Archives for category: Guns

Since the current regime in power in the Senate and the White House seem to think it’s okay to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and while they’re at it, take away the rights given to us, I thought I would take a look at that great document and see what else we can change, just for the hell of it.  These idiots have said “the second amendment doesn’t apply to assault weapons because they weren’t around in 1776 when the constitution was written.”  I’m not sure who said it, but I’m sure one of the chowderheads trying to pass the latest round of right denying legislation did.  Anyways, what else did our forefathers not have in mind when they forged our great nation from the ashes of tyranny?  Let’s take a look.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In 1776, I’m sure there were no Muslims to speak of in the United States.  Guess what, the forefathers didn’t have Islam in mind when they wrote the Constitution.  Also, there was no radio, television, internet or satellite.  So, based on the logic of gungrabbing left, Muslims are banned and so is anything said on any television show, internet blog (uhhh…uh oh) and radio program.

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.

For the sake of argument, we’ll say the only thing that you can have is a flintlock, or a black powder musket.  That’s it.  And only one per household.  Also, you have to join your local state militia (national guard) in order to have a weapon, because that’s what they meant when they wrote it.

The Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I can’t really think of a witty thing to say about this.  This came from a time when the British would just show up and take over the joint, so I can see why this one was here.

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But…cars weren’t even thought of in the 1700’s.  So, you can have the right against unreasonable search and seizure in your house, but not in your car, because our forefathers didn’t have that in mind.  Find another place to hide your weed, homie.

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So you can’t tell on yourself and you have to be indicted by a Grand Jury.  This is actually good.  It says they can’t take our life, liberty or property…wait, so can they grab our guns or not?  Suppose we should probably ask the folks up on Ruby Ridge.

The Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

But the forefathers couldn’t have forseen the absolute media saturation that revolves around high profile cases.  Do you really think the Batman Killer will get a fair trial?  I don’t think he deserves any trial and should be taken out back and summarily executed, but that’s besides the point.  I believe in the constitution so I guess the guy deserves his day in court, but my point is, this whole amendment should be thrown out, because high profile killers can’t ever get a fair shake.

The Seventh Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Twenty dollars?  Really?  If any amendment needs to be changed, I would say it’s this one.  I mean, talk about outdated, jeez.

The Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So what’s excessive?  In the days when this great document was drafted, I’m sure $1,000,000 was considered astronomically excessive.  However, in today’s society, that’s not uncommon for a high profile defendant.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not much to say about this one, other than I think this pretty much says you can’t use the Constitution to take away rights from other people.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States Rights, people.  This hasn’t changed in over 200 years, and it shouldn’t change now.  Period.  Dot. End of story.

So, here’s the bottom line.  As I’ve illustrated, many of the amendments in the Constitution have nothing to do with modern day.  The forefathers could not have foreseen the world of 2013.  It’s impossible.  But that’s what makes the U.S. Constitution such a wonderful thing.  It lives.  It breathes.  It grows with the country.  No, AR-15s weren’t what the signers of the document had in mind when the drafted the Second Amendment, but it’s what’s we have.  It’s what the American people who chose to own a firearm have in order to ensure they can fulfill what the drafters had in mind.  You can’t bring a knife to a gun fight and you can’t own a musket when everybody else has semi-automatics.


Ladies and gentlemen of my readership, this is a disclaimer.  I intend to use a word that is not normally acceptable in social circles.  It’s foul and it is grotesque.  If bad words offend you, you may quit reading now and I won’t hold it against you.  However, if you chose to continue reading, please know that I intend to use the word cunt.  It is the only word in the English language…probably in any language that can be used to describe Diane Feinstein.  If you’re still here, I applaud your courage.  Thank you.

Yesterday, this shriveled up old cunt introduced legislation that completely destroys the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution promising that a free man’s (or implied woman’s) right to bear arms would not be infringed upon.  By specifically naming over 160 “scary black guns” that would be banned should this criminal act be passed, she is attempting to remove the tools which keep our country free from the men and women who provide that freedom.

Here’s why I think that it won’t pass and this piece of shit from the great state of California will crawl back to whatever cave she came from and die and finally leave us all alone.

In 1994, the Federal Firearms Ban was passed.  This law went by many different names including the Brady Bill, but it was the precursor to the ban in front of us today.  It was passed by a Democratic Senate and signed into law by a Democratic president.  The next election cycle, the Democrats lost the Senate and many point to that illegal banning of weapons as the reason why.

Here’s the thing, folks.  Even some Democrats, as backward as they can sometimes be, still own firearms.  Some of them even own these so called “assault weapons,” shotguns and hand guns that are on Feinstein’s list.  They don’t like having their rights fucked with any more than us sensible conservatives do.  And as was the case then, they showed their displeasure by replacing their senators with men and women who wouldn’t fuck with those rights.

“But Jason, won’t taking assault weapons off the streets eliminate school shootings and mass murder?”

I’m glad you asked that question, because Diane really wants you to believe that.  The fact is, there is no noticeable change.  There are plenty of tables and charts out there on the internet (thanks Al Gore) to look at in regards to the crime difference pre ’94 ban and post ’04 when the ban was lifted.  The most reliable, I think, is the FBI site on crime statistics.  It shows no noticeable difference in killings with these “bad” weapons than before they were banned.

The bottom line is, Clinton has warned the current sitting government of the perils of messing with peoples guns and their right to bear them.  He remembers what happened.  And let’s not forget, just because the cunt introduces a law, doesn’t automatically make it so.  There is still a process that has to pass before it’s signed.  There is still hope that our democratic process will win the day and restore a little bit of our faith to the system.

If you’re concerned, right letters to your congressmen and senators.  Demand an answer and demand they tell you how they intend of voting.  If their intention is to vote against your best interests, inform them of how you feel and let them know they can probably start looking for a real estate agent to sell their condo in D.C. because they’re gone in the next election.  This country was founded on Democracy.  Just because the current administration is acting tyrannical, doesn’t mean we have to accept it.  Rise up and fight these illegal actions with the weapon they CAN’T ever take away from us.  The Constitution of the United States!

I’m going to say right off the bat. I’m going to try really hard to not be “ranty” or “preachy.”  Gun control, arming myself, protecting my family and my second amendment rights are something I take very seriously.  For anyone to infringe upon those or tell me what I can and can’t do when it comes to my rights really upsets me.  However, as I’ve tried to do with my last few posts I will try and take a thoughtful approach to this post.

This post started the other day when I saw this image on my Facebook wall:

Now, this was put here by a friend of mine.  She’s liberal…obviously.  I happen to respect this person quite a bit, even though I don’t agree with her politics.  That being said, I don’t know who “Ann” is, but I don’t like her politics very much either.  Upon seeing this picture, I asked what “Smart Gun Regulation” was.  The answer I was given was that no one should own an AK47 nor should they be allowed to stockpile 6,000 rounds of ammunition and if they thought they were, they were an idiot.  I take a bit of exception to that.  We’ll tackle the AK47 issue first.

In the wake of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, politicians became politicians again and decided to walk on the bodies of the 12 dead for political gain.  In doing that, President Obama made a comment in a speech in which he said:

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” – President Barack Obama

Why the president chose this particular model of firearm to use in his speech, I’m not sure.  Perhaps his advisers misinformed him of the type of weapon used in Dark Knight Massacre.  American soldiers don’t use AK47s.  They use M16s and M4s.  The AK47 is a Russian/Chinese weapon used by our enemies.  And oh, by the way, in its fully automatic configuration, they are already illegal.  However, because it’s big and scary and referred to as an “assault rifle”, it must be bad.  Right?  Actually, the term “assault rifle” is a made term from the left-wing authors of the “Brady Bill” during the Clinton administration, which was probably the biggest constitutional wronging in the history of this nation.  If used in a certain manner, all firearms are capable of “assaulting” so to define a rifle as an “assault” rifle is just silly.  I’m just as capable of “assaulting” you with my pistol or shotgun as I am with an AK47 or an AR 15.  So the answer to the “big, bad rifle question would be a resounding: Wrong!

Do you know why we have our second amendment rights?  Do you know why it is against the U.S. Constitution for the government to limit your gun rights?  The Second Amendment wasn’t put in the constitution so we could protect ourselves against criminals; well, not the ones who rape and murder anyways.  It was put there so that we, as citizens, can defend against an invading army.  More importantly than that, we have those implicit rights so that we can protect ourselves from our own government.

Wait, Jason, are you advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government?

Absolutely not!  I would never advocate for such a thing.  However, I’m simply stating a fact that the reason we have the rights we do when it comes to “bearing arms,” is so that if the government oversteps their bounds and becomes a tyranny, we the people can do what needs to be done.  And, as bad as many of you may think it is right now, we’re not to that point.  However, my point is that because we have the right to defend ourselves against the government, we must have the same (or close to the same) firepower that any invading army has or more importantly, the government does.

So no, I don’t think anyone stockpiling 6,000 rounds of ammunition is an idiot.  They could be a competitive shooter, a “survivalist” a gun enthusiast; and yes, they may be a crazed madman.  Sadly, that is the risk we take to have the freedoms we have.  I think everyone should think about this before automatically jumping to silly conclusions and spouting off at the mouth about the crazy guy with the guns.  When the Russians, the government or even the zombies attack, that “crazy guy with all the guns” may be the one who saves your ass.  Just sayin…

So Friday, July 20th was a pretty shitty day to say the least.  Those of you that care are probably pretty curious why it’s taken me so long to respond to this horrible act being that it involves guns and inevitably politics.  Honestly, I took the weekend off.  I almost wrote about it Friday night, but I decided to take a breath and really think about how I wanted to tackle what happened.  Would it be a true “Jason’s Rant” where I talk about the politics involved and the fallout that’s sure to come?  Do I spout the hatred I feel for James Egan Holmes and what an absolute piece of garbage he is.  I mulled this over while I enjoyed my weekend and tried not to think about the 58 people who were in the hospital in Aurora, Colorado and the 12 others who would never enjoy another weekend again.  I mulled over the possibilities and the “what if” there was an armed moviegoer that night who fought back.  I mulled this over and decided that instead of ranting, instead of spouting off, I would try and help you all.

The “active shooter” is the new form of terrorism.  No, James Holmes didn’t have a beard and dark skin, nor did he have a prayer rug and face towards Mecca six times a day to sing a song and bow to Allah, but he was a terrorist none the less.  We don’t truly know what Mr. Holme’s motives were, and perhaps we’ll never know, but he was definitely there to terrorize and cause chaos, much like the character, Bane, many said he looked like.  This is the new terrorism, and it’s been around for quite some time from Columbine to Salt Lake City to Fort Hood and now, sadly, Aurora joins those ranks.

It’s quite obvious that nowhere is truly safe.  Many of you know that I carry my firearm practically everywhere, and I’m not second guessing anyone with this blog, however, a trained shooter could have taken out James Holmes before he completed his mission.  But, not everyone is a trained shooter.  Not all of you carry a firearm and that’s okay.  But, what would you do if caught in this situation?  Would you run?  Would you lay down?  Would you fight back?  It’s tough to say.  No one can truly say what they would do, but these are some things I can tell you.  Take them for what they are.

A long time ago I attended a course titled “Dynamics in International Terrorism.”  The speaker was quite engaging and his talked was titled “The Lion and the Lamb.”  The metaphor simply stated was: when faced with a situation, would you fight back or would you lie down and take it?  Is it that simple?  Science says “yes.”

When an individual is faced with a situation that is terrifying, the body reacts in one of three ways.  This used to be called the “fight or flight” response, but a third option has been added: freeze.  On three of the four planes that went down on 9/11, the passengers froze.  On the fourth, the chose fight.  See what I mean?  The same can be applied to the patrons of the “Dark Knight” on Friday.  It was terrifying and disorienting and completely unexpected, just like that day eleven years ago on those airplanes.  Nobody ever thinks it’s going to happen until it does, and then it happens and you either respond or you don’t.

I’m going to stop right here and make something clear.  I am not chastising nor demeaning anyone in that theater on Friday or on the planes so long ago.  I’m merely saying that everyone responds differently.  Sometimes, somebody just needs to say: “let’s roll,” and take out the threat.  But again, maybe you’re not that person.  Here are some things you can do to survive a situation like this.

If you’re somewhere where an active shooting occurs, the first thing you should do is drop to the floor.  The guy is firing standing up, and therefore the lower you are, the better.  Try putting your hands over your head.  It will help protect you.  Your instinct will be to run, but that will only make you a target.  If you’re with loved ones you’d like to protect, lie on top of them, but lie perfectly still.  The goal is to appear dead.  The shooter only cares about killing people and therefore won’t shoot you if he thinks he already got you.

Carry a firearm.  There are places all over the country you can get trained, no matter where you live (with some 2nd amendment violating exceptions) that will teach you.  Owning and carrying a firearm is your right as an American and really the only way to fight back if someone is shooting.  Restricting gun laws more than they already are only takes away from the law abiding citizens and does nothing to stop the criminals.  However, training is important.  You should never carry a weapon you haven’t fired on the range.

The bottom line, you have the responsibility to protect yourself and your family.  The police do the best they can (and yes, I truly believe that) but they can’t be everywhere all the time.  Get educated, get trained and be aware of what is going on around you.  It’s the only way to be ready.  Because when the wolf comes knocking on the door, you have to ask yourself one question: Are you the lamb to get slaughtered, or are you the Lion who says, “let’s roll.”

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last six months, you know the name George Zimmerman.  Depending on which side of this sordid tale you fall, that name either invokes great pride at an ordinary man who overcame the odds and fought evil, or you see the opposite:  the epitome of evil who murdered a fine young man for being “black in a no black zone.”  How you feel about him was most likely influenced by the media because of the way they’ve latched onto this story with both hands and led us around by the noses.

When the story first broke, I will admit, I thought: “what an asshole.  This guy will set the concealed carry laws and people’s feelings about it back by 100 years.”  I listened to the news, I even heard the 911 call that I thought damned Zimmerman to the electric chair.  “How could they let this guy walk?” I thought.  This is crazy.  He quite obviously went out looking for trouble and trouble is what he found.  What kind of a neighborhood watch rolls around armed, anyways.  Then I found out the guy was a wannabe cop, and that fueled my dislike for him higher.  I wore my “hoodie” in the San Antonio heat in honor of the young man that was gunned down.  Then we heard a different story.

I think I was at an airport when the news of the “doctored” 911 tape broke.  For those of you keeping track at home, NBC news edited the 911 call to make it sound like George Zimmerman was signaling out Trayvon Martin because of his race.  This was one of my reasons that I was so against Zimmerman.  The edited call went like this:

ZIMMERMAN:  “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

However, after the real 911 tape was released, we actually heard the dispatcher ask a very important question during the dialogue between the two.  The actual, unedited conversation went like this:

ZIMMERMAN:  “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

911 OPERATOR: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?”

ZIMMERMAN: “He looks black.”

Hmmm…you mean to tell me that a reputable news agency like NBC News would do something like this to slant a story?  I mean come on…these guys catch sexual predators on tv.  They’re the good guys…right?  Wrong.  I started paying a little more attention to how the story of this vigilante was being told in the media.  When pictures of Trayvon Martin were shown, it was a young Trayvon Martin, smiling, in a football uniform, in a suit and tie going to church.  All the pictures were slanted to show him in the best light possible.  All the pictures of George Zimmerman were of him disheveled, unshaven and shown in the worst light.  Hmmm…I still can’t believe the guys that take sex offenders out would do something like this.  But they did.  Still, I thought old George was wrong to be there.

As time went on, we all know what happened.  I won’t rehash the story here, but I’ll get to the point that forced me to write this blog.  Last night, I watched the “exclusive interview” George Zimmerman gave to Sean Hannity from Fox News.  Now, before you go off about Fake News or Faux News or whatever you MSNBC types call it, let me finish.  I’m pretty George picked Fox because they are a little more aligned to the line of thinking that he is.  I’m pretty sure Chris Hansen isn’t packing when he goes in to talk the creepers.  My point is, I think George thought the interview was going to be in his favor.  I was impressed to see Sean put George to the thumbtacks.  He asked hard questions.  He asked direct questions.  And, as George answered those questions, I felt myself sympathizing with him.  He’s a guy who’s married and is tired of the “bad guys” getting away with crime.  Me too.  I’m married and I hate that bad guys get away with crime.  He legally carries a concealed firearm.  I don’t go to Wal-Mart to buy a gallon of milk unless I’m armed. (See my first blog for more details.)  I’m a firm believer in my 4th Amendment rights, as he is.  Was I really relating to this guy…this murderer?  I couldn’t believe what I was feeling.

Hannity asked him what happened.  He explained, for the first time ever on television, that he was going to Target to do his weekly grocery shopping.  His neighbor had been robbed weeks before and it had scared his wife.  On his way to Target, he spotted a young man walking in the rain, close to the houses.  This made him suspicious so he “slow rolled” past.  Let me stop you all right there.  I think this is where he made Mistake #1.  He’s not a cop.  He’s not trained as a cop.  If he had called the cops right there, reported a “suspicious person” and moved on, none of this would have happened, but he didn’t.  He called the cops, but he stopped the car and got out so he could “give the police a better address.”  At that point, he had lost sight of Trayvon and the situation was over.  The 911 Dispatcher even asked George “are you following him?”  George indicated he was and the dispatcher instructed him to stop.  Now, George is under no legal obligation to listen to a dispatcher, but he should have taken the advice.  This was Mistake #2, and this is why: once Trayvon was gone, it should have been over.  But, the wannabe cop decided he wanted to play detective.  He wanted to be a hero.  He never should have been there, but he was and when Trayvon reappeared, George was in trouble.

According to the interview, Trayvon attacked George without warning and punched him so hard he broke his nose.  He then began pounding his head off the concrete.  George began screaming, hoping someone would come to his aid.  In fact, in the 911 call that was played from another caller, you can hear those screams in the background.  Those screams, mind you, the media made you believe were Trayvon’s earlier in this whole dilemma.  At this point in the interview, I’m back with George.  I’ve had my ass kicked, and it’s not a whole lot of fun.  I can tell you that if I had someone on top of me, playing “bouncy ball” with my head on the concrete and I had my firearm, I would have done exactly what George did next.  He pulled the weapon and fired, ultimately killing Trayvon.  He had every right to defend himself.  If that’s what happened.  I will defend his right to do that until my own dying breath.  If we don’t have the right of self defense, what do we have?  The question is, did Trayvon attack because he thought he was about to be attacked himself?  I guess it’s a question we’ll never have answered.

As I watched the interview, I found myself going back and forth with my feelings on this issue.  I was so anti-George when this all first broke, that I was having serious issues thinking that I could identify with this guy…but I was.  Then Hannity asked the mother of all questions:

Do you regret this incident?  Do you regret getting out of the car?  This was George’s chance.  He could really say he was sorry.  That’s not what happened.  He said about the worst possible thing he could have said.

“I feel it was all God’s plan and for me to second guess it or judge it…”

What?  Are you kidding me?  Come on, dude.  I consider myself a Christian, but really?  It was God’s plan?  You just lost everyone that was on the fence like me.

When you carry a gun, and you’re not a law enforcement officer, you don’t put yourself in situations that can lead to something like this.  You don’t intentionally go looking for trouble.  When you do, you’re no better than the thugs that carry illegally.  As I said, I carry, but I don’t ever want to have to kill someone.  Ever.  But, don’t mistake not wanting to with won’t.

So, my take on this?  I think the spin that the liberal media (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC) put on this from the beginning was irresponsible reporting to say the least and criminal (NBC) to go to the extreme.  I think that George put himself in a bad situation that he made continually worse by bad decisions.  However, once Trayvon attacked, I think George did the only thing that he thought he could to survive.  He killed before he was killed.  I don’t know.  I’m glad he was arrested, because now there will be a trial.  Let’s hope the law and the system can spread some light where the liberal media has failed miserably.



Proposed U.N. Treaty Should Have Gun Owners Up in Arms

What a topic for my first real blog post.  Actually, reading this article and thinking about the implications are what made me decide to start writing this blog, so I suppose I should be thankful.  There a few things that come to mind.

First, whether you are pro-gun (like me) or anti-gun (like President Obama and Secretary Clinton), you must admit that allowing the United Nations dictate our country’s policies regarding controlling firearms or anything else is very dangerous.  We have a constitution that was written nearly 250 years ago.  Some of you may think that makes some of the provisions in it out of date, and that’s fine.  That’s an argument for another time.  But the fact of the matter is, I refuse to believe we will allow a body of other nations to police us.

Secondly, as you read further into the article, you must see that our country is headed down the wrong path.  You are going to take my right to own a gun?  What do you think would happen if a conservative took a liberal’s right to free speech?  What you’re saying here is that it’s okay to pick and chose which parts of the constitution we adhere to.  I mean, it’s not like the 2nd Amendment wasn’t part of the original U.S. Constitution.  It’s called the Bill of Rights for a reason.  But, I digress.

Another part of the article I found interesting was the passage in which Hillary Clinton claimed to be a supporter of gun rights.  Really?  I mean, she does understand she doesn’t have to lie to make friends.  She does understand that you can’t get all the votes, right?  She’s a senator…a liberal senator…from the kingdom of liberaldom.  She’s from New “effing” York.  Nobody is allowed to have a gun there.  It nearly takes an act of congress to make that happen.  I have family in New York (state, not city) and they have told me about the gun laws there.  Pure and simple, it’s about as close as you can get to a ban on legal firearms…outside of California which is a whole other animal.  Of course, there’s one place that’s worse than both of them together.  No…not Canada.  I’m talking about the great state of Illinois, and more specifically, the place the man we’re forced to callMr. President hailed from.  After he was from Hawaii.  After he was from Kenya.  Of course, that’s all dependent on what you believe.

Anyways…did you know that until recently it was illegal…illegal…yes, I said illegal to own a handgun in the city of Chicago.  That’s right.  The city that the great savior came from banned ownership (and I’m not talking about carrying) I’m talking about owning a handgun.  It was illegal.  And you think this guy wants you to have guns.  He’s probably smoking Newports with the U.N. general assembly right now, trying to get them to pass this law..or treaty…or whatever you want to call it.

I own a gun.  I intend on buying more…quickly by the sounds of it before an assembly of non-Americans decides that I can’t.  But know this:  The day that they come knocking on my door to take my guns, I’ll shoot for the head because they’re probably wearing body armor.