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.

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.

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."

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.

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,, 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

Saturday, October 01, 2005

The Assault on Self-Defense


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!