings, or watering holes etc.? Of course you have, it’s happened to us all. But with the advent of free programs like Google Earth, one doesn’t need to miss those “sweet spots” anymore. For example, in the below image from Google Earth, one can clearly see open fields, deep hollows (hollers), and watering holes, all of which may have been missed if scouting on foot in the surrounding woods. Armed with this new information, one can now plan the best areas to hunt or camp. But is there an easier way to get there?

Simply go to http://earth.google.com/le.com/ and download Google Earth to your computer.

Let’s face it folks, we humans are a lot like wildlife, in that we will take the easiest route if we know it’s there. Therefore, have you ever thought about the best way to enter your hunting or camping area? Look at the above image again and see if anything stands out? What about the road to the North? Or maybe even the one to the South? Look closer and you will see that the roads work their way into both the Northern and Southern fields, which then gives one the ability to attack in multiple directions, which means the entire area is accessible via pick-up, and if the road is too rough, an ATV (my preferred method), or on foot. Multiple clearings, multiple watering-holes, and multiple areas for cover, sure seems like a sweet spot to me. And to think it may have been missed if scouting on foot alone.

Armed with this new knowledge and information of one’s possible hunting or camping area, one can now better plan for a successful hunting or camping trip. All one needs to do now is simply print their Google Earth Image and mark the best possible area for their hunting or camping locations, to include tree stands, hunting gear and blinds, etc. It should now be clear that by utilizing Google Earth, one can increase their odds of finding those “sweet spots”, and maybe even that big buck. Hmmm, I wonder if the fishing is any good in those watering-holes.

Note- If you don’t own the land, by a responsible and respectable outdoorsman and first ask the owner for permission to enter.

Death and Taxes

2007-06-22T11:56:00.000-05:00

Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "But in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." But liberal politicians want to ensure that upon your death, they get your farm, land, or business too. If you are a small farm, land, or business owner, or simply have not heard of the "Death Tax" and its dangers, then you need to pull your head out of your backside and wake-up, because while death and taxes are certain, taxes should never follow death!

So what is the death tax? Death taxes are commonly referred to as “estate”, “inheritance” or “wealth” taxes. However, since the tax occurs after ones death, it is rightfully referred to as a “death tax” by many opponents. Historically our forefathers established similar taxes when the government needed revenue for things such as building a Navy etc., but the trick was they stopped the tax once the revenue was no longer needed. The current “death tax” is a federal tax that is forced on inherited small farms, lands, and businesses upon the death of the owner. During 2006 through 2008 the exclusion is $2,000,000.00, and in 2009 the amount increases to $3,500,000.00. While this figure may seem like a lot, it is expected to go away in 2010 as the tax is repealed, but will automatically begin again in 2011 and the exclusion amount will drop to a dangerously low amount of $1,000,000.00 if not permanently repealed. What does this mean to small farms, land owners, and businesses? Well, many small farms, land owners, and businesses may be worth more than $1,000,000.00 in assets, but don't actually have much in terms of liquid assets. Having high worth in assets is not hard to do if a farm or business has been in existence for a generation. However, that doesn't matter as the tax is assessed based on the total worth including all associated equipment etc. So, how will the death tax of 2011 actually hurt these small farms, land owners, and businesses?

As I stated above, many people who inherit these assets don't actually have any liquid assets that they can use in which to pay the death tax. The Livestock Weekly points out, “a 500-head cattle ranch easily reaches a value of about $1.8 million when cattle, land and equipment are factored in. But that same estate generates a net income of only about $50,000. Still, the ranch would be subject to about a $450,000 tax burden." So how does the tax get paid? It gets paid by those who inherited the assets being forced to sell portions of the land, or business, to pay the tax. Many small businesses stand to loose 50% of all assets, which they can’t afford, so they are forced to sell-out and fire employees. The result is most small businesses don’t make it past the first generation. Additionally, small farms and land owners are also forced to sell their lands, and in many cases the only people who can afford these properties are private land developers. So, what we end up with is land and businesses that were once privately owned by individual “A”, are now privately owned by individual “B”, who will more then likely clear the undeveloped land to cram as many homes into this small area as possible. Private owner “B” will now make a fortune at the expense of private owner “A”. This in turn will raise the remaining property value of land owner “A”, thus raising the death tax amount on future generations. Can you guess how future generations of owner “A” will pay the death tax upon their inheritance? Can you guess who will again make a fortune at the expense of owner “A”?

Liberals would have us believe that they want to keep the death tax to raise needed revenue. However, this tax only raised 1% of revenue for the Government in 1998. Additionally, the U.S. Government currently spends $0.65 to process every $1.00 of death tax collected. So, why would liberals want a tax that only raises 1% of revenue? Why even bother with this kind of a tax? Simple, liberals are banking that many Americans won’t even notice or care. You see, liberals (socialists) want the redistribution of wealth. They want to take your 600 acres, or force you to sell it a piece at a time, so developers can build homes etc. on it, and then sell those homes to the public. Wow, it’s magic! Now, 100 people own 1 acre of the original 100 acres you were forced to sell in order to pay the death tax. This is the true goal of this tax, as liberals know that many of these farmers, land owners, and businesses don’t have the liquidity needed to pay these taxes.

Now, I know some of you are thinking, "But I don't have any land worth that kind of money, so why do I care if someone who is “better off” than me loses their land or business? Besides, rich people benefit from this tax being repealed too, so again, why do I care?” Well, don't you want a farm, land, or business worth that kind of money? Do you hunt? Would you like to hunt on land worth that kind of money? Do you own a small business that you would like to grow and pass on to your family to ensure their financial well-being? You see, the ramifications of allowing this type of tax to exists may not be hurting you directly now, but it will if you inherit, or want to buy these lands, or own these businesses. Look, it's no secret that over 75% of our wildlife exists on privately owned lands. Not just farm lands, but any land that is privately owned and not developed, to include many small businesses lands. These lands provide not only food for human consumption through farming, but also for the wildlife we hunt. So are they not worth fighting for? Would you not fight to repeal this tax simply because the rich will also benefit?

We are slowly losing our small farms, hunting lands, and businesses to the liberal “social progressives”, and in 2011 the United States will have the highest rate of death tax in the world at a rate of 55%. Does this tax encourage land or business ownership? Should the Government take away the fruits of a generation’s labors? It should if you are a liberal who believes in socialism and the redistribution of wealth.

http://www.deathtax.com/deathtax/action.htm

Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

2007-05-05T16:38:00.000-05:00

I was considering posting a blog about the recent events at Virginia Tech. However, Ted Nugent's comments, as always, are right on target. Therefore, I will humbly concede my blog space to the master and legend:

Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster
POSTED: 9:51 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2007

By Ted Nugent
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He's also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, "Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild," can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

A Lesson In Disrespect

2007-04-05T08:32:00.000-05:00

There is an increasingly widespread trend in this country; a lack of respect for authority. We are a nation of laws with a clear code of conduct, yet we are becoming a nation of disrespect, and some of our elected officials in Congress are leading the way.

I know many don't feel comfortable discussing politics or religion. Perhaps you are not religious at all, or simply don't feel it plays that big of a role in our political system. My goal in this article is not to push religion down anyone's throat, but to simply outline the importance of its founding principles in our political system. No matter how one feels about religion, I think we can all agree on its principles. For example, we all know that murdering someone is wrong. Therefore, it is the principles of religion and how our founding fathers intended these principles to guide our nations leaders and our system of government that I want to discuss.

By now, everyone has heard about Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus. While her trip was in keeping with congressional norms, her actions were not. By undermining both the President's and Israel's foreign relations policy with Syria, Congresswoman Pelosi apparently believes she holds a higher office than that of the President and that she has the right to speak for other nations. Now, stay focused and don’t let yourself turn this into a political issue. Instead, focused on the wrong done; disrespect for authority.

So what's the big deal? Congresswoman Pelosi apparently disagrees with the President's policy with Syria. So shouldn't she do whatever she can to change that policy? Not according to our principles. It all began in the sixties, where dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War drove many to the streets in protest. While there is nothing wrong with these individuals exercising their right to peacefully assemble, there was, however, a shift to the left in how we voiced our concerns to our Government.

We all have seen, or can remember, the often-violent protests against the Vietnam War. Seemingly overnight it became popular to be violent and disrespectful to ones government. It became popular to ignore the rule of law, especially if one did not agree with the laws. Protesters consistently ignored the U.S. Constitution and its authority stating that they were to peacefully assemble. I hear many of you now, and I understand that no one wants big government, so lets not go down that road either. Again, lets stay focused on the wrong done; disrespect for authority.

One of our often-overlooked principles of respect for authority comes from the Bible.

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves" (Romans 13:1)

Government’s exists for the benefit and protection of its people. Therefore our President exists for our benefit and protection. Regardless of how one feels about the man, he is the governing authority, and as our guiding principles tell us, we are to respect his authority and office, even if one does not respect the man. So why did Congresswoman Pelosi not follow this guiding principle, and why did she disrespect the President’s authority by putting herself above the governing authority? Only she knows the answers to these questions. However, no matter what the reasons, it is counterproductive and sets a dangerous precedent for our children to witness. There is a saying:

“If you violate, or allow others to violate a standard without punishment, you just created a lower standard.” (Anonymous)

By allowing the actions of Congresswoman Pelosi to go unpunished, we are creating a lower standard. However, I don’t think anyone in our government has the intestinal fortitude to do anything about it. Unfortunately, it means an even lower standard of conduct from our elected officials, and another page ripped from the book of the code of conduct by the very people we entrusted to protect it. If these actions by some members of our Congress don't scare you, they should, because if members of Congress have little regard for the code of conduct and the Office of the President, where do our rights, such as our 2nd Amendment rights, stand? Perhaps Congresswoman Pelosi would better serve the nation by remembering the following:

“Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:7)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55038

Insurrection & Posse Comitatus Acts

2007-03-08T17:56:00.000-06:00

One thing I strive to do in this blog is to not only complain about current events, but also inform my readers. I recently had a conversation with my father concerning how many Americans believe the federal government failed to immediately go into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, which gave me the idea for this blog. I am sure there are many out there who think the President failed in his duties, but this is simply not true. Now hold on to your seats, because I am about to turn someone's world upside-down by explaining something that they may have never been told or heard before.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 was designed to limit the President's power to send in federal troops to stop lawlessness without first gaining the consent of the state. The goal of the act is to place the first respondent power to stop lawlessness on the state and city governments. This was done to protect the state's rights and keep the federal government from gaining too much control over the states. Now, it is clearly documented that the President wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, but Governor Blanco initially refused it. Thus, allowing the situation to degenerate into chaos, and only when the situation was completely out-of-hand did Governor Blanco conveniently "hand off" the situation to the President to solve and take the blame. However, in 2006 Congress changed this act to give the President broader powers to respond.

The Insurrection Act was changed in September of 2006 to give the President broader powers to send in federal troops when he determines that local authorities are incapable of maintaining order. Surprised? Don't be because it is yet another failure of the media to tell the whole story. This act was clearly changed to protect citizens from the gross incompetency of leaders like Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin, as they were clearly incapable of handling the situation created by the hurricane. But were these the only things tying the President's hands? No, there was also the Posse Comitatus Act.

Does Posse Comitatus make anyone think of the posses from the old west days? If not, it should. Everyone can recall a western movie where the local sheriff calls up the "posse" of citizens in the local community to hunt down the wrongdoers. The local sheriff was exercising Posse Comitatus by being the first responder in maintaining law and order. Thus, the term "posse" came into existence. Many states still have laws on the books that allow the local sheriff to utilize Posse Comitatus "posses" as a means of hunting down wrongdoers or maintaining law and order, but the act is rarely used.

On June 18, 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was mainly devised to prevent federal troops from supervising the election in southern states. However, its broader scope prevents federal troops from acting in a law enforcement capacity without the direct consent of Congress. As lawmakers learned after the Civil War (1861-1865), it was not the best of ideas to let the military enforce law because many people received a crack to the head or face from rifle buttstockes. Therefore, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was passed into law by the Congress.

One thing you will not hear mentioned by the Congress or the media is that under the Posse Comitatus Act, the Congress could have granted the President the authority to go into New Orleans without the consent of the governor in order to maintain order, but this did not happen. Why did this not happen? No one knows for sure, and the Congress isn't saying. However, the Bush Administration has also done a terrible job of communicating with the American people. Especially in matters that would have defended the administration's stance on such issues, which leaves ignorant Americans no other choice but to believe what the media is saying.

It should now be clear why the President did not just simply go into New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He couldn't under current law! But why didn't the media and Congress explain this to the American people? Was it politics or ignorance? Perhaps both, but either way the American people should have known better and should have been able to see through the "smoke and mirrors". That is assuming they know their history and their laws. And for those of you who will say that the President should have just gone in anyway, I kindly refer you to February's article titled "Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority".

Anti-Gun Legislation

2007-02-22T09:58:00.000-06:00

How do you know a politician is lying? His or her lips are moving. We have all heard jokes like these before, but are these jokes becoming a reality in American politics?

I don't know many who will not agree that the Republicans needed a wake-up call. However, when we voted them out it appears we may have voted in a whole new set of problems. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly delineated in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, no sooner than the Democrats took power did they immediately begin their anti-gun rhetoric. Not only did they immediately begin to attack the gun ownership rights of law abiding citizens, but it was also their very first major piece of legislation introduced according to the GOA website.

Democrats obviously feel that the most pressing issue facing our country today is restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. But what about the war on terror and our borders? Should these issues not have been their first major pieces of legislation? Were the Democrats not the ones berating the Republicans for not properly handling either of these issues? But now that they have the power they want to attack the rights of the people who put them there. Apparently, the Democrats were moving their lips during the elections.

Gun Owners of America Legislative Alert-- Oppose McCarthy Gun Control Bill, H.R. 297
Gun Owners of America8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.
On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors.
This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records.
NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill.
For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.
Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.
The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.
The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.
Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.
This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.
Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.
The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'
Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.
Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.
Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?
In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D." These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights.
Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns."
This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.
The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights.
ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
---- Pre-written letter to your Representative ----
Dear Representative: Gun Owners of America has told me that anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is trying to expand the Brady Law via H.R. 297. Well, on behalf of those millions of Americans who:
* have had their gun purchases held up by the Brady background check system for no apparent reason;
* know of people who have been targets of stalkers or abusive husbands -- and were killed (or simply forced to live in fear) while some bureaucrat in West Virginia fumbled around with their lives;
* have tried to buy a gun when the NICS system was shut down completely -- thereby blocking gun purchases nationally;
* are just curious why the Brady Instant Check -- which was billed as "the gun control bill that would stop future calls for gun control" -- almost immediately became a stepping stone for gun control bills dealing with gun show background checks, private sale background checks, and more personal information for the NICS registration system;
* are wondering why the FBI brags about the number of sales blocked by the Brady check, but can produce no data showing that the Instant check system has any relation to crime reduction;
* are struck by the fact that the anti-gun Clinton administration tried to use the system -- without further legislation -- to impose onerous fees and to retain records forever; and
* are wondering why the folks responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge should be put in charge of determining whether or not I can have a gun --
I would ask you to oppose H.R. 297, the anti-gun legislation sponsored by liberal Carolyn McCarthy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
****************************
Defend The 2nd Amendment Through Creative Giving...
As we confront the challenges of the future, we know that the generosity of those who assist us will make all the difference in our success. That's why GOA seeks your long-term support.
Please call 703-321-8585 during regular business hours or e-mail goamail@gunowners.org to request information on how to keep control of your assets and make a gift at the same time through:
* a bequest
* a retirement plan
* a will, living trust, or insurance policy
Requests for information are confidential and do not represent an obligation.

http://www.gunowners.org/a012307.htm

Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

2007-02-19T20:48:00.000-06:00

I want to open this blog with an understanding of what our forefathers intended for our country. I believe that this understanding is essential in preserving our gun owner rights, hunting rights, concealed carry rights, etc.. Furthermore, the more we use the "D" word in ignorance, the more we become the very thing our forefathers took great care to avoid:

Republic vs. Democracy
Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Supreme Court and individual jurors (jury-nullification). Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums. A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob. A more recent example was the failure of the US Senate to uphold their oath "to do impartial justice" and remove bill clinton from office. Those Senators should be removed themselves, for failure to uphold their oath and for aiding and abetting a known criminal.

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...",

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

- A government of the masses.
- Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
- Results in mobocracy.
- Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
- Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
- Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

- Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
- Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
- A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
- Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
- Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
- Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".

http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm