If someone were to ask you which products Colt has sold over the years, would you say a .22 semiautomatic rifle? I didn’t think you would. Colt made three versions of .22 rifles, the Courier, Colteer and Stagecoach, as well as others under several private-label names for Sears, Wards and other companies. This alloy rifle shot well, but did not hold up well. Unless it was kept oiled and clean, the alloy parts wore very rapidly. In spite of this, the little Colt rifles were good enough lightweight shooters that most owners will pay to get them fixed rather than discard theirs.

Introduced in 1963, the Remington Model 1100 shotgun has been around for over 40 years now. Variations include a sporter for field shooting, a Magnum version for ducks and geese, as well as a skeet and trap model for those who enjoy breaking clay targets. In all, there have been well over 3,500,000 Model 1100s produced over this period of time so you are bound to see one (or more) come across your bench. In this article, I’ll cover some of the common problems that result in ejection failures along with a few of the possible glitches that aren’t seen very often. And, of course, I’ll examine the cures that will help you get this shotgun back in service as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Check out several videos this week: Close quarter defense requires different tactics than defense from a distance. Pillar bedding is the process of installing aluminum columns in a rifle stock to ensure there is perfect metal-to-metal contact between the action and bottom metal. Gunsite Range Master Il Ling New demonstrates the how to properly load and unload your firearm.

What's ahead for the midterms? Jeff Knox at The Firearms Coalition says, 'There might be a few Democrats who haven't been able to bring themselves to declare support for the Second Amendment, but the official party line is broad support for the constitutional right, while interpreting it in the narrowest terms, and doing all they can to undermine and dismantle it.' As for the other party, 'Republicans, on the other hand, are generally supportive of the right to arms, but few of them have any more understanding of the issue than do the Democrats. They definitely lack the resolve and the backbone to vigorously oppose the Democrats' attacks on the Constitution and the President's appointments of radical extremists to the courts and high level government positions.'

Gun Reports - News

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones

From John Lott on Foxnews.com:

“Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.

"The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army's ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.

"For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone."

Reader Comments

There was a time when officers and staff NCO's carried sidearms at all times, on base and off, in uniform and out, stateside and overseas. They were, after all, trained warriors, and they were expected to be routinely armed. After WWII, the practice began to be prohibited, and after Vietnam, it was defunct. I base this assertion upon my reading of history, on my father's USN/USMC service, and grandfather's US Army service, and on the statements of many, many veterans I now see in my practice in nursing homes and hospitals.

I retired from San Diego in 1993. From 1984 until I retired, I served on several ships and shore stations in California. I always had a handgun with me, in uniform and out, aboard and ashore, on-base and off. By taking the chance of getting caught with it, I risked my rank, and even my career. There were several occasions that, had I been caught without it, I'd have been risking my life. It wasn't a hard choice to make.

I still carry, even in posted areas, because I refuse to allow fools, bureaucrats, politicians, or stupid people to make life or death decisions for me. I decide what's necessary for me to survive and be safe.

Had I been in the Army, in that office at Fort Hood, I might have been killed with the first shots. But if I wasn't the first one dead, Major Hasan would have been one of the next corpses, and I would be in the brig ... sorry, guardhouse ... for daring to be an armed warrior in the US Army, for refusing to be a sheep.

Our nation is in deep, deep trouble.

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | November 11, 2009

Yep...one thing about those radical bastards is they're patient...how long do you suppose that Q-Tip was in the service? 12...15 years? And I believe he had one thing in mind no matter how long it took to gain some rank and trust of the Army... and to somehow kill Americans! I mean look at Atta and that group that went to friken FLIGHT SCHOOL! That ain't just a 2 day course! It took them a year or so to get their pilots licences! They are a sneeky, and patient bunch of A-HOLES!!! Just as long as the end result kills American citizens! BASTARDS! Keep your powder dry and locked and loaded!

In God We Trust.....

Comment by: Geometric1 | November 12, 2009

Our Base Commander will not allow us to bring our weapon's on base for any reason. Those who have a concealed weapons permit should be allowed to carry on base. I don't understand how you can trust a soldier with a weapon on the battlefield and out in public, however not on base, this makes no sense what so ever. It is this kind of touchy feely political correctness that lead to this trajedy on two fronts. One, not allowing soldiers to be armed. Two, the kind of protection minorities and women have in the military. These people have been overprotected from being discriminated against. Managers will not step up against women or minorities due to the fact that if it backfires and they get a discrimation charge their career is ruined, so they let this bad behavior go on. If this was a white guy contacting the KKK they would have discharged him in a minute. We have got too politically correct in this country over protecting minorities. I definitely don't see this administration turning this problem around. Obama won't even admit this was a terroists act. My heart goes out to these soldiers and their families who were involved in this incident.

Comment by: Robert J | November 12, 2009

I think any service member with 3 years of service, a clean record in both civillian and military life, who is legally eligable to purchase a handgun, should get a CCW permit that is good in all states and territories.

I think all vetrans with a similar record, no felonies, clean record, honorable discharge, should also get a CCW good in all states.

I also believe that any citizen holding a concealed carry license from his home state should be allowed to carry in all 50 states.

Fitch

Comment by: Fitch | November 12, 2009

Gaviota, see if the BATF would have investigated this guy(Ft. Hood suspect) instead of the FBI this would not have happened. Sorry, I had to say that.

Comment by: Robert J | November 12, 2009

It is a sad day when we refuse,the people that are serving our country, the right to carry, anywhere! much-less on the base. I feel like we should all be carrying, (unless you have a mental condition) for our safety and the ones around us. Anytime I am carrying and I am around friends I let them know where I have it so if I am the first one out they know where to find it so they can save themselves or others. It is our God-given! right to protect(notice I said protect, not defend) ourselves and nobody has the right to deny me that right, I don't care where I am. In God we trust

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 12, 2009

The Really sad point I have to say is that, when the Marine Corps barracks got blown up in Beirut Lebannon, the guards had only 5 (five) round of ammo to try and stop the bomb truck!!! With that said this is the same policy that exist today!! Add adrenalin and nobody is going to shoot straight with their Barney Fife 5 bullets! DUH!!

Comment by: lotoofla | November 12, 2009

I was on active duty 11 Sept 2001. From that day forward, my Glock was also with me. Please don't call me paranoid, just prepared. After retirement I landed a Civil Service Job back on the same base but would never think to carry now because of the tremendous negativity of our leaders. Let’s face it, even though I have a CCW permit, that right stops at the Fed’s Gate. I know we all long for the days when Men were REAL Men and boys stayed home with their mommies. Now we have a lot of mommy’s boys running this country. RIP Ronald Reagan.

Comment by: TIMOTHY W | November 12, 2009

It is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard of, to ask someone to defend our freedoms and fight for us then tell them that they cannot protect themselves while they are on base or anywhere that's in our control for that matter. We can't say that our military personnel can carry while not on duty in other countries, but I be Dam-d if we should say that they cannot carry anywhere within our country as long as they are in good standings with the military! I feel like anyone with a concealed carry permit should be allowed to carry anywhere within the bounds of our country. Much-less the people that have fought for or at least served our great country! As long as a person of the military is in good standings with the military they should be given a concealed carry permit that is good anywhere within our bounds, given that they ask for it. It makes my blood boil when I hear someone say, you don't, or shouldn't have the right to carry here or there. It's my God-given right, tell me who has the right to denyme that right! In God We Trust

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 12, 2009

Timothy W. Paranoid? No. If you are carrying, what reason do you have to be paranoid? I understand that in some cases we decide that we should not carry because of the consequenses that we would suffer if we were caught carrying, but nobody has the right to deny us our right to protect ourselves. The right to protect ourselves is a God-given right. (Tell me who has the right to superceed that.) And I feel as though we should be able to use the best means available to do so.No disrespect to you Timothy intended. This just how I see it.

In God We Trust

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 12, 2009

Your 2nd Amendment rights stop at the base entry point. Once through the gate, you’ve taken an oath, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Hmmmmm, doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

Comment by: TIMOTHY W | November 12, 2009

Now would be a good time for someone in Congress to create a bill that would make it legal for our soldiers to carry firearms on base. Those who would vote against this would not look very good at this point and time.

Comment by: Robert J | November 12, 2009

I agree Robert. How do we encourage this to take place?

In God We Trust

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 12, 2009

I don't know, being laws with the military complicates things. I don't know if a law would do it or if the military needs to change its policy?

Comment by: Robert J | November 12, 2009

Every military base I've ever been on has required that personal weapons be checked in and secured. This was back in the 70's and has been in effect long before Clinton ever came in

Comment by: MICHAEL A | November 12, 2009

I would like to know how many politicians all over America have gun permits or bodyguards who are armed to protect them.It is unheard of to have any politician shot at or any member of their families.I want their hypocisy exposed.I wish them no harm,but they all refuse to acknowedge the world in which we live in and how dangerous it has become.Our country was founded on violence and we fought two World Wars that ended in Victory because we had guns.All politicians need to live in the same neighborhoods with the rest of us, with no protection whatsoever to understand better why law abiding Americans need guns to protect themselves.They are so disconnected from reality.People in this country had guns before there was a government.Guns were needed to eat and protect.We are headed back to the future.

Comment by: John F | November 12, 2009

Preaching to the choir my friend.

Comment by: Robert J | November 12, 2009

Sorry folks, your overlooking the "Ruler Elite Mentality" Whether it be Dictators, Generals, Big City Mayors, or Anti-gun Congressmen, they all want absolute power over the proletariat. They of course are armed to the teeth including 24 hour around the clock body guards. They will blatantly and unashamedly tell you "The Rulers must be protected" but hot the "proletariat". A famous quote from an old "John Wayne" movie, it read "They were expendable". Sad but true.

Comment by: wild romanian | November 12, 2009

When I was on active duty (1960s) most of the officers carried weapons on and off duty. Most all officers and senior NCOs had a weapon handy at their desks all the time. However it was a call made by the Base Commander and trhere was no uniformity at all. Maybe this will change things? I doubt it with this adm inistration.

Comment by: CAPT29 | November 12, 2009

The powers that be DO NOT WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT YOURSELF. Protect the country, just not yourself. Simple as that.

Comment by: Sharps | November 12, 2009

You are absolutely right, Sharps!

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 12, 2009

Well, friends, this gun-free nonsense was just another politically correct time bomb ticking off the the time to when the pure stupidity of establishing ANY gun-free zone would be demostrated for what it is.....STUPIDLY DANGEROUS! As many of you have read me to post in the past, I have ALWAYS carried at least one handgun with me. During the time of my 21 years of Army commissioned service, I was ALWAYS packed. When I retired from the Army back in 1984 and began teaching in public school, again.....I was ALWAYS packed. For the past 26 years, I have lived in Killeen, Texas. When the Luby's debacle went down on 16 October 1991, I regretted that I wasn't there, because I would have stopped that SOB dead in his tracks. Even though Texas hadn't legisltated the concealed handgun license into existence, I routinely packed. When the CHL went into effect in 1996, I was among the first in the state to acquire a CHL. I continued to have my handguns readily available in a gun-free zone for 22 years as I taught in a local middle school.....with the tacit approval of a couple of realistic, rational principals. Even when going on post (Fort Hood) I always was packed, and had I been at the location of the terrorist attack of one week agao, I would have gladly brought my weapons into action. While I have willingly run the risk of "legal penalties" by carrying my handguns in gun-free zones, I figure that if my weapon is the one that stops an armed terrorist, mass murderer, or any other violent thug, it will have been worth the risk. I also believe that there are few Texas juries who are likely to be very hard on a law abiding person who, through their civil disobedience of carrying a weapon in a prohibited zone, became the agent of salvation in a scenario such as we have seen in Killeen in 1991 and now in 2009.

Comment by: canovack | November 13, 2009

In Alaska, the Army commanding general last year prohibited off base carry by military personnel and, since he is senior, his rule applies to all branches. So a civilian can cary in Alaska w/out a permit but, not off duty military. Did the general ever hike in bear countryt in Alaska? Even the fishing guides carry in Alaska a big bears like fish.

Comment by: Walrus | November 13, 2009

In Alaska, the Army commanding general last year prohibited off base carry by military personnel and, since he is senior, his rule applies to all branches. So a civilian can cary in Alaska w/out a permit but, not off duty military. Did the general ever hike in bear countryt in Alaska? Even the fishing guides carry in Alaska a big bears like fish.

Comment by: Walrus | November 13, 2009

Well, Walrus, things are a far cry up there from what they were when I was assigned to the unified HQ ALCOM/Alaska NORAD Region at Elmendorf AFB in 1967. As an Army officer, my quarters were at Fort Richardson, but my place of duty was at Elmendorf AFB. Whenever we went anyplace.....on post or off post, it didn't matter, we usually always carried our personal handguns. I remember one time in particular when I was heading out for a weekend of camping and fishing. I was driving down Dyea Avenue on Fort Richardson, when there was an accident. I jumped out of my car to render whatever assistance I could, never giving a second thought to the Ruger Super Blackhawk that was holstered on my right hip. Nobody else gave it much thought either, as the MPs who were on the scene paid no attention to the obviously large revolver on my belt. Yup.....times have certainly changed. It's a damned shame. It sounds to me like the Commanding General was way out of line on this. I'm surpised there wasn't more of a fuss put up about that obviously inappropriate rule.

Comment by: canovack | November 13, 2009

Until the Ft. Hood incident I, probably like most other people, was unaware that our soldiers could not be armed on military bases. How totally absurd and ass backwards that when our military is attacked they have to be rescued by civilians, in this instance the local PD. By all rights this tragedy should result in a reversal of the personal weapons on base policy, but don't hold your breath. Sadly, as someone suggested earlier, the government will probably view this as just another "they were expendable" situation. I am so sick of political correctness; it is going to destroy our society.

Comment by: CHARLES S | November 14, 2009

canovack - What kind of fuss can be made when a general officer issues a decree? When Army Regulations don't directly circumscribe a given issue, a general's word is law. The only thing that I've ever seen that could change a 3-star Lieutenant General's mind is a 4-star General.

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | November 14, 2009

OK, Gaviota.....I'd tend to agree that it's damned hard to trump a 3-Star. However, in my 21 years of commissioned service, I have seen some pretty big generals get their thoughts straightened out when young, bushy tailed soldiers, who were not career minded, got their congressmen in on the discussion. I can think of at least two cases where young enlisted soldiers brought their congressmen into something over which the young soldiers passionately disagreed with some problems in the chain of command that apexed with 2 and 3 star flag officers. The flags dipped to the congress. It doesn't happen very often, but there are some precedents.

Comment by: canovack | November 14, 2009

In my opinion, a general that doesn't trust his soldiers with weapons, shouldn't be leading them. The Fort Hood attack brings back memories of a civilian in Antwerp, NY firing a .22 caliber rifle at us as we participated in dismounted tactical maneuvers on Fort Drum soil. I glanced down at my M-60 laid out in front of me with the bright red blank adapter and realized I was basically unarmed. The squad leader instructed us to "mount up" and leave the hostile area. I was the furthest man out so I waited for him to reload before attempting my escape. The rounds started bouncing off the ramp as I latched the door behind me. I was told the local police would investigate the incident while we trained elsewhere. The shooter was engaging us from civilan land on the opposite side of the creek. We trained extensively to eliminate threats but when engaged with live fire, "we ran like hell". Yup, I'm one mean, unarmed, fighting machine.

Comment by: Jeff W | November 14, 2009

canovack: I forgot about Congress. But I guess a soldier would have to forget about a military career if he drew his congressman out of the sheath and whacked the general with him, wouldn't he?

Jeff: Some things can really jack up a man's blood pressure, huh? Can't you just imagine what would have happened if an irritated warrior decided to cut that pesky jackass off at the knees with an M-60? Holy crap!

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | November 14, 2009

Gaviota, due to the excitement, I about swallowed my chewing tobacco. I wanted to play but I couldn't convince the grenadier to lend me his M-203 with a couple of paint rounds. You know, opportunities like that don't present themselves too often. I would have at least chased him up the tree with the Armored Personnel Carrier. The local police never did find the shooter. We decided to commandeer a 30 round clip of 5.56 rounds during our next live fire exercise and appropriately named them "Just In Case Rounds". Our lives were worth more to us than they were to the US Army.

Comment by: Jeff W | November 15, 2009

I spent ten years in the military as a combat infantryman with two combat tours, two purple hearts and several awards for valor. Except for my first tour in Vietnam and a tour in Alaska, I never saw soldiers allowed to carry weapons and ammo unless they were on a combat mission. In Alaska, we had personnel who were armed in case of encounters with bears and moose mamas and we had an arms room that operated 24 hours a day for our civilian weapons. (I kept a .308, .357 Magnum and a couple of shotguns there and checked them out to hunt or shoot). We could check them out to go off post but could not carry locked and loaded on any military post though Alaska is open carry (probably 2-3% of the population carries everywhere). I agreed with those restrictions then and still agree today. 18 to 23 year old males are still developing their ability to visualize consequences.. and they get drunk. Drunks shouldn't carry weapons. There are true stories, (not urban legends) of drunken soldiers in Armored units who ran over their girlfriend's car or house with a tank they stole from the motor pool. Should they have been able to shoot the car or the house with the tank gun too?

Our emphasis should continue to be on identifying loonies and restricting their freedom. Too bad that there were soldiers at Hood who saw the warning signs of Major Hassan's behavior and didn't raise hell.

In the Army I was in, a soldier who openly opposed the policies of the Commander-in- Chief would have been reprimanded and rousted.

I get a pistol from the gun safe when the dogs start barking late at night; If anyone I knew believed they needed to carry a weapon EVERYWHERE they went, I'd target them for identification and restriction. If you think you need to, we need to worry about you too!

Comment by: dras | November 17, 2009

I am armed EVERYWHERE I go except for on base where I am not allowed. Do you need to worry about me? Only if your up to no good. I'm not paranoid, I'm prepared. One thing I have learned, you can never predict when you will need to defend yourself. For those of us that have experienced such a situation, it usually happens when you least expect it. Criminals like to strike their victums when they least expect it, not usually when they most expect it. People think they can predict when an incident may happen and they only carry then. They use the laws of probability, which are just that, probability. I like to put the odds in my favor always, and not roll the dice. My life is worth more to me than a roll of the dice.

Comment by: Robert J | November 17, 2009

First off dras, I do not condone carry a gun while drinking or while intoxicated! And I guess you would probably identify me as a person that should be targeted for identification and restriction, although I am a born, bred, and proud southern boy that has never had a problem with the law even when I am carrying. I thank you for your service to our country and appreciate what you have done in your service to our country. I don't mean any disrespect to you, but I cannot agree with you! I do not carry to cause anyone harm, I carry to protect myself and those around me from the crazies of the world. There are crazies everywhere. If you don't believe that you're not living in reality. I carry legally to protect myself and those around me from the people that are using there weapon to cause harm. Just like you used your weapon to protect yourself and those around you in Vietnam. I may never have to pull my weapon,and I hope I don't have to! But if there's one time in my life that I do need it, then it will be worth all the times I carried and didn't need it. Just because you choose to not carry doesn't mean that other law-abiding citizens shouldn't have the right to, without scrutiny. I believe that as long as you are a law-abiding citizen and you go through the system to get your CCW then you be able to carry wherever you feel like you should. If you think that people carrying concealed causes more crime then you are not looking at the facts, (you will not find many facts by watching the news). If you want to see the facts you will have to do some research on your own. You never know, I or somebody else might just save your life one of these days because I or they are carrying. If I did, I would consider it an honor!

In God We Trust

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 17, 2009

Well, I'd guess that I'm one of those guys who should be targeted for identification and restriction, because I DO carry concealed everywhere. I DO this because as an Eagle Scout, I was taught to always "BE PREPARED". As a retired Army Lt Col I have experienced a broad field of circumstances that kept telling me that I should continue to "BE PREPARED". When I retired from the Army and became a public school educator for 22 years until I retired again, I taught all of my students that life is all about choices and responsibilities, and we all need to "BE PREPARED" for any exigency. As a resident of Killeen, Texas for some 28 years, and having seen first hand the Luby's Massacre of 16 October 1991 and now the Fort Hood Terrorist Attack of 5 November 2009, I am again reminded that there is no substitute in any situation for BEING PREPARED! As most of you have seen me write many times over, the beauty of the concealed carry law is that the bad guys don't know who is.....and who isn't armed. This results, as crime statistics verify, that an armed society is a polite society. Yup, I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam War; I am a political conservative; and I am a staunch supporter and advocate of the citizens' right to keep and BEAR arms. Now, according to the Obama administration's Secretary of Homeland Security.....Janet Napolitano.....I should be placed on some radical watch list. Well, color me radical, then, if believing in the Constitution of the United States makes me a radical!

Comment by: canovack | November 17, 2009

Color me radical as well if believing in what our founding fathers wrote in, and meant by, the Constitution of the United States is the criteria for being colored radical! I don't care what people think of me. I am still going to believe in what I believe in.

In God We Trust

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 17, 2009

Dras, them 50 caliber and .120 mm rounds are difficult to get your hands on. I never did understand why anyone would accept an award that commemorates them getting hurt in battle. An award that commemorates valor is something to appreciate. I think Dras has had a negative personal experience with young, drunken, rowdy soldiers. At the end of a hot, dusty day, two beers and a cigar were always enough to take the edge off.

Comment by: Jeff W | November 18, 2009

Dras does have a point about drunken and rowdy soldiers, however here is where that point ends. Not all soldiers behave this way. The ones that do get drunk and rowdy are no different than others that behave the same way as civilians out in society. With this being said, if you allowed soldiers to carry guns off duty not all soldiers would carry, just like the rest of society. My point is soldiers should be no different than the rest of society, in fact, I would call them even more responsible with firearms than the rest of society. The arguement Dras makes is the same arguement the liberals made in our state before they passed the concealed carry law. They claimed there would be shootouts like the OK corral and people would be shooting at each other due to road rage. Since the carry laws have passed none of the incidents that were predicted transpired. I would venture to say this would be the same for soldiers also if they were allowed to carry. I have found only the responsible are willing to jump through the hoops to get the concealed license. RGð

Comment by: Robert J | November 18, 2009

Dras, thank you for your service. You sound like a commendable soldier and I respect your opinion.

Comment by: Robert J | November 18, 2009

Well, let's get this astonishing screed fisked:

Part 1:

"I never saw soldiers allowed to carry weapons and ammo unless they were on a combat mission."

In Korea they did. In WWII they did. In Nicaragua they did. In the Philippines they did. In WWI they did. In peacetime, and wartime, stateside and overseas, on base and off, officers and senior non-comms carried weapons. This is historical fact.

"I agreed with those restrictions then and still agree today."

With all due respect, your decision to limit your own liberty to keep and bear arms is perfectly fine with me. Unfortunately, you do not reciprocate the courtesy. That is why your opinion has no bearing on my decisions about my liberty.

"18 to 23 year old males are still developing their ability to visualize consequences.. and they get drunk. Drunks shouldn't carry weapons."

Given that the subject of my first post about carrying in uniform involved officers and senior non-comms, why even mention 18-23 year old boys? I've never met an 18-23 year old officer or senior non-comm. Have you?

"Should they have been able to shoot the car or the house with the tank gun too?"

Your invidious question clearly and unquestionably displays your obvious contempt and disrespect for those here who disagree with you. This is unacceptable. Someone with your experience should have had inculcated in him by now the concept that fire discipline is not only for your weapons, it's also for your mouth. Or, in this case, your keyboard.

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | November 18, 2009

Part 2:

"Our emphasis should continue to be on identifying loonies and restricting their freedom."

Whom do you propose to do the work of "identifying loonies?" Nancy Pelosi? Barbara Boxer? Diane Feinstein? Chuck Schumer? Hillary Clinton? Josh Sugarmann? Sarah Brady? Or maybe the nameless, faceless bureaucrats who have created the "Terrorism Watch List" and the "No-Fly List" with over 2.5 million names on them? And what is your medical definition of "loonie?" You REALLY need to be careful what you ask for.

"I get a pistol from the gun safe when the dogs start barking late at night;"

Good luck with that strategy. I choose to be better prepared for a wider range of adverse events.

"If anyone I knew believed they needed to carry a weapon EVERYWHERE they went, I'd target them for identification and restriction."

That statement again demonstrates your insolent contempt for your fellow gun-owners who have gone to the time and expense of qualifying for concealed carry permits. Just for the record, exactly what WOULD you do to target and restrict your next door neighbor if you discovered that he was a 24 hour gun-toter with a concealed carry permit?

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | November 18, 2009

Part 3:

"If you think you need to, we need to worry about you too!"

Yeah? Who's "we?" Why, exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, do YOU feel threatened by MY liberty? You know, I find it truly despicable that a man who has fought in armed combat for the liberty and freedom of others would so casually advocate the destruction of my liberty here at home. Your comments indicate to me that you believe that I am, and others like me are "loonie" and our freedom should be restricted for no better reason than YouSaySo. I take that attitude of yours as a personal insult. If you desire to limit your own personal freedom, go to it, pal, I won't stop you, or even criticize you. If you're going to personally attempt to limit mine, however, you and I are going to have conflicting personality problems. And if your gun is locked in your safe in your bedroom, I'm willing to bet that your problems will be a lot worse than mine.

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | November 18, 2009

Well stated, Gaviota! It is obvious from his statements that "Dras" has yet to sample much of real life. In fact that seems to be a major problem with so many left-wing liberal loonies that we see trying to "change" the United States of America we all love, have fought, sweated, bled, and sometimes died for.

Comment by: canovack | November 18, 2009

I'm having difficulty getting my head around a career Infantryman serving 2 tours in Vietnam with several awards for valor who chooses to store his personal firearm in a safe. If you make your way to the safe after the dogs start barking, you're already at a disadvantage. Dogs have a tendency to go on alert prior to barking. Good grief, I just figured it out. Valor is often associated with reactive measures rather than pro-active. My Vietnam buddies are pro-active and I noticed when they retire for the night, they keep their handgun close by on a lanyard.

Comment by: Jeff W | November 18, 2009

Well, JeffW, as I have previously stated, I am ALWAYS armed. About the only times I don't actually have a handgun holstered on my hip is when I take a shower and when I am in bed. For the times I am in the shower, a handgun is always on a hook mounted on the wall just outside of the shower stall. My bathrobe covers the hook and the weapon. When I am in bed, the piece is on a mandrel attached to the bed frame. "BE PREPARED" means just that.....and it also means ALL THE TIME. It's just another corollary to the concept that "the cost of liberty is constant vigilance".

Comment by: canovack | November 19, 2009

Col. Novack is so tough his gun sleeps with a pillow underneath it. Its good to be prepared Sir!

Comment by: Robert J | November 19, 2009

Hi, Robert J. I make no claim to being tough. Among all of my life experiences, I cannot ever think of a time I picked a fight with anybody.....except in Vietnam combat and a few other places that I'm not supposed to mention. On the domestic scene, I have generally avoided circumstances where I thought that things might get violent. That said, however, I have never backed away from trouble when it just wouldn't be reasoned with. Thus my commitment to always BE PREPARED! As you can tell, that means ALWAYS ARMED. As I approach my 69th birthday, I realize that I am not the same man I was during my 21 year Army career, and in fact I'm not even the same man I was when I retired from teaching some three years ago. I do choose to prevail in any situation, therefore, I shall remain armed at all times.

Comment by: canovack | November 19, 2009

As well you should canovack. It doesn't look like dras wants to discuss this topic. Looks like he just said what was on his mind and left. I wonder if it's because: he just hasn't been back on the sight, can't back up what he has said, or is it that he realizes that we are right about this?

In God We Trust

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 19, 2009

I'm still waiting for Gaviota to write and maintain his own column appropriately named "The Constitutionalist" He writes with conviction.

Comment by: Jeff W | November 19, 2009

I know I would read it!

Comment by: aGoodstat | November 20, 2009

Hi Col. Novack, I was making light of your hard core approach about being prepared. That joke popped into my head when I read your comment about wearing a holster to bed or in the shower. I meant no disrespect. I have the same train of thought, that's why I thought it was funny. I'm different after I got injured. I'm much more prepared with my firearm now than I was before because I was so confident in my physical strength in the past. Kudo's to Gaviota, he knows how to break it down.

Comment by: Robert J | November 20, 2009

Robert J, I know you were joking and intended no disrespect. Besides, as I get closer and closer to completing seven decades of life, I am not as thin skinned as I might have been when I was young and still full of piss and vinegar. As for your comment aGoodstat, I agree that our friend "dras" seems to have made a strategic withdrawal once he realized he was coming from a position of irrational weakness in his frontal assault on so many guys who espouse truth, rational thought, love of country, and willingness to pay the ultimate price for our beliefs.

Comment by: canovack | November 20, 2009

Canovack, You can rest assured that when the trouble is outside the gates, WE will be armed and prepared while Dras is frantically trying to unlock the safe! ooorah

Comment by: Sharps | December 2, 2009