Victory!

Colorado State Senator John Morse has conceded the recall election!  This is a victory for Representative Government.

While the media kept saying this recall was about the gun laws he pushed, it was more about the way he went about it.  He quashed dissent, refusing to allow pro 2nd Amendment citizens to testify against the laws during Senate debate.  He refused testimony from Colorado Sheriffs who opposed the bills.  He described phone calls and emails from citizens opposing the bills as "toxic."  He chose to represent New York Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama in the Colorado Senate instead of the people of Colorado. 

Not only that, but throughout the recall process, he used (or allowed others to use) every trick in the book, from lying robocalls to lawsuits to avoid facing the voters in a recall election.  An honest representative of the people would have welcomed a chance to take his case directly to the voters, but not a tyrant like John Morse.

John Morse was derelict in his duty to represent the voters in his own district, and now he has paid the price. 

The people of Colorado have spoken and on behalf of the citizens in your senate district, Mr. Morse, YOU'RE FIRED!

Mayor Bloomberg, let this be a lesson to you.  Keep your New York nose out of Colorado politics.  We don't want your liberal nanny state policies here in the West where we value liberty, self sufficiency and a government that keeps its nose out of our business and its hands off our God-given rights.

Open Letter to Colorado State Senators

Senator _________,

Please do not cave in to pressure from outside the state to pass gun control legislation that has been historically proven to do absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence!  Colorado is a Western state with a long history of firearms used for self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, teaching youth responsibility and confidence and respect for the outdoors, and many other worthwhile uses.  Please do not throw away our God-give rights, expressed in the 2nd Amendment and the Colorado State Constitution.

There are many emotional arguments used to support these gun bills, but the cold, hard facts tell us that these measures will be completely ineffective in reducing gun violence.  The Clinton-era 1994 Assault Weapon Ban did nothing to reduce gun violence.

HB 1224: bans magazines with a capacity of more than 15 bullets. Magazines owned prior to the ban can be kept but cannot be transferred, sold, etc.

• Limiting magazine capacities do very little to impact the speed that someone can shoot a semi-automatic weapon.  Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, Indiana performed a test with both an experienced and inexperienced shooters, and proved that limiting magazine capacity had almost no impact on their ability to shoot 30 aimed rounds.
• Changing a magazine, even for an inexperienced shooter only takes 1-3 seconds.  (Experienced shooters can change a magazine in less than a second.)  This does not give a victim enough time to see that the gun is out of ammunition, make a decision (under extreme pressure) to act, and attack the shooter before he inserts the magazine and the weapon is working again. 

HB 1226: prohibits concealed carry on public college campuses.

•  According to firearms researcher John Lott, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”  That means 23 of 24 mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, or more accurately, "Victim Disarmament Zones."
• Attempted mass shootings in areas where guns are allowed almost never make it to the point of becoming a mass shooting. Santee, CA (2001), Appalachian School of Law, 2002,  Pearl High School, MS (1997), Edinboro, PA. (1998), New Life Church (Dec 2007), Winnemucca, NV, 2008, Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio (Dec 2012) 
• None of the anti concealed carry predictions of "OK Corral" shootouts have happened.  Those who pursue concealed carry permits are far more law-abiding than the average citizen.
• This issue has already been decided by the Colorado Supreme Court, and students want concealed carry.

HB 1228: charges fees for background checks.

• A US Department of Justice report "Firearm Use by Offenders,"  reports that criminals only directly purchase 13.9% of the weapons used in crime.  The rest come from friends and family (39.6%) or illegal street purchases (39.2%).  It is already a federal crime (with a 10 year sentence) for straw purchases.
• Increasing fees is just a tax on law-abiding gun owners.  It serves no purpose for reducing gun violence.

HB 1229: requires a background check to be conducted by a licensed firearms dealer before any sale or transfer of a firearm. “Transfer” includes lending a firearm to a friend or family member on a temporary basis.

•  Criminals, already intent on committing a crime, will not bother to find an FFL to transfer a weapon from a family member, friend, or their illegal street seller.  This law will have no effect on gun violence.
• The law is poorly written, excluding extended family members like uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, etc.  It places an undue burden on people who want to loan a gun to a friend for hunting season or to take to the range to try out before buying one him or herself.  This will cause innocent people to be charged with "illegal transfer of a firearm."

SB 195: requires concealed carry permit applicants to complete training in-person.

• Training for concealed carry permit holders is important, but modern teaching methods have shown that online education is completely effective.  As long as the online training meets the educational content and testing standards, there is no reason to disallow it.  Online training is currently acceptable for driver's safety courses, K-12, college and graduate work and a number of other topics.  Why should the classroom portion of any firearms training be any different?
• This law would have no impact on gun violence, but would only make it more difficult for some people to receive a carry permit and so be able to defend themselves.
• A more sensible requirement would be to add a live-fire requirement for permit applicants to demonstrate basic competency with their firearm of choice.

 SB 196: “Assault Weapons Responsibility Act” makes users, owners, sellers, distributors, and manufacturers of firearms liable for harm caused by any firearm that was under their control at one point in time and is later misused by someone else.

• First, lawsuits of this type have historically a very poor chance of success.  Manufacturers cannot control their products once they leave their facilities. 
• If this is a sensible law, then automobile manufacturers should be held liable for all traffic fatalities (which kill far more people annually than guns), swimming pool and bicycle manufacturers should be liable for drownings and accidents involving their products too, since their products are more likely to accidentally kill someone than a gun.

Please vote "NO" on these ineffective, freedom-robbing bills and stand up for your constituents' rights.  The people who elected you and gave you this responsibility are watching.

Respectfully,

Jeff Odegard
Colorado Springs

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

Friends of Freedom,

Here is the contact information for the State Senators currently involved in the discussions in Denver:
These Senators need to hear from you today via phone AND e-mail.  Please be respectful and factual.  Additionally, please read this post from the Colorado Senate News and sign the online petition here.

Senate President John Morse (SD11)
    (303) 866-6364; john.morse.senate@state.co.us
Senate Majority Leader Morgan Carroll (SD29)
    (303) 866-4879; morgan.carroll.senate@state.co.us
Senator Angela Giron (SD03)
    (303) 866-4878; angela.giron.senate@state.co.us
Senator Jeanne Nicholson (SD16)
    (303) 866-4873; jeanne.nicholson.senate@state.co.us
Senator Lois Tochtrop (SD24)
    (303) 866-4871; lotochtrop@aol.com
Senator Cheri Jahn (SD20)
    (303) 866-4856; cheri.jahn.senate@state.co.us
Senator Andy Kerr (SD22)
    (303) 866-4859; andy.kerr.senate@state.co.us
Senator Gail Schwartz (SD05)
    (303)866-4871; gail.schwartz.senate@gmail.com
Senator Mary Hodge (SD25)
    (303) 866-4855; mary.hodge.senate@state.co.us

Ex Secret Service Agent on Gun Control

Every word of it...

Hero Facing Possible Charges

Just to show you how insane New York City has become, a heroic school safety agent who picked up a fallen police officer's gun and defended the officer and others in the store from 5 criminals, exchanging gun fire and driving them off, is facing possible gun charges because he is not licensed to carry a gun. Liberals want us to be just like Europe. Well, they're accomplishing it. This is just like the United Kingdom, where defending yourself against armed criminals can get you in trouble with the law.

This kind of reaction from the authorities only exacerbates the problem of people who just walk on by others in need. In New York City, the brave hero might find him or herself in legal trouble for doing the right thing. Shame on the people of New York City for allowing their elected officials to strip them of their God-given rights. Shame on all of us if we allow it to happen where we live.

The Pink Equalizer

How does a 25 year old, 110 pound beauty queen defend herself against a burly, 42 year old career criminal? She uses a .38 caliber pink equalizer. Her fiance said she wasn't a very good shot at the range, but apparently she was good enough to stop the bad guy after he invaded their home, dragged her upstairs and beat up her fiance who tried to defend her. That gave her time to retrieve her pink equalizer and defend them from this monster.
Good girl. Now go back to the range and get some more practice!

Gun Control for Everyone!

In my reading today, I stumbled across a great article in the Washington Times, entitled, "A Gun Control Compromise for Everyone" by Eric Golub. It is an excellent, ironic proposal for a compromise everyone, liberals and conservatives, can agree on. Liberals do not want guns, so fine, do not allow liberals to have them. Conservatives want guns, so allow them to have all of them. Everyone gets what they want. Check out the article. You'll be smiling by the end.

A Salute To A Hero

At 84 years old, WWII hero Ted Gundy is still one of the best in the world. This is an amazing, touching video.

A True Hero

When the horrible shooting in Tuscon happened, an armed citizen, Joe Zamudio, was next door in Walgreens. Here is the story in his words:

Note that without special military or police training, he was able to rapidly assess the situation and took the appropriate action. Even though he was momentarily confused about who the real shooter was, he didn't shoot the wrong person; in fact, he didn't even draw. Mr. Zamudio is a true American hero. He proves that an average citizen, carrying a concealed weapon, can make the right decision and make a difference within precious seconds, even though the police are only minutes away.

Mid Term Elections 2010

Here are my election picks for the Midterm Elections this year. Hunting season is keeping me from posting my reasoning. The only one that really needs explanation is Tancredo. Dan Maes has discredited and disgraced himself on many fronts and needs to drop out of the race to allow Tancredo to beat Hickenlooper. That's the only way we'll have a conservative governor, and the only way to keep the Democrats in the Colorado legislature from ramming their agenda down our throats.

US Senator: Buck
US Rep: Lamborn
Governor: Tancredo
Sec. State: Gessler
Treasurer: Stapleton
Republicans for the rest

Amendment P – Games of Chance - AGAINST
Amendment Q – Temporary Location of State Seat of Government - FOR
Amendment R – Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property - FOR
Amendment 60 – Property Taxes - AGAINST
Amendment 61 – Limits on State and Local Government - AGAINST
Amendment 62 – Application of the Term Person - FOR
Amendment 63 – Health Care Choice - FOR
Proposition 101 – Income, Vehicle and Telecom Taxes and Fees - AGAINST
Proposition 102 – Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs – AGAINST

County 1A – Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Prohibited in Unincorporated Areas - FOR
County 1B – Term Limits for 4th Judicial District DA - FOR
County 1C – Term Limits for County Commissioners - FOR
County 1D – Term Limits for other County Offices – FOR

Colorado Springs 2B – City Retention of $600,000 of excess revenue for infrastructure – FOR
Colorado Springs 2C – TOPS Limit on Trails and Open Spaces Maintenance – AGAINST
Colorado Springs 300 – Strong Mayor Proposal - FOR

View the El Paso County November 2010 Sample Ballot.

Do your civic duty. Vote!

Never Forget

El Paso County Sheriff

According to the El Paso County sample ballot, there are four contested races in the 2010 Republican Primary on August 10th. They are:

US Senator
- Ken Buck vs Jane Norton
Colorado Governor
- Dan Maes vs Scott McGinnis
Colorado Treasurer
- JJ Ament vs Walker Stapleton
El Paso County Sheriff
- Terry Maketa vs Jake Shirk

In my short series, I'll work the list from bottom to top, which will leave the most hotly contested races until last. To be honest, I didn't even know the Colorado Treasurer was a contested race until I looked, so we'll look at that race next time. In the meantime, the Gazette has published a voter guide.

Terry Maketa and Jake Shirk have much in common, and much to commend them. To be honest, I think either one would be a good sheriff. First, they both support Vermont/Alaska/Arizona-type firearm laws for Colorado, namely that no license or permit of any kind should be required to carry a concealed firearm, but Shirk has made it part of his platform, while Maketa only brought it up when questioned in an interview. Both support a Colorado version of the excellent Arizona Immigration Bill. Both believe that Medical Marijuana is here to stay, but agree that abuse should be prosecuted. Shirk goes a bit further, stating that he voted against the dispensaries, but will uphold the Colorado law. Maketa did not specify his personal feelings on the law. I think he's just playing it safe politically. Of course, with no Democratic challenger, why would he feel the need to do that?

I think Maketa has a stronger position concerning not removing sworn deputies from the El Paso County Jail, as Shirk stated he intends to pursue, but I really like Jake Shirk's promise to publish the Sheriff's Department budget on the web. It is a big step toward a more open government. In addition, Maketa's April accusation that Shirk, a 35 year law enforcement veteran (vs. Maketa's 23 years), lacked experience left a bad taste in my mouth. As you will see in upcoming posts, I really don't like politicians who play dirty, and even though the sheriff's race has been pretty tame compared to others, when two candidates are this closely matched, the one who plays it clean will earn my vote. Add a very strong 2nd Amendment stance and a commitment to open government, and I'm sold.

I'm supporting Jake Shirk for El Paso County Sheriff.

2010 Colorado GOP Primaries

The Colorado GOP primaries will be held August 10th, and I have decided to post my political decision making and generate some discussion. My goal is to post every few days with my thoughts on the individual races, then on or about August 8th, post my list for the election.

Some of the primary races are really turning nasty. The attack ads, political missteps, and tongue slips are getting pretty tiresome, and the GOP is fighting amongst themselves while squandering the best chance we have at stopping an out of control Federal Government. Some races are easy to decide, but others have been really hard, with me having to reconsider my early leanings due to the political nastiness and the diarrhea-of-the-mouth from some candidates.

My preference is for candidates who are small-government, tax cutting, fiscally conservative, morally conservative, liberty-minded people. I, like so many others, am tired of being hoodwinked by big-government Republicans (RINOs*) or candidates whose first priorities are lining their own pockets and doing whatever it takes to get re-elected. I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. I'm an old school conservative who leans Libertarian (but not all the way)**, and a Constitutionalist that believes in a limited Federal government, limited to providing a strong national defense, maintaining some semblance of order between the states and generally leaving me and my local government alone. I love the Lord Jesus, I love my family and I love my country, in that order. Government exists to serve the people and protect their lives, liberty and prosperity, not the other way around. I will not give up essential liberty to gain temporary security.

My main issues this year are:

Reversing Reckless Government Spending: The Federal Government is spending out of control, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, on the verge of bankrupting the country. Colorado is doing a little better, but is addicted to handouts from the federal government. Locally, the Colorado Springs government still thinks it's their money, not that of the taxpayers.

Reversing Government Corporate Takeovers and Bailouts: They bought Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and Government Motors, and now passed a bill allowing the Fed to takeover any business they deem "too big to fail." We need free markets and competition, not government control of industry. That is Socialism. Capitalism works, Socialism fails. Read your history books (the unrevised ones...).

Government Accountability to the Voters: I don't want to silence special interest groups (I support some of them!), but I want my elected officials to answer primarily to the voters. I don't know how to do this, but I'm very tired of patronizing form letters from my Senators when I have serious, well-reasoned arguments against their positions. Term limits across the board!

Securing Our Borders: How many years has it been since 9/11/2001 and we still haven't built a fence on our southern border? Democrats think illegal immigration is a massive voter registration drive, while drug smugglers, human traffickers and terrorists come and go at will, and all the Federal Government can do is sue Arizona for taking steps to help enforce FEDERAL Law?

The Protection of Essential Liberties: Read the Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion, the right to keep and BEAR arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, government only has the powers given to it by the Constitution. Understand that those Amendments place limits on the Federal, local and state governments, and protect us from tyranny.

Repealing Obamacare: It is unconstitutional to force me to buy a product. I don't want the government or insurance companies in the room when I talk to my doctor. It's none of their freakin' business, and the health care free market will work much better without government interference.

There are no perfect candidates, but some are clearly better than others. I don't want to vote for one just because it's perceived that the other doesn't have a chance against the Democrats. It's time for conservatives to stand on principle and let the GOP know that we've had it with moderate, wishy-washy, politically correct candidates. I never want to have to hold my nose and vote for a John McCain again!

Stay tuned!

* RINOs - Republicans in Name Only, or Democrats in elephant's clothing. (So what do you call all the all-out Socialists running as Democrats?)

**Two issues keep me from becoming a full-fledged Libertarian. First, their isolationist foreign policies are horribly misguided in our global economy and dangerously naive about threats like Islamic extremism, drug cartels and organized crime, and old-style communist states. Second, as a Christian, I cannot adopt their Utopian "live and let live" philosophy on moral issues like abortion and legalizing dangerous drugs.

Range Report

I got a chance to go to the range this morning and had a ball trying out some of my new gizmos.

First, after I got set up and was waiting for the range to go cold so I could put up my targets, I looked at some of the other targets through my new spotting scope, an Alpen 15-45x60. One guy had a black silhouette target up at 200 yards. After squinting a little, I could make out the little black holes on the black target. I was thinking, "great, I got this thing so I could see 30 caliber holes at 200 yards, and these are hard to see!" After setting up targets, I complimented him on his shooting, and he said, "yeah, that's my 22-250." I was looking at 22 caliber holes at 200 yards - black on black! Needless to say, my 30 caliber holes, black on white, were easy to see, even when the mirage started kicking up. I am very happy with the scope! I even showed my daughter Saturn the other night - you can see that it has rings!

Second, my new Ruger Bisley Super Blackhawk in .44 mag was a ball to shoot. Even with 240 grain full magnum loads, it handled beautifully. Almost anyone could handle 44 special loads in that gun. After getting the sights adjusted, it was shooting pretty well at 25 yards. Now I just need to get my skill level up to the capability of the gun... :o} I can't wait to try 310 grain elk loads. Black powder would be fun, too.

Third, the Limbsaver pad I put on the rifle was incredible. I shot 26 rounds from the bench today and felt like I could have shot 50 more. My shoulder wasn't sore at all, and it was like shooting a much milder caliber. It's the best after market shooting accessory I've ever put on my rifle.

Finally, I was very happy with the results of my load testing. I'm working on a 180 grain Nosler Accutip load for elk hunting with my 308 Winchester. For the first time today, I tried using the "ladder method" (a simplified version) for load development. I loaded two sets of rounds from 40.5 to 42.6 grains of IMR 4895 in 0.3 grain increments. One set used Winchester brass, the other Remington. For foulers and sighters, I loaded two extra each at the 40.5 grain level. I fired the strings at two different targets at 200 yards, and noted each hit on the target shown here. I started with Remington, and noticed I was 5" right, so I adjusted the scope, then kept shooting. I wasn't shooting very well at first, but then settled in and got some very good results. The Winchester string came out very good. To be honest, I've never shot this well at 200 yards. Going slow and focusing on the fundamentals really helps!

Bottom line, the most consistent load is between 42.0 and 42.6 grains. I'll use 42.4, cheating it a little high. This should give me good temperature and load insensitivity. The best part is that the data matches both Lyman and Nosler data with 42.5 grains (the max) as the most accurate load for this combination of powder and bullet. It runs right about 2500 fps, which means they should be effective on elk out to 400 yards. Now I just need to find the optimum seating depth to narrow the groups a bit more and I'll be set. (Well, that and work on my riflery skills so I can shoot as well as my rifle!)

I had a good conversation with a fellow 308 Winchester fan. He was breaking in the barrel on a brand new FN-FAL. We talked about everyone thinking they need a 300 Win Mag or stronger to hunt elk. "If it's not a 338 Shoulder-Buster Magnum you can't kill 'em!" Nonsense! Old-timers were killing elk with 30-30's after WWII, and thought the 30-06 the GI's brought home from the war was overkill. All I know is the last elk I shot didn't complain about me not using a big enough gun!

MLK, Civil Rights and the 2nd Amendment

Gun control has historically been a tool of the racist and the power hungry. From well before the Civil War, African-Americans were denied the right to keep and bear arms in order to keep them subservient and under control. (Remember this truism "gun control is not about guns, it is about control"...) This continued until the Civil Rights movement, led by courageous men like Dr. King and others, brought about equal rights for all free men and women.

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, when we remember a pastor and great civil rights leader who led a non-violent uprising that forced the US to recognize the equal rights of African-Americans under the Constitution. Almost everyone knows about his eloquence and his commitment to non-violence in the face of aggression, but not many know about his belief in the God-given right of self-defense.

In fact, as described in a research article entitled "Martin and Malcolm on Nonviolence and Violence" Dr. King had actually applied to the State of Alabama for a handgun carry permit in 1955 (which was denied) and kept one or more guns in his home for self defense during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. (He was receiving an average of 40 threatening phone calls a day, and for a time armed men were posted outside his house for protection." After his house was bombed that same year, he embraced the principle of nonviolence in total for himself.

Three nights later, Martin King’s house was bombed and people were amazed how calm he was. After finding out that his wife and baby were safe, he walked on his porch to face an angry black crowd with weapons of violence, ready to return an eye for an eye. “Don’t let us get panicky,” King said. He pleaded with them to get rid of their weapons because “we can’t solve this problem through retaliatory violence.” On the contrary, “We must meet violence with nonviolence.” Turning to the most persuasive authority in the black Christian experience, King reminded blacks of the words of Jesus: “ ‘Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; pray for them that despitefully use you.’ We must love our white brothers … no matter what they do to us.”

With great personal courage and devotion to the moral cause of civil rights, Dr. King chose to risk potential martyrdom and even the possibility of seeing his wife and infant daughter killed rather than to exercise his own right of self-defense, but even 4 and then 11 years later, he was still writing about the right of self-defense.

Dr. King saw three main positions on the use of arms. He wrote in the October, 1959 edition of Liberation Magazine:

Here one must be clear that there are three different views on the subject of violence. One is the approach of pure nonviolence, which cannot readily or easily attract large masses, for it requires extraordinary discipline and courage. The second is violence exercised in self-defense, which all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal.

The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi, who sanctioned it for those unable to master pure nonviolence. The third is the advocacy of violence as a tool of advancement, organized as in warfare, deliberately and consciously.

Dr. King rejected the third position (supported by men like Malcolm X), pointing out that while some his fellow African-Americans felt that it was the only way to bring change, it would in actuality divide proponents of civil rights, drive away most of the uninvolved, uncommitted Negro community, and ultimately it would find itself outgunned and outmatched. Later in the same article he wrote:

There is more power in socially organized masses on the march than there is in guns in the hands of a few desperate men. Our enemies would prefer to deal with a small armed group rather than with a huge, unarmed but resolute mass of people.

Despite this, he was convinced of the truth of the second position, that self-defense is both moral and legal. In an article written May 4, 1966 entitled, "Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom," he was very clear that people in the civil rights marches would deliberately remain disarmed to avoid any legitimate act of self-defense triggering retaliatory violence. Any aggression against unarmed demonstrators only proved the evil of racism and gave Dr. King and his followers the high moral ground. He also wrote:

There are many people who very honestly raise the question of self-defense. This must be placed in perspective. It goes without saying that people will protect their homes. This is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and respected even in the worst areas of the South.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated just two years later on April 4, 1968. His killer, James Earl Ray was a convicted felon (4 convictions from 1949-1959) and an escaped prisoner. The Gun Control Act of 1968, signed the following October would have made it illegal for him to have a gun, but over 40 years of history of failed gun control laws have shown that it probably wouldn't have kept him from obtaining the rifle he used in the murder. This does not detract in the least from the fact that Dr. King was not only a champion of civil rights, but that he believed in the individual right to keep and bear arms and the right of self-defense.

I'll bet you'll never read that in the mainstream media...

-------------------------
Postscript. I should make it clear for those not familiar with my blog, or the history of Dr. King, that I am not in total agreement with him, even though I have a lot of respect for him. He was theologically and politically liberal and believed in big government. However, it is refreshing to find large pieces of common ground with someone with whom I would normally disagree. His commitment to equal rights and personal liberty are both very commendable.

I like guns

I just couldn't pass this one up. Merry Christmas!

Sorry I couldn't find the tag to embed it. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

Army Victim Disarmament Zone

I was shocked and saddened to hear about the brave men and women who lost their lives at the hand of the domestic Islamic terrorist Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The AP reported that if it had not been for many brave and selfless heroes, the bloodshed would have been much worse. One paragraph about one of the heroes caught my eye:

The 21-year-old Fort Worth native (Pfc. Marquest Smith) quickly grabbed the civilian worker who'd been helping with his paperwork and forced her under the desk. He lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.

Why didn't this brave young man have a gun? He was unarmed because the DoD does not allow anyone without a specific reason to carry a weapon to be armed. All weapons (except personal weapons registered and kept in base housing) must be secured in the post armory. Usually, this means that only Military Police or civilian security forces (like the heroic Kimberly Munley, who shot and stopped the domestic Islamic terrorist) are armed on a base. I served 5 1/2 years in the Air Force, and the only time I was allowed to carry a gun was on the few occasions I was taking weapons training. You could bring a personal weapon on base to shoot at the firing range, but it had to be registered with the SPs, unloaded, locked and stored separately from ammunition, and you had to have a qualified range master on hand if you were using it.

So why did we have so many victims in a building full of highly trained, proficient, experienced warriors, with only a lone gunman with two handguns? They were not allowed to carry the tools to defend themselves. The shooting went on for four minutes after the 911 call was made. What difference would it have made if Pfc. Smith and his courageous compatriots had been carrying sidearms? How many seconds would the terrorist have lasted if they had weapons at the ready? Would the coward Hasan have even tried?

Update, 7 Nov 09:
Several commentators have picked up on this theme, including Gun Rights Examiners Daniel White, Howard Nemerov and Kurt Hoffman. They write with far deeper analysis than mine and arrive at the same conclusions.

Another quote, this time from cnsnews.com:

"I was confused and just shocked," said Spc. Jerry Richard, 27, who works at the center but was not on duty during the shooting. "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."

Guilty

Guilty on all nine charges.

Sigh...

Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, for ??? Not that the Nobel Prize has been worth anything since Yasir Arafat and Al Gore won it. What was once a prestigious award is now meaningless. It would be like giving me a Silver Star just for coming on active duty during the last month of the first gulf war.

On another note, Michael Blomberg, NYC Mayor opposed to the 2nd Amendment, released an investigative report about the so-called "gun show loophole," where several of his investigators broke the law themselves by purchasing guns after claiming that they could not pass a background check. Blomberg thinks we need a federal law to prevent this. However, it's already against the law to sell (even a private sale) a gun to someone who you believe could not pass a background check. How about enforcing the laws we already have?



At least we got some snow this weekend. The frost on the trees was absolutely beautiful this morning!

Please Vote NO on Cass Sunstein

Senators Udall & Bennett,

As you know, Cass Sunstein has been nominated by President Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I vehemently oppose his nomination and hope that you will agree with me that he holds radical views that are out of step with common Colorado values.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Professor Sunstein said that he wants to ban hunting, and he intends to do it by regulating it out of existence. He is also strongly supports increased gun control, and downplays the 2nd Amendment. Colorado citizens view the rights to bear arms and to hunt as sacred, and modern wildlife management (including hunting) has given us some of the healthiest wildlife populations in history. We need to enforce current gun regulations and remote those that clearly have no effect on violent crime, not create more.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard, he put animal suffering on the same moral scale as human genocide and slavery. On page 11 of "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" (2004), he made the bizarre statement that animals could bring lawsuits against people. This could have devastating effects on farming and ranching in Colorado. Grocery prices are high enough without new, insane government regulations giving Bessie the Milk Cow human rights.

In his 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” he says that he wants to change organ donation from opt-in to opt-out, which would make the very personal, private choice about organ donation almost no choice at all. Colorado values freedom and personal liberty.

Sincerely,

Jeff Odegard
Colorado Springs

Democrat, Republican or Texan?

I got this in an email at work today, and couldn't pass up posting it!

Are you a Democrat, a Republican or a Texan? The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Colt 1911 cal. 45 semiautomatic pistol, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

(Image courtesy of Xavier Thoughts)

....................................................
THINK CAREFULLY:
....................................................

Democrat's Answer:

• Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
• Does the man look poor or oppressed?
• Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
• Could we run away?
• What does my wife think?
• What about the kids?
• Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
• What does the law say about this situation?
• Does the Colt have appropriate safety built into it?
• Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
• Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
• If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
• Should I call 9-1-1?
• Why is this street so deserted?
• We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
• This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

...................................................
Republican's Answer:

• BANG!

...................................................


Texan's Answer:

• BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!* Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
• BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click


• Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester SilverTips or Hollow Points?'
• Son: 'Can I shoot the next one!'

* Note: the original email only had 9 bullets in the 1911 before reloading. The 1911 magazine holds 10. Actually a real Texan would load up 10+1. Also, there would be no "click" when the gun was empty because the slide would lock back and the hammer would be unable to drop, thus no "click". A competent handgunner would also be counting rounds expended and rounds remaining, so the second magazine would be on it's way to the gun immediately after the 11th round (10+1) was fired.**

** The previous note confirms that I am a gun geek. :o}