Thursday night, MTV ran a program called "True Life." The episode for Thursday night was called, "I'm a gun owner." They interviewed 4 people. A gang banger who packs a weapon illegally, a hunter, a victim of crime who now has a permit to carry concealed, and a former gang member who's disabled, and no longer packs a gun, and in fact preaches against guns.
What I don't get is how do they pretend to represent "true life" when you use FOUR subjects, two of whom are or were convicted felons to represent gun owners in America?
When someone mentions "gun owners" to me, I think of the typical law-abiding citizen. In my opinion, anyone who uses a firearm for illegal purposes, such as rape, robbery or homicide, is not a "gun owner." They are a criminal!
Now, I do make an exception for those citizens who live in states with draconian gun laws, who feel a need to protect themselves, but otherwise go about legitimate business. If you live in a place like NYC for instance, it's darn near impossible to get a permit for protection. Unless you're like the Mayor's cousin or something.
But if you're like the scumbag gang-banger, in my opinion, you're not a gun-owner. You're a criminal and should be locked up. Preferably in Siberia.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Friday, December 30, 2005
The gift that keeps on giving part deux
Below is my leg. This is over a month after I've come back from New Orleans. Don't get me wrong, I think NO is probably a very fun place, under different circumstances. But pay attention here. If you take a security job for down there, you are taking your life and health into your own hands. I would recommend that if you are diabetic like I am, stay away.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
The gift that keeps on giving
Well, here it is, more than a month since I left New Orleans, and my right leg is STILL infected. Only now, they tell me I have MRSA. It's some sort of super infection that is immune to most anti-biotics.
This is just fantastic, isn't it.
This is just fantastic, isn't it.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
What's keeping this bill from the Governor's desk?
It's called House Bill 4643, or HB4643. This bill would extend a concealed pistol license for up to 180 days if its renewal or denial were not completed in 60 days. This bill was voted on in the Michigan House and passed on July 13, 2005 by a vote of 100 to 5, with 5 others not voting.
It went to the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee on August 31, 2005, and that is where it has sat ever since.
I have been told by an anonymous source that a certain state Senator is "sitting" on this bill as it was put forth via the efforts of SAFR (Shooters Alliance for Firearm Rights) and GLSSA (Great Lakes Shooting Sports Assoc.), and apparently not with any help from MCRGO (Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners), a once great, grass roots Pro-2nd amendment organization that has fallen on hard times.
It's either that, or he doesn't like Rep. Rick Jones. But I find that difficult to believe.
And while we're at it, what about HB4642? This bill would allow people to transport other individuals' licensed and inspected pistols. Like say, your wife, or husband.
Well, what about it Sen. Cropsey, are you going to get off these bills and have a vote on them, or what?
Maybe we need to get out the anal probe and see what's keeping these bills from passing out of committee.
It went to the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee on August 31, 2005, and that is where it has sat ever since.
I have been told by an anonymous source that a certain state Senator is "sitting" on this bill as it was put forth via the efforts of SAFR (Shooters Alliance for Firearm Rights) and GLSSA (Great Lakes Shooting Sports Assoc.), and apparently not with any help from MCRGO (Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners), a once great, grass roots Pro-2nd amendment organization that has fallen on hard times.
It's either that, or he doesn't like Rep. Rick Jones. But I find that difficult to believe.
And while we're at it, what about HB4642? This bill would allow people to transport other individuals' licensed and inspected pistols. Like say, your wife, or husband.
Well, what about it Sen. Cropsey, are you going to get off these bills and have a vote on them, or what?
Maybe we need to get out the anal probe and see what's keeping these bills from passing out of committee.
Monday, December 05, 2005
US cop quits 'too risky' UK force - The Sunday Times, UK
US cop quits 'too risky' UK force
David Leppard
A TEXAN patrol officer who became the first foreigner to join the British police is to resign after three years because he says policing is too dangerous here compared with America.
Ben Johnson, a 6ft 4in former paratrooper nicknamed Slim, has written to his chief constable asking to carry a Glock 17 handgun on his routine beat in Reading.
He said officers are dying unnecessarily because they are less well equipped and trained to protect themselves and the public than their American counterparts.
“The risks required to be taken by unarmed and poorly trained British police are too great for me to continue being a police officer and I will be resigning my commission in a few weeks,” said Johnson.
“I am tired of my colleagues dying when, if they were better trained and equipped, they would have a fighting chance of survival.”
Johnson’s decision was prompted by the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, a mother of three children and two step-children, who was shot during a robbery in Bradford last month. He said her death demonstrated the lack of training and equipment given to British police.
“Beshenivsky did the one thing that officers in America are trained not to do. She walked up to the front entrance of a business during an alarm call. If the incident had happened in America, she would never have done that. She would almost certainly have been alive today.”
Last week Johnson wrote to Sara Thornton, acting chief constable of Thames Valley police, asking to be armed on patrol. “If the chief authorises me to carry a pistol, then I will not be resigning,” he said. “But that is an impossibility. I now have the choice of continuing in a dangerous job, ill-trained and ill-equipped, or leaving the profession I have loved.”
Johnson, 34, served as a paratrooper in the American army before joining the police department in Garland, a Dallas suburb. Like other officers he carried a Glock 22 pistol as a sidearm, supported by a 12-bore shotgun and an AR15 semi-automatic rifle in his patrol car. In America he routinely confronted armed criminals and received 10 commendations for his bravery.
He came to Britain three years ago to live with his fiancée Louise, an IT consultant. He was able to join the Thames Valley force because of a change in regulations that lifted the bar on foreigners.
The couple are now married and Johnson has taken a short career break to look after their 18-month-old daughter Catherine. He said fatherhood had changed his perspective. “It would not be fair [to my family] to continue in a job that is being made more dangerous by a refusal to modernise,” he said.
It was an incident earlier this year that first caused Johnson to consider handing in his warrant card. He was on plainclothes CID duty when he was called to the Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading to interview a victim of domestic violence.
A woman had jumped out of a first-floor window to escape her violent boyfriend, paralysing her from the waist down. The boyfriend, a member of a drug gang, was already wanted by the police for attempted murder, after shooting someone in the back of the head in London.
Johnson and other plainclothes officers who went to the hospital were alerted that the boyfriend had telephoned to say he was coming to see her. They also received a warning that he might be armed.
According to Johnson, he wanted to arrest the man when he arrived, but was ordered by a senior officer not to do so because of the risk. The suspect escaped and it was two days before he was arrested.
“That was the first time I’d ever let someone wanted for attempted murder simply walk away from me,” said Johnson. “It went against everything I knew. I thought it was my duty to arrest these people.
“It seems that in Britain ordinary officers are instructed not to engage with dangerous criminals. But if police officers can’t engage with them, who can?” He is critical of Charles Clarke, the home secretary, who says he can see “no evidence” that arming officers would reduce the number of police fatalities. “With all respect to the home secretary, he has never answered a 999 call,” said Johnson.
Of Beshenivsky’s murder, he said: “I have been in exactly those situations on patrol in America and I have managed to arrest and disarm offenders without being harmed.”
In America, officers spend weeks learning how to cope with armed incidents. But in Britain, Johnson said, he was never shown how to handle or unload a firearm or told how to respond to an armed robbery. “Officers spend more time learning about how to process paperwork than dealing with violent situations. We are trained more like social workers than police officers.
“The training I received in Britain in dealing with armed incidents was virtually non-existent. It consisted of a 30-minute lecture from a firearms officer who said: ‘If you see the business end of a gun or anyone holding a gun . . . turn, run and get away as quickly as possible’.”
This apparent complacency was reinforced at his swearing-in ceremony when a senior Thames Valley officer told him and colleagues that they would not face the sort of dangerous incidents portrayed on The Bill, the television programme.
“I was surprised that he said we wouldn’t come into harm’s way. This went against everything I had learnt during my career,” said Johnson.
By contrast, the chief officer of Garland police department tells new recruits that it is his task to ensure they are prepared and equipped to face any threat.
Johnson accepted that America is more violent than Britain, with a gun culture contributing to a murder rate 17 times higher than here. He recognised, too, that many more police officers are murdered in America — 57 last year compared with just one here — proportionately about 11 times as many.
But he maintained that British police are far more exposed to danger when confronted with armed offenders than their US counterparts. He said he did not want all police armed — just the “first responders”, officers who, like Beshenivsky, are first on the scene of crimes. He believed this would mean arming about half of Britain’s 140,000 police.
A spokesman for Thames Valley police said: “PC Johnson is currently on a career break. These are his personal views and he did not discuss them with anyone before going to the press.”
David Leppard
A TEXAN patrol officer who became the first foreigner to join the British police is to resign after three years because he says policing is too dangerous here compared with America.
Ben Johnson, a 6ft 4in former paratrooper nicknamed Slim, has written to his chief constable asking to carry a Glock 17 handgun on his routine beat in Reading.
He said officers are dying unnecessarily because they are less well equipped and trained to protect themselves and the public than their American counterparts.
“The risks required to be taken by unarmed and poorly trained British police are too great for me to continue being a police officer and I will be resigning my commission in a few weeks,” said Johnson.
“I am tired of my colleagues dying when, if they were better trained and equipped, they would have a fighting chance of survival.”
Johnson’s decision was prompted by the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, a mother of three children and two step-children, who was shot during a robbery in Bradford last month. He said her death demonstrated the lack of training and equipment given to British police.
“Beshenivsky did the one thing that officers in America are trained not to do. She walked up to the front entrance of a business during an alarm call. If the incident had happened in America, she would never have done that. She would almost certainly have been alive today.”
Last week Johnson wrote to Sara Thornton, acting chief constable of Thames Valley police, asking to be armed on patrol. “If the chief authorises me to carry a pistol, then I will not be resigning,” he said. “But that is an impossibility. I now have the choice of continuing in a dangerous job, ill-trained and ill-equipped, or leaving the profession I have loved.”
Johnson, 34, served as a paratrooper in the American army before joining the police department in Garland, a Dallas suburb. Like other officers he carried a Glock 22 pistol as a sidearm, supported by a 12-bore shotgun and an AR15 semi-automatic rifle in his patrol car. In America he routinely confronted armed criminals and received 10 commendations for his bravery.
He came to Britain three years ago to live with his fiancée Louise, an IT consultant. He was able to join the Thames Valley force because of a change in regulations that lifted the bar on foreigners.
The couple are now married and Johnson has taken a short career break to look after their 18-month-old daughter Catherine. He said fatherhood had changed his perspective. “It would not be fair [to my family] to continue in a job that is being made more dangerous by a refusal to modernise,” he said.
It was an incident earlier this year that first caused Johnson to consider handing in his warrant card. He was on plainclothes CID duty when he was called to the Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading to interview a victim of domestic violence.
A woman had jumped out of a first-floor window to escape her violent boyfriend, paralysing her from the waist down. The boyfriend, a member of a drug gang, was already wanted by the police for attempted murder, after shooting someone in the back of the head in London.
Johnson and other plainclothes officers who went to the hospital were alerted that the boyfriend had telephoned to say he was coming to see her. They also received a warning that he might be armed.
According to Johnson, he wanted to arrest the man when he arrived, but was ordered by a senior officer not to do so because of the risk. The suspect escaped and it was two days before he was arrested.
“That was the first time I’d ever let someone wanted for attempted murder simply walk away from me,” said Johnson. “It went against everything I knew. I thought it was my duty to arrest these people.
“It seems that in Britain ordinary officers are instructed not to engage with dangerous criminals. But if police officers can’t engage with them, who can?” He is critical of Charles Clarke, the home secretary, who says he can see “no evidence” that arming officers would reduce the number of police fatalities. “With all respect to the home secretary, he has never answered a 999 call,” said Johnson.
Of Beshenivsky’s murder, he said: “I have been in exactly those situations on patrol in America and I have managed to arrest and disarm offenders without being harmed.”
In America, officers spend weeks learning how to cope with armed incidents. But in Britain, Johnson said, he was never shown how to handle or unload a firearm or told how to respond to an armed robbery. “Officers spend more time learning about how to process paperwork than dealing with violent situations. We are trained more like social workers than police officers.
“The training I received in Britain in dealing with armed incidents was virtually non-existent. It consisted of a 30-minute lecture from a firearms officer who said: ‘If you see the business end of a gun or anyone holding a gun . . . turn, run and get away as quickly as possible’.”
This apparent complacency was reinforced at his swearing-in ceremony when a senior Thames Valley officer told him and colleagues that they would not face the sort of dangerous incidents portrayed on The Bill, the television programme.
“I was surprised that he said we wouldn’t come into harm’s way. This went against everything I had learnt during my career,” said Johnson.
By contrast, the chief officer of Garland police department tells new recruits that it is his task to ensure they are prepared and equipped to face any threat.
Johnson accepted that America is more violent than Britain, with a gun culture contributing to a murder rate 17 times higher than here. He recognised, too, that many more police officers are murdered in America — 57 last year compared with just one here — proportionately about 11 times as many.
But he maintained that British police are far more exposed to danger when confronted with armed offenders than their US counterparts. He said he did not want all police armed — just the “first responders”, officers who, like Beshenivsky, are first on the scene of crimes. He believed this would mean arming about half of Britain’s 140,000 police.
A spokesman for Thames Valley police said: “PC Johnson is currently on a career break. These are his personal views and he did not discuss them with anyone before going to the press.”
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Why is it...
Why is it, that some people don't seem to understand that carrying a concealed pistol (legally that is) is not just a right, but also an obligation? As a Citizen of this great country, it is a right that was guaranteed to us in the Constitution. It is not given to us by the Constitution.
The right to keep and bear arms is what some call a "God given right." Well, if not not a religious person, how about we call it a Natural right. We all, every single one of us have a natural right of self defense. To help excersize that right, we need the proper tools. Before the advent of firearms, the proper tools were swords, bows, or whatever other weapons it might take to adequately defend our lives and those of our family.
Some time in the future, I would not be surprised if the proper tool is a laser weapon, or some other futuristic device. But for now, it is firearms.
To take away my gun, would be like taking the jack out of my car. Or the fire extinguisher out of my house. Who ever does such a thing is a criminal, and should be punished.
And that's all I have to say for now on that subject.
The right to keep and bear arms is what some call a "God given right." Well, if not not a religious person, how about we call it a Natural right. We all, every single one of us have a natural right of self defense. To help excersize that right, we need the proper tools. Before the advent of firearms, the proper tools were swords, bows, or whatever other weapons it might take to adequately defend our lives and those of our family.
Some time in the future, I would not be surprised if the proper tool is a laser weapon, or some other futuristic device. But for now, it is firearms.
To take away my gun, would be like taking the jack out of my car. Or the fire extinguisher out of my house. Who ever does such a thing is a criminal, and should be punished.
And that's all I have to say for now on that subject.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
What a trip!
Ok, so we didn't get started until about 4:00PM on Monday 11/14/05. This was the fault of the owners who decided at the last minute to go shopping for the guys staying at Baton Rouge. They even had the gall to ask us to help unload the stuff!!
"Sorry, I'm under doctor's orders." ;-) Anyway, we got started, and we're off.
First thing, I am NOT going through Illinois. Why? Simple. I'm taking my gun back with me. And every state I intend to pass through will recognize my Michigan concealed Pistol license. Illinois does not, since they don't even "allow" their own citizens to pack a gun off their own property.
So, we go through Louisiana (we started there), Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas (by mistake, we got slightly lost around Memphis), Kentucky, and Indiana. We FINALLY got home, about 10:00PM. We might have got here sooner, but we made a short stop in Clarksville, TN, to visit some friends of my co-driver. That was ok. I got to sleep about 20 minutes or so, and it kept me going for most of the rest of the trip.
Man, was I EVER glad to get home!
"Sorry, I'm under doctor's orders." ;-) Anyway, we got started, and we're off.
First thing, I am NOT going through Illinois. Why? Simple. I'm taking my gun back with me. And every state I intend to pass through will recognize my Michigan concealed Pistol license. Illinois does not, since they don't even "allow" their own citizens to pack a gun off their own property.
So, we go through Louisiana (we started there), Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas (by mistake, we got slightly lost around Memphis), Kentucky, and Indiana. We FINALLY got home, about 10:00PM. We might have got here sooner, but we made a short stop in Clarksville, TN, to visit some friends of my co-driver. That was ok. I got to sleep about 20 minutes or so, and it kept me going for most of the rest of the trip.
Man, was I EVER glad to get home!
Sunday, November 13, 2005
The long drive
I was gonna take a bus, but I've been offered the chance to drive a company vehicle back to Grand Rapids, along with another fellow, who is being sent back for a different reason (they fired him by making him quit.). Hey, it beats two days on a bus.
In any event, we're supposed to leave tomorrow morning.
In any event, we're supposed to leave tomorrow morning.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Out of the hospital and going home
Well, two days later, I'm free at last. But, since I'm type II diabetic, the doctors think it would be better if I were not in the "atmosphere" that is currently surrounding New Orleans. So I get to go home. The only question is "How?"
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Ok, it's worse
Earlier this morning, at the site, I thought my right leg was swollen from water weight gain. I've had this type of problem before. However, this afternoon, when I woke up, I noticed a very bad red spot on my right shin that covered most of the front part of it.
I told my boss, he took me to Touro Infirmary. Now I'm a "guest" there for at leat 24-48 hours. This sucks.
I told my boss, he took me to Touro Infirmary. Now I'm a "guest" there for at leat 24-48 hours. This sucks.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
FEMA F**kers??
Ok, so I'm on roving patrol, "Forrest" is on the exit gate, and Jason is on the entrance gate. I'm over at the entrance talking to Jason when this taxi manages to get past Forrest, (there was a truck exiting at the same time between Forrest and the taxi) and makes a quick dash over by where some of the Shaw guys are inspecting a trailer.
I go over to find out what's going on, and this guy is complaining to Shaw. It turns out, he got his FEMA trailer repossessed by FEMA. It seems he told a little lie when he said he had permission from the lot owner to put the trailer where it had been. Well, he didn't have permission, FEMA found out, and they took back the trailer. So, now he wants to get a "FEMA f**ker." We tried to explain to him, everyone at the site is a contractor. Unfortunately, this guy has a one track mind, and it's got some bad rails too.
Apparently he did understand the idea that if he didn't get off the property of his own free will, he'd be spending the rest of the night in the Kenner city jail.
I go over to find out what's going on, and this guy is complaining to Shaw. It turns out, he got his FEMA trailer repossessed by FEMA. It seems he told a little lie when he said he had permission from the lot owner to put the trailer where it had been. Well, he didn't have permission, FEMA found out, and they took back the trailer. So, now he wants to get a "FEMA f**ker." We tried to explain to him, everyone at the site is a contractor. Unfortunately, this guy has a one track mind, and it's got some bad rails too.
Apparently he did understand the idea that if he didn't get off the property of his own free will, he'd be spending the rest of the night in the Kenner city jail.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Ouch
I discovered a busted blister on the second toe of my right foot. Time to stop wearing boots and go to my Dr. Scholls shoes.
Other wise, it's ok. I also lost the toenail from my big toe on my left foot. I suppose it could be worse.
Almost forgot to mention, Art got fired. Seems he was trying to talk some of the other guards into leaving and going to Wackenhut along with him. He got a bus ticket home. Too bad. He was a good guy to work with and a lot of fun.
Other wise, it's ok. I also lost the toenail from my big toe on my left foot. I suppose it could be worse.
Almost forgot to mention, Art got fired. Seems he was trying to talk some of the other guards into leaving and going to Wackenhut along with him. He got a bus ticket home. Too bad. He was a good guy to work with and a lot of fun.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
I have a new nickname!
Ok. So this post isn't as bad as I thought it might be. And the old man of the post, Art, has given me a new nickname...Shrek. Ok, so maybe I'm a bit uglier than I thought I was.
Anyway, now I get to guard one of the staging lots that Shaw uses for the trailers that FEMA is using for temporary housing. These are not too bad looking either.
Anyway, now I get to guard one of the staging lots that Shaw uses for the trailers that FEMA is using for temporary housing. These are not too bad looking either.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Dreams dashed on the beach
So much for going home. It went from 3 vans to 1, and only the driver (not me) is going back. It seems they need me back at New Orleans. Never mind I only got 3 hours sleep today, after working all night, last night, driving half way to Baton Rouge, only to turn back, then go back to Baton Rouge. What a terrible pain in the butt. It wouldn't be so bad, but on top of everything else, I had to wait over an hour in Baton Rouge for them to bring someone else back from a job site so I could take him back to New Orleans too.
Then, I get to go out to a site by NO International Airport. Half dead, from lack of sleep, with my feet killing me. I have to ask myself, is this really worth $1200.00 a week?....well, maybe it is. ;)
Then, I get to go out to a site by NO International Airport. Half dead, from lack of sleep, with my feet killing me. I have to ask myself, is this really worth $1200.00 a week?....well, maybe it is. ;)
A chance to dream, perhaps
Now it looks like I'm going to be taking someone, and a van back to Grand Rapids, picking up some more people, and coming back on Monday/Tuesday. I like this. It will give me a few hours at home with the wife and kids.
Qualification day
It seems today is to be a long day for me. I'm off to qualify for the armed guard status I've already been assigned to. Not to worry, it seems there's a 30 day grace period that I have to get the training done, AFTER I start working as an armed guard. Mighty nice of them. When I worked in Chicago, Illinois had no such grace period. You had to take the 20 hour course first, THEN you could work as an armed guard. Here, in Louisana, it's a 12 hour course, but they teach it in about 1.5 hours.
What do I care, I could do most of this with my eyes closed anyway.
What do I care, I could do most of this with my eyes closed anyway.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Nice easy job
Ok, so I got a slight reprieve. It seems the hotel that we're staying in doesn't have the staff to run a full desk 24/7, and they want a Security Officer on at night. Since I'm not doing anything else, it fell to me. Granted, it's only a 9 hour shift. But that's 9 hours more than I had 4 hours ago.
Another day, NOT another dime
It seems the NOPD's hipocrisy knows no bounds. Our 2 man post at the Hampton Inn has become a one man post, per shift. I hope NOPD is happy, they didn't gain anything. None of our men were replaced by NOPD. It makes little sense. But I guess they don't call New Orleans "the Big Easy" for nothing. As for me, I still don't have any assignment. I'm just sitting around, twiddling my thumbs. Oh well.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Nice place, but...
Well, the first 12 hours went fine. Then we found out that our site went from a 4 man per shift post to 2 men per shift. It seems some of the NOPD who were staying at the Hampton Inn felt we were cutting in on their territory. Not even 2 hours after they started, half of the day shift was sent packing by arrangement with Shaw. At least they got paid for the whole day.
Normally I wouldn't complain, but instead of being salary, like we were lead to believe on the phone, we get paid hourly. This means if we don't get 7 days at 12 hours each day, we don't make the promised $1200.00 a week. Oh well.
Normally I wouldn't complain, but instead of being salary, like we were lead to believe on the phone, we get paid hourly. This means if we don't get 7 days at 12 hours each day, we don't make the promised $1200.00 a week. Oh well.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
New location, new job assignment
Well, shortly after arriving at the lovely Garden District Hotel, in N.O., I'm told I have 5 minutes to get ready for work. It took me 6, but that's ok.
Anyway, we go to the Hampton Inn, down by the convention center. Four of us are to guard two rooms that Shaw has computer equipment in, and watch cars in the parking lot and on the street. It's a boring job, but someone has to do it. We were about 20 minutes late, but it was a difficult place to find.
Anyway, we go to the Hampton Inn, down by the convention center. Four of us are to guard two rooms that Shaw has computer equipment in, and watch cars in the parking lot and on the street. It's a boring job, but someone has to do it. We were about 20 minutes late, but it was a difficult place to find.
A job, finally? Nope, relocation, again
Well, Wednesday brings a new day, and new challenges. When I first called about the add I saw in the Lansing State Journal, I was told we'd be living in tents, sleeping on cots, and so on. In fact, the term "military style living" was tossed at me. Well, I was in the Military, and our cots kept us more than 1.5 inches off the ground! Well, I guess it's better than sleeping ON the ground, but just barely.
Of course, the other comment was, I was to work as an Armed guard (bring your own gun) and I'd be paid $1200.00 a week. Also, the shifts were 12 hours on, 12 hours off, and I'd be working 7 days a week until staffing was up to the necessary levels. What I wasn't told in either the phone interview, nor the face-to-face interview, was that IF I should be so lucky to get a day off, my pay would suffer the consequences. THAT, I didn't hear until I arrived in Baton Rouge.
Oh, and since there were no "armed" positions in Baton Rouge (the reason why is still fuzzy), I'd only be paid $1100.00 a week. Ok, it's still nothing to sneeze at. Anyway, by early afternoon, I now have a job assignment that I'll be going to tonight at about 7:00PM.
3:00PM rolls around and I hear yelling outside my tent. Aside from the 3 guys who did not have a job assignment, they're calling for more volunteers to go to New Orleans. I stick my hand up and get picked. "Pack your stuff and get in the van."
Of course, the other comment was, I was to work as an Armed guard (bring your own gun) and I'd be paid $1200.00 a week. Also, the shifts were 12 hours on, 12 hours off, and I'd be working 7 days a week until staffing was up to the necessary levels. What I wasn't told in either the phone interview, nor the face-to-face interview, was that IF I should be so lucky to get a day off, my pay would suffer the consequences. THAT, I didn't hear until I arrived in Baton Rouge.
Oh, and since there were no "armed" positions in Baton Rouge (the reason why is still fuzzy), I'd only be paid $1100.00 a week. Ok, it's still nothing to sneeze at. Anyway, by early afternoon, I now have a job assignment that I'll be going to tonight at about 7:00PM.
3:00PM rolls around and I hear yelling outside my tent. Aside from the 3 guys who did not have a job assignment, they're calling for more volunteers to go to New Orleans. I stick my hand up and get picked. "Pack your stuff and get in the van."
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Slight detour
After a drive of 27 hours, we finally arrived...in Baton Rouge. We get to sleep in 4 man tents, in our sleeping bags. I guess we'll find out tomorrow what happens.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Off to New Orleans
Well, the day has finally come, and I'm off to the Big Easy. I was told we'd be leaving at or around 8:00PM. Apparently there's a large window in "around."
Still, this should be an interesting experience.
Still, this should be an interesting experience.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Arizona women pick guns
Say that citizens need weapons to defend themselves
Mirsada Buric-Adam
The Daily Courier
Oct. 28, 2005 12:00 AM
PRESCOTT - Judy Dutko, Jane Anne Hulen and Christy Foote believe the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to defend themselves. And they exercise that right in their daily lives.
To abide by Arizona gun laws, these women have obtained concealed-weapon permits to be able to carry their guns in their purses, for example.
In 2003, more than 13,500 women had concealed weapons permits, 20 percent of the total, according to a 2004 Arizona Republic review of concealed-weapon permit data maintained by the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
And the state just made it easier to get a permit. On Aug. 12, a new law took effect that made a license for carrying a concealed weapon last longer and requires less training to get.
For some women, carrying a concealed weapon is a priority.
Dutko, a retired U.S. history teacher, said when she moved from California to Prescott eight years ago, she did three things: registered to vote, joined a local church and obtained a concealed-weapon permit.
Although Dutko believes that the Second Amendment should guarantee her permit to bear arms anywhere in the country, in California the gun laws said differently, she said.
"They don't let people to defend themselves," she said.
During the Rodney King riots, she carried a gun in her purse for protection, and if police had caught her, she would have been an outlaw, she said.
Foote, a 29-year-old real estate agent who owns a Glock 9 mm pistol, believes crimes against people often happen before police are able to act.
"They do not do anything until there is a problem," she said. "If you have your own gun, you have a plan of your own."
In addition, she believes that women are still at a disadvantage even if they take self-defense classes that do not involve firearms because men are naturally stronger than women.
"You rarely have to fire a gun," said Hulen, a 52-year-old marketing director at Gunsite in Paulden. She carries a holstered 1911 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol. "You just have to show it. That is all it takes."
Hulen, Dutko and Foote, who are also members of the National Rifle Association, agree that classes and hands-on practice are necessary not only to become familiar and more skilled with firearms, but also to become more aware of your environment.
Mirsada Buric-Adam
The Daily Courier
Oct. 28, 2005 12:00 AM
PRESCOTT - Judy Dutko, Jane Anne Hulen and Christy Foote believe the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to defend themselves. And they exercise that right in their daily lives.
To abide by Arizona gun laws, these women have obtained concealed-weapon permits to be able to carry their guns in their purses, for example.
In 2003, more than 13,500 women had concealed weapons permits, 20 percent of the total, according to a 2004 Arizona Republic review of concealed-weapon permit data maintained by the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
And the state just made it easier to get a permit. On Aug. 12, a new law took effect that made a license for carrying a concealed weapon last longer and requires less training to get.
For some women, carrying a concealed weapon is a priority.
Dutko, a retired U.S. history teacher, said when she moved from California to Prescott eight years ago, she did three things: registered to vote, joined a local church and obtained a concealed-weapon permit.
Although Dutko believes that the Second Amendment should guarantee her permit to bear arms anywhere in the country, in California the gun laws said differently, she said.
"They don't let people to defend themselves," she said.
During the Rodney King riots, she carried a gun in her purse for protection, and if police had caught her, she would have been an outlaw, she said.
Foote, a 29-year-old real estate agent who owns a Glock 9 mm pistol, believes crimes against people often happen before police are able to act.
"They do not do anything until there is a problem," she said. "If you have your own gun, you have a plan of your own."
In addition, she believes that women are still at a disadvantage even if they take self-defense classes that do not involve firearms because men are naturally stronger than women.
"You rarely have to fire a gun," said Hulen, a 52-year-old marketing director at Gunsite in Paulden. She carries a holstered 1911 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol. "You just have to show it. That is all it takes."
Hulen, Dutko and Foote, who are also members of the National Rifle Association, agree that classes and hands-on practice are necessary not only to become familiar and more skilled with firearms, but also to become more aware of your environment.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The doomsday provision
The doomsday provision
By John Stossel
Oct 19, 2005
Co-anchor, 20/20
Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.
"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.
Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.
I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."
"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."
Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.
A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."
What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"
In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.
Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.
And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.
What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
By John Stossel
Oct 19, 2005
Co-anchor, 20/20
Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.
"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.
Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.
I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."
"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."
Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.
A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."
What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"
In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.
Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.
And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.
What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
Monday, October 17, 2005
New Orleans, Here I come!!
Revision: On October 31, 2005, I will be traveling to the Big Easy to work as a security guard. And no, not as some old poor under paid guard either. I'm getting $1200.00 a week! Don't you just love government contracts. Anyway, if I don't respond to any remarks or replies here, you'll know why.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Look at me!! I'm a TV star!!!...well, almost.
Anyone who lives in the Lansing Area and get's Comcast cable, I will be on a local public access show on channel 16 tonight at 6:00PM. The show is called Take it or Leave it, and the hostess is Mia Tioli.
Any way, just thought I'd mention it.
Any way, just thought I'd mention it.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Senators Schumer and Feinstein Discovered with Firearms
Senators Schumer and Feinstein Discovered with Firearms
Posted by JimKouri on Friday September 23, 2005 at 8:16 pm MST
by Jim Kouri, CPP
A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.
Unfortunately most states -- especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings -- continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.
At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat -- a right they wish to deny other citizens -- met with limited results.
Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of the US Congress -- slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.
"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much -- he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.
And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco -- an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.
Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.
Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O'Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn't it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others, and he's a columnist for TheConservativeVoice.Com, AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. Kouri holds a bachelor of science in criminal justice and master of arts in public administration and he's a board certified protection professional. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
Posted by JimKouri on Friday September 23, 2005 at 8:16 pm MST
by Jim Kouri, CPP
A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.
Unfortunately most states -- especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings -- continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.
At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat -- a right they wish to deny other citizens -- met with limited results.
Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of the US Congress -- slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.
"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much -- he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.
And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco -- an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.
Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.
Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O'Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn't it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others, and he's a columnist for TheConservativeVoice.Com, AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. Kouri holds a bachelor of science in criminal justice and master of arts in public administration and he's a board certified protection professional. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
Saturday, October 01, 2005
The Assault on Self-Defense
From NationalLedger.com
CommentaryGun Control: The Assault on Self-Defense
By Doug Hagin Sep 29, 2005
The debate over gun control is decades old, it is also going to continue to rage on for decades to come. For many who do not really take sides or think the debate is just another partisan political fight which does not effect them, there is a new shining example of how there is no escaping this debate.
The issue of gun control does indeed affect all of us. It does not matter if you own no guns or 100 guns. Whether or not you are a member of the National Rifle Association or the type of person who would never feel comfortable owning a gun matters not. The real essence of the battle between gun control advocates and gun rights advocates is not over guns.
In the end, it is all about the right for you and me to defend ourselves.
Now on the surface this might seem a stretch. Consider however the most important aspect of gun ownership. The ability to protect your property, loved ones. The ability to defend your very life. There is no more essential and basic human right than the right to self-defense. Without this right, your right to live feely, speak or write freely, or live as you choose are meaningless.
Seven years ago, I came face to face with a masked man in an alley as I left work. He had a gun and a desire to do me no good! What if the gun control advocates had their way? How would I have fared that night? Considering that, I was cornered and unable to flee, or face my assailant on equal terms I might not be writing this at all. I might very well be a statistic.
Fortunately, for me the laws in Texas DO allow its residents to be armed. I was able, although cornered to have an equal footing. Because I was armed, and prepared, my attacker decided that his intentions were not worth dealing with my Colt.45. One criminal running away and one innocent, law-abiding citizen safe seems like a pretty good end does it not.
Not according to gun control advocates. According to their desires, I should have been forced to run instead of facing down the miscreant criminal. Got that? If you are minding your own business and are assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gin control crowd wants the onus to be on you to flee, or retreat, or do anything EXCEPT stand your ground with a firearm.
How morally and intellectually backwards can these folks be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.
Forget the gun control advocates impassioned pleas for a “safer” nation. Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans have proven to decrease violent crime time and again. It is not violent crime the gun control advocates have issue with. It is, instead, the right for us to defend ourselves.
For some definitive evidence of this consider a recently passed law in Florida that allows citizens to stand their ground and use deadly force when assaulted on the street or any other location other than their home. Gun control advocates were incensed that such a law could pass. In their ideology you, the law-abiding must run, even if it puts you at greater risk, rather than use your gun to stop the criminal who is trying to rob, rape, or kill you or your family.
Now the state of Michigan is following Florida’s lead. They are trying to pass a law, which closely mirrors the Florida statute. Want to take a guess who is trying to prevent the passage of this law, which respects the right to self-defense? Try the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, headed by gun grabber Sarah Brady.
In short, the Michigan law would remove the requirement that people being attacked must retreat before responding with deadly force. It would allow people who feel threatened, even in a public area, to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without facing criminal or civil prosecution. Seems like a common sense of legislation doesn’t it?Not to the anti self-defense crowd on the left though.
Consider for a moment some of the comments by these folks. "There are a lot more guns on the street and then you're going to get the right to use them willy-nilly? That doesn't bode real well," This, of course, is the same tired argument Sarah Brady has always used to oppose concealed carry laws. If Americans carry guns, they go nuts and shoot everything that moves. Nothing could be further removed from reality! Over 30 states have concealed carry laws and those states have gotten MORE not LESS safe!
Now consider this quote from Shikha Hamilton, who heads the Michigan chapter of Million Mom March. "The scariest part is that you're removing the duty to retreat. That's really there to preserve life," said Hamilton. "And if you take someone's life you should have to answer to the police. ... No one is in jail right now for protecting their family."
Got that my friends? YOU the innocent should have to run, lest you defend yourself and harm a criminal! Moreover, if you dare harm a violent felon YOU should face prison time! Once more how backwards and morally retarded are the gun control zealots? They want to punish those who defend their lives!
CommentaryGun Control: The Assault on Self-Defense
By Doug Hagin Sep 29, 2005
The debate over gun control is decades old, it is also going to continue to rage on for decades to come. For many who do not really take sides or think the debate is just another partisan political fight which does not effect them, there is a new shining example of how there is no escaping this debate.
The issue of gun control does indeed affect all of us. It does not matter if you own no guns or 100 guns. Whether or not you are a member of the National Rifle Association or the type of person who would never feel comfortable owning a gun matters not. The real essence of the battle between gun control advocates and gun rights advocates is not over guns.
In the end, it is all about the right for you and me to defend ourselves.
Now on the surface this might seem a stretch. Consider however the most important aspect of gun ownership. The ability to protect your property, loved ones. The ability to defend your very life. There is no more essential and basic human right than the right to self-defense. Without this right, your right to live feely, speak or write freely, or live as you choose are meaningless.
Seven years ago, I came face to face with a masked man in an alley as I left work. He had a gun and a desire to do me no good! What if the gun control advocates had their way? How would I have fared that night? Considering that, I was cornered and unable to flee, or face my assailant on equal terms I might not be writing this at all. I might very well be a statistic.
Fortunately, for me the laws in Texas DO allow its residents to be armed. I was able, although cornered to have an equal footing. Because I was armed, and prepared, my attacker decided that his intentions were not worth dealing with my Colt.45. One criminal running away and one innocent, law-abiding citizen safe seems like a pretty good end does it not.
Not according to gun control advocates. According to their desires, I should have been forced to run instead of facing down the miscreant criminal. Got that? If you are minding your own business and are assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gin control crowd wants the onus to be on you to flee, or retreat, or do anything EXCEPT stand your ground with a firearm.
How morally and intellectually backwards can these folks be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.
Forget the gun control advocates impassioned pleas for a “safer” nation. Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans have proven to decrease violent crime time and again. It is not violent crime the gun control advocates have issue with. It is, instead, the right for us to defend ourselves.
For some definitive evidence of this consider a recently passed law in Florida that allows citizens to stand their ground and use deadly force when assaulted on the street or any other location other than their home. Gun control advocates were incensed that such a law could pass. In their ideology you, the law-abiding must run, even if it puts you at greater risk, rather than use your gun to stop the criminal who is trying to rob, rape, or kill you or your family.
Now the state of Michigan is following Florida’s lead. They are trying to pass a law, which closely mirrors the Florida statute. Want to take a guess who is trying to prevent the passage of this law, which respects the right to self-defense? Try the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, headed by gun grabber Sarah Brady.
In short, the Michigan law would remove the requirement that people being attacked must retreat before responding with deadly force. It would allow people who feel threatened, even in a public area, to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without facing criminal or civil prosecution. Seems like a common sense of legislation doesn’t it?Not to the anti self-defense crowd on the left though.
Consider for a moment some of the comments by these folks. "There are a lot more guns on the street and then you're going to get the right to use them willy-nilly? That doesn't bode real well," This, of course, is the same tired argument Sarah Brady has always used to oppose concealed carry laws. If Americans carry guns, they go nuts and shoot everything that moves. Nothing could be further removed from reality! Over 30 states have concealed carry laws and those states have gotten MORE not LESS safe!
Now consider this quote from Shikha Hamilton, who heads the Michigan chapter of Million Mom March. "The scariest part is that you're removing the duty to retreat. That's really there to preserve life," said Hamilton. "And if you take someone's life you should have to answer to the police. ... No one is in jail right now for protecting their family."
Got that my friends? YOU the innocent should have to run, lest you defend yourself and harm a criminal! Moreover, if you dare harm a violent felon YOU should face prison time! Once more how backwards and morally retarded are the gun control zealots? They want to punish those who defend their lives!
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Good news, bad news
Last week, while cleaning my 13 year old 9mm PT-92, I thought I found a crack in the lower frame. I called Taurus USA customer support and they said, "send it in. If it does have a crack we'll replace the pistol." At first I'm thinking YEAH!! I send in a 13 year old gun and get a new one in place of it.
Then I started thinking, I've had this for 13 years. I've used it for work and fun and it's now one of my CCW pieces. And, you can't get the wood grip panels with the gold Taurus medallion in it any more. The replacement would likely have either rubber, or rosewood grips, with no medallion. Damn, and these would not work on a current PT-92, as the safety has changed since then. DRAT.
Well, that was last week. This week, I go to a friend, who's an FFL dealer, and I was gonna have him send it in for me. He can get cheaper shipping. He also works with metal. And he looked at it and said, it's not cracked. It's a machine marking. He has better optics for this sort of thing, so he showed me. And sure enough, it's not a crack!
So, bad news is, I don't get a new gun. Good news is, I get to keep my 13 year old PT-92, special NON-Replaceable wood grip panels and all. :D
Some might ask, why all the concern. This pistol has saved my life 3 different times, just by my having it with me. It has never fired a shot in anger. All it had to do was show it's "teeth," and the bad guys gave up, ran away, or suddenly remembered a prior engagement. :D
This is the pistol in question.
Then I started thinking, I've had this for 13 years. I've used it for work and fun and it's now one of my CCW pieces. And, you can't get the wood grip panels with the gold Taurus medallion in it any more. The replacement would likely have either rubber, or rosewood grips, with no medallion. Damn, and these would not work on a current PT-92, as the safety has changed since then. DRAT.
Well, that was last week. This week, I go to a friend, who's an FFL dealer, and I was gonna have him send it in for me. He can get cheaper shipping. He also works with metal. And he looked at it and said, it's not cracked. It's a machine marking. He has better optics for this sort of thing, so he showed me. And sure enough, it's not a crack!
So, bad news is, I don't get a new gun. Good news is, I get to keep my 13 year old PT-92, special NON-Replaceable wood grip panels and all. :D
Some might ask, why all the concern. This pistol has saved my life 3 different times, just by my having it with me. It has never fired a shot in anger. All it had to do was show it's "teeth," and the bad guys gave up, ran away, or suddenly remembered a prior engagement. :D
This is the pistol in question.
Monday, September 26, 2005
A bit of advice from the grave
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
-Sigmund Freud
Second Amendment Hypocrites
Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein
Jim Kouri, CPP
(Jim Kouri, CPP is fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and served in law enforcement for over 25 years. He writes for many police magazines such as Police Times. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. His website is located at http://jimkouri.us )
By Jim Kouri, CPP
September 23, 2005
A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.
Unfortunately most states -- especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings -- continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.
At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat -- a right they wish to deny other citizens -- met with limited results.
Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of the US Congress -- slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.
"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much -- he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.
And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco -- an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.
Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.
Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O'Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck on national television because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn't it comforting to know these Liberals are looking out for us?
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Some blogs, man
What is about these adult blogs that re-direct to someplace else? I mean, there's this one blog that seems to always show up on the "ten most recently published blogs." What is it with that? And the re-direct happens so fast, you don't know what hit you.
I did manage to stop the page before it re-directed me. But there was no "Flag" button to notify eBlogger about this blog site.
And I don't really see any other way to tell anyone. Personally, I think it sucks. But I don't think there's anything I can do about it.
I did manage to stop the page before it re-directed me. But there was no "Flag" button to notify eBlogger about this blog site.
And I don't really see any other way to tell anyone. Personally, I think it sucks. But I don't think there's anything I can do about it.
Seems Scotland is more Violent than the USA!
It seems that in spite of the guns, the USA is a safer place to be than...Scotland??
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie (of Chicken Run fame)
A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.
The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-sexual crimes of violence and serious assaults.
Violent crime has doubled in Scotland over the past 20 years and levels, per head of population, are now comparable with cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Tbilisi.
The attacks have been fuelled by a "booze and blades" culture in the west of Scotland which has claimed more than 160 lives over the past five years. Since January there have been 13 murders, 145 attempted murders and 1,100 serious assaults involving knives in the west of Scotland. The problem is made worse by sectarian violence, with hospitals reporting higher admissions following Old Firm matches.
David Ritchie, an accident and emergency consultant at Glasgow's Victoria Infirmary, said that the figures were a national disgrace. "I am embarrassed as a Scot that we are seeing this level of violence. Politicians must do something about this problem. This is a serious public health issue. Violence is a cancer in this part of the world," he said.
Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the Strathclyde Police's violence reduction unit, said the problem was chronic and restricting access to drink and limiting the sale of knives would at least reduce the problem.
The study, by the UN's crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.
Scotland was eighth for total crime, 13th for property crime, 12th for robbery and 14th for sexual assault. New Zealand had the most property crimes and sexual assaults, while Poland had the most robberies.
Chief Constable Peter Wilson, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, questioned the figures. "It must be near impossible to compare assault figures from one country to the next based on phone calls," he said.
"We have been doing extensive research into violent crime in Scotland for some years now and this has shown that in the vast majority of cases, victims of violent crime are known to each other. We do accept, however, that, despite your chances of being a victim of assault being low in Scotland, a problem does exist."
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie (of Chicken Run fame)
A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.
The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-sexual crimes of violence and serious assaults.
Violent crime has doubled in Scotland over the past 20 years and levels, per head of population, are now comparable with cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Tbilisi.
The attacks have been fuelled by a "booze and blades" culture in the west of Scotland which has claimed more than 160 lives over the past five years. Since January there have been 13 murders, 145 attempted murders and 1,100 serious assaults involving knives in the west of Scotland. The problem is made worse by sectarian violence, with hospitals reporting higher admissions following Old Firm matches.
David Ritchie, an accident and emergency consultant at Glasgow's Victoria Infirmary, said that the figures were a national disgrace. "I am embarrassed as a Scot that we are seeing this level of violence. Politicians must do something about this problem. This is a serious public health issue. Violence is a cancer in this part of the world," he said.
Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the Strathclyde Police's violence reduction unit, said the problem was chronic and restricting access to drink and limiting the sale of knives would at least reduce the problem.
The study, by the UN's crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.
Scotland was eighth for total crime, 13th for property crime, 12th for robbery and 14th for sexual assault. New Zealand had the most property crimes and sexual assaults, while Poland had the most robberies.
Chief Constable Peter Wilson, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, questioned the figures. "It must be near impossible to compare assault figures from one country to the next based on phone calls," he said.
"We have been doing extensive research into violent crime in Scotland for some years now and this has shown that in the vast majority of cases, victims of violent crime are known to each other. We do accept, however, that, despite your chances of being a victim of assault being low in Scotland, a problem does exist."
Friday, September 23, 2005
New Orleans gun confiscations STOPPED!!
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 12, No. 38 9/23/05
MAJOR VICTORY FOR FIREARMS OWNERS
AND FREEDOM IN LOUISIANA
On Thursday, NRA filed a motion in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking a temporary restraining order to block authorities from confiscating law-abiding citizens' firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Today, we are happy to report, the Court sided with NRA and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable, law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Federal Judge Jay Zainey granted NRA's motion for an indefinite temporary restraining order and ordered those in power to cease and desist gun seizures. The authorities were also ordered to return guns seized by them or their agents to anyone "...who lawfully possessed them, upon presentation of identification and execution of a receipt therefore."
Commenting on the ruling, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, "This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court's ruling is instant relief for the victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists that seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives."
Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."
The controversy erupted when The New York Times reported that the New Orleans superintendent of police directed that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns and that "only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons." ABC News quoted New Orleans' deputy police chief, saying, "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."
NRA also pledges that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to its rightful law-abiding owner.
Although this is great victory, we still need to hear from members who have been a victim of this gun confiscation initiative. If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call (888) 414-6333. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, we are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only.
For additional information, please visit www.NRAILA.org, or e-mail us at ila-contact@nrahq.org.
MAJOR VICTORY FOR FIREARMS OWNERS
AND FREEDOM IN LOUISIANA
On Thursday, NRA filed a motion in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking a temporary restraining order to block authorities from confiscating law-abiding citizens' firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Today, we are happy to report, the Court sided with NRA and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable, law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Federal Judge Jay Zainey granted NRA's motion for an indefinite temporary restraining order and ordered those in power to cease and desist gun seizures. The authorities were also ordered to return guns seized by them or their agents to anyone "...who lawfully possessed them, upon presentation of identification and execution of a receipt therefore."
Commenting on the ruling, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, "This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court's ruling is instant relief for the victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists that seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives."
Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."
The controversy erupted when The New York Times reported that the New Orleans superintendent of police directed that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns and that "only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons." ABC News quoted New Orleans' deputy police chief, saying, "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."
NRA also pledges that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to its rightful law-abiding owner.
Although this is great victory, we still need to hear from members who have been a victim of this gun confiscation initiative. If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call (888) 414-6333. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, we are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only.
For additional information, please visit www.NRAILA.org, or e-mail us at ila-contact@nrahq.org.
Monday, September 19, 2005
John Lott on Wikipedia
In case you haven't noticed, there's this thing called Wikipedia. This is a "free" encyclopedia that "EVERYONE" can edit. The problem with that, say you're President Bush. First, you not supposed to have input on articles about yourself. Your friends can say what they want, so can your enemies.
THIS is the problem with Wikipedia. This is also the problem with the article there on John Lott. His enemies (they prefer to be called critics, but I prefer to call a spade a spade.) have dominated that article for a very long time. Any time any supporter/friend of Dr. Lott's tries to set the record straight, his "critics" always revert the article back to how it was. With all the inaccuracies, half-truths, and bald faced lies. I have been trying lately, to put some "minor" edits in. A few have made it, most get taken out, or heavily edited by the "critics."
So, if you should go to Wikipedia, and just happen to look up the article on John Lott, keep in mind that mostly his critics hold sway in there, and not necessarily the truth.
THIS is the problem with Wikipedia. This is also the problem with the article there on John Lott. His enemies (they prefer to be called critics, but I prefer to call a spade a spade.) have dominated that article for a very long time. Any time any supporter/friend of Dr. Lott's tries to set the record straight, his "critics" always revert the article back to how it was. With all the inaccuracies, half-truths, and bald faced lies. I have been trying lately, to put some "minor" edits in. A few have made it, most get taken out, or heavily edited by the "critics."
So, if you should go to Wikipedia, and just happen to look up the article on John Lott, keep in mind that mostly his critics hold sway in there, and not necessarily the truth.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Finally fired the Taurus 617B
Well, I took the 617 to the Range Friday, fired 50 rounds through it, and it did pretty well. As I expected, while I shot well using .38 Special +P ammo, I was barely able to hit the target when I loaded full power magnum loads. Still, the revolver was managable with the magnum ammo. I think I just need more practice to learn how to hit the target when using magnum ammo. If nothing else, I should be able to scare the crap out of anyone, should I choose to use magnum instead of the .38 Special +P that I currently use in it.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Question
Does anyone really even read this??? Ok, so someone does, but why do I get SPAM comments, you know. The typical, "Your blog is great! Come visit my site that has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything YOU are interested in." Unfortunately, this is forcing me to stop allowing comments.
Tuesday
You should never blog when you're under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Friends don't let other friends blog drunk!
Thursday, September 01, 2005
MCRGO, heed thine own words!!
MCRGO, heed thine own words!!
In the latest bimonthly issue of "On Target," on page 26, Mr. Dale Shantz ended his column, "President's Parting Shot" with a paragraph that contained the following sentences:
....Spread the word. Talk to friends. Ask tough questions of local politicians.....
Why is it, MCRGO expects you and I to ask tough questions of politicians, yet the leadership of MCRGO themselves balk at answering tough questions from the membership?? What good will it do us to ask tough questions of the politicians when MCRGO won't answer them?
I got some questions for you.
Why have 5 members of the Board of Directors RESIGNED???
Why is MCRGO trying to eject a 6th member of the Board of Directors???
Why is it that the Board of Directors are not allowed to do their jobs correctly?
Why did MCRGO cancel the open directors meeting? (And don't give us that cock and bull story about threats to members of the BoD. We KNOW that there were no threats against the BoD, unless you perceive as a threat, the questions that would have been asked of the Board.)
Why does MCRGO let the prejudices of ONE board member govern who will or will not be appointed to County Chapter Chair, or any other appointed position within MCRGO?
I suppose that my criticism of MCRGO will be seen as "evil" by certain members of MCRGO leadership. My only criticism is that the leadership hides from the members behind lies and innuendo. I want answers. And I know that other members want answers to questions that we have.
I want to see a strong, vibrant MCRGO. So far all I see is a shadow.
You should also check out Concealed Pistols Training Forum.
And don't forget to look at Concerned Activists for Reform and Ethics (CARE).
Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS
Sunday, August 28, 2005
New Pistol
Actually, it's a 7 shot .357 Magnum revolver. Taurus calls it the model 617B. Generally, I prefer automatics. But as revolvers go, it's not too bad.
Friday, August 26, 2005
ME!
Here's my first post, on this blog.
Just a little FYI, I am the coordinator for the Michigan Pink Pistols. My name is Al Lowe, I'm rather large, (6'2" about 290 lbs), and I am a fan of South Park, and some of my friends just figured that "Big Gay Al's Big gay Gun Group" sounded like more fun than "Michigan Pink Pistols." Go figure.
Just a little FYI, I am the coordinator for the Michigan Pink Pistols. My name is Al Lowe, I'm rather large, (6'2" about 290 lbs), and I am a fan of South Park, and some of my friends just figured that "Big Gay Al's Big gay Gun Group" sounded like more fun than "Michigan Pink Pistols." Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)