Not So Great Britan

Folks, there is no way I could make this shit up!-2alago

 

Shopper, 28, asked to prove her age to buy a pizza wheel Saturday, July 25, 2009, 07:305 readers have commented on this story. Click here to read their views. A 28-YEAR-OLD shopper who went into Marks and Spencer to buy a pizza cutter said she was stunned when she was asked to prove her age. Jenny Palmer, of Gower Street, Derby, went into the chain’s Westfield store to buy the £1.50 item. But when she took it to the checkout she was asked to prove she was over 18, despite being two years shy of her 30th birthday. Miss Palmer said she was shocked. The store operates a Challenge 25 policy which requests staff to ask customers for identification for alcohol and bladed items if they appear to be under 25. Miss Palmer said she agreed stores should be vigilant against selling such items to youths but took offence at being asked for ID herself. She said: “I’m 28 and hardly look like I’m going to go out and physically harm someone. I know I don’t look my age but there are times when I buy alcohol and don’t get asked for ID. “I told the checkout woman that I was buying it because I was moving into a new house, but she said her screen was telling her to ask for ID. I think she could have used some common sense.” The health care assistant, who was purchasing kitchen items for a house she had just bought, said identification laws were becoming too strict. A spokesman for Marks and Spencer said it was illegal for stores to sell blades to people under the age of 18, and that the checkout assistant was right to make the request. He said: “Our policy is not to sell knife or bladed articles to persons under 18, and a pizza wheel fits into to that category. “We are committed to not selling such items to persons under 18 and operate a Challenge 25 policy. Under that policy, any customer who looks under 25 will be asked to provide proof of their age. We are a responsible retailer and our customers expect us to be vigilant in providing blades if people appear to be under age.” Miss Palmer said her friends couldn’t believe what happened. “When I told someone at work they just laughed,” she said. “They couldn’t believe I had to show my ID for a pizza cutter of all things”

Jim Zumbo-A cautionary tale

Let me say first, I am glad Jim Zumbo is back in the hunting world’s good graces. 

That said, I’m not sorry he had a rough time of it.  I think he had it coming, but I am hopeful that the “hunting family” got a dose of reality from his error.

Prior to his becoming a (temporary)pariah within the shooting world, I had never even heard of him.  Come to find out he is this big time hunting Guru been oll over the world and if it lives in the woods he has shot and eaten it.  Bully for him!

Then one day he is bloging about how “assault weapons” had no place in hunting and should be banned form the hunting grounds, and how hunters did not want to be “lumped in the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.” This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods”  He even went so far as to call them “Terrorist” weapons.  The backlash was swift and terrible!  In less than a week he was dropped or fired from just about all of his TV shows, columns and endorsements.  Anti- gun forces pointed to how fast the ax swung as proof positive that the pro gun people are zealots and essentially ended one of our own to avoid “healthy debate” on the issue.  I understand that Mr. Zumbo was on the receiving end of a VERY um….Lively phone call from Uncle Ted Nugent who brought him down to his ranch for “reeducation”  I found myself beginning to wonder if it was overkill as well and then it started; Anti-gun politicians and organizations began quoting him and he became their poster child for a renewed assault weapons ban.  This was never Jim’s intention, but now he understood why they axed him so fast.  His careless words were giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

Remember geometry in school?  “All Squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares”? Well my Hunting Brethren across this country would do well to remember that while all hunters are shooters, not all shooters are hunters.  I do not now nor do I have any intention to hunt, but as fellow shooters, I support ALL pro-hunting positions and legislation that comes my way, and I allow hunting in the woods behind my house.  My firearms are semi-autos (that were banned under the Clinton AWB) and pistols.   I shoot at targets at an outdoor range and thats about it.  I do belong to the local sportsmens club becuse they own the range I use.  I am somewhat of an enigma to them because I am the only member that never shows up to meetings and I dont hunt or fish which they REALLY can’t figure out.  Simply put, all firearms owners are in this together and we have to learn to support each other’s rights and sports.   The Antis are out to get us all…one at a time until none of us have so much as a BB gun.  Your deer rifle is safe today, but tomorow it will be a “High powered sniper rifle” and keep in mind under HR 1022, any weapon that had ever been used by the military or police would be banned as an “assult weapon”   Kiss your mossberg 500 goodbye…

Bottom line is this: Hunters are NOT safe from gun control now or ever….just becuse they tell you that hunting arms are not what they are after, you should add the word “Today” to the end of their claims.  You need to support ALL Lawful gun owners, All Lawful reasons for ownership, ALL types of guns, ALL the time and Non-Hunter shooters will help you when PETA and their ilk try to get rid of YOUR sport

5 Years of Concealed carry in OHIO

from the limohio.com website :

Concealed carry five years later: Why it works

Comments 5 | Recommend 3

June 27, 2009 – 9:12 PM

Greg Sowinski

LIMA – When two men knocked on Charesa Smith’s door at 5 a.m. wanting to use her phone last winter, she feared the worst.

She knew about a rash of home invasion robberies happening around the county.

Smith and her husband never let them inside, where they have three young children. They called the Sheriff’s Office, and the men left.

“It broke the safe barrier I had around myself and my house. I felt as if I was violated. They never did anything, but it felt like it could have gotten nasty,” she said.

That incident was enough to spur Smith and her husband to obtain their concealed carry licenses. She now feels safer, she says, especially since she spends a lot of time out alone with her children, who range in age from 10 months to 7 years old, running to the store and appointments.

“It was a safety issue,” she said. “I don’t think the world is as safe of a place as it used to be, and I wanted something to protect my children.”

More people packing

More and more Ohioans are carrying concealed weapons, with an enormous increase this year alone. Most officials attribute that increase to the fear that Barack Obama’s administration in the White House will take away guns, coupled with the struggling economy and an increase in crime.

Through March, Ohio reported 159,000 residents with concealed carry licenses, which represents about 1 percent of the population. Of that number, 16,323 were new licenses issued in the first three months of the year, a number that continues to climb at a high rate.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates 25 percent of the U.S. population owns a gun of some type, and half the households in the country have at least one gun inside.

Many local counties report doubling or tripling the number of applicants for the first six months of the year compared to all of 2008. In Auglaize County, 92 licenses were issued last year, compared to 295 so far this year. Allen County issued 323 licenses last year, compared to 449 so far this year.

Insight Firearms Training Development instructor Steve Farmer, of Lima, said there’s been an explosion in the number of people taking his class. In previous years, he averaged 15 in his monthly class. During the first five months of the year, he’s had classes as big as 40 people and had to hold two each month to keep up with demand.

Bob Davis, a 64-year-old owner of a small business in Lima, said his job takes him to all areas of town, including those with high crime rates, where he does not feel safe.

“I just can’t tell someone we can’t do your work because you live in a high-crime area,” he said.

Patrick Kennedy, a former police officer who now works as a psychiatric attendant for the state prison system, said he feels safer carrying a gun. That’s especially true since he deals with criminals every day, some of whom threaten to hurt him should they be released.

“I just want to have a choice to carry it to protect myself and my family,” he said.

Best citizens

Farmer said he sees people in class from all walks of life, from doctors and lawyers to factory workers, teachers and preachers.

Farmer, a former police chief who is also a police firearms trainer, said people with concealed carry licenses are among the most law-abiding. He said he rarely came across people with their concealed carry licenses during traffic stops, saying it’s because they follow the law to begin with.

Allen County Sheriff Crish said people with their concealed carry licenses typically are the most law-abiding citizens. Otherwise, they would not have been issued a license.

“We’re not worried about those individuals,” he said.

Benefits of CCW

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, fought to bring concealed carry to Ohio as a state legislator more than five years ago. He said the law levels the playing field and gives good people the chance to protect themselves, deterring crime.

No law is going to stop a bad guy from carrying a gun, but without a law they had more targets to go after with less worry, Jordan said.

“Now they have to stop and think,” he said.

Carrying a gun makes Davis feel as if he has a chance, especially when he hears about robberies where someone shoots the victim for no reason, he said.

“I just don’t want to be in that position,” he said.

Davis also tries to avoid being in a bad situation. He said he would much rather take preventative measures than to risk harm or be put in a position to use his weapon. He’s never had to pull out his gun since he began carrying last year.

“I hope I never have to pull it for any reason, and I wouldn’t look forward to shooting anyone,” he said.

Another aspect of obtaining a license Smith said doesn’t catch the headlines comes through the training. She wanted to have a gun before taking her concealed carry class under Farmer but was reluctant to get a gun without knowing how to safely store and handle it with three children at home.

Farmer worked closely with her to explain options such as gun storage safes and ways to teach children guns are dangerous, she said.

The police view

When the concealed carry concept was first proposed, those against it said it would lead to shootouts or a return to the days of the Wild West.

That has not happened. Police and sheriffs in the region have not recorded a single case.

“Experience has proven it has not created any problems,” Lima Police Department Maj. Kevin Martin said.

Auglaize County Sheriff Al Solomon said he remembers the few who were opposed saying there also would be vigilantism.

“That hasn’t been the issue,” he said.

Solomon, who supports the law, said he hasn’t even had a case of a concealed carry license holder legally shooting someone in self-defense.

Van Wert County Sheriff Stan Owens supports the law, saying there is proof it deters crime. He said carjackings across the country have declined since concealed carry laws hit the books.

“It adds a deterrent. The criminal may be faced with lethal force should he try to rob or harm someone,” Owens said.

Opposition

While concealed carry is gaining popularity and more are doing it, there’s still those who remain opposed.

Doug Pennington, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign, a Washington-based group whose mission is to reduce gun violence through stronger laws, said the campaign is not completely against concealed carry but believes there are too many problems with existing laws.

He said there are numerous examples where a person held a concealed carry license only to get in some type of trouble. The strongest example is a man in Twinsburg, near Cleveland, who shot and killed a police officer last year during a routine traffic stop.

“These things do happen,” he said.

State Rep. Matt Huffman, R-Lima, said exceptions can be found to almost anything. He said he fears that cases such as the one mentioned by Pennington can lead to responses that are not well thought out. He said some miss the point to begin with, that the right to carry a weapon is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

“We shouldn’t willy nilly be getting rid of guns because a tragedy happens. There are more tragedies with automobiles that cause death and injuries than guns,” he said.

Former Allen County Prosecutor David Bowers said the risks of having more guns outweighs the benefits. As a prosecutor, he saw too many accidents and deaths occur by gunfire.

“I don’t think guns are the answer,” he said.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol also remains opposed to concealed carry. After realizing early on it was just a matter of time before it was law, troopers found a way to accept it by offering measures aimed at officer safety, such as the license-holder’s requirement to notify a police officer he is a concealed carrier during a traffic stop, said Lt. Shawn Davis, a spokesman for the state patrol.

Davis said the patrol occasionally comes across concealed carry license-holders who forget to notify the trooper or who are intoxicated.

“Those scenarios are alarming to us,” he said.

Future of CCW

While some want stronger laws, there are those who want the law to provide more options. Farmer wants the option of being able to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol when he’s having a meal with his family but not consuming alcohol. House Bill 203, which Huffman supports, would provide that.

Existing law makes it a crime to carry a gun while intoxicated.

Huffman said there also is a pending bill to loosen the concealed carry license requirement to taking the training course and passing the FBI background check at the time a person purchases a gun. There would be no license to obtain.

Hardin County Sheriff Keith Everhart said the only change he would propose in the law is to have the person qualify with the gun he or she carries, which is a requirement for police in Ohio.

Mercer County Sheriff Jeff Grey, a supporter of concealed carry, said if he could change anything in the law, he allow a sheriff more room to deny someone who may not have landed in jail but has problems.

“That’s the downside, it’s a shall-issue law. I don’t have the ability to deny someone who I think should be denied,” he said.

Martin said Ohio law does allow police or a sheriff to take away a person’s license if there is trouble or a crime is committed.

There also is proposed legislation in Congress on concealed carry that would require states to recognize licenses from other states, similar to driver’s licenses. Its aim is to do away with the confusion that exists when traveling from one state to another, since each state is responsible for making its own concealed carry laws and not all states allow it.

“It’s common sense. There should be some uniformity to concealed carry law so when you move from one jurisdiction to the next, you don’t find out in one state you were fine and in another you’re in violation of the law,” Jordan said.

Jordan said the national bill has an uphill battle, given the Democratic leadership. Even so, it does have support on both sides of the isle, he said.

“It won’t be easy,” he said.

2alago….what? No shootings over parking spaces? No O.K. Corral or Wild West? No blood flowing in the streets?

Ammuntition Shortage

With the idea that every cloud has a silver lining, I found that I don’t mind the current ammo shortage so much.  Every round that is sold out before I get to it means it went to another Lawful American Gun Owner.  As long as all the rounds and guns are going to good causes…….

(besides…I stocked up two days after the election!)

Obama’s college buddy

Do you know who this guy is?  This is a picture of Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.  He was the Commander in Chief of the Imperial JapaneseNavy  during WWII and planned many of their battles including Pearl Harbor.  He also knew and understood the United States far better than our Current Commander in Chief.  Of all the Japanese military leaders, Admiral Yamamoto was the most apprehensive about a war with the U.S. and alignment with Germany.

Ironically, Yammamoto was a Harvard man, just like Obama.  Later he served as a Naval Attache at the Japanese embassy in D.C. and toured the U.S. quite a bit.  As a result he understood the potential of this country and it’s people.  Whenever posibible he tried to dissuadehis government from engaging the U.S. in battle, but none the less did his duty and served his coutry. 

So what does a Japanese WWII Admiral who masterminded the Pearl Harbor attack (on my own Grandfather no less) doing in a blog  about American freedom?

He explained to his governemnt that invading the United States was not an option,  He said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Yammamoto understood the POWER of an armed populace.  The mere presence of  civilian gun owners was sufficient deterrent to the most agressive milkitary power in the Pacific.  Too bad our current leadership does not  understand this.  I guess they dont teach history at Harvard…..

The Nose on Their Face

I find it almost hilarious (if it wasn’t so sad) listening to the Feinsteins and Pelosis of the U.S.  Govt, saying how they cant  push their pet gun control schemes forward yet because they “lack the support”.

The truth of the matter is that they were all around in the 1990’s when they though they could  put an end to American freedom so the Government could FINALLY run the country without having to answer to the great unwashed.  By enacting the Clinton “Assault Weapons ban” which ensured that American streets were free from bayonet charges, they manged to loose the Congress to the Republicans within 7 weeks and bury Al Gore’s chance at 1600 Pennsylvania ave.

While they sit in their ivory tower and still vehementlyoppose the notion that I can protect my family from rabid animals, criminals, Mexican Drug cartels, as well as a tyrannical government, they are at least smart enough to know that an all-out attack on the Second Amendment is the express lane to working in the private sector again.  It’s not that they don’t believe Americans should be disarmed immediately, it’s just none of them want to be the first one to touch the third rail with their tongues. 

What Boggles my mind is if they know that the majority American Bi Partisan voters would vote them out of office for Gun bans, why can’t they do the math to realize that means the majority of  Americans do not support gun control and that they should move on to something else more useful to the country, like putting criminals in jail?

According to the Brady Bunch, almost 35% of U.S. Households have a gun in them, I suspect the true number is higher, Gallup and Tulane say 49%. and the number rises daily!  According to the 2000 Census only 43% of the population had Internet access.  Let me translate that for Liberals;During the height of the “assault weapons ban” and the D.C. gun ban 9 years ago, more American families had guns than Internet!

Why then this constant assault on a God Given, Constitutionally protected civil right that clearly has the popular support of the Electorate?  It should be as plain as the nose on their face that they are not acting in the best interest of Americans!

100% investment for 2.7% return?

The Anti-Gun forces and their congressional allies are spending millions of dollars (some of it taxpayers) to promote their continuing shopping list of freedom restrictions for the American gun owner, chief among them are the “assault weapons ban”, Closing the fictitious “gun show loophole” and the perennial”registration” schemes.  It should be noted that registration will require the “gun show loophole”  legislation to pass first to ensure that no one can sell a privatelyowned firearm without checking in with big brother, but I digress.

Apparently, if all of these restrictions pass, the U.S. and Mexico will be peaceful Utopias free of all crime and violence-or so we are told.   However, the math seems a bit fuzzy.

According to the Bureau of Justice, about 1.7% of crime guns originated at gunshows (Federal Firearms Offenders 1992-1998)

According to the ATF, “assault weapons” are used in about 1% of crimes (no specific citation available, copied from a BOJ report)

According to the U.S. Supreme Court (Haynes v. U.S. 1968)  A criminal CANNOT be convicted of possessing an unregistered gun, because to register a weapon when you are a prohibited person is a violation of  5th amendment rights against self incrimination. Interestinglyenough both the Heller  and Miranda  decisions passed with a 5-4 margin, but Haynes  passed 8-1!  In short, registration will have a 0% effect. (That is assuming crime reduction is the actual goal, not just the stated one!)

So, if we ban “assualt weapons” close down gunshows and enact registration, the BEST CASE SENARIO is a 2.7% reduction in crime guns?  Even for the Government that is a pitiful return of investment both of money and effort.

Of couse, I say best case senario becuse in reality the same criminals who would have bought guns from a private party, or used an “assualt weapon” would just go somewhere else to buy and/or use a different kind of gun so the reality is a 0% reduction.  Gee, why wouldn’t I support a thing like that?

The better question is why would I vote for someone who does?

Anti-gun is a HATE CRIME!

 

If you are a  liberal or progressive you might want to sit down for this one.

 

I once got jumped by three black guys on a train platform in Boston.   I’m told it would be wrong to blame all black people for this. 

On September 11th, Islamic terrorists killed thousands of Americans in D.C. and WTC (including 343 of my brothers) and they continue to kill American soldiers in the middle east.   I’m told it is wrong to blame all Muslims for these atrocities.

If A Hispanic person robs me, I shouldn’t blame all Hispanic people

If a gay activist gets in my face and pissed me off, it’d not right to blame all gay people

SO WHY IS IT PERFECTLY OK TO BLAME THE NRA AND LAWFUL GUN OWNERS EVERY TIME A CRIME OR A MASS SHOOTING OCCURS???????????????????????????????????????

Drug crime out of control in Mexico?  Blame Lawful American Gun Owners!

Two Kids buy guns from a street criminal in Denver and shoot up Columbine High School?  Blame Lawful American Gun owners and the nonexistent “gun show loophole”

A psycho white supremacist shoots three police officers?  Blame and Punish Lawful American Gun Owners!

A gang banger shoots a 16 year old boy on a city bus?  Blame and Punish Lawful American Gun Owners!  And for good measure, name the absurd law after the victim (Blair Holt) whom the law wouldn’t have saved!

Not only shall we blame and punish them, we are going to stereotype them with every disingenuous term at our disposal!

Lawful gun owners are called Nuts, loonies, psychos, insane, small penised, Rambo wannabees, rednecks, hillbillies and many others.   Apparently lawful gun owners should be denied firearms because they are so unstable they could “snap”  at any minute!  They are portrayed as ready to shoot up whole neighborhoods at the slightest provocation, and that they WANT to kill people at the first opportunity.  Newspapers fight in court so they can publish the names of concealed carry permit holders for all to read, so that the “enlightened” folks can properly ostracize them from the community.

If you singled out ANY OTHER group by race, religion, or color and persecuted them the way the left and the media goes after this group of law abiding citizens, the A.C.L.U. would be on your doorstep with an injunction in 20 Minutes!  Imagine if you needed a permit to be Jewish, legally required to keep you Koranlocked up,restricted to certain “safe and approved” denominations of Christianity.  Would you stand by and be limited to only one church service a month?  What if it was a crime to practice your faithacross state lines?  What would you do if all Gays were required to register themselves with the state?  Would you support a ban on Catholicism if if could be proven it was the “religion of choice” for Mexican Drug cartels?  Are these not the same “common sense” and “reasonable restrictions” that people want applied to Lawful American Gun Owners?

Its Appalling, its wrong, its hypocrisy, its hate, and it should be opposed by all, whether you support gun rights or not.

ABC 20/20 Biased “experiment”

 

I have often wondered if the Brady Center has writers working in all of the mainstream media outlets.  The recent 20/20 episode titled “If I only had a gun”  Strengthened that suspicion.

The set up, clearly aimed to support people who oppose concealed carry on campus, is in the guise of an “experiment”

In conjunction with a police department, ABC went to a college campus and offed free pistol training to students.  They then picked 6 of them and set them up in a lecture hall with other “students” one at time and gave them a gun (loaded with paint rounds).  At some point in the lecture, a “gunman” storms into the lecture hall and begins shooting people (also with paint rounds) to see if the students could defend themselves.  In some cases they had multiple gunmen to contend with.  Naturally most failed to hit the gunman, the unspoken conclusion is supposed to be that caring a gun wont save your life.

On the plus side they are quite correct that under stress your fine motor skills deteriorate, hitting a target becomes more difficult and you lose peripheral vision all of which are true.  What they fail to point out is the same thing is true for the gunman as well.  In their “experiment”  the gunman is a police firearms instructor who is perfectly calm because he knows it’s fake, perfectly sane, and after shooting the “professor”  makes a beeline for the kid in the class who he already knows has a weapon and shoots at the kid, and naturally hits him more times that he gets hit. To be perfectly fair, I am not sure how well I would have done in the same situation, I would like to think I understand shooting from cover better than these kids did, but until I face that same moment of truth  (I prey I never will!)I can only speculate.

If you were to reverse the experiment and hide several police officers in the room and send in a student as a gunman, I guarantee the gunman would be dropped fairly quickly.  Better yet, Hide some students in the room and dont tell the police”gunman”  While he is going after the gunman he knows about, the other one will drop him…

Since I look at the world differntly from the ABC Newsbats, what Isaw was most of the students drawing thier weapons and returning fire without hesitation or thought for their personal safety…they were risking thier lives for strangers, the kind of selfless act that used to be common in America.   No mention of thier willingness to fight, only their inability to take down a much better trained opponent.  In the movie Shooter , The young FBI Agent is called on the carpet by his superiors for being overpowered by sniper Bob Lee Swagger.  His reply was “I am only three weeks out of the academy, this guy was a combat veteran from Marine Force recon, I actually feel lucky to be alive”  ABC News want you to believe that unless YOU are as well trained as Bob Lee Swagger, that not carrying  a gun, standing up to crminals and monsters ,and cowering under a desk are the right things to do.  Fine!  Lets start Defensive Firearms training in the middle schools.  By High School Graduation, we will have a Nation full of AMERICANS who will not submit, will not cower, and will not tolerate criminal and terrorist predators walking the streets with the good people. of this country.

No es culpa nuestra!

That’s Spanish for “Not our fault”

Apparently our newly minted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went down to Mexico and accepted the blame for the violence perpetrated by Mexican Drug cartels.  As usual, I am DUMBFOUNDED

How is a country with both large well funded criminal organizations, as well as a extremely corrupt government able to foist the blame off on the Law abiding gun owners of the U.S.? Because Hillary said so!

And, aw shucks since it is our fault that Mexico can’t control it’s borders either we are just going to have to pass strict gun laws to stop U.S. Citizens in places like New Hampshire, Montana and Virginia  from lawfully purchasing Semi-Auto firearms at legal guns stores because THAT will help keep the Mexican Drug Cartels from using Rocket propelled Grenades and Machine guns purchased from gang bangers, Organized crime syndicates, and international arms dealers against unarmed citizens.

And these assclowns are running our country for the next 4 years?  I bet they trully wonder why  folk ran out and blew their 5 year gun and ammo budgets before Obama took office!