data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6947c/6947c329c9473274d979a202fdd4dae2798bd178" alt=""
You rocked, dude! And in the end you were the coolest one of all...
Author and host of the hit OUTDOOR CHANNEL show SHOOTING GALLERY spouts off...
Pulling the TriggerOnly a painfully naive college student could write "nuanced federal legislation" without breaking up in gales of uncontrollable laughter. As usual, the staff of the Crimson repeats the Brady talking points without bothering to even fact-check them. As usual, we get down on our knees and thank the Benevolent Spirits of Whatever Universe You Presently Reside In that college students are taken less seriously than personal pets.
The Second Amendment is an anachronism in need of repeal
Published On Friday, November 30, 2007 1:15 AM
By THE CRIMSON STAFF
Written in an age in which minutemen rose to dress and fight at a moment’s notice, the Second Amendment was no doubt motivated by a young nation’s concern for its own safety and stability. But now, when the United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe, the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful. Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy, and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.
Watch what you say in public. Think the worst of those within ear shot. You want a private conversation, don’t have it in a public place. And if you must, then keep your voices down so only those involved in the conversation can hear it.A lot of excellent information here! It's scary information for me because I am, by definition, a "public person." You know a lot more about me than I know about you. Which is weird, because in my previous career as a journalist, I was relentlessly private...comes from prying personal information out of people for a living. I knew how much info people like me could extract from non-pros; accordingly, I didn't give interviews, my numbers weren't unlisted, etc.
A stranger asks you for personal information? Tell them to pound sand. Or if you must provide it for some reason, make a “mistake” and give them bad information. Yes, lie. Change the numbers of your address or give them a different address. Same for phone numbers, dates of birth, and social security numbers. If you must give out the true information, be as guarded about it as you would be with your pin number to the ATM.
Look at your daily dress. Sometimes the job will determine the clothing, but if not, then avoid all the gun school wear and CCW Gucci gear as it will mark you for scrutiny or for targeting. If you don’t care, then keep doing what you are doing. What I will say is the casual construction worker look or the moderately paid office worker look will not get any attention, while the pressed and starched 5.11 CCW vest with matching pants and gun logo hat will get stares from everyone.
Look at your car. How many unnecessary stickers describing you or your family appear there. My favorite OpSec faux pas is the stencil cartoon of all family members along with their names and ages sharply detailed on the back window.
Come on guys. How many of you would walk into the “soon-to-be-released” ward of the local mental hospital for the criminally insane and give a 30 minute briefing on your family and where they can be found? That is in effect what you are doing.
November 24, 2007
For Immediate Release
Thompson Campaign Announces Sportsmen for Fred Steering Committee
McLean, VA - Today the Fred Thompson campaign announced its Sportsmen for Fred Thompson leadership and steering committee. Iowa State Representative and NRA Board Member Clel Baudler, Gerald Stoudemire, Michael Bane, Bill Bunting, and Lee Ann Tarducci will serve as Co-Chairs of Sportsmen for Fred Thompson.
Clel Baudler has represented the 58th district of Iowa in the state legislature since 1998. He currently sits on the Judiciary, Natural Resources and Oversight committees and is the ranking member of the Public Safety Committee. A retired state trooper, State Representative Baudler also sits on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association.
"Fred Thompson has been an unapologetic supporter of the Second Amendment throughout his career and I am honored to be on his team. He is somebody that Second Amendment supporters, hunters, and sportsmen will have as an ally in the White House," said Iowa State Representative and NRA Board Member Clel Baudler. "He has the experience, commitment to conservative principles and understanding of the rule of law that we need leading this nation."
Gerald Stoudemire is a 15-year member and current President of the Gun Owners of South Carolina. The owner of a gun store in Little Mountain, SC, Stoudemire is a NRA Benefactor Member. He has served the Little Mountain community for over 40 years as a volunteer firefighter, including 22 years as the Volunteer Fire Chief.
"I am so pleased to be serving as Co-Chair of Sportsmen for Fred," said Gerald Stoudemire. "Fred Thompson can be trusted on the Second Amendment. He is the only candidate with a consistent record that reflects an understanding of the protection provided under the Second Amendment, and will go to the mat to defend it. I am pleased to offer my support to his campaign and will do everything I can to help Fred win."
Michael Bane is in his eighth season as the host of Shooting Gallery, one of the highest rated shows on the Outdoor Channel. He is the founder and executive producer of Down Range Television, the largest firearms-oriented community website that receives more than 250,000 individual viewers per month. The owner of the Michael Bane Blog, he is a contributor to Outdoor Life Magazine. Bane is the author of 21 books and has been chronicled in numerous publications including Men's Journal, National Geographic Adventure, and Men's Health.
"The so-called 'gun culture' is in fact the mainstream culture of America, and Fred Thompson is the only candidate who understands that simple truth," said Michael Bane. "Through our license fees, our purchases and our contributions, we represent billions of dollars in annual commerce; through our willingness to accept personal responsibility for our safety, we have seen our fellow citizens benefit as crime rates have fallen across our country; through our resolute belief in the Founders' intentions, we have moved toward a better, stronger America. Fred Thompson understands these things because he is more than a candidate...he is one of us."
"I am so honored to have the support of these leading 2nd Amendment advocates, hunters, sportsmen and gun collectors from across the country," said Senator Fred Thompson. "These folks know the real effect of gun control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for legal activities such as hunting, self-defense, sport-shooting, and collecting. I am committed to fighting for the rights assured to law abiding citizens under the Second Amendment."
Senator Thompson visited with voters today at the Land of the Sky Gun Show in Ladson, South Carolina.
The Sportsmen for Fred Thompson Steering Committee includes:
National Co-Chairs
Clel Baudler (Iowa), Iowa State Representative and National Rifle Association Board Member
Gerald Stoudemire (South Carolina), President, Gun Owners of South Carolina
Bill Bunting (Florida), Chairman, Governor Charlie Christ's Second Amendment Rights Coalition
Lee Ann Tarducci (South Carolina), Board Member and Operations Director, Second Amendment Sisters of South Carolina
Michael Bane (Colorado), Host and Producer of "Shooting Gallery" on The Outdoor Channel
Members:
South Carolina
Kirkman Finlay, Columbia, South Carolina City Councilman
New Hampshire
Stephen Lee, Endowment Member of the NRA (18+ years) and member of Gun Owners of America
Paul Erhardt, Firearm Industry Executive
California
Wally Beinfeld, Shows Director, Beinfeld Productions MB
John Bianchi, Author, Blue Steel and Gun Leather
Tennessee
Ronnie Barrett, Founder, Barrett Firearms Company
Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, Tennessee Lieutenant Governor
Texas
Jerry Patterson, Texas Land Commissioner
Arizona
Scott Moore, Firearm Industry Executive
*Affiliations listed are for identification purposes only
'Girls Gone Wild' founder alleges torture while in Oklahoma jailHe probably refused to pull up his shirt and show his man boobies...this is an example of one of those data points that actually goes nowhere, except maybe proving that the Great Spirit has a wicked sense of humor. Or not. I'm feeling a little low this AM because my lemon merengue pie tanked...our Kitchen Aide mixer turned itself into a Kitchen Aide barely mechanized spoon...yet another overpriced, overrated Kitchen Aide appliance to go south here at Festung Bane...and I had to hand-whip the merengue (sounds like one of those videos the guy from "Girls Gone Wild" makes, huh?). So my merengue ended up not firm enough and immediately started deconstructing. I was humbled. The lemon custard was still good, though.
CHICKASHA -- The founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" franchise has accused Grady County jailers of going wild and torturing him during a brief stay at the facility.
It's very easy for sophisticated people to sneer at the rights of "gun nuts." I grew up here on the East Coast, and watched the phenomenon evolve. In fact, I even saw it first hand, applied in a very petty way by a very "sophisticated" neighbor, when she told my mother that she didn't want her son to come over and play with me as long as my mom allowed me to have toy guns (which in her view needed to be shunned by mothers who knew better). This was shortly after the Kennedy assassination, when I was around eight years old and into the "playing soldier" phase. My mom was quite disturbed by this, because the woman (whose family was headed by a famous New Deal aristocrat) outranked her socially, and I remember my parents discussing it at the dinner table. My father took the "boys will be boys" line and advised my mom to ignore it, but I did lose a friend, and it wasn't really his fault or mine.BTW, Jim Shepherd of the SHOOTING WIRE and I will be taking steps Monday to clear our press credentials for Washington in March. It is history, and we will be there!
It was the new "sophistication." Little did I know that I was witnessing the emergence of one form of what I now call "manufactured morality."
Then as now, the ruling class snobs knew what was best.
...by taking this case, the court has ensured that the gun-rights issue will move to the forefront this election season, at both the presidential and congressional levels. This is probably bad for Democrats, given that most Americans believe they have some sort of right to arms under the Constitution.You should also check out he and his wife's podcast, which features an interview with Bob Levy of Cato. Here's a creepy thought from Bill Quick at the Daily Pundit:
It's also probably bad for Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who have generally been less supportive of gun rights than the other GOP contenders. But maybe Hillary Clinton will prove flexible: Bill Clinton said that the gun issue cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994, and Hillary no doubt remembers that.
By the way, what a stinker of an issue this is for the Democrats and the left, eh? I think Hillary will have a Sister Souljah moment and come out in support of an individual rights interpretation. In my leftist days, the New Left certainly felt that way. None of us supported disarming the Black Panthers. And, frankly, Kos isn’t exactly a hotbed of anti-gun fervor, given that a strong stream of opinion there believes they will have to take up arms to protect themselves from us Fascists.Wouldn't that be a brilliant shocker? I mean, Hillary doesn't actually believe in anything except power, and coming out in favor of the individual interpretation could drastically blunt the gun voter sword slash that's building for 2008...I think such a move would probably guarantee her the White House. The, of course, she would go right ahead and do whatever she wanted.
No, the big news that has everybody jazzed is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant cert to District of Columbia v. Heller — you know, the one where an overreaching D.C. Circuit Court fascistically ruled that residents of the District — mostly poor, and non-white — are in fact covered by the Second Amendment and thus by the entire U.S. Constitution. Can you believe that? Talk about legislating from the bench!Well, my phone is ringing off the hook upstairs in the office...I guess I gotta suck it up and face it...
Well, thank the deity of your own personal belief system, or none at all, for Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg is all I can say — if she’s not snoozing on the bench during oral arguments, she and her compadres on the Left (“Fighting the Power Since 1776”) will drop-kick this sucker back across the Potomac and set off a wave of state-legislative rewrites not seen since Roe v. Wade. And America will be a safer, saner nation because of it.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” the Second Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But what did the Framing generation understand “free State” to mean?What the scumbags at the Brady Center are saying:
Some say it meant a “state of the union, free from federal oppression.” As one D.C. Circuit judge put it [dissenting in the case that the Court has just agreed to hear -EV], “The Amendment was drafted in response to the perceived threat to the ‘free[dom]’ of the ‘State[s]’ posed by a national standing army controlled by the federal government.” Or as a lawyer for one leading pro-gun-control group wrote, “Presumably, the term ‘free State’ is a reference to the states as entities of governmental authority. Moreover, the reference to the ‘security’ of a free State must have something to do with the need to defend the state as an entity of government.”
If the Supreme Court does not reverse the Court of Appeals's decision, sensible gun laws could be at risk...from the long-standing machine gun ban...to the Brady criminal background check law...to local and state gun laws like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style assault weapons.Say, what great ideas!
The Supreme Court obviously wanted to be very precise. That likely explains why it skipped announcing last week, they had to work on it, perhaps negotiations between Justices on the precise wording. I suspect the wording is the result of a lot of careful thinking.Read the whole thing!
The reference to "Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia..." is good. Implicit in that is that the old collective right theory (that Second Amendment rights are rights of states only) is off the table. We're down to sophisticated collective rights vs. individual rights. And I might even venture a guess that the Court is showing favor for individual rights here. The sentence presupposes that there are "Second Amendment rights of individuals." There's no "if any" language in there. Read literally, it presupposes that individuals not in such a militia do have second amendment rights... the only question is whether the laws violate those rights. But that may be reading too much into the wording... then again, it was probably the result of some careful thinking, and negotiation.
"I strongly believe that Judge Silberman’s decision deserves to be upheld by the Supreme Court. The Parker decision is an excellent example of a judge looking to find the meaning of the words in the Constitution, not what he would like them to mean."
How many Americans would view District of Columbia v. Parker as the most important court case of the last thirty years? The answer must run into seven figures. The decision would have far-reaching effects, particularly in the event of a reversal.
[...]
It isn’t hyperbole to compare Parker to Roe v. Wade in its potential impact on American politics. Indeed, while the "estoppel by Establishment Clause" argument I just gave is intended to be elegant, persuasive and troubling to legal academics (after all, I ripped it off from Akhil Amar), there is a way more straightforward comparison that a whole lot of average Americans would be making. That's a comparison between the Court's handling of the enumerated rights claim at issue in Parker, and its demonstrated willingness to embrace even non-enumerated individual rights that are congenial to the political left, in cases like Roe and Lawrence. "So the Constitution says Roe, but it doesn't say I have the right to keep a gun to defend my home, huh?"
I would expect to see large public demonstrations in Washington during the pendency of Parker, and political candidates being forced to take sides on the litigation (as is already beginning to happen). The case would cast a long shadow on the national elections in 2008 and beyond.
“Here’s another reason why it’s important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more that a set of suggestions. Today, the Supreme decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.
Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.
I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.
In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.
The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.
You can’t always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, DC’s gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.”
07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A.Whole story now up on Fox.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
SAF EXCITED ABOUT SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF HELLER CASE
BELLEVUE, WA – For the first time in United States history, the Supreme Court will hear a case that should, once and for all, decide the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment Foundation could not be happier.
“We are confident that the high court will rule that the Second Amendment affirms and protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “Previous Supreme Court rulings dating back more than a century have consistently referred to the Second Amendment as protective of an individual right, but the case of District of Columbia v. Heller focuses on that issue, and we expect the court to settle the issue once and for all.”
The court announced today that it will hear an appeal of the case, in which seven Washington, D.C. residents have sued to overturn the district’s 31-year-old gun ban. In March, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the ban is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The court further ruled that the amendment does protect an individual right. The ruling set off a firestorm, in which gun control proponents, who had frequently claimed to support a right to keep and bear arms, dropped all pretenses and publicly acknowledged that they do not believe there is such a right protected by the Second Amendment.
“An affirmative ruling by the Supreme Court will probably not be the death knell for the extremist citizen disarmament movement,” Gottlieb said, “but it will properly cripple their campaign to destroy an important civil right, the one that protects all of our other rights. The insidious effort to strip American citizens of their firearms rights, while at the same time permanently harming public safety must end.
“The Washington, D.C. gun ban has been a monumental failure and the crime statistics prove that,” Gottlieb said. “For almost 70 years, gun banners have deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented the high court’s language in the U.S. v Miller ruling in 1939. It is long past the time that this important issue be put to rest, and the Heller case will provide the court with that opportunity.”
Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA. Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social "re-education" is the object of liberal social policies. Typical of such bigotry is New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's famous characterization of gun-owners as "hunters who drink beer, don't vote, and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend." Similar vituperation is rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen. Edward Kennedy as the "pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for the right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general, portrayed as standing for an individual's God-given right to blow people away at will.
The stereotype is, of course, false. As criminologist and constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr. and former HCI contributor Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed out, "[s]tudies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners.... Later studies show that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc."
November 19, 2007
Winchester Wins FBI 40 S&W Ammunition Contract
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has awarded Winchester® Ammunition the single largest ammunition contract in the history of federal law enforcement worth a maximum of $54 million for ONE year.
Winchester Ammunition will produce 40 S&W service ammunition, training ammunition, reduced lead training ammunition and frangible ammunition for the FBI for one base year, with four, one-year renewal options.
"The innovation behind the enhanced 40 S&W bonded service round is a testament to our Winchester engineers and the quality of our manufacturing," said Dick Hammett, president, Winchester Ammunition.
Winchester's enhanced 40 S&W service ammunition is a 180-grain, bonded jacketed hollow point round and was selected over all other rounds that were tested. The FBI tests the terminal ballistics of each round by shooting a specific test
protocol through various barriers such as heavy cloth, wallboard, plywood, steel and auto glass into ballistic gelatin.
In addition to the FBI, the contract affects many agencies both inside and outside the Department of Justice, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and U.S. Marshal Service.
"On behalf of Winchester, we are extremely proud that our nation's premier law enforcement agency has selected Winchester ammunition to use in its mission of protecting and defending the United States," said Hammett.
Why the gun is civilizationBe sure to visit the site and read the comments!
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Most at NYU say their vote has a priceReminds me of that old Harvey Danger song "Flagpole Sitta:"
Two-thirds say they'll do it for a year's tuition. And for a few, even an iPod touch will do.
That's what NYU students said they'd take in exchange for their right to vote in the next presidential election, a recent survey by an NYU journalism class found.
Only 20 percent said they'd exchange their vote for an iPod touch.
But 66 percent said they'd forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they'd give up the right to vote forever for $1 million.
Small Town Overcome By Mysterious Ape SightingsSo it could be a new Democratic contender...or Bill Clinton. If I were Fish and Wildlife, I'd check under the tree for waffles...or interns.
GLEN ST. MARY, Fla. -- Mysterious ape sightings are bringing excitement to a sleepy Florida town.
The local newspaper even ran a story about the sightings.
"There is kind of that 'I've seen a bigfoot' type of feel to it," said resident Eric Lawson. "They said it made a nest in that tree, so it's probably somewhere here in the area."
Some believe the mysterious animal is an orangutan -- one local family had found what looked to be an orange ape up high in a tree.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission investigator who answered the original complaint call on the orange ape said there was definitely something up in the top of the tree, but he really couldn't be sure what it was.
Detonics Press Release
November 13, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!
In the fight for Democracy, John Moses Browning’s Model 1911 weapon system is arguably one of the most important technologies of the 20th century. Better known as the Government Model .45, Browning’s 1911/1911-A1 pioneered break-through weapon technology, bringing forward a weapon platform that enhanced the mission capability and survivability of military personnel and peace-keepers world wide. In fact, Browning’s 1911 was instrumental in the heroic actions leading to multiple American military personnel receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Browning’s 1911 weapon system remained virtually unchanged for the next 60 years, until the team of Pat Yates, Sid Woodcock and Mike Maes joined together in 1973 to develop the first fully functional true compact 1911. The innovations needed to bring this concept to market were spearheaded by Sid Woodcock, a weapons and explosives engineer who was a World War II veteran and security specialist and consultant to numerous government agencies. Woodcock and Maes would go on to form Detonics Manufacturing Corporation, Inc., with Woodcook leading an engineering team that produced a battery of innovations that created a new 1911 industry.
In 1986, Detonics Manufacturing Corporation ceased day-to-day weapons manufacturing and licensed their intellectual properties to a series of start-up Detonics companies, the most recent being Detonics USA of Pendergrass, Georgia.
In a two party transaction, Double Nickel, LLC, acquired Detonics Manufacturing Corporation as well the assets and inventory of Detonics USA. Double Nickel is owned by Bruce Siddle of Millstadt, IL, and Dr Steve Stahle of St. Louis, MO.
Siddle is best known as the founder of PPCT Management Systems, Inc., and Homeland Security Corp, where he is the CEO. Siddle is also recognized internationally as one of the leading experts in Combat Human Factors, the study of how combat/survival stress impacts performance. His research into the triggering of the Sympathetic Nervous System during combat is considered pioneering and has influenced a whole new generation of firearms and combat skills instructors.
Dr. Steve Stahle, a nationally recognized sports internist whose clients include a wide spectrum from professional athletes and Olympic athletes to families of the greater St. Louis area, is an expert on performance conditioning and performance human factors.
Siddle (who also owns five patents, four of which are law enforcement technology oriented) and Stahle bring forward a very unique leadership team in this acquisition. “The firearms industry is rich with tradition, and has been growing rapidly over the last five years in all sectors – sporting, competition and peace keeping. We are very proud to be part of this industry, although our focus will be on developing stress compatible and combat oriented weapon systems specifically for military and law enforcement applications.”
The acquisition of the Detonics Manufacturing Corporation provides Siddle and Stahle with a platform that was created upon the “…combat driven legacy as developed by Sid Woodcock, who, we are very proud to announce, will be part of our team. And, while we will continue the successful 1911 platform, everyone can expect some truly innovative technology which will enhance combat accuracy and weapon safety to emerge from Detonics within the next several months. Our goal is to restore Detonics as the leader in weapon system innovation, creating the next generation weapon platform for peace-keepers.”
Siddle will be leaving HSC as the CEO the week ending November 17th to assume the leadership of Detonics. Siddle will be handing off his current CEO duties to Joseph Johnson, who is the Chairman of The Board. Some of HSC’s headquarter operations will be relocated to Washington, DC.
“My wife, Sandy, and I formed PPCT Management Systems, Inc., in 1980 and grew it into the largest use of force training organization on the planet. We merged the firm into Homeland Security Corporation in 2002, post September 11. Together, the HSC and PPCT teams provided support to our Nation’s security by receiving the TSA contracts to train all of the passenger and baggage screeners at all U. S. airports, a contract to train a classified number of Air Marshals, a contract to provide force protection training for U. S. special forces units, and, today, HSC is one of the companies providing U. S. peace keepers to the United Nations. But, for a former police officer and use of force instructor to have an opportunity to acquire Detonics, knowing we can bring forward innovations to enhance an officer’s or soldier’s survivability, is an honor that deserves 100% of my focus and attention. I leave HSC in great hands with a partner and friend for the last five years.”
Within the next few weeks, Siddle and Stahle will relocate Detonics Headquarters to Southern Illinois. “The logistics of the relocation will take several weeks; but, once completed, Detonics will have a full customer service support unit again. A new website should be up within a very short period of time. The community can expect a series of innovation-related announcements over the next six months.”
In the short term, Jerry Ahern is the designated Detonics media-relations point of contact. Jerry has a long history with Detonics, which includes a position as a former CEO. Jerry can be contacted at 251 747-3742.
What do you think?
STEFANOArgh! How can you say that? You married my son...er...my daughter..er...my wife...er...my poodle...my Suburban...
LUCUSI didn't mean to fire the RPG...I love her...she's carrying my baby...er...wallet...er...my mojo...my gat...
MARLENAI'm so confused! Who did I marry this week? Whose baby am I carrying? Do I have amnesia again? Swine flu? Am I possessed by Satan? Wal-Mart? Roman? And who is writing this crappy script?
ELVIS JUNIOR (internal dialoge)I am the least realized character on this show, the soap equivalewnt o of Unnamed Crewman #4 on Star Trek...now I've been shot and have to lay around in a stupid coma for six months...I can't believe I took acting classes in junior college for this!
Take another unsettled legal question: whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms. Here is what Judge Mukasey told me: “Based on my own study, I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.”Well, that's something and a step up from Gonzales, who apparently believed whatever Bush told him to believe.
You can't call yourself a gun-for-hire if you don't have the right gun. Which is why mercenaries are fired up about Sig Sauer's "Blackwater Special Edition" pistol.If I was a mercenary, I think I'd like a "Hello Kitty" FNH Five-seveN. And some of those little Dutch grenades with the small kill radius...then I'd paint them something festive...
“For gun owners and NRA members, this is the biggest legal battle that we have ever fought, or will ever fight—and its outcome will probably impact every law-abiding American gun owner,” LaPierre wrote in the five-page letter. “It is a battle we simply cannot afford to lose.”
Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.
“They recognized this was a good case and D.C. was the perfect place,” says plaintiffs lawyer Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute. “That’s what concerned them.”
Enter your name and email address to sign up for.....
|