NRA-certified instructor and Cabela’s Pro Staff Ambassador Kristy Titus brings two other women on a trek through the Cascade Mountains to rediscover the American values critical to sustaining freedom for generations to come. Their journey is interwoven with stories from a man who has experienced the American dream and those who fear for its loss.
Note: I did not write this. I read it and felt the need to pass it along.
I’ve carried them from my childhood home to my college dorm room, to the duplex I rented after graduation, to my first home and my second and now my third. They don’t take up much space.
We parked by the side of a dirt road and scrounged up two cans from the ditch. Daddy shot first: His blast obliterated the Pepsi can, leaving the top and bottom barely connected by a metal strip that would fail, despite my years of efforts to keep it together. I went next. It was the first time I’d ever pulled a trigger, and I almost missed the Budweiser can: Three pellet holes pocked the bottom half. We left the woods—but not without the targets.
That was the only shot I would ever share with my father, our only time afield with a gun. He died a few months later, unexpectedly. He never got the chance to buy me a gun. Instead, I carry our cans from place to place—for 41 years now—like the-embers from a fire. —T. Edward Nickens
Photograph by Dan Saelinger
Read more stories about more peculiar trophies: http://fieldandstre.am/cans
This article was written by Fred Weinberg and originally published on Western Journalism.
Here is a scenario which should be food for thought in light of ISIS attacks in Paris and various nutcase shootings here in the United States.
What if some towlheaded representative of the religion of death stands up at a high school football playoff game with his weapon of choice—usually a Kalashnikov AK-47—and starts shooting? Only instead of the mass carnage they expect to wreak, one or two members of the crowd calmly reached into their waistband holsters, drew their Glock 26 semi automatic pistols and used two of their 10 rounds to double tap the shooter, aiming for center body mass? Or maybe their Kimber or their Sig Sauer?
In short, what would happen if one could reliably expect some of the “victims” to shoot back?
What if we stopped our government’s (at nearly all levels) obsession with gun control and started to encourage people to arm themselves, carry those weapons everywhere and use them in situations where it was called for?
Why do we automatically assume that we cannot trust law abiding Americans with their own defense?
Where is it written that we must depend on armed police to defend us in every situation?
Do you have any idea what might really happen if we removed every legal impediment to carrying a concealed weapon and, instead, encouraged it?
My guess is that we would have far fewer mass shootings because even terrorists don’t want to get their butts shot off.
Criminals and terrorists almost always go for the path of least resistance.
If there’s a better than even money chance that when you go into an arena and start shooting, someone who has some level of skill will shoot back, they might rethink their MO. At the very least, fewer people will get mowed down because when people shoot back, they will shorten the carnage.
Instead of being horrified by people who carry weapons, what if we should encourage it and assist in the training of those people?
I know that you have heard this before, but it is true: Criminals and terrorists really don’t care about gun laws. Only law abiding people do.
Did a single person shoot back in Paris?
Of course not. There is no right to bear arms for the French; and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation. Kind of like the way Michael Bloomberg would like the United States to be.
As a result, when seconds counted, the police were only minutes away. And well over 120 law abiding citizens of France were shot dead. By people who knew they would face little or no opposition.
It all gets down to a matter of trust.
I actually trust my fellow citizens to do the right thing.
Our government and the French government do not. They both think that if nobody has guns, there will be no gun violence.
How’s that working out for us?
What if, here in the United States, we simply changed our attitude? What if we accepted the obvious fact that what we are doing is simply not working?
What if we eliminated all legal impediments to concealed weapons and allowed citizens to defend themselves and each other?
Would gun violence increase or decrease?
I’m betting that the more guns there are, the less violence there will be.
And I’d like to know from the Brady campaign just how many more people have to die before they will discover the flaw in their thinking?
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”
Noble’s comments came only moments after the official opening of the 82nd annual gathering of the Interpol’s governing body, the General Assembly. The session is being held in Cartagena, Colombia, and is being used to highlight strides over the last decade in Colombia’s battle against the notorious drug cartels that used to be the real power in the country.
Read the rest of the article: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341
The European Union’s draft proposals for amendments to its Firearms Directive will be published tomorrow as a response to the Paris mass murders, according to watchdog group Firearms United.
A Polish newspaper article (in Polish) reveals that a source referred to as “PAP” – evidently some kind of shooters’ association, though its exact identity is lost in translation – disclosed the proposals yesterday.
Central to the proposal is a ban on all semi-automatic rifles “similar to that used by the military”. While UK Shooting News is relying on Google Translate, translations of this concept from other reports on the same topic seem to indicate that the EU wants to go down the American route of banning firearms from civilian ownership depending on their looks.
“Which of the EU countries issued a permit for the islamic gun terrorists from Paris?”, Firearms United founder Andrzej Turczyn asked. “None of the terrorists had been able to possess a weapon with a permit. But these laws did not stop the Islamists from committing a hideous crime in Paris. For what reason, therefore, proposes the European Commission now – after the assassination in Paris – limited access to firearms for law-abiding Europeans? Others, like criminals or terrorists, do not pay attention to the law at all.”
Read the rest of the article: