Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Colonel Dan, SASS #24025

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

88 Excellent

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

10,581 profile views
  1. People of Cowboy Action Shooting

    SASS Alias: Colonel Dan SASS# 24025 From: Central Florida Cowboy Action Shooting: 20 years
  2. 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...
  3. Video of Wayne LaPierre Speech at CPAC

    Great Speech indeed.
  4. Hollywood, Parents and Heroes

    The phenomenon of kids shooting kids is a sad reflection of a modern society whose moral bar has been lowered to frightening levels. While Hollywood provides a virtual classroom of increasingly violent behavior where children learn firearms abuse, some irresponsible parents ignore the inherent danger in that. When challenged by responsible citizens however those same Hollywood elites quickly defend their work citing First Amendment rights and irresponsible parents just as quickly direct the blame anywhere but home. Everyone who has ever taught anything knows how effective visual images are as a teaching tool. Students learn more from visual images than any other media. Movies and video games are tremendous training aids—they can train responsibly or irresponsibly—it’s up to society how those tools are employed acceptably. Hollywood has been reckless with these tools and refuses to accept accountability for the results. Does that mean we need more government censorship of films? No, what we need is more parental censorship at home…and less patronage of Hollywood. I’m a firm believer in personal responsibility and parental obligation to instill solid values as the most effective form of crime prevention and establishing a moral society. I’m also firmly opposed to government censorship of the movies—censoring what children watch is the job of parents not government. What I’m interested in here is truth, devoid of hypocrisy or distortion regarding the responsibility for influencing impressionable young minds. n our search for truth, has anyone seen honest outrage from the left that seriously relates Hollywood violence to juvenile violence? I haven’t. What you might see is superficial lip service paid to curbing Hollywood violence while the real attacks continue on guns and the Second Amendment whenever the opportunity arises. The "intellectual elite" i.e. the press, Hollywood and their mouthpieces are quick to defend their work using the First and just as quick to kill the Second with no sign of embarrassment regarding the hypocrisy of it all. The truth however sings a different tune under a spotlight of fact rather than fiction. Unconscionable criminal behavior is more the result of an overall lowering of society’s moral standards than the existence of guns. Guns have been around for hundreds of years but shooting up schools is a relatively modern phenomenon. When I was a kid, guns were much more visible and accessible than today, yet we never thought of shooting our classmates. Why? The moral bar of socially acceptable behavior was significantly higher and Hollywood hadn’t yet sunk to today’s lows. So what changed over the last 50 years—guns or society? I’ve read reports stating many young criminals admit that Hollywood violence and video games influenced their actions and methods when committing such crimes. How many of these youngsters attributed their actions to bad influence from gun manufacturers, SASS or the NRA? I haven’t found any! If even one child cited legitimate gun enthusiasts as having influenced them to shoot up their school, the press would be all over that. When was the last time you saw an NRA film or a TV shooting show portraying firearms used as they were in the movie, "Natural Born Killers"? Hollywood not only plants the seed but provides a visual "how to" glorifying such behavior and making heroes of the actors. The ultimate proof of what Hollywood values lies in what they honor with their awards—you be the judge. Additionally, I found evidence that many children who illegally obtained guns end up committing gun crime. No surprise there but how about gun related crimes committed by children who legally obtain firearms and are taught by conscientious adults? Although there might be some, I haven’t found any! Yet where is most of the media-generated blame thrown? “Those Gun nuts who support that evil gun lobby!” Where then does the real evidence point in terms of responsible vs. irresponsible behavior—the NRA's Eddie Eagle, ignorant parents or Hollywood? Society is the changing variable here not firearms. The lower moral standards of today coupled with an open agenda of lies and the distortion of misplaced blame is much more prevalent in America these days than the truth of freedom, personal responsibility and moral behavior among a growing number of Americans. Those who are most egregious, reckless and careless continue to act with impunity while denying any culpability. Hollywood is part of America’s liberal community and the media finds it very difficult to castigate their own—publicly or privately. We should recognize this for what it is—cultural domination of the apathetic segment of our society with no honest discussion of the facts. Were this an honest discussion, those most responsible would be held accountable starting with the criminal, regardless of age or tool used, the parents who failed to instill proper values and then with outrage justifiably focused on the creators of these theatrical classrooms of firearms violence. Now there’s a twist! How about conscientious parents and gun owners suing Hollywood for firearms abuse! Until Americans raise the bar, refuse to patronize Hollywood’s trash and instill a solid set of values in children this trend will likely continue. That however may seem akin to reversing the flow of the Mississippi since irresponsibility is always the easier trail to ride than the responsible one. Conscientious parents and citizens must ensure they’re not tainted by the trendy but rather tied to the traditional. Those who stand firm in the face of society’s pressure to do otherwise are the true American patriots and it is they who will build a lasting legacy for future generations to emulate. To those who stand fast while others around them falter, I render a sincere salute of respect and admiration and my chest swells with genuine pride knowing I live alongside such noble citizens. It’s steadfast Americans who made and kept our United States the greatest country on the planet. You are America’s real heroes. Just the view from my foxhole… Contact Colonel Dan: [email protected]
  5. Outback Restaurant: Gun Free Zone

    This link is from the NRA-ILA. I personally confirmed this via contact with Bloomin' Brands HQs yesterday and told them due to this corporate wide policy, Outback will no longer be visited by my family. Note: If you also want to drop Outback from your list, make an effort to contact and tell them so. Letting them know does much more than just tacitly avoiding them in the future. They have to know why they will be losing customer support. Just the view from my foxhole... https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180209/outback-steakhouse-no-rights-just-rules
  6. Biathlon Rifle

    Interesting hi tech .22 Winter Olympics: Anatomy of a .22 Biathlon rifle.
  7. How Did Wyatt Really Kill Curly Bill

    I found this on you tube and thought it might be interesting here in the Saloon
  8. The Founders’ Words Reveal Intent.

    Below is my first "installment" of a republishing of a few select articles I wrote "back in the day" that may be of some use or interest. Please feel free to copy and forward to others if you feel it may help our cause. CD The Founders’ Words Reveal Intent. By Colonel Dan, SASS# 24025 Life/Regulator We all probably know the Second Amendment by heart, but do we know the underlying intent that served as a foundational basis for that Amendment? Obviously, the basic content of our Founding Fathers’ thoughts ultimately determined the final content of our Constitution. But in order to gain some insight into their fundamental thought process, i.e. intent, we might want to read what they wrote on the subject external to the Bill of Rights. In their heart of hearts—their souls—how did they really feel about the private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms—and why? This is a question the anti-gunners in our midst use and twist constantly—as in “The Second doesn’t really mean what you think it does. It means that only a well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms, not the people.” The militia defined by the anti-gunners as the National Guard—in other words, a government regulated military force. Is that the view of the Founding Fathers? To help us better understand their intentions I suggest we read the words they used when persuading others about the merits of their ideas. Therein we’ll find the best available indication of actual intent behind the Amendment from those that actually wrote it. Below are a few representative examples among many regarding our right to keep and bear arms from the Founders themselves. All quotes are unedited by me. I could not and would not presume to improve upon the inspiration of our Founding Fathers. My only request is that you read, think, and determine for yourself what they really meant. Then after reading their own words, ask yourself if the Founders seem like advocates of “common sense gun control” or do they seem somewhat more like “Second Amendment Absolutists” to you? Once you come to a conclusion, be an active voice of commitment in defense of and for that conclusion—whatever it may be. Just don’t be noncommittal and therefore uncommitted—there’s too much at stake. ---------------------------- "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776). "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788). "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788). "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater…confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764). "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787). "Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison. "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784). "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750, August 17, 1789. "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee, 1788 "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --Patrick Henry "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8 "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." --Thomas Paine "...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" --from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18,1789 at 2, col.2. "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646 "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." – Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788). As for the view from my foxhole… “The most essential elements of preserving American liberty are God, guts and a free mind connected to a well disciplined trigger finger.” ~ Colonel Dan ~ Contact Colonel Dan: [email protected]
  9. Colonel Dan's Article Archives Republished On This Forum

    All, I was going through my archives today and had an idea of how to make them useful once again. Many of my articles on the Second Amendment fell in the category of political philosophy. That is, they were based on fundamental principles found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and other writings of our founders as well as other freedom loving thinkers over many many years. In other words, they are not dependent or focused on current events...they apply to the values upon which this country was founded regardless of the time period. Since many SASS members have come and gone over the years, I wanted to find a way to share my thoughts with those who weren't part of our SASS family "back in the day." Additionally, now that the Chronicle will only be published every quarter, I floated the idea by Charlie Waite, our current Team SASS Director, of republishing select essays on this forum. He agreed that it would be worthwhile and could be time well spent. I'll now search the archives for those articles I feel would be most useful as background information and "ammunition" we might use in our on-going struggle to help preserve, protect and defend our sacred Second Amendment. If you have any comment on this idea, I'd love to hear them... Stay tuned.
  10. Over more years than I care to count, I've read, studied, spoke on and written about the Second Amendment...as many of you in our SASS family well know. I came across this article in Breitbart today that reinforces our position in many ways. I thought it would be of interest and value to that same SASS family. Soldier on... CD http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2018/02/01/a-well-regulated-militia-private-gun-ownership/ When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 the phrase, “well regulated militia,” underlined the importance of the words, “shall not be infringed.” Yet today, due to the breakdown in education wrought by leftist academicians and media talking heads, many Americans presume a “well regulated militia” and “shall not be infringed” are polar opposites; that the former represents a collective right viewpoint while the latter presents the right as an individual one. Such presumptions create a false dichotomy that pits one phrase against another in an amendment where both phrases were meant to be of mutual benefit. Consider the Second Amendment: “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.” At the outset we must understand that the individual right to keep and bear arms is not in spite of the mention of a militia but because of it. In other words, because the militia played a key role in the Founders’ minds, and is intended to play a key role even now, the right to possess arms, with which to gather in militia, “shall not be infringed.” Think about what is conveyed by the term “militia.” In the majority opinion for District of Columbia v Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia explained: Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. Add to this the insights of Founding Father James Madison, who used Federalist 46 to explain that the American citizenry had within itself the authority to band together for purposes of repelling tyranny. He clearly stated that “ultimate authority…resides in the people alone.” And he explained that even a federal government fitted with a standing army will find itself unable to overcome the people, armed and banded together: “Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.” Individuals who wish to dismiss Madison’s contention that we own arms for the purposes of repelling tyranny often suggest that Madison’s position is not realistic; that our standing army is too great to be withstood by average Americans. But those who say such things fail to understand how many average Americans own guns, and because of this, how deep the militia roster reaches. Madison put it thus: The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country. Again, the emphasis on militia and repelling tyranny is not meant to incite offensive action but to assure a tyrannical government that average, armed Americans are capable of coming together to stop the encroachments upon liberty. But take away firearms or heavily restrict them via gun control and the militia is de-fanged, becoming nothing more than a group of men bound together with weapons consisting of stones, sticks, and verbal jabs. Therefore, because a “well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is a surety that the militia will always pose enough resistance to keep the state free. AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at [email protected] Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange
  11. Retro Sartorial Splendor

    I really like that uniform. I wish the Army would have adopted that during my time! Thanks Bob.
  12. My Memories of Korean Jager Schnitzel

    During my two tours in Germany, I became a “self proclaimed connoisseur” of jager schnitzel...my all time favorite German meal. In over 7 years of total time spent in Germany, I had visited innumerable Gast Hauses throughout the FRG and always had the same thing...pils bier and jager schnitzel. I brought that self-inflicted addiction back to the states and to this day, I'm always on the lookout for the best German restaurants around wherever our travels take us. I also spent a significant amount of time during the 80's and 90's in Korea. However, I always ate in Mess Halls or the Officer's Club as Korean food never really generated the same appeal as German food. One evening I sat down in the Seoul Officer's Club and saw Jager Schnitzel on the menu!!!! I was incredulous. “How can this be? Is it really true? Is it really possible?” I just had to order it! Expecting a meal that would be reminiscent of my long gone Gast Haus days, I ordered up a pils beer, just as I used to do in Germany and waited in excited anticipation. As the waiter approached, I prepared myself for that all time favorite taste treat of a nicely browned and breaded piece of succulent pork smothered in that most unique brown and spicy mushroom sauce. Ummm Ummm!!! What I saw laying in front of me was not quite what I expected or longingly anticipated. It was a fried pork chop with mushroom soup poured over it!!! So much for cross cultural cuisine….but an amusing memory of Army days gone by nonetheless...
  13. Arkansas: Governor Upholds Open Carry

    Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) sent a letter to Arkansas State Police (ASP) directing them to recognize that the open carry of handguns is “protected and allowed.” He addressed his letter to ASP director Col. Bill Bryant and said Act 746 of 2013 allows a “person to open carry a handgun so long as there is no intent to unlawfully employ the handgun.” Hutchinson added: Further, consistent with Act 486 of 2017, the sole legal act of open carrying a handgun in and of itself will not in revocation of an an individual’s concealed carry license. A concealed carry license or enhanced carry license continues to be required in order to carry a concealed handgun. He asked Bryant to share the directive with “all appropriate ASP personnel” and “monitor all agency materials for consistency.” Arkansas Matters reports that Hutchinson’s directive “carries no force of law” but “will have the effect of guiding state troopers” as they interact with armed law-abiding citizens. ASP director Bryant responded to Hutchinson’s letter by issuing a memo to troop commanders, reminding them that “openly carrying a handgun does not alone provide probable cause for arrest.” AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at [email protected] Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/29/arkansas-gov-state-police-open-carry-protected-allowed/
  14. Shohei Ohtani

    Angels plan to use him as both a pitcher and DH. It should prove to be an interesting year watching how this plan works out.
  15. Alabama: Jones on Gun Control

    To my Alabama friends. Something to think about when you're deciding who to vote for on 12 December...Jones or Moore. The Democrat Jones has not come clean on his views of gun control yet the past is revealing his true nature on that score. As gun owning constitutionalists, we cannot allow him to win a senate seat! http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/26/president-trump-democrat-doug-jones-bad-2nd-amendment/ Just the view from my concerned foxhole...