Giuliani for President?

How slanted is the Associated Press when writing about the Democrats? Today, they posted an article by Matt Sedensky titled, “Giuliani defends Clinton on anti-terror”. Yet, when you read the article it doesn’t contain ONE QUOTE from Giuliani defending Clinton! Here’s the quote:

“Every American President I’ve known would have given
his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President
Clinton, President Bush…they did the best they could with
the information they had at the time.”

So Giuliani gave each political side a safe answer, he certainly didn’t defend what Clinton did or didn’t do. But since we are on the subject, let’s look at what Clinton failed to do during his presidency when he was at the helm and had the responsibility for protecting the American Public.

I love reading the on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal. 1) Because it’s very accessible during the day, and 2) The articles are VERY informative. Richard Miniter is a regular contributor and he does not mince words when it comes to leveling the playing field and informing the general public on what actually happened or what actually was said by a politico in the mainstream media. So, I’m borrowing his article from yesterday titled,
“What Clinton Didn’t Do…”

-“38 days after Clinton was sworn into office, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center.
(He never visited the site during all that time!)

- By the end of Mr. Clinton’s first year as President, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice.
(The attacks would continue for every one of Clinton’s years in office!)

- 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (who would later plan 9/11 attacks) launched “Operation
Bojinka” to down 11 US planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp eyed Filipina police
officer foiled the plot.
(The American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.)

- 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pund car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudia Arabia killing five Americans and wounding 60 more.
(The FBI was sent in to investigate)

- 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the “no-fly zones” over Iraq,
killing 19.
(Again, the FBI responded.)

- 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war
on the US. February of that year bin Laden told an Arab TV network: “If someone can kill an
American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters.”
(No response from the Clinton administration.)

- 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224,
including 12 US diplomats.
(Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response.)

- 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda’s Millenium plots, a series of bombings
stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This was due mostly to the work of Richard Clarke,
a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together.
(The Millennium approach was short lived. Over Mr. Clarke’s objections, policy reverted to
the status quo.)

- January 200, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (The
boat sank before reaching the target.) But later in October, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole
in the hull of thte U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
(No response from the Clinton Administration.)

Side note: When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al
Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the
Meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr.
Clarke.
(Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: “What’s it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in
Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?”)

There is more to Mr. Clinton’s record- how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.”

Yeah, now I can see why Clinton went ballistic when being interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox news earlier in the week. No one wants their documented, archived, personal mistakes to bite them in the butt on national television! Do we really want another “Clinton” in the White House in ’08? (I think not!)

Should Christians Carry?

Soon after the Texas State Legislature passed the state’s current concealed handgun statutes, I made the decision to become part of the citizenry who legally carries a weapon concealed on their person. In my case, I started out with a Taurus manufactured copy of the venerable Beretta 92F in .40 S&W. This is a stainless, semi-automatic handgun with click adjustable sights that held 14 rounds of powerful ammunition. Today, my weapon of choice is the Kimber Custom Carry (Commander) in .45ACP. This blued, semi-automatic weapon holds anywhere from 8-12 rounds plus one in the chamber depending on which magazine I have loaded at the time. Not only is this the smoothest operating semi-automatic weapon I have fired in pistol format, the exterior has been “de-horned” to keep from snagging my clothing should I have to draw my weapon in an emergency, greatly reducing the time it takes (and therefore increasing my confidence) to present my intention to fire. (When you pull a weapon in self defense, it is not for show. The bearer has already made the ultimate decision to fire that weapon in defense of person or a third party.) Oh yes, one other “extra” I chose to include in this piece, it has fixed Meprolight tritium insert night sights. These sights glow in the dark for an average of 10 years.
But I digress….

Lately, my thoughts keep returning to the reason I have maintained my status with the state of Texas to continue to carry concealed. In the beginning, the decision was made after a very harrowing episode which occurred when I was alone, in the dark, and at my local ATM machine. I was headed to work very early one morning in the dark to catch up on paperwork before the day’s activities overtook me. Knowing I would have to eat on the run for lunch, I drove into my nearest Bank parking lot and retrieved some cash for my meal. Out of no where (and I am a GREAT observer of my surroundings), a male vagrant who outweighed me by at least 45 lbs. was at my driver’s side window asking for a handout. Not only did I not see this guy approach in the halo of mercury-vapor lights in that parking lot, I didn’t hear a sound. When he spoke, I nearly jumped out of my skin. He had approached from behind and to my left (the blind side). After dismissing him and driving on to work I got to really processing what occurred. It seemed to me that if this simple homeless person had been a real threat, he could have easily knocked me in the head and taken all my money from the ATM- AND I WOULDN’T HAVE KNOWN he was there! It scared me. It put things into perspective for me. You see, I was married less than 5 years and we had a new baby at home. At the time, I was the sole provider for my family. Who would have cared for them had the ultimate tragedy occurred? For this reason, I started looking into taking a concealed handgun class and becoming licensed to carry at all times (where law permits) to protect myself, my family, and innocent, defenseless civilians under attack.

I know what some of you are thinking. “But Troy, by your own testimony, if you had a gun that day at the ATM and the vagrant turned out to be a crook you still would have
been maimed or killed before you could draw your gun- he surprised you.” And you would be absolutely correct. But what bothered me more; the other guy had ALL the advantages in that situation. If I had been carrying a gun, not only would my confidence level have been higher, my self awareness of my surroundings would have been sharper and I would have had a chance at survival if hurt. Confidence is key in any fight, any conflict. Ask a member of our military and they will back me up on this. Their training serves to teach and to build confidence in their abilities so that they can handle circumstances most of us never experience – or want to. (Thanks guys for watching our backs!)

There are those in my circle who feel that Christians, in principal, should not take up arms in any manner against their fellow human beings. Military campaigns aside, I will attempt to address this debate from an individual perspective while referencing some Christian principles. Here are some scriptural references from the New International Version of the Holy Bible for consideration:

“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils.” - Luke 11:21-22

“Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.” - Matt. 10:17

“You must be on your guard.” - Mark 13:9a

“Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.” - Mark 13:33

“So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.” - Acts: 20:31

“Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.”
- I Corinthians 16:13

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care...” - I Timothy 6:20a

“Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you- guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” - II Timothy 1:14

“Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.” - II Peter 3:17

If you notice, there is a recurring theme in the New Testament about Christians guarding something, or being “on guard” at all times. For those skeptical of my argument I must say that the above scriptures seem to counteract what is surely one of the most cited scriptures against violence in the brotherhood-

“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” -Matt 5:39

While it is true that most of the references I have cited are about guarding one’s heart and mind about theological truths and the adherence to Jesus’ teaching, I find it ironic that Jesus chose military concepts to get his point across. He could have easily said, “Whatever happens, remain true.” or “Ignore what others do and say; remain focused.” Instead, he chose language that both the believer and non-believer could identify with since they were living in a region under martial law- that of the Roman Empire during the 1st century AD. There is an excellent example when Jesus and his disciples were confronted with violence that is somewhat compelling. It comes from the Gospel of John, Chapter 18:

“Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, ‘Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?’” (Verses 10-11).

A couple of observations here. Depending on where Malchus was standing in relation to Peter, the reference to which particular ear was cut off made an impact on the apostle John as he recorded his Gospel (his memoirs of his days with Jesus) years later. Peter not only was armed before being caught by surprise by the traitor Judas Iscariot and the guards of the High Priest, he was willing to use that sword in defense of a third party- his master, Jesus. If Malchus were standing directly in front of Peter - and Peter drew his sword from across the left side of his body (as 1st century Jewish men were all right handed) - then he surely must have swept the blade upward to slice off the right ear of his opponent before Malchus could react. Not only was Peter incredibly fast, he was accurate. But that’s beside the point. The verse that gets my attention is the one containing Jesus’ response. “Put your sword away!”

Now, Jesus didn’t say, “Dispose of your weapon”, or “Cast your weapon away- you will not need it again.” He simply commanded, “Put it away”. Why would Jesus tell a hot-headed, temperamental fisherman to simply put the sword back in the scabbard? Why not tell him to throw it away and never pick it up again? This has puzzled me for years. I have no hard and fast answer(s). I only know that men are creatures of habit, and Peter must have been carrying that weapon a long time to be able to use it so decisively that day against his perceived enemy. Further, I think the Lord approved of Peter’s carrying that weapon or he would have noticed it a long time before this incident and pulled him aside for a little chat. Last, the Lord didn’t condemn Peter’s action specifically. He never said, “What you have done is wrong.” There are several instances where Jesus was quite poignant about how his disciples were supposed to behave in certain situations.

It is for these reasons, and many others, that I’m confident in my decision to guard my person, family and friends, while hoping against hope to never take the life of another human being. No sensible person does. But now I’m wondering if Peter was the only apostle to carry a weapon on his person? Until next time, I remain “on guard”…

A Fool & His Money...

Remember the old saying: "A fool and his money are soon parted?"
There is nothing like a public showcasing of one's aptitude for fiscal foolishness when
in bed with the liberal left and their causes. Read on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_bi_ge/branson_global_warming

The above article proves two things: A) People still rally around a skirt chasing womanizer who lies, cheats, and steals anything he can get his hands on, and B) Billionaires are not smarter than the average citizen when it comes to stewardship- at least not this billionaire! $3 billion to combat global warming? Come on...

Several months ago, I penned the following article which was published in one of our
area newpapers to good review. The problem is, the editor is wanting more articles
and the research is slow to producing timely results. Perhaps you have heard snippets
of arguments for why the general population should throw their money into this
"effort" or "global cause" or "catastrophic climate change"....?


Climate of Fear: The Controversy Over Global Warming Theory


Once again, it is summer time in the United States and the news media’s appetite for creating doom-and-gloom scenarios for our citizenry remains at an all time high; serving as chef for this macabre buffet is the liberal left’s views on the theory of “global warming” and the supposed negative effects to our planet’s climate. From late April of this year, story after story has been on most of the newswires including the three evening alphabet networks. I suspect that it will continue to be at the forefront as long as the temperature outside remains at 90 degrees or higher. When ambient temperatures subside to 75 degrees and cooler (around late October), you will likely not hear another word about it within the mainstream media.

You might ask, why? When it’s late fall or winter in the United States, most of the public relations firms for global warming become groundhogs until spring thaw of the following year. It’s difficult to convey discussions about “warming” when the citizenry is bundled up and snow and ice is lying on the ground. When was the last time you heard anything on the nightly news about this subject in January? February? How about at Christmas?

Michael Crichton’s book, Climate of Fear, though a work of fiction- is spellbinding. Crichton takes this subject head on through massive amounts of scientific research and digging through hundreds of studies dating back to the 1960’s and 70’s. The characters in his book endure the liberal left’s portrayal of this subject - and to what lengths they will go - to perpetuate the theory and keep the general public brainwashed until corporations and major industrialized nations cease to exist, thus keeping all pollution in check. Al Gore’s documentary is now in theatres and the left’s champion of the environment is giving it his all when it comes to scaring the public about what he calls An Inconvenient Truth. Inconvenient? Try wholly inaccurate…

For those of you who have been tucked away in solitary confinement for the past few years who may not have heard any of this, global warming is the condition of the earth’s atmosphere that comes as a result of “greenhouse” gases (Carbon Dioxide, Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Sulphur Dioxide), being trapped in the earth’s outer atmosphere and acting like a blanket, keeping heat from the earth’s crust (caused by solar radiation) from escaping into space. The buildup of gasses causes the so-called “greenhouse effect” which stipulates that temperatures at ground level remain constant and/or rise over time instead of balanced, normal temperature fluctuation. The theory goes that as this condition worsens; polar ice caps will melt with subsequent sea level rise which will wipe out a majority of cities located on or near seaboards around the globe. Most predictions put sea levels rising by as much as twenty to fifty feet depending on the time span, exact temperature rise, and which study you happen to believe at the moment of publication.

Admittedly, I’m not a scientist. My scientific knowledge is somewhat finite. However, many known and recognized bodies of scientific research post their information on the internet for all to see and thus any lay person can scan documents, studies, statistics and analyses to one’s content and come to their own conclusions. The majority of the research that has been done to date continues to fuel debate on both sides of this issue. But the political left beats this drum constantly, loudly and sometimes - defiantly. They demand immediate action.

The Democratic Party, both moderates and liberals, usually agree that “big business” is bad for the environment. They contend that the pollutants exposed to our atmosphere through all manufacturing, refineries, coal fed industries, and cement producing factories are solely to blame for our current climactic anomalies. One way to rid our planet of the source of the pollution is to close all industries. If that happens, what are we to do for the products and services provided?

Several other questions have to be posed here: Why is the United States government spending billions and billions of dollars to fund these research activities when global warming is a theory at best? ($55 Billion spent as of 2004 according to the General Accounting Office.) Where is the money coming from? Who is benefiting? Why are renowned scientists on the opposing end of the debate suddenly finding their government sponsored funding withdrawn and their careers and credibility viciously attacked in the media?

Does anyone remember the cry from the meteorological and climactic weather gurus in the 1970’s? They said we were headed for another ice age! How is it that in the span of 35 years we have turned the millennial thermometer completely upside down in our climactic trend models?
Most climactic/temperature data at hand for the United States begins in the late 1880’s. We are basing this theory of future global warming on 125 years of earth’s history or approximately .000000003125 percent of the earth’s estimated age. Does anyone else see the problem with this logic? But therein lays the rub. The pro-global warming claxons are telling us that temperature increase is so dramatic over the last 125 years that it should be cause for alarm. Okay, what’s the average global increase recognized over the last century? Are you ready for this…point five (0.5) degrees Fahrenheit. One half of one degree is what these so called experts are getting excited about. According to a University of Indiana science website, the average annual temperature at the North Pole (where the ice cap is about 10-12 feet thick) is 0 degrees (F). At the South Pole (where the ice cap is thousands of feet thick) the annual average temperature is minus 57 degrees (F). For the North Pole ice cap to melt at the current pace of temperature increase shown by weather patterns over the last century alone it will take a minimum of 8,000 years. The South Pole ice cap would require 22,500 years.

Some questions I have yet to find answers to in the research: What about the role of solar flares- which are increasing in size and frequency- from the Sun? What of the oceanic waters warmed by underwater volcanic activity? What about the massive, annual eradication of rain forests in Central and South America? Certainly these are factors in search of the truth and must be thoroughly examined before reaching any definite conclusions. Many scientists and politicians should cease beleaguering the populace on this issue until such questions are thoroughly examined.

This is not a time sensitive issue and the urgency with which some environmental groups continue to convey their public communiqués on the subject is ridiculous in the least. Could it be that certain greedy researchers, scientists, lobbyists and special interest groups are scrambling to get a piece of the U.S. Treasury pie? The next time you hear another story about global warming you had better secure that wallet or purse. You might just feel an extra tug from our politicians in Washington.


So, what do you - the reader - say about this "theory"...?

Handicapped or Heroin?

Many thanks to my father-in-law for relaying the following link from CNN.com earlier in the week-

www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchair.shooter.ap/index.html

(If for some reason this link doesn't open for you the crux of the article is that 56-yr. old Margaret Johnson of Harlem (New York) defended herself from a male mugger reaching for her necklace while she was headed to the local gunrange for shooting practice. Margaret is confined to her wheelchair. The mugger, 45 yr old Deron Johnson, got physical with her and she pulled her licensed .357 Magnum handgun and shot the guy at point blank range sending him to the hospital. Sadly, he lived.)

There are 3 reasons why this article is significant to me:
A) The venue in which it took place- New York City
B) The fact that a liberal media network actually reported it
C) The ethnicity of the subjects is not revealed

A = New York City has long been known for it's history of crime on an unparalleled level- especially muggings. Muggings are an everyday occurance throughout the city- if not hourly. So why does NYC make it so difficult for it's citizenry to legally own a firearm for personal protection? The answer is simple. NYC is the true Mecca of the Liberal Elites who believe they know best when it comes to the rights of individuals to protect their person and/or their family. ("Guns are bad - ergo- people who own guns are bad. Shooting a gun is evil. All guns should be destroyed.")

B = The media in general loves to convey that firearm ownership is not only taboo but bad for Joe Q. Public. But I beleive the sensationalistic factor of this particular instance outweighed their collective journalistic conscience and skewed sense of social justice. Afterall, who wouldn't be impressed with a gun toting granny who defends herself from a mugger while confined to an awkward vehicle like the wheelchair? Here's a better question, how else would this woman have defended herself from her able bodied attacker if firearms were banned completely by NYC's politicians? (And we all know that Chuck Schumer and Hillary have been drooling at the chance!) The answer- she couldn't have. She would have been another statistic in the local police precinct crime log. A regrettable, unfortunate casualty- but nontheless harmed or killed in the process.

C = It's long been my contention that journalists (print primarily), seek to sensationalize any and every story for the sake of self serving publicity. Afterall, that's how they maintain and expand subscriptions. If the subject of an article involves crime, injustice, greed or unusual personal success- the person's ethnicity and/or race is usually revealed. This particular article, however, does not address such. I must therefore surmise that both subjects named are of the same race and therefore counteract any additional provocative slant the writer could inject within his/her prose.

Finally, let's applaud the DA's office for not charging the true victim in this crime (Margaret Johnson) with "assault" or worse- "assault with a deadly weapon" which carries a far greater penalty under the NY penal code. The woman was legally permitted to own, possess, and in this case - defend her person with a handgun.

I love this story. First, because it was publically reported and second, it has a very positive message that was intentionally underreported - law abiding Americans who own firearms still have the legally sanctioned ability to defend themselves from criminal dirtbags. God bless you Margaret Johnson. Sleep well tonight knowing that one more thief is out of commission in New York City!

Exhibition Shooters- Where have they all gone?

Captain A.H. Bogardus, a New Yorker who moved to Illinois and became a market hunter in the early 1860's, was one of the first exhibition shooters of note. Skilled with the shotgun by constant shooting of game for the market and at live-pigeon matches, he got the idea of holding shooting marathons in which 200 to 500 birds were the targets. Bogardus first long score was made in 1869 shooting at 500 live pigeons (some accounts mention 605 birds) in eight hours and forty-eight minutes from a trap at twenty-one yards rise and fifty yards boundary. He used one 12-gauge, muzzle-loading shotgun and missed only 105 birds.

Not satisfied with his feat, Bogardus went on to another. In 1879 he set out to shoot hand-thrown glass balls with an English double gun using two sets of barrels, one a 12, the other a 10-gauge. He changed barrels 55 times during the session. He broke 5,500 glass balls in a time of seven hours and twenty minutes. The captain loaded for himself and missed only 356 balls. It is particularly interesting that there were only three misfires in the whole series of 5,856 shots. Later, with two 12-gauge guns, he shot at 5,000 targets in six hours and twelve minutes and missed only 156.

A big Westerner, Dr. W. F. Carver, a dentist who, like Wyatt Earps deadly friend, Doc Holiday, did more shooting than teeth pulling, maintained that anyone could bust 5,500 glass balls with a shotgun and that he, Dr. Carver, would shoot 60,000 glass balls in six days- not with a shotgun, but with a rifle. He did just that at New Haven, Connecticut, in 1885. In order to make the record, he fired 64,865 shots, missing 4,865. He repeated the show (remember, these shooting events were before large audiences) in Minneapolis, and broke 60,000 balls while firing 60,650 shots.

...the record stood for four years until, little known shooter, B. A. Bartlett, in six days shot at 64, 017 composition balls two-and-a-quarter inches in diameter. He missed only 280.

Next up were two young six-footers, Captain A. H. Hardy, of Nebraska and Ad Topperwein, of Texas. Both were expert with shotgun, rifle, and handgun. They began with a comparatively small number of targets. In 1904, Topperwein broke 3,507 two-and-a-quarter-inch clay discs without a miss. The time was two hours and ten minutes. He used one .22-caliber autoloading rifle. In 1906, Hardy clobbered 5,152 two-and-a-quarter-inch wooden balls without a miss. He used two .22-caliber repeating rifles. The next year, he shot 13,066 wooden balls without a miss.

Finally, on December 13, 1907, Topperwein did the big job. Equipped with three .22-caliber Winchester Model 1903 autoloading rifles, seven wagon loads of two-and-a-quarter-inch wooden blocks and three assistants to throw them, he shot for ten consecutive days. It was cold, and on the last two days he shot in a drizzly rain. He missed only four out of the first 50,000 targets, which was all the seven wagons carried. His assistants picked out blocks that were not broken too badly and the marathon continued. At the end of the tenth day (sixty-eight and a half hours of actual shooting time) this iron man had shot at 72, 500 targets and missed only nine. This record stood unbeaten for fifty-two years!

On October 3, 1959, Tom Frye, while on vacation (he was a Remington Field Rep.), began shooting at the traditional two-and-a-quarter-inch wooden blocks in an effort to break the old Topperwein record. In ten days, he shot at 75,250 of these targets with but four misses. In fourteen days, he shot at 100,000 targets and missed only six. The longest run was 32,860 consecutive hits! Fryes trigger finger was taped each morning and the worn-out tape replaced at noon. He started with two Remington Nylon 66 .22-caliber autoloading rifles, which are made of structural nylon and ordnance steel, and used a third when the original guns became so hot from shooting 1,000 or more shots per hour that they burned his hands. Debris from burned powder was cleaned from the guns five times during the shoot, the first cleaning after 40,000 rounds had been fired. There was not a single malfunction during the 100,000 shots!

Today, there are names such as Tom Knapp, Jerry Miculek, and Bill Oglesby. If you haven't seen the History Channel lately, each of these three fellas was featured in a superb documentary with unbelievable feats of marksmanship- complete with stop action cameras to prove the outcome of these stupendous shots!
Tom Knapp holds several world records for his feats with the 12 gauge shotgun:

World Record No. 1- Tom joined Benelli in 1993 when he set the world record with his Benelli M1 Super 90 by throwing nine standard clay targets and breaking them with individual shots in 2.3 seconds!

World Record No. 2- On July 19, 2000 Tom Knapp, with his Benelli Nova pump in one hand, threw eight clay targets in the air with his other hand and broke every one of them with individual shots in an amazing 2.1 seconds.

World Record No. 3- In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, on October 20th, 2004 Tom Knapp set out to make history again. With his 12-ga. Benelli M2 fitted with a ComforTech stock and extended magazine tube, Tom launched ten clay targets into the air with one hand and shot all ten with individual shots in an unbelievable 2.0 seconds. You can view a video on Tom's web-site here: http://www.tomknapp.net/content/ex_shows.html
(Note: Herb Parsons could do the same thing with a pump action 12ga.- and that nearly 30 years ago! Knapp is quick to tell his audiences about his afinity for Parsons and that Herb inspired him when he was a young lad.)

Jerry Miculek is something of a freak when it comes to single action and double action revolvers. He holds 5 world records for speed shooting. Among them are: a) most shots under a second (8), b) most shots under a second (16) using two double action S&W's, c) quickest shot fired from a double action revolver using an electronic timer (.16 seconds!), and he can hit 3 separate targets, 4 times each, using two pistols in under a second! Unbelievable trigger control. To see it on TV, one would swear the guns are full automatic. To see it in person, would be heaven! Here is Jerry and Kay Miculek's web-site: http://www.bang-inc.com/

Bill Oglesby is a newcomer. I had not heard of this guy until I saw the History Channel documentary. Bill revives the old Wild West trick shots likened to such legends as Wild Bill Hickock, Buffalo Bill Cody, and others whose feats with pistols and rifles are mind-blowing. Oglesby likes to use Colt Single Action Army in .45 caliber. Not only can he split bullets in half to break two targest simultaneously, he can also split a playing card in half (set on edge!) at a distance of 20 feet! I can't even see the card at that distance, let alone hit it. Oglesby goes on to shoot two targets simultaneously with a SAA .45 in each hand. The targets are positioned at a distance of 50 feet and at 45-degree angles from the middle of his chest! As if that weren't enough, Oglesby has perfected the so called "richochet" shot. He shoots down at a flat, steel plate positioned half way to a standing target at a distance of 50 feet (usually a balloon tied to a stick). The bullet is fired from a .45 SAA, bounces off the plate and breaks the middle of the balloon! It's hard to comprehend until you see it in slow motion using stop action cameras with timers- simply amazing! You can see Bill in action at the Guns and Ammo web-site: http://www.gunsandammomag.com/video/tricks/

Today's shooters prove that with practice, practice, practice- you too, can shoot like the legends of the Old West! Now where is that old pump action shotgun of mine...?

Safety Is Everything- especially if you are Law Enforcement!

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Gun Safety...? Category: News and Politics
Have you heard the one about the Security Guard who left his LOADED handgun on the back of a toilet in a public bank?
(See story here)
http://news.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/08/03/loaded-gun-found-on-back-of-bank-toilet/?url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/ap_on_fe_st/forgotten_handgun_1&frame=true
What was this "Cheese Head" thinking after he wiped his butt???????
To top it all off, the local constabulary failed to cite the offender and his employer kept him on staff. (Not so much as a slap on the wrist!) Be afraid people, be very, very afraid.
It's hard to imagine someone walking around with a loaded weapon in such an utter sense of complacency- especially someone who is supposed to be trained in keeping their weapon "safe" 24/7 while on their person. If this guy can't even remember where he placed his gun (on the pot no less) in public, can you imagine what he does at home? Wonder if he has a family with small children- or cousins that visit with their parents from time to time? This is an accident waiting to happen. The only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to reprimand this idiot- right now!
One of my best friends in High School joined the Marine Corps and spent time serving our country as one of our elite miltary personnel. He once told me that during basic training, some of the recruits would drop their weapons because the heat and humidity at Camp Pendleton, CA. made them sweat profusely " like fat whores in a Russian brothel". To remedy the situation, the DI (Drill Instructor- for all you non-mil types), would make them rub resin on their palms to keep the sweat from interfering with their rifle drills. In extreme cases, where recruits either forgot to apply the resin or still couldn't keep them flush in the hand, the DIs would apply glue to the palms! I would say that after one incident with glue in triple digit heat for hours at a time, would make a BIG impression. Enough of an impression that the recruit didn't forget to rub his palms with the resin- ever again.
Now, I'm not suggesting that this security guard should be held down and super glue poured over his hands. What I'm suggesting is, this guy should either be placed on restrictive duty behind a desk, or sent home for a week without pay. Anything to get it across to this guy that leaving a loaded handgun in a public establishment (frequented by children with their parents) is completely, utterly, irrefutably, incomprehensibly, insane!
Dude, do us all a HUGE favor and apologize to the bank employees by resigning your position immediately with your present firm. Second, take a remedial course in Handgun safety and proficiency. Third, visit a children's hospital that has at least one patient affected by firearm toting morons such as yourself and see what happens when people get forgetful around weaponry.
That's my rant for the week...