Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

1 Follower

About Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

  • Rank
    SASS Wire Vet
  • Birthday 03/27/1948

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Chuluota, FL
  • Interests
    Family,CAS,Team SASS, Writing, Baseball & Metal Detecting

Previous Fields

  • SASS Number or "Guest"
  • SASS Affiliated Club

Recent Profile Visitors

10,710 profile views
  1. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    Behind the Scenes of "Tombstone"

    Interesting piece. http://www.trend-chaser.com/entertainment/movies/classic-western-film-tombstone/?utm_source=tb&utm_medium=mrctv-cns-tb&utm_term=Remember+"Tombstone"%3F+Here's+What+You+Probably+Never+Realized-https%3A%2F%2Fconsole.brax-cdn.com%2Fcreatives%2Fb86bbc0b-1fab-4ae3-9b34-fef78c1a7488%2Fkurt_wft_ee03f40369b8d795ebdeea075130d426.600x500.png&utm_content=81657213&utm_campaign=1132691-tb
  2. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    4/28 Tex is going home from the hospital today!!

    Worked with and have been friends with Tex and Cat for many years. Two better folks you'll never meet. Both will certainly be in our prayers.
  3. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    Fl.state Championship

    A sincere salute to Cass and crew. They put in a lot of hard work and many long hour days on this and I saw nothing but smiley faces all weekend as a result. Everyone had a grand time because of you and your crew Cass...which is the best reward of all.
  4. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    From Unalienable Rights to Regulated Privileges?

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson When do our unalienable rights turn into regulated privileges? Answer: When “We the People” allow expansive government, national or international, to require a license or a permit in order to exercise those rights! Turning our right to keep and bear arms into a government controlled privilege however is exactly what will happen if peaceable Americans are ever required to register their firearms and gun owners are strictly licensed as anti-gunners call for after each highly publicized mass shooting. Now either you believe and accept the words of our Declaration of Independence or you reject them. If you accept the words as I do, that our rights are unalienable and endowed by the Creator, then no unalienable right can EVER justifiably be granted or denied by any government, because those rights were endowed by God, not bestowed by government—Federal, State, UN or otherwise. Conversely, to reject those words, would be to reject the very foundation of America’s freedom, nullify the concept of the word unalienable, and turn our rights into government licensed privileges. In essence, we would be granting the government veto power over God. Any license granted by man can be revoked by man, but a right endowed by God can never be revoked by any man. To do so creates something more characteristic of serfdom than freedom—the “constitutionally guaranteed right” becomes the equivalent of a car license—the very analogy used by the left to sell their idea of licensing guns. “If we license cars, why not guns?” Last time I looked, transportation wasn’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is however and as one of the primary guarantors of our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Without such guarantors, the ability to exercise our unalienable rights is placed in jeopardy of extinction at the hand of unscrupulous governments. Consequently you can never separate the sanctity of the unalienable right from the guarantor of that right without incurring the certain loss of both. What the left ultimately wants, and openly advocates, sets government in judgment over our Creator and flies in the face of the constitution. This doesn’t deter avid left-wingers in the least however. They simply ignore that and press on with their crusade to fundamentally transform America into a big government “Utopia.” The idea of licensing a constitutional right is abhorrent to me just as the idea of “carry permits” has always been—a government issued permit to carry something that is a constitutionally guaranteed right?!? Who slipped that “common sense” law by us? Somehow America has seen fit to roll over on that one though and down the slippery slope of freedoms lost we went yet another yard or more. To illustrate the level of liberal hypocrisy here, ask a left-winger this question… “If you liberals think it’s OK to require a permit of us before we buy, carry or shoot our gun under the Second, why shouldn’t we require a permit of you before you shoot off your mouth under the First? After all, don’t you agree that the “pen” is mightier than the “sword”? If “the pen is mightier than the sword”, why is it the “sword” has 20,000 laws regulating it and the “pen” doesn’t?” Big government activists incrementally set the stage for freedom erosion as they have throughout history. After all, effective incrementalism is how we arrived at where we are in the year 2018 from where we started in the year 1776. This incremental weaselism is the reason I refuse to support “bargaining or compromising” with any liberal freedom thief on anything—they’re simply not to be trusted. As a prime example of their weaselism, the call of several years ago for a “common sense” ballistic fingerprinting program was nothing more than a backdoor method of instituting a national gun registry. In reality, consistently reliable ballistic fingerprinting is nothing but a snake oil sales pitch. The doubtful success of ballistic fingerprinting aside, why else would government want the ability to trace a particular bullet to a particular gun if they didn’t ultimately require every gun to be registered and therefore linked to every gun owner? It would do them absolutely no good whatsoever to merely know what gun a bullet came from if they didn’t have a method of then knowing who owned the gun that fired the bullet. How stupid do the advocates of this idiocy think we are? It’s simply and clearly a government registration program and history has clearly exposed where that leads. The ONLY thing such licensing or registration, national or international, will ever accomplish, and which it’s actually designed to do, is provide government with a database of every gun owner in the country. It will then be that much easier for them to find you when their “common sense” gun confiscation program is enacted. Predictably, history is replete with examples where confiscation inevitably resulted in the victimization and tragic slaughter of the unarmed! If there was ever any cause worthy enough to prompt pro-constitutionalists into action, this is it. If there was ever any more revealing behavior on the part of America’s anti-gunners as well as within the corrupted halls of the UN regarding their true intentions and where this eventually leads, this is most definitely it. Laws requiring licensing and registration are not just one more yard down that slippery slope of eroded freedom; it’s more like a mile. If we truly believe that mankind is endowed with unalienable rights granted by our Creator and articulated by our founders, then any attempt on the part of government to deny or totally control those rights must be recognized as counter to God and His sacred will for mankind’s unalienable freedom. It simply comes down to what We the People will demand or are willing to accept. It’s up to each of us to decide if we will reaffirm our claim to God given rights or passively accept government issued privileges. If the choice is for privileges, then all we need do is nothing and the government will incrementally take control as a matter of course. If the choice is for rights however, then we must stand strongly united and constantly send government the unmistakably clear message of our founders—DONT TREAD ON ME. No registration, No license and NO UN control…not now, not ever! Just the view from my foxhole… Contact Colonel Dan: [email protected]
  5. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    What the Courts Said

    What the Courts Said By Colonel Dan, SASS# 24025 Life Last month we looked at the Founder’s intent underlying the Second Amendment. I think it’s fair to say their obvious purpose was to ensure that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms was never threatened or infringed by any government action. So what have the courts said over the years about such a “radical concept?” Many times we’re told by anti-gun elements that the courts have maintained no individual right to keep and bear arms exists and we pro-gun advocates are just too stupid to understand the intricacies of constitutional law. Have the courts universally denounced the individual’s right to keep and bear arms over the past 200 years and are you really too stupid to read and understand what the Constitution plainly says? To believe any of that anti-gun bilge, you’d have to be terminally stupid. This month, let’s read a few examples of what several courts across the country and across history had to say in the years after the Constitution was adopted. As you did last month, please judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions. -------------------------- 1803: George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.) “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” 1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." 1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 " The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." 1859: Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." 1871: Andres v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178 “....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.” “The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.” [ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT)] 1876: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542) Recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." 1878: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." 1921: State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." 1922: People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." 2000: Tuesday, June 13th. Let’s fast-forward to the Clinton years of judicial activism and see how an attempt was made to unscrupulously bastardize this long venerated unalienable right by a dangerously anti-gun, anti-constitution administration in U.S. v. Emerson. Early accounts from those who attended the week's oral arguments on U.S. v. Emerson (see FAX Alert Vol. 7, No. 23) revealed, with no uncertainty, how the Clinton-Gore Administration truly viewed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The attorney representing the government, William Mateja, said that the Second Amendment offers law-abiding U.S. citizens no protections against the government prohibiting them from owning any firearm. Judge William Garwood, one of three judges on the panel that heard arguments, had the following exchange with Mateja: Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?" Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes". Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?" Meteja: "Exactly." Fortunately, the court rejected the Clinton-Gore argument—this time. 2008: District of Columbia vs Heller; 07-290: (Scalia) “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.” Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.30 It’s frightening how tenuous is the jewel of liberty and how easily it can be incrementally eroded if left unguarded by the people and totally entrusted to the Machiavellian machinations of insidious politicians. James Madison had it pegged, "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” It’s my uncompromising conviction that unless the people jealously guard our jewel at every turn and strongly reject any attempt to incrementally infringe on our freedom, we will eventually and unwittingly lose it—piece by little piece. Once it’s gone however, it’s gone for generations—generations that won’t even know what they’ve lost. Contact Colonel Dan: [email protected]
  6. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    Consolidated Pinned Posts

    Good job Charlie! Your considerable effort has really cleaned up our forum. The important information is still there but the modification in how we access it was a very good and needed improvement.
  7. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    People of Cowboy Action Shooting

    SASS Alias: Colonel Dan SASS# 24025 From: Central Florida Cowboy Action Shooting: 20 years
  8. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    Arm the teachers

    Just a few thoughts: Most teachers are members of the left leaning NEA and would refuse to participate...and that's probably OK since I wouldn't want such people armed anyway. For those who would be willing to participate and could effectively carry, there would be many school administrators, again the majority being liberal NEA members/anti-gunners, who would refuse to allow those to participate. Bottom line; I don't think this would be a universally successful program except in areas that are gun friendly to begin with. In those areas, I think it would be OK until some nut job student attacked the teacher from behind and took the gun. I think the better option would be to adopt Israel's solution: Lock the schools so nobody could physically enter from the outside and station one or more trained and reliable armed security personnel in the school itself. It's worked well for Israel and they have active terrorists surrounding them 365 days a year. Just the view from my foxhole...
  9. More on the good news front! Continue to soldier on my friends... CD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Colonel Dan: I want to thank you for your activism earlier this week. After I asked you to contact your Representative in opposition to Obama's Social Security Gun Ban, the House took action this week. And the results were fantastic! I must say that having lived in the DC area for the past several decades -- and having endured Obama's oppressive regime for the last eight years -- the past month has been a breath of fresh air. Donald Trump and the Republican Congress are moving swiftly to reverse Barack Obama's vile anti-gun legacy of executive actions. Trump is apparently spreading out his executive orders over a longer period of time so that each executive order can be featured in a separate news cycle. But one thing which is already happening is Congress' effort to repeal Obama's Social Security Gun Ban. Because that action was promulgated as a formal rule, it can be most easily repealed by a congressional resolution -- passed under the Congressional Review Act. This act allows the Senate to repeal the rule by a simple majority vote, without the possibility of a filibuster. Social Security Gun Ban is Built on the Stinking Carcass of Gun Control You might remember that the Social Security Gun Ban was finalized in December. It was issued in a purported effort to implement the NICS Amendments Improvement Act of 2007 -- legislation also known as the Veterans Disarmament Act, which was vigorously opposed by Gun Owners of America. Under the Veterans Disarmament Act, over 257,000 law-abiding veterans have lost their Second Amendment rights, merely because they sought counseling from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The new Social Security Gun Ban would extend the precedent to disabled persons receiving social security benefits under Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This means, for instance, that the names of those who receive their social security checks through a guardian can now be sent to the NICS gun ban list. In some states, SWAT teams would be sent to their homes to forcibly seize the guns they have. The good news is that the House yesterday passed H.J.Res. 40, to overturn the Social Security Gun Ban. The vote in the Senate, expected next week, would send the resolution to President Trump's desk for signature. The vote in the House was 235-to-180, with only two Republicans voting anti-gun and only 6 Democrats voting pro-gun. ("Aye" was the pro-gun vote and can be viewed here.) The vote reinforces recent trends in which the Republican Party has increasingly become the "pro-gun" party in America, and the Democrats, increasingly the "anti-gun" party. We're optimistic that the Senate will approve the House-passed measure by a largely party-line vote. (S.J.Res. 14 is an identical version introduced by Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.) Under the special Congressional Review Act procedures, this majority vote will be enough to send the measure to President Trump's desk. So please urge your Senators to vote for H.J.Res. 40/S.J.Res. 14 -- legislation to overturn the Social Security Gun Ban. Sincerely, Larry Pratt Executive Director Emeritus
  10. President Trump hit a home run with this nomination. It's now squarely in the hands of Mitch McConnell to do whatever it takes to get this good man confirmed--including extending the "Nuclear Option" that Harry Reid first imposed, to include Supreme Court nominees! I suggest pressuring your Senators to push McConnell in that direction. This is extremely important for all gun owners--get involved. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/trump-scotus-nominee-2nd-amendment-protects-individual-right/
  11. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    I may start carrying a cane

    I always have one with me..especially in places I can't carry...like airplanes...no one ever challenges it anywhere I go. Where I can carry, I certainly do and look at the cane as my first line of defense. Like was mentioned above, in the proper hands a cane can be a formidable self defense weapon. I highly recommend that if your considering this route do it right and get the training on how to effectively employ it in a threatening situation. If you don't, you may find yourself on the receiving end after its been forcibly taken from you. I've had just such training. It was very enjoyable as well as very valuable. Then as with all skills, practice, practice, practice. Just the view from my foxhole. A side note: I bought a stock cane from Tractor Supply for less than $20. It's a one inch thick piece of solid oak. I cut it to fit me for length, lightly sanded it then rubbed it with Birchwood Casey Tru-Oil. Looks good and is extremely effective.
  12. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    Allegiance Named to Important NRA Post

    Please join me in congratulating one of our own.... Our Team SASS Deputy Director, Allegiance, aka Joe DeBargalis, has been named Deputy Executive Director of General Operations for the NRA! This a absolutely super news...a great patriot has been duly recognized. The NRA has chosen an authentic top notch winner to fill this important position I salute my friend Allegiance and wish him only the very best.
  13. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    Allegiance Named to Important NRA Post

    Please join me in congratulating one of our own.... Our Team SASS Deputy Director, Allegiance, aka Joe DeBargalis, has been named Deputy Executive Director of General Operations for the NRA! This a absolutely super news...a great patriot has been duly recognized. The NRA has chosen an authentic top notch winner to fill this important position I salute my friend Allegiance and wish him only the very best.
  14. Thus far, I'm very encouraged and optimistic about our pro-gun future! CD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In one of the first pro-gun actions of his administration, President Donald Trump is expected to shortly move to revoke Barack Obama's illegal actions to effectively outlaw gun collecting. Obama's anti-gun "executive action" was announced on January 6, 2016 -- in the wake of Obama's unsuccessful attempt to scapegoat law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a Muslim terrorist in San Bernardino. Obama's action was implemented as a "clarification" because he knew that his lawless moves could never pass muster under the rule-making procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act. Under Obama's now-moribund "clarification," a gun owner could have been imprisoned for up to five years and fined $250,000 for "only one or two [firearms] transactions," according to a White House fact sheet. Note that, under Clinton, tens of thousands of licensees lost their licenses because they didn't have "brick-or-mortar" stores. Now, in a Clinton/Obama Mutt-and-Jeff routine, Obama proposed to imprison hobbyists who didn't have licenses because the government refused to issue licenses to them. Hence, a hobbyist who bought a firearm one day and sold it the next day at a profit could go to prison for five years. Obviously, the intent was to create such a cloud of ambiguity that gun owners would refrain from constitutionally protected activity (private firearms sales), for fear that they would run afoul of Obama's amorphous rules. Tragically, in some cases, Obama's unlawful actions had exactly the intended effect. But, thanks to President Donald Trump, Obama's unlawful action will soon be repealed -- as one of the priority actions of the incoming administration. Gun Owners of America is optimistic that this is only the first in a series of Trump actions overturning illegal Obama actions. We are also asking for Trump administration action: Removing the U.S. from the Anti-Gun UN Arms Trade Treaty; Repealing bullet and gun import bans going from Obama back to George H. W. Bush's semi-auto import ban; Repealing the suspension of health privacy laws with respect to gun owners; Repealing executive actions encouraging doctors to inquire about gun ownership and to enter this information into a federal health database; Restoring gun rights for 257,000 law-abiding veterans; Repealing Obama's efforts to strip Social Security recipients of their guns, merely because a guardian processes their checks. The work of restoring the Second Amendment to its God-given status has only just begun. But the important thing is that it has begun. Sincerely, Tim Macy Chairman
  15. Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

    Colonel Dan blogs inquiry

    GG, Thank you for asking! I have exchanged emails with Misty and she is considering this. In the mean time, complete Chronicle editions are archived on the SASS website and you can access my articles that way. Soldier on...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.